OF THL 
 
 U N I V LRS ITY 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 203 
 
 v. I 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofchri01smit_1 
 
A DICTIONARY 
 
 OF 
 
 BEING 
 
 A CONTINUATION^ OF THE ‘DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.’ 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM SMITH, D.C.L., LL.D. 
 
 AND 
 
 SAMUEL CHEETHAM, MA. 
 
 rKOIESSOK OF PASTOEAL THEOLOGY IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. 
 
 IN T^YO VOLUMES.-Yol. I. 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY ENGRAVINGS ON WOOD, 
 
 li A li T FORD : 
 
 \ THE J. B. BURR PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 f 
 
 \ 
 
 1 87 6 . 
 
: .t' • '• 
 
 ►’ A .' 
 
 > V.^ •- 
 
 r 
 
 ■ 
 
 \ 
 
 f 
 
 » 
 
 r * 
 « 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 u 
 
 • A.- 
 
 r' 
 
 >. ^ 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 
 :f. 
 
 
 T » 
 
 i- 
 
 f ‘ 
 
 I 
 
 <, . • 
 
 - • f AV •>*.' * 
 
 I ^ ^ \ - -♦ 
 
 - K 
 
 
 < « 
 
OSL >5 L 
 
 ^'rr\ Ipcv 
 
 V. 1 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 This Work is intended to furnish, together with the ‘ Dictionary of 
 Christian Biography, liiterature, and Doctrines,’ which will sliortly 
 follow, a complete account of the leading Personages, the Institu¬ 
 tions, Art, Social Life, Writings and Controversies of the" Christian 
 Church from the time of the Apostles to the age of Charlemagne. 
 It commences at the period at which the ‘ Dictionary of the Bible ’ 
 leaves off, and forms a continuation of it: it ceases at the age of 
 Charlemagne, because (as Gibbon has remarked) the reign of this 
 monarch forms the important link of ancient and modern, of 
 civil and ecclesiastical history. It thus stops short of what we 
 commonly call the Middle Ages. The later developement of Ritual 
 and of the Monastic Orders, the rise and progress of the great 
 JMendicant Orders, tlie Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, the 
 Hagiology and Symbolism, the Canon Law, and the Institutions 
 generally of the Middle Ages, furnish more than sufficient matter 
 for a separate book. 
 
 The present Work, speaking generally, elucidates and explains 
 in relation to the Christian Church the same class of subjects that 
 the ‘ Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities ’ does in reference 
 to the public and private life of classical antiquity. It treats of 
 the organization of the Church, its officers, legislation, discipline, 
 and revenues; the social life of Christians; their worship and 
 ceremonial, with the accompanying music, vestments, instruments, 
 vessels, and insignia; their sacred places; their architecture and 
 other forms of Art; their symbolism ; their sacred days and seasons; 
 the gi-aves or Catacombs in Avhich they were laid to rest. 
 
 We can scarcely hope that every portion of this wide and varied 
 field has been treated with equal completeness; but we may venture 
 to assert, that this Dictionary is at least more complete than any 
 attempt hitherto made by English or Foreign scholars to treat in 
 one work the whole archaeology of the early Church. The great 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 work of Bingham, indeed, the foundation of most subsequent books 
 on the subject, must always be spoken of with the utmost respect; 
 but it is beyond the power of one man to treat with the requisite 
 degree of fulness and accuracy the whole of so vast a subject; 
 and there is probably no branch of Christian archaeology on whicli 
 much light has not been thrown since Bingham’s time by the 
 numerous scholars and divines who have devoted their lives to 
 special investigations. We trust that we have made accessible 
 to all educated persons a great mass of information, hitherto only 
 the privilege of students with the command of a la'rge library. 
 
 In treating of subjects like Church Government and Ritual it 
 is probably impossible to secure absolute impartiality ; but we are 
 confident that no intentional reticence, distortion or exaggeration 
 has been pi'actised by the writers in this work. 
 
 It has been thought advisable not to insert in the present work 
 an account of the Literature, of the Sects and Heresies, and of 
 the Doctrines of the Church, but to treat these subjects in the 
 ‘Dictionary of Christian Biography,’ as they are intimately con¬ 
 nected with the lives of the leading persons in Church History, 
 and could not with advantage be separated from them. 
 
 It has not been possible to construct the vocabulary on an 
 entirely consistent principle. Where a w^ell-recognized English 
 term exists for an institution or an object, that term has generally 
 been preferred as the heading of an article. But in many cases 
 obsolete customs, offices, or objects have no English name; and 
 in many others the English term is not really co-extensive with the 
 Latin or Greek term to wLich it seems at first sight to correspond. 
 The word Decanus (for example) has several meanings which are not 
 implied in the English Dean. In such cases it was necessary to 
 adopt a term from the classic languages. Cross-references are given 
 from the synonyms or quasi-synonyms to the w’ord under which any 
 subject is treated. The Councils are placed (so far as possible) 
 under the modern names of the places at which they w ere held, a 
 cross-reference being given from the ancient name. In the case of 
 the Saints’ Days, the names of the Western saints have been taken 
 from the martyrology of Usuard, as containing probably the most 
 complete list of the martyrs and confessors generally recognized in 
 the West up to the ninth century; the occurrence of these names 
 in earlier calendars or martyrologies is also noted. In the letters A 
 and B, however, the names of Saints are taken principally from the 
 ‘ I\[artyrologium Romanum Yetus,’ and from the catalogues which 
 bear the names of Jerome and of Bede, without special reference 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 V 
 
 to Usuard. In the case of the Eastern Church; we have taken 
 from the calendars of Byzantium, of Armenia, and of Ethiopia, 
 those names which fall within our chronological period. This 
 alphabetical arrangement will virtually constitute an index to the 
 principal martyrologies, in addition to supiplying the calendar, 
 dates of events which are fixed — as is not uncommonly the case in 
 ancient records — by reference to some festival. The names of 
 persons are inserted in the vocabulary of this Work only with 
 reference to their commemoration in martyrologies or their repre¬ 
 sentations in art, their lives, when they are of any importance, 
 being given in the Dictionary of Biography. 
 
 References are given throughout to the original authorities on 
 which the several statements rest, as well as to modern writers of 
 repute. In citations from the Fathers, where a page is given without 
 reference to a particular edition, it refers for the most part to the 
 standard pagination—generally that of the Benedictine editions— 
 which is retained in IMigne’s Patrologia. 
 
 At the commencement of this work, the Editorsliip of that por¬ 
 tion which includes the laws, government, discipline, and revenues of 
 the Churcjh and the Orders within it, was placed in the hands of 
 Professor Stubbs; the education and social life of Christians in those 
 of Professor Plumptre ; while the treatment of their worship and 
 ceremonial was entrusted to Professor Cheetham; all under the 
 general superintendence of Dr. William Smith. As the worlv pro¬ 
 ceeded, however, a pressure of other engagements rendered it impos¬ 
 sible for Professors Stubbs and Plumptre to continue their editorship 
 of the parts which they had undertaken; and from the end of the 
 letter C Professor Cheetham has acted as Editor of the whole 
 work, always with the advice and assistance of Dr. William Smith. 
 
 In conclusion, we have to express our regret at the long time 
 that has elapsed since the first announcement of the work. This 
 delay has been owing partly to our anxious desire to make it as 
 accurate as possible, and partly to the loss we have sustained by 
 the death of two of our most valued contributors, the Rev. A. W. 
 Iladdan and the Rev. W. B. IMarriott. 
 
AMERICAN PUBLISHERS’ PREFACE. 
 
 'lx offering this “ Dictionary of Christian Antiquities” to the American 
 public, with our imprint, sev'eral very important facts need to be stated. It is 
 due to ourselves as Publishers, as well as to the people of this country, who 
 require, in their religious reading and studies, this invaluable production of Dr- 
 Smith, that they be enlightened in regard to the circumstances of its repub¬ 
 lication on this side of the Atlantic. 
 
 Early recognizing the remarkable excellence of this Dictionary, and its 
 necessity to all students of the Bible and Church history, we contracted with 
 the English publisher for a duplicate set of plates, that we might reproduce 
 the work entire and unaltered. 
 
 An edition, however, largely abridged and seriously mutilated, has been 
 issued, and extensively advertised as Dr. Smith's Dictionary. Ours, therefore, 
 is the only complete, unabridged American edition of the work, as it came 
 from the hands of Dr. Smith and his co-laborers. This merit of completeness 
 and integrity will have great weight with all scholars and persons of discrim¬ 
 ination. Had this Dictionary been thought susceptible of a wise and proper 
 condensation, the eminent lexicographer would doubtless have done this 
 service himself, as be did a similar service in respect to his “ Dictionary of the 
 Bible,” in order to accommodate the slender means .of many students of the 
 Scriptures. But this work is so compact, its various articles have been so 
 condensed by their respective authors, that any alteration-of the text by any 
 other hand, is not a matter of even doubtful expediency nor a question of 
 cost, but a damaging mutilation and grievous mistake. Whoever therefore 
 may be betrayed into the patronage of the abridgment, will lose very much 
 that is contained in the orio-inal work. 
 
 Again, we are enabled by our contract with the English publisher to olfcr 
 the U^^ABRiDGED DICTIONARY at Icss than one-half the price of the imported 
 edition, and at a cost so low that no one will hesitate a moment to choose 
 our large and unaltered reprint from the English plates, rather than the 
 abridgment hastily prepared in this country. 
 
 Furthermore and finally, we have made such arrangements with Dr. Smith 
 and Mr. Murray, his publisher, that the second volume (now nearly ready for 
 publication) is to be in part of American authorship, and will therefore be 
 copyrighted in this country. There can therefore be no legal reprint of it 
 except by ourselves. Any infringement of our sole right to republish it and 
 thus complete this most valuable contribution to Christian literature, will be 
 subjected to legal resistance and redress. The distinguished lexicographer 
 will therefore derive some remuneration for the vast service he has rendered 
 to the Christian people of the United States.. 
 
 It is proper therefore that we here emphasize our caiitioa, lest any 
 person be misled to the purchase of the first volume of the mutilated reprint, 
 as its publishers will be estopped from the issue of the second volume. No 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 wise man will Lny any portion of a work tliat can not be completed. In tlic 
 interests of literary integrity, and to save the Christian public from being 
 imposed upon in the purchase of the abridgment, we have felt it incumbent 
 upon us to freely and full}" state the real facts of the case, and that we may leave 
 no room for any possible doubt in the mind of any one in regard to the truth 
 of our statements and the validity of our claim, we append the certificates 
 of Dr. Smith of London, and Messrs. Little, Brown cL Co., of Boston, the 
 representatives of the English publisher in this country. 
 
 A thorough and exhaustive comparison of the two editions, will be sent 
 to any one who desires it. The publishers of the abridgment caution their 
 subscribers against purchasing any second volume hut theirs. We caution the 
 American public against purchasing any first volume but ours, because no 
 second volume can ever be issued in this country except by us. Tliev will 
 thus avoid great annoyance and pecuniary loss. 
 
 The second volume will be of the same size and cost as the first, and to¬ 
 gether, they will constitute an Encyclopedia of priceless value, indispensable 
 to every student of the Bible, to every professional and household library. 
 We shall publish it simultaneously with its issue in England. If for any 
 reason our agents should neglect to deliver it promptly to those who have the 
 first volume, it can be secured without failure and at once, bv addressing 
 
 The J. B. BURR PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 Hartford, Conn. 
 
 50 Albemarle St., London, May 22, 1876. 
 
 Gentlemen— 
 
 I have much pleasure in stating that you are the only 
 firm authorized by me to publish the “ Dictionary of Christian An¬ 
 tiquities” in America, and as you have made arrangements with me 
 to secure an accurate reprint of the work, I trust that the American 
 public will not patronize any edition but the one issued by your firm. 
 
 I am, gentlemen. 
 
 Yours faith full V, 
 
 1/ t 
 
 To the J. B. Burr Publishing Cornjxmy, Hartford^ Conn. 
 
 Boston, IMay 21:th, 1876. 
 
 Dear Sirs— 
 
 If the plan of Dr. Smith is carried out, as it probably 
 will be, of having American contributions in Volume II., it will 
 estop a reprint of that Volume, and the statement should be made 
 public, with Dr. Smith’s letter, that you loill have the sole right to 
 lish the American edition of Volume If. 
 
 Yours truly. 
 
 Little, Brown A Co. 
 
LIST OF WELTERS 
 
 \ 
 
 IN THE DICnONAEIES OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES 
 
 AND BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 INTl'IALS. 
 
 0. B. 
 
 H. B -Y. 
 
 J. B —Y. 
 
 E. B. 
 
 C. W. B. 
 11. B. 
 
 AV. B. 
 
 H. B. 
 
 I. B. 
 
 T. R. B. 
 D. B. 
 
 NAMKS. 
 
 Rev. Churchill Babington, B.D., I\L.S., 
 
 Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of 
 Cambridge; late Fellovv^ of St. John’s College. 
 
 Rev. Henry Bailey, D.D., 
 
 ^^’arden of St. Angnstine’s College, Canterbury, and 
 Honorary Canon of Canterbury Cathedral; late Fellow 
 of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. James Barmby, B.D., 
 
 Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s Hall, Durham. 
 
 Rev. Edward White Benson, D.D., 
 
 Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral; late Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Charlks Williaai Boase, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 Henry Bradshaw, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge ; Librarian of the 
 University of Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. YJlliam Bright, D.D., 
 
 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Regius Professor of 
 Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 
 
 The late Rev. Henry Browne, M.A., 
 
 Yicar of Pevensey, and Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral. 
 
 Isambard Brunel, D.C.L., 
 
 Of Lincoln’s Inn ; Chancellor of the Diocese of Ely. 
 
 Thomas Ryburn Bi chanan, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 
 
 Kev. Daniel Butler, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire; late Head Master of tho 
 Clergy Orphan School, Canterbury. 
 
 a 2 
 
X 
 
 LIST OF WRITERS. 
 
 INITIALS. 
 
 J. M. C. 
 J. G. C. 
 C. 
 
 E. B. C. 
 J. LI. D. 
 
 C. D. 
 
 W. P. D. 
 S. J. E. 
 J. E. 
 
 E. S. Ff. 
 
 A. P. F. 
 AV. II. F. 
 
 J. M. F. 
 
 C. D. G. 
 W. F. G. 
 
 A. W. H. 
 
 E. H. 
 
 NAMES 
 
 Rev. John Moore Capes, M.A., 
 of Balliol College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. John Gibson Cazenove, M.A., 
 
 late Principal of Cumbrae College, N.B. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Cheetham, M.A., 
 
 Professor of Pastoral Theology in King’s College, London, 
 and Chaplain of Dulwich College; late Fellow of 
 Christ’s College, Cambridge. 
 
 Edward Byles Co\vell, M.A., 
 
 Professor of Sanskrit in the Fniversity of Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. John Llewelyn Davies, M.A., 
 
 RectDr of Christchurch, Marylebone ; late FelloAv of 
 'Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Cecil Deedes, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of St. Mary Magdalene, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. William P. Dickson, D.D., 
 
 Regius Professor of Biblical Ci iticism, Glasgow. 
 
 Rev. Samuel John Eales, M.A., 
 
 Head Master of the Grammar School, Halstead, Essex. 
 
 Rev. John Ellerton, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Hinstock, Salop. 
 
 Rcal Edmund S. Ffoulkes, B.D., 
 
 Late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. 
 
 The Right Rev. Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L., 
 
 Bishop of Brechin. 
 
 Hon. and Rev. William Henry" Freyiantle, M.A., 
 
 Rector of St. Mary’s, Maiylebone ; Chaplain to the Arch 
 bishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Rev. John M. Fuller, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of Bexley. 
 
 Rev. Christian D. Ginsburg, LL.D. 
 
 The late Rcyl Williayi Frederick Greenfield, M.A., 
 
 Master of the Lower School, Dulwich Colleire. 
 
 The late ReYL Arthur 'West Haddan, B.D., 
 
 Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath and Honorarv Canon of 
 Worcester Cathedral; formerly Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 ReYL Edyvin Hatch, M.A., 
 
 Vice-Principal of St. Mary Hall, Oxford. 
 
LIST OF WRITERS. 
 
 XI 
 
 INITIALS. 
 
 E. C. H. 
 L. H. 
 
 H. 
 
 H. J. H. 
 J. H. 
 
 W. J. 
 
 G. A. J. 
 W. J. J. 
 
 L. 
 
 R. A. L. 
 J. M. L. 
 J. R. L. 
 
 i 
 
 G. F. M. 
 
 S. M. 
 
 W. B. M. 
 
 G. M. 
 
 NAMES. 
 
 Rev. Edwards Comerford Hawkins, M.A., 
 
 , Head Master of St. John’s School, Leatherhead. 
 
 Rev. Lewis Hensley, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of Hitchin, Herts; late Fellow of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge ; Chaplain to 
 the Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 Rev. Henry John Hotham, M.A., 
 
 Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 John Hullah, 
 
 Late Professor of Music in King’s College, London. 
 
 Rev. William Jackson, M.A., 
 
 Late Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford; Bampton 
 Lecturer for 1875. ^ 
 
 Rev. George Andrew Jacob, D.H., 
 
 late Head Master of Christ’s Hospital, London. 
 
 Rev. William James Josling, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Moulton, Suffolk; late Fellow of Christ’s College, ' 
 Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D.I)., 
 
 Canon of St. Paul’s; Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity 
 in the University oP Cambridge; Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 R. A. Lipsius, 
 
 Professor in ihe University of Kiel. 
 
 John Malcolm Ludlow, M.A., 
 
 Of Lincoln’s Inn. 
 
 Rev. John Robert Lunn, B.D., 
 
 Vicar of Marton, Yorkshire; late Fellow of St. John’s 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 Rev. George Frederick Maclear, D.D., 
 
 Head Master of King’s College School, London. 
 
 Rev. Spencer Mansel, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of Trumpington, Cambridge; Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 The late Rev. Wharton B. Marriott, M.A., 
 
 Of Eton College; formerly Fellow of Exeter College, 
 Oxford. 
 
 Rev. George Mead, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain to the Forces, Dublin. 
 
LIST OF WRITERS. 
 
 Xll 
 
 LIST OF WRITERS. 
 
 INITIALS. 
 
 NAMES. 
 
 F. M. Rev. Fhkderick Mp:tHiCK, M.A., 
 
 W. M. 
 
 <» 
 
 Rector of Blickling, Norfolk; Prebendary of Lincoln 
 Cathedral; Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln; late 
 Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 
 
 Rev. William Milligan, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Aber¬ 
 deen. 
 
 G. H. M. 
 
 Rev. George Herbert Moberly, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain to the Bishop of Salisbury; Rector of Dunst- 
 bourne Rouse, Gloucestershire. 
 
 11. C. G. M. Rev. Handley Carr Glyn Moule, M.A., 
 
 1. R. M. 
 
 Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 John Rickards Mozley, M.A., 
 
 late Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. 
 
 A. N. 
 
 Alexandp:r Nesbitt, F.S.A., 
 
 Oldlands, Uckfield. 
 
 P. 0. 
 
 Rev. Piiirrs Onslow, B.A., 
 
 Rector of Upper Sapey, Hereford. 
 
 G. W. P. 
 
 Rev. Gregory Walton Pennethorne, M.A., 
 
 • Rector of Ferring, Sussex; late Vice-Principal of the 
 Theological College, Chichester. 
 
 W. G.F.P. Walter G. F. Phillimore, B.C.L., 
 
 E. H. P. 
 
 (sometimes 
 
 P-) 
 
 Lincoln’s Inn; Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln. 
 
 Rev. Edward Hayes*Plumptre, M.A., 
 
 Professor of New Testament Exegesis in King’s College, 
 London ; Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral; Vicar of 
 Bickley ; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
 
 DE pRESSENSE. RcV. E. DE PrESSENSE, 
 
 J. R. 
 
 of Paris. 
 
 Rev. James Raine, M.A., 
 
 Prebendary of York ; Fellow of the University of Durham. 
 
 W. R. 
 
 Rev. William Reeves, D.D., 
 
 Rector of Tynan, Armagh. 
 
 G. S. 
 
 Rev. George Salmon, D.D., 
 
 Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinitv College, Dublin. 
 
 P. S. 
 
 Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, 
 New York. 
 
 W. E. S. 
 
 Rev. William Edward Scudamore, M.A., 
 
 Rector of Ditchingham ; late Fellow of St. John’s College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 o.s. 
 
 Rev. John Sharpe, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. 
 
LIST OF WRITERS. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 iNrriAES. 
 
 KAMES. 
 
 B. S. Benjamin Shaw, M.A., 
 
 Of Lincoln’s Inn ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cam¬ 
 bridge. 
 
 R. S. Rev. RoBEiiT Sinker, M.A., 
 
 Librarian of T] inity College, Cambridge. 
 
 I. G. S. Rev. I. Gregory -Smith, M.A , 
 
 Rector of G"jat' Mai’er.-i, an I Prebendary of Hereford 
 Cathedral; late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
 
 J. S— T. John Stuart, LL.D., 
 
 Of the General Register-House, Edinburgh. 
 
 S. Rev. William Stubbs, M.A., 
 
 Regius Pi'ofessor of Modern History, in the University of 
 Oxford; Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 
 
 C. A. S. Rev. Charlks Anthony Swainson, D.D., 
 
 Korrisian Professor of Divinity in the University of 
 Cambridge, and Canon of Chichester Cathedral; late 
 Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. 
 
 E. S. T. Rev. Edward Stuart Talbot, M.A., 
 
 Warden of Keble College, Oxford. 
 
 R. St. J. T. Rev. Richard St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A., 
 
 Late Student and Rhetoric Lecturer of Christ Church, 
 Oxford. 
 
 E. V. Rev. Edmund Venables, M.A., 
 
 Canon Residentiary and Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral; 
 Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 
 
 W. Rev. Brooke Foss AVestcott' D.D., 
 
 (sometimes Canon of Peterborough ; Regius Professor of Divinity in 
 B. F. W.) the University of Cambridge; late Fellow of Trinity 
 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 H. W. Rev. Henry Wage, M.A., 
 
 Chaplain of Lincoln’s Inn, and Professor of Ecclesiastical 
 History, King’s College, London. 
 
 G. Rev. George Williams, B.D., 
 
 Rector of Ringwood, Hants ; late Fellow of King’s College, 
 Cambridge. 
 
 J. WC Rev. John AVordsworth, M.A., 
 
 Prebendary of Lincoln ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop 
 of Lincoln; late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
 
 W. A. W. William Aldis Wkight, M.A., 
 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. 
 
 E. M. Y. Rev. Edward Mallet Young, M.A., 
 
 Assistant Master of Harrow School; Fellow of Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. 
 
 H. W. Y. Rev. Henry William Yule, B.C.L., M.A., 
 
 Rector 'of Shipton-on-Cherwell, and Vicar of Hampton 
 Gay, Ox on. 
 
ABBKEVIATIOXS. 
 
 Abp. for Archbishop. 
 
 A. C. Jlnte Christujn=^Jiefore Christ. 
 
 A. D. .inno Domini=\n the year of ouf Lord. 
 
 nl. alii, or a^tcrt=others. 
 
 Alex. Alexandria, or Alexandrinus. 
 
 an. rtnno=*in the year. 
 
 Anast.. Anastiisius, Emperor of the East. 
 
 anc. ancient. 
 
 Ann. .Annals of Tacitus, a Roman historian. 
 
 An not.Annotations. 
 
 Ant. or Antiq. Antiquities. 
 
 Antijrh. Jlntiphonarius, with /ifter=Book of An¬ 
 
 tiphons. 
 
 Apoc. Apocrypha. 
 
 Aik> 1. Apology. 
 
 Apos.Const... Apostolical Constitutions. 
 
 Archiep..^rcA<eprscqp«s=Archbishop. 
 
 Areop. Areopagite. 
 
 A. U. C. ^nno urbis condittz=\n the year from the 
 
 building of the city, i.e., Rome. 
 
 Aug. Augustine. 
 
 A. V. Authorized English version of Bible. 
 
 B. .Beata= Blessed. 
 
 B. & D. Hist, of Bel and the Dragon, (Apoc ) 
 
 Bur. Baruch, (Apoc.) 
 
 B. C. . Before Christ. 
 
 Bibl. £rWmn=Book. 
 
 bk. book. 
 
 B. V. M. Beata Virgo Jl/aWa=Blessed Virgin 
 
 Mary. 
 
 .. capitulum=.c\\a.\yier or circa=about. 
 
 C. or can. Canon. 
 
 Cal. Co^enrZarr«77i=:Calendar or List. 
 
 Cap. or capit. Capitalum=chQ\iler. 
 
 Carth.Carthage or Carthagenian. 
 
 cf.. conferer (French)=:compoTe. 
 
 ch. & chs. chapter and chapters, respectively. 
 
 Chrys. Horn.. Homilies of Chrysostom, A D. 344-407. 
 
 Cic. M.T.Cicero, a Roman orator, B.C, 10.5-43 
 
 cir. or circ.... crrca3=about. 
 
 Clem. Alex... Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 Clem. Rom... Clemens iiomajias=Clement of Rome. 
 
 Cod. Codex or Code. 
 
 Comm. Commentary. 
 
 comp. compare. 
 
 Cone. Concilium—CovmcW. 
 
 D. Dominus=L,ord. 
 
 Deer. Decretum—Decree or I.,aw. 
 
 I Ecclesiae Ritibus Antiquis. 
 
 De Resur.Mort De Resurrcctione J\Iortuorum=Of Res¬ 
 urrection of the Dead. 
 
 Dial. /?ia/o^ws=:Dialogue. 
 
 Die. or Diet... Dictionary. 
 
 Dig. Digest. 
 
 Disp. 2)i.sputatio=:Discussion. 
 
 E. East or Eastern. 
 
 Eccl. .Ecclesiastical. 
 
 Ecclus.Ecclesiasticus, (Apoc ) 
 
 E. Ch. Intro.. Eastern Church, Introduction to, Neale’s, 
 ed.edition. 
 
 e. g. exempli gratid=for examp]e. 
 
 Eng. England or English. 
 
 Ep. & Epp... Epistle and epistles, respectively. 
 
 Epiph. i?/;/pAa?irar=Epiphany. 
 
 1 Esd. 1st Book of Esdras, (Apoc.) 
 
 2 Esd.2<1 Book of Esdras, (Apoc.) [D. 340. 
 
 Euseb. Eusebius, a Gr. historian, who died A. 
 
 Excurs. Excursion, Wordsworth’s Poem. 
 
 f. . following (verse or page.) 
 
 ff.. following (verses or pages.) 
 
 fig. figura=engra\in" or illustration. 
 
 Gr.Greek. 
 
 Greg. Gregory. 
 
 I Gregory Magnus=Gregory the Great. 
 
 Greg. Naz. ... Gregory Nazianzen. 
 
 Greg. Nyss... Gregory of Nyssa. 
 
 Handb. Handbook. 
 
 H. E. Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Hier. Hieronymus=Jerome. 
 
 Hisp. Hispalenzio=zo( His|)ale now Seville. 
 
 Hist,,. History. 
 
 Hist. Christ... History of Christianity, Milman’s. 
 
 Hom.orHoinil Homilies. 
 
 ib. or ibid..,, ibidem=:in the same place, 
 
 id. idem^the same. 
 
 i. e. id csr=:that is. 
 
 in loc. in loco=in the place or passage cited. 
 
 Iren. Irenaeus. 
 
 I. U. R.“ Inscriptfoms Chrislianae Urbis Ro 
 
 manae” by De Rossi. 
 
 Jos.Josephus, the Jewish historian. 
 
 Just, or Justin. Justinian, Roman em[)eror and lawgiver 
 of the 6th century. 
 
 Kal. Kalendae=Cu\ends. 
 
 1., 11. lex., leges^itiw, laws, respectively. 
 
 I. c. loco citato—\n the place cited. 
 
 Lactan. Lactanlius, a father of the church. 
 
 Lat. Chr. Latin Christianity, by Milman. 
 
 II. cc. locis cituti<=al the places cited. 
 
 Lib. or lib.. .. liber—book. 
 
 lit. literal or literally. 
 
 Liv. Livy, a Roman historian. 
 
 LXX. The Seventy, i. e. the Septuagint, or 
 
 Greek translation of the O. T. 
 
 M. J\Ionsieur, (French.)i=:.Mr. 
 
 1 Macc. 1st Bo.jk of the Maccabees, (.Apoc.) 
 
 2 Macc. 2<1 Book of the Maccaliees, (Apric.) 
 
 3 Macc. 3d Book of the Maccabees, (.•\[)oc.) 
 
 marg. margin nr marginal. 
 
 M. Hieron. I MarUjrologium Hicronymv=.'S\v.r\yro\- 
 
 Mart.( ogy of Jerome. 
 
 Mart.Rom.Vet Hartyrologium Romanum Vetus. 
 
 MS. or MSS.. Manuscript or Manuscripts. 
 
 N. T. New Testament. 
 
 ob or obt. cbiit—A\ed. 
 
 Op. Opp. Opus, Opfra=Work, Works, literary. 
 
 O. T. Old Testament. 
 
 p. & pp. page and pages, respectively. 
 
 Pal. Palestine. 
 
 Pent. Pentateuch. 
 
 Pand. Pandects. 
 
 pi., pll. plate, plates. 
 
 pt. Part. 
 
 Polyc. Polyenrp, martyred A. D. 167. 
 
 Pontif.. Pont/^caZi'.-=concerning the Pope. 
 
 Prol. Prologus—Vreiace or Introduction. 
 
 Ptol. Ptolemy. 
 
 Rel. Jur. 1 Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquis- 
 Eccl. Ant. i simae, De Lagnrde’s. 
 
 R. Responsum —the initial prefixed to re¬ 
 
 sponsive verses. 
 
 Reg. Regala or Regulae=R.o\e. rules. 
 
 R. S. Roma Sottcranca, by De Rossi. 
 
 R. G. Rhbricae Geuerales. 
 
 S. ,Sancti/.s=snint. 
 
 Sacram.. Sacramevtarium, a book of liturgies. 
 
 sc. fci7«cc<=::thut is to say. 
 
 Soc. Socrates, Ecclesiastical historian. 
 
 Soz. orSozom. Sozomen, “ “ 
 
 sq. or seq. sc 9 i/e 7 i.«=:fnllowing (verse.) 
 
 sqq. or seqq... se^uentio^following (verses.) 
 
 SS. S«ncti=saints. 
 
 St. Saint. 
 
 sub fin. sub Jine=.nenr the end. 
 
 Suet. Suetonius, aliistorian, A. D. 100. 
 
 Sus. History of Susanna, (.Apoc.) 
 
 s. V. sub rcrto=under the word alluded to. 
 
 Tab., Tabb... Tabula, Tabulae. 
 
 Tac. or Tacit. Tacitus, a Roman historian .A.D. 56-135,. 
 
 Theod. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical historian. 
 
 Theod. Theodosian, the Christian Emperor. 
 
 Tob. Tobit, (.Af oc.) 
 
 Tr. Translation. 
 
 tom. ramM5=:volume. 
 
 U. C. Urbis covditce. See .A. U. C. 
 
 u. s. vt or uti supra=as above. 
 
 usu. usually. 
 
 V . riV/er=see, and sometimes=verse. 
 
 V . Virgin. 
 
 Val. Ma.x. Valerius Maximus. 
 
 ver. verse or verses. 
 
 ^Monum^^ ( P^etfr-a .Monumenta, by Cinmpinus. 
 
 Vit. Const. M. Vita Constantini JTagni=hife of Con¬ 
 
 stantine the Great. 
 
 viz.«idr2rcct=namely. 
 
 vol. volume. 
 
 Vulg.Vulgnte=Lntin translation of Bible. 
 
 W. Western. 
 
 Wisd.The Wisdom of Solomon, (.Apoc.) 
 
 ^.denotes section or subdivision cf chops. 
 
 =r. denotes equivalent to. 
 
 f. with date denotes time of death. 
 
 Words in brackets and printed in s.mall capitals 
 thus [monastery,] refer the render to those articles in 
 the Dictionary for further information. 
 
 The abbreviations for the names of the Books or Parts 
 of the Bible are omitted here because familiar to all. 
 
A 
 
 DIOTIONAEY 
 
 OP 
 
 CHKISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 A 
 
 A AND n 
 
 AARON 
 
 J 
 
 I 
 
 A 
 
 1 
 
 U) 
 
 A and W. (See Kev. xxii. 13.) Of these 
 symbolic letters the w is always given in the 
 miiiuscular form. The symbol is generally com¬ 
 bined with the monogram of Christ. [Mono- j 
 gra:m.1 In Boldetti’s Ossermzioni sopra i ciiniteri, 
 kc. Rom. 1720, fol. tav. iii. p. 19d, no. 4, it is | 
 found, with the more ancient decussated mono¬ 
 gram, on a sepulchral cup or vessel. See also 
 De Rossi (^Inscriptions, No. 776), where the letters 
 are suspended from the arms of 
 the St. Andrew’s Ci-o.ss. They 
 ai‘e combined more frequently 
 with the upright or Egyptian 
 monogram. Aringhi, Eom. 
 Subt. vol. i, p. 381, gives an 
 engraving of a jewelled cross, 
 with the letters suspended 
 by chains to its horizontal arm, as below. And 
 the same form occurs in sepulchral in.scriptions 
 in De Rossi, Inscr. Chr. Rom. 
 t. i. nos. 661, 666. See also 
 Boldetti, p, 345, and Bottari, 
 tav. xliv. vol. i. 
 
 The letters ai’e found, with 
 or without the monogram, in 
 almost all works of Christian 
 antiquity ; for instance, right 
 and left of a great cross, on which is no form or 
 even symbolic Lamb, on the ceiling of the apse 
 of St. Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna, circ. A.D. 
 675. They were worn in rings and sigils, either 
 alone, as in Martigny, s. v. Anneaux, or with 
 the monogram, as in Boldetti, ms. 21-31, 30-33. 
 On coins they appear to be first used imme¬ 
 diately after the death of Constantine. The 
 earliest instances are an aureus uummus of Con¬ 
 stantins (Bauduri, v. ii, p. 227, Numismata Imp. 
 liomonorum, &,c.) ] and another golden coin bear¬ 
 ing the effigy of Constantine the Great, with the 
 words “ \ ictoria Maxima.” Constantine seems 
 not to have made great use of Christian em¬ 
 blems on his coin till after the defeat of Lici- 
 nius in 323, and especially after the building 
 ot Constantinople. (See Martigny, s. v. A’uniis- 
 matuiue.) 
 
 1 he use of these symbolic letters amounts to 
 a quotation of Rev. xxii. 13, and a confession of 
 (aith in our Lord’s own as.sertion of His infinity 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 and divinity. There is one instance in Martial 
 (^Ilpip. V. 26) where A, Alpha, is u.sed jocularly 
 (as A 1, vulgarly, with ourselves) for “chief” or 
 “ first.” But the whole expression iu its solemn 
 meanins: is derived entirely from the words of 
 Rev. xxii. 13. The imjiort to a Christian is 
 shewn by the well-known passage of Prudentius 
 (Ilymnus Omni Hora, 10, Cathonerinon, i.x. p. 
 35, ed. Tubingen, 45) :— 
 
 “Corde iiatus ex parentis ante niundi exordium, 
 
 Alpha et D cngnominatus, ipso fens et clausula, 
 
 Omnium quae tunt, luerunt, quaeque post futura sunt.” 
 
 The symbol was no doubt much more frequently 
 used after the outbreak of Arianism. But it a’'- 
 pears to have been used before that date, from i..s 
 occurrence in the inscription on the tomb raised 
 by Victorina to her martyred husband Heraclius 
 in the cemetery of Priscilla (Aringhi, i. 605). 
 It is here enclosed in a triangle, and united with 
 the upright monogram. See also another in¬ 
 scription in Fabretti (Inscr. antiq. explicutio, 
 Rom. 1699, foL), and the cup given in Boldetti 
 from the Callixtine catacomb, tav. iii. no. 4, at 
 p. 194. From these it is argued with apparent 
 truth that the symbol must have been in use 
 before the Nicene Council.’* No doubt, as a con¬ 
 venient symbolic form of asserting the Lord’s 
 divinity, it became far more prominent after¬ 
 wards. The Arians certainly avoided its use 
 (Giorgi, De Monogram. C/iristi, p. 10). It is 
 found on the crucifix attributed to Nicodemus 
 (Angelo Rocca, Thesaurus Rontifeiarum, vol. i. 
 153, woodcut), and on a wooden crucifix of great 
 antiquity at Lucca (Borgia, Dc Crucc Vcliterna, 
 p. 33). For its general use a.s a part of the 
 monogram of Christ, see Monogram. It will be 
 found (see VV'^estwood’s Ralaeographia Sacra) in the 
 Psalter of Athelstan, and in the Bible of Alcuin; 
 both in the British Museum. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 AARON, the High Priest, commemorated 
 
 • Boldetti: " Quanto alio Ictterc A and w, non v’badubbio 
 che quei priini Cristiani le pre.sero dalT Apocalisse.” 
 He goes on to say that it is the sign of Christian, not 
 Arian, burial; and that Arians were driven from Rome, 
 and excluded from the Catacombs. Aringhi also protests 
 that those cemeteries were " baud unqnam berctico sebis- 
 maticoque commeicio pollutae.” 
 
2 
 
 ABACUC 
 
 ABBAT 
 
 Miaziah 1 March 27 (Ca/. Ethiop.'). Deposition 
 in Mount Hor, July 1 (^Mart. Bcdie, Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ABACUC. ( 1 ) Habakkuk the Prophet, com¬ 
 memorated Jan. 15 {Martyrologium lioin. Vetus^ 
 Hieron., Uedac). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome under Claudius, a.d. 269, 
 commemorated Jan. 20 (^Martyr. Rom. Vetus). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 ABBA. [Abbat.] 
 
 ABBAT. {Abbas or Abba [-afjs], a$$as, 
 d0/3a, in low Latin sometimes Abas, Ital. Abate, 
 Germ. Abt, from the Chaldee and Syriac form of 
 the common Semitic word for Father, probably 
 adopted in that form either by Syriac monks, 
 or through its N. T. use.) A name employ'ed 
 occasionally in the East, even so late as the 10th 
 century, as a term of respect for any monks 
 (Ca-ssian., Collat. i. 1, a.d. 429; Reg. S. Columb. 
 vii., A.D. 609 ; Jo. Mosch., Prat. Sgnr., a.d. 630; 
 Epiphan. Hagiop., De Loo. SS., a.d. 956 ; Byzant. 
 auth. ap. Du Cange, Lex. Inf. Graec. ; Bulteau, 
 Hist. Mon. d'Orient, 819: and, similarly, a^^d- 
 dior, h.^^abicTKiov, i|/eu5d)8;8ay, /cXsTrrdjS^Sas, for 
 an evil or false monk, Du Cange, i6.); and some¬ 
 times as a distinguishing term for a monk of 
 singular piety (Hieron., in Epist. ad Gal. c. 4; in 
 Matt. lib. iv. in c. 23); but ordinarily restricted 
 to the superior of a monastery'. Rater or Princeps 
 Monasterii, elective, irremoveable, single, abso¬ 
 lute. Replaced commonly' among the Greeks 
 by ’Apxi,uai^5piT77s [Archimaxdrita], 'H70U- 
 IJLsvos, or more rarely Koivo^idpxns ; the first 
 of which terms however, apparently by a con¬ 
 fusion respecting its derivation, came occasion¬ 
 ally to stand for the superior of more monas¬ 
 teries than one (Helyot, Hist, des Ordr. Mon. 
 i. 65) :—extended upon their institution to the 
 superior of a body of canons, more properly 
 called Praejositus, Abbas Canonicoruin as op¬ 
 posed to Abbas Monachorum (e. g. Cone. Paris. 
 A.D. 829, c. 37; Cone. Aquisg. II. a.d. 836. 
 canon, c. ii. P. 2, § 1; Chron. Leod.) ; but varied 
 by many of the later monastic orders, as e. g. by' 
 Carmelites, Augustinians, Dominicans, Servites, 
 into Praepositus or Prior Conventualis, by' Fran¬ 
 ciscans into Custos or Guardianus, by Camaldu- 
 lensians into Major, by' Jesuits into Rector :— 
 distinguished in the original Rule of Pachomius, 
 as the superior of a combination of monasteries, 
 from the Pater, Princeps, or Oeconmius of each 
 and from the Praepositi of the several families of 
 each. Enlarged into Abbas Abbatum for the Ab- 
 bat of Monte Cassino (Pet. Diac. Chron. Casin. 
 iv. 60; Leo Ostiens., ib. ii. 54), who was vicar of 
 the Pope over Benedictine monasteries {Privil. 
 Nicol. L. Papae, a.d. 1059, ap. And. a Nuce ad 
 Leon. Ostiens. iii. 12), and had precedence over 
 all Benedictine abbats {Privil. Paschal. LI. Papae, 
 A.D. 1113, in Bull. Casin. ii. 130; Chart. Lothar. 
 Imp., A.D. 1137, ib. 157). Similarly a single 
 Abbat of Aniana, Benedict, was made by' Ludov. 
 Pius, A.D. 817, chief of the abbats in the empire 
 {Chron. Farf. p. 671; Ardo, in V. Bened. c. viii. 
 36): and the Hegumenos of St. Dalmatius in 
 Constantinople was, from the time of St. Dal¬ 
 matius himself (a.d. 430), dpxoiv or irarvp 
 liova(XTf)pio3v, Abbas Universalis or KadoXinhs, 
 Exarchus omnium monasteriornm in urbe 7'egia 
 {Cone. Constant, iv., a.d. 536. Act i. ; Cone. 
 Ephes. iii. a.d. 431 ; and see Tillem., Mem. Eccl. 
 xiv. 322 and Eustath. in T. Eucych. u. 18, Jo. 
 
 Cantacuz. i. 50, Theocterictus in T'. S. Nicflae, n. 
 4.3, quoted by Du Cange). Transferred im¬ 
 properly sometimes to the Praepositus or Py'ior, 
 the lieutenant (so to say) of a monastery', Abbas 
 Seenn/ius or Seenudarius {Reg. S. Bened. 65 ; and 
 see Sid. Apoll. vii. 17), the proper abbat being 
 called by way of distinction Abbas 2Iojor {Cone. 
 Aquisgr. a.d. 817 c. 31). Transferred also, in 
 course of time, to non-monastic clerical offices, 
 as e. g. to the prineijjal of a body of parochial 
 clergy (i. the Abbas, Custos, or Rector, as distin¬ 
 guished from ii. the Presbyter or Cipeilanu^, and 
 iii. the Sacrista; Ughelli, Ital. Sac. vii, 506, ap. Du 
 Cange) ; and to the chief chaplain of the king or 
 emperor in camp under the Carlovingians. Abbas 
 Castrensis, and to the Abbas Curiae at Vienne 
 (Du Cange); and in later times to a particular 
 cathedral official at Toledo (Beyerlinck, Magn. 
 Theatrum, s. v. Abbas'), much as the term car¬ 
 dinal is used at our own St. Paul’s; and to the 
 chief of a decad of choristers at Anicia, Abbas 
 Clerieulorum (Du Cange); and later still to the 
 abbat of a religious confraternity', as of St. Yvo 
 at Paris in 1350 and another in 1362 {Id.). 
 Adopted also for purely secular and civil officers, 
 Abbas Populi at Genoa, and again of the Genoese 
 in Galata (Jo. Pachym. xiii. 27), of Guilds at 
 Milan and Decurions at Brixia; and earlier still, 
 Palatii, Clocherii, Campanilis, Scholar is, Esclaf- 
 fardorum (Du Cange) ; and compare Dante 
 {Purgat. xxvi.). Abate del Collegia. Usurped 
 in course of time by lay holders of monasteries 
 under the system of commendation [COM- 
 menda], Abbas Protector, Abbas Laicus, Ardn- 
 abbas, Abba- [or Abbi-'\ Comes, denominated by' a 
 happy' equivoque in some papal documents Abbas 
 Irreligiosus; and giving rise in turn to the Abbas 
 Legitimus or Monastkus {Soon, de Tumu’at. S. 
 Quintin., ap, Du Cange), as a name for the abbat 
 proper (sometimes it was the Decani, Contin. 
 Aimoin. c, 42 ; and in Culdee Scotland in the 
 parallel case it was a Prior) who took charge ot 
 the spiritual duties. Lastly, perverted altogether 
 in later day's into a mock title, as Abbas Laeiitiae, 
 Juvenum, Fatuorum, or again Abbas Bejanorum 
 (of freshmen, or “Yellow Beaks,” at the univer¬ 
 sity of Paris), or Coniardonini or Conardonim (an 
 equally unruly cliib of older people elsewhere in 
 France), until “in vitium libertas excidit et A'im 
 dignain lege regi,” and the mock abbats accord- 
 ingly “ held their peace ” perforce (Du Cange). 
 
 The abbat, properly' so called, was elected in 
 the beginning by the bishop of the diocese out of 
 the monks themselves (with a vague right of 
 assent on the part of the people also, according 
 to Du Cange); a right confirmed at first by' 
 Justinian {Xovell. v. c. 9, a.d. 534-565); vcho, 
 however, by' a subsequent enactment transferred 
 it to the monks, the abbat elect to be confirmed 
 and formally blessed by' the bishop {Xovell. cxxiii. 
 c. 34). And this became the common law of 
 Western monasteries also {Reg. S. Bened.. a.d. 
 530, c. 64; Cone. Cartluig., a.d. 525, in die I Ida ; 
 Greg. M., Epist. ii. 41, iii. 23, viii. 15; Theodor., 
 Poenit. II. vi. 1 in Wasserschl, p. 207 ; Pseudo- 
 Egbert, Poen t. Add. in Thorpe, ii, 235, <!kc. ;— 
 “Fratres eligant sibi abbatem,” Aldhelm ap. W. 
 Malm., De G. P. v. p. 111), confirmed in time by 
 express enactment {Capit. Car. M. et Lud. Pii, 
 I. vi., A.D. 816),—“ Qiiomodo (monachis) ex se 
 ipsis sibi eligendi abbates licentiam dederimus;” 
 —Urban. Pap. ap. Gratian, cap. Alien, cans. 12, 
 
ABBAT 
 
 ABBAT 
 
 qu. 2 ; and so also cap. Quoniam Dist. Ixix.-— 
 enforcing the episcopal benediction, from Cone. 
 Nicaen, ii., A.D. 787, c. 14. So also Counc. of 
 Cealchyth, A.D. 785, c. 5 (monks to elect from 
 their own monastery, or another, with consent of 
 bishop), but Counc. of Becanceld, A.D. 694, and 
 of Cealchyth, a.d. 816 (bishop to elect abbat or 
 abbess with consent of the “ family ”). And 
 forms occur accordingly, in both Eastern and 
 Western Pontificals, for the Benedict io re¬ 
 spectively of an Heguinenos, or of an Abbas, both 
 Monachoruin and Canonicoruin, and of an Abba- 
 tissa (see also Theodor., Poenit. II. iii. 5, in 
 Wasserschl. p. 204, &c.; and a special form for 
 the last named, wrongly attributed to Theodore, 
 in Collier’s Pecords fi'om the Ordo Rom., and 
 with variations, in Gerbert). An abbat of an 
 exempt abbey (in later times) could not resign 
 without leave of the Pope (c. Si Ahbatem, Bonif. 
 VIII. in Sext. Deer. I. vi. 36); and was to be 
 confirmed and blessed by him (Matt. Pai*. in an. 
 1257). A qualification made in the Benedictine 
 Piule, allowing the choice of a minority if theirs 
 were the sanius consilium, necessarily became a 
 dead letter from its impracticability. Bishops, 
 however, retained their idght of institution if not 
 nomination in Spain in the 7th century (Cbnc. 
 Tolet., A.D. 633, c. 50); and the Bishop of 
 Chalons-sur-Marne so late as the time of St. 
 Bernard (Epist. 58). See, however. Cans, xviii., 
 Qu. 2. The nomination by an abbat of his suc¬ 
 cessor, occurring sometimes in special cases (e.g. 
 St. Bruno), and allowed under restrictions (Co/ic. 
 Cabillon. ii., A.D. 650, c. 12; Theodor., Capit. 
 Dacher. c. 71, in Wasserschl. p. 151), was ex¬ 
 ceptional, and was to be so managed as not to 
 interfere with the general right of the monks. 
 So also the founder’s like exceptional nominations, 
 as e.g. those made by Aldhelm or Wilfrid. The 
 interference of kings in such elections began as a 
 practice with the system of commendation ; but 
 in royal foundations, and as suggested and pro¬ 
 moted by feudal ideas, no doubt existed earlier. 
 The consent of the bishop is made necessary to 
 an abbat’s election, “ ubi jussio Regis fuerit,” 
 in A.D. 794 (Gone. Franco/, c. 17). The bishop 
 was also to quash an unfit election, under the 
 Benedictine rule, and (with the neighbouring 
 abbats) to appoint a proper person instead (Reg. 
 Ben. 64). 
 
 Once elected, the abbat held office for life, 
 unless canonically deprived by the bishop; but 
 the consent of his fellow-presbyters and abbats is 
 made necessary to such deprivation by the 
 Council of Tours (Cone. Turon. ii., a.d. 567, c. 7 ; 
 so also Excerpt. Pseudo-Egberti, 65, Thorpe ii. 
 107). And this, even if incapacitated by sickness 
 (Hincmar ad Corbeiens., ap. Flodoard. iii. 7). 
 'rriennial abbats (and abbesses) were a desperate 
 expedient of far later popes. Innocent VIII. 
 (a.d. 1484—1492) and Clement VII. (a.d. 1523- 
 1534). 
 
 Like all monks (Hieron., ad RtisEc. 95; 
 Cassian., Collat. v. 26 ; Catis. xvi. qu. 1, c. 40 ; 
 Dist. xoiii. c. 5), the abbat was originally a lay¬ 
 man (“ Abbas potest esse, et non iiresbyter; 
 laicus potest esse abbas Jo. de Turrecrem., sup. 
 Dist. Ixix.) ; and accordingly ranked below all 
 orders of clergy, even the Osfiarius (Dist. xciii. 
 c. 5). In the East, Archimandrites appear to 
 have, become either deacons at least, or com¬ 
 monly priests, before the close of the 5th century 
 
 3 
 
 (inter Epist. Hormisd. Pap., A.D. 514—523, ayite 
 Ep. xxii.; Cone. Constantin, iv., a.d. 536, Act i.), 
 although not without a struggle: St. Saba.s, e.g., 
 A.D. 484, strictly forbidding any of his monk.s 
 to be priests, while reluctantly forced into the 
 presbyterate himself by the Patriarch of Jeru¬ 
 salem (Surius, in Vita, 5 J)ec., cc. xxii. xxv). 
 And Archimandrites subscribe Church Councils 
 in the East, from time to time, from Cone. 
 Constantin., a.d. 448. The term 'A^fiaSov-pea-- 
 PvTfpos, however, in Nomocan. (n. 44, ed. Co- 
 teler.), appears to indicate the continued ex¬ 
 istence of abbats not presbyters. In the West, 
 laymen commonly held the office until the end 
 of the 7th century, and continued to do so to 
 some extent or other (even in the proper sense 
 of the office) into the 11th. Jealousy of the 
 priestly order, counterbalanced by the absolute 
 need of priestly ministrations, prolonged the 
 struggle, in the 6th century, whether Western 
 monasteries should even admit priests at all. St. 
 Benedict, A.D. 530, hardly allows a single priest; 
 although, if accepted, he is to rank next the 
 abbat (Deg. 60). Aurelian of Arles, a.d. 50, 
 allows one of each order, priest, deacon, sub¬ 
 deacon (Reg. 46). The Rcgula Magistri (23) 
 admits priests as guests only, “ ne abbates ut- 
 pote laicos excludant.” St. Gregory, however, 
 A.D. 595, gave a great impulse, as to monastic 
 life generally, so in particular, by the nature of 
 his English mission, to presbyter (and episcopal) 
 abbats. And while Benedict himself, a layman, 
 was admitted to a council at Rome, A.D. 531, as 
 by a singular privilege (Cave, Hist. Litt. in V. 
 Bened .'); during the next century, abbats occur 
 commonly, 1. at Councils of State, or in Councils 
 of abbats for monastic purposes, in Saxon England 
 and in France ; but 2. in purely Church Councils 
 in Spain. Theodore (about a.d. 690) repeats 
 the continental canon,, inhibiting bishops from 
 compelling abbats to come to a council without 
 reasonable caase (Poenit. II. ii. 3; Wasserschl. 
 p. 203). And in one case, both Al)bates pres- 
 bgteri, and Abbates simply, subscribe a Saxon 
 Council or Witenagemot, viz., that of Oct. 12, 
 803 (Kemble, C. D. v. 65), which had for its 
 purpose the prohibition of lay commendations; 
 while abbesses occur sometimes as well, e. g. at 
 Becanceld, A.D. 694 (Anglo-Sar. Cliron.), and 
 at London, Aug. 1, a.d. 811 (Kemble, C. D. i. 
 242). Lay abbats continued in England a.d. 
 696 (Wihtred’s Dooms, § 18), A.D. 740 (Egbert’s 
 Answ. 7, 11), A.D. 747 (Counc. of Clocesho, c. 5), 
 A.D. 957 (Aelfric’s Can. § 18,—abbats not an 
 order of clergy). In France, an annual Council 
 of abbats was to be summoned by the bishop 
 everv Nov. 1, the presbyters having their own 
 special council separately in ]\Iay (Cone. Aure- 
 lian. i., A.D. 511 ; Cone. Autisiod., a.d. 57S or 
 586, c. 7). Abbats, however, sign as represen¬ 
 tatives of bishops at the Councils of Orleans, iv. 
 and V., A.d. 541, 549. But in Spain, abbats 
 subscribe Church Councils, at first after and then 
 before presbyters (Cone. Biacar. iii., a.d. 572 ; 
 Oscens., A.D. 588; /.'mmY., a.d. 666; 'Ddet. xii. 
 and xiii., A.D. 681, 683); occurring, indeed, in 
 all councils from that of Toledo (viii.) A.D. 65:5. 
 From A.D. 565, also, there was an unbroken 
 succession of presbyter-abbats at Hy, retaining 
 their original missionary jurisdiction over tlieir 
 monastic colonies, even after these colonies had 
 grown into a church, and both needed and had 
 
4 
 
 A BEAT 
 
 ABBAT 
 
 bishops, although undiocesan (Baed., IT. F., iii. 
 4, V. 24). And clerical abbats (episcopal indeed 
 first, in Ireland, and afterwards ])rcsbyteral— 
 see Todd’s St. I’atrich., pp. 88, 89) seem to have 
 been always the rule in Wales, Ireland, and 
 Scotland. In Ireland, indeed, abbats were so 
 identified with not presbyters only but bishops, 
 that the Pope is found designated as “Abbat 
 ‘of Rome” (Todd’s St. Patrick., 156). Most con¬ 
 tinental abbats, however (and even their Frae- 
 positi and Decani) appear to have been pres¬ 
 byters by A.D, 817. These officers may bestow 
 the benediction (“quamvis presbyteri non sint”; 
 Cone. Aquisgr., A.D. 817, c. 62). All were ordered 
 to be so, but as yet ineflectually, A.D. 826 (Cbnc. 
 Rom. c. 27). And the order was still needed, 
 but was being speedily enforced by custom, A.D. 
 1078 {Cone. Piet'IV. c. 7: “ Ut abbates et decani 
 \aliter abbates diaconi] qui presbyteri non sunt, 
 presbyteri fiant, aut praelationes amittant ”). 
 
 A bishop-abbat was forbidden in a particular 
 instance by a Council of Toledo (xii., A.D. 681, 
 c. 4), but permitted subsequently as (at first) an 
 exceptional case at Lobes near Liege, about A.D. 
 700, (conjecturally) for missionary purposes among 
 the still heathen Flemish (D’Achery, Spicil. ii. 
 730) ; a different thing, it should be noted, from 
 bishops resident in abbeys under the abbat’s 
 jurisdiction (“ Episcopi monachi,” according to 
 a very questionable reading in Baed. H. E. iv. 
 5), as in Ireland and Albanian Scotland, and in 
 several continental (mostly exempt) abbeys (St. 
 Denys, St. Martin of Tours, &c.), and both at this 
 and at later periods in exempt abbeys generally 
 (Du Cange, voc. Episcopi Vagantes: Todd’s St. 
 Patrick., 51 sq.); although in some of these con¬ 
 tinental cases the two plans seem to haA'e been 
 interchanged from time to time, according as the 
 abbat happened to be either himself a bishop, or 
 merely to have a monk-bishop under him 
 (Martene and Durand, Thes. Nov. Anccd. i. 
 Pref. giving a list of Benedictine Abbatial bishops ; 
 Todd, ib.). In Wales, and in the Scottish sees 
 in Anglo-Saxon England (e.g. Lindisfarne), and 
 in a certain sense in the monastic sees of the 
 Augustinian English Church, the bishop was also 
 an abbat ; but the latter office was here ap¬ 
 pended to the former, not (as in the other cases) the 
 former to the latter. So, too, “ Antistes et abbas,” 
 in Sidon. Apoll. (xvi. 114), speaking of two abbats 
 of Lerins, who were also Bishops of Riez. Pos¬ 
 sibly there were undiocesan bishop-abbats in 
 Welsh abbeys of Celtic date (Rees, Weish SS. 
 182, 266). Abbats sometimes acted as chore- 
 piscopi in the 9th century: v. Du Cange, voc, 
 Chorepiscopus. The abbats also of Catania and of 
 !Monreale in Sicily at a later period were always 
 bishops (diocesan), and the latter shortly an 
 archbishop, respectively by privilege of Urban II., 
 A.D. 1088-1099, and from A.D. 1176 (Du Canged. 
 So also at Fulda and Corbey in Germany. 
 
 We have lastly an abbat who was also ex 
 officio a cardinal, in the case of the Abbat of 
 Clugny, by privilege of Pope Calixtus JI., a.d. 
 1119 (Hug. Mon. ad Pontium Abb. Chin., ap. 
 Du Cange). 
 
 The natural rule, that the abbat should be 
 chosen from the seniors, and from those of the 
 monastery itself {Reg. S. Scrap. 4, in Holsten. 
 p. 15), became in time a formal law {Decret. 
 Ponif. VIII. in 6 de Elect. —Abbat to be an 
 already professed monk ; Capit. Car. M. et Lttd. 
 
 T’ii, i. tit. 81, “ ex seipsis,” &c., as above quoted, 
 Concil. Rotom., a.d, 1074, c. 10) : although the 
 limitation to one above twenty-five years old is 
 no earlier than Pope Alexander III. {Cone. La- 
 teran. A.D. 1179). In the West, however, the 
 rule was, that “Fratres eligant sibi abbatem 
 de ipsis si habent, sin autem, de extraneis ” 
 (Theodor., Capit. Each. c. 72, in Wasserschl. p. 
 151; and so also St. Greg., Ejnst. ii, 41, viii. 15) : 
 while in the East it seems to be spoken of as a 
 privilege, where an abbey, having no fit monk 
 of its own, might choose a ^eyoKovp(Tr]s —one 
 tonsured elsewhere (Leunclav. Jus Graeco-Rom. 
 
 p. 222). 
 
 Repeated enactments prove at once the rule of 
 one abbat to one monastery, and (as time went 
 on) its common violation (Hieron. ad Rustic. 95 ; 
 Peg. S. Scrap. 4, and Regulae passim; Cone. 
 Venetic., A.D. 465, c. 8; Agath., a.d. 506, cc. 38, 
 57 ; Epaon., a.d. 517, cc, 9, 10 ; and so, in the 
 East, Justinian, L. 1. tit, iii.; De I^pisc. 1. 39: and 
 Balsamon ad Nomocah. tit. i. c. 20,—“ Si non per- 
 mittitur alicui ut sit clericus in duabus ecclesiis, 
 nec praefectus .seu abbas duobus monasterii.s 
 praeerit ”). No doubt such a case as that of 
 Wilfrid of York, at once founder and Abbat of 
 Hexham and Ripon, or that of Aldhelm, Abbat 
 at once (for a like reason) of Malmesbury, Frome, 
 and Bradford, was not so singular as it was in 
 their case both intelligible and excusable. The 
 spirit of the rule obviously does not apply, either 
 to the early clusters of monasteries under the 
 Rule of St. Pechomius, or to the tens of thou¬ 
 sands of monks subject to the government of 
 e. g. St. Macarius or St. Serapion, or to the later 
 semi-hierarchical quasi-jurisdiction, posses.sed as 
 already mentioned by the Abbats of St. Dalma- 
 tius, of Monte Cassino, or of Clugny, and by 
 Benedict of Aniana. Genei'als of Orders, and 
 more compact organization of the whole of an 
 Order into a single body, belong to later times. 
 
 The abbat’s power was in theory paternal, but 
 absolute—“ Timeas ut dominum, diligas ut pa- 
 trem ” {Reg. S. Alacar. 7, in Holsten. p. 25; and 
 Regidae passim). See also St. Jerome. Even to 
 act without his order was culpable {Reg. S. 
 Basil.). And to speak for another who hesitated 
 to obey was itself disobedience {Reg. passim). 
 The relation of monk to abbat is described as 
 a libera servitus {Reg. S. Orsies. 19, in Holsten. 
 p, 73); while no monk (not even if he was a 
 bishop, Baed. //. E., iv. 5) could exchange mo¬ 
 nasteries without the abbat’s leave {Reg. passim), 
 not even (although in that case it was some¬ 
 times allowed) if he sought to quit a laxer for 
 a stricter rule {Reg. PP. 14, in Holsten. p. 23; 
 Gild. ap. MS. S. Gall. 243, pp. 4, 155) ; unless 
 indeed he fled from an excommunicated abbat 
 (Gild. ib. p, 155, and in D’Ach., Sfficil. i, 500). 
 In later times, and less civilized regions, it was 
 found necessary to prohibit an abbat from blind¬ 
 ing or mutilating his monks {Cone. Francof. 
 A.D. 794, c. 18). The rule, however, and the 
 canons of the Church, limited this absolute power. 
 And each Benedictine abbat, while bound exactly 
 to keep St. Benedict’s rule himself (e. g. Co«c. 
 Angustod. c. a.d. 670), was enjoined also to make 
 his monks learn it word for word by heart {Cone. 
 Aquisgr., A.D. 817, cc. 1, 2, 80). He was also 
 limited practically in the exercise'of his authority 
 (1) by the system o( Praeq.ositi or Priorcs. elected 
 usually by himself, but consilio et voluntate fra- 
 
ABBAT 
 
 ABBAT 
 
 5 
 
 irum ” {Reg. Orient. 3. in Moisten, p. 89 ; Reg. S. 
 Bened. 65), and in Spain at one time by the 
 bishop {Cone. Tolet. iv. a.d. 633, o. 51); one in a 
 Benedictine abbey, but in the East sometimes 
 two, one to be at home, the other superintending 
 the monks abroad {Reg. Orient. 2, in Moisten, 
 p. 89) ; and under the Rule of Pachomius one to 
 each subordinate house ; a system in some sense 
 revived, though with a very different purpose, in 
 the Priores non Conventurdes of the dependent 
 Obedientiae, Cellae, &c., of a later Western Abbey; 
 and (2) by that of Decani and Centenarii, elected 
 by tlie monks themselves (Mieron. ad Eustoch. 
 Epist. xviii.; Reg. Monach. in Append, ad Mieron. 
 0pp. V.; Reg. passim ; see also Baed. H. E. ii. 2), 
 through whom the discipline and the work of the 
 monastery were administered. Me was limited also 
 from without hy e})iscopal jurisdiction, more effi¬ 
 ciently in the East {Cone. Chalc., a.d. 451', cc. 4, 
 8, &c. &c.; and so Balsam, ad Nomocan. tit. xi., 
 “ Episcopis magis subject! monachi quam monas- 
 teriorum praefectis ”), but in theory, and until 
 the 11th century pretty fairly in fact, in the 
 West likewise {Reg. S. Bened. ; Cone. Agath., a.d. 
 506, c. 38 ; Aurelian. i., a.d. 511, c. 19 ; Epaon., 
 A.D. 517, c. 19; Herd. a.d. 524, c. 3; Arelat. v., 
 A.D. 554, cc. 2, 3, 5; and later still. Cone. 
 a.d. 859, c. 9; Rotomag., a.d. 878, c. 10; Au¬ 
 gustan., A.D. 952, c. 6; and see also Greg. M. 
 Epist., vii. 12 ; x. 14, 33 ; Mincmar, as before 
 quoted; and Cone. Paris, a.d. 615 ; Tolet. iv. a.d. 
 633 ; Cabil/on. i. A.D. 650; Herutf. a.d. 673, c. 3, 
 in Baed. //. E. iv. 5, among others, putting restric¬ 
 tions upon episcopal interference). The French 
 canons on this subject are repeated by Pseudo- 
 Egbert in England {Excerpt. 63-65, Thorpe, ii. 
 106, 107). Cassian, however, in the West, from 
 the beginning, bids monks beware above all of 
 two soi'ts of folk, women and bishops {De Instit. 
 Coenob. xi. 17). And although cxem})tions, at first 
 merely defining or limiting ejjiscopal power, but 
 in time substituting immediate dependence upon 
 the Pope for episcopal jurisdiction altogether, did 
 not grow into an extensive and crying evil until 
 the time of the Councils of Rheims and of Rome, 
 respectively a.d. 1119 and 1122, and of the self- 
 denying ordinances of the Cistercians {Chart. 
 Ch irit. in Ann. Cisterc. i. 109) and Premonstra- 
 tensians, in the years a.d. 1119, 1120, repudiating 
 such privileges but with a sadly short-lived 
 virtue, and of the contemporary reiiionstrances of 
 St. Bernard {Lih. 3 De Consid., and Ejrist. 7, 42, 
 179, 180); yet they occur in exceptional cases 
 much earlier. As e. g. the adjustment of rights 
 between Faustus of Lerins and his diocesan bishop 
 at the Council of Arles, c. A.D. 456 (which se¬ 
 cured to the abbat the jurisdiction over his lay 
 monks, and a veto against the ordination of any 
 of them, leaving all else to the bishop, Mansi, 
 vii. 907), a j)arallel privilege to Agaune (St. 
 Maurice in the Valais), at the Council of Chalons 
 A.D. 579, and privilegia of Popes, as of Mono- 
 rius I. A.D. 628 to Bobbio, and of .John IV. a.d. 
 641 to Luxeuil (see Marculf., Formul. lib. I. § 1; 
 and Mabill., A)in. Bened. xiii. no. 11, and Ap¬ 
 pend. n. 18). Even exempt monasteries in the 
 East, i.e. those immediately depending upon a 
 patriarch, were subject to the visitatorial powers 
 ot regular officials called Exarchi Monastcriorum 
 (Balsam, in Nomocan. i. 20; aud a form in Greek 
 Pontificals for the ordination of an exarch, Ma- 
 bert., Archie rat., Pontif. Grace, observ. i. ad Edit. 
 
 j 7 )ro Archimandrit. pp. 570, 587), exercised some¬ 
 times through Apocrisiarii (as like powers of the 
 bishops through the Defensores Ecclesiarum') ; and 
 even to visitations by the emperor himself (Justi¬ 
 nian, Novell, cxxxiii., cc. 2, 4, 5). The Rule of 
 Pachomius also qualified the abbat’s power by a 
 council of the Majores Monasterii, and by a tri¬ 
 bunal of assessors, viri sancti, 5, 10, or 20, to as¬ 
 sist in administering discipline {Reg. 8. Pack. 
 167, in Moisten, p. 49). And the Rule of St. Bene¬ 
 dict, likewise, compelled the abbat, while it re¬ 
 served to him the ultimate decision, to take 
 counsel with all the brethren (juniors expressly 
 included) in greater matters, and with the Seni- 
 ores Monasterii in smaller ones {Reg. 8. Bened. 2, 
 3). The Rule of Columbanus gave him an un¬ 
 qualified autocracy. 
 
 The abbat was likewise limited in his power 
 over abbey property, and in secular things, by his 
 inability to interfere in person with civil suits ; 
 which led to the appointment of an Advocatus, 
 Vicedomnus, Oeconomus, Procurator {Cod. Can. 
 Afric. A.D. 418 (?), c, 97 ; Justinian, lib. i. Cod. 
 tit. 3, legg. 33, 42 ; Cod. Theodos. lib. ix. tit. 45, 
 leg. 3 ; St. Greg. Epist. iii. 22; Cone. Nicaen. ii. 
 A.D. 787, c. 11), revived with greater powers 
 under the title of Advocatus Ecclesiae, or Monas¬ 
 terii, by Charlemagne {Capit. A.D. 813, c. 14; and 
 Lothar., Capit. tit. iii. cc. 3, 9, 18, &c.) ; who from 
 a co-ordinate, frequently proceeded to usurp an 
 exclusive, interest in the monastic revenues. The 
 abbat also was required to give account of the 
 abbey property to both king and bishop, by the 
 Council of Vern (near Paris) A.D. 755; while 
 neither abbat nor bishop separately could even 
 exchange abbey lands in Anglo-Saxon England, 
 but only by joint consent (Theodor., Poen. II. viii. 
 6, in Wasserschl. p. 208). 
 
 Within the abbey and its precincts, the abbat 
 was to order all work, vestments, services {Reg. 
 8. Bened. 47, 57 ; Regulae passim); to award all 
 punishments, even to excommunication {Reg. 8. 
 Bened. 24; Leidrad., Lugdun. Arch., ad Car. M. 
 ap. Galland., xiii. 390, restoring to the Abbat of 
 Insula Barbara, “ potestatem ligandi et solvendi, 
 uti habuerunt praedecessores sui;” Monorius III. 
 cap. Dilecta, tit. de Major, et Obedientia, desiring 
 a neighbouring abbat to excommunicate refrac¬ 
 tory nuns, because their abbess could not; and see 
 Bingham), or to the iise of the “ ferrura abscis- 
 sionis ” {Reg. 8. Bened. 28). Me was also to be ad¬ 
 dressed as “Domnus et Abbas” {ih. 63). And while 
 in the East he was specially commanded to eat with 
 the other monks {Reg. PP. 11, in Moisten, p. 23), 
 the Rule of Benedict (56) appoints him a separate 
 table “ cum ho.spitibus et peregrinis,” to which 
 he might, in case there was room, invite any monk 
 he pleased. The Council of Aix a.d. 817 (c. 27) 
 tried to qualify this practice by bidding abbats 
 “ be content” with the food of the other monks, 
 unless “ propter hospitem;” and some monas¬ 
 teries kept up a like protest in the time of Peter 
 Damiani and Peter the Venerable; but it con¬ 
 tinued to be the Western rule. Me was ordered 
 also to sleep among his monks by the Council 
 of Frankfort a.d. 794 (c. 13). The abbat was spe¬ 
 cially not to wear mitre, ring, gloves, or sandals, 
 as being episcofml insignia—a practice growing 
 up in the West in the 10th and 11th centuries, 
 and (vainly) then protested against by the Coun¬ 
 cil of Poictiers A.D. 1100, and by St. Bernard 
 {Epist. 42) and Peter of Blois {Epist. 90 ; aud sea 
 
6 
 
 ATiBAT 
 
 ABBAT 
 
 also Thom. Cantiprat., De Apihus, i. 6 ; Chron. 
 Casin. iv. 78). But a mitre is said to have been 
 granted to the Abbat of Bobbio by Pope Theodo¬ 
 ras I. A.D. 64-3 (Bull. Casin. I. ii. 2), the next 
 alleged case being to the Abbat of St. Savianus 
 by Sylvester II. A.D. 1000. A staff, however, but 
 of a particular form, and some kind of stockings 
 (“ baculum et ])edules”), wore the special insig¬ 
 nia of an abbat in Anglo-Saxon England in the 
 time of Theodore a.d. 668-690, being formally 
 given to him by the bishop at his benediction 
 (Poenit. II. iii. 5, in Wasserschl. p. 204), And the 
 staff was so everywhere. He was also to shave his 
 beai'd, and of course to be tonsured (Cone. Bitu- 
 ric. A.D. 1031, c. 7), His place of precedence, 
 if an ordinary abbat, appears to have been finally 
 fixed as immediately after bishops, among prae- 
 lati, and before archdeacons (see, however, Decret. 
 Greg. IX., lib. ii. tit. 1, cap. Decernimus)’, but 
 the list of our English convocations from Arch¬ 
 bishop Kemp’s Register a.d. 1452 (Wilk. I. xi. 
 sq.), though following no invariable rule, appears 
 usually to postpone the abbat and prior to the 
 archdeacon. In Saxon England, he shared in like 
 manner with the king (as did an abbess also) in 
 the “ wer ” of a murdered “ foreigner ” (Laws of 
 Ine, 23; Thorpe, i. 117). The abbat also was 
 not named in the canon of the mass (Gavant. in 
 Bubr. Miss. P. iii. tit. 8; Macr. F.F., Hierolex, in 
 Can. Missae'), except in the case of the abbat of 
 Monte Cassino (Ang. a Nuce, in notis ad Leo. 
 Ostiens. ii. 4). But an anniversary was allowed 
 to be appointed for him on his death (e. g. Cone. 
 Aquisgr. a.d. 817, c. 73). He was forbidden (as 
 were all monks, at least in France) to stand 
 sponsor for a child (Cone. Autissiod. a.d. 578, c. 
 25; Greg. M., Epid. iv. 42), with a notable ex¬ 
 ception, however, in England, in the case of Abbat 
 Robert of Mont St. Michel, godfather to King 
 Henry H.’s daughter Eleanor (Rob. de Monte ad 
 an. 1161), or to go to a maiTiage (Cone. Autissiod., 
 ib.') ; or indeed to go far from his nionasteiy at 
 all without the bishop’s leave (Cone. Arel. v. 
 A.D. 554); or to go about with a train of monks 
 except to a general synod (Cone. Aquisgr. a.d. 
 817, c. 59). He of course could not hold pro¬ 
 perty (although it was needful sometimes to pro¬ 
 hibit his lending money on usury, Pseudo-Egbert. 
 Poenit. iii. 7, in Thorpe, ii. 199); neither could 
 he dispose of it by will, even if it accrued to him 
 b}' gift or heirship after he became abbat (Reg. 
 PP. 2, in Holsten. p. 22); but if the heirship 
 was within the 4th degree, he was exceptionally 
 enabled to will the property to whom he pleased 
 (Justinian, lib, i. Cod. tit. de Epise. ct Cler. c. 
 33). Further, we find bishops and archdeacons 
 prohibited from seizing the goods of deceased 
 abbats (Cone. Paris, a.d. 615 ; Cahillon. i. a.d. 
 650). And later wills of abbats in the West are 
 sometimes mentioned and confirmed, but prin¬ 
 cipally in order to secure to their abbeys pro¬ 
 perty bequeathed to those abbeys (see Thomassin). 
 Privileges of coining money, of markets and tolls, 
 of secular jurisdiction, began certainly as early 
 as Ludov. Pius, or even Pipin (Gieseler, ii. p, 255, i 
 notes 5, 6, Eng. Tr,). Others, such as of the title 
 of prince, of the four Abbates Imperii in Germany i 
 (viz., of Fulda—also ex offieio the empress’s 
 chancellor—of Weisseuberg, Kempten, Murbach), . 
 of the English mitred baronial abbats, and the 
 like, and sumptuary laws limiting the number of 
 their horses and attendants, &c., belong to later j 
 
 times. An abbat, however, might hunt in Eng¬ 
 land (Laws of Cu <t, in Thorpe, i. 429). An abbat, 
 or an abbess, presiding over a joint house of 
 monks and nuns, is noted by Theodore as'a pecu¬ 
 liar Anglo-Saxon -custom :—“ Apud Graecos non 
 est consuetudo viris feminas habere monachas, 
 neque feminis viros ; tamen consuetudinem istius 
 provinciae ” (England) “ non destruamus ” (Poenit. 
 II. vi. 8, in Wasserschl. p. 208). The well-known 
 cases of the Abbesses Hilda and Aelbfled of Whitby 
 and of Aebba of Coldingham are instances of the 
 latter arrangement (Baed. If. E. iv, 23, 24, 25, 
 26) ; and the last of them also of its mischievous¬ 
 ness (Id. ib. 25). Tynemouth and Wimbourne 
 are other instances. But the practice was a Celtic 
 one (e. g. St. Brigid; see Todd, St. Patriek, 
 pp. 11, 12), not simply Anglo-Saxon; and with 
 Celtic monastic missions, penetrated also into the 
 Continent (e.g. at Remiremont and Poictiers), and 
 even into Spain and into Rome itself (soMontalem- 
 bert. Monks of vol. v. p. 297, Engl. Tr.). 
 
 It is, however, remarkable, that while instances 
 of abbesses ruling monks abounded, abbats ruling 
 nuns rest for us upon the general assertion of 
 Theodore. And the practice, while it died out on 
 the Continent, was not restored in England after 
 the Danish invasion. In the East there was a 
 rigorous separation between monks and nuns. 
 And whex’e two such communities were in any 
 way connected, a special enactment prohibited all 
 but the two superiors from communication with 
 one another, and placed all possible restrictions 
 upon even their necessary interviews (Reg. S. 
 Basil, in Holsten. p. 158). St. Pachomius esta¬ 
 blished the double order, but put the Kile be¬ 
 tween his monks and his nuns (Pallad., Hist. Laus., 
 cc. 30—4-2). 
 
 Interference bv abbats with the ministrations 
 of parochial clergy could scarcely exist until ab¬ 
 bats were presbyters themselves, nor did it ever 
 (as was naturally the case) reach the extent to 
 which it was carried by the friars. We find, 
 howev’er, an enactment of Theodore (Poenit. II. vi. 
 16, in Wasserschl. p. 209), prohibiting a monas¬ 
 tery from imposing penances on the laity, “ quia 
 (haec libertas) proprie clericorum est.” And a 
 much later and more detailed canon, of the 4th 
 Lateran Council (a.d. 1123), forbids abbats to 
 impose penance, visit the sick, or administer 
 unction. They were authorized in the East, it 
 presbyters, and with the bishop’s leave, to confer 
 the tonsure and the order of reader on their own 
 monks (Cone. Nicaen. ii. a.d. 787, c. 14). And 
 they could everywhere admit their own monks 
 (“ordinatio monachi ”—Theodor., Poenit. II, iii. 3, 
 in Wasserschl. p. 204). But encroachments upon 
 the episcopal office, as well as upon episcopal in¬ 
 signia, gradually arose. Even in a.d. 448 abbats 
 were forbidd'en to give aTroaroXia (Cone. Constan¬ 
 tin., —corrected b}' Du Cange into iin(rr6\ia = 
 commendatory letters for poor, and see Cone. Au- 
 relian. ii. c. 13, and Turon. ii. c. 6). But by a.d. 
 1123 it had become necessary to prohibit gene¬ 
 rally their thrusting themselves into episcopal 
 offices (Cone. Lateran. iv. c, 17). And we find 
 it actually asserted by Sever. Binius (in Canon. 
 Apostol. ap. Labh. Cone. i. 54e, on the authority 
 of Bellarmine, Be Eecles. iv. 8), that two or more 
 “ abbates infulati ” might by Papal dispensation 
 be substituted for bishops in consecrating a 
 bishop, provided one bishop were there ; while 
 Innocent IV. in 1489 empowered an abbat by 
 
ABBAT 
 
 himself to confer not only the subdiaconate, but 
 the diaconate. 
 
 The sjtiritual abbat was supplanted in Wales 
 (Gil •aid. Canibr., Itin. Camh., and repeatedly) and 
 in Scotland (R'obertson, Early Scotl. i. 329, 339), 
 by the end of the 8th and so on to the 12th cen¬ 
 tury, by the Advocatus Ecclesiae (confused 
 sometimes with the Oeconomus, who in Welsh 
 and Irish monasteries was a different officer, and 
 managed the internal secular affairs, as the other 
 did the external), called in Scotland Herenach, in 
 Ireland Airchinneach, who was originally the lay, 
 and gradually became also the hereditary, lessee of 
 the Termon (or abbey) lands, being commonly the 
 founder or his descendant, or one of the neighbour¬ 
 ing lords; and who held those lands, receiving a 
 third part of their value in the first instance, but 
 who is found as an hereditary married lay abbat 
 during the period named ; e. (/. Crinan, the Abbat 
 of Dunkeld, who was grandfather of Shakspeare’s 
 Duncan, and one Dunchad, also Abbat of Dunkeld, 
 who died in battle a.d. 961. The case was the 
 same at Abernethy and at Applecross. The spi¬ 
 ritual duties devolved upon the bishop and a 
 prior. See also Du Cange (voc. Advocatus), for 
 a similar process although to a less degree on the 
 Continent. In Ireland, the Comarb, or similar 
 hereditary abbat (or bishop), retained his spiritual 
 character (Todd, St. Patrick, pp. 155 sq.). The 
 lay abbats in Northumbria, denounced by Baeda 
 {Epist. ad E jhert.), were simply fraudulent imi¬ 
 tations of abbats in the proper sense of the word. 
 An entirely like result, however, and to as wide 
 an extent during Carlovingian times as in Scot¬ 
 land, ensued abroad from a difierent cause, 
 viz., from the system of commendation [COM- 
 MEXDa]; which began in the time of Charles 
 Martel (a.d. 717—741, being approved by Cone. 
 Leptin. A.D. 743 ; Cone. Suession., A.D. 744; and 
 see Baron, in an. 889, n. 31), with the plausible 
 object of temporarily employing monastic re¬ 
 venues for the pressing needs of warfare with 
 Saracens, Saxons, or other heathens, care being 
 taken to reserve enough to keep up the monas¬ 
 tery proper. The nobleman, or the king himself, 
 who led the troops thus raised, became titular 
 abbat. And in Carlovingian times, accordingly, 
 most of the great Frank and Burgundian nobles 
 and kings, and sometimes even bishops (e. g. 
 Hatto of Mainz, a.d. 891-912, who enjoyed the 
 reputation of holding twelve abbeys at once), 
 were titular abbats of some great monastery, as 
 of St. Denys or St. Martin, held for life or even 
 by inheritance ; the revenues of which were soon 
 diverted to purposes less patriotic than that of 
 supplying the king with soldiers (see a short 
 list by way of specimen in Gieselei', ii. p. 411, 
 note 1, F.ng. Tr.). In the East a like system aj)- 
 peai's to have grown up, although hardly from 
 the same origin, some centuries later ; Jolfn, Pa¬ 
 triarch of Antioch, at the beginning of the 12th 
 century, informing us that most monasteries in 
 his time were handed over to laymen (xapto-ro- 
 Kapioi = heneficiarii), for life or for two or three 
 descents, by gift of the emperors; while Balsamon 
 (ad Cone. Eicaen. c. 13) actually condemns him 
 for condemning the practice. Later abuses of the 
 kind in the West, as in the time of Francis 
 I. of France or of Louis XIV., need here be only 
 alluded to. 
 
 (Bingham; Bulteau, Hist. Mon. d'Orient; Du 
 Cange; Ant. Dadini, Ascetic, seu Origg, Rei Monas- 
 
 ABBESS 7 
 
 tic.; Ferraris ; Helyot, Hist, des Ordr, Mon.; Her¬ 
 zog ; Hospinian, He Monach.; Macri FF., Hiero~ 
 lexic. ; Martene, He Antiq. Monach. Pitihus ; ^lar- 
 tigny ; Montalembert, Monks of the West; Tho- 
 massin. He Benefic. ; Van Espen.) [A. W. IL] 
 
 ABBATISSA. [Abbess.] 
 
 ABBESS. (Abbatissa found in inscript, of 
 a.d. 569, in Mui'ator. 429. 3, also called Anti- 
 stita and Majorissa, the female superior of a body 
 of nuns; among the Greeks,'H7ou/r€VT?,’Apx‘" 
 fxavSpTriSf Archimandritissa, Justinian, Novell., 
 ’Afxfjias or mother, Pallad., Hist. Bans., c. 42, in . 
 the time of Pachomius, Mater monasterii or moni- 
 alium, see St. Greg. M., Hial. IV. 13 [where 
 “ Mater ” stands simply for a nun] ; Cone. 
 Mogunt. A.D. 813; Aquisgr., a.d. 816, lib. ii.). 
 In most points subject to the same laws as ab¬ 
 bats, mutatis mutandis ; —elective, and for life 
 (triennial abbesses belonging to years so late as 
 A.D. 1565, 1583); and solemnly admitted by the 
 bishop— Benedictio Abbatissae (thsii for an abbess 
 monasticam regulam proftentem, capit. ex Canone 
 Theodori Anglorum Eqnscopi, is in the Ordo Eo- 
 manus, p. 164, Hittorp.); and in Fi’ance re¬ 
 stricted to one monastery apiece (Cone. Vern. a.d. 
 755); and with Praepositae, and like subordinates, 
 to assist them (Cone. Aquisgr., a.d. 816, lib. ii. 
 cc. 24-26); and bound to obey the bishop in all 
 things, whether abbesses of Monachae or of Cano- 
 nicae (^Conc. Cabillon. ii. a.d. 813, c. 65) ; and sub¬ 
 ject to be deprived for misconduct, but in this 
 case upon report of the bishop to the king (Gone. 
 Franco/. A.D. 791) ; bound also to give account of 
 monastic property to both king and bishop {Cone. 
 Vern., A.D. 755); entitled to absolute obedience 
 and possessed of ample powers of discipline, even 
 to expulsion, subject however to the bishop (Gone. 
 Aquisgr. A.D. 816, lib. ii.) ; and save only that 
 while an abbat could, an abbess could not, excom¬ 
 municate (Honorius III,, cap. Hilecta, tit. de Ma¬ 
 jor. et Obedientia) ; neither could she give the veil 
 or (as some in France appear to have tried to 
 do) ordain {Capitul. Car. M. an. 789, c. 74, 
 Anseg. 71); present even at Councils in England 
 (see Abbat, and compare Lingard, Antiq. i. 
 139 ; Kemble, Antiq. ii. 198 ; quoted by Mont¬ 
 alembert, Alonks of Besf, v. 230, Engl. Tr.). 
 While, however, a bishop was necessary to 
 admit and bless an abbat, Theodore ruled 
 in England, although the rule did not become 
 permanent, that a presbyter was sufficient in like 
 case for an abbess {Poenit. II. iii. 4, in Wasserschl., 
 p. 203). The limitation to forty years old at elec¬ 
 tion is as late as the Council of Trent; Gregory 
 the Great speaks of sixty {Epist. iv. 11). An 
 abbess also was not to leave her monastery, in 
 France, .save once a year if summoned by the 
 king with the bishop’s consent to the king’s 
 presence upon monastic business (Cone. Vern. 
 A.D. 755; Cabillon. ii. a.d. 813, c. 57). Neither 
 was she even to speak to any man save upon 
 necessary business, and then before witnesses 
 and between the first hour of the day and 
 evening (Cone. Cabillon. ii. A.D. 813, cc. 55, 
 56). For the exceptional cases of Anglo-Saxon, 
 Irish, or Continental Irish, abbesses ruling 
 over mixed houses of monks and nuns, see 
 Abbat. It was noted also as a specially 
 Western custom, that widows as well as virgin* 
 were made abbesses (Theod., Pocnit. II. iii. 7, in 
 Wasserschl. p. 204). [A. W. II.] 
 
8 
 
 ABBEY 
 
 ABJURATION 
 
 ABBEY. [Monastkuy.] 
 
 ABBUNA, the tnmmon appellation of the 
 Bishop, Meti-an, or Metropolitan, of Axum, or 
 Abyssinia, or Ethiopia, not a patriarch, but, on 
 the contrary, appointed and consecrated always 
 by the patriarch of Alexandria, and specially 
 forbidden to have more than seven suffragan 
 bishops under him, lest he should make himself 
 so, twelve bishops being held to be the lowest 
 canonical number for the consecration of a patri¬ 
 arch. In a Council, if held in Greece, he occu¬ 
 pied the seventh place, immediately after the 
 prelate of Seleucia. (Ludolf, Hist. Ethiop. 
 iii. 7.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 ABDELLA, martyr in Persia under Sapor, 
 commemorated Apr. 21 (^Martyr. Rom. Vet.'). [C.] 
 
 ABDIANUS, of Africa, commemorated June 
 3 (J/ari. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ABDON, Abdo or Abdus, and SENNEN, 
 Sennes, or Sennis, Persian princes, martyred at 
 Rome under Decius, a.d. 250, are commemorated 
 July 30 {Martyrologium Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis^. 
 Proper office in Gregorian Sacramentary, p. IIG ; 
 and Antiphon in the Lib. Antqyhon. p. 704. 
 
 It is related (Adonis Martyrol. iii. Kal. Aug.) 
 that their relics were translated in the time of 
 Constantine to the cemetery of Pontianus. There 
 Bosio discovered a remarkable fresco, represent¬ 
 ing the Lord, seen from the waist upward emerg¬ 
 ing from a cloud, placing wreaths on the heads 
 of SS. Abdon and Sennen (see woodcut). This is 
 
 A bdon and Sennen. (Fi om the cemetery of Pontianns.) 
 
 in front of the vault enclosing the supposed 
 remains of the martyrs, which bears the inscrip¬ 
 tion [depositi]ONIS die. The painting is, in 
 Martigny’s opinion, not earlier than the seventh 
 century. It is remarkable that the painter has 
 evidently made an attempt to represent the Per¬ 
 sian dress. The saints wear pointed caps or 
 hoods, similar to those in which the Magi are 
 sometimes represented; cloaks fastened with a 
 fibula on the breast; and tunics of skin entirely 
 unlike the Roman tunic, and resembling that 
 given to St. John Baptist in a fresco of the 
 Lord’s Baptism in the same cemetery of Ponti¬ 
 anus (Bottari, Sculture e Pitture, tav. xliv.). 
 Some account of the peculiar dress of Abdon and 
 Sennen may be found in Laroi’s treatise Be Eru- 
 ditione Apostolorum, pp. 121-166. 
 
 The gesture of the Lord, crowning the martyrs 
 
 for tlieir cou.stancy, is found also on the bottoms 
 of early Chri.stian cups [Glas.S, Chp.istian], 
 where He crowns SS. Peter and Paul, and 
 other saints (Buonarruoti, Vasi Antichi, tav. 
 XV. fig. 1, and elsewhere); and on coins of the 
 Lower Empire the Lord is not uufrequently 
 seen crowning two emperors. (Martigny, Diet, 
 des Antiq. chretiennes. ] [c.] 
 
 ABECEDARIAN. The term “ Hymnus ” or 
 “ Paean Abecedarius” is applied specially to the 
 hymn of Sedulius, “A solis ortus cardiue.” 
 [Acrostic.] [C.] 
 
 ABERCIUS of Jerusalem, tVaTrJcrToAoy 
 davy.aTovpybs, commemorated Oct. 22 (Cal. 
 Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 ABGARUS, King, commemorated Dec. 21 
 (Cal. Armen.). [C.] 
 
 ABIBAS, martyr of Edessa, commemorated 
 Nov. 15 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ABIBON, invention of his relics at Jerusa¬ 
 lem, Aug. 3 (Martyrol. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ABILIUS, bishop of Alexandria (a.d. 86-96), 
 commemorated Feb. 22 (Martyrol. Rom. Vet.)’, 
 Maskarram 1 = Aug. 29 (Cal. Ethiop.). [C.] 
 
 ABJURATION —denial, disavowal, or re¬ 
 nunciation upon oath. Abjuration, in common 
 ecclesiastical language, is restricted to the renun¬ 
 ciation of heresy made by the penitent heretic 
 on the occasion of his reconciliation to the Church. 
 In some cases the abjuration was the only cere¬ 
 mony required; but in others it was followed 
 up by the imposition of hands and by unction. 
 The practice of the ancient Church is described 
 by St. Gregory the Great in a letter to Quiricus 
 and the bishops of Iberia on the reconciliation 
 of the Nestorians. According to this, in cases in 
 wliich the heretical baptism was imperfect, the 
 rule was that the penitent should be baptized ; 
 but when it was complete, as in the case of the 
 Arians, the custom of the Eastern Church was 
 to reconcile by the Chrism ; that of the Western, 
 by the imposition of hands. As, however, the 
 mvsterv of the Chrism was but the Oriental rite 
 
 m •/ 
 
 of Confirmation, the practice was substantially 
 identical. (On the question of Re-baptism, see 
 Re-Baptism, Baptism.) Converts from the 
 Monophysites were received after simple confes¬ 
 sion, and the previous baptism was supposed to 
 take effect “ for the remission of sins,” at the 
 m.oment at which the Spirit was imparted by 
 the imposition of hands; or the convert was re¬ 
 united to the Church by his profession of faith 
 (St. Greg. Ep. 9, 61). A similar rule is laid 
 down by the Quinisext Council, canon 95, which 
 classes with the Arians, the ^lacedonians, Nova- 
 tians and others, to be received with the Chrism. 
 The Paulianists, Montanists, Eunomians, and 
 others, are to be re-baptized; to be received as 
 Christians, on their profession, the first day, as 
 Catechumens the second, and after they have 
 been allowed a place in the Church as hearers 
 for some time, to be baptized. In all cases, the 
 profession of faith must be made by the pre¬ 
 sentation of a libellus, or form of abjuration, in 
 which the convert renounced and anathematized 
 his former tenets. After declaring his abjura¬ 
 tion not to be made on compulsion, from fear or 
 any other unworthy motive, he proceeded tc 
 anathematize the sect renounced, by all its 
 
I 
 
 ABLUTION 
 
 names ; the neresiarchs, and their successors, past, 
 present, and future; he then enumerated the 
 tenets received by them, and, having repudiated 
 them singly and generally, he ended with making 
 profession of the true faith. (Bandinius, Monu- 
 •tnenta ii. 109-111. But for the whole subject see 
 Martene and Durand, De Antiquis Ecclesiae liiti- 
 bus II. liber iii. ch. G ; Ahj. de levi et de vehementi, 
 later date. See Landon’s EccL Die.') [D. B.] 
 
 ABLUTION. A term under which various 
 kinds of ceremonial washing are included. The 
 principal are the following: the washing of the 
 head, as a pi-eparation for unction in baptism, 
 and the washing of the feet, which in some 
 places formed part of the baptismal ceremony 
 [Baptism] ; the washing of the feet of the poor 
 by exalted persons, which forms part of the cere¬ 
 mony of Maundy Thursday [Feet, washing of]; 
 the lustral ceremony which preceded entrance to a 
 church [Canthauus; Holy Water]; and the 
 washing of the priest’s hands at certain points 
 in the celebration of the liturgy [Aquamanile ; 
 Hands, washing of]. [C.] 
 
 ABORTION. —The crime of procuring abor¬ 
 tion is little, if at all, noticed in the earliest 
 laws. It is a crime of civilization: the repre¬ 
 sentative of the principle which in a barbarous 
 state of society is infanticide. The nation of 
 Lysias which was pronounced on occasion of a 
 suit on this subject is lost, so that it cannot be 
 decided whether the act was regarded by the 
 Athenians as an offence against society, or merely 
 as a private wrong. It is in the latter aspect 
 that it is chiefly regarded in the civil law. The 
 child unborn represents certain interests, and his 
 life or death may be beneficial or injurious to 
 individuals: thus, it may have been, that a 
 father, by his wife’s crime, might lose the jus 
 trium liberorum. The case quoted from Cicero 
 pro Cluentio (Dig. xlviii. 19, 39), in which a 
 woman was condemned to death for having pro¬ 
 cured abortion, having been bribed by the second 
 heir, is clearly exceptional. The only passage 
 in the civil law in which the crime is mentioned 
 without such connexion, is a sentence of Ulpian, 
 in the Pandects (Dig. xlviii. 8, 8, ad legem Cor¬ 
 nelian! de Sicariis), where the punishment is 
 declared to be banishment. The horrible preva¬ 
 lence of the practice among the Romans of the 
 Empire may be learned from Juvenal. 
 
 It was early made a ground of accusation by 
 the Christians against the heathen. Tertullian 
 denounces the practice as homicidal. “ Pre¬ 
 vention of birth is a precipitation of murder,” 
 Aj)ol. ix. Minucius Felix declares it to be par¬ 
 ricide. 
 
 The Council of Ancyra (a.d. 314) having men¬ 
 tioned that the ancient punishment was penance 
 for life, proceeds to limit it to ten years; and 
 the same space of time is given by St. Basil, who 
 condemns the practice in two canons, ii. andviii., 
 alleging the character of the crime as committed 
 against both the mother and the offspring ; and 
 declining to accept the distinctions drawn by 
 the lawyers between the degrees of criminality 
 varying with the time of the gestation. The 
 Council of Lerida (324) classes the crime with 
 infanticide, but allows the mother to be received 
 to Communion after seven years’ penance even 
 when her sin is complicated with adultery. The 
 Council in Trullo condemns it to the penance 
 
 ABSTINENCE 9 
 
 of homicide. Pope Gregory III. in the next 
 century reverts to the ten years’ penance, al- 
 thousrh he differs from St. Basil in moditVinsr the 
 
 V O 
 
 sentence to a single vear in cases where the 
 child has not been formed in the womb; this is 
 based on Exod. xxi., and is countenanced by St. 
 Augustine, in Quaestiones Exodi, in a passage in¬ 
 corporated by Gratian. 
 
 There is thus abundant evidence that the crime 
 was held in extreme abhorrence, and punished 
 with great severity, as pertaining to wilful 
 murder, by the canons of the Church. By the 
 Visigothic law (lib. VI. tit. iii. c. 1), the person 
 who administered a draught for the ])urpose 
 was punished with death. [D. B.] 
 
 ABRAHAM. (1) the patriarch, comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 9 (^Martyrol. Eoin. Vet.). Also on 
 the 23rd of the month Nahasse, equivalent to 
 August 16. {Cal. Ethiop. ; Neale, Eastern Church, 
 Tut rod. pp. 805, 815.) 
 
 (2) Patriarch and maj-tyr, commemorated 
 Taksas 6 = Dec. 2 {Cal. Ethiop.). [C.] 
 
 ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB are 
 commemorated by the Ethiopic Church on the 
 28th of every month of their Calendar. [C.] 
 
 ABRAXAS GEMS. [See Abrasax in 
 Dict. of Christ. Biogr.] 
 
 ABREHA, first Chj-istian king of Ethio¬ 
 pia, commemorated Tekemt 4 = Oct. 1 {Cal. 
 Ethiop.). [C.] 
 
 ABRENUNTIATIO. [Baptism.] 
 
 ABSOLUTION Absolutio). (For Sacra¬ 
 mental Absolution, see Exomologesis.) 
 
 1. A short deprecation which follows the 
 Psalms of each Nocturn in the ordinary offices 
 for the Hours. In this usage, the word “ abso- 
 lutio ” perhaps denotes simply “ ending ” or “com¬ 
 pletion,” because the monks, when the Nocturns 
 were said at the proper hours of the night, broke 
 off the chant at this point and went to rest 
 (Macri Hierolexicon s. v.). In foct, of the “ Ab- 
 solutiones ” in the present Roman Breviary, only 
 one (that “ in Tertio Nocturno, et pro feria iv. 
 et Sabbato ”) contains a prayer for absolution, 
 in the sense of a setting free from sin. 
 
 2. For the Absolution which follows the intro¬ 
 ductory Confession in most Liturgies and Offices^ 
 see Confession. 
 
 3. The prayer for Absolution at the beginning 
 of the office is, in Oriental Liturgies, addressed 
 to the Son : but many of the.se liturgies contain 
 a second “ Oratio Absolutionis,” at some point 
 between Consecration and Communion, which is 
 addressed to the Father. For example, that in 
 the Greek St. Basil (Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 81), 
 addressing God, the Father Almighty (6 0eds, 
 6 riaTTjp b UauTOKpaTu p), and reciting the pro¬ 
 mise of the Keys, prays Him to dismiss, remit 
 and pardon our sins {Itres, depes, avyx^pVf^ou 
 ypur). Compare the Coptic St. Basil {lb. i. 22). 
 
 4. The word “ Ab.solutio ” is also applied to 
 
 those prayers said over a corpse or a tomb in 
 which remission of the sins of the departed is 
 entreated from the Almighty. (Macri Jliero- 
 lexicon, s. V.) [C.] 
 
 ABSTINENCE. Days of abstinence, as they 
 are called, on which ])ersons may take their 
 meals at the ordinary hour, and eat and drink 
 what they please, in any quantity so that they 
 
JO 
 
 ABUNA 
 
 ACCENTUS ECCLESIASTICUS 
 
 abstain from meat alone, belong to modern times. 
 Anciently, fasting and abstinence went together, 
 as a general rule, formed parts of the same idea, 
 and could not be dissevered. There may have 
 been some few, possibly, who ate and drank in¬ 
 discriminately, when they broke their fast, as 
 Socrates (v. 22, 10) seems to imply; but in 
 general, beyond doubt, abstinence from certain 
 kinds of food was observed on fasting days when 
 the fast was over, “ abstinentes ab iis, quae non 
 rejicimus, sed differimus,” as Tertullian says 
 (Z><? Jejun. 15). Thus it will be more properly 
 considered under the head of fasting, to which 
 it subserved. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ABUNA. [Abbuna.] 
 
 ABUNDANTIUS, of Alexandria, commemo¬ 
 rated Feb. 26 (^2Iart. Hicron2). [C.] 
 
 ABUNDIUS. (1) Martyr at Home under 
 Decius, commemorated Aug. 26 (^Mart. Horn. Vet. 
 et Bedac); Aug. 23 (^3Iart. Hieronym.'). 
 
 ( 2 ) The deacon, martyr at Spoleto under Dio¬ 
 cletian, Dec. 10 (^Martyrol. Rom. Vet.'). [C.] 
 
 ACACIUS, martyr, commemorated May 7 
 (Ca/. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ACATHISTUS (Gr. aKdeicrros). A hymn of 
 the Greek Church, sung on the eve of the fifth 
 Sunday in Lent, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, 
 to whose intercession the deliverance of Constan¬ 
 tinople from the barbarians on three several oc¬ 
 casions was attributed. Meursius assigns its 
 origin more especially to the deliverance of the 
 city from Chosroes, king of the Persians, in the 
 reign of the Emperor Heraclius (626). It is 
 called aKaOiCTTos, because during the singing of 
 it the whole congregation stood, while during 
 the singing of other hymns of the same kind 
 they occasionally sat. (Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v.; 
 Neale’s Eastern Ch. Introd. 747 ; Daniel’s Codex 
 Liturg. iv. 223.) 
 
 Francis Junius wrongly supposed this use of 
 the Acathistus to commemorate the journey of 
 Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. (Macri Hiero- 
 Icxicon, s. V.) 
 
 The word Acathistus is also used to designate 
 the day on which the hymn was used. (Sabae 
 Typkum, in Suicer, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 ACCENTUS ECCLESIASTICUS. One of 
 the two principal kinds (accentus and concentus) 
 of ecclesiastical music. 
 
 1. The consideration of this subject is encum¬ 
 bered by an especial difficulty—the popular, and 
 now all but exclusive application of the word 
 “ accent ” to emphasis, stress, or ictus. Accent, 
 however, claims and admits of a much wfider 
 application. Ben Jonson “ speaks of accent as 
 being “ with the ancients, a tuning of the voice, 
 in lifting it up, or letting it down,”—a defini¬ 
 tion not only clear and concise, but thoroughly 
 accordant with the derivation of the word 
 “ accent,” from accino, \.q. ad cano, to sing to. 
 We are ail conscious of and affected by the 
 varieties of accent ^ (in this, its etymological 
 and primitive acceptation) in foreign languages 
 spoken by those to Avhom they are native, as 
 well as in our native language spoken by fo¬ 
 reigners, or (perhaps still more) by residents of 
 
 » Er.glish Grammar, 1640, chap. viii. 
 
 >■' " Esl in dicendo etiam quidara cantus obscurior.”— 
 Cicero, Orat. 18, 57. 
 
 parts of Great Britain other than our own. The 
 Scottish, Irish, and various provincial accents, 
 are not so much the re.sult of difierent vocaliza¬ 
 tion (i.e. utterance of vowel sounds) as of the 
 different gradations in which the Scotch, Irish, 
 and others, “ tune their voices.” 
 
 2. The Accentus Ecclesiasticus, called also mo¬ 
 dus choraliter legendd, is the result of successive 
 attempts to ensure in Public Worship uniformity 
 of delivery consistent with uniformity of matter 
 delivered; so as, if not to obliterate, at least to 
 hide individual peculiarities under the veil of a 
 catholic “ use.” It presents a sort of mean be¬ 
 tween speech and song, continually inclining to¬ 
 wards the latter, never altogether leaving its 
 hold on the former ; it is speech, though always 
 attuned speech, in passages of average interest 
 and importance ; it is song, though always dis¬ 
 tinct and articulate song, in passages demanding 
 more fervid utterance. Though actually musical 
 only in concluding or culminating phrases, the 
 Accentus Ecclesiasticus is always sufficiently iso¬ 
 chronous to admit of its being expressed in musi¬ 
 cal characters, a process to which no attempt 
 (and such attempts have been repeatedly made) 
 has ever succeeded in subjecting pure speech. 
 
 3. Accentus is probably the oldest, as it is cer¬ 
 tainly the simplest, form of Cantus Ecclesiasticus. 
 Like most art-forms and modes of operation 
 which have subsequently commended themselves 
 on their own acccant to our sense of beauty, it 
 grew in all likelihood out of a physical difficulty. 
 The limited capacit) of the so-called “natural” 
 or speaking voice must have been ascertained at 
 a very early period; indeed its recognition is 
 confirmed by the well-known_:|»a^ce whether 
 of the ancient temple, theatre, ord^rem. The old 
 rhetoricians, says Forkel, are, without exception, 
 of the same way of thinking; and we may, from 
 their extant works, confidently conclude, that 
 neither among the Greeks nor the Romans was 
 poetry ever recited but in a tone analogous to 
 that since known as the accentus ecclesiasticus. 
 The Abbe du Bos'* too has demonstrated that 
 not only was the theatrical recitation of the 
 ancients actually musical—“ un veritable chant,” 
 susceptible of musical notation, and even of in¬ 
 strumental accompaniment—but that all their 
 public discourses, and CA'en thoir familiar lan¬ 
 guage, though of course in a lesser degree, par¬ 
 took of this character. 
 
 4. The advantages resulting from the employ¬ 
 ment of isochronous sounds (sounds which are 
 the result of equal-timed vibrations) would be¬ 
 come apparent on the earliest occa.siou, when a 
 single orator was called upon to fill a large 
 auditorium, and to make himself intelligible, or 
 even audible, to a large assembly. So, too, for 
 simultaneous expression on the part of large num¬ 
 bers, these advantages would at once make them¬ 
 selves felt. In congregational worship a uniform 
 (technically, a “unisonous”) utterance might 
 seem as essential, as conducive to the decency 
 and order with which we are enjoined to do “ all 
 
 c •• Die alien Sprach- und Declamations-Lehror sind 
 saninitlich eben derselben Meinung, und wir konnen ans 
 ihren hinterlassenen AVerken mil deni hdchsten Grad von 
 Wahrscheinlichkeit SQliliesscn, dass sowohl hei den Grle- 
 chen als Romern die meisten Gedicbte mil keiner andem 
 als mit dieser Art von Gesang gesungen werden sein.”— 
 Forkel, AUgrm. Geschichtu der Alimk, ii, 163. 
 
 d Eejicxions sur la Foesie, &c. 
 
ACCENTUS ECCLESIASTICUS 
 
 things,” as is that still more essential uniformity 
 expressed in the term Common Prayer, without 
 which, indeed, congregational worship would seem 
 to be impossible. “ Accent,” says Ornithoparcus, 
 “ hath great affinity with Concent, for they be 
 Brothers : because Somis, or Sound (the King of 
 Ecclesiastical Harmony), is Father to them both, 
 and begat one upon Grammar, the other upon 
 Musick,” &c. (He) “so divided his kingdome, 
 that Concentus might be chief Ruler over all 
 things tnat are to be sung, as Hymnes, Sequences, 
 Antijdiones, Responsories, Introitus, Tropes, and 
 the like : and Accentus over all things which are 
 read; as Gospels, Lectures, Epistles, Orations, 
 Prophecies: For the functions of the Papale 
 Kingdome are not duely performed without Con¬ 
 cent” kc. “ Hence it was that I, marking how 
 many of those Priests (which by the leave of the 
 learned I will saye) doe reade those things they 
 have to reade so -wildly, so monstrously, so 
 faultily (that they doe not onely hinder the de¬ 
 votion of the faithful, but also even provoke 
 them to laughter and scorning, with their ill 
 reading), resolved after the doctidne of Concent 
 to explain the rules of Accent; in as much as it 
 belongs to a Musitian, that together with Con¬ 
 cent, Accent might also as true heire in this 
 Ecclesiasticall Kingdome be established : Desiring 
 that the praise of the highest King, to whom all 
 honour and reverence is due, might duely be 
 performed.” ® 
 
 5. The Accentus Ecclesiasticus, or modus cho- 
 raliter leyendi, must have been perpetuated by 
 tradition only, for many ages. That the miles 
 for its application have been reduced to writing 
 only in comparatively modern times does not in 
 the least invalidate its claim to a high antiquity. 
 On the contrary, it tends to confirm it. That 
 which is extensively known and univei’sally ad¬ 
 mitted has no need of verification. It is only 
 when traditions are dying out that they begin to 
 be put on record. So long as this kind of reci¬ 
 tation was perfectly familiar to the Greeks and 
 Romans there could be no necessity for “noting” 
 it; not till it began to be less so were “ accents ” 
 (the characters so called) invented for its pre¬ 
 servation,—just as the “ vowel-points ” were 
 introduced into Hebrew writing subsequently to 
 the dispersion of the Jews. The force and accu¬ 
 racy of tradition, among those unaccustomed to : 
 the use of written characters, have been well 
 ascertained and must be unhesitatingly admitted ; 
 their operation has certainly been as valuable in 
 music as in poetry and history. Strains incom¬ 
 parably longer and more intricate than those now 
 accepted as the ecclesiastical accents have been 
 passed on from voice to voice, with probably but 
 trilling alteration, for centuries, among peoj)les 
 who had no other method of preserving and ; 
 transmitting them. 
 
 6. The authorities for the application of the 
 Cantus Ecclesiasticus are, as we have said, com¬ 
 paratively modern. Lucas Lossius,^ a writer 
 frequently quoted by Walther, Kock, and other 
 more recent musical theorists, gives six forms of i 
 cadence or close, i.e., modes of bringing to an j 
 end a phrase the earlier portion of which had 
 been recited in monotone. According to Lossius, 
 
 « Andreas Ornithopavcus, Ills Micrologus. Translated 
 by John I lowland. 1609. P.69. 
 
 * Erotemala Alusicae Practical, 1590. 
 
 ACCENTUS ECCLESIASTICUS 11 
 
 accent is (1) vmnutabilis when a phrase is con¬ 
 cluded without any change of pitch, i.e., when it 
 is monotonous throughout; (2) it is medius when 
 on the last syllable the voice falls from the 
 reciting note (technically the dominant) a third ; 
 (.3) gravis, when on the last syllable it falls a 
 fifth ; (4) acutus, when the “ dominant,” after the 
 interposition of a few notes at a lower pitch, is 
 resumed; (5) moderatus, when the monotone is 
 interrupted by an ascent, on the penultimate, of 
 a second; (6) interrogativus, when the voice, 
 after a slight descent, rises scale-wise on the last 
 syllable. To these six forms other writers add 
 one more, probably of more recent adoption; 
 (7) the finalis, when the voice, after rising a 
 second above the dominant, falls scale-wise to 
 the fourth below it, on which the last svllable is 
 sounded. The choice of these accents or cadences 
 is regulated by the punctuation (possible, if not 
 always actual) of the passage recited ; each par¬ 
 ticular stop had its particular cadence or cadences. 
 Thus the comma (distinctid) was indicated and 
 accompanied by the accentus irnmutabilis, acutus, 
 or moderatus ; the colon {duo jmneta') by the 
 medius; and the full stop {punctum quadratum 
 ante sgllabarn capitaleni) by the gravis. 
 
 7. The following table, from Lossius, exhibits 
 the several accents, in musical notation:— 
 
 (l) Immutabilis. 
 
 Lec»- ti - o E - pis - to - lae 8;inc - tl Pau - li. 
 (2) Medius. 
 
 et o - pe - ra - tur vir - tu - tes in vo - bis: 
 (3) Gravis. 
 
 Be - ne - di- cen-tur in te om-nes gen-tes. 
 
 Cum spi -ri - tu coe - pe - ri - tis nunc, Cum fi-de - li, 
 
 11 
 
 (6) Interrogativus. 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 S- * ** 
 
 n 
 
 ex op-e-ri-bus le-gis an exau-di-tu fi-de - i? 
 
 (7) Finalis. 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 4l - " 
 
 a - ni - ma me - a ad te De - us. 
 
 The examples given by Ornithoparcus are similar 
 to the above, with two exceptions— (o); the Mode¬ 
 ratus, w^hich in ‘ His Micrologus ’ appears thus : 
 
 J1 - lu - mi - na • re Je - ru - sa - lem. 
 
 And the Interrogativus, of which he says : “ A 
 speech with an interrogation, whether it have in 
 the end a word of one sillable, or of two sillables, 
 or more, the accent still falls upon the last sil¬ 
 lable, and must be acuated. Now the signs of 
 such a speech are, who, which, what, and those 
 which are thus derived, u'/t//, wherefore, when, 
 how, in what sort, whether, and such like.” 
 
12 
 
 ACC^ESS 
 
 ACLEENSE CONCILIUM 
 
 Un - de es tu ? Quid tst ho • mo? 
 
 • Quantas ha- be - o In - i -qui- La-tcs et pec - ca - ta ? 
 
 “ To these are joyned verbes of asking; as, 
 I aske, f seeke^ I require, I sear cite, I heare, [see, 
 and the like,” 
 
 Some variations too from the above, in the 
 present Homan use, are noticed by Mendelssohn 
 e.g. in the Gravis, where there the voice rises a 
 tone above the dominant, on the penultimate, 
 before falling :— 
 
 changing the cadence from a fifth (compare 5) 
 to a sixth ; and in the Interrogaticus, where the 
 voice falls from the dominant (also on the penul¬ 
 timate) a third ;— 
 
 To the accentus belong the following forms, or 
 portions of offices of the Latin Church (1) 
 Tonus CoUectarum seu Orationum. (2) Tonus 
 Epistolarum et EvangelU, including the melodies 
 to which the Passion is sung in I’assion Week. 
 
 wish or injunction; as, VIVAS IN DEO fMura- 
 tori, Eiesaurus Vet. Inscrip. 19.54, no. 4). By 
 far the greater part of these acclamations are 
 sepulchral [Epitaph], but similar sentences are 
 also seen on amulets, on the bottoms of cups 
 [Glass, Christian] found in the Catacombs, and 
 on gems. (See the Articles.) 
 
 2. The term acclamation is also sometimes 
 applied to the resiionsive cry or chant of the 
 congregation in antiphonal singing. Compare 
 Acrostic (§ 5); Antiphon, [C.] 
 
 ACCUSEHS, FALSE; HOW PUNISHED. 
 —Those who made false accusations against any 
 person were visited wifh severe jmnishments 
 under the canons of several councils. 
 
 In Spain. The Council of llliberis (a.d. 305 
 or 30G) refused communion even at the hour of 
 death (“in fine,” al. “in finem ”) to any person 
 who should falsely accuse any bishop, 2 )Tiest, or 
 deacon (can. 75). 
 
 In France. By the 14th canon of the 1st 
 Council of Arles (a.d. 314) tho.se who falsely 
 accuse their brethren were excommunicated for 
 life (“ usque ad exitum ”). This canon was re¬ 
 enacted at the 2nd Council held at the same 
 city (a.d. 443), but permission was given for the 
 restoration of those who should do penance and 
 give satisfaction commensurate with their 
 offence (can. 24). See also Calumnv. [J. B.] 
 
 (3) Tonus Lectionum solemnis et luguhris ; Fro- 
 phetiarum et Martyrologii. (4) Various forms 
 of Intonation, Benediction, and Absolution used 
 in the Liturgy. (5) Single verses. (6) The 
 Exclamations and Admonitions of the assistants at 
 the altar. (7) The Prefaces; the Pater Foster, 
 with its Pi-efaces; the Benediction, Pax Domini 
 sit semper vobiscum. [J. H.] 
 
 AGOHSS. 1. The approach of the priest to 
 the altar for the celebration of the Eucharist. 
 Hence the expression “ prayer of access ” is used 
 as equivalent to the Eox’? Trapacrdaews, or 
 prayer of the jiriest’s presenting himself at the 
 altar, in the Greek Liturgy of St. James (Neale’s 
 Eastern Church, Introduction, i. 360). 
 
 2. But the expre.ssion “ prayer of access,” or 
 “prayer of humble access,” is more commonly 
 used by English liturgical writers to designate 
 a confession of unworthine.ss in the sight of God, 
 occurring at a later point of the service; gene¬ 
 rally between consecration and communion. So 
 that the “ prayer of humble acce.ss ” corresponds 
 to the “Prayer of Inclination” or “of bowing 
 the neck ” in the Greek Liturgies. Though 
 words more expressive of “ humble access ” 
 occur in other places; for instance, 'n the Greek 
 St. James, where the priest declares : iZov irpos- 
 7iXdov rev deicf rovrcf Kal iirovpaviq} fj.v(TTt]piu) 
 ovx d^ios vTrdpx(*>r (Daniel’s Codex Lit., iv. 
 88); in the Llozarabic, “Accedain ad Te in 
 humilitate sjnritus mei ” (A. i. 71) ; or in the 
 “ Domine et Deus noster, ne asjiicias ad multitu- 
 dinem peccatorum nostrorum” in the Liturgy of 
 Adaeus and Maris (/6. i. 176). Compare CON- 
 FES.SION. [C.] 
 
 ACCLAMATION. 1. A term applied by 
 opigra 2 )hists to certain short inscriptions, ex¬ 
 pressed in the second person, and containing a 
 
 V lieisebriefe aus den Jahren 1830 bis 1832, p. 167. 
 
 ^ Khau, Enchiridion, 1538 ; quoted by Arrey von 
 Donnner; VLoch’s Musikalisches Lezilcon. 
 
 ACEPSIMAS, commemorated Nov. 3 (Cal. 
 Bjfzant.) ; Nov. 5 (Cal. Armoi.) ; April 22 
 (Mart. Pom.). [C.] 
 
 ACEREA or ACERNA. (The latter is 
 possibly the original form, from Acer, maple.) 
 Acerra designated, in cla.ssical times, either the 
 incense-box used in sacrifices ; ora small altar, or 
 incense-burner, placed before the dead. (Smith’s 
 Diet, of Greek and Poman Antiquities, s. v.) And 
 in ecclesiastical latinity also it designates either 
 an incense-box or an incense-burner; “ Area 
 thuris, vel thuribulum, A'el thurarium.” (Papias 
 in Ducange’s Glossary s. \. ‘ Acerna.’) 
 
 It is used in the rubrics of the Gregorian sa¬ 
 cramentary (Corbey MS.) in the office for the 
 consecration of a church (p. 428); and in the 
 ollice for the baptism of a bell (p. 438); in 
 the latter in the form Acerna: “tunc pones in- 
 censum in acerna.” In both cases it designates 
 an incense-burner or Thurihle (q. v.). [C.] 
 
 ACHAICUIM CONCILIUM.—Two synods 
 of Achaia, in Greece, are recorded : one, a.d. 250, 
 against the Valesians, who, like Origen, inter¬ 
 preted St. ]\Iatth. xix. 12, literally; the other, in 
 359, against the followers of Aetius. [A. W. H.] 
 
 ACHILLEAS (or Achillas), bi.'hop of Alex¬ 
 andria, commemorated Nov. 7 (Marturol. Pom. 
 Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ACHILIiEUS, the eunuch, martyr at Rome, 
 May 12, a.d. 96. (Martyrol. Pom. Vet., lliei'. 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ACINDYNUS PiKivZvvos) and companion.s, 
 martyrs, a.d. 346, commemorated Nov. 2 (Cal. 
 Byz.). [C.] 
 
 ACEPHALI [Vagi Clerici ; Autoce- 
 
 PlIALl]. 
 
 ACLEENSE CONCILIUM (of Aclea = 
 “ Field of the Oak,” supjiosed to be Ayclitfe, in 
 Durham; Paine’s Priory of Hexham, i. 38, note), 
 (i.) A.D. 781 (Flor. Wig. in M. II. B. 545), but 
 
ACOEMETAE 
 
 ACOLYTES 
 
 13 
 
 782 {Angl.-Sax. Chr. and H. Hunt,, ih. 336, 
 731), (ii,) A,D, 787 (Kemble, C. D., No, 151), 
 
 (iii,) A,D, 788, Sept, 29, in the year and month of 
 the murder of Elfwald of Northumbria, Sept, 21, 
 788 (Wilk, i, 153 ; Mansi, xiii, 825, 826), (iv,) 
 
 A.D, 789 (^Angl.-Sax. Chr., M. H. B. 337 “a great 
 svnod”), in "the 6th year of Brihtric, King of 
 Wessex (H. Hunt,, ib, 732), (v,) a,d, 804 (Kemble, 
 C. D.. No, 186), (vi,) A,D, 805, Aug, 6 {id. ib., 
 
 Nos, 190,191), (vii.) a.d, 810 {id. ib., No, 256), 
 Nos, ii,, V,, and vi, probably, and No, vii, cer¬ 
 tainly, were at Ockley, in Surrey; or, at any 
 rate, not in the Northuiubrian Aclea, Nothing 
 more is known of any of these synods, or ratner 
 Witenagemots, beyond the deeds (grants of lands) 
 above referred to, in Kemble. [A, W, H,] 
 
 ACOEMETAE, lit, the “ sleepless ” or “ un¬ 
 resting ” (for the theological or moral import of 
 the term v, Suicer, Thesaur. Eccl. s,v,), a so-called 
 order of monks established in the East about the 
 middle, rather than the commencement, of the 
 5th century, being altogether unnoticed by 
 Socrates and Sozomen, the latter a zealous chro¬ 
 nicler of monks and monasteries, who bring their 
 histories down to A.D, 440; yet mentioned by 
 Evagrius (iii. 19) as a regularly established order 
 in 483, Later authorities make their founder to 
 have been a certain officer of the impeidal house¬ 
 hold at Constantinople named Alexander, "who 
 quitted his post to turn monk, and after haA'ing 
 had to shift his quarters in Syria sevei’al times, 
 at length returned to Constantinople, to give 
 permanence to the system which he had already 
 commenced on the Euphrates. The first monas¬ 
 tery which he founded there Avas situated near 
 the church of St. Mennas. It Avas composed of 
 300 monks of different nations, Avhom he diA'ided 
 into six choirs, and arranged so that one of them 
 should be always emjffoyed in the Avork of prayer 
 and praise day and night Avithout intermission 
 all the year round. This Avas their peculiar cha¬ 
 racteristic—and it has been copied in various 
 ways elseAvhere since then—that some part of 
 “ the house,” as WordsAvorth {Excurs. viii. 185) 
 expresses it, “ was eA'ermore Avatching to God.” 
 Alexander having been calumniated for this 
 practice as heretical, he Avas imprisoned, but 
 regained his liberty, and died, say his biographers, 
 about A.D. 430—it might be nearer the mark to 
 say 450—in a new coiiA'ent of his OAvn founding 
 on the Dardanelles. Marcellus, the next head of 
 the order but one, brought all the zeal and 
 energy to it of a second founder ; and he doubt¬ 
 less found a poAverful supporter in Gennadius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople, a.d, 458-71, a great 
 restorer of discipline and promoter of learning 
 amongst the clergy. Then it Avas that Studius, 
 a noble Roman, and in process of time consul, 
 emigrated to Constantino])le, and conA'erted one 
 of the churches there, dedicated to St. John the 
 Baptist, into the celebrated monastery bearing 
 his name, but Avhich he peopled Avith the Acoe- 
 metae. There Avas another monastery founded by 
 St. Dius, in the reign of Theodosius the Great, 
 that also became theirs sooner or latex', to Avhich 
 Valesius {Ad. Evag. iii. 19 and 31) adds a thii'd 
 founded by St. Bassianus. It may haA^e been 
 OAving to their connexion Avith Studius that they 
 were led to correspond Avith the West. At all 
 events, on the acceptance by Acacius, the patri¬ 
 arch succeeding Gennadius, of the Henoticon of 
 the emperor Zeno, and communion with the schis¬ 
 
 matic patriarch of Alexandria, their “ hegumen,” 
 or pi'esident, Cyril lost no time in despatching 
 complaints of him to Rome ; nor Avere their 
 emissaries sIoav to accuse the legates of the Pope 
 themseh'es of having, during their stay at Con¬ 
 stantinople, held communion Avith heretics. The 
 ultimate result Avas, that the tAvo legates, Vitalis 
 and Misenus, Avere depi'iA'ed of their sees, and 
 Acacius himself excommunicated by tlie Popes 
 Simplicius and Felix, MeanAvhile one Avho had 
 been expelled fi'om their ordei', but had learnt 
 his trade in their monasteries, Peter the Fullei', 
 had become schismatic patriarch of Antioch, and 
 he, of coui'se, made common cause Avith their op¬ 
 ponents. Nor Avas it long before they laid them¬ 
 selves open to retaliation. Foi', under Justinian, 
 their ardour impelled them to deny the cele- 
 bi'ated proposition, adA'ocated so Avai'mly by the 
 Scythian monks, hesitated about so long at Rome, 
 that one of the Trinity had sufiei'ed in the flesh. 
 Their denial of this proposition threAV them into 
 the ai'ms of the Nestorians, Avho Avere much in¬ 
 terested in haAung it decided in this Avay. For 
 if it could be denied that one of the Trinity had 
 suffered, it could not be maintained, obviously, 
 that one of the Trinity had become incai'nate. 
 Hence, on the monks sending tAvo of their body, 
 Cyrus and Eulogius, to Rome to defend their 
 A'icAvs, the emperor immediately despatched tAvo 
 bishops thithei', Hypatius and Demetrius, to 
 denounce them to the Pope {Bcigi ad Baron., 
 A.D. 533, n. 2). In short, in a lettei', of AA'hich 
 they Avere the bear<*rs, to John II., afterAA^ards 
 inserted by him in Lib. I. Tit. “ De summa Trini- 
 tate ” of his Code, he himself accused them of 
 favouring Judaism and the Nestorian hei'esy. 
 The Pope in his reply seems to admit their hete¬ 
 rodoxy, but he entreats the emperor to forgiA’e 
 them at his instance, should they be Avilling to 
 abjui'e their erroi’s and I'eturn to the unity of 
 the Chui'ch. With Avhat success he interceded 
 for them Ave are not told. During the iconoclastic 
 controA'ei'sy they seem to have shared exile Avith 
 the rest of the monks ejected trom their monas¬ 
 teries by Constantine Copronymus {Bagi ad Baron. 
 A.D. 798, n. 2); but under the empi'ess Irene the 
 Studium, at all CA’ents, Avas I'epeopled Avith its foi'- 
 mer alumni by the most celebrated of them all, 
 Theodoi'e, in Avhose sui'name, “ Studites,” it has 
 pei'haps achieved a Avider celebrity than it ever 
 Avould othei'Avise haA'e possessed. 
 
 In the West a bi'anch of the order lone; held 
 the abbey of St. Maurice of Agaune in Valais, 
 Avhere they aa’CI'C established by Sigismund, king 
 of Burgundy, and had their institute confirmed 
 by a Council held thei'e A.D. 523. For fuller de¬ 
 tails see Bonanni’s Hist, du Clerg. sec. ct reg. vol. 
 ii. p. 153 et seq. (Amsterdam, 1716); Bulteau’s 
 Hist. Monast. d'Orient, iii. 33 (Paris, 1680); 
 Hospin, De Orig. Monach. iii. 8 ; Du Fresne, 
 Gloss. Lot. s. \. ; and Constant. Christian, iv. 8 
 2; Bingham’s Antiq. A'ii. 11, 10. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ACOLYTER-ACOLYTHS—ACOLYTII- 
 
 ISTS (^AkoAovOoi). One of the minor ordei's 
 peculiar to the Westei’n Church, although the 
 name is Gi'eek. In the Apostolic age, the only 
 order Avhich existed, in addition to those of 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, Avas that of dea¬ 
 conesses—widoAVS usually at first, Avho Avere em¬ 
 ployed in such ministrations toAvards their own 
 sex as Avere considered unsuitable for men, espe¬ 
 cially in the East. But about the end of the 2nd 
 
14 
 
 ACOLYTES 
 
 ACROSTIC 
 
 or early in the 3i(l century, other new officers 
 below tlie order of the deacons were introduced, 
 and amongst them this of Acolytes, thougli only 
 in tlie Latin Church as a distinct order. In the 
 rituals of the Greek Church the word occurs only 
 as another name for the order of sub-deacon. 
 
 The institution of the minor orders took its 
 origin in the greater Churches, such as Rome 
 and Carthage, and was owing partly to the sup¬ 
 posed expediency of limiting the number of dea¬ 
 cons to seven, as first appointed by the apostles, 
 and partly to the need which was felt of assist¬ 
 ance to the deacons in performing the lower por¬ 
 tions of their office ; of which functions, indeed, 
 they appear in many cases to have been impa¬ 
 tient, regai'ding them as unworthy of their im¬ 
 portant position in the Church. Tertullian is the 
 earliest writer by whom any of the inferior orders 
 is mentioned. He speaks of Readers, J)e Praescr. 
 c. 41. It is in the epistles of Cyprian that the 
 fuller organization of these orders comes before 
 us {Epp. xxix., xxxviii., Ixxv., &c.). It is also 
 stated by his contemporary Cornelius, Bishop of 
 Rome, that the Church of Rome at that time 
 numbered forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, 
 seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolyths, and fifty- 
 two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers (Ostiarii). 
 None of these inferior orders, according to St. 
 Basil, were ordained with imposition of hands, 
 but they were simply appointed by the bishop 
 with some apjiropriate ceremony, to certain sub¬ 
 ordinate functions of the ministry such as any 
 Christian layman might be commissioned by 
 episcopal authority to perform. The form of 
 ordination employed in the case of Acolytes is 
 thus prescribed by a canon of the 4th Council of 
 Carthage. “ When any Acolythist is ordained, the 
 bishop shall inform him how he is to behave him¬ 
 self in his office ; and he shall receive a candlestick 
 with a taper in it, from the archdeacon, that he 
 may understand that he is appointed to light the 
 candles of the church. He shall also receive an 
 empty pitcher to furnish wine for the Eucharist 
 of the blood of Christ.” Hence it appears that 
 the Acolyte’s office at that period consisted chiefly 
 in two things, viz., lighting the candles of the 
 church and attending the officiating'priest with 
 wine for the Eucharist. 
 
 The Acolyte of the ancient Western Church is 
 represented in the later Roman communion by 
 the Ceroferarius or taper-bearer, whose office con¬ 
 sists in walking before the deacons or priests with 
 a lighted taper in his hand. 
 
 Both in the East and West the minor orders of 
 ancient times were afterwards conferred as merely 
 introductory to the sacred orders of deacon and 
 presbyter, while the duties which had formerly 
 belonged to them were performed by laymen. In 
 the 7th century the readers and singers in the 
 Armenian Church were laymen—in the 8th cen¬ 
 tury the readers, and in the 12th the ostiarii 
 and exorcists were laymen in the Greek Church. 
 Before the year 1300 the four orders of acolyte, 
 exorcist, reader, and ostiarius began to be con¬ 
 ferred at the same time in the Western Churches. 
 Not long afterwards it became customary to re¬ 
 lease the clerks thus ordained from discharging 
 the duties of their orders, which were entrusted 
 to lay clerks. The Councils of Cologne and Trent 
 vainly endeavoured to alter this custom ; and 
 laymen continue generally to perform the offices 
 of the ancient orders in the Roman churches to 
 
 the present day. In England the .same custom has 
 prevailed ; and the minor orders having for some 
 centuries become merely titular, were disused in 
 the Reformation of our Churches. 
 
 Fuller information on the subject of the minor 
 orders may be found in Field’s Book of the 
 Church, b, v. c. 25 ; Bingham’s Antiquities, b. 
 iii. ; Thomassin, Vet. ct Kov. Eccl. pars I. lib. ii. 
 See also Robertson’s History of the Church and 
 Palmer’s Treatise on the Church of Christ. [D.B.] 
 
 ACONTIUS, of Rome, commemorated July 
 
 25 fMart. Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 ACROSTIC, AupoffTixis, aKpocrixiov, 
 
 aKp6(TTixov, Acrostichis.) A composition in 
 which the first letters of the several lines form 
 the name of a person or thing. The invention is 
 attributed to Epicharmus, 
 
 We find several applications of the Acrostic 
 principle in Christian antiquity, 
 
 1. The word Acrostic is apj)lied to the well- 
 known formula IxOvs. [See IX0TC.] 
 
 2. Verses in honour of the Saviour were fre¬ 
 quently written in the acrostic form; Pope Da- 
 masus, for instance, has left two acrostics on the 
 name Jesus (Carm. iv. and v.), the former of 
 which runs as follows: . 
 
 “ In rebus (antis Trina conjunctio mundi 
 Erigit huinannm sensum laudare venuste; 
 
 Sola salus nobis, et mundi summa potestas 
 Venit peccati nodnm dissolvere fnictu. 
 
 Summa salus cunctis nituit per ^aecula terris.” 
 
 The same pope, to whom so many of the in¬ 
 scriptions in the Catacombs are due, composed 
 an acrostic inscription in honoixr of Constantia, 
 the daughter of Constantine. This was origin¬ 
 ally placed in the apse of the basilica of St. 
 Agnes in the Via Nomentana, and may be seen in 
 Bosio, Roma Sotteranea, p. 118. And inscrip¬ 
 tions of this kind are frequent. Lest the reader 
 should miss the names indicated, an explanation 
 of the acrostic principle is sometimes added to 
 the inscription itself. For instance, to the epi¬ 
 taph of Licinia, Leontia, Ampelia, and Flavia 
 (Muratori, Thesaurus Novus, p. 1903, no. 5) are 
 added these verses, which give the key: 
 
 “ Nomina sanctarum, lector, si forte requiris, 
 
 Ex omnl versu te litera prima docebit.” 
 
 So the epitaph of a Christian named Agatha 
 (Marini, Fratelli Arvali, p, 828), ends with the 
 words, “ ejus autem nomen capita ver[suum] 
 and another, given by the same authority, ends 
 with the words, “ Is cujus })er capita versoruni 
 nomen declaratur.” Fabretti (Biscript. Anti], iv. 
 150) gives a similar one, “ Revertere per capita 
 versorum et invenies pium nomen.” Gazzera 
 fiscrizione del Piemonte, p. 91) gives the epitaph 
 of Eusebius of Vercelli, in which the first letters 
 of the lines form the words EVSEBIVS EPIS- 
 COPVS ET MARTYR; and another acrostic 
 epitaph (p, 114), where the initial letters form 
 the words CELSVS EPISCOPVS (Martigny, 
 Diet, des Antiq. Chrdt. 11). 
 
 We also find acrostic hymns in Greek. Several 
 of the hymns of Cosmas of Jerusalem, are of 
 this kind; the first, for instance (Gallandi, Bi¬ 
 bliotheca Pat. xiii. 234), is an acrostic forming 
 the words, 
 
 XpicTTOS )3poT(o0el9 oTrep ©cos 
 
 3. Those poems, in which the lines or stanzas 
 commence with the letters of the alphabet taken 
 
ACROTELEUTIC 
 
 ACTORS AND ACTRESSES 15 
 
 in order, form another class of acrostics. Such | 
 is the well-known hymn of Sedulius, “A solis 
 ortus cardine,” a portion of w'hich is introduced 
 in the Roman offices for the Nativity and the Cir¬ 
 cumcision of the Lord; and that of Venautius 
 Fortunatus (Carm. xvi.), which begins with the 
 words “ Agnoscat omne saeculum.” St. Augustine 
 composed an Abecedarian Psalm against the Do- 
 natists, in imitation of the 119th, with the con¬ 
 stant response, “Omnes qui gaudetis de pace, 
 modo verum judicate.” 
 
 4. A peculiar use of the acrostic is found in 
 the Office-books of the Greek Church. Each 
 Canon, or series of Troparia, has its own 
 acrostic, which is a metrical line formed of the 
 initial letters of the Troparia which compose the 
 Canon. To take the instance given by Dr. Neale 
 (^Eastern Church, Introd. p. 832); the acrostic 
 for the Festival of SS. Proclus and Hilarius is, 
 
 • SeTTrois aO\r)TaLS (Tenrov €U<f>ep<»> /uteXos. 
 
 The meaning of this is, that the first Troparion 
 of the Canon begins with 2, the second with E, 
 and so on. These lines are generally lambic, as 
 in the instance above; but occasionally Hex- 
 anseter, as. 
 
 Tor Ni<rj<f)dpor co? PiKr}<f>6pov aap.ao't ixeKnm, 
 
 They frequently contain a play on the name of 
 the Saint of the day, as in the instance just given, 
 and in 
 
 Auipov @€OV ere nafipidKap JJarep 
 
 for St. Dorotheus of Tyre. The Troparia are 
 sometimes, but rarely, arranged so as to form 
 an alphabetic acrostic, as on the Eve of the 
 Transfiguration (Neale, u. s.). 
 
 5. The word aKpoaTixia, in the Apostolical 
 
 Constitutions (ii. 57, § 5) denotes the verses, or 
 portions of a verse, which the people were to 
 sing responsively to the chanter of the Psalm, 
 “ b \ahs TO. aKpoa'TixiO' viro^aWfTO).’* The 
 constantly repeated response of the 136th Psalm 
 (“For His mercy endureth for ever”), or that 
 of the ‘ Benedicite omnia Opera ’ (“ Praise Him, 
 and magnify Him for ever ”), are instances of 
 what is probably intended in this case. Compare 
 Antiphon, Psalmody (Bingham’s Antiq. xiv. 1, 
 § 12). [C.] 
 
 ACROTELEUTIC. [Doxology; Psalmody.] 
 
 ACTIO. A word frequently used to desig¬ 
 nate the canon of the mass. 
 
 The word “ agere,” as is well known, bears in 
 cla.«sical writers the special sense of performing 
 a sacrificial act; hence the word “ Actio ” is ap¬ 
 plied to that which was regarded as the essential 
 portion of the Eucharistic sacrifice ; “ Actio dici- 
 tur ipse canon, quia in eo sacramenta conficiuntur 
 Dominica,” says Waiafrid Strabo (JDe Rebus Eccl. 
 c. 22, p. 950, Migne). Whatever is included in 
 the canon is said to be “ infra actionem hence, 
 when any words are to be added within Hie 
 canon (as is the case at certain great festivals), 
 they bear in t!ie liturgies the title or rubric 
 “ infra actionem and in printed missals these 
 words are frequently placed before the prayer 
 “Communicautes.” Compare Canon. (Bona, 
 de Rebus Liturgicis, lib. ii. c. 11; Macri, Iliero- 
 lexicon, s. v. “ Actio ”.) 
 
 Honorius of Autun supposes this use of the 
 word “ actio ” to be derived from legal termino¬ 
 
 logy. “ Missa quoddam judicium imitahur; unde 
 et canon Actio vocatur” (lib. i., c. 8); and “ Canon 
 . . . etiam Actio dicitur, quia causa populi in eo 
 cum Deo agitur ” (c. 103). (In Du Cange’s 
 Glossary, s. v. “Actio.”) But this derivation, 
 though adopted by several mediaeval writers,' 
 does not appear probable, [C.J 
 
 ACTORS AND ACTRESSES.—The in¬ 
 fluence of Christianity on social life was seen, 
 as in other things, so specially in the horror 
 with which the members of the Christian Church 
 looked on the classes of men and women whose 
 occupations identified them with evil. Among 
 these were Actors and Actresses. It must be re¬ 
 membered that they found the drama tainted by 
 the depravity which infected all heathen society, 
 and exhibiting it in its w'orst forms. Even Au¬ 
 gustus sat as a spectator of the “scenica adulteria ” 
 of the “ rnimi,” whose performances were tho 
 favourite amusement of Roman nobles and people 
 (Ovid, Trist. ii. 497—520). The tragedies of 
 Aeschylus or Sophocles, or Seneca,“ the comedies 
 even of Menander and Terence could not compete 
 with plays whose subject was always the “ vetiti 
 crimen amoris,” represented in all its ba.senoss 
 and foulness (/6tc/.). What Ovid wrote of “ ob- 
 scaena” and “ turpia” was there acted. The 
 stories of Mars and Venus, the loves of Jupiter 
 with Danae, Leda, and Ganymede, were exhibited 
 in detail (Cyprian, De Grat. Dei, c. 8). Men’s 
 minds were corrupted by the very sight. They 
 learnt to imitate their gods. The actors became, 
 in the worst sense of the word, effeminate, taught 
 “gestus turpes et molles et muliebres exprimere” 
 (Cyprian, Ep. 2, ed. Gersdorf. 61, ed. Rigalt). 
 The theatre was the “sacrarium Veneris,” tlie 
 “consistorium impudicitiae” (^Ibid. c. 17). Men 
 sent their sons and daughters to learn adultery 
 (Tatian. Orat. adv. Graec. c. 22 ; Tertull. De 
 Spcct. c. 10). The debasement which followed 
 on such an occupation had been recognized 
 even by Roman law. The more active cen¬ 
 sors had pulled down theatres whenever they 
 could, and Pompeius, when he built one, placed 
 a Temple of Venus over it in order to guard 
 against a like destruction (Ibid. c. 10). The 
 Greeks, in their admiration of artistic culture, 
 had honoured their actors. The Romans looked 
 on them, even while they patronised them, with 
 a consciousness of their degradation. They were 
 excluded from all civil honours, their names were 
 struck out of the register of their tribes; they 
 lost by the “ miuutio capitis” their privileges as 
 citizens (Ibid, c, 22 ; Augustin. De Civ. Dei, ii. 
 14). Trajan banished them altogether from 
 Rome as utterly demoralized. 
 
 It cannot be wondered at that Christian writers 
 should almost from the first enter their pro¬ 
 test against a life so debased.’’ They saw 
 in it part of the “ pompae diaboli,” which 
 they were called on to renounce. Tertul- 
 
 ‘ Augustine, who in his youth had delighted in the 
 higher forms of the drama (Covfess. iii. 2). dra^'ffi, after 
 his conversion, a distinction between these (“ scenicorum 
 tolerabiliora ludorum ”) and tho obscenity of the mimes 
 {De Civ. Dei, ii. 8). 
 
 •» No specific reference to this form of evil is found, it 
 i.s true, in the N. T. The case had not yet presented 
 Itself. It would have seemed as impossible for a Christian 
 to take part in it as to join in actual idolatry. 
 
16 ACTORS AND ACTRESSES 
 
 ADRIANUS 
 
 lian wrote the treatise already quoted specially ' 
 against it and its kindred evils of the circus and 
 the amphitheatre, and dwells on the inconsis¬ 
 tency of uttering from the same lips the amen 
 of Christian worship, and the praises of the 
 gladiator or the mime. The actor seeks, against 
 the words of Christ, to add a cubit to his stature 
 by the use of the Cothurnus. He breaks the 
 Divine law which forbids a man to wear a 
 woman’s dress (Deut. xxii. 5). Clement of 
 Alexandria reckons them among the things 
 which the Divine Instructor forbids to all His 
 followers (^Paedagog. iii. c. 77, p. 298). In course 
 of time the question naturally presented itself, 
 whether an actor who had become a Christian 
 might continue in his calling, and the Christian 
 conscience returned an answer in the negative. 
 The case which Cyprian deals with (^Ep. 2, ut 
 supra') implies that on that point there could be 
 no doubt whatever, and he extends the prohibition 
 to the art of teaching actors. It would be better 
 to maintain such a man out of the funds of the 
 Church than to allow him to continue in such a 
 calling. The more formal acts of the Church spoke 
 in the same tone. The Council of llliberis (c. 62) 
 required a “pantomimus” to renounce his art 
 before he was admitted to baptism. If he re¬ 
 turned to it, he was to be excommunicated. 
 The 3rd Council of Carthage (c. 35) seems to 
 be moderating the more extreme rigour of some 
 teachers, when it orders that “ gratia vel recon- 
 ciliatio” is not to be denied to them any more 
 than to penitent apostates. The Codex Eccles. 
 Afric. (c. 63) forbids any one who had been con- 
 vei’ted, “ ex qualibet ludicra arte,” to be tempted 
 or coerced to resume his occupation. The Coun¬ 
 cil in Trullo (c. 51) forbids both mimes and their 
 theatres, and ras eVl crKrjvwv opxvweis, under 
 pain of deposition for clerical, and excommuni¬ 
 cation for lay, offenders. With one consent the 
 moral sense of the new society condemned what 
 seemed so incurably evil. When Christianity 
 had become the religion of the Empire, it was 
 of course, more difficult to maintain the high 
 standard which these rules implied, and Chryso¬ 
 stom (^Hom. vi. in Matt., Horn. xv. ad Pop. Antioch. 
 Horn. X. in Coloss. ii. p. 403, i. 38, 731, 780), 
 complains that theatrical entertainments pre¬ 
 vailed among the Christians of his time with no 
 abatement of their evils. At Rome they were 
 celebrated on the entrance of a consul upon his 
 office (Claudian in Cons. Mall. 313). On the 
 triumph of the Emperors Theodosius and Arcadius 
 the theatre of Pompeius was opened for perfor¬ 
 mances by actors from all paids of the Empire 
 (Symmachus, Epp. x. 2, 29). With a strange 
 inversion of the old relations between the old and 
 the new societies, the heathen Zosimus reproaches 
 the Christian Emperor Constantine with having 
 patronised the mimes and their obscenity. The 
 pantomimes or ballets in which the mythology 
 of Greece furnished the subject-matter (Medea 
 and Jason, Perseus and Andromeda, the loves of 
 Jupiter), were still kept up. Women as well 
 as men performed m them (Chrysost., Horn. vi. 
 m Thess.), and at Rome the number of actresses 
 W'as reckoned at 3000. The old infamy adhered 
 to the whole class under Christian legislation. 
 They might not appear in the forum or basilica, 
 or use the public baths. And yet, with a strange 
 inconsistency, the civil power kept them in their 
 degi-adation rather than deprive the population 
 
 of the great cities of the empire of the amuse¬ 
 ments to w'hich they were so addicted. If 
 the Church sought to rescue them, admitting 
 them to baptism, and after liaptism claiming 
 immunity from their degrading occupation, it 
 stepped in to prevent any such conversion, ex¬ 
 cept in extremis (Cod. Theodcs., De Scenicis, xv.). 
 Compare Milman’s History of Christianity, book 
 iv. c. 2; Chastel, p. 211. Perhaps the fullest 
 collection of every passage in Christian antiquity 
 bearing on the subject is to be found in Prynne’s 
 Hidriomaitix. [P.] 
 
 ACUTUS, martyr at Naples, commemorated 
 Sept. 19 fMartyrol. Pom. Vet.). [C.J 
 
 ACUS (accuhium, or acuhium, acicula, spina, 
 spinuld). Pins made of precious metal, and, in 
 later mediaeval times, enriched with jewels, for 
 attaching the archiepiscopal (or papal) pallium 
 to the vestment over wffiich it was worn, i. e. the 
 planeta or casula (the chasuble). The earliest 
 mention of these known to the present writer is 
 in the description given by Joannes Diaconus of 
 the pallium of St. Gregory the Great. Writing 
 himself in the 9th century, he notes it as a point 
 of contrast between the pallium worn by St. Gre¬ 
 gory and that customary in his own time, that 
 it was nullis acubus perforatum. Their first 
 use, therefore, must probably date between the 
 close of the 6th and the beginning of the 9th 
 century. For details concerning these ornaments 
 at later times, see Bock {Gesch. der liturg. Ge~ 
 wander, ii. 191). Innocent III. fDe Sacro 
 Altaris Mysterio, lib. i. cap. 63) assigns to these 
 pins, as to every other 2 ^‘'ti’t of the sacerdotal 
 dress, a certain mystical significance. “Tres 
 acus quae pallio infiguntur, ante }?ectus, super 
 humerum, et post tergum, designant compas- 
 sionem proximi, administrationem officii, destric- 
 tionemque judicii.” [W. B. M.] 
 
 ADAM AND EVE are commemorated in 
 the Ethiopic Calendar on the 6th day of the 
 month Miaziah, equivalent to April 1. The 
 Armenian Church commemorates Adam with 
 Abel on July 25. (Neale, Eastern Church, Introd., 
 pp. 800, 81*2.) [C.] 
 
 ADAUCTUS or AUDACTUS. ( 1 ) Martyr 
 at Rome, commemorated Aug. 30 (Martyrol. 
 Pom. Vet., Hieronf). Proper collects in Gre¬ 
 gorian Sacramentary (p. 127), and Antijihon in 
 Lib. Antiph. p. 709. 
 
 ( 2 ) Commemorated Oct. 4 (J/. llieron.). [C.] 
 
 ADDERBOURN, Cottncil near the (Ad- 
 DERBURNKXSK CONCILIUM), A.l). 705; 011 the 
 River Nodder, or Adderbourn, in Wiltshire; of 
 English bishops and abbats, where a grant of 
 free election of their abbat, after Aldhelm’s 
 death, made by Bishop Aldhelm to the abbeys 
 of Malmesbury, Frome, and Bradford, was con¬ 
 firmed (W. Malm., De Gest. Pont. v. pars iii., p. 
 16-4 p, Migne; Wilk. i. 68). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ADJUTOR, in Africa, commemorated Deo. 
 17 {Mart. Iheron.). [C.] 
 
 ADMONITION. [Monition.] 
 
 ADRIANUS. (1) i\Iartyred by Galerius in 
 Nicomedia, commemorated Sept. 8 {Martyrol. 
 Pom. Vet., llieron. Bedae) ; Aug. 26 {Cal, 
 Byzant .); Nov. 6 (J/. llieron.). 
 
 ( 2 ) Martyr, Xatale March 4 {Jfart. Bedae) 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 17 
 
 (3) July 26 (^M. Hieron.'). 
 
 (4) August 8 (^Cal. Armen.'). fC.] 
 
 ADULTERY,—We shajl attempt to- give a 
 general account of laws ami customs relating to 
 this topic, dwelling more fully upon such as 
 elucidate the spirit of their several periods, and 
 upon the princii)les involved in disputable points. 
 Our outline breaks naturally into the three fol¬ 
 lowing divivions:— 
 
 1. Antecedents of Christian jurisprudence in 
 
 Church and State on adultery. 
 
 2. Nature and classification of the crime. 
 
 3. Penalties imposed upon it. 
 
 Our quotations from Eastern canonists when 
 compared with civilians are made from the older 
 Latin versions; on occasion the Greek phrases 
 are added. In imperial laws the Latin is com¬ 
 monly the most authentic. These are numbered, 
 first the Book of Codex, next Title, then Law; 
 but in the Digest, where it is usual to subdivide, 
 the Title is distinguished by a Roman numeral. 
 
 I. Antecedents of Christian Jurisprudence in 
 Church and State on Adulterij .—Respecting the 
 germs of future diflerences as regards this and 
 connected subjects traceable in the Apostolic 
 times, Neander has some useful observations 
 (Planting of the Christian Church, Bohn’s ed. I. 
 240-9 and 257, 261). Many circumstances, how¬ 
 ever, kept down these tendencies to opposition. 
 In an age of newly awakened faith, and under 
 the pressure of persecution, living motive took 
 the place of outward law. The revulsion from 
 heathen sins was strong, and filled the souls of 
 converts with abhorrence, while the tender sym¬ 
 pathy of their teachers urged men to control 
 themselves, succour the tempted, and pity the 
 fallen. “ I am overwhelmed with sadness,” 
 writes Polycarp to the Philippians (cap. xi.), 
 
 “ on account of Valens who was made presbyter i 
 amongst you, because he thus knows not the 
 place which was given him.” This man had 
 fallen into adultery (see Jacobson in loco). “I 
 grieve exceedingly both for him and for his 
 wife, to whom may the Lord grant true repent¬ 
 ance. Be ye therefore also sober-minded in this 
 matter, and count not such persons as your ene¬ 
 mies ; but as suflering and wayward members 
 call them back, that you may save the one Body 
 of you all. For so doing ye shall establish your 
 own selves.” 
 
 Clement of Rome, unlike Polycarp, had no 
 special example to deal with ; his warnings are 
 therefore general. In Ep. i, 30 and cap. 6 of 
 the 2nd Ep., attributed to him, adultery is stig¬ 
 matized among the foulest and most heinous 
 sins. His exhortations and promises of forgive¬ 
 ness (i, 7, 8, 9, 50) are likewise general, but 
 their tenour leaves no doubt that he intended to 
 invite all such sinners to repentance. The same 
 declarations of remission to all penitents and 
 the loosing of every bond by the grace of Christ, 
 occur in Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. 8 ; and are 
 found in the shorter as well as the longer receu- 
 .sion (see Cureton, Corp. Ignat, p. 97). In these 
 addresses we seem to catch the lingering tones 
 ot the Apostolic age ; and all of like meaning 
 and early date should be noted as valuable testi¬ 
 monies. De I’Aubcspine (Bingham, xvi. 11, 2) 
 asserted that adulterers were never taken back 
 into communion before the time of Cyprian, and, 
 though Bishop Pearson refute.s this opinion, he 
 CHBIST. ANT. 
 
 allows that respecting them, together with mur¬ 
 derers and idolaters, there was much dispute m 
 the early Church. Beveridge also (6W. Can. 
 vii. 2) believes that its severity was so great as 
 to grant no such sinners reconciliation except 
 upon the very hardest terms. 
 
 Of this severe treatment, as well as the differ¬ 
 ence of opinion alluded to by Pearson, we see 
 various traces; yet the prevailing inclination 
 was to hold out before the eyes of men a hope 
 mingled with fear. Hermas fJ^astor Mandat. 4, 1 
 and 3) concedes one, and but one, repentance to 
 those who are unchaste after baptism ; for which 
 mildness and a reluctant allowance of second 
 nuptials, Tertullian (Z>e Pudicit. 10) styles this 
 book an Adulterers’ Friend. Dionysius of Co¬ 
 rinth, writing to the churches of Pontus on 
 marriage and continency, counsels the reception 
 of all who repent their transgressions, xvhatever 
 their nature may be (Euseb. iv. 23). Thus also 
 Zephyrinus of Rome announced, according to 
 Tertullian, “ ego et moechiae et fornicationis 
 delicta, poenitentia functis dimitto and though 
 quoted in a spirit of hostility and satire, this 
 sentence, which forms a chief reason for the 
 treatise (7)e Pudicit.), probably contains in sub¬ 
 stance an authentic penitential rule. Of Tertul- 
 lian’s own opinion, since he was at this time a 
 Montanist, it is needless to say more than that, 
 differing from his former views, not far removed 
 from those maintained by Hermas (cf. De Peni¬ 
 tent. 7-10), he now held adultery to be one of 
 those sins not only excluding for ever from the 
 company of believers, but also (cap. 19) abso¬ 
 lutely without hope through our Lord’s inter¬ 
 cession. Exclusion from the faithful was, how¬ 
 ever, insisted upon in such cases by some 
 Catholic bishops. Cyprian (gad Antonian.f while 
 himself on the side of mercy, tells us how cer- 
 I tain bishops of his province had, in the time of 
 his predecessors, shut the door of the Church 
 against adulterers, and denied them penitence 
 altogether. Others acted on the opposite system ; 
 yet we are assured that peace remained un¬ 
 broken— a surprising circumstance, certainly, 
 considering the wealth and intelligence of that 
 .province, and the importance of such decisions 
 to a luxurious population. Cyprian hints at no 
 lay difficulties, and simply says that every 
 bishop is the disposer and director of his own 
 act, and must render an account to God (cf. also 
 Cypr. De Unitate, several Epistles, and Cone. 
 Carthag. Proloquium). Hence the determination 
 of one bishop had no necessary force in the 
 diocese of another. So, too, the acts of a local 
 council took effect only within its own locality, 
 unless they were accepted elsewhere. But the 
 coiTespondeuce of bishops and churches set 
 bounds to the difficulties which might otherwise 
 have arisen, and prepared the xvay for General 
 Councils—see, for instance, the fragment (Euseb. 
 V. 25) of the early Synod at Caesarea in Pales¬ 
 tine—its object being the diffusion of the Syno¬ 
 dical Epistle. United action was also much 
 furthered by the kind of comjdlation called 
 Codex Canonum, but the first of these (now 
 lost) was formed towards the end of the 4th 
 century. See Dion. Exig. ap. Justcll. I. 101, and 
 Bevereg., Pand. Can. Proleg. vii. 
 
 The passages already cited show the strength of 
 Christian recoil from heathen sensuality. In his 
 instructive reply to Celsus (iii. 51) Origen com- 
 
18 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 piires the attitude of the Chui-ch towards back¬ 
 sliders, especially towards the incontinent, with 
 that feeling which prompted the Pythagoreans to 
 erect a cenotaph for each disciple who left their 
 school. They esteemed him dead, and, in pre¬ 
 cisely the same way, Christians bewail as lost to 
 God, and already dead, those who are overcome 
 with unclean desire or the like. Should such 
 regain their senses, the Church receives them at 
 length, as men alive from death, but to a longer 
 probation than the one converts underwent at 
 tirst, and as no more capable of honour and 
 dignity amongst their fellows. Yet Origen goes 
 on to state (59-G4) the remedial power of Chris¬ 
 tianity. Taken together these sections paint a 
 lively picture of the treatment of gross trans¬ 
 gressors within and without the Christian fold. 
 On the passage in his De Oratione, which sounds 
 like an echo of Tertullian, see foot-note in Dela- 
 rue’s ed., vol. i. 256. 
 
 Christians might well shrink from what they 
 saw around them. Licentious impurities, count¬ 
 less in number and in kind, were the burning 
 reproaches, the pollution, and the curse of 
 heathendom. It is impossible to quote much on 
 these topics, but a carefully drawn sketch of 
 them will be found in two short essays by Pro¬ 
 fessor Jowett appended to the first chapter of 
 his Commentaxy on the Romans. They demon¬ 
 strate how utterly unfounded is the vulgar 
 notion that Councils and Fathei's meddled un¬ 
 necessarily with gross and disgusting offences. 
 With these essays may be compared Martial 
 and the Satirists, or a single writer such as 
 Seneca—unus instar omnium— e. g. “ Hinc de- 
 centissiinum sponsalioi-um genus, adultei'ium,” 
 &c., i. 9; or again, iii. 16, “ Nunquid jam ulla 
 x'epudio ei'ubescit postquam illustres quaedam 
 ac nobiles foeminae, non consulura numei'o, 
 sed maritorum, annos suos computant ? et 
 exeunt matrimonii causa, nubunt I'epudii ? . . . 
 Nunquid jam ullus adulterii pudor est, postquam 
 eo veutum est, ut nulla virum habeat, nisi ut 
 adulterum irritet ? Ai'gumentum est deformi- 
 tatis, pudicitia. Quam invenies tarn miseram, 
 tarn sordidara, ut illi satis sit unum adulteroi-um 
 p^f?” &c. In Valerius Maximus we hear a 
 sigh for departed moi-als—in Christian writers, 
 from the Apologists to Salvian, a recital of the 
 truth, always repi*oachful, and sometimes half 
 triumphant. Moi’eovei*, as usual, sin became the 
 punishment of sin—Justin Martyr, in his first 
 AjX)logg (c. 27 seq.), points out the horidble con¬ 
 sequences which ensued from a heathen prac¬ 
 tice following upon the licence just mentioned. 
 The custom of exposing new-born babes pervaded 
 nil i-anks of society, and was authorized even by 
 the ])hilosophers. Almost all those exposed, says 
 Justin, both boys and girls, were taken, reared, 
 and fed like brute beasts for the vilest purposes 
 of sensuality; so that a man might commit the 
 gi’ossest crime unawares with one of his own 
 children, and fi'om these wi’etched beings the 
 State derived a shameful impost. Compai’e Tei*- 
 tull. Afologet. 9, sub fin. Happy in comparison 
 those infants who underwent the pi-ae or post 
 natal fate, described by Minucius Felix c. 30. To 
 Lactaatius (we may remark) are attributed the 
 laws of Constanjine intended to mitigate the 
 allied evils of that later age, cf. Milman {Hist. 
 Christ, ii. 394), “ We,” continues Justin (c. 
 
 29), “ expose not our offspring, lest one of them 
 
 should perish and we be murderers; nay, the 
 bringing up of children is the very object of our 
 marriages.” Thei'e are passages to the same 
 effect in the Ep. ad Diognet. c. 5, and Athenag. 
 Legat. pro Christian, (c. 33 al. 28), and thus 
 these early apologists adduce a principle laid 
 down amongst the ends of matidmony in the 
 Anglican maridage - service. They no doubt 
 utter the thought of their fellow Christians 
 in opposing to the licence of the age the purest 
 parental instincts, and these are perhaps in 
 every age the most stringent restraints upon 
 adultery. 
 
 The standard of contemporary Jewish practice 
 may be divined from the Dial, cum Tryphon, 
 cc. 134 and 141. The Rabbis taught the law¬ 
 fulness of mariying four or five wives,—if any 
 man wex’C moved by the sight of beauty Jacob’s 
 example excused him,—if he sinned, the prece¬ 
 dent of David assured his foi'giveness. 
 
 Surrounding evils naturally deepened the im¬ 
 pression upon Christians that they were sti-an- 
 gei's and pilgrims in the world, that their aim 
 must be to keep themselves from being paidakers 
 in other men’s sins; to suffer not as evil doers, 
 but as Christians, and to use the Roman law as 
 St. Paul used it, for an appeal on occasion—a 
 possible protection, but not a social rule. Hence 
 the danger was Quietism; and they wei’e in fact 
 accused of foi'saking the duties of citizens and 
 soldiers—accusations which the Apologists, pai'- 
 ticularly Tertullian and Origen, answered, 
 though with many I’eserves. The faithful 
 thought that their pi'ayei’s and examples wei'e 
 the best of seiwices; they shunned sitting in 
 judgment on cases involving life and death, im¬ 
 prisonment or tortui’e, and (what is more to our 
 purpose) questions de pudore. On the admission 
 of Chi'istians to magisti*acy as early as the An- 
 tonines, cf. Dig. 50, tit. 2, s, 3, sub fin., with Gotho- 
 fi’ed’s notes. Traces of their avei'sion from such 
 business apjxear in some few Councils; e. g. Elib. 
 56, excludes Duumvirs from public worship 
 during their year of office. TaiTacon. 4, forbids 
 bishops to decide criminal causes—a rule which 
 has left its mark on modern legislatien. Natu¬ 
 rally i-esulting from these inffuences, was a 
 higher and diffused tone of purity. Obeying 
 human laws, believei’S ti'anscended them, Ep. ad 
 Diognet. 5, and compare Just. A]^l. I. 17, seq. 
 with 15. He speaks emphatically of the in¬ 
 numerable multitude who turned from license 
 to Christian self-control. The causeless divorce 
 allowed by law led to what Christ forbade as 
 digamy and adultery, while the latter sin was 
 by Him extended to the eye and the heart. In 
 like manner, Athenagoras {Leg. pro Christ. 2) 
 asserts that it was impossible to find a Christian 
 who had been criminally conA’icted—and that no 
 Christian is an evil-doer except he be a hypocrite 
 —32, 33, al. 27, 28, that impurity of heart is 
 essentially adultery, and that even a slightly 
 unchaste thought may exclude fi'om everlasting 
 life. He says, as Justhx, that numbers in the 
 Church were altogether continent; numbers, too, 
 lived according to the strictest marriage rule. 
 Athenagoi'as goes so far (33 al. 28) as to pro¬ 
 nounce against all second marriages, because he 
 who depi'ives himself of even a deceased wife by 
 taking another is an adulterer. Clement of 
 Alexandria {Paedag. ii. 6) quaintly observes 
 that “ Non Moechaberis ” is cut up by the roots 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 19 
 
 through “uon concupisces,” and in the same 
 spirit CommoJian (^Instruct. 48) writes 
 
 “ Escam niuscipuli ubt mors est longe vitate : 
 
 Multa sunt \iartyria, quae fiunt sine sanguine fuso, 
 
 Alienuni non cupere,” &c. 
 
 Compare other passages on adultery of the 
 heart, Lactant. Instit. vi. 23, and Epit. 8; Greg. 
 Naziauz., Horn. 37 al. 31 ; and later on, Photius, 
 Ep. 139—a remarkable composition. 
 
 Another safeguard from licentiousness was 
 the high valuation now set upon the true dignity 
 of woman not only as the help-meet of man but 
 as a partaker in the Divine Image, sharing the 
 same hope, and a fit partner of that moral 
 union in which our Lord placed the intention 
 and essence of the married state. Clement of 
 Alexandria draws a picture of the Christian 
 w'ife and mother (^Paedag. iii. 11, p. 250 Sylb. 
 and Potter’s Gr. marg.); of the husband and 
 father, (^Strom. vii. p. 741). Tertullian before 
 him, in the last cap. ad Uxorem describes a truly 
 Christian marriage—the oneness of hope, prayer, 
 practice, and pious service; no need of conceal¬ 
 ment, mutual avoidance, nor mutual vexation ; 
 distrust banished, a freeborn confidence, sym¬ 
 pathy, and comfort in each other, presiding over 
 eveiy part of their public and private existence. 
 
 This language derives additional strength 
 from Tertullian’s treatment of mixed marriages. 
 Those contracted before conversion fall under 1 
 Cor. vii. 10-17 (cf. ad Uxor. ii. 2), yet their 
 consequences were most mischievous. He tells 
 us (ad Scapulam 3) how Claudius Herminianus, 
 whose wife became a convert, revenged himself 
 by barbarous usage of the Cappadocian Chris¬ 
 tians. A mixed marriage after conversion is a 
 very great sin, forbidden by 1 Cor. vii. 39 and 2 
 Cor. 14-16, and Tertullian ad Uxor. ii. 3 
 condemns those who contract it as “ stupri reos ” 
 — transgressors of the 7th Commandment. 
 Addressing his own wife, he proceeds to describe 
 its serious evils to a woman. When she wishes 
 to attend worship her husband makes an appoint¬ 
 ment for the baths. Instead of hymns she hears 
 songs, and his songs are from the theatre, the 
 tavern, and the night cellar. Her fasts are 
 hindered by his feasts. He is sure to object 
 against nocturnal services, prison visits, the kiss 
 of peace, and other customs. She will have a 
 difficulty in persuading him that such private 
 observances as crossing and exsufflation, are not 
 magical rites. To these and other remarks, 
 Tertullian adds the sensible arguments, that 
 none but the worst heathens wmuld marry 
 Christian women, and how then could believing 
 wives feel secure in such hands ? Their hus¬ 
 bands kept the secret of their religion as a 
 means of enforcing subjection; or, if dissatisfied, 
 nursed it for the day of persecution and legal¬ 
 ized murder. Their own motives were of the 
 baser kind—they married for a handsome litter, 
 mules, and tall attendants from some foreign 
 country;—luxuries which a faithful man, even 
 if wealthy, might not think pi’oper to allow 
 them. This being the early experience of the 
 Church, w'e are not surprised to find mixed 
 marriages forbidden in after times sub 2 .' 0 €na 
 adulUrii. 
 
 We cannot here pass over a history told by 
 Justin Martyr in his Apol. ii. 2, and repeated 
 by Eusebius iv. 17, respecting wffiich the learned 
 Bingham has been led into a remarkable mis¬ 
 
 take, copied and added to by Whiston in a note 
 on Antiq. xv. 7, 10. A woman married to a 
 very wicked husband, herself as drunken and 
 dissolute as the man, became a convert to the 
 faith. Thoroughly reformed, she tried to per¬ 
 suade him by the precepts of the Gospel and 
 the terrors of eternal fire. Failing in her at¬ 
 tempts, and revolted by the loathsome and un¬ 
 natural compulsion to which her husband sub¬ 
 jected her, she thought repudiation would be 
 preferable to a life of impious compliances. Her 
 friends prevailed upon her to wait and hope for 
 the best, but a journey to Alexandria made her 
 husband worse than before, and, driven to des¬ 
 pair, she sent him a divorce. Immediately he 
 informed against her as a Christian ; a blow 
 which she parried by presenting a petition for 
 delay to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, w'ho 
 granted her request. Upon this her husband, 
 thirsting for revenge, accused her teacher in 
 religious truth, and had the satisfaction of seeing 
 three lives sacrificed in succession to his ven¬ 
 geance. 
 
 Bingham (xvi. 11, 6) cites the narrative as an 
 instance of a wife’s being allowed by the Church 
 to divorce a husband on the ground of adultery. 
 But the valuable wudter, led perhaps by Gotho- 
 fred (God. Theod. vol. i. p. 312) has here erred in 
 a matter of fact, for Justin takes some pains to 
 show that the woman’s grievance was not adul¬ 
 tery at all. Fleury (iii. 49) has apprehended 
 the truth with correctness and expressed it with 
 delicacy. The like case is discussed by an author 
 long called Ambrose in his comment on 1 Coi'. vii. 
 11 (Ambros. op. ed. Benedict., tom. ii. appendix 
 p. 133 E-F), and he determines that, under the 
 given circumstances, a woman must separate 
 from her husband, but she must not marry again. 
 The Imperial law also provided a remedy, Cod. 
 Theod. 9, tit. 7, s. 3. It is certainly noteworthy 
 that, in telling this brief tragedy, neither Justin 
 nor Eusebius says a wmi’d against the wife’s seek¬ 
 ing relief from the heathen custom of divorce. 
 Tet its license was condemned on all sides. The 
 founder of the Empire strove to check it; and, 
 had the aggrieved woman lived under the first 
 Christian emperor, that resource would have 
 been denied her. Clearly, circumstances justi¬ 
 fied the wife, but it would seem natural to have 
 mentioned the danger of doing wrong, while 
 pleading her justification. We, in modern times, 
 should say that such cases are exceptional, and 
 the inference from silence is that similar wdcked- 
 ness w'as not exceptional in those days, and was 
 treated by the Church as a ground of divorce; 
 a mournful conclusion, but one that many facts 
 render probable, e.g. the Imperial law above 
 cited. 
 
 From these antecedents our step is brief to 
 laws for the repression of incontinency. The 
 natural beginning was for each community to 
 follow simply the example of St. Paul (1 Cor. 
 V. and 2 Cor. ii.), but, as converts multiplied, it 
 became necessary to pi’escribe definite tests of 
 repentance which formed also the tei*ms of re¬ 
 conciliation. Such rules had for one object the 
 good of the community, and in this light every 
 offence was a public wrong, and is so looked 
 upon by canon law at this day. But penitence 
 had a second object—the soul’s health of the 
 offender—and thus viewed, the same transgres¬ 
 sion was treated as a moral stain, and censured 
 
 C 
 
20 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 according to its intrinsic heinousness, or, in few 
 words, the crime became a sin. This idea, no 
 doubt, entered into the severe laws of Christian 
 princes against adultery, and is an indication of 
 ecclesiastical influence upon them. Framers of 
 canons had in turn their judgment acted upon 
 by the great divines, who were apt to regulate 
 public opinion, and to enforce as maxims of life 
 their own interpretations of Scripture. Some¬ 
 times the two characters met in the same per¬ 
 son, as in the eminent Gregories, Basil, and 
 others; but where this was not the case, theo¬ 
 logians commonly overlooked many points which 
 canonists were bound to consider. 
 
 Church lawgivers must indeed always have 
 regard to existing social facts and the ordinary 
 moral tone of their own age and nation. They 
 must likewise keep State law steadily in mind 
 when they deal with offences punishable in civil 
 courts. That they did so in reality, we learn 
 from the Greek Scholia ; and hence, when divorce 
 is connected with adultery (particularly as its 
 cause), the Scholiasts trace most canonical 
 changes to foregoing altei’ations in the laws of 
 the Empire. The reader should reproduce in his 
 mind these two classes of data if he wishes to 
 form a judgment on subjects like the present. 
 We have called attention to the license which 
 tainted prae-Christian Rome. Of the Christian 
 world, homilists are the most powerful illustra¬ 
 tors, but the light thrown upon it by canons is 
 quite unmistakable. The spirit prevalent at the 
 opening of the 4th century may be discerned 
 from its Councils, e.g. Gangra; one object of 
 which (can. 4) was to defend married presbyters 
 against the attacks made upon them; cf. Elib. 33, 
 and Stanley’s account of the later 1 Nic. ^(^Eastern 
 Ch, 196-9). Gangra, 14, forbids wives to desert 
 their husbands from abhorrence of married life ; 
 9 and 10 combat a like disgust and contempt of 
 matrimony displayed by conseci'ated virgins, 
 and 16 is aimed against sons who desert their 
 parents under pretext of piety, i.e. to become 
 celibates, something after the fashion of “ Cor- 
 ban.” An age, where the springs of home life 
 are poisoned, is already passing into a morbid 
 condition, and legislative chirurgeons may be 
 excused if they commit some errors of severity in 
 dealing with its evils. But what can be said of 
 the frightful pictures of Roman life drawn, some¬ 
 what later, by Ammian. Marcell. xiv. 6 ; xxvii. 3 ; 
 and xxviii. 4; or the reduced copies of them in 
 Gibbon, chaps. 25 and 31, to which may be added 
 the fiery Epistles of Jerome (passim), and the 
 calm retrospect of Milman (Hist, of Christ, iii. 
 230, seq.) ? Can any one who reads help reflect¬ 
 ing with what intensified irony this decrepit 
 age might repeat the old line of Ennius— 
 
 Mulierem: quid potlus dicam aut verius quam mulierem? 
 
 Or can we feel surprised with violent efforts at 
 coercing those demoralized men and women? 
 
 Gibbon, in giviug an account of the jurispru¬ 
 dence of Justinian, saw that it could not be 
 understood, particularly on the topic of our 
 article, without some acquaintance with the 
 laws and customs of the earliest periods. To 
 his sketch we must refer the reader, adding only 
 the following remarks :— 
 
 1. His opinion upon the barbarity of marital 
 rule has found an echo in Hegel (see Werke, Bd. 
 IX. p. 348, seq.). F. von Schlegel, though in his 
 
 Concordia highly praising the conjugal purity of 
 ancient Rome, had already ( Werke, xiii. 261, 2) 
 blamed that rigid adherence to letter and for¬ 
 mula which pervades the system. To such cen¬ 
 sures Mommsen is thoroughly opposed. In book 
 i. chap. 5, he views the stern simplicity of idea 
 on which all household X'ight was founded as true 
 to nature and to the requirements of social im¬ 
 provement. In chap. 12 he points out how the 
 old Roman religion supplemented law by its 
 code of moral maxims. The member of a 
 family might commit grievous wrong untouched 
 by civil sentence, but the curse of the gods 
 lay henceforth heavy on that sacrilegious head. 
 Mommsen’s remarks on religious terrors agree 
 well with the very singular restraints on divorce 
 attributed by Plutarch to Romulus. The im¬ 
 pression of ethical hardness is in fact mainly 
 due to the iron logic of Roman lawyers. Father, 
 husband, matron, daughter, are treated as real¬ 
 istic universals, and their specific definitions 
 worked out into axioms of legal right. Yet in 
 application (a fact overlooked by Schlegel) the 
 summum jus is often tempered by equitable allow¬ 
 ances, e.g. a wife accused of adultery had the 
 }»ower of recrimination. Dig. 48, tit. 5, s. 13, § 5 ; 
 and cf. August. De Conjug. Adulterin. ii. 7 (viii.) 
 for a longer extract, and a comment on the re¬ 
 script. Such facts go far to explain the course 
 pursued by Christian lawgivers. 
 
 2. On the vast changes which took place 
 after the 2nd Punic war Gibbon should be com¬ 
 pared with Mommsen, b. iii. cap. 13, pp. 884—5. 
 
 But neither of these writers, in dwelling on 
 the immoral atmosphere which infected married 
 life, point out any specially sufficient cause why 
 Roman matrons showed such irrepressible avi¬ 
 dity for divorce with all its strainings of law, 
 its dissolution of sacred maxims, its connection 
 with celibacy in males, and a frightful train of 
 unbridled sensualities. Perhaps the only true 
 light is to be gained from a comparison with 
 ecclesiastical history. We shall see that in 
 later ages of the Church there came about an 
 entire reversal of earlier opinions on the crimi¬ 
 nal essence and the very definition of adultery, 
 and that the ground of complaint at both periods 
 (Pagan and Christian) was one and the same; 
 the cause, therefore, may not improbably be one 
 also, viz., the inadequate remedy afforded to 
 women for wifely wrongs. Some paidiculars 
 will be found in our second division, but the 
 question opens a wide field for speculation, out¬ 
 lying our limits, and belonging to the philoso¬ 
 phy of history. 
 
 3. The pai'allel between Chui-ch and State 
 ought to be carried further. Imperial Rome, 
 looking back upon the Republic, felt the de¬ 
 cadence of her own conjugal and family ties, 
 and wrote her displeasui-e in the laws of the 
 first Caesars. So, too, when the nobleness of 
 apostolic life ceased to be a substitute for legis¬ 
 lation, it sharpened the edge of canonical cen¬ 
 sure by regretful memories of the better time. 
 The same history of moi-als led to a sameness in 
 the history of law, the State repeated itself in 
 the Church. 
 
 4. Gibbon has a sneer against Justinian for 
 giving permanence to Pagan constitutions. But 
 those laws had always been presupposed by 
 Christian government, both civil and spiritual. 
 The emperors amended or supplemented them, 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 21 
 
 and where bishops felt a need, they petitioned 
 for an Imperial edict— e.g. the canons of three 
 African councils relating to our subject, and 
 noted hereafter, in which the synods decide on 
 such a petition. Then, too, the opposite experi¬ 
 ment had been tried. The Codex Theodosianus 
 began with the laws of Constantine (cf. art. 
 Theodosius in Diet. Biograph.) \ but when Jus¬ 
 tinian strove to give scientific form to his juris¬ 
 prudence he found that completeness could no 
 way be attained except by connecting it with 
 the old framework ; and, as we have seen. Gibbon 
 himself felt a similar necessity for the minor 
 purpose of explanation. 
 
 Our plan here will therefore be to use the 
 great work of Justinian as our skeleton, and 
 clothe it with the bands and sinews of the 
 Church. We gain two advantages: his incom¬ 
 parable method; and a stand-point at an era of 
 systematic endeavour to unify Church and State. 
 For this endeavour see Novell. 131, c. 1, held by 
 canonists to accept ail received by Chalcedon, 
 can. 1 (comprehending much on our subject), and 
 Novell. 83, extending the powers of bishops on 
 ecclesiastical offences. His example was after¬ 
 wards followed by the acceptance of Trull, can. 2, 
 adding largely to the list of constitutions upon 
 adultery ; cf. Photii Nomocanon, tit. i. cap. 2, with 
 Scholia, and for the difficulties Bev. Pand. Can. 
 Proleg. viii., ix. For harmonies of spiritual 
 and civil law as respects breaches of the 7th 
 Commandment see Antiocheni Nomoc., tits. xli. 
 and xlii., and Photii Nomoc. tit. ix. 29, and tit. 
 xiii. 5 and 6. Both are in Justellus, vol. ii. 
 
 After A.D. 305 the Church was so frequently 
 engaged in devising means for upholding the 
 sanctity of the marriage tie that every step in 
 the reception of canons concerning it forms a 
 landmark of moral change. Such an era was 
 the reign of Justinian; it was an age of great 
 code makers—of Dionysius Exiguus and Joannes 
 Antiochenus. Numbei’s of local constitutions 
 became transformed into world-wide laws ; the 
 fact, therefore, never to be overlooked respecting 
 canons on adultery, is the extent of their final 
 acceptance. 
 
 We now come to Division II., and must con¬ 
 sider at some length the definition of adultery 
 • strictly so called. On this point a revolution 
 took place of no slight significance in the great 
 antithesis between East and West. Details are 
 therefore necessary. 
 
 II. Nature and Classification of the Crime .— 
 Neglecting an occasional employment of the words 
 promiscue (on which see first of following refer¬ 
 ences), we find (Dig. 48, tit. 5, s .6, § 1, Papinian). 
 “ Adulterium in nupta committitur stuprum 
 vero in virginem viduamve.” Cf. same tit., 34, 
 Modestinus, and Dig. 1, tit. 12, s. 1, § 5, Ulpian; 
 see Diet. Antiq., and Brissonius de Verb. Signif. 
 1, s. v. for distinctions and Greek equivalents. 
 
 The offending wife is thus regarded as the real 
 criminal; and her paramour, whether married 
 or unmarried, as the mere accomplice of her 
 crime. She is essentially the adultera^ and he, 
 because of his complicity with a married woman, 
 becomes an adulter. If the woman is unmarried, 
 the condition of the man makes no difference— 
 the offence is not adulterium. 
 
 This was also the position of the Mosaic code 
 •—see Lev. xx. 10, compared with Deut. xxii. 22. 
 It is not easy to perceive how the law could 
 
 stand otherwise when polygamy was permitted; 
 cf. Diet, of Bible, in verbo. Espousal by both codes 
 (Roman and Jewish) is protected as quasi wedlock 
 (Dig. 48, tit. 5, s. 13, § 3, Deut. xxii. 23, 24). 
 So likewise by Christian canons, e.g. Trull. 98. 
 “ He who marries a woman betrothed to a man 
 still living is an adulter.” Cf. Basil, can. 37. 
 
 Both in Scripture language and in ordinary 
 Roman life the legal acceptation of the crime is 
 the current meaning of the word. Hosea (iv. 
 13, 14) distinguishes between the sins of Jewish 
 daughters and wives; and the distinction is kept 
 in the LXX and Vulgate versions. A like dis¬ 
 tinction forms the point of Horace’s “ Matronam 
 nullam ego tango;” cf. Sueton. Oct. 67 “ adul- 
 terare matronas.” Instances are sufficiently com¬ 
 mon, but, since (for reasons which will soon 
 appear) it is necessary to have an absolutely 
 clear undei’standing of the sense attached to the 
 word adulterium ( = ^Oixeta) during the early 
 Christian period, we note a few decisive re¬ 
 ferences from common usage. Val. Max. (under 
 Tiberius) explains (ii. 1, 3) adulteri as “ sub- 
 sessores alieni matrimonii.” Quintilian (under 
 Domitian) defines, Instit. Orat. vii. 3, “Adulte¬ 
 rium est cum aliena uxore domi coire.” Juvenal 
 may be consulted through the index. Appuleius 
 (under the Antonines), in the well known story 
 Metamorph. ix., describes the deed, and refers to 
 the law de Adulteriis. 
 
 Christian writers seldom explain words un¬ 
 less used out of their current sense, and when 
 they do so, the explanation is of course inci¬ 
 dental. We find an early example in Athena- 
 goras, De Resur. Mort. 23. al. 17, where in 
 treating of bodily appetites occurs a designed 
 antithesis. On the one side “ legitimus coitus 
 quod est matrimonium ”—on the other, “ incon- 
 cessus alienae uxoris appetitus et cum ea consue¬ 
 tude— TovTO yap ((TTi /uoix^icc.” Another early 
 instance is in the Shephei’d of Hermas, Mandat. 
 iv., which thus begins: “ Mando, ait, tibi, ut 
 castitatem custodias, et non ascendat tibi cogi- 
 tatio cordis de alieno matrimonio, aut de forni- 
 catione.” W’^e have here a twofold division like 
 Papinian’s above quoted, but instead of opposing 
 stuprum to adulterium (implied in alieno Matri¬ 
 monio), he employs “ fornicatio,” an ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal expression when it has this special meaning. 
 Origen (^Levit. xx., Homil. xi.), in contrasting 
 the punishment of adulterers under the Mosaic 
 and Christian dispensations, assumes the same 
 act to be intended by the laws of both. This 
 passage has often been ascribed to Cyril of Alex¬ 
 andria, but Delarue (ii. 179, 180) is clear for 
 Origen. Arnobius (under Diocletian) writes, lib. 
 iv. (p. 142, Varior. ed.), “ Adulteria legibus vin- 
 dicant, et capitalibus afficiunt eos poenis, quos in 
 aliena comprehenderint foedera genialis se lectuli 
 expugnatione jecisse. Subsessoris et adulteri 
 persona,” &c. 
 
 The canonists, Greek and Latin, use criminal 
 terms like ordinary authors without explanation, 
 and obviously for the same reason. But on our 
 subject the meaning is generally made certain 
 by (1) an opposition of words resembling the 
 examples before quoted; (2) by the case of un¬ 
 married women being treated in separate canons ; 
 or else (3) by a gradation of penalties imposed 
 on the several kinds of sin. 
 
 In the latter half of the 4th century we have 
 again exact ecclesiastical definitions. They aro 
 
22 
 
 ADULTEEY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 very valuable, because given by two of the 
 greatest canonists the Church ever produced, 
 and also because they were accepted by can. ii. 
 Trull. Gregory of Nyssa thus distinguishes (ad 
 Letoium, rersp. 4), “ Fornicatio quidem dicatur 
 cupiditatis cujuspiam expletio quae sine alterius 
 fit injuria. Adulterium vero, insidiae et injuria 
 quae alteri affertui’.” This antithesis is substan¬ 
 tially the same with that in the Digest, but 
 Gregory so states it because (as his canon tells 
 us) he is replying to certain somewhat subtle 
 reasoners who argued that these acts of inconti¬ 
 nence are in essence identical—a theory which 
 would equalize the offences, and, by consequence, 
 their punishments. The arguments are such as 
 we should call verbal, e.g. what the law does 
 not permit, it forbids—the non proprium must be 
 alicnum. He answers by giving the specific di¬ 
 vision made by the Fathers (as above), and main¬ 
 tains (1) its adaptation to human infirmity, (2) 
 the double sin of adultery, and (3) the propriety 
 of a double penitence. With Gregory, therefore, 
 the canonist prevails over the theologian — he 
 refuses to treat the crime merely as a sin. 
 
 In Basil’s canon ad Amphiloch. 18—which is 
 concerned with lapsed virgins—who had been 
 treated as digamists, and whom Basil would 
 punish as adulterous, we find an incidental defi¬ 
 nition : “ eum, qui cum aliena muliere cohabitat, 
 adulterum nominamus.” 
 
 Basil’s impoi’tant 21st canon is summed by 
 Aristenus : “ Virum, qui fornicatus est, uxor pro- 
 pida recipiet. Inquinatam vero adulterio uxorem 
 vir dimittet. Fornicatoi’, enim, non adulter est, 
 qui uxori junctus cum soluta ” (an unmarried 
 woman) “ rem habuerit.” Here, again, is the 
 old opposition (as in stuprum and adulterium) 
 the logioal essence of the crime turning upon 
 the state of the woman, whether married or sole. 
 But a clause of great value to us is omitted by 
 Aristenus. Basil considers the fornicatio of a 
 married man heinous and aggravated ; he says, 
 “ eum poenis amplius gravamus,” yet adds ex¬ 
 pressly, “ Canonem tamen non habemus qui eum 
 adulterii crimini subjiciat si in solutam a Matri- 
 monio peccatum commissum sit.” This clear 
 assertion from a canonist so learned and vera¬ 
 cious as Basil must be allowed to settle the 
 matter of fact, that up to his time Church law 
 defined adulteiy exactly in the same manner as 
 the civil law. 
 
 It is to be remarked, too, that Basil’s answer 
 addresses itself to another kind of difficulty 
 from Gregory’s, that, namely, of injustice in the 
 different treatment of unchaste men and women. 
 No objection was of older standing. We almost 
 start to hear Jei'ome (^Epitaph. Fahiolae) echoing, 
 as it were, the verses of Plautus; cf. the passage 
 (^Mercator, iv. 5)— 
 
 “ Ecastor lege dura vivont mulieres, 
 
 Multoque Iniquiore miserae, quam viri .... 
 
 . . . . U tinam lex esset eadem, quae uxori est viro.” 
 
 Yet no writer tells more pointedly than Plautus 
 the remedy which Roman matrons had adopted 
 (^Amphitr. iii. 2)— 
 
 “ Valeas: tibl habeas res tuas, rcddasmeas." 
 
 As to the legal process by which women com*- 
 passed this object, it was probably similar to 
 their way of enlarging their powers respecting 
 property and other such matters, on which see 
 Mommsen, book iii. 13. 
 
 We now note among divines a desire to im¬ 
 press upon the public mind the other, i.e. the 
 purely theological idea that all incontinent 
 persons stand equally condemned. They appear 
 to reason under a mixture of influences—1. A 
 feeling of the absolute unity of a married couple, 
 a healthy bequest from the first age; 2. Indig¬ 
 nation at marital license; 3. Desire to find a 
 remedy for woman’s wrong; 4. The wish to 
 recommend celibacy by contrast with the “ .ser¬ 
 vitude ” of marriage. 
 
 Lactantius (as might be expected from his 
 date) fixes upon points 1 and 2. He finds fault 
 with the Imperial law in two respects—that 
 adultery could not be committed with any but a 
 free woman, and that by its inequality it tended 
 to excuse the severance of the one married body. 
 Tnstit. vi. 23. “Non enim, sicut juris publici 
 ratio est; sola mulier adultera est, quae habet 
 alium ; maritus autem, etiamsi plures habeat, a 
 crimine adulterii solutus est. Sed divina lex ita 
 duos in matrimonium, quod est in corpus unum, 
 pari jure conjungit, ut adulter habeatur, quis- 
 quis compagem corporis in diversa distraxerit.” 
 Cf. next page—“ Dissociari enim corpus, et dis- 
 trahi Deus noluit.” It would seem therefore 
 that this Father would really alter the ordinary 
 meaning of the word adulterium, and explain the 
 offence differently from its civil-law definition. 
 He would extend it to every incontinent act of 
 every married person, on the ground that by 
 such an act the marriage unitv enforced bv our 
 Lord is broken. It is true that another view 
 may be taken of the words of Lactantius. They 
 may be considered as rhetoric rather than logic, 
 both here and in Epitome 8, where the same 
 line of thought is repeated; but this is a ques¬ 
 tion of constant recurrence in the Fathers, and 
 reminds us of Selden’s celebrated saying. The 
 student will in each case form his own judg¬ 
 ment ; in this instance he may probably think 
 the statement too precise to be otherwise than 
 literal. 
 
 The same must be said of Ambrose, whose 
 dictum has been made classical by Gi’atian. Yet 
 it should be observed that he is not always con¬ 
 sistent with himself, e.g. (Jdexaem. v. 7) he lays 
 it down that the married are both in spirit and 
 in body one, hence adultery is contrary to nature. • 
 We expect the same prefatory explanation as 
 from Lactantius, but find the old view : “ Nolite 
 quaerere, viri, alienum thorum, nolite insidiari 
 alienae copulae. Grave est adulterium et naturae 
 injuria.” So again, in Luc. lib. 2, sub init., he 
 attaches this term to the transgression of an 
 espoused woman. 
 
 The celebrated passage, one chief support of a 
 distinction which has affected the law and lan¬ 
 guage of modern Europe (quoted by Gratian, 
 Decret. ii. c. 32, q. 4), occurs in Ambrose’s Defence . 
 of Abraham {De Ahr. Fair. i. 4). We give it as 
 in Gratian for the sake of a gloss: “ Nemo sibi 
 blandiatur de legibus hominum” (gloss—quae 
 dicunt quod adulterium non committitur cum 
 soluta sed cum nupta) “ Omne stuprum adulte¬ 
 rium est: nec viro licet quod mulieri non licet. 
 Eadem a viro, quae ab uxore debetur castimonia. 
 Quicquid in ea quae non sit legitima uxor, com¬ 
 missum fuerit, adulterii crimine damnatur.” 
 This extract sounds in itself distinct and con¬ 
 secutive. But when the Apology is read as a 
 whole, exactness seems to vanish. It is divided 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 23 
 
 into three main heads or defensiones: 1st, Abra¬ 
 ham lived before the law which forbade adultery, 
 therefore he could not have committed it. “ Deus 
 in Paradiso licet conjugium laudaverit, non adul- 
 terium damnaverat.” It is hard to understand 
 how such a sentence could have been written in 
 the face of Matt. xix. 4-9, or how so great an 
 authority could forget that the very idea of con¬ 
 jugium implied the wrong of adulterium. 2ndly, 
 Abraham was actuated by the mere desire of 
 odspring ; and Sarah herself gave him her hand¬ 
 maiden. Her example (with Leah’s and Rachel’s) 
 is turned into a moral lesson against female 
 jealousy, and then men are admonished—“ Nemo 
 sibi blandiatur,” &c., as above quoted. 3rdly. 
 Galat. iv. 21-4, is referred to, and the conclusion 
 drawn, “ Quod ergo putas esse peccatum, adver- 
 tis esse mysterium; ” and again “ haec quae in 
 figuram contingebant, illis crimini non erant.” 
 We have sketched this chapter of Ambrose be¬ 
 cause of the great place assigned him in the 
 controversy of Western against Eastern Church 
 law. 
 
 Another passage referred to in this Q. “ Dicat 
 aliquis,” is the 9th section of a sermon on John 
 the Baptist, formerly numbered 65, now 52 (Ed. 
 Bened. App. p. 462), and the work of an Am- 
 brosiaster. But here the adulterium (filii testes 
 adulterii) is the act of an unmarried man with 
 his ancilla (distinguished from a concubina, De- 
 cret: I. Dist. 34, “ Concubina autem” seq.), i. e. 
 a sort of Contubernium is called by a word 
 which brings it within the letter of the 7th 
 Commandment. 
 
 Perhaps Ambrose and his pseudonym, like 
 many others, saw no very great difference be¬ 
 tween the prohibition of sins secundum literam 
 and secundum analogiam —as, for example, idola¬ 
 try is adultery. It seems clear that he did not 
 with Lactantius form an ideal of marriage and 
 then condemn whatever contradicted it. His 
 language on wedlock in Paradise forbids this 
 explanation. 
 
 Looking eastwards, there is a famous sermon 
 (37, al. 31) preached by Gregory Nazianzen, in 
 which he blends together the points we have 
 numbered 2, 3, and 4. He starts (vi.) from the 
 inequality of laws. Why should the woman be 
 restrained, the man left free to sin ? The Latin 
 version is incorrect; it so renders KaraTropp^v^iv 
 as to introduce the later notion of adulterium. 
 Gregory thinks (more Aesopi) that the inequality 
 came to pass because men w^ere the law-makers ; 
 further, that it is contrary to (a) the 5th Com¬ 
 mandment, which honours the mother as well as 
 the father; (6) the equal creation, resurrection, 
 and redemption of both sexes ; and (c) the mys¬ 
 tical representation of Christ and His Church. 
 A healthy tone is felt in much of what Gre¬ 
 gory says, but (ix.) the good of marriage is de¬ 
 scribed by a definition far inferior in life and 
 spirituality to that of the pagan Modestinus, 
 and (in x.) naturally follows a preference for the 
 far higher good of celibacy. The age was not to 
 be trusted on this topic which formed an under¬ 
 lying motive with most of the great divines. 
 
 Chrysostom notices the chief texts in his 
 Expository Homilies. For these we cannot afford 
 space, and they are easily found. We are more 
 concerned with his sermon on the Bill of Divorce 
 (ed Bened. iii. 198-209). “ It is commonly called 
 adultery,” he says in substance, “ when a man 
 
 wrongs a married woman. I, however, affirm it 
 of a married man who sins with the unmarried. 
 For the essence of the crime depends on the con¬ 
 dition of the injurers as well as the injured. 
 Tell me not of outward laws. I will declare to 
 thee the law of God.” Yet we encounter a 
 qualification : the offence of a husband with the 
 unmarried is (p. 207) {xoixCias crepop eiSos. 
 We also find the preacher dwelling with great 
 force upon the lifelong servitude (SouAeia) of 
 marriage, and we perceive from comparing other 
 passages that there is an intentional contrast 
 with the noble freedom of celibacy. 
 
 Asterius of Amaseia has a forcible discourse 
 (printed by Combefis, and particularly worth 
 reading) on the question : “ An liceat homini 
 dimittere uxorem suam, quacunque ex causa ? ” 
 The chief part of it belongs to our next division, 
 but towards the end, after disposing of insuffi¬ 
 cient causes, he enters on the nature of adul¬ 
 tery. Here (as he says) the preacher stands by 
 the husband. “ Nam cum duplici tine matrimo- 
 nia contrahuntur, benevolentiae ac quaerendorum 
 libei-orum, neutrum in adulterio continetur. Nec 
 enim affectui locus, ubi in alterum animus 
 inclinat; ac sobolis omne decus et gi-atia perit, 
 quando liberi confunduntur.” Our strong Teu¬ 
 tonic instincts feel the truth of these words. 
 Asterius then insists on mutual good faith, and 
 passes to the point that the laws of this world 
 are lenient to the sins of husbands who excuse 
 their own license by the plea of privileged 
 harmlessness. He replies that all women are 
 the daughters or wives of men. Some man 
 must feel each woman’s degradation. He then 
 refers to Scidpture, and concludes with precepts 
 on domestic virtue and examj)le. The sermon 
 of Asterius shows how kindred sins may be 
 thoroughly condemned without abolishing esta¬ 
 blished distinctions. But it also shows a gene¬ 
 ral impression that the distinctions of the Forum 
 were pressed by apologists of sin into their own 
 baser service. 
 
 Jerome’s celebrated case of Fabiola claims a 
 few lines. It was not really a divorce propter 
 adulterium, but parallel to the history told by 
 Justin Martyr. The points for us are the 
 antithesis between Paulus noster and Papini- 
 anus (with Paulus Papiniani understood) 
 and the assertion that the Roman law turned 
 upon dignity— i.e. the matrona as distinguished 
 from the ancillula. Jerome feels most strongly 
 the unity of marriage, and joins with it the 
 proposition that the word Man contains Woman. 
 He therefore says that 1 Cor. vi. 16, applies 
 equally to both sexes. Moreover, the same 
 tendency appears, as in Chrysostom, to de¬ 
 press wedlock in favour of celibacy. Marriage 
 is servitude, and the yoke must be equal, “ Eadem 
 servitus pari conditione cejisetur.” But the 
 word adulterium is employed correctly ; and in 
 another place (on Hosea, ii. 2) he expressly 
 draws the old distinction—“ Fornicaria est, quae 
 cum pluribus copulatur. Adultera, quae unum 
 virum deserens alteri jungitur.” * 
 
 Augustine, like Lactantius, j)Osits an idea of 
 marriage (De Genesi, ix. 12 [vii.]). It possesses a 
 'Good, consisting of three things— fdes, proles. 
 
 » The innvpta who offends cum viro conjugato Is not 
 here made an adulteress; Jerome's remedy might have 
 been a specific constitution. 
 
24 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 sacramentum. “ In fide attenditur ne pvaeter vin¬ 
 culum conjugale, cum altera vel altero concum- 
 batur.” But {Quaest. in Exod. 71) he feels a 
 difficulty about words—“ Item quaeri solet utrum 
 nioechiae nomine etiam fornicatio teneatur. Hoc 
 enim Graecum verbum est, quo jam Scriptui’a 
 utitur pro Latino. Moechos tamen Graeci nonnisi 
 adulteros dicunt. Sed utique ista Lex non solis 
 viris in populo, verum etiam feminis data est ” 
 (Jerome, supra, thought of this point); how 
 much more by “ non moechaberis, uterque sexus 
 astringitur, .... Ac per hoc si femina 
 moecha est, habens virum, concumbendo cum 
 eo qui vir ejus non est, etiamsi ille non habeat 
 iixorem; profecto moechus est et vir habens 
 uxorem, concumbendo cum ea quae uxor ejus 
 non est, etiamsi ilia non habeat virum.” He 
 goes on to quote Matt. v. 32, and infers “ omnis 
 ergo moechia etiam fornicatio in Scripturis 
 dicitur — sed utrum etiam omnis fornicatio 
 moechia dici possit, in eisdem Scripturis non 
 mihi interim occurrit locutionis exemplum.” 
 His final conclusion is that the greater sin im¬ 
 plies the less—a part the whole. 
 
 Augustine’s sermon (ix. al. 96) De decern 
 Chordis is an expansion of the above topics. In 
 3 (iii.) occurs the clause quoted Decret. ii. 32, q. 
 6. (a quaestio wholly from Augustine)—“Non 
 moechaberis: id est, non ibis ad aliquam aliam 
 praeter uxorem tuam.” He adds some particulars 
 reminding us of Asterius. On the 7th Com¬ 
 mandment, which Augustine calls his 5th string, 
 he says, 11 (ix.), “ In ilia video jacere totum pene 
 genus humanum; ” and mentions that false 
 witness and fraud were held in horror, but (12) 
 “si quis volutatur cum ancillis suis, amatur, 
 blande accipitur; com ertuntur vulnera in joca.” 
 
 We cannot pass by two popes cited by Gra- 
 tian. One is Innocent I., whose 4th canon Ad 
 Exup. stands at the end of same c. 32, q. 5. “ Et 
 illud desidei*atum est sciri, cur communicantes 
 viri cum adulteris uxoribus non conveniant: 
 cum contra uxores in consortio adulterorum 
 virorum manere videantur.” The gloss explains 
 “communicantes” of husbands who commit a 
 like sin with their wives. But this may or may 
 not mean that they sinned cum conjugatis, and 
 the words “ pari ratione,” which follow, to l-e- 
 come decisive must be read with special emphctsis. 
 The other is the great Gregory, quoted earlier 
 in same q. 5. The passage is from Greg. Mag. 
 Moralium, lib. 21, in cap. Jobi xxxi. 9; and as 
 it is truncated in quotation, we give the main 
 line of thought, omitting parentheses : “ Quam- 
 vis nonnunquam a I’eatu adulterii nequa^uam 
 discrepet culpa fornicationis (Matt. v. 28, quoted 
 and expounded). Tamen plerumque ex loco vel 
 ordine concupiscentis discernitur (instance). In 
 personis tamen non dissimilibus idem luxuriae 
 distinguitur reatus in qnibus fornicationis culpa, 
 quia ab adulterii reatu discernitur, praedicatoris 
 egregii lingua testatur (1 Cor. vi. 9).’’ The dif¬ 
 ference between the two sins is next confirmed 
 from. Job. It is easy to see that the old juridical 
 sense of adulterium is not taken away by these 
 expository distinctions. 
 
 We now come to the event which gives signi¬ 
 ficance and living interest to our recital ofi 
 opinions. The canon law of Rome took ground 
 which allied it on this as on other questions 
 with what appeared to be the rights of women. 
 Its treatment of cases arising out of the 7th 
 
 Commandment widened the separation of East 
 and West, and left a mark on those barbarian 
 nations which owed their civilization or their 
 faith to pontifical Rome. Our business here is 
 only with a definition, but canonists followed 
 civilians in working their doctrine out to its 
 more remote consequences, and some of these 
 would form a curious chapter in history. 
 
 The essence of the pontifical definition is not 
 that a wife is the adultera, and her paramour 
 the adulter, but that the offence be committed 
 “cum persona conjugata,” whether male or 
 female. Hence it comprehends two distinct 
 degrees of criminality. It is called simplex in 
 two cases, “ cum solntus concumbit cum conju¬ 
 gata, vel conjugatus cum soluta.” It is called 
 duplex “ cum conjugatus concumbit cum conju¬ 
 gata.” These distinctions are taken from E. L. 
 Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca 1781), in verbo. 
 They rest upon the Decretum as referred to by 
 Ferraris, part 2, cause 32, quaest. 4. But the 
 extracts we gave from qs. 5 and 6 should not be 
 neglected. 
 
 The Decretum, according to C. Butler {Horae 
 Juridicae Subsecivae, p. 168), is made up from 
 (1) decrees of councils, (2) letters of pontiffs, 
 (3) writings of doctors. But on our subject the 
 last-named is the real source— e.g. q. 4 is from 
 the moral and doctrinal writings of Augustine, 
 Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory I.; q. 6 wholly 
 from Augustine. This is a very noteworthy 
 fact, since il tends to confirm a conclusion that 
 canonists had previously agreed with the ci^vil 
 law so far as concerns its definition of the crime. 
 Gratian would never have contented himself with 
 quoting theologians if he could have found 
 councils, or canonical writings accepted by coun¬ 
 cils, to support his own decisions. 
 
 Such, then, is one not unimportant antithesis in 
 the wide divercjence between East and West. It 
 would form an interesting line of inquiry (but 
 beyond our province) to use this antithesis as a 
 clue in those mixed or doubtful cases of descent 
 where the main life of national codes and cus¬ 
 toms is by some held homesprung, by others 
 given to old Rome, and by a third party derived 
 from Latin Christianity. 
 
 Through all inquiry on this subject the stu¬ 
 dent must bear in mind that a confusion of 
 thought has followed the change in law; e.g. 
 Ducange, Glossar., s. v., commences his article 
 with a shox’t quotation from Gregory of Nyssa’s 
 4th can. ad Let. (explained above), but the sen¬ 
 tence cited contains the opinion, not of the 
 saint, but of the objector whom he is answering. 
 Ducange proceeds to trace the same idea through 
 various codes without a suspicion that he has 
 begun by applying to one age the tenets of an¬ 
 other. The difficulty of avoiding similar mis¬ 
 takes is greater than at first sight might have 
 been anticipated. In the Dictionnaires of Tre- 
 voux, Furetiere, Richelet, and Danet, avoutrie 
 or adultere is explained from papal law or Thom. 
 Aquin., while the citations mostly give the older 
 sense. In Chaucei‘’s PersonEs Tale we find the 
 same word {avoutrie') defined after the civilians, 
 but soon after he mentions “ mo spices ” (more 
 species) taken from the other acceptation. John¬ 
 son gives to adultery the papal meaning, but his 
 sole example is from pagan Rome, and most 
 modern English dictionary makers are glad to 
 copy Johnson. A still more striking instance 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 25 
 
 of confounded explanations occurs in a remark¬ 
 able dialogue between the doctor and his friend, 
 vol. iii. 46, of Croker’s Boswell. 
 
 The natural inference is that the above-men¬ 
 tioned authors were not conversant with the 
 great change of definition undergone by the word 
 adultery and its equivalents. But when those 
 who write on the specialties of church histoiy 
 and antiquities quote Fathers, councils, jurists, 
 and decretals, they ought in reason to note how 
 far the common terms which their catenae link 
 together are or are not used in the same sense 
 throughout. This precaution has been generally 
 neglected as regards the subject of this article, 
 —hence endless confusion. 
 
 Immediately upon the nature of the crime (as 
 legally defined) followed its Classification. By 
 Lex Julia, 48 Dig., i. 1, it was placed among 
 public wrongs. But a public wrong does not 
 necessarily infer a public right of prosecution; 
 see Gothofred’s note on Cod. Theod. 9, tit. 7, s. 2. 
 —“Aliud est publicum crimen; aliud publica 
 accusatio.” For Publica Judicia, cf. Dig. as 
 above and Institut. Justin. 4, 18, sub init. 
 
 Under Augustus the husband was preferred as 
 prosecutor, next the wife’s father. The hus¬ 
 band was in danger of incurring the guilt of 
 procuration (lenocinium') if he failed to prose¬ 
 cute (48, Dig. V. 2, § 2, and 29, sub init. ; also 
 9, Cod. Just. 9, 2). He must open proceedings by 
 sending a divorce to his wife (48, Dig. v. 2, § 2; 
 11, § 10 ; and 29, init.'). Thus divorce was made 
 an essential penalty, though far from being the 
 whole punishment. By Novell. 117, c. 8, pro¬ 
 ceedings might commence before the divorce. 
 Such prosecution had 60 days allowed for it, 
 and these must be dies utiles. The husband’s 
 choice of days was large, as his libellus might 
 be presented “ de piano,” i.e., the judge not sit¬ 
 ting “pro tribunali ” (48, Dig. v. 11, § 6; and 
 14, § 2). The husband might also accuse for 4 
 months fuidher, but not “jure mariti,” only “ut 
 quivis extraneus” (Goth, on 11, § 6). For ex¬ 
 ample, see Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; Labeo called 
 to account by the praetor (cf. Orell. note), 
 for not having accused his wife, pleads that his 
 60 days had not elapsed. After this time an 
 extraneus might intervene for 4 months of avail¬ 
 able days (tit. of Dig. last quoted, 4, § 1). 
 If the divorced wife married before accusation, 
 it was necessary to begin with the adulterer (2, 
 init.; 39, § 3). The wife might then escape 
 through failure of the plaint against him (17, 
 § 6). He was liable for five continuous years 
 even though she were dead (11, § 4; 39, § 2), 
 and his death did not shield her (19, init.), but 
 that period barred all accusation against both 
 offenders (29, § 5; and 31; also 9, Cod. J. 9, 5). 
 Under Constantine, A.D. 326 (9, Cod. Theod. 7, 2, 
 and 9, Cod. J. 9, 30), the right of public prose¬ 
 cution was taken away. The prosecutors were 
 thus arranged: husband; wife’s I’elations, i.e. 
 father, brother, father’s brother, mother’s brother. 
 This order remained unaltered (see Balsam. Schol. 
 in Bevereg. Pandect, i. 408, and Blastaris Syn- 
 tayma, p. 185). 
 
 The Mo.saic law, like the Roman, made this 
 offence a public wrong, and apparently also a 
 matter for public prosecution; compare Deut. 
 xxii. 22, with John viii. 3 and 10. As long as 
 the penalty of death was enforced, the husb.and 
 couiu not condone. But in later times he might 
 
 content himself with acting under Deut. xxiv. 1- 
 4. See Matt, i., 19. [^Fspousals count as matri¬ 
 mony under Jewish law even more strongly than 
 under Roman ; compare L>eut. xxii. 23, seq., with 
 48, Dig. V, 13, § 3]. See also Hosea, ii. 2, iii. 1, 
 and parallel passages. 
 
 By canon law all known sins are scandals, and 
 as such public wrongs ; cf. Gothofr. marg. annot. 
 on Dig. 48, tit. 1, s. 1 ; Grat. Decret. ii. c. 6, 9, 1 ; 
 J. Clarus, Sent. Rec. v. 1, 6; and on Adultery, 
 Blackstone, iii. 8, 1, and iv. 4, 11. This offence 
 became known to Church authorities in various 
 ways; see Basil 34; Innocent ad Exup. 4; and 
 Elib. 76, 78, Greg. Nyss. 4, where confes.sion 
 mitigates punishment. A similar allowance for 
 self-accusation is found in regard of other crimes, 
 e.g. Greg. Thaum. cans. 8 and 9. 
 
 The Church agreed with the State in not 
 allowing a husband to condone (Basil, 9 and 
 21), and on clerks especially (Neocaesarea, 8). 
 Divines who were not canonists differed con.si- 
 derably. Hermas’s Pastor (Mandat, iv.) allowed 
 and urged one reconciliation to a penitent wife. 
 Augustine changed his mind ; compare De Adul- 
 terin. Conjug. lib. ii. 8 (ix.) with Ritractat. lib. 
 i. xix. 6. In the first of these places he hesitates 
 between condonation and divorce ; opposes for¬ 
 giveness “ per claves regni caelorum ” to the pro¬ 
 hibitions of law “ secundum terrenae civitatis 
 modum,” and concludes by advising contin<'‘nce, 
 which no law forbids. In the latter passage he 
 speaks of divorce as not only allowed but com¬ 
 manded. “ Et ubi dixi hoc permissum esse, non 
 jussum ; non attend! aliam Scripturam dicentem ; 
 Qui tenet -adulteram stultus et imjiius est ” 
 (Prov. xviii. 22 ; Ixx.). 
 
 A public wrong implied civil rights ; therefore 
 this offence was the crime of free persons (Dig, 
 48, tit. 5, s. 6 init.). “ Inter liberas tantum per¬ 
 sonas adulterium stuprumve passas Lex Julia 
 locum habet.” Cf. Cod. J. 9, tit. 9, s. 23 init, A 
 slave was capable only of Contubernium (see Ser- 
 vus and Matrimonium in Diet. Antiq.). Servitude 
 annulled marriage (Dig. 24, tit. 2, s. 1), or rather 
 made it null from the first (^Novell. Just. 22. 8, 9, 
 10). “Ancillam a toro abjicere” is laudable ac¬ 
 cording to Pope Leo 1. (Ad Rustic. 6). That 
 Christian princes attempted to benefit slaves 
 rather by manumission than by ameliorating the 
 servile condition, we see from the aboA^e-quoted 
 Novell, and from Harmenop. Proch. i. 14; the 
 slave (sec. 1) is competent to no civil relations, 
 and (sec. 6) his state is a quasi-death. 
 
 Concubinage was not adultery (Dig. 25, tif. 7, 
 s. 3, § 1); but a concubine might become an adult¬ 
 eress, because, though not an uxor, she ought to 
 be a matrona, and could therefore, if unfaithful, be 
 accused, not jure mariti, hwt jure extranei. For 
 legal conditions, see Cod. J. 5, tit. 26 and 27, Just. 
 Novell. 18, c. 5 ; also 74 and 89. Leo (Nov. 91) 
 abolished concubinage on Christian grounds. For 
 the way in which the Church regarded it, cf. 
 Bals., on Basil, 26, and Cone. Tulet. i. 17; also 
 August. Qu.iest. in Genesim, 90, De Fid. et Op. 
 35 (xix.), and Serm. 392, 2. Pope Leo I. (Ad 
 Lkistic. 4, cf. 6, as giA’en by Mansi) seems to make 
 the legal concubine a mere ancilla; cf. Grat. 
 Decret. 1. Dist. 34 (ut supra) and Diict. Antiq. s. v. 
 
 We now come to much the gravest conse¬ 
 quence of a classification under public wrong.s— 
 its effect on woman’s remedy. By Lex Julia, the 
 wife has no power of plaint against the husband 
 
20 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 for adulteiy as a public wrong (Cocf. J. 9. 
 tit. 9, s. 1.). This evidently flows from the de- 
 flnition of the crime, but the glossators’ reasons 
 are curious She cannot com[)lain jure mariti 
 because she is not a husband, nor jure extranei 
 because she is a woman. 
 
 The magistrate was bound by law to inquire 
 into the morals of any husband accusing his wife 
 (Dig. 48, tit. 5, s. ].3 § 5). This section is from an 
 Antoni lie rescript quoted at greater length from 
 the Cod. Gregorian, by Augustine, De Conjug. 
 Adulterin. lib. ii. 7 (viii.). The hu.sband’s guilt 
 did not act as a compensatio criminis. In Eng¬ 
 land the contrary holds, and a guilty accuser 
 shall not prevail in his suit (see Burns, Eccl. 
 Law, art. “ Marriage.”). But the wife’s real 
 remedy lay in the use of divorce which during 
 the two last centuries of the Republic became 
 the common resource of women under grievances 
 real or fancied, and for purposes of the worst 
 kind. There is a graphic picture of this side 
 of Roman life in Boissier’s Cice'ron et ses Amis; 
 and for the literature and laws, see “ Divor- 
 tium ” in Smith’s Diet, of Antiquities. Bris- 
 sonius de Formulis gives a collection of the 
 phrases used in divorcing. 
 
 Constantine allowed only three causes on 
 either side — on the woman’s these were her 
 husband’s being a homicide, poisoner, or violator 
 of sepulchres (^Cod. Theod. 3, tit. 16, s. 1; cf. Edict. 
 Theodor. 54). This law was too strict to be 
 maintained ; the variations of Christian princes 
 may be seen in Cod. J. 5. tit. 17. Theodos. and 
 ^ Valentin. 1. 8, added to other causes the hus¬ 
 band’s aggravated incontinency. Anastasius, 1. 
 9, permitted divorce by common consent; this 
 again “ nisi castitatis concupiscentia ” was taken 
 away by Justinian in his Novell. 117, which (cap. 
 9) allowed amongst other causes the husband’s 
 gross unchastity. Justin restored divorce by 
 common consent. 
 
 The Church viewed the general liberty to re¬ 
 pudiate under the civil law, with jealousy; cf. 
 Greg. Nazianz. Epp. 144, 5 (al. 176, 181), and 
 Victor Antiochen. on Mark x. 4-12. But it was 
 felt that women must have some remedy for 
 extreme and continued wrongs, and this lay in 
 their using their legal powers, and submitting 
 the reasonableness of their motives to the judg¬ 
 ment of the Church. Basil’s Can. 35 recognizes 
 such a process; see under our Div. III. Spiritual 
 Penalties, No. 2. Still from what has been said, 
 it is plain that divorce might become a frequent 
 occasion of adultery, since the Church held that 
 a married person separated from insufficient 
 causes really continued in wedlock. Re-marriage 
 was therefore always a serious, sometimes a cri¬ 
 minal step. [Divorce.] 
 
 Marriage after a wife’s death was also viewed 
 with suspicion. Old Rome highly valued conti¬ 
 nence under such circumstances ; Val. Max. ii. 1, 
 § 3, gives the fiict; the feeling pervades those 
 tender lines which contrast so strongly with 
 Catullus V. ad Lesbiam— 
 
 “ Occidit mea Lux, meumque Sidus; 
 
 Sed carara seqtiar; arboresque ut alta 
 Sub tellure suos agunt amores, 
 
 El radicibus Implicantur imis: 
 
 Sic nos consociabimur sepulti, 
 
 Et vivis erimus beatiorts.” 
 
 Similar to Val. Max. is Herm. Mandat, iv. 4. 
 Gregory Nazianz. (Horn. 37, al. 31) says that 
 
 marriage represents Christ and the Church, 
 and there are not two Christs ; the first mar¬ 
 riage is law, a second an indulgence, a third 
 swinish. Against marriages beyond two, see 
 Neocaes. 3, Basil, 4, and Leo. Novell. 90. Curi¬ 
 ously enough, Leo (cf. Diet. Biog.) was him¬ 
 self excommunicated by the patriarch for marry¬ 
 ing a fourth wife. [Digamy.] 
 
 III. Penalties. —We are here at once met by a 
 very singular circumstance. Tribonian attri¬ 
 butes to Constantine and to Augustus two suspi¬ 
 ciously corresponding enactments, both making 
 death the penalty of this crime, and both inflict¬ 
 ing that death by the sword. The founder of 
 the Empire and the first of Christian emperors 
 are thus brought into a closeness of juxtaposi¬ 
 tion which might induce the idea that lawyers, 
 like mythical poets, cannot dispense with Ejjo- 
 nyms. 
 
 The Lex Julia furnishes a title to Cod. Theod. 9, 
 tit. 7 ; Dig. 48, tit.; and Cod. J. 9, tit. 9; but in 
 none of these places is the text preserved, and we 
 only know it from small excerpts. The law of 
 Constantine in Cod. Theod. 9, tit. 7, s. 2, contains 
 no capital penalty, but in Cod. J. 9, tit. 9, s. 30, 
 after fifteen lines upon accusation, six words 
 are added—“ Sacrileges autem nuptiarura gladio 
 puniri oportet.” The word “ sacrileges ” used 
 substantively out of its exact meaning is very 
 rare (see Facciolati). For the capital clause, 
 ascribed to the Lex Julia, see Inst it. iv. 18, 4 ; but 
 this clause has been since the time of (jujacius 
 rejected by most critical jurists and historians, of 
 whom some maintain the law of Constantine, 
 others suppose a confusion between the great em¬ 
 peror and his sons. Those who charge Tribonian 
 with emhlcrnata generally believe him to have 
 acted the harmonizer by authority of Justinian. 
 On these two laws there is a summary of the case 
 in Selden, Uxor. Ebr. iii. 12, with foot references. 
 Another is the comment in Gothofred’s ed. of Cod. 
 Theod. vol. iv. 296, 7. Heineccius is not to be 
 blindly trusted, but in Op. vol. III. his Syll. xi. De 
 Secta Triboniano-mastigum contains curious mat¬ 
 ter, and misled Gibbon into the idea of a regular 
 school of lawyers answering this description. 
 The passages in Cujacius may be traced through 
 each volume by its index. See also Hofl’mann, 
 Ad Leg. Jul. (being Tract iv. in Fellenberg’s 
 Jurisprudentia Antiquaj ; Lipsii Excurs. in Tacit. 
 Ann. iv.; Orelli, on Tacit. Ann. ii. 50; Ortolan, 
 Explication des Lnstituts, iii. p. 791; Sandars, 
 On the Lnstitutes, p. 605 ; Diet. Antig., “ Adult- 
 erium”; and Diet. Biog., “ Justinianus.” 
 
 The fact most essential to us is that prae- 
 Christian emperors generally substituted their 
 own edicts for the provisions of the Lex Julia, 
 and that the successors of Constantine were 
 equally diligent in altering his laws. Histo¬ 
 rians have frequently assumed the contrary; 
 Valesius’ note' on Socrates, v. 18, may serve by 
 way of example. The Church could not avoid 
 adapting her canons to the varied states of civil 
 legislation ; cf. Scholia on Can. Apost. 5, and 
 Trull. 87, besides many other places. The true 
 state of the case will become plainer if we briefly 
 mention the ditferent ways in which adultery 
 might be legally punished. 
 
 1. The Jus Occidendi, most ancient in its ori¬ 
 gin ; moderated under the Empire ; but not taken 
 away byChinstian princes. Compare Dig. 48, lit. 
 5, s. 20 to 24, 32 and 38, with same 48, tit. 8 
 
ADULTEUX 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 27 
 
 8. 1, § 5; Cod. J. 9, tit. 9, s. 4; and Pauli Recept. 
 Sentent. ii. 26. This right is common to most 
 nations, but the remarkable point is that Roman 
 law gave a greater prerogative of homicide to the 
 woman’s father than to her husband. P'or a 
 similar custom and feeling, see Lane’s Modern 
 Egyptians i. 297. The Jus Occidendi under the 
 Old Testament is treated by Selden, DeJure Nat. 
 et Gent, juxta Discip. Ebraeor. iv. 3; in old and 
 modern France, by Ducange and Ragueau; in 
 England, by Blackstone and Wharton. There is 
 a provision in Basil’s Can. 34 directing that if a 
 woman’s adultery becomes known to the Church 
 authorities either by her own confession or other¬ 
 wise, she shall be subjected to penitence, but not 
 placed among the public penitents, lest her hus¬ 
 band, seeing her should surmise what has occurred 
 and slay her on the spot (cf. Blastaris Syntagma^ 
 letter M, cap. 14). This kind of summary venge¬ 
 ance has often been confounded with the penalty 
 inflicted by courts of law, e.g. its celebrated as¬ 
 sertion by Cato in-A. Cell. x. 23, though his words 
 “sine judicio ” ought to have prevented the mis¬ 
 take. Examples of it will be found Val. Max. 
 vi 1, 13; the chastisement of the historian Sal¬ 
 lust is described A. Cell. xvii. 18 ; many illustra¬ 
 tions are scattered through the satirists, and 
 one, M. Ann. Senec., Controv. i. 4, is particularly 
 curious. 
 
 2. Tlie Household Tribunal, an institution 
 better known because of the details in Dion. 
 Hal. ii. 25. The remarks of Mommsen (i. 5 and 
 12), should be compared with Mr. Hallam’s phi¬ 
 losophical maxim (^Suppt. to Middle Ages, art. 54) 
 that the written laws of free and barbarous 
 nations are generally made for the purpose of 
 preventing the infliction of arbitrary punish¬ 
 ments. See for the usage Val. Max. ii. 9, 2, and 
 A. Cell. X. 23, in which latter place the husband 
 is spoken of 'fs the wife’s censor, a thought which 
 pervades Origen’s remarkable exposition of Matt. 
 XIX. 8, 9, compared with v. 32 (tomus xiv. 24). 
 The idea itself was likely to be less alien from 
 the mind of the Church because of the patri¬ 
 archal power which sentenced Tamar to the 
 flames, and the apostolic principle that “ the 
 Head of the Woman is the Man.” It is plain, 
 however, that all private administration of jus¬ 
 tice is opposed to the whole tenour of Church 
 legislation. But perhaps the most pleasant ex¬ 
 ample of the Roman Household Court best shows 
 the strength and extent of its jurisdiction. Pom- 
 ponia Graecina (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 32) was so tried 
 on the capital charge of foreign superstition, 
 and the noble matron, an early convert, as is 
 sometimes supposed, to Christianity, owed her 
 life to the ac(iuittal of her husband and his 
 family assessors. 
 
 3. A far more singular penalty on adultery is 
 mentioned. Tacit. Ann. ii. 85, Sueton. Tib. 35, and 
 Merivale, v. 197. It consisted in permitting a 
 matron to degrade herself by tendering her name 
 to the Aediles for insertion in the register of pub¬ 
 lic women. Tacitus speaks of it as “ more inter 
 veteres recepto,” and looks back'with evident 
 regret upon the ages when such shame was felt 
 to be an ample chastisement. His feeling is 
 shared by Val. Max. ii. 1. A like custom sub¬ 
 sisted before 1833 among the modern Egyptians, 
 (see Lane, i. 176-7), ditfeidng only in the fact that 
 the degradation was compulsory, a custom curi¬ 
 ously parallel to a narrative o'f Socrates, v. 18, 
 
 (copied by Nicephorus, xii. 22), who says that 
 thei'e 1 ‘emained at Rome, till abolished by the 
 Christian Emperor Theodosius L, places of con¬ 
 finement called Sistra, where women who had 
 been caught in breaking the 7th Commandment 
 were compelled to acts of incontiuency, during 
 which the attention of the passers-by was at¬ 
 tracted by the ringing of little bells in order that 
 their ignominy might be known to every one. 
 Valesius has a dubious note founded chiefly on 
 a mistake, already observed, as to the constancy 
 of Roman punishments. They really were must 
 variable, and here again Egypt offers a parallel, 
 cf. Lane, i. 462-3. Niebuhr {Lectures on Ronmn 
 Hist. i. 270) thinks the unfixed nature of penal¬ 
 ties for numerous offences in Greece and Rome a 
 better practice than the positive enactments of 
 modern times. We now pass to 
 
 4. Judicial Punishments. —Augustine {Civ. Dei, 
 iii. 5) says that the ancient Romans did not in¬ 
 flict death upon adulteresses (cf. Liv. i. 28, x. 
 2, XXV, 2, and xxxix. 18 ;) those who read Plautus 
 will find divorce descidbed as their usual chas¬ 
 tisement. The critics of Tribonian generally be¬ 
 lieve that Paulus {Sentent. ii. 26, 14) gives the 
 text of the Lex Julia. It commences with the 
 punishment of the woman, and proceeds to that 
 of her paramour on the principle before noticed 
 of the adultera being the true criminal, and the 
 adulter her accomplice. After Constantine, 
 though the civil law maintains this ancient 
 position, there is an apparent inclination to punish 
 the man as a seducei—a clearly vital alteration, 
 and due probably to Christian influences. 
 
 Augustine places the lenity of old Rome to¬ 
 wards adulterous women in contrast with the 
 sev^erities exercised on Vestal virgins. His state¬ 
 ment is not necessarily impugned by those who 
 rank adultery among capital crimes {e. g. Cod. J. 
 9^ tit. 9, s. 9), since by some kinds of banishment 
 “eximitur caput de civitate,” and hence the 
 phrase “ civil death ” (see Dig. 48, tit. 1, s. 2 ; 
 tit. 19, s. 2 ; tit. 22, s. 3-7). Emperors varied 
 fi’om each other, and from themselves. Augustus 
 exceeded his own laws (Tacit. Ann. iii. 24). Ti¬ 
 berius was perverse {ibid. iv. 42). Appuleius, 
 under the Antonines, represents the legal penalty 
 as actual death, and seems to imply that burn¬ 
 ing the adulteress alive was not an unknown 
 thing {Met. ix. ut supra). Of Macrinus it is ex¬ 
 pressly stated (Jul. Capit. 12), “ Adulterii reos 
 semper vivos simul incendit, junctis corporibus.’"’ 
 Alexander Severus held to a capital penalty {Cod. 
 J. 9, tit. 9), as above. Paulus was of his council 
 (cf. Ael. Lamprid. 25), a fact favouring the sup¬ 
 position that the section {Recept. Sent. ii. 26, 14) 
 which mentions a punishment not capital must 
 represent an earlier law. Arnobius, under Dio¬ 
 cletian (see Diet. Biog.'), speaks of adultery as 
 capital (iv. p. 142, ed. Var.). With the above 
 precedents before him, the reader may feel in¬ 
 clined to distrust the charge of new and Mosaic 
 severity brought against Constantine and his 
 successors in chap. 44 of Gibbon, vol. v. p. 322, 
 ed. Milman and Smith. 
 
 Whether the disputed penal clause of Con¬ 
 stantine be genuine or not, by another law of his 
 {Cod. J. 9, tit. 11) a woman offending with a 
 slave was capitally punished, and the slave burned. 
 Constantins and Constans {Cod. Theod. 11, tit. 
 .36, s. 4) enacted “ pari similique ratione sacrilcgos 
 nuptiarum, tanquam manifestos parncidas, m- 
 
28 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 r. uere culeo vivos, vel exurere, juJicniitem opor- 
 teat.’' Compare Diet. Antiq.a.vt. Leges Corneliae, 
 “ Lex Pompeia de Parricidiis,” and for burning, 
 I’auli Senterit. liecept. v. 24. Baronius (sub fin. 
 Ann. 339) has a note on “ Sacrilegos,”—a word 
 which placed the male offender in a deeply criminal 
 light. The execution of the sentence was en¬ 
 forced by clear cases of adultery being excepted 
 from appeal (Sent. Recept. ii. 26, 17), and after¬ 
 wards (Cod. Thcod. 9, tit. 38, s. 3-8), from the 
 Easter indulgence, when, in Imperial phrase, the 
 Resurrection Morning brought light to the dark¬ 
 ness of the prison, and broke the bonds of the 
 transgressor. Yet we may ask. Was the Con- 
 stantian law really maintained? Just thirty 
 years later, Ammianus (xxviii. 1) gives an ac¬ 
 count of the decapitation of Cethegus, a senator 
 of Lome; but though the sword was substituted 
 for fire, he reckons this act among the outrages 
 of Maximin, prefect of the city; and how easily 
 a magistrate might indulge in reckless barbarity 
 may be seen by the horrible trial for adultery 
 described by Jerome (Ad Innocent.), in which both 
 tlie accused underwent extreme tortures. Again, 
 though the Theodosian code (in force from a.d. 
 439) gave apparent life to the Constantian law, 
 yet by a rescript of Majorian (a.d. 459) it is 
 ordered that the adulterer shall be punished “ as 
 under former emperors,” by banishment from 
 Italy, with permission to any one, if he return, 
 to kill him on the spot (Novell. Major. 9). That 
 death in various times and places was the penalty, 
 seems clear from Jerome on Nah. i. 9 ; the V mdal 
 customs in Salviau, 7; and Can. W illici, 27. 
 Fines appear in later Welsh, as in Salic and 
 A. S. codes. For these and other punishments 
 among Christianized barbarians, see Ancient Laws 
 of Wales ; Lindenbrogii Cod. Leg., Wilkins, vol. i., 
 Olaus Mag. de Gent. Septent. XIV.; and Ducange 
 
 s. V. and under Trotari. 
 
 For Justinian’s legislation see his 134th Novell. 
 Cap. 10 renews the Constantian law against the 
 male offender, extends it to all abettors, and in¬ 
 flicts on the female bodily chastisement, with 
 other penalties short of death. Caj). 12 contem¬ 
 plates a possible evasion of justice, and further 
 oflences, to which are attached further severities. 
 Caps. 9 and 13 contain two merciful provisions. 
 Leo, in his 32nd Novell, (cited by Harmenop. as 
 19th), compares adultery with homicide, and 
 punishes both man and woman by the loss of 
 their noses and other inflictions. For a final 
 summary, cf. Harmenop. Proch. vi. 2, and on the 
 punishment of incontinent married men, vi. 3. 
 
 Spiritual penalties may be thus arranged—1. 
 Against adultery strictly so called (Can. Apost. 
 61 al. 60). A convicted adulter cannot receive 
 orders.—Ancyra, 20. Adultera and adulter (so 
 SchoL, husband with guilty knowledge, Routh 
 and Fleury), 7 years’ penitence.—Neocaesarea, 1. 
 Presbyter so offending to be fully excommunicated 
 and brought to penitence.—Neocaesarea, 8. The 
 layman whose wife is a convicted adultera can¬ 
 not receive orders. If the husband be already 
 ordained, he must put her away under penalty 
 of deprivation.—Basil, can. 9. An unchaste wife 
 must be divorced. An unchaste husband not so, 
 even if adulterous; this is the rule of Church 
 custom. [N.B.—We place Basil here because ac¬ 
 cepted by Trull. 2.]—Basil, 58. The adulter 15 
 years’ penitence; cf. 59, which gives 7 years to 
 simple incontinence, and compare with both can. 
 
 7 and Scholia.—Gregor. Ny.ss., can. 4, prescribes 
 18 years (9 only for simple incontinence).—Basil, 
 27, and Trull. 26, forbid a presbyter who has 
 ignorantly contracted an unlawful marriage be¬ 
 fore orders to discharge his functions, but do not 
 degrade him.—Basil, 39. An adultera living with 
 her paramour is guilty of continued crime. This 
 forbids her marriage with him, as does also the 
 .civil law. Cf. on these marriages Triburiense, 40, 
 49, and 51.—On intended and incipient sin, com¬ 
 pare Neocaesarea, 4, with Basil, 70 (also Scholia) 
 and Blastaris Syntagma, cap. xvi.—The synod of 
 Eliberis, though held a.d. 305, was not accej)ted 
 by any Universal Council, but it represents an 
 important part of the Western Church, and its 
 canons on discipline are strict. The following 
 arrangement will be found useful. Eliberis, 19. 
 Sin ofClerisy. (Cf. Tarracon. 9.)—31. Of young 
 men.—7. Sin, if repeated.—69. Of married men 
 and women.—47. If habitual and with relapse 
 after penitence.—64. Of women continuing with 
 their accomplices ; cf. 69.—65. Wives of clerks. 
 —70. Husbands’connivance (F. Mendoza remarks 
 on the antiquity of this sin in Spain).—78. 01 
 married men with Jewesses or Pagans. 
 
 2. Against Adultery as under SjAritual hut not 
 Civil Law. —Both canonists and divines joined with 
 our Saviour’s precepts, Prov. xviii. 23 ; Jer. iii. 1 
 (both LXX); 1 Cor. vi. 16, and xii. 11-16 and 39. 
 They drew two conclusions: (1) Divorce, except 
 for adultery, is adultery. Under this fell the 
 questions of enforced continence, and of marriage 
 after divorce. (2) To retain an adulterous wife 
 is also adultery—a point disputed by divines, e.g. 
 Augustine, who yielded to the text in Proverbs 
 (Retract, i. xix. 6). These divisions should be 
 remembered though the points are often blended 
 in the canons. 
 
 Can. Apost. 5. No one in higher orders to 
 cast out his wife on plea of religion. This is 
 altered as regards bishops by Trull. 12, but 
 the change (opposed to African feeling) was not 
 enough to satisfy Rome. It must be remem¬ 
 bered that, though divorce was restrained by 
 Constantine, whose own mother had thus suf¬ 
 fered (see Euti’op. ix. 22), his law was relaxed 
 by Theod. and Valentin, and their successors, 
 and it was common for a clerk, forced into conti¬ 
 nence, to repudiate his wife. Trull. 13, opposes 
 the then Roman practice as concerns priests and 
 deacons, and so far maintains, as it says. Can. 
 Apost. 5.—The Scholia on these three canons 
 should be read. For the Roman view of them 
 compare Binius and other commentators with 
 Fleury, Hist. Eccl. xl. 50. Cf. Siricius, Ad Himor. 
 7; Innocent I. Ad Exup. 1, and Ad Max. et Sev. ; 
 Leo I. Ad Rustic. 3, and Ad Anastas. 4. See also 
 Milman, Lat. Christ, i. 97-100. The feeling of 
 Innocent appears most extreme if Jerome’s asser¬ 
 tion (Ad Dcmetriad.) of this pope’s being his 
 predecessor’s son is literally meant, as Milman 
 and others believe.— Can. Apost. 18, al. 17. 
 On marriage with a cast-out wife; cf. Levit. 
 xxi. 7.—48, al. 47. Against casting out and 
 marrying again, or marrying a dismissed woman. 
 “Casting out” and “dismissed” are explained 
 by the Scholiasts in the sense of unlawful repu¬ 
 diations. Sanchez (De Matrim. lib. x. de Divert. 
 Disp. ii. 2) quotes this canon in the opposite sense, 
 and brings no other authoidty to forbid divorce 
 before Innocent I.; indeed in Disp. i. 12, he says, 
 “ Posterior (excusatio) est, indissolubilitatem ma- 
 
ADULTERY 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 29 
 
 tiiiuonii non ita arete in primitiva Ecclesia in- 
 tellectam esse, quin liceret ex legitima causa, 
 apud Episcopos provinciules probata, libellum 
 repudii dare.” F. Mendoza makes a like reserve 
 on Eliberis, 8. It is to be observed that Latin 
 renderings of Greek law terms are apt to be am¬ 
 biguous ; c.g. “ Soluta ” is sometimes used of 
 a dismissed wife, sometimes of an unmarried 
 woman.—Basil, Ad Amphiloch. can 9. The dictum 
 of our Lord applies naturally to both sexes, but 
 it is otherwise ruled by custom {i.e. of the 
 Church, see a few lines further, with Scholia; 
 and on unwritten Church custom having the 
 force of law cf. Photii Nomoc. i. 3, and refer¬ 
 ences]. In the case of wives that dictum is 
 stringently observed according to 1 Cor, vi. 16 ; 
 Jer. hi. 1, and Prov. xviii,, latter half of 23 
 (both in LXX and Vulgate).— If, however, a di¬ 
 vorced husband marries again, the second wife is 
 not an adultera, but the first; cf. Scholia. [Here 
 the Latin translator has mistaken the Greek ; he 
 renders ovk olda el Svyarai by “ nescio an possit,” 
 instead of “ nescio an non ”—so as to give the con¬ 
 trary of Basil’s real meaning.] A woman must 
 not leave her husband for blows, waste of dower, 
 incontinence, nor even disbelief (cL 1 Cor, vii. 16), 
 under penalty of adultery. Lastly, Basil forbids 
 second marriage to a husband putting away 
 his wife, i.e. unlawfully according to Aristenus, 
 Selden, llx. Ebr. iii. 31, and Scholia on Trull. 87. 
 On like Scripture grounds Can. 26 of 2nd Synod 
 attributed to St. Patrick, commands divorce of 
 adulteresses, and permits husband to remarry.— 
 Basil, 21, assigns exti'a penitence to what would 
 now be called simple adultery (then denied by 
 Church custom to be adultery), i.e. the incon- 
 tinency of a married man. Divorce is next 
 treated as a penalty—an offending wife is an 
 adulteress and must be divorced—not so the hus¬ 
 band ; cf. can. 9. Basil, unlike Gregory of Nyssa, 
 does not justify in reason the established custom. 
 —35. Alludes to a judgment of the sort men¬ 
 tioned by Sanchez and Mendoza, and referred 
 to above.—Can. 48. Separated wife had better 
 not re-marry. 
 
 Carthage, 105 ap, Bev, (in Cod. Eccl. Afric. 
 102).—Divorced persons {i.e. either rightly or 
 wrongly repudiating) to remain unmarried or 
 be reconciled, and an alteration of Imperial law 
 in this sense to be petitioned for. This breathes 
 a Latin rather than an Eastern spirit, and is the 
 same with 2 Milevis (Mileum), 17 (repeated Cone. 
 Afric. 69), cf. 1 Arles, 10, and Innocent L, Ad 
 Exup. 6. The case is differently determined 
 under differing conditions by Aug. de Fid. et 
 Oper. 2 (i.) compared with 35 (xix.). 
 
 The Scholiasts hold that the Carthaginian 
 canon was occasioned by facility of civil divorce, 
 but superseded by Trull. 87. Innocent III., with 
 a politic regard for useful forgeries, ordained that 
 earlier should prevail over later canons (cf. 
 Justell. i. 311), but the Greek canonists (as here) 
 maintain the reverse, which is likewise ably up¬ 
 held and explained by Augustine, De Bapt. 11. 4, 
 (iii.), and 14 (ix.). 
 
 Trull. 87, is made up of Basil’s 9, 21, 35, and 
 48. The Scholia should be read—but they do 
 not notice that, when it was framed, divorce by 
 consent had been restoj ed by Justin, Novell. 2 
 (authent. 140). They are silent because neither 
 this Novell, nor all Justinian’s 117 were inserted 
 in the Basilica then used j his 134 alone repi*e- 
 
 sented the law (see Photii Nomoc. XIII. 4, Sch. 3). 
 —Trull. 87, is so worded as to express desertion, 
 and therefore implies a judicial process, without 
 which re-marriage must be held mere adultery 
 (see on this point, Blastaris Syntarjm.: Gamma, 
 13). The “ divine ” Basil, here highly magnified, 
 is elevated still higher in Blastaris, Caus. Matrim. 
 ap. Leunclavii Jus Graeco-Roman, p. 514. 
 
 This canon closes the circle of Oecumenical 
 law upon adultery, and on divorce, treated partly 
 as its penalty and partly as its cause. The 
 points of agreement with State law are plain ; 
 the divergence is an effect of Church restraint 
 upon divorce, w'hich, if uncanonical, easily led to 
 digamy, and formed per se a species of adultery. 
 According to canonists (Photii Nomoc. I, 2, Schol. 
 2), Church law', having a twofold sanction, could 
 not be resisted by Imperial constitutions. 
 
 As the ancient mode’of thinking on adultery 
 is alien from our own, it seems right to I'efer 
 the reader to the vindication of its morality by 
 Gregory Nyss. {Ad Let. 4).—Gregory is by no 
 means lenient to the incontinency of married or 
 unmarried men with single women; 9 years of 
 penitence with all its attendant infamy made up 
 no trifling chasti.sement. But he held that the 
 offence of a married woman and her paramour 
 involves three additional elements of immorality 
 —the treacherous, the specially unjust, and the 
 unnatural ; or, to put the case another way, he 
 estimated the sin by the strength of the barriers 
 overleaped by passion, and by the amount of 
 selfishness involved in its gratification. So, in 
 modern days, we often speak of an adulteress as 
 an unnatural mother, and visit her seducer wnth 
 proportionate indignation. Thus viewed, spuri¬ 
 ousness of progeny is not a censure by rule of 
 expediency, but a legal test of underlying de¬ 
 pravity. 
 
 This section may usefully close with examples 
 showing how the ancient position has been over¬ 
 looked as well as resisted. We saw that Car¬ 
 thage, 105, and its parallels forbade marriage 
 after divorce, w'hether just or unjust, and that 
 the view' of its being adultery had gained ground 
 in the West. Now, three earlier Eliberitan canons 
 uphold the other principle. Can. 8. Against re¬ 
 marriage of a w'oman causelessly repudiating. 
 9. Against re-marriage of a woman leaving an 
 adulterous husband. 10. Against marriage with 
 a man guilty of causeless dismissal. From this 
 last canon, compared with 8 and 9, it appeal's 
 that the husband divorcing an adulteress may 
 mari'y again, which by 9 an aggrieved wife can¬ 
 not do; cf. the parallel, Basil, 9, supra. Cote- 
 lerius, note 16, 3, to Herm. Past. Mand. iv., 
 quotes cans., 9 and 10 as a support to the pseudo- 
 Ambrose on 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11, and construes 
 both to mean that the man is favoured above 
 the w'oman under like conditions. He is fol¬ 
 lowed by Bingham, xvi. 11, 6, as far as the so- 
 called Ambrose is concerned. But we have suf- 
 cieutly proved that Church custom did not per¬ 
 mit incontinency to be held a like condition 
 in husband and in wife. The pseudo-Ambrose 
 himself misleads his readers — his law' agrees 
 with the Basilean canon, but not content with 
 laying down the law, he goes on to reason out 
 the topic—the man’s being the head of the 
 woman, &c. The Western Canon ascribed to St. 
 Patrick (sM/jra) seems a remarkable contrast to 
 the Latin rule. The fact is equally remarkable 
 
30 
 
 ADULTERY 
 
 ADVENT 
 
 that at no further distance from Eliberis than 
 Arles, and as early as A.D. 314, it was enacted 
 by Can, 10 that 5 ^ouug men detecting their wives 
 in adultery should be counselled against marry¬ 
 ing others during the lifetime of the adulteresses 
 (cf. Mantes 12). Most curious to us are the de¬ 
 crees of Pope Leo I., Ad Nicet. 1, 2, 3, 4, which 
 allow the wives of prisoners of war to marry 
 others, but compel them to return to their 
 husbands under pain of excommunication should 
 the captives be released and desire their society. 
 Such instances as these and some before cited 
 illustrate the A^aidous modes of affirming an iron 
 bond in marriage, and of resisting the law on 
 adultery, and on divorce as the penalty of adul¬ 
 tery (afterwards received in Trullo), ere yet the 
 opposition formed an article in the dh'ergence 
 of Creek and Latin Christendom. With them 
 should be compared thfe extracts from divines 
 given under Division 11. supra, which display in 
 its best colours the spirit of the revolution. For 
 other particulars, see Divorce. 
 
 3. Constructive Adultery. —The following are 
 treated as guilty of the actual crime :—Trull. 98. 
 A man marrying a betrothed maiden; cf. Basil, 
 37, with SchoL, and Dig. 48, tit. 5, s. 13, § 3; 
 also Siricius, Ad Him. 4.—Elib. 14. Girls seduced 
 marrying other men than their seducers.—Basil, 
 18. Consecrated virgins who sin and their para¬ 
 mours ; cf. his 60. These supersede Ancyra, 19, 
 by which the offence was punished as digamy. 
 See on same. Trull. 4; Elib.13 ; Siric. Ad Him. 6, 
 Innocent, Ad Victr. 12 and 13. Cyprian, Ad Pom¬ 
 pon., pronounced it better they should marry— 
 the offender is “ Christ! Adultera.” Jerome, Ad 
 Demetriad. sub fin., perplexes the case for irre¬ 
 vocable vows by declaring, “ Quibus aperte dicen- 
 dum est, ut aut nubant, si se non possunt conti- 
 nere, aut contineant, si nolunt nubere.”—Laod. 
 10 and 31, accepted by Chalced. i. and Trull. 2, 
 forbid giving sons and daughters in marriage to 
 heretics. Eliberis, 15, 16,17, enact severe penal¬ 
 ties against parents who marry girls to Jews, 
 heretics, and unbelievers, above all to heathen 
 priests. 1, Arles, 11, has same prohibition, so too 
 Agde, 67. By Cod. Theod. 16, tit. 8, s. 6 (a.d. 
 339), Jew's must not take Christian women; by 
 Cod. Theod. 3, tit. 7, s. 2 (a.d. 388), all marriage 
 between Jew and Christian is to be treated as 
 adultery, a law preseiwed by Justinian {Cod. J. 
 1, tit. 9, s. 6). Some suppose this phrase simply 
 means treated as a capital offence, but Elib. 15, 
 mentions the risk of adulterium anirnae. The pas¬ 
 sage in Tertullian, Ad Ux. ii. 3, “fideles gentilium 
 matrimonia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat,” 
 &c. (cf. Division 1. supra) shows how early this 
 thought took hold of the Church. Idolatry 
 from Old Testament times downward w'as adul¬ 
 tery ; and div'ines used the principle 1 Cor. vi. 
 15, 16, and parallel texts, to prov'e that marriage 
 with an unclean transgressor inv'olved wife or 
 husband in the sinner’s guilt. Compare Justin 
 Martyr in the history cited Division I., C 3 'prian, 
 Testimon. iii. 62, and Jerome, Epitaph. Fabiolae. 
 It would^ appear therefore that law was thus 
 worded to move conscience, and how hard the 
 task of law became maj' be gathered from Chal- 
 cedon, 14. This canon (on which see Schol. and 
 Routh’s note, Opusc. ii. 107) concerns the lower 
 clerisy; but the acceptance of Laodicea by Can. 
 1 had already met the case of lay people. See 
 further under Marriage. 
 
 The Church was strict against incitements and 
 scandals. Professed v'irgins must not live with 
 clerks as sisters. See Sub-introduciae. On 
 promiscuous bathing. Trull. 77,' Laod. 30 ; the 
 custom was strange to early Rome, but practice 
 varied at different times (see Diet. Antiq. Bal- 
 neae). On female adornment. Trull. 96, and com¬ 
 pare Commodian’s address to matrons, Inst. 59, 
 60.—Elib. 35, forbids women’s night watching 
 in cemeteries, because sin w'as committed under 
 pretext of prayer. Against theatricals, loose 
 reading, some kinds of revels, dances, and other 
 prohibited things, see Bingham, xvi. 11, 10-17, 
 with the references, amongst which those to 
 Cyprian deserve particular attention. 
 
 For the general literature on Canon Law see 
 that article. Upon cival law there are excellent 
 references under Justinianus, Diet. Biogr., with 
 additional matter in the notes to Gibbon, chap. 
 44, ed. Smith and Milman, and a summarv re¬ 
 specting the Basilica, vol. vii. pp. 44, 45. ' We 
 may here add that Mommsen is editing a text of 
 the Corpus Juris Civilis ; and the whole Rus.sian 
 code is now being translated for English publica¬ 
 tion. There is a series of manuals by Ortolan 
 deserving attention: Histoire de la Legislation 
 romaine, 1842; Cours de Legislation penale com- 
 paree, 1839-41 ; Explication des Lnstituts, 1863. 
 Gothofredi Manuale Juris, and Windscheid’s 
 Lehrbuch d. Pandektenredits (2nd ed.) may be 
 useful. An ample collection of Councils and Ec¬ 
 clesiastical documents relating to Great Britain 
 and Ireland is being published at Oxford. Re¬ 
 ferences on special topics have been fully given 
 above, and will seiwe to indicate the readiest 
 sources for further information. Curious readers 
 will find interesting matter in Saint Edme, Dic- 
 tionnaire de la Penalite; Taylor, On Civil Law ; 
 and Duni, Origine e Progressi del Cittadino e del 
 Governo civile di Roma, 1763-1764. [W. J.] 
 
 ADVENT (^Adventus, NTjcrreia rwv XpicTTOv- 
 yevucov), is the season of preparation for the 
 Feast of the Nativity, to which it holds the like 
 relation as does Lent to Easter. As no trace of 
 an established celebration of the birth of our 
 Lord is met with before the 4th century [Na¬ 
 tivity], no earlier origin can be assigned to the 
 ecclesiastical institution of Advent; the state¬ 
 ment of Durand (^Rationale divin. off. v'i. 21), which 
 makes this an appointment of St. Peter (unless, 
 like other statements of the same kind, it means 
 only that this was an ordinance of the see of St. 
 Peter), may rest, perhaps, on an ancient tradition, 
 making Christmas an apostolic institution, but 
 is contrary to all historical testimony, and dev'oid 
 of probabilitj'. Expressions which have been 
 alleged on that behalf from Tertullian, St. Cyprian, 
 and other early writers, are ev'idently meant, not 
 of “Adv'ent ” as a Church season, but of the 
 coming of the Lord in the fulness of time. A 
 passage of St. Chrysostom (^Hom. iii. ad Eph. 
 t. xi. 22 B), in which uaiphs ttjs 7rpo(r6Sou is 
 mentioned in connection with to. ’Eiropavia (i. e. 
 the ancient Feast of Nativ'ity and Baptism) and 
 with the Lenten Quadragesima, speaks, as the 
 context manifestly shows, not of the season of 
 Advent, but of the fit time (or rather fitness in 
 general) for coming to Holy Communion (comp. 
 Menard on LAbr. Sacram. S. Gregorii; 0pp. t. iii. 
 col. 446). Setting aside these supposed testi¬ 
 monies, and that of the Sermons de Adventu, 
 
ADVENT 
 
 ADVENT 
 
 31 
 
 alleged as St. Augustine’s, but certainly not his, 
 we have two homilies In (or De) Adcentu Domini, 
 de eo quod dictum est, sicut fukjur coruscans, &c., 
 et de duobus in lecto uno, by St. Maximus, Bishop 
 of Turin, ob. 466. In neither of these sermons 
 is there any indication of Advent as a season, 
 any allusion to Lessons, Gospels, &c., appro¬ 
 priated to such a season, or to the Feast of 
 Nativity as then approaching. And, indeed, the 
 fact that the “ Sundays in Advent ” are unknown 
 to the Sacramentary of Pope Leo of the same age 
 sufficiently shows that this season was not yet 
 established in the time of Maximus. Among 
 the Homilies (doubtfully) ascribed to this 
 bishop, edited by Mabillon (^Mus. Ital. t. i. pt. 2), 
 one, horn, vii., preached on the Sunday before 
 Christmas, simply exhorts to a due observance of 
 the feast, and contains no indication of any 
 ecclesiastical rule. Even in the Sermons de 
 Adventu, formerly ascribed to St. Augustine, 
 now generally acknowledged to have been 
 written by Caesarius, Bishop of Arles, ob. 542 (S. 
 Augustini 0pp. t. 210, Ben. Append, n. 115, 
 116), there is no distinct recognition of Advent 
 as an established observance. In these, the faithful 
 a”e exhorted to prepare themselves, seA'eral days 
 {ante plures dies% foi the due celebration of the 
 Nativity, especially of the Christmas Communion, 
 by good works, by guarding against anger and 
 hatred, by modest hospitality to the poor, by 
 strict continence, &c. Still there is no indi¬ 
 cation of the length of time so to be set apart, 
 nor any refei'euce to Lessons, Gospels, or other 
 matters of Church usage. The preacher urges 
 such preparation, not on the ground of Church 
 observance, but as matter of natural fitness: 
 “ Even as ye would prepare for celebrating the 
 birth-day of a great lord by putting your houses 
 in order,” &c. “ Ideo ab omni inquinamento 
 
 ante ejus Natalem multis diebus abstinere de- 
 betis. Quotiescumque aut Natalem Domini aut 
 reliquas sollemnitates celebrare disponitis, ebrieta- 
 tem ante omnia fugite,” &c. And so in the 
 second sermon : “ Et ideo quotiescumque aut dies 
 Natalis Domini, aut reliquae festivitates adveniunt, 
 sicut frequenter admonui, ante plures dies non 
 solum ab infelici concubinarum consortio, sed 
 etiam a propriis uxoribus abstinete : ab omni ira- 
 cundia,” &c. There is indeed a canon cited by 
 Gratian {Decretal, xxxiii, qu. 4) as of the Council 
 of Lerida, A.d. 523, prohibiting all marriage/row 
 Advent to Epiphany. But this canon is known 
 to be spurious, and does not appear in the 
 authentic copies (see Brun’s Concilia, t. ii. 20). 
 A similar canon of the Council of Macon, (a.d. 
 581, ibid. 242) is undisputed. This (can. ix.) 
 enjoins that from the Feast of St. Martin 
 (Nov. 11) to the Nativity there be fasting 
 on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each 
 week, and that the canons be then read; also 
 that the sacrifices be offered in the quadragesimal 
 oi*der. (Subsequent councils, after our period, 
 enjoin the observaoce of this Quadragesima S. 
 Martini as the preparation for Christmas, corre¬ 
 sponding to the Lenten Quadragesima before 
 Easter.) It does not appear what were the 
 canons appointed to be read, relating, of course, 
 to the observance of these forty days befoi'e 
 Christmas; only, it may be inferred that such 
 canons were, or were supposed to be, in exist¬ 
 ence, of earlier date than that of Macon (in the 
 preface to which council it is said these enact¬ 
 
 ments are not new : “non tarn nova quam prisca 
 patrum statuta sancientes ” &c.). In the second 
 Council of Tours (a.d. 567), the fast of three 
 days in the week is ordered (can. xvii.) for the 
 months of September, October, and November, 
 and from (1) December to the Nativity, omm 
 die. But this is for monks only. St. Gregory, 
 Bishop of Tours, in De Vitis Patrum, written 
 between 590 and 595, alleges that Perpetuus, 
 Bishop of Tours (461-490), ordered “a deposi- 
 tione B. Martini usque ad Nat. Dom. terna in 
 septimana jejuuia.” This may have been one 
 of the prisca statuta appealed to ; but no trace 
 is extant of any such canon, either in the First 
 Council of Tours, a.d. 460, or in any other Latin 
 council before that of Macon. It seems, from all 
 that is certainly known, that Advent took its place 
 among Church seasons only in the latter part 
 of the 6th century. When the Nativity had 
 become established as one of the great festivals, 
 it was felt that its dignity demanded a season of 
 preparation. The number of days or weeks to be 
 so set apart was at first left to the discretion of 
 the faithful: “ ante plures dies, multis diebus, ’ 
 as in the above-cited exhoi’tation of Caesarius. 
 Later, this Avas defined by rule, and first, it 
 seems, in the Churches of Gaul. Yet not every¬ 
 where the same rule: thus the oldest Gallican 
 Sacramentaiy shows three Sundays in AdA'ent, 
 the Gothic-Gallican only two (Mabillon, Mus. 
 Ital. t. i. pp. 284—288 ; and de Liturg. Gallicana, 
 p. 98, sqq^. But the rule that the term of pre¬ 
 paration should be a quadragesima (correspond¬ 
 ing Avith that which was already established for 
 Easter), to commence after the Feast of St. 
 Martin, which rule, as has been seen, Avas not 
 enacted, but reinforced by the canon of Macon, 
 581, implies six Sundays; and that this rule ob¬ 
 tained in other Churches appears from the fact 
 that the Ambrosian (or Milan) and Mozarabic 
 (or Spanish) Ordo show six missae, implying that 
 number of Sundays; and the same rule Avas ob¬ 
 served (as Martene has shown) in some of the 
 Gallican Churches. The Epistola ad Bibianum 
 falsely alleged to be St. Augustine’s account of 
 “ the offices of divine Avorship throughout the 
 year ” in his diocese of Hippo (see Bened. Ad- 
 monitio at end of 0pp. S. Augustini, t. ii.), 
 also attests this for Churches of Gaul, if, as 
 Martene surmises, this Avas the Avork of some 
 Gallican Avriter. It should be remarked that 
 this writer himself makes the ordo adventus 
 Domini begin much earlier, at the autumnal 
 equinox, Sept. 25, as being the day of the 
 conception of St. John the Baptist, and so the 
 beginning of the times of the Gospel. “ Sed 
 quia sunt nonnulli qui adventum Domini a festi- 
 Autate B. Martini Turonensis urbis episcopi 
 videntur insipienter excolere, nos eos non repre- 
 hendamus” &c. This Quadragesima S. Martini 
 seems to have originated in Gaul, in the diocese 
 of Tours, to Avhich it Avas specially recommended 
 by the deAmtion paid to its great saint; an 
 additional distinction was conferred upon his 
 festiA’al in that it marked the beginning of the 
 solemn preparation for the Nativity. So far, we 
 may accept Binterim’s conclusion {Denkwiirdig- 
 keiten der christ.-kathol. Kirche, vol. v., pt. i., p. 
 166): the rule—not, as he says, of Advent, but—of 
 this Quadragesima is first met with in the diocese 
 of Tours. If, indeed, the Tractatus de sanctis 
 tribus Quadragesimis, “ unde eas observari ac- 
 
32 
 
 ADVENT 
 
 ADVENT 
 
 cej/iiiius, (juoilque qui cas transgreJiuntur legem 
 vii'leut ” (ap. Coteler, Monum. Eccl. Gr. iii. 425), 
 be, as Cave {Hist. Lit.) represents, the work of 
 that Auastasius Sinaita who was patriarch of 
 Antioch, 5(31,'o0. 599; this Quadragesima, under 
 another name (“ Q. S. Philippi,” or “ Fast of the 
 Nativity ”), was already observed in the East. 
 But the contents make it plain enough that its 
 author was another and much later Anastasius 
 Sinaita, who wrote after a.d. 787. The ob¬ 
 servance of the “ Quadragesima Apostolorum,” 
 and “Quadragesima S. Philippi ” (the Feast of 
 St. Philip in the Greek Calendar is November 
 14) is enjoined upon monks by Nice])horus, 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, 806. This fast of 
 40 days before Christmas seems to have been 
 kept up chiefly by the monastic orders in Gaul, 
 Spain, Italy, (Martene De Lit. Ant. Eccl.. iii. 
 p. 27); it was observed also in England in 
 the time of Bede {Hist. iii. 27; iv. 30), and 
 much later. It was not until the close of the 
 6th century that the Church of Rome under 
 St. Gregory received the season of preparation 
 as an ecclesiastical rule, restricted, in its proper 
 sense, to the four Sundays before the Nativity 
 (Amalarius De Eccl. Off. iii. 40, a.d. 812, and 
 Abbot Berno, De quihusdam rebus ad Missam 
 pertinentihus., c. iv. 1014); and this became the 
 general rule for the Western Church throughout 
 the 8th century, and later. And, in fact, four is 
 the number of Sundays in Advent in the Saci'a- 
 mentary of Gregory {Liber Sacrament, de circulo 
 anni, ed. Pamelius ; and in the Leciionarium Ro~ 
 manum. ed. Thomasius). But other and older 
 copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary (ed. Menard, 
 1642, reprinted with his notes in the Benedic¬ 
 tine Opj?. S. Gi’egorii, t. iii.); the Comes, ascribed 
 to St. Jerome; the Sacramentary of Gelasius, ob. 
 496 (a very ancient document, but largely in¬ 
 terpolated with later additions); the Antiquum 
 Kalend. Sacrae Romanae Eccl. ap. Martene. Thes. 
 Anecdot. t. v. (in a portion added by a later hand) ; 
 the Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York, ob. 
 767 ; a Lectionary written for Charlemagne by 
 Paul the Deacon (ap. Mabillon); and other MSS. 
 cited by Martene {u. s. iv. 80, ff.), all give five 
 Sundaj’^s. Hence, some writers have been led to 
 represent that the practice varied in different 
 Churches, some reckoning four, others five Sundays 
 in Advent—an erroneous inference, unless it could 
 be shown that the first of the five Sundays was 
 designated “Dominica Prima Adventus Domini.” 
 The seeming discrepancy is easily explained. 
 The usual ancient names of the four Sundays, 
 counted backwards from the Nativity, are : Do¬ 
 minica i., ante Nat. Domini (our 4th Advent), 
 Dom. ii., Dom. iii., Dom. iv. ante Nat. Domini. 
 To these the next preceding Sunday was prefixed 
 under the style Dom. v. ante Nat. Dom., not as 
 itself a Sunday in Advent, but as the preparation 
 for Advent. So Amalarius and Berno, u. s., 
 and Durandus: “In quinta igitur hebdomada 
 ante Nat. D. inclioatur praeparatio adventus . . . 
 nam ab ilia dominica sunt quinque officia domi- 
 nicaiia, quinque epistolae et quinque evangelia 
 quae adventum Domini aperte praedicant.” The 
 intention is evident in the Epistle and Gospel 
 for this Sunday, which in the Sarum Mis.sal is 
 designated “dominica proxima ante Adventum,” 
 with the rule (retained by our own order from 
 that of Sarum), that these shall always be used 
 for the last Sunday before Advent begins. 
 
 After the pattern of the Lenten fast. Advent 
 was marked as a season of mourning in the pub¬ 
 lic services of the Church. The custom of 
 omitting the Gloria in Excelsis (replaced by the 
 Benedicamus Domino), and also the Te Deum, and 
 Ite missa est, and of laying aside the dalmatic 
 and subdeacon’s vestment (which in the 11th 
 and 12th century appears to have been tiie 
 established rule, Micrologus De Eccl. Obs. c. 46; 
 Ruj)ert Abbas Tuit. de Div. Off. iii. c. 2), was 
 coming into use during the eighth century. In 
 the Mozarabic Missal, a rubric, dating jjrobablv 
 from the end of the 6th century {i.e. from the 
 refashionment of this ritual by Leander or Isidore 
 of Seville), appoints : “ In Adventu non dicitur 
 Gloria in Excelsis dominicis diebus et feriis, se l 
 tantum diebus festis.” And Amalarius, ob. 812 
 {De Offic. Sacr. iii. c. 40), testifies to this custom 
 for times within our period: “ Vidi tempore 
 prisco Gloria in Excelsis praetermitti in diebus 
 adventus Domini, et in aliquibus locis dalmaticas ”: 
 and iv. c. 30 : “ Aliqua de nostro officio reser- 
 vamus usque ad praesentiam nativitatis Domini, 
 h. e. Gloria in Excelsis Deo, et clarum vesti- 
 mentum dalmaticam ; si forte nunc ita agitur 
 ut vidi actitari in aliquibus locis.” The Bene¬ 
 dictine monks retained the Te Deum in Advent as 
 in Lent, alleging the rule of their founder. The 
 Alleluia also, and the Sequences, as also the 
 hymns, were omitted, but not in all Churches. 
 In the Gregorian Antiphonary, the Alleluia is 
 marked for 1 and 3 Advent and elsewhere. In 
 some Churches, the Miserere (Ps. li.) and other 
 mournful Psalms were added to or substituted 
 for the ordinary Psalms. For lessons, Isaiah 
 was read all through, beginning on Advent 
 Sunday; when that was finished, the Twelve 
 Minor Prophets, or readings from the Fathers, 
 especially the Epistles of Pope Leo on the Incar¬ 
 nation, and Sermons of St. Augustine, succeeded. 
 The lesson from “the Prophet” ended with the 
 form, “ Haec dicit Dorninus Deus, Convertimini ad 
 me, et salvi eritis.” 
 
 In the Greek Church, the observance of a season 
 of preparation for the Nativity is of late intro¬ 
 duction. No notice of it occurs in the liturgical 
 works of Theodorus Studites, ob. 826, though, 
 as was mentioned above, the 40-days’ fast of St. 
 Philip was enjoined (to monks) by Nicephorus, 
 A.D. 806. This naffapaKovTaVifixpov, beginning 
 November 14, is now the rule of the Greek 
 Church (Leo Allat. de Consensu iii. 9, 3). Codinus 
 {De Off. Eccl. et Curiae Constnntinop. c. 7, n. 20) 
 speaks of it as a rule which in his time (cir. 
 1350) had been long in use. The piece De Tribus 
 Quadragesimis above noticed, ascribed to Ana¬ 
 stasius Sinaita, Patriarch of Antioch, shows that, 
 except in monasteries, the rule of a 40-days’ fast 
 before the Nativity was contested in his time 
 (a.d. 1100 at earliest). And Theodore Balsamon, 
 A.D. 1200, lays down the rule thus:—“We ac¬ 
 knowledge but one quadragesima, that before 
 Pascha; the others (named), as this Fast of the 
 Nativity, are each of seven days only. Those 
 monks who fast 40 days, viz. from St. Philip 
 (14 Sept.), are bound to this by their rule. Such 
 laics as voluntarily do the like are to be praised 
 therefor.” Respons. ad qu. 53 Marci Patriarch. 
 Alex., and ad interrog. monachorum, app. to 
 Photii Nomocanon. In the calendar formed 
 from Evangelia Eclogadia of 9th century our 4 
 Advent is marked “ Sunday before the Nativity,’ 
 
ADVOCATE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 ADVOCATE OF THE CHURCH 33 
 
 while the preceding Sundays are numbered from 
 All Saints = our Trinity Sunday. (Assemanni 
 Kalead. Eccl. Unto., t. vi. p. 575.) The term 
 “Advent” is not applied to this season: the 
 KvpiaKT] rris Sevrepas Tlupova'ias is our Sexa- 
 gesima. 
 
 In the separated Churches of the East, no 
 trace appears, within our period, of an Advent 
 season ; unless we except the existing Nestorian 
 or Chaldean rule, in which the liturgical year 
 begins with four Sundays of Annunciation (^evay- 
 ycKicr/iov), before the Nativity (Assemanni Bi¬ 
 bliotheca Orient, t. iii. pt. 2, p. 380 sqq.). This 
 beginning of the Church year is distinguished as 
 Risk phenkito, i.e. initium codicis, from the Risk 
 thannoto, i.e. new-year’s day in October. The 
 Armenian Church, refusing to accept 25th De¬ 
 cember as the Feast of Nativity, and adhering to 
 the more ancient sense of the Feast of Epiphany 
 as including the Birth of Christ, prepares for 
 this high festival (6th January) by a fast of 50 
 days, beginning 17th November. 
 
 The first Sunday in Advent Avas not always 
 the beginning of the liturgical year, or circulus 
 toti us anni. The Comes and the Saci’amentary 
 of St. Gregory begin with IX. Kal. Jan., the 
 Vigil of the Nativity. So does the most ancient 
 Lectionarium Gallicanum ; but the beginning of 
 this is lost, and the Vigil is numbered VII., the 
 Nativity VIII. Hence Mabillon {Liturg. Gallic. 
 p. 98, 101) infers that it began with the fast of 
 St. Martin (or with the Sunday after it, Dom. 
 VI. ante Nat. Dom.). One text of the Missale 
 Ambrosianum begins with the Vigil of St. 
 Martin (ed. 1560). The Antiphonarius of St. 
 Gregory begins 1 Advent, and the Liber Re- 
 sponsalis with its Vigil. But the earlier pi’actice 
 was to begin the ecclesiastical year with the 
 month of Mai'ch, as being that in which our 
 Lord was crucified (March 25); a trace of this 
 remains in the notation of the Quatuor Tem¬ 
 pera as Jejunium primi, quarti, septimi, decimi 
 inensis, the last of which is the Advent Ember 
 week. 
 
 Literature.—De CatholicaeEcclesiae divinis offic. 
 ac ministeriis, Rome, 1590 (a collection of the 
 ancient liturgical treatises of St. Isidore, Alcuin, 
 Amalarius, IMicrologus, Petr. Damianus, &c.); 
 Martene, Ee Riti'ius Ant. Ecclesiae et Mona- 
 chorum, 1699; Binterim, Die vorziiglichsten 
 Denkwiirdigkeiten der christ.-katholischen Kirche, 
 l\Iainz, 1829 (founded on the work of Pel- 
 licia, De Christ. Eccles. Primae Mediae et No- 
 vissirnae Aetatis Politia,^QaTp. 1777); August!, 
 Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der christlichen Archdo- 
 logie, Leipzig, 1818; Herzog, Real-Encyclopddie 
 fiir protestantische Theologie u. Kirche, s. a. Ad- 
 ventszeit, 1853; Rheinwald, Kirchliche Arch'd- 
 ologie, 1830 ; Alt, Der Christliche Cultus, Abth. 
 ii. Das Kirchenjahr, 1860. [H. B.] 
 
 ADVOCATE OF THE CHURCH (Ad- 
 vocatus, or Defensor, Ecclesiae or Monasterii ; 
 2w5i/cos,’'E/cSiKos : and Advocatio = ih.(i office, and 
 sometimes the fee for discharging it):—an eccle¬ 
 siastical officer, appointed subsequently to the 
 recognition of the Church by the State, and in 
 consequence (1) of the Church’s need of pi'o- 
 tection, (2) of the disability, both legal and re¬ 
 ligious, of clergy or monks (Can. Aiost. xx., 
 Ixxxi.; Constit. Apostol. ii. 6; Justinian, Novell. 
 cxxiii. 6; and see Bingham, vi. 4) eith.er to plead 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 in a civil court or to intei’meddle Avith worldly 
 business. In its original form it was lin.ited to 
 the duties thus intimated, and took its origin as a 
 distinct and a lay office in Africa (CW. Can. Eccl. 
 Afric. c. 97, A.I). 407, Defensores,” to be taken 
 from the Scholastici ; ” Cone. Milevit. ii. c. 16, 
 A.D. 416 ; Can. Afric. c. 64, c. a.d. 421) ; but re¬ 
 ceived A^eiy soon certain privileges of ready and 
 speedy access to the courts from the emperors 
 (Coo?. Theod. 2. tit. 4. § 7 ; 16. tit. 2. § 38). 
 It became then a lay office (defensores, distin¬ 
 guished in the code from “ coronati ” or tonsured 
 pei’sons), but had been previously, it Avould seem, 
 discharged by the oeconomi (Du Cange). And, as 
 it naturally canie to be reckoned almost a minor 
 order, so it was occasionally, it Avould seem, still 
 held by clerics (Morinus, De Ordin. ; Bingham). 
 The advocatus Avas to be sometimes asked from 
 the emperors (authorities as above),—as judices 
 Avere giA^en by the Praetors •,—but sometimes Avas 
 elected by the bishop and clergy for themselves 
 (Coc7. lib. i. tit. iv. constit. 19). The office is 
 mentioned by the Council of Chalcedon, cc. 2, 
 25, 26, A.D. 451, and is there distinguished both 
 from the clergy and from the oeconornus ; by Pope 
 Gelasius, Eq.nst. ix. c. 2, a.d. 492-496; and by 
 Maxentius (^Resp. ad Hormisd.) some S' ore of 
 years later. But it had assumed a much more 
 formal shape during this period, both .at Con¬ 
 stantinople and at Rome. In the former place, 
 as protectors of the Church, under the title of 
 ’EicKA.7j(rie/cSi/cot, there Avere four officers of the 
 kind: i. the irpooTeKBiKos, Avho defended the 
 clergy in criminal cases ; ii. one Avho defended 
 them in civil ones ; iii. 6 rov B^paros, also called 
 the TTpcorJiraTros ; iv. 6 rys ^EKKAyalas ; increased 
 by the time of Heraclius to ten, and designed in 
 general for the defence of the Church against 
 the rich and powerful (Justinian, Edict, xiii., and 
 Novell. Ivi. and lix. c. 1; and see the passages 
 from Codrinus, Zonaras, Balsamon, «Sjc., in Meur- 
 sius. Gloss. Graecobarbarum, voc. ''EkZlkos, and in 
 Suicer). They appear also to haA'e acted as 
 judges OA'er ecclesiastical pei’sons in trifling cases 
 (Morinus). They were commonly laymen (so 
 Cod. Theod. as above); but in one case certainly 
 (Cone. Constantin., a.d. 536, act. ii.) an iKK\r]- 
 (TiiKdiKOs is mentioned, who Avas also a jnes- 
 byter; and presbyters are said to haA'e com¬ 
 monly held the office, while later still it Avas held 
 by deacons (Morinus). In Rome, beginning aa ith 
 Ijanocent I. (a.d. 402-417, Epist. xii. ed. Con¬ 
 stant) and his successor Zosimus (Epist. i. c. 3), 
 the Defensores became by the time of Gregory 
 the Great a regular order of officers (Defensores 
 Romanae Ecclesiae), Avhose duties Avere—i. to de¬ 
 fend Church interests generally ; ii. to take care 
 of alms left for the poor; iii. to be sent to held 
 applicants from a distance for Papal protection ; 
 iv. to look after outlying estates belonging to 
 St. Peter’s patrimony (S. Greg. M., EpLtt. pas¬ 
 sim). There were also in Rome itself at that 
 time seven officers of the kind, called Defensores 
 Regionarii (Ordo Roman.), each Avith his proper 
 region, and the first of the seven knoAvn as tlie 
 Primicerius Defensorum or Primus Defensor (St. 
 Greg. Epistt., passim). St. Gregory certainly 
 marks them out as usually laymen, yet in some 
 cases clerics, and generally as holding a sort of 
 ecclesiastical position. And the other Popes Avho 
 allude to them (as quoted aboA'c), are led to do 
 so Avhile treating the question of the steps and 
 
34 ADVOCATE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 ADVOCATE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 delays to be made m admitting laymen to holy 
 orders, and feel it necessary to say that such re¬ 
 strictions apply “ even ” to Defensores. See also 
 St. Gregory of Tours, De Vttis Patrum, c. 6. 
 
 The great development of the office, however, 
 took place under Charlemagne ; who indeed, and 
 Pipin, were themselves, Kar' Defensores 
 
 Ecclesiae liomanaeP And the German emperors 
 became, technically and by title, Advorati et 
 Defensores Ecclesiarum (Charles V. and Henry 
 VIII. being coupled together long afterwards as 
 respectively ecc/<?sfa<?, andfidei, defensores'). It was 
 then established as a regular office for each church 
 or abbey, under the appellations also occasionally 
 of Mundihurdi (or -Incrgi), Pastores Laid, and 
 sometimes simply causidid or tutores ; to be nomi¬ 
 nated by the emperor [Leo IX., however, as Pope 
 appointed (Du Cange)], but then probably for a 
 particular emergency only {Car. M. Capit. v. 31, 
 vii. 308); and usually as an office for life, to 
 which the bishops and abbats were themselves 
 to elect {Cone. Mogunt. c. 50, A.D. 813,—all 
 bishops, abbats, and clergy, to choose “ vicedo¬ 
 minos, praepositos, advocatos, sive defensores; ” 
 Cone. Pem. ii. c. 24, A.D. 813,—“ Ut praepositi et 
 vicedornini secundum regulas vel canones con- 
 stituantur;” and see also Cone. Ponian. cc. 19, 
 20, A.D. 826, and Cone. Duziae. ii. P. iii. c. 5. 
 A.D. 871), but “in praesentia comitum ” {Legg. 
 Loyigobard. lib. ii. tit. xlvii. § 1, 2,4, 7), and from 
 the landowners in their own neighbourhood (cap. 
 xiv. ex Lege Saliea, PiOinana, et Gumhata, —“ Et 
 ipsi [adAmcati] habeant in illo comitatu propriam 
 haereditatemand in a capitular of A.D. 742, 
 we find mention of a “ Graphio” i. e. count, “qui 
 est defensor,” Morinus, De Ordin., P. III. p. 307) ; 
 and this, not only to plead in court or take oath 
 there (sometimes two advoeati, one to plead, the 
 other to swear, Legg. Longobard. ii. xlvii. § 8), 
 but in course of time to hold courts {plaeita or 
 malla) as judges in their OAvn district (Du Cange, 
 but A.D. 1020 is the earliest date among his 
 authorities), and generally to protect the secular 
 interests of their own church or abbey. The 
 Advocatus was at this time distinguished from 
 the Vieedomnus, sometimes called Major Domus, 
 who ruled the lay dependents of the Church ; 
 from the Praepositus, who ruled its clerical de¬ 
 pendents ; and from the Oeeonomus, who (being 
 also commonly a cleric) managed the interior 
 economy of its secular affairs ; although all these 
 titles are occasionally used interchangeably. He 
 was also distinct from the Cancellarius, whether 
 in the older sense of that term when it meant 
 an inferior officer of the court, or in the later 
 when it meant a judge (Bingh. III. xi. 6, 7). 
 Two circumstances however gradually changed 
 both the relative position of the Advoeatus to 
 his ecclesiastical clients, and the nature of his 
 functions; the one arising from the mode in 
 which he was remunerated, the other from the 
 mode of his nomination. 1. He was paid in 
 the first instance at this period by sometimes an 
 annual .salary, with certain small privileges of 
 entertainment and the like; also, by the third 
 part of the profits of his judicial office {Tertia 
 pars bannoi’um, emendarum, legum, compositionum, 
 sc. “ placitorura ad quae ab abbate vocatus fue- 
 rit,” Chron. Sen. lib. ii. c. 5, in D’Ach. Spieil. ii. 
 G13, ed. 1723; tertius denarius); but commonly 
 and finally by lands held from the church or 
 abbey, a third of their value belonging to himself 
 
 as his portion. And the growth of the feudal 
 tenure, in addition to other obvious influences, 
 gradually converted him through this last cir¬ 
 cumstance from a dependent into a sujierior, 
 from a law officer into a military one, and from 
 a beneficiary into an owner, and sometimes into 
 an usurper outright. In the Ordo Pomanus, is 
 an Ordo ad antvmdum Eeelesiae Defensorem vel 
 alium Militem, beginning with a benedietio vexilli, 
 lanceae, ensis (p. 178 Hittorp., about the time of 
 Charlemagne). His subadvoeatus, let us add (the 
 number of whom was limited by various enact¬ 
 ments), was to be paid in one instance by the 
 receipt, from each vill of the ecclesiastical pro¬ 
 perty, of one penny, one cock, and one sextarius 
 of oats. 2. The nomination to the office, resting 
 originally with the Church itself or with the em¬ 
 peror, was usurped gradually by the founder, 
 and as an hereditary appanage of his own estate : 
 whence follow'ed first an usurpation of the Church 
 property by the lay Airocafws, and next an usurpa¬ 
 tion by the same officer of the right of nomi¬ 
 nating to the church or abbey. And from the 
 latter of these has arisen the modern use of the 
 word advouson, which now means exclusively 
 and precisely that right which the original adio- 
 eatus did not possess; the jus pxitronatus no 
 doubt being attached to the founder of a church 
 from the time of the Council of Orange (c. 10) 
 A.D. 441, and of Justinian {Novell. Ivii. c. 2, cxxiii. 
 c. 18), A.D. 541, 555 ; but the combination of 
 foundership with the office of advocatus being an 
 accidental although natural combination, belong¬ 
 ing to the ninth and following centuries. The 
 earliest charter quoted by Du Cange, in which 
 mention is made of an election (in this case of an 
 abbat) “ assensu et consilio advoeati,” is a “ pri- 
 vilegium Rudolphi Episc. Halberstad.,” A.D. 1147. 
 But in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, the officer 
 analogous to the lay advocatus had usurped the 
 position and the very name of abbat long pre¬ 
 vious to the 12th century [see Abbat]. And 
 instances of similar usurpation abroad may no 
 doubt be found of a like earlier date (see Robert¬ 
 son’s Early Scotland). The advocatio of a bishopric 
 seems to haA-^e included, at least in England, the 
 custodia {i. e. the profits) of the property of the 
 see, sede vacante; but Avas a distinct right from 
 that of nomination to the office, the “ dignitas 
 crodae” (as e.g. in the case between the Welsh 
 Lords Marchers and the English Crown, the former 
 claiming the custodia but not the nomination): 
 although the tA\'o became in England combined 
 in the CroAvn. There does not, hoAvcA-er, appear 
 to be eA'idence, that this particular usurpation 
 was laid to the charge of advoeati abroad during 
 the CarloA'ingian period ; although the system of 
 lay abbats, commendataries, &c., and the usurpa¬ 
 tion of such offices by kings and nobles, led to 
 the same general result of usurpation, there 
 also, by the lay, OA'er the ecclesiastical, func¬ 
 tionary. Councils in England put restrictions on 
 these usurpations of lay domini, advoeati, &c., as 
 early as the Council of Beccanceld, A.D. 696 X 716 
 and of CloA'esho, A.D. 803 (Councils III. 338, 
 Haddan and Stubbs : Wilk. i. 56, 167). Abroad, 
 the first canon on the subject is that of Rheims 
 (c. 6), A.D. 1148, folloAved among others by 
 the Councils of Salzburg (c. 24), A.D. 1274 and 
 (c. 12), A.D. 1281. But a check upon them 
 was attempted as early as the 10th century by 
 the Capetian dynasty in France. 
 
ADVOCATES 
 
 AFFINITY 
 
 35 
 
 Tlie title of Fidei Defensor^ attached to the 
 Crown of England, and so strangely inverted from 
 the special intent of its original Papal donor, may 
 be taken as the last existing trace of the ancient 
 Advocatus or Defensor Ecclesiae. Unless (with 
 Spelman) we are to give an ancient pedigree to 
 churchwardens, and find the old office still in 
 them. (Bingham ; Du Cange; Meursius, Gloss. 
 Gr<xeco')arbar.; Morinus, De Ordinat.; Tho- 
 massin.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 ADVOCATES, NOT TO BE ORDAINED, 
 —Amongst the laws which imposed restraints 
 upon the clergy was one which forbad them, 
 except in certain specified cases, to act as advo¬ 
 cates before civil tribunals; since it was con¬ 
 sidered that any such interference with worldly 
 matters would be inconsistent with the words 
 of St. Paul (2 Tim., ii. 4 “ No man that war- 
 reth \_militans Deo'] entangleth himself with the 
 affairs of this life:” see St. Ambrose, De Off. 
 Minist. 1, 36; and Gclasii Papae Epp. 17, sec. 
 15). For this reason the Srd Council of Car¬ 
 thage (a.d. 397) in its 15th canon prohibits all 
 clerks from becoming agents or procurators. 
 The prohibition is repeated in the 3rd canon of 
 the (Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451), 
 but with the proviso that secular business may 
 be undertaken by the clergy when the bishop 
 directs it for the protection of Church property, 
 or of orphans and widows who are without any 
 one to defend them. This exception was in later 
 times extended to the poor and all others who 
 came under the designation of “ miserabiles 
 personae.” So likewise were monks forbidden by 
 the 11th canon of the Council of Tarragona 
 (a.d. 516) to undertake any legal business ex¬ 
 cept for the benefit of the monastery and at the 
 command of the abbot. 
 
 In France the above-cited provisions of the 
 Council of Chalcedon were repeated by the 16th 
 canon of the Council of Verneuil (a.d. 755) and the 
 14th canon of the Council of Mayence (a.d. 813). 
 
 There are many other canons which prohibit the 
 clergy from mixing themselves up with worldly 
 matters, and which therefore forbid, though 
 not in express terms, their acting as advocates. 
 
 There are also several imperial constitutions 
 to the same effect, as, for instance, one of Theodo¬ 
 sius 11. (a.d. 416) which he afterwards repeated 
 in the Codex Theodosianus, a.d. 438 (16. tit. 2. 
 42), and which was also inserted in the 1st book 
 (tit. 3. s. 17) of the Codex Rcpetitae Fraelectionis 
 of Justinian (a.d. 534). 
 
 Similar provisions are to be found in the 34th 
 title of the Liber novellarum of Valentian III. 
 (a.d. 452), and in the 6th chapter of the 123rd 
 novell. of Justinian (a.d. 541). 
 
 (Thomassinus, Vetus et nova Ecclesiae Disci- 
 plina, De Beneficiis, Pars III. Lib. 3, cap. 17-19 ; 
 Bouix, Tractatus de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, Pars 
 I., 3, 4-5). [I. B.] 
 
 AEDITUI. [Doorkeeper.] 
 
 AEGATES, Saint, commemorated Oct. 24 
 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 AEITHAIiAS. (1) Deacon and martyr, com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 3 (Cal. Bi/zant.). 
 
 (2) Martyr, commemorated5ept. 1 (Ib.). [C.] 
 
 AEMILIANUS. (1) Saint in Armenia, com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 8 (Martyrol. Rom. Vet., Ilieron.). 
 
 (2) Confessor in Africa, Dec. 6 (Mart. R. F.). 
 
 (3) Confessor, .Ian. 8 (Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (4) Bishop of Cyzicum, Confessoi', Aug. 8 
 
 (Tb.). [C.] 
 
 AEMILIXJS. (1) Martyr in Africa, comme¬ 
 morated May 22 (Martyrol. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Of Sardinia, May 28 (/6.). 
 
 (3) Commemorated June 18 (Mart. Ilieron.). 
 
 . [^’.1 
 
 AER. [Veil.] 
 
 A ERA. [Era.] 
 
 AFRA, martyr in Rhaetia, commemorated 
 Aug. 5 (Martyrol. Rom. Vet.) ; Aug. 6 (M. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AFFIDATIO (affiance, Spenser; Fr. fan- 
 qailles), betrothal. It appears doubtful whether 
 this term came into use within the first nine cen¬ 
 turies of the Christian era. It seems rather to 
 belong to the period of fully developed feudalism. 
 The earliest example quoted by Du Cange, from 
 the synodal statutes of the Church of Liege in 
 Martene’s Thesaurus Noius Anecdote rum, is in¬ 
 deed of the year 1287. The forms given in 
 Martene’s work, De Antviuis ecclesiae Ritibus 
 (see vol. ii. pp. 136, 137), in which the word 
 occurs, from the rituals of Limoges and of 
 Rheims, are palpably more modern yet, to judge 
 from the passages in French which are inter¬ 
 mixed in them. [J. M. L.] 
 
 AFFINITY (adfnitas), a relationship by 
 marriage. The husband and wife being legally 
 considered as one person, those who are related 
 to the one by blood are related to the other in 
 the same degree by affinity. This relationship 
 being the result of a lawful marriage, the per¬ 
 sons between whom it exists are said to he related 
 in law ; the father or brother of a man’s wife 
 being called his father-in-law or brother-in-law. 
 The distinction between affinity and consanguinity 
 is derived from the Roman law. The kinsfolk 
 (cognati) of the husband and wife become re¬ 
 spectively the adfines of the wife and husband. 
 We have borrowed the words affinity and con¬ 
 sanguinity from the Roman law, but we have no 
 term corresponding to adfnes. The Romans did 
 not reckon degrees of adfnitas as they did of 
 consanguinity (cognatio) ; but they had terms to 
 express the various kinds of adfnitas, as socer, 
 father-in-law ; socrus, mother-in-law. 
 
 It has resulted from the Christian doctrine of 
 marriage that persons related by affinity have 
 been always forbidden by the Church to marry 
 within the same degrees as tho.se who are related 
 by blood. The Council of Agde (506) particu¬ 
 larises the forbidden degrees as follows (Can. 61) : 
 —“A man may not marry his brother’s widow, 
 his own sistez’, his step-mother or fizther’s wife, 
 his cousin-german, any one nearly allied to him 
 by consanguinity, or one whom his near kinsman 
 had married befoi*e, the i-elict or daughter of his 
 uncle by the mother’s side, or the daughter of 
 his uncle by the father’s side, or his daughter- 
 in-law, i.e. his wife’s daughter by a former 
 husband.” 
 
 This canon is repeated almost verbatim in the 
 Council of Epone, and again in the second Council 
 of Toui’s (566). The same pi’ohibitions are also 
 specified in the Council of Auxerre (578). 
 
 Cei'tain spiidtual i*elations have been also in¬ 
 cluded within the prohibited degrees. This re¬ 
 striction, however, was first introduce I bv 
 
 D 
 
AFFUSION 
 
 AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 ;J6 
 
 Justinian, who made a law (Coc?. Just. lib. 5, 
 tit. 4, de Nuptiis, leg. 26) forbidding any mm 
 to marry a woman for whom he had been god¬ 
 father in baptism, on the ground that nothing 
 induces a more paternal aflection, and, therefore, 
 a jlister prohibition of mai-riage, than this tie, 
 by which their souls are in a divine manner 
 united togethei’. 
 
 The CcTuncil of Trullo (Can. 53) extends the 
 prohibition to the mother of the godchild : and, 
 by the Canon law afterwards, these spiritual 
 relations were carried still further, so as to 
 exclude from marrying together even the bap- 
 tiser and the baptised, the catechist and cate¬ 
 chumen, and various other degrees of supposed 
 spiritual atlinity. Such restrictions, however, of 
 course, could not be maintained in practice, and 
 the dispensing power of the Pope was accordingly 
 extended to meet the necessity. (Bingham ; Gib¬ 
 son’s Cudex; Thorndike ; Wheatly, On Common 
 Pra\jo(.') [D. B.] 
 
 AFFUSION. [Baptism.] 
 
 AFRICAN CODE. [African Councils.] 
 
 AFRICAN COUNCILS. Under this head 
 we must include whatever Councils were held in 
 Africa—no matter at what places, only distinct 
 from Egypt—for this simple reason : that so many 
 of their canons were so soon thrown together in- 
 discriminately and made one code, which, as 
 such, afterwards formed part of the code received 
 in the East and West. On this African code a 
 good deal has been written by Justellus {Cod. Eccl. 
 Afric., Paris, 1614, 8vo.), who was the first to pub¬ 
 lish it separately. Bishop Beveridge (^Synod. vol. 
 ii. p. 202, et seq.), De Marca (^Diss. de Vet. Coll. 
 Can. c. iv.-xi.), and the Ballerini in their learned 
 Appendix to the works of St. Leo (tom. iii. De 
 Aiitiq. Col. Diss., pars I. c. 3, 21-9), but a good 
 deal also remains unsolved, and perhaps insoluble. 
 Several of the canons contained in it have been 
 assigned to more Councils than one, and several 
 of the Councils differently dated or numbered by 
 different editors or collectors. Perhaps the best 
 edition of it is that published in Greek and Latin 
 by Mansi (tom. iii. pp. 699-843). Not that it 
 was originally promulgated in both languages, 
 though, as Beveridge suggests, the probability is 
 that it had been translated into Greek before the 
 Trullan Council of A.D. 683, by the second canon 
 of which it became part of the code of the Eastern 
 .Church. As it stands in Mansi, then, it compre¬ 
 hends, first, the deliberations of the Council of 
 Carthage, A.D. 419 ; then the canons of the same 
 Synod to the number of 33 ; then “ canones di- 
 •versorum conciliorum ecclesiae Africanae ”—in 
 the words of their heading, the first of which is 
 numbered 34, in continuous series with the pre¬ 
 ceding, and the last 138. However, in reality, 
 the canons proper ought to be said to end with 
 the one numbered 133, at which point Aurelius, 
 Bishop of Carthage, who presided, calls upon the 
 Council to subscribe to all that had gone before, 
 which is accordingly done; he signing first, the 
 primate of Numidia second, the legate from 
 Rome, Famstinus, Bishop of Potenza, third, St. 
 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, fourth; and the other 
 bishops—217 or 229, according to the i*eading 
 selected—in order; and after them all the two 
 presbyter-legates from Rome, who sign last. 
 
 This done, the day following, a letter in the 
 name of the whole Synod was addressed to Boni¬ 
 
 face, bishop of Rome, to be despatched by the three 
 legates. This is given at length, and numbered 
 134. It acquaints him with their objections to 
 the “ commonitorium ” or instructions received 
 by the legates from the late Pope Zosimus, par¬ 
 ticularly to that part of it bearing upon appeals 
 to Rome in conformity with some supposed canons 
 of Nicaea, which they had not been able to find in 
 any Greek or Latin copy of the acts of that 
 Council in their possession, and therefore beg him 
 to send for authentic copies of them at once from 
 the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Con- 
 .stantinople. This course they had already taken 
 themselves, while recommending it to him ; and 
 what follows as canon 135 proves to be a letter 
 from St. Cyril of Alexandria to the same bishops, 
 telling them that in conformity with their re¬ 
 quest he has sent them, by his presbyter Inno¬ 
 cent, faithful copies of the authentic Synod of 
 Nicaea, which they would also find, if they looked 
 for them, in the ecclesiastical history: he does 
 not say by whom. 
 
 In the same way canon 136 is a letter from 
 Atticus, patriarch of Constantinople, telling them 
 that he too sends them the canons as defined bv 
 Nicene Fathers pure and entire, by their mes¬ 
 senger Marcellus the sub-deacon, as they had re¬ 
 quested. We can hardly suppose the Synod to 
 have been sitting all the time that it must have 
 taken these messengers to go and return. Next 
 a copy of the Nicene Creed follows, and is num¬ 
 bered 137. It had been already recited and ac¬ 
 cepted, together with the Nicene canons, in the 
 previous deliberations of the Council, before the 
 resolution to send for authentic copies of both 
 had been carried out. Cvaecilian, who was Bishop 
 of Carthage at the time of the Council of Nicaea, 
 and had attended it, had brought back with him 
 copies of its creed and canons in Latin, which had 
 been preserved with great care by his Church 
 ever since. What follows in the last place, and 
 is numbered 138, cannot have been written 
 earlier than A.D. 422, it being a letter addressed 
 to Celestine, the successor of Boniface, who died in 
 that year, “ our beloved lord (SecTTr^Tp) and most 
 honoured brother,” as he is styled, in the name 
 of Aurelius and others whose names are given 
 (St. Augustine’s is not one) and the rest of those 
 present in the universal Council of Africa, in 
 which they tell him that the canons of which his 
 predecessor had spoken were nowhere to be found 
 in the authentic copies of the Nicene decrees just 
 received from the East; and, further, that in no 
 Council of the Fathers could they find it defined 
 that “ any should be despatched as it were from 
 the side of his Holiness,” as had been attempted in 
 this instance. If the last, or 20th Council, as it is 
 called, under Aurelius, therefore, has been rightly 
 a.ssigned to A.D. 421,—and Aurelius opens its pro¬ 
 ceedings by saying that, for reasons well known 
 to his audience, it had been suspended for the 
 space of two years, thus connecting it with the 
 Council of A.D. 419,—either it must have sat the 
 year following as well, or there must have been 
 a 21st Council under Aurelius the year following 
 to indite this epistle, which, as has been observed, 
 could not have been done till the accession of 
 Celestine had become known in Africa, that is, 
 till towards the end of A.D. 422. And with it this 
 collection of the canons of the African Church is 
 brought to a close. Dionysius Exiguus, in his 
 edition, heads them appropriately “ the Synod of 
 
AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 37 
 
 tne Afi'icans at Carthage that enacted 138 
 canons,” meaning of course the Synods of A.D. 
 419-22 considered as one, where they were 
 passed or confirmed (Migne’s Patrol.^ tom. 67, 
 p. 161 et seq.'). Not but there are other collec¬ 
 tions extant containing fewer or more canons 
 than ai'e included in this. For instance, the 
 Spanish and Isidorian Collections begin with the 
 Synod of Carthage under Gratus, A.D. 348, and 
 end with the Synod of Milevis, A.D. 402, making 
 eight Synods in all, one of Milevis and seven of 
 Carthage (Migne’s Patrol., tom. 84, pp. 179-236). 
 In Beveridge (Synodic, i. p. 365-72) the synodi¬ 
 cal letter of a Council of Carthage as far back as 
 A.D. 258 (or 256 according to others) under St. 
 Cypidan, is printed in the form of a canon, and 
 placed, together with the speeches mjfde there by 
 him and others, immediately before the Ancyran 
 canons, as though it had been one of the provin¬ 
 cial Councils whose canons had been accepted by 
 the whole Church, which it was not. Earlier far 
 than either of them is the compendium of eccle¬ 
 siastical canons, African mainly, 232 in all, by 
 Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of the Church of 
 Carthage, seemingly drawn from independent 
 sources (Migne’s Patrol., tom. 67, p. 949-62). 
 Then earlier still than his w'ere the two books 
 produced by Boniface, Bishop of Carthage, at the 
 Synod held there by him A.D. 525, as having 
 been discovered in the archives of that church, 
 one volume containing the Nicene canons in part, 
 and those which had been passed in Africa 
 before the time of Aurelius; the other volume 
 called “ the book of the canons of the time of 
 Aurelius,” in which, according to the Ballerini, 
 nine of the Synods of Carthage under Aurelius, 
 and some others of Milevis and Hippo, were con¬ 
 tained (Mansi, viii. p. 635-56). Finally, there 
 is a “ Breviarium canonum Hipponensium ” 
 printed in Mansi, with the comments of the 
 Ballerini upon them, supposed to have been 
 passed in the Synod held there A.D. 393, at 
 which St. Augustine was present, but as a 
 priest; and afterwards inserted in the Council of 
 Carthage, held four years afterwards under 
 Aurelian, amongst its own, and evidently con¬ 
 firmed by the 34th canon of the Synod of A.D. 
 419, as proposed by one of the bishops named 
 Epigonius. 
 
 The argument drawn by the Ballerini, after 
 elaborately compaidng these collections, is unfa¬ 
 vourable to the title given by Justellus to the 
 138 canons above mentioned of the African code : 
 still as designating those canons alone which 
 have been received generally by the East and 
 West, it cannot be called meaningless; and this 
 fact having been, made patent by his publication 
 of them, it remains as a matter of antiquarian 
 interest solely to determine W’hat canons belong 
 to what councils. The general account seems to 
 be that there are sixteen Councils of Carthage, 
 one of Milevis, and one of Hippo, whose canons 
 were received and confirmed by the Council of 
 A.D. 419 besides its own (Johnson’s Vade Mecum, 
 ii. 171); but it is beset with difficulties. The 
 two canons interdicting appeals beyond the sea— 
 28 and 125 according to the Latin numbering, 
 and doubtless 23 and 39 were passed with the 
 same object—have been attributed to a Synod of 
 Hippo hy some; but the 22nd canon of the 
 second Synod of Milevis, A.D. 416, to which both 
 Aurelius and St. Augustine subscribed, reads 
 
 identical wfith one of them, and the 34th canon 
 of a Council of Carthage two years later with the 
 other. It is of more practical importance to 
 ascertain whether they steer clear of the Sardican 
 canons, as some maintain; or were framed in 
 antagonism to them, as others. The Sardican 
 canons, it has been said, allowed bishops to appeal 
 to Rome ; the African canons forbade priests and 
 all below priests to appeal to Rome. The African 
 fathers carefully abstained from laying the same 
 embargo upon bishops : nay, they undertook to 
 observe the canons cited by Zosimus as Nicene, 
 till authentic copies of the Nicene canons had 
 been obtained from the East. There can be no 
 doubt whatever that all this is delusive. In the 
 discussion that took place on the canons cited in 
 the “ Commonitorium,” some were for observing 
 them, pending the inquiry ; St. Augustine among 
 the number. But when Aurelius called upon the 
 Council to say definitively what it would do, the 
 collective reply was : “All things that were en¬ 
 acted in the Nicene Council are acceptable to us 
 all.” And to no more could they be induced to 
 pledge themselves. Then as to the canons, which 
 if they did not frame, they confirmed subse¬ 
 quently ; the 28th, according to the Latin num¬ 
 bering, is: “ It was likewise agreed that presby¬ 
 ters, deacons, or any of the inferior clergy with 
 causes to try, should they have reason to com¬ 
 plain of the judgment of their bishops, might be 
 heard by the neighbouring bishops with consent 
 of their own ; and such bishops might decide 
 between them ; but should they think they ought 
 to appeal from them likewise, let them not ap¬ 
 peal to transmarine tribunals, but to the primates 
 of their provinces, as has also been frequently en¬ 
 acted in regard of bishops. But in case any should 
 think he ought to appeal to places beyond the 
 sea, let him be received to communion by nobody 
 within Africa.” The woi’ds “sicut et de episcopis 
 saepe constitutum est,” are found in all manu¬ 
 scripts of this canon, as it stands here. They are 
 wanting in the 125th. And the meaning is 
 clearly, that there had been earlier canons in 
 abundance passed for regulating episcopal ap¬ 
 peals ; for instance, the 6th canon of the Council 
 of Constantinople, where it is said that bishops 
 should be brought before the greater Synod of 
 the diocese, in case the provincial Synod should 
 be unable to decide their case. And nothing had 
 occurred to induce them to legislate further for 
 bishops. The present controversy had originated 
 with a simple priest, Apiarius. Accordingly their 
 canons were directed to prevent priests and all 
 below priests in future from doing as he had 
 done. In short, they told Celestine that “ the 
 canons of the Nicene Council left all, whether 
 inferior clergy or bishops themselves, to their 
 own metropolitan; it having been wisely and 
 justly considex'ed there that, whatever questions 
 might arise, they ought to be tei’minated in their 
 own localities.” Which was in effect as much as 
 telling him that the genuine Nicene canons were 
 in flat contradiction upon each point to those so 
 designated by his predecessor. Canon 125 is 
 identical with the preceding, except that it omits 
 the clause “ sicut et de episcopis,” &c., and men¬ 
 tions the African Councils as another legitimate 
 tribunal of appeal besides the primates. Canon 
 23, that “ bishops should not go beyond the sea 
 without leave from their primate,” reads very 
 like another outpouring of their sentiments on 
 
38 
 
 AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 the same subject; and canon 39, that “ no pri¬ 
 mate should be called a prince of priests, or pon¬ 
 tiff,” seems almost borrowed from the well- 
 known invective of St. Cyprian against Stephen. 
 Such, then, is the language of some of the canons 
 of the African code, fairly construed, to which 
 the assent of Rome as well as Constantinople has 
 been pledged. And “ it was of very great autho¬ 
 rity,” says Mr. Johnson (Vade Mecum, ii. p. 171) 
 in the old English Churches; for many of the 
 “ excerptions ” of Egbert were transcribed from 
 it. 
 
 It only remains to set down the different 
 African Councils in the order in which they are 
 generally supposed to have occurred, with a run¬ 
 ning summary of what was transacted in each ; 
 referring generally for all further information to 
 ]\Iansi, Cave, Beveridge, Johnson, De Marca, the 
 Art de verifier les dates, and the Ballerini. Num¬ 
 bering them would only serve to mislead, at least 
 if attempted in any consecutive series. Cave, for 
 instance, reckons 9 African between a.d. 401 and 
 603, and as many as 35 Carthaginian between 
 A.D. 215 and 533; but among the latter are in¬ 
 cluded 6 (between a.d. 401 and 410), w’hich he 
 had already reckoned among the 9 African. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 200,217—Supposed to be one 
 and the same, under Agrippinus, in favour 
 of rebaptizing heretics. 
 
 - — . a.d. 251—Under St. Cyprian; decreed 
 that the lapsed should be received to com¬ 
 munion, but not till they had performed 
 their full penance. 
 
 - , a.d. 252—Against Novatian, who denied 
 
 that the lapsed were ever to be received to 
 communion again ; and Felicissimus, who af¬ 
 firmed they were, even before they had 
 performed their penance. 
 
 — ■ a.d. 254, 255 — Doubtful in which year ; 
 
 under St. Cyprian, in favour of infant bap¬ 
 tism. 
 
 — — A.D. 256—Under St. Cyprian, approving 
 the consecration by the Spanish bishops of 
 Felix and Sabinus in place of Basil and 
 Martial,—two bishops who had purchased 
 certificates, or “libels,” of having sacrificed 
 to idols, and declaring that Stephen, Bishop 
 of Rome, had interposed in favour of the 
 latter unreasonably, from having been 
 duped by them. 
 
 — — A.D. 256—Another held in the same year 
 —or there may have been several—in fa¬ 
 vour of rebaptizing all who had received 
 heretical baptism, when St. Cyprian uttered 
 his celebrated invective against Stephen. 
 The question was finally ruled in the 7th 
 of the Constantinopolitan canons. This is 
 the Council whose synodical letter is 
 printed by Beveridge in the form of a 
 canon, immediately before those of Ancyra. 
 It is given in Mansi, i. 922-6 ; but the 
 speeches belonging to it follow 951—92, 
 under the head of “Concil. Carthag. iii. 
 sub Cypriano episcopo ;” what purports to 
 have been the second being given p. 925, 
 and all three supposed to have been held 
 A.D. 256. 
 
 CiRTA, A.D. 305—To elect a new bishop in 
 place of one who had been a “ traditor;” 
 that is, had surrendered copies of the Scrip¬ 
 tures to the Pagan authorities, to which all 
 
 present, when they came to be asked, how¬ 
 ever, pleaded equally guilty. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 312—Of 70 Dona(ist bishops 
 against Caecilian, bishop of that see. 
 
 - A.D. 333—under Donatus, author of the 
 
 schism ; favourable to the “ traditores.” 
 
 - A.D. 348—under Gratus; its acts are 
 
 comprised in fourteen chapters, of which 
 the first is against rebaptizing any that 
 have been baptized with water in the name 
 of the Trinity. This is probably the Council 
 whose canons are invoked in canon 12 of 
 the African code. 
 
 Theveste, a.d. 362—Of Donatists quarrelling 
 amongst themselves. 
 
 African, a.d. 380—Of Donatists, in condem¬ 
 nation of Tichonius, a Donatist bishop. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 386—Confirmatory of the 
 synodical letter ofSiricius, Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Leptes, a.d. 386—Passed canons on disci¬ 
 pline. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 390—Formerly regarded as 
 two separate Councils, under Genethlius, 
 Bishop of Carthage; made 13 canons, by 
 the second of which bishops, priests, and 
 deacons are required to abstain from their 
 wives and observe continence. Mansi prints 
 what used to be regarded as a second 
 Council of this year twice, iii. pp. 691-8 
 and 867-76. 
 
 - A.D. 393 — Of Maximian’s (Donatist 
 
 bishop of Carthage) supporters against 
 Primian (another Donatist bishop of Car¬ 
 thage). 
 
 Hippo, a.d. 393—At which St. Augustine dis¬ 
 puted “ de fide et symbolo ” as a pres¬ 
 byter. 
 
 Cabarussi and of the Caverns, a.d. 394—Of 
 the same on the same subject. 
 
 Bagais, a.d. 394—Of Primian’s supporters, 
 against Maximian. 
 
 - A.D. 396— One canon only preserved ; 
 
 against translations of bishops and priests. 
 
 Byzatiusi, a.d. 397—Confirming all that had 
 been decreed in 393 at Hippo. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 397—Called the 3rd, either 
 reckoning that under Gratus as first, and 
 that under Genethlius as 2nd; or else 
 supposing two to have been held under 
 Aurelius previously in 394 and 397, and 
 making this the 3rd under him ; passed 50 
 canons, among which the “Breviarium 
 canonum Hipponensium ” is said to have 
 been inserted (Mansi, iii. 875, and the 
 notes). 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 400—Called the 5th under 
 Aurelius ; of 72 bishops ; passed 15 canons 
 on discipline (Pagi, quoted by Mansi, iii. 
 p. 972). Yet, p. 979, Mansi reckons a first 
 African Council in 399, and a 2nd and 3rd 
 in 401, which he calls 4th, 5th, and 6th 
 Councils under Aurelius, in the pontificate 
 of Anastasius. 
 
 Milevis, a.d. 402—To decide several points 
 affecting bishops. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 403, 404, 405—Mansi makes 
 3 African Councils of these; a 1st, 2nd, 
 and 3rd, in the Pontificate of Innocent, 
 or 8th, 9th, and 10th under Aurelius, for 
 bringing back the Donatists to the Church 
 (iii. pp. 1155 and 1159). 
 
 — — A.D. 407, 408, 409—Called by Mansi 
 
AFRICAN COUNCILS 
 
 AGAPAE 
 
 39 
 
 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th African Councils in 
 the pontificate of Innocent, the 5th and 
 6th being regarded by him as one, or the 
 11th, 12th, and 13th Councils under Aure¬ 
 lius—all incorporated into the African 
 code (iii. p. 1163). 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 410—Against the Donatists— 
 probably the 14th under Aurelius. 
 
 - A.D. 411—Great conference between the 
 
 Catholics and the Donatists; Aurelius and 
 St. Augustine both taking part on behalf 
 of the former ; 286 bishops said to have 
 been present on the Catholic side, and 279 
 on the Donatist, yet 313 names are given 
 on the latter side. There were three dif¬ 
 ferent stages in the proceedings. (Mansi, 
 iv. pp. 269 and 276.) 
 
 — a.d. 412—In which Celestius was ac¬ 
 cused of Pelagianism and appealed to the 
 Pope, probably the 15th under Aurelius. 
 
 CiRTA, A.D. 412—In the matter of the Donatists 
 —published a synodical letter in the name 
 of Aurelius, St. Augustine and others. Sil- 
 vanus, primate of Numidia, heads it. 
 
 African, a.d. 414—Of Donatists. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 416—or the 2nd against the 
 Pelagians: probably the 16th under Au¬ 
 relius : composed of 67 bishops: addressed 
 a synodical letter to Innocent of Rome, 
 condemning both Pelagius and Celestius. 
 
 Milevis, a.d. 416—Called the 2nd of Milevis 
 against Pelagius and Celestius—composed 
 of 60 bishops—published 27 canons on 
 discipline—addressed a synodical letter to 
 Innocent of Rome, to which was appended 
 another in a more familiar tone from 
 Aurelius, St. Augustine and three more. 
 
 Tisdra, a.d. 417—Passed canons on disci¬ 
 pline. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 417, 418—Against the Pela¬ 
 gians—regarded as one, probably the 17 th 
 under Aurelius. 
 
 Hippo, Suffetula, Maori ana, a.d. 418— 
 Passed canons on discipline preserved by 
 Ferrandus (Mansi, iv. 439). 
 
 Thenes, a.d. 418—Published nine canons on 
 discipline. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 419—Attended by 229, or, 
 accoi’ding to other accounts, 217 bishops ; 
 and by Faustinus, Bishop of Potenza, and 
 two presbyters as legates ft-om Rome. Its 
 proceedings have been anticipated in what 
 was said on the African code. It would 
 seem as if it really commenced in 418, 
 and extended through 419. Pagi supposes 
 33 canons to have been passed in the 
 former year, and but 6 in the latter 
 (Mansi, iv. 419) ; and Mansi seems even to 
 make two synods of it, calling one a 5th 
 or 6th, and the other a 7th Council of 
 Carthage (against the Pelagians, he pro¬ 
 bably means), and yet evidently reckoning 
 both together as the 18th under Aurelius. 
 From 419 it seems to have been adjourned 
 to 421, and then lasted into 422 at least, 
 as has been shown above ; this adjourned 
 council was therefore in reality the 20th 
 under Aurelian, though sometimes headed 
 the 18th, as being one with the council of 
 which it was but the adjournment. Then 
 the 19th under Aurelius is the title given 
 iu Mansi (iv. 443) to one held in the 
 
 interim, A.D. 420, to determine certain 
 questions of precedence amongst bishops, 
 possibly the missing 6th against Pela¬ 
 gianism. 
 
 Numidia, a.d. 423—In which Antonius, a 
 bishop of that province, was condemned. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 426 —At which Leporius, a 
 French presbyter, cleared himself from 
 Pelagianism. 
 
 Hippo, a.d. 426—At which Heraclius was 
 elected successor to St. Augustine at his 
 nomination. 
 
 - A.D. 427—Said to have passed canons 
 
 29 and 30, in the Latin numbering of the 
 African code (Mansi, iv. 539). 
 
 African, a.d. 484—To render account of their 
 faith to King Hunneric, when it appeared 
 that of 475 sees, 14 were then vacant: 88 
 had been deprived of their bishops by 
 death, and most of those who survived 
 were in exile (Mansi, vii. pp. 1156-64 
 and the notes). 
 
 Byzatium, a.d. 507—To appoint new bishops 
 in place of those who had died or been 
 exiled. 
 
 JUNCA, A.D. 523—under Liberatus : to con¬ 
 demn a bishop of the province of Tripoli 
 who had usurped a church not in his 
 diocese ; St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, 
 being one of those present. 
 
 Carthage, a.d. 525—under Boniface ; when 
 two volumes of the canons were found, as 
 already described (Mansi, viii. 635-56). 
 
 African, a.d. 533—Sent a synodical letter to 
 John II. of Rome by Liberatus, deacon of 
 the church of Carthage, so well known for 
 his writings. 
 
 Byzatium, a.d. 541 —Sent a deputation to 
 Justinian, and legislated on discipline. 
 
 African, a.d. 550—Excommunicated Vigilius 
 for condemning the three chapters. 
 
 Suffetula, a.d. 570—Passed canons on dis¬ 
 cipline, some of which are preserved. 
 
 African, a.d. 594—^Against the Donatists, 
 probably for the last time. 
 
 Byzatium, a.d. 602—To examine certain 
 charges made against Clement the pri¬ 
 mate. 
 
 Numidia, a.d. 603 —To examine the case of 
 Donadeus, a deacon, who had appealed 
 from his bishop to Rome. 
 
 Byzatium, Numidia, Mauritania, Car¬ 
 thage, A.D. 633—Against Cyrus, Pyrrhus, 
 and Sergius, the Monothelite leaders. 
 
 Byzatium, Numidia, Mauritania, Car¬ 
 thage, 646—Against the Monothelites : 
 the councils of Byzatium, Numidia, and 
 Mauritania addressed a joint synodical 
 letter: and the Bishop of Carthage a 
 letter in his own name to Theodore, 
 Bishop of Rome : all preserved in the acts 
 of the Lateran Council under Martin I., 
 A.D. 649. [E. S. F.] 
 
 AGABUS, the prophet (Acts xxi. 10), com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 13 (J/ar^^roL Aom. \ April 
 
 8 (CaL Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 AGAPAE.—The custom which prevailed in 
 the Apostolic Church of meeting at fixed times 
 for a common meal, of which all alike partook 
 as brothers, has been touched on in the Diet, of 
 the Bible [Lord’s Supper.] It had a precedent 
 
40 
 
 AGAPAE 
 
 AGAPAE 
 
 in the habits of the Essene communities in 
 Judaea (Joseph. Bell. Jvd. ii. 8), and in the tpavoi 
 of Greek guilds or associations; in the Charisties 
 of Roman life (Ovid, Fasti, ii. 616), in the 
 crvfTorLTia of Crete, in the ^eiSirta of Sparta. 
 The name apparently was attached to the meals 
 towards the close of the Apostolic age. The 
 absence of any reference to it in 1 Cor. xi. or 
 xiii., where reference would have been so natural, 
 had it been in use, may fairly be taken as nega¬ 
 tive evidence that it was not then current. The 
 balance of textual authority inclines in favour of 
 ayavais, rather than airdrais, in Jude v. 12, 
 and perhaps also, though less decidedly, in 2 Pet. 
 ii. 13, and we may fairly assume (without enter¬ 
 ing on the discussion of the authorship and date 
 of those epistles) that they represent the termi¬ 
 nology of the Church in the period from A.D. 60 
 to A.D. 80. The true reading of 1 Pet. v. 14 
 (eV (piKiip-OTi ayoTTTjs) cannot be disjoined from 
 the fact that there was a feast known then or 
 very soon afterwards by that name, at which 
 such a salutation was part of the accustomed 
 ceremonials. Soon the name spread widely both 
 in the East and West. Ignatius (ad Smyrn. c. 8),“ 
 for the Asiatic and Syrian Churches, Clement 
 for Alexandria (Paedag. ii. p. 142), Teidullian for 
 Western Africa (Apol. c. 39), are witnesses for 
 its wide-spread use. 
 
 It is obvious that a meeting of this character 
 must have been a very prominent feature in the 
 life of any community adopting it. The Christians 
 of a given town or district came on a fixed 
 day, probably the first day of the week (the 
 “ stato die ” of Pliny’s letter to Trajan, Epp. x. 
 96), in some large room hired for the purpose, 
 or placed at their disposal by some wealthy con¬ 
 verts. The materials of the meal varied ac¬ 
 cording to the feeling or wealth of the society. 
 Bread and wine were, of course, indispensable, 
 both as connected with the more solemn com¬ 
 memorative act which came at some period or 
 ether in the service, and as the staple articles of 
 food. Meat, poultry, cheese, milk, and honey, 
 were probably used with them (August., c. 
 Faust. XX. 20). Early paintings in the cata¬ 
 combs of Rome seem to show that fish also 
 was used (Aringhi, Roma Subterran. ii. pp. 77, 
 83, 119, 123, 185, 199, 267). Both the fact of 
 its being so largely the common diet of the poor 
 in Syria (Matt. vii. 9, xiv. 17, xvi. 34), and 
 the associations of Luke xxiv. 42, John xxi. 
 9 (to say nothing of the mystical significance 
 attached to the word IxOvs as early as Tertul- 
 lian), would naturally lead Christians to use it 
 at their “ feasts of love.” The cost of the meal 
 fell practically on the richer members of the 
 Church, whether it was provided out of the 
 common funds, or made up of actual contribu¬ 
 tions in kind, meat or fruit sent for the purpose, 
 or brought at the time. At the apjwinted hour 
 they came, waited for each other (1 Cor. xi. 33), 
 
 “ There is a suggestive difference, indicating a change 
 in language and practice, between the shorter and longer 
 texts of the Jgnatian Epistles in this passage. In the 
 former the writer claims for the bishop the sole prero¬ 
 gative of baptizing, or aydirrjv noielu. In the latter the 
 word rrpo(T(t>epeLv is interpolated between them. The 
 Agape is distinguished, i. e. from the “Supper of the 
 Lord,” with which it had before been identified; and the 
 latter, thus separated, is associated with a more sacrificial 
 terminology, and placed before the social feast. 
 
 men and women seated at different tables, per- 
 ha]>s on opposite sides of the room, till the bi.shop 
 or presbyter of the Church pronounced the 
 blessing (cvXoyia). Then they ate and drank. 
 Originally, at some time before or afterthe 
 rest of the meal, one loaf was specially blessed 
 and broken, one cup passed round specially as 
 “the cup of blessing.” When the meal was over, 
 water was brought and they washed their hands. 
 Then, if not before, according to the season of the 
 year, lamps were placed (as in the upper room at 
 Troas, Acts xx. 8) on their stands, and the more 
 devotional part of the evening began. Those . 
 who had special gifts were called on to expound 
 Scripture, or to speak a word of exhortation, or to 
 sing a hymn to God, or to “ Christ as to a God” 
 (Plin. 1. c.). It was the natural time for intel¬ 
 ligence to be communicated from other Churches, 
 for epistles from them or their bishops to be 
 read, for strangers who had come with iTricrT6\ai 
 avcraTiKod. to be received. Collections were 
 made for the relief of distressed churches at a 
 distance, or for the poor of the district (1 Cor. 
 xvi. 1; Justin. M. Apol. ii.; Tertullian. Apol. c. 
 39). Then came the salutation, the kiss of love 
 (1 Pet. V. 14), the “ holy kiss” ^ (Rom. xvi. 16), 
 which told of brotherhood, the final prayer, the 
 quiet and orderly dispersion. In the ideal Agapae, 
 the eating and drinking never passed beyond the 
 bounds of temperance. In practice, as at 
 Corinth, the boundary line may sometimes have 
 been transgressed, but the testimony of Pliny in 
 his letter to Trajan (1. c.), as well as the state¬ 
 ments of the Apologists, must be allowed as 
 proving that their general character at first was 
 that of a pure simplicity. The monstrous 
 slanders of “ Thyestean banquets ” and “ shame¬ 
 less impurity” were but the prurient inventions 
 of depraved minds, who inferred that all secret 
 meetings must be like those of the Bacchanalian 
 orgies which had at various periods alarmed the 
 Roman Senate with their infinite debasement 
 (Liv. xxxix. 13, 14). At Alexandria, indeed, as 
 was natural in a wealthy and luxurious city, 
 there seems to have been a tendency to make 
 the Agape too much of a sumptuous feast, 
 like the entertainments of the rich, and to give 
 the name to banquets to which only the rich 
 were invited. Clement protests with a natural 
 indignation against such a misapplication of it 
 by those who sought to “ purchase the promise 
 of God with such feasts” (Paedag. ii. 1, § 4, p. 61). 
 
 It seems probable from his protest against the 
 use of flutes at Christian feasts (Paedag. ii. 4, p. 
 71) that instrumental music of a secular and 
 meretricious chai-acter had come to be used instead 
 of the “ psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” 
 (Eph. V. 19, Col. iii. 16) which had been in use, 
 without accompaniment, at the original Agapae. 
 Clement, however, permits the employment of 
 the harp or lyre. 
 
 At first the practice would naturally serve as a 
 
 *> Chrysostom (Horn. 27 and 54, on 1 Cor. xi.), followed 
 by Theodoret and Theophylact in loc., and most liturgical 
 writers, say “ before,” but obviously under the influence 
 of later practice, and the belief that the Eucharist could 
 not have been received otherwise than fasting in the time 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 ^ We may probably think of some order like that w hich 
 attends the use of a “ grace-cup ” in college or civic feast; 
 each man kissed by his neighbour ou one side, and kissing 
 in turn him who sat on the other. 
 
AGAPAE 
 
 AGAPE 
 
 41 
 
 witness and bond of the brotherhood of Christians. 
 Rich and pool', even master and slave, met together 
 on the same footing. What took place but once 
 a year in the Roman saturnalia was repeated in 
 the Christian society once a week. But in pro¬ 
 portion as the society became larger, and the 
 sense of brotherhood less living, the old social 
 distinctions would tend to reassert themselves. 
 The Agapae would become either mere social 
 entertainments for the wealthy, as at Alexan¬ 
 dria, or a mere dole of food for the poor, 
 as in Western Africa (Augustin, c. Faustum 
 XX. 20), and in either case would lose their 
 original significance. Other causes tended also 
 to throw them into the back-ground. When 
 Christians came to have special buildings set 
 apart for worship, and to look on them with 
 something of the same local reverence that the 
 Jews had had for the Temple, they shrank from 
 sitting down in them to a common meal as an 
 act of profanation. The Agapae, therefore, were 
 gradually forbidden to be held in churches, as 
 by the Council of Laodicea (c. 27), and that of 3rd 
 Carthage a.d. 391 (c. 30), and that in Trullo 
 much later ** (a.d. 692). This, of course, to¬ 
 gether with the rule of the 3rd Council of Carthage 
 (c. 29), that the Eucharist should be received 
 fasting, and the probable transfer, in consequence 
 of that rule, of the time of its “celebration” from 
 the evening to the morning, left the “ feast of 
 love ” without the higher companionship with 
 which it had been at first associated, and left it 
 to take more and more the character of a pauper 
 meal. Even the growing tendency to asceticism 
 led men who aimed at a devout life to turn aside 
 fastidiously from sitting down with men and 
 women of all classes, as a religious act. So 
 Tertullian, who in his Apology had given so 
 beautiful a description of them, after he became 
 a Montanist, reproaches the Church at large 
 with the luxury of its Agapae, and is not ashamed 
 to repeat the heathen slander as to the preva¬ 
 lence in them even of incestuous licence (^De 
 Jejun. c. xvii.). One effort was made, as by the 
 Council of Gangra, to restore them to their old 
 position. Those who despised and refused to 
 come to them were solemnly anathematised (c. 
 11). But the current set in strongly, and the 
 practice gradually died out. Their close con¬ 
 nexion with the annual commemoration of the 
 deaths of martyrs, and the choice of the graves 
 of martyrs as the place near which to hold them, 
 was, perhaps, an attempt to raise them out of 
 the disrepute into which they had fallen. And 
 for a time the attempt succeeded. Augustine 
 describes his mother Monica as having been in 
 the habit of going with a basket full of provi¬ 
 sions to these A.gapae, which she just tasted her¬ 
 self, and then distributed {Confess, vi. 2). And 
 this shows the prevalence of the practice in 
 Western Africa. In Northern Italy, however, 
 Ambrose had suppressed them on account of the 
 disorders which were inseparable, and their re¬ 
 semblance to the old heathen Parentalia, and 
 Augustine, when he returned to Africa, urged 
 Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, to follow the 
 example {Epist. xxii.). The name, indeed, still 
 lingered as given to the annual dedication feasts 
 
 The significance of the reversal of the prohibition 
 at 6<y late a date, is that it shews that the practice still 
 lingered. 
 
 of churches at Rome in the sixth century (Greg. 
 M., Epp. ii. 76), and the practice left traces of 
 itself, in the bread, blest as distinct from conse¬ 
 crated, which, under the title of Eulooia, was 
 distributed in churches, or taken from them to 
 absent members of the congregation, (2) in the 
 practice, prohibited by the Apostolic canons (c. 
 3), and by the Council in Trullo (c. 28, 57, 99) 
 of bringing to the altar honey, milk, grapes, 
 poultry, joints of meat, that the priest might 
 blf!ss them there before they were eaten at a 
 common table. The grapes appear, indeed, to 
 have been actually distributed with the ayia, or 
 consecrated elements, while the joints of meat 
 are mentioned as a special enormity of the 
 Armenian Church. (3) Traces of the Agapae 
 are to be found lastly in the practice which 
 prevailed in Egypt, from the neighbourhood of 
 Alexandria to the Thebaid, in the 5th century, 
 of meeting on the evening of Saturday for a 
 common meal, generally full and varied in its 
 materials, after which those who were present 
 partook of the “ mysteries ” (Sozom. H. E. 
 vii. 19; Socrates, H. E. v. 22). The practice, 
 then, noticed as an exception to the practice 
 of all other Churches (comp. Augustin. Epist. 
 ad Jan. i. 5) was probably a relic of the primi¬ 
 tive Church, both as to time and manner, when 
 the Lord’s Supper had been, like other suppers, 
 eaten in the evening, when an evening meeting 
 on “ the first day of the week” meant, according 
 to the Jewish mode of speech, the evening of 
 Saturday, when the thought that “ fasting” was 
 a necessary condition of partaking of the Supper 
 of the Lord was not only not present to men’s 
 minds, but was absolutely excluded by the 
 Apostle’s rule, that men who could not wait 
 patiently when the members of the Church met, 
 should satisfy their hunger beforehand in their 
 own houses (1 Cor. xi. 34). 
 
 The classification of Agapae, according to the 
 occasion on which they were held, as (1) con¬ 
 nected with the anniversaries of martyrdoms 
 [comp. Natali'JTa], (2) as Cunnu'nales [comp. 
 Marriage], (3) as accompanying funerals 
 [Burial], (4) as at the dedication festivals of 
 churches [Dedications], must be looked on as 
 an after-growth of the primitive practice of 
 weekly meetings. Details will be found under 
 the respective headings. 
 
 We have lastly to notice the probable use at the 
 Agapae of cups and plates with sacred emblems 
 and inscriptions, of which so many have been 
 found in the Catacombs [Glass, Christian], and 
 which almost suggest the idea of toasts to the me¬ 
 mory of the martyrs whose Natalities were cele¬ 
 brated. “ Ffefor Vivas in Nomine Laureti” 
 (Buonarrott. Plate xix. fig. 2), “ Semper Refri- 
 GERis IN Nomine Dei” {Ibid. xx. 2), “ niE 
 ZH2AI2 EN ArA©Ol2, DULCIS ANIMA VI¬ 
 VAS, BIBAS (for Vivas) IN PACE,” are ex- 
 amj)les of the inscriptions thus found. In the 
 judgment of the archaeologist just referred to, 
 they go back to the third, or even to the second 
 century. The mottoes were probably determined 
 by the kind of Agape for which they were intended 
 (comp. Martigny, art. Fonds de Coupe.'). [E.H.P.] 
 
 AGAPE. (1) V’^irgin of Antioch, commemo¬ 
 rated Feb. 15 and March 10 {Mart, llieron.). 
 
 (2) Vii'gin of Thessalonica, commemorated April 
 3 {Martgrot. Rom. T cA). 
 
42 AGAPETI, AND AGAPETAE 
 
 (3) ^liirtyr, April 16 {Cal. Buznnt.^. 
 
 (4) Daughter of Sophia, Sept. 17 {lb.'). 
 
 (5) Virgin, commemorated at Home Aug. 8 
 (J/. Hieron.). 
 
 (6) Virgin, commemorated at Horaclea, Nov. 
 
 20 {M. Micron.). [C.] 
 
 AGAPETI, and AGAPETAE, respectively, 
 men who dwelt in the same house with dea¬ 
 conesses, and virgins who dwelt in the same 
 house with monks, under a profession of merely 
 spiritual love; the latter of the two akin to 
 (TuyeiaaKToi, and also c'alled a5e\(pai : denounced 
 by St. Greg. Naz. {Cann. Ill.), by St. Jerome 
 {^Ad Eustoch. and Ad Occanuin, —“ Agajtetarum 
 ])estis ”), by St. Chrysostom (Pallad. in V. S. 
 C/triis. p. 45), by Epiphanius {Maer. l.xiii., Ixxi.x.), 
 and by Theodoret {In Epist. ad Philcm. v. 2); 
 and forbidden by Justinian {Novell, vi. c. 6), and 
 others (see Photius in Nomocan. tit. viii. c. xiv. 
 p. 99). (Du Cange, Meursius in Glossar., Suicer.) 
 The Irish Rules and Penitentials severely con¬ 
 demn a like practice: see e. g. Reg. Columban. 
 ii. 13. And the “ second order of saints,” in 
 Ireland itself (according to the well-known 
 document published by LTssher), “ abnegabant 
 mulierum administrationem, separantes eas a 
 monasteriis,” owing apparently to the abuse 
 arising from the practice when permitted by 
 “ the first order.” See Todd, Life of St. Patric/t, 
 pp. 90-92. ('See (TwEiaaKToi.) [A. \V. H.] 
 
 AGAPETUS or AGAPITUS. 1. Comme¬ 
 morated March 24 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (2) Of Asia, April 12 {Mart. Hieron.). 
 
 (3) The deacon, martyr at Rome, commemo¬ 
 rated with Felicissimus, Aug. 6 {Mart. Bom. 
 Vet., Micron., Bedae). Proper office in Gregorian 
 Sacramentary, p. 118, and Antiphon in Lib. 
 Aiitiph., p. 705. 
 
 (4) Martyr at Praeneste, commemorated Aug. 
 
 18 {Mart. Pom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae). Proper 
 office in Gregorian Sacramentary, p. 123, and 
 Antiphon in Lib. Antiph. p. 707. [C.] 
 
 AGAPIUS. (1) The bishop, martyr in Nu- 
 midia, commemorated April 29 {Mart. Pom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) And companions, martyrs at Gaza, March 
 15 {Cal. Byzant.). , [C.] 
 
 AGATHA or AGATHE. (1) The virgin, 
 martyr at Catana, passion commemorated Feb. 5 
 {Mart. Pom. Vet., Micron., Bedae, Cal. Byzant.). 
 Another commemoration, July 12 {M. Hieron.). 
 One of the saints of the Gregorian Canon. Proper 
 office for her Natalis in Gregorian Sacramentary, 
 p. 25, and Antiphon in Li'). Antiph. p. 665. 
 
 (2) Commemorated April 2 {2Iart. Hieron.). 
 
 [c.] 
 
 AGATHANGELUS, martyr, commemorated 
 Jan. 23 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AGATHENSE CONCILIUM. [Agde.] 
 
 AGATHO. (1) Martyr at Alexandria, com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 7 {2Iart. Pom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Deacon, April 4 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (3) Commemorated July 5 (T6. et//iieron.). [C.] 
 
 AGATHONICA of Pergamus, commemo¬ 
 rated April 13 {Mart. Pom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 AGATKONICUS, martyr, commemorated 
 Aug. 22 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.J 
 
 AGATHUS, commemorated May 8 {Mart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AGAUNE, COUNCIL OF (Agaunense 
 
 AGE, CANONICAL 
 
 CoNcruL-.M), April 30, a.d. 515, 51P, or 523; of 
 sixty bisliops and sixty nobles, uudei SIgismund, 
 King of the Burgundians ; establi.shed the “ Laus 
 Perenuis” in the monastery of Agaune for St. 
 Maurice in the Valais), then also endowed with 
 lands and privileges. Maximus, Bishop of Geneva, 
 heads the signatures ; but Avitus, Archbishop 
 of Vienne, is supposed to have been also present 
 (Mansi, viii. 531-538). [A. W. H.] 
 
 AGDE, COUNCIL OF (Agathense Conci¬ 
 lium), in Nai bonne, a.d. 506, Sept. 10 or 11; 
 of 35 bishops from the South of France ; in the 
 22nd year of Alaric, (Arian) King of the Goths ; 
 enacted 73 canons in matters of discipline; 
 among other things, forbidding “ bigami ” to 
 be ordained; commanding married priests and 
 deacons to abstain from their wives; fixing 25 
 as the age of a deacon, 30 as that of a priest or 
 bishop, &c. It was assembled “ ex permissu 
 domini nostri gloriosissimi magnificentissimique 
 regis,” sc. Alaric; without any mention of the 
 pope (Symmachus), save as mentioning his year 
 in the title (Mansi, viii. 319-346). [A. W. H.] 
 
 AGE, CANONICAL. The age required by 
 the canons for ordination. In the case of bishops, 
 it appears to have been the rule of the Church 
 from early times that they should be thirty 
 years old at the time of their ordination. This 
 rule, however, was frequently dispensed with, 
 eitl'.er in cases of necessity or in order to pro¬ 
 mote persons of extraordinary worth and singular 
 qualifications. It may be questioned whether 
 this rule was observed from the days of the 
 Apostles, as it is nowhere enjoined in St. Paul’s 
 Pastoral Epistles or elsewhere in the New Testa¬ 
 ment. And in the so-called Apostolical Consti¬ 
 tutions, which may be taken as expressing the 
 system of the Eastern Church as it was es¬ 
 tablished about the end of the third century, 
 i fifty is the age required of a bishop at his ordi¬ 
 nation, except he be a man of singular merit, 
 which may compensate for the want of years. 
 
 The age of thirty is required by implication 
 by the Council of Neocaesarea, a.d. 314, which 
 forbids to admit any one, however well qualified, 
 to the priesthood, under thirty years of age, 
 because the Lord Jesus Christ at that age be¬ 
 gan His ministry. The Council of Agde (Con¬ 
 cilium Agathense) forbids the ordination of 
 bishops or priests under thirty years of age. 
 
 By this rule, as enacted by the above-named 
 councils, the ordinary practice of the Church 
 has been regulated. The deviations, however, 
 in special cases have been numerous, and for 
 the.se a warrant may be found in the case of 
 Timothy, whose early ordination as Bishop of 
 Ephesus is inferred from the Apostle’s admo¬ 
 nition,—“Let no man despise thy youth” (I 
 Tim. iv. 12). We learn from Eusebius, that 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Atheno- 
 dorus were both ordained bishops x’ery young ; 
 eri v4ovs 6.a<pu}. It is probable that Athanasius 
 was ordained to the see of Alexandria before he 
 was thirty. Remigius, Bishop of Rheims, as ail 
 authors agree, was ordained at the age of twenty- 
 two, .\.D. 471. 
 
 In later times, bovs of eleven or twelve vears 
 of age have been ordained to the episcopate by 
 papal dispensation; but this abuse was unknown 
 to the ancient Church. 
 
 Prasbyters, like bishops, might not be ordained 
 
AGENDA 
 
 AGNUS DEI 
 
 43 
 
 before the age of thirty. Justinian, indeed, 
 enacted that none should be a presbyter before 
 thirty-five; but the Sixth General Council of Con¬ 
 stantinople I’educed it to the old period, appointing 
 thirty for a priest and twenty-five for a deacon. 
 Which ages were also settled in the Saxon Church, 
 as appears by Egbert’s Collection of the Canons 
 then in force in this country. 
 
 The councils of Agde, 506, of Carthage, 397, 
 of Trullo, 692, of Toledo, 633, all prescribe 
 twenty-five as the minimum of age for a deacon ; 
 and, according to Bingham, this rule was very 
 nicely observed, so that we scarce meet with an 
 instance of any one that was ordained before this 
 age in all the history of the Church. For this the 
 Council of Toledo cites the Levitical precedent. 
 
 In the Greek Church the age of thirty is still 
 prescribed for a priest, and twenty-five for a 
 deacon. In our own Church, the first Prayer- 
 book of Edward VI. prescribed twenty-one for 
 deacons, twenty-four for priests. The present 
 rubric is a provision of Canon 34. 
 
 (Bingham, x. 1, xx. 20 ; Landon’s Manual of 
 Councils ; Comber’s Companion ; Frayerhook in¬ 
 terleaved.') [D. B.] 
 
 AGENDA (from agere in the special sense of 
 performing a sacred act). A word used to desig¬ 
 nate both the mass and other portions of Divine 
 service. 
 
 1 . In the plural. —The second Council of Car¬ 
 thage (390) speaks of presbyters who committed 
 a bx'each of discipline, in that “ agant agenda ” in 
 private houses, without the authority of the 
 bishop (Canon 9). Innocent I. {Epistola ad De- 
 centium, § 3, p. 552, Migne) speaks of cele¬ 
 brating other agenda, in contrast with the con¬ 
 secration of the mysteries. 
 
 2. The plural form “agenda” came in time, 
 like “ Biblia,” to be considered a singular femi¬ 
 nine. For instance, St. Benedict in his Rule, c. 
 13 (p. 291), speaking of the morning and evening 
 office, says, “ Agenda matutina et vespertina non 
 transeat.” 
 
 3. The word “agenda” is not unfrequently 
 
 used absolutely to denote the office for the dead. 
 This may not improbably be the case in the 
 canon quoted above by the II. Cone. Carthage; 
 and it is certainly used in this sense by Venerable 
 Bede, when, speaking of local commemorations of 
 the dead, he says, “ Per omne sabbatum a presby- 
 tero loci illius Agendae eorum sollenniter cele- 
 brantur ” ( Vita St. Augustini, in Ducange s. v.). 
 Compare Menard’s note in his edition oi Gregory’s 
 Sacramentary^ p. 482. (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. 
 “ Agenda ”). [C.] 
 
 AGNES, or AGNE ( 071 /^). (1) The virgin, 
 
 martyr at Rome. Her Natalis, which is an an¬ 
 cient and highly-honoured festival, is celebrated 
 Jan. 21 (Mart. Eom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae): Octave, 
 Jan. 28 (ib.). Proper office for the Natalis in 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary, p. 23, and Antiphon 
 in Lib. Antii-h. p. 664. By Theodorus Lector 
 (Ecloga ii.) the deposition of her relics is joined 
 with the deposition of those of Stephen and 
 Laurence (see Greg. Sacram. p. 304, ed. Menard). 
 She is one of the saints of the Gregorian Canon, 
 where her name appears in the form Agne. 
 
 Tillemont (Mem. Eccl. iv. 345) conjectures 
 that the second festival on Jan. 28 commemorates 
 the apparition of St. Agnes to her parents eight 
 days after her death. 
 
 Her remains are said to have been buried in a 
 praediolum belonging to her family on the Via 
 Nomentana. The crypt dug to receive them bo- 
 came the nucleus of the famous cemetery of St. 
 Agnes. Two churches at Rome are dedicated to 
 St. Agnes, one of which is said to be that built 
 by Constantine at the request of his daughter 
 Constantia, and is certainly one of the most an¬ 
 cient basilicas in Rome. In early times, it was 
 I customary for the Pope to be present at the fes- 
 ! tival of St. Agnes in this church, in which 
 I Gregory the Great delivered several of his homi¬ 
 lies (e.g. in Matt. c. xiii., Horn. 2); and in this 
 I church still, on Jan. 21, the lambs are blessed, 
 from the wool of which the Pallia destined for 
 archbishops are to be made. 
 
 In the illustration, taken from an ancient 
 glass vessel, the doves on each side bear the two 
 crowns of Chastity and of Martyrdom. This 
 representation illustrates the verse of Prudentius 
 (Feristeph. xiv. 7), 
 
 “Duplex corona est praestita martyri.” 
 
 Representations of St. Agnes are found very fre¬ 
 quently on glass vessels in the catacombs; only 
 St. Peter and St. Paul are found more often so 
 represented. When alone, she is generally placed 
 between two trees; sometimes she is at the side 
 of the Virgin Mary ; sometimes between the 
 Lord and St. Laurence; between St. Vincent 
 and St. Hippolytus; between St. Peter and St. 
 
 1 Paul. 
 
 I (2) There is another festival of St. Agnes on 
 Oct. 18 (Mart. Hieron.). Tillemont (1. c.) con¬ 
 jectures that this was instituted in commemora- 
 I tion of the dedication of some church in her 
 I honour. (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. chret. p. 
 22 ff. ; the Abbe Martigny has also written a 
 monograph. Noticehistorique, liturgique, et arche'o- 
 logique sur le Culte de Stc. Ague's. Paris et 
 Lyons, 1847.) [C.] 
 
 AGNITUS, commemorated Aug. 16 (J/arL 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AGNUS DEI. The versicle “ Agnus Dei, qui 
 tollis peccata mundi. Miserere nobis,” is generally 
 spoken of as the “ Agnus Dei.” 
 
 1. A reference to the “ Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world,” was intro¬ 
 duced (as was natural) into some of the liturgies 
 at an early period. Thus in the Liturgy of St. 
 Chrysostom, during the breaking of the bread, 
 the priest says, MeAiCcTai kuI Siatiepi^fTai 6 
 
44 
 
 AGNUS DEI 
 
 AGNUS DEI 
 
 ajj.v'bs Tov 0 eoG (Neale’s Tetralogia, 176); and in 
 t’lat of St. James, after breaking and signing 
 with the cross, the priest says, ’iSe 6 a/xj/hs tov 
 Q eov, b Tibs TOV UaTpbs, b a^poov tt)v afiapTiav 
 TOV k6(T/xov, &<payia(r6els vntp Trjs tov KbffpLov 
 Cwrjs Ka\ (TwTrjp'ias (lb. 179). And in the ancient 
 “ Morning Hymn ” [Gloria in Excelsis] 
 adopted both in Eastern and Western Liturgies, 
 the deprecation is found : 'O afivhs tov Qeov, 
 *0 Tibs TOV UaTpbsy b aipo)v Tcts a/xapTias tov 
 k6<tijlov, 'EKerja-ou ^pLUS. 
 
 2. At the Trullan Council (692) it was decreed, 
 among other matters, that the Lord should no 
 longer be pictured in churches under the form of a 
 lamb, but in human form (Canon 82). The then 
 Pope, however, Sergius I., rejected the decrees of 
 this Council (though its conclusions had been 
 subscribed by the Papal legates), and Anastasius 
 the Librarian (inBaron.,an.701,vol.xii. 179)tells 
 us that this Pope first ordered that, at the time 
 of the breaking of the Lord’s body, the “Agnus 
 Dei ” should be chanted by clerks and people. 
 Some think that Sergius ordered it to be said 
 thrice, where it had previously been said only 
 once ; others, as Krazer (^De Liturgiis, p. 545), 
 that he ordered it to be said by the whole body 
 of the clergy and people, as being a prayer for 
 all; not, as previously, by the choir only. How¬ 
 ever this may be, the evidence of the Ordines 
 Romani I., II., and III. (Mabillon, Museum Itali- 
 cum, ii. pp. 29, 50, 59), and of Amalarius of 
 Metz, shows that in the beginning of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury the choir alone, and not the priest at the 
 altar, chanted the “ Agnus Deiand this was 
 the case also when Innocent III. wrote his trea¬ 
 tise on the “ Mystery of the Altar.” The Ordines 
 Romani do not define the number of repetitions of 
 the versicle ; but Martene (J)e Ritihus Ecclesiae, 
 lib. i., c. 4, art. 9) proves from ancient documents 
 that the threefold repetition was expressly en¬ 
 joined in some churches—as in that of Tours— 
 before the year 1000 ; and in the 12 th century 
 this custom prevailed in most churches. Subse¬ 
 quently, probably from about the 14th century, 
 the “ Agnus Dei ” came to be said in a low voice 
 by the priest with his deacon and subdeacon. In 
 later times, says Innocent III. (^De sacro Altaris 
 Mysterio, i. 4, p. 910, Migne), as trouble and ad¬ 
 versity fell upon the Church, the response at the 
 third repetition was changed into “ Dona nobis 
 pacem in the church of St. John Lateran 
 only was the older form retained. When 
 the substitution of “ Dona nobis pacem ” 
 was made is uncertain; it is found in no 
 MS. older than the year 1000. The reason 
 which Innocent gives for the introduction of the 
 prayer for peace may perhaps be the real one; 
 but it is not an unreasonable conjecture that it 
 had reference to the “pax,” or kiss of peace, 
 which was to follow. 
 
 3. Gerbert (i)e Musicd Sacra, i. p. 458) men¬ 
 tions among ancient customs the chanting of the 
 “ Agnus Dei ” by the choir during the time that 
 the people communicated, before the antiphon 
 called “Communio” (Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, 
 i. 148). 
 
 4. The “Agnus Dei” was sometimes interpo¬ 
 lated with “tropes;” for instance, the following 
 form is quoted by Cai’dinal Bona from an ancient 
 missal, tlie date of which he does not mention : 
 “Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, crimina 
 tollis, aspera mollis, Agnus honoris, Miserere nobis. 
 
 Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, vulne -a 
 sanas, at duaplanas, Agnus amoris. Miserere nobis. 
 Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, sordida 
 mundas, cuncta foecundas, Agnus odoris. Dona 
 nobis pacem” (^l)e Rebus Liturgicis, lib. ii. c. 16, 
 p. 473). And Rupert of Deutz has the addition, 
 “ Qui sedes ad dextram Ratris, Miserere nobis” 
 (Daniel, Codex Lit. i. 142). 
 
 5. In the Ambrosian rite the “ Agnus Dei ” 
 occurs only in masses for the dead ; where, after 
 “ Dona nobis pacem,” the words are added, “ Re¬ 
 quiem sempiternam, et locum indulgentiae cum 
 sanctis tuis in gloria ” (Krazer, Le Liturgiis, 
 p. 637). 
 
 6 . A legend preserved by Robert of Mount St. 
 
 Michael (in Bona, De Reh. Lit. lib. ii. c. 16) tells 
 how, in the year 1183, the Holy Virgin ajipeared 
 to a woodman at work in a forest, and gave him 
 a medal bearing her own image and that of her 
 Son, with the legend “Agnus Dei, qui tollis pec¬ 
 cata mundi. Dona nobis pacem.” This she bade 
 him bear to the bishop, and tell him that all who 
 wished the peace of the Church should make 
 such medals as these, and wear them in token oi 
 peace. [C.] 
 
 AGNUS DEI. A medallion of wax, bearing 
 the figure of a lamb. It was an ancient custom 
 to distribute to the worshippers, on the first 
 Sunday after Easter, particles of wax taken from 
 the Paschal taper, which had been solemnlv 
 blessed on the Easter Eve of the previous year. 
 These particles were burned in houses, fields, or 
 vineyards, to secure them against evil influences 
 or thunder-strokes. 
 
 In Rome itself, however, instead of a Paschal 
 taper, the archdeacon was accustomed to pro¬ 
 nounce a benediction OA’^er a mixture of oil and 
 wax, from which small medallions bearing the 
 figure of a lamb were made, to be distributed to 
 the people on the first Sunday after Easter, espe¬ 
 cially to the newly baptised. (^Ordo Romanus 1. 
 pp. 25, 31; Amalarius de Eccl. Off. i. 17, p. 
 1033; Pseudo-Alcuin, de Die. Off. c. 19, p. 482.) 
 
 In modern times this benediction of the Agnus 
 Dei is reserved to the Pope himself, and takes 
 place in the first year of each pontificate, and 
 every seventh year following. 
 
 The Paschal taper was anciently thought to 
 symbolise the pillar of fire which guided the 
 Israelites, and the Agnus Dei the Passover Lamb 
 (Amalarius, u. s. c. 18; compare the Gregorian 
 Sacramentary, p. 71; “Deus, cujus autiqua 
 miracula in praesenti quoque saeculo coruscare 
 sentimus”). 
 
 A waxen Agnus Dei is said to have been among 
 the presents made by Gregory the Great to 
 Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards (Frisi, 
 Memorie di Monza, i. 34) ; but nothing of the 
 kind is mentioned by the saint himself in tlie 
 letter (A^/>jst. xiv. 12, p. 1270) in which he gives 
 a list of his presents. One was found in 1725 in 
 the church of San Clemente on the Coeliau Hill 
 at Rome, in a tomb supposed to be that of 
 Flavius Clemens a martyr. This Agnus is sup¬ 
 posed, by De Vitry (in Calogiera’s Raccolta, 
 xxxiii. 280), to have been placed in the tomb at 
 the translation of the relics which he thinks took 
 place in the 7th century. 
 
 An Agnus was frequently enclosed in a case or 
 reliquary ; and some existing examples of sucii 
 cases are thought to be of the 8th or 9th ccn- 
 
AGRICIUS 
 
 ALB 
 
 45 
 
 tuiy. A vei'y remarkable one, said to have 
 belonged to Charlemagne, is among the treasures 
 of Aix-la-Chapelle; but the style appears to be 
 of a much later age than that of Charlemagne 
 (Cahier and Martin, Melanges Arclieologie, 
 vol. i. pi. xix. fig. D.). [C.] 
 
 AGRICIUS, Bishop of Trbves and confessor, 
 deposition Jan. 13 {Mart. Bedae'). [C.J 
 
 AGRICOLA. (1) In Africa, martyr, com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 3 {M. Hieron.'). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Bologna, commemorated Nov. 
 27 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 ( 3 ) Saint, Natale Dec. 3 {M. Bedae). 
 
 (4) In Auvergne, Dec. 9 {M. Micron.). 
 
 (5) At Ravenna, Dec. 16 {M. Micron.). [C.] 
 
 AGRIPPINA, martyr at Rome, commemo¬ 
 rated June 23 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AGRIPPINENSE CONCILIUM. [Co¬ 
 logne, Council of.] 
 
 AGRIPPINUS, of Alexandria, commemo¬ 
 rated July {Mart. Mieron.)] Jakatit 5 = Jan. 
 30 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 AINOI. [Lauds.] 
 
 AISLE. [Church.] 
 
 AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, COUNCILS OF 
 (Aquisgranensia Concilia) :—i. a.d. 789 ; a 
 mixed synod held under Charlemagne in his 
 palace, which enacted 82 capitulars respecting 
 the Church, \Q ad monachos, 21 on matters of a 
 mixed kind (Baluz., Capit. i. 209).—ii. A.D. 797; 
 also under Charlemagne, and consisting of bishops, 
 abbats, and counts ; at which 11 capitulars were 
 made respecting matters ecclesiastical and civil, 
 and 33 “ de partibus Saxoniae.” The canons (46) 
 of Theodulph, Bishop of Orleans, “ ad parochiae 
 suae sacerdotes,” are appended to this council 
 (Baluz., Capit. i. 250 ; Mansi, xiii. 994-1022).— 
 iii. A.D. 799; also under Charlemagne, and in 
 his palace, of bishops, abbats, and monks, where 
 Felix of Urgel was induced by Alcuin to re¬ 
 nounce the heresy of Adoptianism (Mansi, xiii. 
 1033-1040, from Alcuin, ad Elipand. i., and the 
 Vita Alcuin.). —iv. a.d. 802, October ; also under 
 Chaidemagne, of bishops, priests, and deacons, 
 who then took the oath of allegiance to him 
 (Mansi, xiii. 1102). — v. A.D. 809, November; 
 also under Charlemagne, upon the question of 
 the Filioque ; which sent messengers to Pope 
 Leo III., and was instructed by him to omit the 
 words from the Creed, although the doctrine 
 itself was de fide (Mansi, xiv. 17-28). The later 
 Councils of Aix are beyond the period assigned 
 to this -work. [A. W. H.] 
 
 ALB {alba, tunica alba, tunica talaris, poderis, 
 linea, supparus, subucula, camisia; see also Sti- 
 
 CHARION). 
 
 § 1. The word and its derivation. —The Latin 
 word alba, the fuller expression for which is 
 tunica alba, first appears, as the technical de¬ 
 signation of a white tunic, m a passage of Vopis- 
 cus, who speaks of an alba subserica, or tunic 
 made of silk interwoven with some other mate¬ 
 rial, sent as a present, circ. 265, A.D., from Gal- 
 lienus to Claudius {Mist. August. Script. Tre- 
 bellius in Claudio, p. 208). The same expression, 
 alba subserica, occurs more than once in a lettea’ 
 of the Emperor Valerian. The word survives in 
 theFr. “aube,'’ as in our own “alb.” The cor¬ 
 
 responding Italian word “ camice ” in derived 
 from “ camisia ” (see below, § 3). 
 
 § 2. Ecclesiastical use of the word, and of the 
 vesfment. —There are two uses of the term in 
 an.ient writers, between which it is not alwa)’’s 
 easy to distinguish. When used in the singulai 
 il has generally the technical meaning above no- 
 Jced, that of a white tunic. But in the plural 
 the phrase in albis, and the like, may either 
 mean “ in albs,” or, more vaguely and compre- 
 lensively, “ in white garments.” Context only 
 can determine which is meant. 
 
 The first recorded instance of the technical 
 use of the term, as a designation of a vestment 
 of Christian ministry, occurs in a canon of the 
 African church {Concil. Carthag. iv. can. 41), 
 dating from the close of the 4th century. That 
 canon prescribes that deacons shall not wear the 
 alb except when engaged in Divine service. “ Ut 
 diaconus tempore oblationis tantum, vel lectionis, 
 alba utatur.” This probably implies that bishops 
 and presbyters, but not deacons, were allowed 
 ;o wear in ordinary life a long white tunic, re¬ 
 sembling that worn in divine seiwice. Other 
 early canons, on the subject of ecclesiastical 
 labits, show, as does thac last quoted, that there 
 was a.general tendency on the part of the dea¬ 
 cons, and other yet inferior orders, to assume the 
 insignia which properly belonged to the higher 
 grades of the ministry. “ Human nature ” had 
 bund its expression in such and the like ways in 
 the early church as in later times. 
 
 This conjecture as to an alb being worn by 
 bishops and presbyters even in ordinary life 
 Trom the time of the “ Peace of the Church ” 
 under Constantine), at least on occasions when 
 “ full dress ” was required, is confirmed by the 
 remarkable mosaics in the church of St. George 
 at Thessalonica. These date in all probability 
 from the 4th century. Among the personages 
 represented, all of them in the more stately dress 
 of ordinary life, there are two only who are 
 ecclesiastics, Philip Bishop of Heraclea, and the 
 Presbyter Romanus; and the dress of each is so 
 arranged as to show the white chiton (or tunic), 
 though an outer tunic of darker colour is also 
 worn. In this respect their dress differs from 
 that of the other figures, which are those of lay¬ 
 men. These mosaics are figured in the Byzantine 
 Architecture of Texier and Pullan (Lond., 1864). 
 That an alb was so worn, more or less generally, 
 by presbyters, at least in some parts of the West 
 in later centuries, appears clearly from such a 
 direction as that of Leo IV. in his Cura Bastor- 
 alis: “ Nullus in alba qua in-suo usu utitur 
 praesumat missas cantare.” This direction is 
 repeated almost verbatim in the Capitula of 
 Hincmar of Rheims (f882), and in the Disciplina 
 Ecclesiastica of Regino, abbot of Prume, in the 
 following century. 
 
 § 3. Primitive forms of the Alb. —In the early 
 ages of the church the alb of Christian ministry 
 was of full and flowing shape, and distinguished 
 in this respect from the closely-fitted tunic of 
 Levitical priesthood. St. Jerome {Epist. ad Fa- 
 biolam) follows Josephus {Antiq. Jvd. iii. 7) in 
 dwelling particularly on this distinctive charac¬ 
 teristic of the Levitical tunic; and in order to 
 convey to his readers an idea of its general ap¬ 
 pearance, he is obliged to refer theui to the linen 
 shirts, called carnisiae, worn by soldiers when on 
 service. More than four centuries later, Amala- 
 
46 
 
 ALB 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 nus of Metz quotes this passage of St. Jei’ome, 
 in his treatise De Ecclesiasticis Officiis (lib. ii. 
 cap. 18); and expressly notices the fact that the 
 Christian aib differed from the poderis, or full- 
 length tunic of Levitical ministry, in that, while 
 this last was strictum, closely fitted to the body, 
 that of the church was largum, full and flowing. 
 With this statement the earliest monuments of 
 ministering vestments quite accord. Th-e albs 
 (if they be not rather dalmatics) worn by 
 Archbishop Maximian and his attendant clergy 
 in the Ravenna mosaics (see Vestiarium Chris- 
 tianum, PI. xxviii.; and under vestments), and 
 in a less degree, that assigned to the deacon in 
 the fresco representing Ordination in the 
 cemetery of St. Hermes at Rome (Aringhi, Roma 
 i' u’it. tom. ii. p. 329); and again those worn 
 under a planeta by Pope Cornelius of Rome and 
 St. Cyprian of Carthage in frescoes of (probably) 
 the 8 th century (De Rossi, Roma Sott. vol. i. pp. 
 298-304) all agree in this respect. In these 
 last, particularly, the albs (possibly dalmatics, 
 q. V.) worn under the planeta, have sleeves as 
 large as those of a modern surplice. 
 
 But while this was, no doubt, the prevailing 
 form, we have pictorial evidence to show, that, 
 in the ninth century certainly, and in all proba¬ 
 bility at a considerably earlier time, a different 
 form of alb was in use side by side with the first. 
 Considerations of practical convenience deter¬ 
 mined this, as had been the case, we may well 
 believe, in the case of the Levitical priests. If 
 these latter, in the discharge of their sacrificial 
 duties, would have been not only incommoded 
 but endangered by wearing full and flowing linen 
 garments, so were there occasions, particularly 
 the administration of baptism, when large and 
 full sleeves, like those of the ordinary alb or 
 dalmatic, would have been inconvenient in the 
 highest degree to those engaged in offices of 
 Christian ministry. We find accordingly, in an 
 illumination dating from the 9th century (see 
 woodcut in the article baptism), that the priest 
 in baptizing wore a closely fitted alb, girded. 
 This is, w'e have reason to believe, the earliest 
 example in Christian art of an alb so shaped ; 
 but in later centuries, as the “ sacred vest¬ 
 ments ” continually increased in number, the 
 alb, which w'as worn underneath the rest, was i 
 gradually more and more contracted in form ; 
 and at the present time the alb, technically so 
 called, is a closely-fitting vestment, girded, 
 nearly resembling that of the pidest in the plate 
 just referred to. 
 
 § 4. Decoration of the alb.— Like other vest¬ 
 ments which, in primitive times, were of w'hite 
 .linen only, the alb was often enriched in later 
 times in respect of ornament, material, and 
 colour. Details as to this are given by Bock 
 {Liturgische Gewdnder, ii. 33) and by Dr. Rock 
 ( Church of our Fathers, vol. i. p. 424 sqq.'). The 
 most common ornaments of the kind were knuwm 
 as parurae (a shorter form of paraturae), which 
 were oblong patches, richly coloured and orna¬ 
 mented, attached to the tunic. Hence a distinc¬ 
 tion between cdha parata, an alb with “ ap¬ 
 parels ” (technically so called), and alba pura, 
 this last being the “ w'hite alb plain” spoken of 
 in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. These 
 albae paratae date, according to Professor Weiss, 
 from the close of the lOth century (^Kostum- 
 kunde, u. s. w., p. GG7). But this is true only of 
 
 ecclesiastical use. Ornaments like in kind to 
 these apparels had long been in use for the richer 
 albs worn by persons of high secular rank. They 
 were called Paragaudae, from a Syriac wmrd of 
 similar import. See Casaubon’s note on the pas¬ 
 sage of Trebcllius referred to in § 1 . [W.B.M.] 
 
 ALBANUS (1) (St. Alban) or Albinuu 
 {Mart. Hieron.') and his companions, martyrs in 
 Britain, commemorated June 22 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Hieron., et Bedaef 
 
 (2) Saint, commemorated December 1 {M. 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ALBINUS. (1) Bishop and confessor, com¬ 
 memorated March 1 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (2) Mai-tyr, June 21 {M. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ALCESTER, Council of (Alnense Con¬ 
 cilium), A.D. 709; an imaginary council, resting 
 solely on the legendary life of Eegwin, Bishop 
 of Worcester, and founder of Evesham Abbey, bv 
 Brihtwald of Worcester (or Glastonbury); said 
 to have been held to confirm the grants made 
 to Evesham (Wilk. i. 72, 73; Mansi, xii. 182- 
 189). Wilfrid of York, said to have been at the 
 council, died June 23, 709. [A. W. H.] 
 
 ALDEGUNDIS, virgin, deposition Jan. 30 
 {Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ALDERMANN. [Ealdorman.] 
 
 ALEXANDER, (1) martyr under Decius, 
 commemorated Jan. 30 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Commemorated Feb. 9 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (3) Son of Claudius, martvr at Ostia, Feb. 
 18 {ib.). 
 
 (4) Bishop of Alexandria, Feb. 26 (/ 6 .); April 
 10 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (5) Of Thessalonica, Feb. 27 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 ( 6 ) Of Africa, March 5 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (7) Of Nicomedia, March 6 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (8) With Gains, March 10 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (9) Bishop of Jerusalem, martyr, March 18 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae). 
 
 (10) Martyr at Caesarea in Palestine, March 
 28 {Mart. Rom. Vet.) ; Mar. 27 {M. Bedae). 
 
 (11) Saint, April 24 {Mart. Bedae) ; April 21 
 {Hieron.). 
 
 (12) The Pope, martyr at Rome under Trajan, 
 j May 3 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae). Named in tho 
 
 Gregorian Canon, Antiphon in Lib. Antiph. p. 693. 
 
 (13) Martyr at Bergamo, Aug. 26 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.). 
 
 (14) Bishop and confessor, Aug. 28 {Lb.). 
 
 (15) “In Sabinis,” Sept. 9 {Ib. et Hieron.). 
 
 (16) Commemorated Sept. 10 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (17) In Capua, Oct. 15 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (18) Patriarch, Nov. 7 {Cal. Amnen.)’, Miaziah 
 22 = April 17, and Nahasse 18 = Aug. 11 {Cal. 
 Ethiop.). 
 
 (19) Bishop and martyr, Nov. 26 {M. R. F.). 
 
 (20) Martyr at Alexandria, translated Dec. 
 
 12 {Lb.). [C.] 
 
 ALEXANDRIA, CATECHETICAL 
 SCHOOL OF. The school thus described occu¬ 
 pies an exceptional position in the history of the 
 Christian Church. Everyw'here, of course, there 
 was instruction of some kind for con- . 
 
 verts [Catechumens] ; everywhere, before long, 
 there must have been some provision made for 
 the education of Christian children. That at Alex¬ 
 andria was the only one which acquired a special 
 reputation, and had a succession of illustrious 
 
ALEXANDRIA 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 47 
 
 teachers, affected, directly and indirectly, | 
 the theology of the Church at large. The lives 
 of those teachers, and the special characteristics 
 of their theological speculations will be treated j 
 of elsewhere. Here it is proposed to consider 
 ( 1 ) the outward history of the school; ( 2 ) its ^ 
 actual mode of working, and general influence on ^ 
 the religious life of the Alexandrian Church. | 
 
 (1.) The origin of the Alexandrian school “ is 
 buried in obscurity. Eusebius (Af. E., v. 10) 
 speaks of it as of long standing (e^ apxa'^ov 
 idovs), but the earliest teacher whom he names is j 
 Pantaenus, circ. a.d. 180. If we were to accept ^ 
 the authority of Philip of Sida (Fragm. in Dod- 
 well’s Dissert, in Iren. Oxf. pp. 488-497), the 
 honour of being its founder might be conceded 
 to Athenagoras, the writer of the Apologia; and 
 this would carry us a few years further. But the 
 authority of Philip is but slight. His list is 
 manifestly inaccurate, the name of Clement com¬ 
 ing after Origen, and even after Dionysius, and 
 the silence of Eusebius and Jerome must be held 
 to outweigh his assertion. Conjecture may look 
 to St. Mark (Hieron., Cat. 36), with more proba¬ 
 bility, perhaps, to Apollos, as having been the first 
 conspicuous teacher at Alexandria. Pantaenus, 
 however, is the first historical name. He taught 
 both orally and by hi§ writings, and, though his 
 work was interrupted by a mission to India, he 
 seems to have returned to Alexandria, and to 
 have continued teaching there till his death. 
 First working with him, and then succeeding 
 him, we have the name of Clement, and find him 
 occupying the post of teacher till the persecution 
 of Severus, A.D. 202, when he with others fled for 
 safety. The vacant place was filled by Origen 
 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3), then only eighteen years of 
 age, but already well known as a teacher of 
 grammar and rhetoric, and as having studied 
 profoundly in the interpretation of the Scriptures. 
 It is probable, but not certain, that he himself 
 had attended Clement’s classes. As it was, seekers 
 after truth came to him in such numbers that he 
 renounced his work as an instructor in other 
 subjects, and devoted himself to that of the 
 school which was thus reopened. Clement may 
 possibly have returned to Alexandria, and worked 
 with him till his death, circ. A.D. 220. Origen 
 himself left soon afterwards, and founded, in some 
 sense, a rival school at Caesarea. Of the teachers 
 that followed we know little more than the names. 
 Philip of Sida (1. c.) gives them as Heraclas, 
 Dionysius, Pierius, Theognostus, Serapion, Peter, 
 Macarius, Didymus, Rhodon. Eusebius (AT. E. 
 vii. 32) names Pierius as a man of philosophical 
 attainments at Alexandria, and mentions Achillas 
 more distinctly as having been entrusted with 
 the hiZacTKaXuov there under the episcopate of 
 Theonas. He further speaks of the school as 
 existing in his own time (circ. a.d. 330). Theo- 
 doret (i. 1) names Arius as having at one time been 
 the chief teacher there, and Sozomen (JE.E. iii. 15) 
 and Rufinus (AT. E. ii. 7) name Didymus, a teacher 
 who became blind, as having held that post for a 
 long period of years (circ. A.D. 340-395). During 
 the later years of his life he was assisted by 
 Rhodon as a coadjutor, who, on his death, re¬ 
 
 * It may be worth while to note the names by which it 
 18 described(1) to or to rSiv lepCiv 
 
 Aoywi/ Si8a<rKa\elov, Euseb., U. E. v. 10, vi. 3, 26 : (2) to 
 tepbi/ SiSaaKaXeloi/ roiv lepa>v p.a0r)ixdr(x)i/, Sozom. iii. 15 : 
 (3) EccUsiastica Schola, Hieron., Cat. c. 38. 
 
 moved to Sida, where he numbered among his 
 pupils the Philip from whom we get the list of 
 the succession. This seems to have broken up the 
 school, and we ai*e unable to trace it further. 
 
 (2.) The pattern upon which the work at Alex¬ 
 andria was based may be found in St. Paul’s 
 labours at Ephesus. After he ceased to address 
 the Jews through his discourses in the synagogue 
 he turned to the “school ” ((TxoA'J?) of Tyrannus 
 (Acts, xix. 9). That “ school ” was probably a 
 lecture-hall (so the word is used by Plutarch, Vit. 
 Arati, c. 29), which had been used by some teacher 
 of philosophy or rhetoric, and in which the apostle 
 now appeared as the instructor of all who came to 
 inquire what the “ new doctrine ” meant. Some¬ 
 thing of the same kind must have been soon 
 found necessary at a place like Alexandria. With 
 teachers of philosophy of all schools lecturing 
 round them, the Christian Society could not but 
 feel the need of lecturers of its own. Elsewhere, 
 among slaves and artisans it might be enough tu 
 hand down the simple tradition of the faith, to de- 
 velope that teaching as we find it in the Catecheses 
 of Cyril of Jerusalem. The age of apologists, ap¬ 
 pealing, as they did, to an educated and reading 
 class, must have made the demand for such teachers 
 more urgent, and the appearance of Pantaenus as 
 the first certainly known teacher, indicates that 
 he was summonea oy the Church to supply it. 
 In a room in his own house, or one hired for the 
 purpose, the teacher received the inquirers who 
 came to him. It was not a school for boys, but 
 for adults. Men and women alike had free access 
 to him. The school was open from morning 
 to evening. As of old, in the schools of the 
 Rabbis, as in those of the better sophists and 
 philosophers of Greece, there was no charge for 
 admission. If any payment was made it came, in 
 the strictest sense of the word, as an honorarium 
 from grateful pupils (Euseb. H. E. vi. 4). 
 After a time he naturally divided his hearers 
 into classes. Those who were on the threshold 
 were, it is natural to think, called on, as in the 
 Cohortatio ad Graecos of Clement, to turn from 
 the obscenities and frivolities of Paganism to the 
 living and true God. Then came, as in his Paeda- 
 gogus, the “ milk ” of Catechesis, teaching them 
 to follow the Divine Instructor by doing all 
 things, whether they ate or drank, in obedience 
 to His will. Then the more advanced were led 
 on to the “ strong meat ” of rj iiroirTiKT] Oeapta 
 (Clem. Alex., Stro7n. v. p. 686, Pott.). At times 
 he would speak, as in a continuous lecture, 
 and then would pause, that men might ask the 
 questions which were in their hearts (Origen, 
 in Matt. Tr. xiv. 16). The treatises which 
 remain to us of Clement’s, by his own account 
 of them, embody his reminiscences of such instruc¬ 
 tion partly as given by others, partly doubtless 
 as given by himself. We may fairly look on 
 Origen’s treatises and expositions as having had 
 a like parentage. (Comp. Guerike, De Schola 
 Alex. ; Hasselbach, De Schola Alex.; Redepen- 
 ning’s Origenes, i. 57, ii. 10; and Art. Alex- 
 andrinisches Catecheten Schule, in Herzog’s Peal. 
 Encyclopddie; Neander’s Church History [Engl. 
 Translation], ii. 260, et seq.") [E. H. P.] 
 
 ALEXANDRIA, COUNCILS OF. There 
 were no councils of Alexandria proportionate to 
 its situation as the marine gate of the East, or to 
 the fame of its catechetical and eclectic schools. 
 
48 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 or to its ecclesir.stical position, as having been 
 the second see of the world. And the first of 
 them was held A.D. 230, under Demetrius, in a 
 hasty moment, to pass judgment upon one of 
 the most distinguished Alexandrians that ever 
 lived, Origen : his chief fault being that he had 
 been ordained priest in Palestine, out of the 
 diocese. His works were condemned in this, 
 and he himself excommunicated and deposed in a 
 subse(juent council ; but both sentences were 
 disregarded by the bishops of Palestine, under 
 whose patronage he continued to teach and to 
 preach as before. 
 
 A.D. 235—There was a synod under Heraclas, 
 who is said to have appointed 20 bishops; 
 one of whom, Ammonius, having betrayed 
 the faith, was reclaimed at this synod. 
 
 A.D. 263—This was a synod, under Dionysius, 
 against the errors of Sabellius ; in another, 
 Hepotianus, a bishop of Egypt, and Ce- 
 rinthus fell under censure for their views 
 on the Millennium. 
 
 A.D. 306—under Peter; against Meletius, a 
 bishop of Lycopolis, who had sacrificed to 
 idols, and was therefore deposed. 
 
 A.D. 321—Against Arius, who was deposed in 
 two synods this year under Alexander. 
 
 A.D. 324—Against Arius once more; but this 
 time under Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, who 
 had been despatched to Alexandria to 
 make enquiries, by Constantine. 
 
 A.D. 328—When St. Athanasius was conse¬ 
 crated bishop. (On the date, see Mansi, 
 ii. 1086.) 
 
 A.D. 340—In favour of St. Athanasius. De¬ 
 puties were sent from the council to Rome 
 and Tyre in that sense. Its synodical 
 letter is given by St. Athanasius in his 2nd 
 Apology. 
 
 A.D. 352—Called “Egyptian;” in favour of 
 St. Athanasius again. 
 
 A.D, 362—under St. Athanasius, on his return 
 from exile, concerning those who had 
 Arianised. It published a synodical letter. 
 On its wise and temperate decisions, see 
 Newman’s Arians, v. 1. 
 
 A.D, 363—under St. Athanasius on the death of 
 Julian ; published a synodical letter to the 
 new emperor Jovian. 
 
 A.D. 371—Of 90 bishops, under St. Athanasius : 
 to pi'otest against Auxentius continuing in 
 the see of Milan. This is one of those 
 called “ Egyptian.” 
 
 A.D. 371—under St. Athanasius the same 
 year; to receive a profession of faith from 
 Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, which turned 
 out orthodox. 
 
 A.D. 399 — Against the followers of Origen, 
 who were condemned. Part of its synodical 
 letter is preserved in that of the emperor 
 Justinian to Mennas on the same subject 
 long afterwards. 
 
 A.D. 430—under St. Cyril against Nestorius ; 
 
 whei'e St. Cvril indited his celebrated 
 
 «/ 
 
 epistle with the twelve anathemas. 
 
 A.D. 457—under Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, 
 or the Cat, at which the Council of Chal- 
 cedon was condemned. This was repeated, 
 A.D. 477, 
 
 A.D. 482 — At which John Tabenniosites was con¬ 
 secrated bishop ; he was ejected at once by 
 the emperor Zeno, when Peter Moggus re¬ 
 
 turned, and in a subsequent synod tne 
 same year condemned the 4th* council, 
 having first caused a schism amongst his 
 own followers by subscribing to the He- 
 uoticon (Evag. iii. 12-16). 
 
 A.D. 485—under Quintian, to pronounce Peter 
 the Fuller deposed from Antioch. 
 
 A.D. 578—The last of those called Egyptian ; 
 it was composed of Jacobites, to consider 
 the case of the Jacobite patriarch of 
 Antioch, Paul, 
 
 A.D, 589—under Eulogius ; against the Sa¬ 
 maritans. 
 
 A.D. 633—under Cyrus, the Monotli«elite pa¬ 
 triarch : the acts and synodical letter of 
 which are preserved in the 13th action of 
 the 6th general council. This is the last 
 on record. 
 
 The interests of the Church History of Alex¬ 
 andria are so great, that a few words may be 
 added respecting its patriarchate. 
 
 The patriarchate of Alexandria grew out of the 
 see founded there by St. Mark, “ according to the 
 constant and unvarying tradition both of the East 
 and West” (Neale’s Patriarch of Alex. 1. i.) ; to 
 which jurisdiction was assigned, as of ancient 
 custom appertaining, by the 6 th Nicene canon, 
 over “ Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.” This was, 
 in effect, what was already known as the Egyp¬ 
 tian diocese, being one of five placed under the 
 jurisdiction of the praefect of the East, and com¬ 
 prehending itself six provinces. Of these, Au- 
 gustanica was subdivided into Augustanica prima, 
 and secunda: the first stretching upon the coast 
 from Rhinocorura on the borders of Palestine to 
 Diospolis on the east of the Mendesian mouth of 
 the Nile, with the second immediately under it 
 inland; Egypt proper was likewise subdivMed 
 into prima and secunda, of which secunda 
 stretched westwards of the same mouth of the 
 Nile along the coast, with prima lying imme¬ 
 diately under it inland. Then Arcadia at Hep- 
 tanomis, forming the 3rd province, lay under 
 Augustanica secunda and Aegyptus prima on 
 both sides of the Nile ; and south of this Thebais, 
 or the 4th province, whose subdivisions, prima 
 comprehended all the rest of the country lying 
 north, and secunda all the country lying south 
 of Thebes, included in Egypt. Returning to¬ 
 wards the coast, westwards of Aegyptus secunda, 
 the 5th province, Libya inferior or secunda, was 
 also called Marmarica; and to the west of it 
 was the 6 th province, Libya Pentapolis, also 
 called Cyrenaica. The ecclesiastical arrange¬ 
 ments in each of these pi'ovinces have yet to be 
 given. For this purpose the “ Notitia ” pub¬ 
 lished by Beveridge (Synod, ii. 143-4) might 
 have been transcribed at length ; but as the sites 
 of so many of the sees are unknown, their mere 
 names, which are often uncouth and of doubtful 
 spelling, would be devoid of interest. It may 
 suffice to enumerate them, with their metropolis 
 in each case. Thus Augustanica prima con¬ 
 tained 14 episcopal sees, of which Pelusium was 
 the metropolis; Augustanica secunda 6 , at the 
 head of which was Leonto ; Aegyptus prima 20, 
 at the bead of which was Alexandria ; Aegyptus 
 secunda 12 , at the head of which was Cabasa 
 The province of Arcadia contained G, under the 
 metropolitan of Oxyrinchus; but 7 are given 
 subsequently, corresponding to the 7 mouths of 
 ; the Nile, of which Alexandria is placed first. 
 
ALEXANDEIA 
 
 ALEXANDRIA 
 
 49 
 
 There were 8 sees in Thebais prima, under the 
 metropolitan of Antino ; and twice that number 
 in Thebais secunda, under the metropolitan of 
 Ptolemais. Libya secunda, or Mai'marica, con¬ 
 tained 8, under the metropolitan of Dranicon; 
 and Libya Pentapolis 6, at the head of which 
 was Sozuza. Tripoli was a later acquisition, in¬ 
 cluding 3 sees only. They may have been placed 
 under Alexandria subsequently to the time of 
 the 4th Council, when all to the west of them 
 lay in confusion under the Vanaals; and possibly j 
 may have been intended to compensate for those ^ 
 two sees of Berytus and Rabba bordering on 
 Palestine, of which Alexandria was then robbed 
 to swell the patriarchate of Jerusalem on the 
 south-west (Cave, Ch. Govt. iv. 11). The list of 
 sees in Le Quien (Oriens Christiames, vol. ii. p. 
 330-640), illustrated by a map of the patriarch¬ 
 ate from D’Anville, agrees with the above in 
 most respects, only that it is shorter. i 
 
 Alexandria had been synonymous with oi'tho- 
 doxy while St. Athanasius lived ; shortly after ' 
 his death, however, the next place after Rome, 
 which it had ever enjoyed from Apostolic times, 
 was given by the 2nd General Council to Con¬ 
 stantinople. For this it seemed to have re- j 
 ceived ample compensation in the humiliation 
 of the Coustantinopolitan patriarch Nestorius, ^ 
 at the 3rd Council under St. Cyril; when the 
 want of tact and perverseness of his successor 
 Dioscorus enabled the more orthodox patriarchs 
 of Jerusalem and Constantinople to help them¬ 
 selves at its expense, and obtain sanction for 
 their proceedings at the 4th Council. For a 
 time, it is true, Rome peremptorily refused as¬ 
 senting to them; and charged their authors with 
 having infringed the Nicene canons. But Alex¬ 
 andria falling into the hands of those by whom 
 the doctrinal decisions of the 4th Council were 
 called in question and even condemned, Rome 
 naturally ceased taking any further steps in its 
 favour; and under Jacobite patriarchs princi¬ 
 pally, and sometimes exclusively, Alexandria 
 gradually came to exercise no palpable influence 
 whateA'er, even as 3rd see of the world, on the 
 rest of the Church. Le Quien reckons 48 patri¬ 
 archs in all, down to Eustathius, who was con¬ 
 secrated A.D. 801, but sevei'al of them were 
 heretical; and there were numerous anti-patri¬ 
 archs, both heretical and schismatieal, from time 
 to time disputing their claims. The ‘ Art de 
 verifier les Dates ’ makes this Eustathius the 
 66 th patriarch. Dr. Neale makes him the 40th, 
 and contemporary with Mark IL, the 49th Jaco¬ 
 bite patriarch. 
 
 There were several peculiarities connected 
 with the see of Alexandria, which have been 
 variously explained. One rests upon the autho¬ 
 rity of Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria in the 
 10th century, and of St. Jerom.e. The words of 
 Eutychius are as follows : “ St. Mark along with 
 Ananias ordained 12 presbyters to remain with 
 the patriarch ; so that when the chair should 
 become vacant, they might elect one out of the 
 12 on whose head the other 11 should lay their 
 hands, give him benediction, and constitute him 
 patriarch; and should after this choose some 
 other man to supply the place of the promoted 
 presbyter, in such sort that the presbytery 
 should alwavs consist of 12. This custom con- 
 tinned at Alexandria till the time of the patri¬ 
 arch Alexander, one of the 318 (Fathers of 
 
 OHRIST. ANT. 
 
 Nicaea) who forbade the presbyters in futuie to 
 ordain their patriarch ; but decreed that on a 
 vacancy of the see, tlie neighbouring bishops 
 should convene for the purpose of tilting it with 
 a proper patriarch, whether elected from those 
 12 presbyters or from any others.” Eutychius 
 adds, “ that during the time of the firf t 10 patri¬ 
 archs, there were no bishops in Eg) pt; Deme¬ 
 trius the 11th having been the first ti consecrate 
 them.” (Taken from Neale, p. 9.) This per¬ 
 haps may serve to explain the extixjme otTence 
 taken by Demetrius at the ordination of Origen 
 to the priesthood out of the diocese, if a priest 
 in Alexandria was so much more to the bishop 
 than a priest elsewhere. It may also serve to 
 explain the haste with which Alexander insti¬ 
 tuted proceedings against Arius. The passage 
 of St. Jerome seems conclusive as to the inter¬ 
 pretation to be given to that of Eutychius. 
 This Father in an epistle to Evagrius, while 
 dwelling on the dignity of the priesthood, thus 
 expresses himself: “ At Alexandria, from the 
 time of St. Mark the Evangelist to that of the 
 bishops Heraclas and Dionysius (in the middle 
 of the 3rd century), it was tiie custom of the 
 presbyters to nominate one, elected from among 
 themselves, to the higher dignity of the bishopric ; 
 just as the army makes an emperor, or the dea¬ 
 cons nominate as archdeacon any man whom they 
 know to be of active habits in their own body.” 
 (^Ibid.). St. Jerome wmuld be talking nonsense, 
 if the 12 of whom he is speaking had been 
 bishops themselves; that is, of the same rank 
 as their nominee was to be. Hence the theory 
 of an episcopal college, to which Dr. Neale seems 
 to incline, falls to the ground at once. On the 
 other hand, it seems unquestionable that St. 
 Jerome must have meant election, not ordina¬ 
 tion, from the marked emphasis wdth which he 
 lays down elsewhere that presbyters cannot or¬ 
 dain. Otherwise, from the age in which Euty¬ 
 chius lived, and still more the language in which 
 he wrote, it w'ould hardly be possible to prove 
 that he meant election only, when he certainly 
 seems to be describing consecration. But again, 
 if there were “ no bishops in Egypt during the 
 time of the first ten patriarchs,” how could epis¬ 
 copal consecration be had, when once the patri¬ 
 arch had ceased to liA-'e ? To this no satisfactory 
 answer has ever been returned. Eutychius, 
 though he lived in the 10th century, may be 
 supposed to have known moi'e about the ancient 
 customs of his see, in a land like Egypt, than 
 those who have decried him. And certainly, 
 though we know there were bishops in Egypt 
 under Demetrius, for two synods of bishops 
 (Phot. Bihl. s. 118 and Huet. Origen. i. 12), we 
 are told, met under him to condemn Origen; it 
 would be ditHcult to produce any conclusive 
 testimony to the fact that there were any epis¬ 
 copal sees there, besides that of Alexandria, be¬ 
 fore then. The vague statement of the Emperor 
 Adrian, “ Illi qui Serapim colunt Christiani sunt; 
 et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos 
 dicunt,” speaking of Egypt, clearly warrants no 
 such inference, standing alone ; nor does it ap¬ 
 pear to have ever been suggested that each of 
 the first ten patriarchs consecrated his suc¬ 
 cessor during his .own life-time. Yet there was 
 a strange haste in electing a new patriarch of 
 Alexandria, that seems to require some expla¬ 
 nation. The new patriarch, we learn from Lite- 
 
50 
 
 ALEXIUS 
 
 ALIENATION 
 
 rat us, always interred his predecessor ; and be¬ 
 fore doing so, placed his dead han I on his own 
 head. Can it have been in this way, during 
 that early period, extraordinary as it may seem, 
 that episcopal consecration was supposed to be 
 obtained, as it were, in one continuous chain 
 from St. Mark himself? The position of the 
 patriarch after consecration was so exceptional, 
 that it would be no wonder at all if his consecra¬ 
 tion differed materially from all others. In 
 civil matters his authority was very great; in 
 ecclesiastical matters it was quite despotic. All 
 bishops in Egypt were ordained by him as their 
 sole metropolitan. If any other bishop ever per¬ 
 formed metropolitan functions, it was as his dele¬ 
 gate. The Egyptian bishops themselves, in the 
 4th action of the Council of Chalcedon, professed 
 loudly that they were impotent to act but at 
 his bidding ; and hence they excused themselves 
 from even subscribing to the letter of St. Leo 
 while they were without a patriarch, after Dios- 
 corus had been deposed ; and that so obstinately, 
 that their subscription was allowed to stand 
 over, till the new patriarch had been consecrated. 
 The patriarch could moreover ordain presbyters 
 and deacons throughout Egypt in any number, 
 where ho Avould; and it is thought probable 
 that the presbyters, his assessors, had power given 
 them by him to confirm. All the episcopal sees 
 in Egypt seem to have originated with him alone. 
 As early as the 3rd century we find him called 
 “ papa,” archbishop in the next, and patriarch 
 in the 5th century, but not till after St. Cyril. 
 In later times, “judge of the whole world ” was 
 a title given him, on account of his having for¬ 
 merly fixed Easter. On the litui’gies in use in 
 the Egyptian diocese. Dr. Neale says ^General 
 Tntrod. i. 323—4), “ The Alexandrine family con¬ 
 tains 4 liturgies: St. Mark, which is the normal 
 form, St. Basil, St. Cyril, and St. Gregory. . . . 
 St. Mark’s was the rite of the orthodox Church 
 of Alexandria. . . . The other three are used by 
 the Mouophysites. St. Basil (i. e. the Copto- 
 Jacobite) is the normal and usual form ; St. 
 Gregory is employed in Lent; St. Cyril on festi¬ 
 vals. . . . Why the first of these liturgies bears 
 the name of Basil ” is uncertain. “ It is not 
 possible now to discover its origin, though it 
 would appear to have been originally Catholic; 
 to have been translated from the Greek into 
 Coptic, and thence after many ages into Arabic. 
 The liturgy of St. Cyril is to all intents and 
 purposes the same as that of St. Mark .... 
 and in both that, and in the office of St. Gregory, 
 the first part is taken from the normal liturgy 
 of St. Basil.” Both the proanaphoral and ana- 
 phoral parts of the Copto-Jacobite litui'gy of St. 
 Basil, together with the anaphoral part of that 
 of St. Mark are given in parallel columns further 
 on in the same work. And the Copto-Jacobite 
 patriai’chal church at Alexandria, said to be the 
 burial-place of the head of St. Mark, and of 72 
 of the patriarchs, is described there likewise, p. 
 277. Between the two works of Dr. Neale 
 already cited, and the Oriens Ch-istianus of Le 
 Quien, everything further that has yet been 
 discovered on the subject of this patriarchate 
 may be ootained. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ALEXIUS, 6 ivOpcDTros TOO 0600 , comme¬ 
 morated March 17 (Cal. Byzantf ); July 17 
 Horn.'). [C.] 
 
 ALIENATION OF CHUDCII FRO- 
 PERTY. — In treating of a subject like that 
 of the alienation of Church property, the canons 
 and other authorities cited as evidence of the 
 law concerning it might either be arranged ac¬ 
 cording to the various descriptions of property 
 to which they refer, or else the entire legislation 
 of each church and nation might be exhibited in 
 chronological order apart from the rest. The 
 latter plan has been here adopted, both as being 
 more suitable to a general article, and also 
 because in matters of church order and disci¬ 
 pline the canons of councils were not in force 
 beyond the limits of the churches in which they 
 were authoritativ^ely promulgated. 
 
 The alienation—by which is to be understood 
 the transference by gift, sale, exchange, or per¬ 
 petual emphyteusis®—of Church property [see 
 Property of the Church] was from early times 
 restrained by special enactments. 
 
 It is a much debated question amongst Ca¬ 
 nonists whether or not alienation, except in ex¬ 
 traordinary cases, was absolutely prohibited in 
 the first ages of the Church, by reason of the 
 sac 2 ‘ed character impressed upon property given 
 for ecclesiastical purposes, and by that act dedi¬ 
 cated to God (see Balsamon in can. 12, Cone. VI1. 
 ap. BeA^eridge Pand. Can. i. 303). As, howevei, 
 the property of the Church must in those timeh 
 have consisted only of the offerings and oblations 
 of the faithful, which were placed in the hands 
 of the bishops,^ it would appear most probable 
 that they wei*e free to make such use of it as 
 they might think would be productive of the 
 greatest benefit to their several dioceses. 
 
 The general law of the Church has been well 
 epitomised in the Commentary of Balsamon (ap. 
 BeA^eridge Pand. Can. ii. 177). “ Unusquisque 
 
 nostrorum Episcoporum rationem administra- 
 tionis rerum suae Ecclesiae Deo reddet. Vasa 
 enim pretiosa Ecclesiarum, seu sacra,, et reliqiia 
 Deo consecrata, et possessiones irnmobiles, non 
 sunt alienabilia, et Ecclesiae seiwantur. Eccle- 
 siasticorum autem redituum administratio secure 
 credi audacterque committi debere illis, qui statis 
 temporibus sunt Episcopi.” Its history, as it is 
 found in the councils of different churches, has 
 now to be traced. 
 
 In the East .— The earliest canon Avhich refers 
 to the subject is the 15th canon of the Council 
 of Ancyra (a.d. 314), Avhich proAudes that the 
 Church (on the expression rh KvpiaKhv see BeA-e- 
 ridge, Adnott. in loc.) may resume possession of 
 whateA'er property the presbyters of a diocese 
 may haA*e sold during the A^acancy of the see; 
 but this canon does not limit any poAver Avhich 
 the bishop himself may preA'iously haA'e possessed, 
 and is simply an application of the Avell-knoAvn 
 rule “sede A’^acante nihil innovetur.” 
 
 The Council of Antioch (a.d. 341) has tAAm 
 canons, the 24th and 25th, bearing upon this 
 
 ® On the nature of this tenure see Smith’s Dictionai'y 
 of Greek and Roman Antiquities, sub voce, ‘ Emphy¬ 
 teusis.’ It may be described in brief as the right to use 
 another person’s land as one’s oAA-n, on condition of culti¬ 
 vating it, and paying a fixed rent at fixed times. 
 
 b The oath now taken by bishops consecrated accord¬ 
 ing to the Roman ordinal, contains a clause relating to 
 the alienation of Church property. In what words and 
 at what time !i clause of this nature was first introtluced 
 into the ordinal is a question which has given rise to 
 much controA'ersy. 
 
ALIENATION OF CHURCH PROPERTY 
 
 51 
 
 question, which are either imitated from the 
 39th and 40th Apostolic Canons, or have been 
 imitated by the authors of that collection [Apos¬ 
 tolic Canons]. The 24th directs that Church 
 property, which ought to be administered subject 
 to the judgment and authority of the bishop, 
 should be distinguished in such a way that the 
 presbyters and deacons may know of what it 
 consists, so that at the bishop’s death it may not 
 be embezzled, or lost, or mixed up with his private 
 property. That part of this canon in which 
 reference is made to the duties imposed on pres¬ 
 byters and deacons is not contained in the Apos¬ 
 tolic canon. This omission would seem to point 
 to the conclusion that this council is later in 
 date than the 39th Apostolic canon ; and Beve¬ 
 ridge (Cod. Can. i. 43) draws the same inference 
 as to the date of the 40th Apostolic canon from 
 its not making mention of ol rwu aypwu Kapnol, 
 words which are to be found in the 25th Canon 
 of Antioch. By the 25th canon it is provided that 
 the Provincial Synod should have jurisdiction in 
 cases where the bishop is accused of converting 
 Church property to his own use, which w'as 
 also forbidden by the 37th Apostolic canon, 
 or managing it without the consent (/xr? fiera 
 yvw/xrjs) of the presbyters and deacons, and also 
 in cases where the bishop or the presbyters who 
 are associated with him are accused of any mis¬ 
 appropriation for their own benefit. Here again 
 it will be noted that the effect of this canon is 
 to make provision for the better and more care¬ 
 ful management of Church property, and that it 
 does not abridge any right of alienation which 
 the bishop may have before possessed. It must, 
 however, be observed that the power of the 
 bishop to manage Church property (an 
 
 expression which would doubtless include the 
 act of alienation) is qualified by the proviso that 
 it must be exercised with the consent of his 
 presbyters and deacons. 
 
 The 7th and 8th canons of the Council of 
 Gangra (the date of this council is uncertain, 
 some writers placing it as early as a.d. 324, and 
 others as late as A.D. 371: see Van Espen, 
 Diisertatio in Synodum Gangrensem^ Op. iii. 120, 
 ed. Lovan. 1753, and Beveridge, Aduott. in id. 
 Cone., who inclines to the opinion that it was 
 held a short time before the Council of Antioch, 
 A.D. 341), prohibit under pain of anathema all 
 persons from alienating (StSoVat rrjs ck/cAt?- 
 (Tias) produce belonging to the Church, except 
 they first obtain the consent of the bishop or his 
 oeconomus, or officer entrusted with the care of 
 Church property. 
 
 The enactments contained in the second Coun¬ 
 cil of Nicaea (or as it is generally styled the 7th 
 Oecumenical Council) a.d. 787, will be more con¬ 
 veniently considered below. 
 
 The African Church seems to have found it 
 necessary to place special restrictions upon the 
 power of alienating Church property possessed 
 by bishops under the general law. By the 31st 
 canon of the code known as the Statuta Ecclesiae 
 Antiqua, promulgated (according to Bruns, Ca- 
 nones, i. 140) at the 4th Council of Carthage 
 (a.d. 398), the bishop is enjoined to u.se the pos¬ 
 sessions of the Church as trustee, and not as if 
 they were his ow'n property ; and by the next 
 canon all gifts, sales, or exchanges of Church 
 property made by bishops without the consent in 
 writing (“ absque conniventia et subscriptione ”) 
 
 of their clergy are pronounced invalid. In the 
 31st canon there are further provisions against 
 the unauthorized alienation of Church property 
 by the inferior clergy. If convicted in the 
 synod of this offence they are to make restitu¬ 
 tion out of their owm property. 
 
 Again by the 26th (ap. Eev. 29th) canon 
 of the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae promulgated 
 A.D. 419, which repeats the 4th canon of the 
 5th Councf- of Cai’thage ( A.D. 401 ), it is 
 ordained that no one sell the real property be¬ 
 longing to the Church ; but if some very urgent 
 reason for doing so should arise, it is to be com¬ 
 municated to the Primate of the Province, Avho is 
 to determine in council with the ])roper number of 
 bishops (f.e. twelve) w’hether a sale is to be made 
 or not; but if the necessity for action is so great 
 that the bishop cannot wait to consult the synod, 
 then he is to summon as witnesses the neigh¬ 
 bouring bishops at least, and to be carefful after¬ 
 wards to report the matter to the synod. The 
 penalty of disobedience to this canon ivas de¬ 
 position. By the 33rd canon (ap. Bev. 36th) 
 presbyters are forbidden to sell any Church pro¬ 
 perty without the consent of their bishops; and 
 in like manner the bishops are forbidden to sell 
 any Church lands (praedia) without the privity 
 of their Synod or presbyters. (See on these 
 canons Van Espen, Op. iii. 299, &c.; and the 
 Scholion of Balsamon ap. Bev. Band. Can. i. 551.) 
 
 Passing from Asia Minor and Africa to Italy, 
 the earliest provisions with reference to alienation 
 to be found in the councils are in the council held 
 at Rome by Pope Symmachus in A.D. 502. The 
 circumstances under which the canons of this 
 council were passed (and Avhich relate solely to the 
 question of alienation) are thus described by Dean 
 Milman : “On the vacancy of the see [by the death 
 of Pope Simplicius, a.d. 483] occurred a singular 
 scene. The clergy were assembled in St. Pete]’’s. 
 In the midst of them stood up Basilius, the 
 Patrician and Prefect of Rome, acting as Vice¬ 
 gerent of Odoacer the barbarian King. He ap¬ 
 peared by the command of his master, and by 
 the admonition of the deceased Simplicius, to 
 take care that the peace of the city Avas not 
 disturbed by any sedition or tumult during the 
 election. . . . He proceeded, as the protector 
 
 of the Church from loss and injury by church¬ 
 men, to proclaim the folloAving edict : ‘ That no 
 one under the penalty of anathema should alie¬ 
 nate any farm, buildings, or ornaments of the 
 churches; that such alienation by any bishop 
 present or future Avas null and void.’ So im- 
 poi'tant did this precedent appear, so dangerous 
 in the hands of these schismatics Avho Avouhl 
 eA’^en in those days limit the sacerdotal poAver, 
 that nearly twenty years after, a fortunate occa¬ 
 sion Avas seized by the Pope Symmachus to annul 
 this decree. In a Synod of bishops af Rome the 
 edict was I'ehcarsed, interrupted by protests ot 
 the bishops at this presumptuous interference of 
 the laity Avith affairs of ecclesiastical juri.sdiction. 
 The authenticity of the decree Avas not called 
 in question ; it Avas declared invalid as being 
 contrary to the usages of the Fathers enacted 
 on lay authority, and as not being ratified by 
 the signature of any Bishop at Rome. The 
 same council, hoAvever, acknoAvledged its Avi.sdom 
 by re-enacting its ordinances against the aliena¬ 
 tion of Church property ” (History of Latin 
 Christianity, vol. i., ]>. 221, 2nd ed.). On this 
 
 E 
 
52 
 
 ALIENATION OF CIIUKCH PKOPERTY 
 
 Council Boehmer notes that it has not more 
 authority than belongs to it as a Council of 
 the Italian Church, and that therefore its decrees 
 (which go far beyond any yet promulgated else¬ 
 where) were not binding upon other Churches. 
 Previously, however, to this date Pope Leo the 
 Great (a.d. 447) had written to the bishops of 
 Sicily and forbidden the alienation of Church 
 property by the bishops except for the benefit of 
 the Church, and with the consent of the whole 
 clergy {Ep. 17). Pope Gelasius also (a.d. 492- 
 493), writing to Justinus and Faustus (who were 
 acting in the place of their bishop), directed the 
 restitution of all property belonging to the 
 Church of Volterra which had been alienated up 
 to that time ; and in another letter he forbad 
 the appropriation of Church lands for the pay¬ 
 ment of any particular stipend (Fragg. 23 and 24, 
 ap. Thiel). 
 
 In the history of the GalUcan Church the 
 earliest reference to alienation is to be found 
 in a letter from Pope Hilarus (a.d. 462) to the 
 bishops of the provinces of Vienne, Lyons, Nar- 
 bonne, and the Maritime Alps, in which he pro¬ 
 hibits the alienation of such Church lands as are 
 neither wa.ste nor unproductive (“ nec deserta 
 iiec damnosa ”) except with the consent of a 
 council {Ep. 8 sec. ult.). 
 
 The Council of Agde (a.d. 506) contains seve¬ 
 ral canons on alienation. The 22nd canon, while 
 declaring that it is superfluous to define any¬ 
 thing afresh concerning a matter so well known, 
 and a practice forbidden by so many ancient 
 Canons, prohibits the clergy from selling or 
 giving away any Church property under pain of 
 being excommunicated and having to indemnify 
 the Church out of their private resources for 
 any loss, the transaction being at the same time 
 declared void. The 26th canon inflicts the like 
 punishment on those who suppress or conceal or 
 give to the unlawful possessor any document by 
 which the title of the Church to any property 
 is secured. The 48th canon reserves to the 
 Church any property left on the death of a 
 bishop, which he had received from ecclesiastical 
 sources. The 49th canon repeats almost in the 
 same words the above cited 31st canon of the 
 Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua ; the 53rd canon pro¬ 
 hibits, and pronounces void, any alienation by 
 parish priests; while by the 56th canon abbots 
 are forbidden to sell Church property without 
 the bishop’s consent, or to manumit slaves, “as 
 it would be unjust for monks to be engaged in 
 their daily labours in the field while their slaves 
 were enjoying the ease of liberty.” 
 
 The 1st Council of Orleans (a.d. 511) places 
 all the immoveable property of the Church in 
 the power of the bishop “ that the decrees of the 
 ancient canons may be observed ” (canons 14 
 and 15). 
 
 Pope Symmachus, a.d. 513 (who died a.d. 514), 
 in answering certain questions put to him by 
 Caesarius, Bishop of Arles, forbids Church ])ro- 
 perty to be alienated under any pretence, but 
 he permits a life rent to be enjoyed by clerks 
 worthy of reward {Ep. 15). 
 
 By the 5th canon of the 1st Council of Cler¬ 
 mont (a.d. 535) all persons are excommunicated 
 who obtain any Church property from kings. 
 
 In the same year Pope Agapetus writing to 
 Caesarius, Bishoj) of Arles, says, that he is un- 
 Mill ingly obliged to refuse the bishop permission 
 
 to alienate some Church land.s, revocant nos 
 veneranda Patrum manifestis.sima constituta, 
 quibus specialiter prohibemur praedia juris ec¬ 
 clesiae quolibet titulo ad aliena jura transferre ” 
 {Com. Gall. i. 240). 
 
 The 12th canon of the 3rd Council of Orleans 
 (a.d. 538) allows the recovery of Church pro¬ 
 perty within 30 years, and ordains that if the 
 possessor should refuse to obey the judgment of 
 the Council ordering him to surrender, he is 
 excommunicated. 
 
 The 23rd canon renews the prohibition against- 
 the alienation of Church property by abbots or 
 other clergy without the written consent of the 
 bishop; and by the 9th canon of the 4th Council 
 held at the same city (a.d. 541) it is provided 
 that Church property udiich has been alienated 
 or encumbered by the bishop contrai-y to the 
 canons shall, if he has left nothing to the 
 Church, be returned to it; but slaves whom he 
 may have manumitted shall retain their freedom, 
 though they must remain in the service of the 
 Church. The 11th, 18th, 30th, and 34th canons 
 contain farther provisions on the subject. 
 
 The 1st canon of the 3rd Council of Paris 
 (a.d. 557) is directed against the alienation of 
 Church property, but this canon, as well as tnose 
 next mentioned, would appear to I’efer to seizure 
 by force rather than to posse.ssion by any quasi- 
 legal process. Alienation is forbidden by the 2ud 
 canon of the 2nd Council of Lyons (a.d. 567). 
 
 In the 2nd Coiincil of Tours (a.d. 567) there 
 are two canons—the 24th and 25th—relating to 
 the recovery of Church property from the hands 
 of unlawful possessors. 
 
 la Spain the Council held A.D. 589 at Xar- 
 bonne, which in its ecclesiastical relations must 
 be considered in Spain (Wiltsch. Geog. of the 
 Church., i. 100), prohibits the alienation ofChurch 
 property by the inferior clergy, without the con¬ 
 sent of the bishop, under pain of suspension for 
 two years and perpetual inability to serve in 
 the church in \vhich the oflence \vas committed 
 (can. 8). 
 
 By the 3rd Council of Toledo (held in the same 
 year), can. 3, bishops are forbidden to alienate 
 Church property, but gifts which, in the ju<lg- 
 ment of the monks of the diocese, are not detri¬ 
 mental to the interests of the Church cannot be 
 disturbed; by the next canon bishops may 
 assign Church property for the support of a 
 monastery established with the consent of his 
 Synod. 
 
 By the 37th canon of the 4th Council of 
 Toledo (a.d. 633) the bishop is permitted (sub¬ 
 ject to the confirmation of a Provincial Council) 
 to redeem any promise of reward made for ser¬ 
 vices to the Church. 
 
 The 9th Council of Toledo (a.d. 655) contains 
 provisions very similar to the above cited canons 
 of the 3rd Council held at the same place. 
 
 In England, Archbishop Theodore of Canter¬ 
 bury (a.d. 668-690) forbids abbots to make ex¬ 
 changes without the consent of the bishop and 
 their brethren {Poenitentiale—Pe Abbatibusf 
 
 The Excerj tiones ascribed ena neously to Arch¬ 
 bishop Egbert of York (who held that metropo- 
 litical see from a.d. 732 to 766) declare that 
 gifts, sales, or exchanges of Church property by 
 bishops without the consent and M-ritten per¬ 
 mission of the clergy shall be void (cap. 144). 
 The Poenitentiale, also attributed wrongly to the 
 
ALIENATION OF CHUKCH PKOPERTY 
 
 53 
 
 same prelate, permits exchanges between mo¬ 
 nasteries with the consent of both communities 
 (addit 25). 
 
 The last Council which passed canons on the 
 subject of alienation during the period covered 
 by this article, is the 2nd Council of Nicaea (the 
 “ SeA'enth Oecumenical Council”) held a.d. 787. 
 The 12th canon making mention of the 39th 
 Apostolic Canon forbids the alienation or transfer 
 of Church lands by bishops and abbots in favour 
 of princes or other secular potentates ; and it also, 
 like many of the canons hereinbefore cited, pro¬ 
 hibits bishops from appropriating any ecclesias¬ 
 tical property to their own use or to that of 
 their relatives. Even when the retention of any 
 Church lands is unprofitable they may not be 
 sold to magistrates or princes, but to the clergy 
 or to farmers ; and these again may not sell them 
 to magistrates, and so contravene the spirit of the 
 canon. Such deceitful transactions are invalid, 
 and the bishop or abbot who is guilty of taking 
 part in them is to be deposed.—See the elaborate 
 Scholion of Balsamon on this canon, ap. Bev. 
 Band. Can. i. 303. 
 
 Having now gone through the principal 
 canons passed by the ecclesiastical assemblies of 
 the first eight centuries, there remain to be consi¬ 
 dered the laws by which the Christian emperors 
 limited the power of the Church as regards the 
 alienation of its property. 
 
 Constantine the Great had in a decree of the 
 year A.D. 323 (secs. 16, 18) assured to the 
 Church the safe enjoyment of its propei'ty, and 
 had commanded the restitution as well by the 
 State as by private individuals of all such pro¬ 
 perty as they might have got possession of; but 
 It does not appear that there was any imperial 
 legislation concerning the alienation of Church 
 property until after the promulgation of the 
 Codex Theodosianus in a.d. 438. 
 
 The Codex Repetitae Praelectionis promulgated 
 by Justinian in December A.D. 534 contains in 
 the 2nd title of the 1st Book various provisions, 
 made by his predecessors and re-enacted by him, 
 on the subject of alienation. 
 
 In the 14th section there is a constitution of 
 the Emperor Leo (a.d. 470) which prohibits the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople, or any of his 
 stewards (oeconomi) from alienating in any way 
 the land or other immoveable property or the 
 colon! or slaves or state allowances (civiles 
 annonae) belonging to his Church, not even if all 
 the clergy agreed with the Archbishop and his 
 steward as to the propriety of the transaction. 
 The reason given for this stringent law is that 
 as the Church which is the mother of Religion 
 and Faith, is changeless, her property ought to 
 be preserved also without change. Any trans¬ 
 actions completed in defiance of this constitution 
 were void, and all profits resulting therefrom 
 were given to the Church. The stewards who 
 were parties to the act were to be dismissed, and 
 their property made liable for any damage which 
 might arise from this infringement of the law. 
 Ihe notaries employed were to be sent into per¬ 
 petual exile, and the judge who ratified the pro¬ 
 ceeding was punished by the loss of his office 
 and the confiscation of his property. There 
 was, however, an exception made to this rule in 
 the case of a usufruct, the creation of which 
 was permitted for a term of years or for the 
 life of the usufructuary. (The editions of the 
 
 Corpus Juris Civilis generally contain after this 
 section a series of extracts from the Novells on 
 the same subject.) 
 
 The r7th section contains a constitution of the 
 Emperor Anastasius to which no precise date 
 is affixed by the commentators, but which must 
 have been promulgated between the years A.D. 
 491 and 517 (Haenel, Indices ad Corpus Legum 
 ah Imp. Rom. ante Just, latarum, p. 82, Lipsiae 
 1857). This constitution, like the last cited, 
 applies'solely to the Church of Constantinople, 
 and relates to monasteries, orphanages and 
 other eleemosynary institutions whose property 
 might in cases of necessity be sold, exchanged, 
 mortgaged, or leased in perpetual emphyteusis ; 
 provided that the transaction be effected in the 
 manner therein prescribed and in the presence 
 of the civil authorities and the representatives 
 of the particular body w'hose property is about 
 to be dealt with. It is, however, decreed that if 
 there be moveable property (the sacred vessels 
 excepted) sufficient to meet the sum required, 
 the immoveable property shall not be touched. 
 
 In the 21st section is given a constitution of 
 Justinian himself (a.d. 529) in which he forbids 
 any sale or other alienation of sacred vessels or 
 vestments except only with .the object of re¬ 
 deeming capt-ives (and, according to some edi¬ 
 tions, relieving famine) ; “ quoniam non absur- 
 dum est animas hominum quibuscunque vasis 
 vel vestimentis praeferri.” 
 
 The rule w'hich permitted the sale or melting 
 down of Church plate for the redemption of 
 captives is one of great antiquity. Its propriety 
 is now'here more eloquently defended than in 
 the following passage from the 2nd Book of 
 St. Ambrose De Offievs Ministrorum (cir. a.d. 
 391) “ Quid enim diceres ? Timui ne templo 
 Dei ornatus deesset ? Responderet: Aurum Sa- 
 cramenta non quaerunt; neque auro placent, 
 quae auro non emuntur. Ornatus sacramento- 
 rum redemptio captivorum est. Vere ilia sunt 
 vasa pretiosa, quae redimunt animas a morte. 
 Hie verus thesaurus est Domini qui operator 
 quod sanguis Ejus operatus est. . . . Opus 
 
 est ut quis fide sincera et perspicaci providentia 
 munus hoc impleat. Sane si in sua aliquis deri- 
 vat emolumenta, crimen est; sin vero pauperibus 
 ei’ogat, captivum redimit, misericordia est.” He 
 concludes by directing that vessels which are 
 not consecrated should be taken in preference to 
 those which have been consecrated; and that 
 both must be broken up and melted within the 
 precinct of the Church (cap. 28). The supreme 
 claims of charity over all other considerations are 
 insisted upon in the same strain by St. Jerome 
 (A/), ad Repotianum, A.D. 394) and St. Chrysostom 
 (Horn. 52 in St. Matthaeum), while at the same 
 time the proper respect due to the sacred vessels 
 is always emphatically enjoined, as, for example, 
 by St. Optatus, De Schismate Donatistarum vi. 2. 
 An example of the precautions taken against the 
 abuse of this privilege is to be found in one of 
 the letters of Gregory the Great (vii. 13) in 
 which writing (a.d. 597) to Fortunatus, Bishop 
 of Fano, he gives permission for the sale of 
 Church plate in order to redeem captives, but 
 directs, with the view of avoiding all sus])icion, 
 that the sale and the payment oA'er of the 
 money received therefrom should be made in 
 the presence of the “defensor.” 
 
 Passing to the Novells of Justinian—the 71 h 
 
64 
 
 ALIENATION OF CHURCH PROPERTY 
 
 Novell (a.d. 535) relates to the question of 
 alienation of Church property, and professes to 
 amend and consolidate the then existing laws, 
 and to extend their operation to the whole of 
 ^he empire. In the first chapter the alienation, 
 either by sale, gift, exchange, or lease on per¬ 
 petual emphyteusis, of immoveables or quasi¬ 
 immoveables belonging to churches or eleemo¬ 
 synary institutions, was forbidden under the 
 penalties prescribed by the above-cited consti¬ 
 tution of Leo. 
 
 Under the 2nd chapter alienation is permitted 
 in favour of the emperor when the proper forms 
 are observed and ample compensation made, and 
 when the transaction is for the public benefit. 
 The reason given for this exception is not with¬ 
 out significance. In the Latin version it is as 
 follows : “ Nec multum differant ab alterutro 
 sacerdotium et imperium, et res sacrae a com- 
 munibus et publicis ; quando omnis sanctissimis 
 ecclesiis abundantia et status ex imperialibus 
 munificentiis perpetuo praebeatur.” 
 
 The third and four succeeding chapters con¬ 
 tain regulations for the lease of Church estates 
 by emphyteusis. Their provisions are too ela¬ 
 borate to be set out at length, but may be 
 briefly stated thus: “ The usual conditions of 
 these emphyteuses are for three lives — that 
 of the original emphyteuta and of two of his 
 or her heirs, being children or grandchildren, 
 or the husband or wife of the emphyteuta if 
 tiiere be a special clause to that effect (though 
 about this power there is some doubt) in suc¬ 
 cession. Thus the duration of the lease is in¬ 
 determinate and contingent. The contract was 
 invalidated by default in payment of the quit 
 rent (canon) for two instead of for three years 
 as was the case with lay emphyteuses ” (Colqu- 
 houn, Roman Civil Law, § 1709). 
 
 The 8th chapter renews the prohibition against 
 the sale, pledge, or melting down of Church 
 plate, except with the object of redeeming cap¬ 
 tives. 
 
 The 12th chapter sanctions the abandonment 
 of all contracts made on behalf of the Church 
 for the acquisition by gift or purchase of un¬ 
 profitable land. 
 
 The 40th Novell (promulgated the following 
 year, A.D. 536) gives to the “ Church of the 
 Holy Resurrection ” at Jerusalem the privilege 
 of alienating buildings belonging to it, notwith- 
 standing the general prohibition contained in 
 the 7th Novell. 
 
 The 46th Novell (a.d. 536 or 537) relaxed the 
 law against the alieiintion of immoveable Church 
 property when there was not sufficient moveable 
 property to pay debts owing to the State or to 
 private creditors. But this step could not be 
 taken except after investigation by the clergy, 
 the bishop, and the metropolitan, and under a 
 decree of the “judex provinciae.” ^ 
 
 The 2nd chapter of the 54th Novell (a.d. 
 537) pei’mits exchanges between ecclesiastical 
 and eleemosynary corporations, but the Church of 
 St. Sophia at Constantinople is excepted from 
 the operation of this law as it is also from that 
 of the 46th Novell. 
 
 The 55th Novell (A.D. 537) forbids alienation 
 made ostensibly in favour of the emperor, but 
 really for the benefit of private individuals. It 
 also permits churches and other religious bodies 
 (with the exception of the Church of St. Sophia) 
 
 to lease their lands to one another in perpetual 
 emphyteusis. 
 
 The 65th Novell has reference to the alienation 
 of property belonging to the Church of Mysia, 
 but being only of local importance it need not 
 be further considered. 
 
 In the 67th Novell (a.d. 538) the number 
 of persons appointed under the 46th Novell to 
 enquire into the propriety of any alienation is 
 increased by the addition of two bishops chosen 
 by the metropolitan from his Synod. 
 
 The 10th chapter of the 119th Novell (a.d. 
 544) permits the alienation by the emperor of 
 Church property which had been transferred to 
 him. 
 
 The last of the numerous edicts promulgated 
 by Justinian on the alienation of Church pro¬ 
 perty is contained in the 120th Novell (a.d. 
 544) in which he again undertakes the task of 
 consolidating the law on this subject. 
 
 The first four chapters concern only the 
 Church of Constantinople. The alienation of 
 immoveables is forbidden, except in favour of the 
 emperor. 
 
 The 5th chapter relates to the property of 
 other Churches. The provisions therein con¬ 
 tained, and those contained in the previous 
 chapters on emphyteusis are thus briefly sum¬ 
 marized by Colquhoun (Roman Civil Law, § 
 1709):—“The 120th Novell was promulgated 
 by Justinian in order to modify the rigour of 
 the prohibition against creating perpetual em¬ 
 phyteuses on ecclesiastical pi’operty by restrict¬ 
 ing it to the estates of the Church of Constanti- 
 nople, leaving the property of other Churches to 
 be regulated by the common law. It is, how¬ 
 ever, very doubtful whether or not the emphy¬ 
 teusis on Church property can be perpetual 
 without the express stipulation for a term. Nor 
 does the prohibition appear to be absolute even 
 as regards the Church of Constantinople, which 
 had permission to grant perpetual emphyteuses 
 in cases where it owned ruined edifices without 
 the means of restoring them. The Novell fixes 
 the amount at a third of the revenue which 
 such edifices produced before their then ruined 
 state, payable from the date of the emphyteu- 
 tical title, or at a half of the revenue which the 
 buildings actually produced after their restora¬ 
 tion. What is doubtful with respect to the lay 
 is clear with regard to ecclesiastical emphyteuses, 
 viz., that they must be reduced to writing. As 
 before, the contract was invalidated by default to 
 pay the quit rent for two instead of three years, 
 as was the case with lay emphyteuses. The 
 point open to discussion, in respect to lay emphy¬ 
 teuses, of whether the rent in ari'ear may be 
 recovered and the expulsion of the tenant also 
 insisted on, is clear in the case of ecclesiastical 
 emphyteuses in the affirmative. Lastly, the 
 Churches enjoyed a right of resumption entirely 
 exceptional to the common law when the estate 
 accrued ‘ aut in imperialem domum, aut in sac¬ 
 rum nostrum aerarium, aut in civitatem aliquam, 
 aut in curiam, aut in aliquam venerabilem ali- 
 am domum.’ This right of resumption applied 
 equally in the case of all transmission of the 
 right, whether inter vivos or mortis causa, with¬ 
 out reference to the title of acquisition, and the 
 time for its exercise was two years instead of 
 two months as in lay cases.” 
 
 The remaining chapters of this Novell relate 
 
ALIENATION 
 
 ALLELUIA 
 
 55 
 
 to the exchange of ecclesiastical property and 
 the sale of immoveables and Church ])late for 
 the redemption of captives. The provisions 
 therein contained do not differ in any important 
 particular from the previous laws above cited on 
 the same subject, and they need not be repeated. 
 
 The provisions of the Civil Law (which have 
 now been examined) have been usefully arranged 
 by the glossator on the Corpus Juris Civiiis, 
 Nov. 7 and Nov. 120 (ed. Lugd. 1627). Im¬ 
 moveable property belonging to the Church can¬ 
 not be alienated under any circumstances if it 
 fall within the following classes—1. If it had 
 been giA^en by the emperor (Nov. 120, 7). 2. If 
 
 the thing to be alienated is the church or mo¬ 
 nastery itself (ibS). 3. When the proposed trans¬ 
 feree is the oeconomus or other church officer , 
 (ih.). 4. When the property Avas given to the ' 
 
 Church subject to a condition that it should 
 not be alienated (Nov. 120, 9). 5. If the pro¬ 
 
 posed transferee be a heretic (131, 14). But 
 subject to the aboA'e restrictions, immoA’eable 
 property may be alienated under the folloAving 
 circumstances, viz. :—1. For debt (Nov. 46). ^ 
 
 2. By AA'^ay of emphyteusis for a term (var.). 
 
 3. In exchange with another church (No\". 54, 2). ' 
 
 4. If the transferee be the emperor (Nov. 7, 2). 
 
 5. For the redemption of captiA^es (Nov. 120, 9). 
 On the other hand moA’^eable property can be 
 freely alienated if it be for the advantage of the 
 Church that such a step should be taken. The 
 exception to this rule is in the case of Church 
 plate, which cannot be alienated except for the 
 redemption of captiA’-es (Nov. 7, 8 and NoA^ 120, 
 10), and for the payment of debt when it is not 
 necessary for the proper performance of Divine 
 Service (Nov. 120, 10). 
 
 The Barbarian Codes contain, as might be 
 expected, many Ihavs directed against the forci¬ 
 ble seizure of Church property, but such acts 
 can hardly be considered to fall under the head 
 of alienation. There are, hoAve\"er, a feAV pro¬ 
 visions on the subject anterior in date to the 
 death of Charlemagne. 
 
 By the 3rd chapter of the 5th Book of the 
 Leges Visigothorum (cir. A.D. 700 : see DaA’oud 
 Oghlou, Histoire de la Legislation des Anciens 
 Germains, i. 2) if any bishop or clerk alienate 
 by sale or gift any Church property Avithout the 
 consent of the rest of the clergy, such sale or 
 gift is void, unless it be made according to the 
 ancient canons. 
 
 Again in the 20th chapter of the Leo: Alam- 
 manorum (which in its present shape was pro¬ 
 bably compiled about the beginning of the 8th 
 century—see Davoud Oghlou, op. cit. i. 304) the 
 inferior clergy are forbidden to sell Church lands 
 or slaA'es except by Avay of exchange. 
 
 In the collection entitled Capitularia Regum 
 Francorum there is a Capitulary of the date A.D. 
 814, forbidding all persons whatsoeA’’er to ask 
 for or receiA'e any Church property under pain of 
 excommunication (6, 135). 
 
 There are also tAvo Capitularies Avhich are 
 probably not later in date than the one last 
 cited. By the first of these presbyters are for- 
 niddcn to sell Church pi’operty without the con¬ 
 sent of the bishop (7, 27); to Avhich in the 
 second is added the consent of other priests of 
 good reputation (7, 214). 
 
 (The following authorities may be consulted : 
 —Du Rousseaud de la Combe, Recueil de Juris¬ 
 
 prudence Canonique [Paris 1755], sub voce Ali^ 
 nation; Boehmer, Jus Ecclesiasticum Prote tan- 
 imw[Halae Magd. 1738, &c.] in LJecretal. III. ; 
 Ferraris, Bibliotheca Canonica [ed. ]\Iignel, sub 
 voce Alienatio; Sylvester Mazzolini da Prierio 
 [Lugd. 1533] sub Amce Alienatio; Redoanus, Be 
 Rems Ecclesiae non alienandis [printed in the 2nd 
 part of the 15th volume of the J'ractahis Uni- 
 versi Juris, Venice, 1584]; and the Commenta¬ 
 tors on the above-cited passages from the Cor/us 
 Juris Civiiis, and on the following passages from 
 the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decreti Secunda 
 Pars, Causa xii. Quaestio 2 ; and Decretal, lib. 
 III. 13). [I. B.] 
 
 ALLELUIA (Greek 'A.W'gXoviaJ). The litur¬ 
 gical form of the HebreAv “ Sing ye 
 
 praises to JehoA-ah ;” a formula found in Psalm 
 117, and in the headings of several Psalms, espe¬ 
 cially Psalms 113-118, which formed the “ Hal- 
 lel,” or Alleluia Magnum, sung at all the greater 
 Jewish feasts. Alleluia and Amen, says the , 
 Pseudo-Augustine Q^p. 178, ii. 1160, Migne), 
 neither Latin nor barbarian has A^entured to 
 translate from the sacred tongue into his oAvn ; 
 in all lands the mystic sound of the HebreAV is 
 heard. 
 
 1. It is thought by some that the early Church 
 transferred to the Christian Paschal feast the 
 custom of singing Psalms Avith Alleluia at the 
 Paschal sacrifice ; and this conjecture derives 
 some probability from the fact, that in the most 
 ancient sacramentaries the Alleluia precedes and 
 folloAvs a Averse, as in the Jewish usage it precedes 
 and follows a Psalm. Vet Ave can hardly doubt 
 that the use of the Alleluia in the Church aa'us 
 confirmed, if not originated, by St. John’s vision 
 (^Apoc. 19, 6) of the heaA'enly choir, Avho sang 
 Alleluia to the Lord God Omnipotent. By the 
 4th century it seems to haA^e been Avell known as 
 the Christian shout of joy or victory ; for Sozo- 
 men (//. E. vii. 15, p. 298) tells of a voice 
 heard (an. 389) in the temple of Sera})is at 
 Alexandria chanting Alleluia, Avhich was taken 
 for a sign of its coming destructfon by the Chris¬ 
 tians. The Auctory Avhich the Christian Britons, 
 under the guidance of Germanus of Auxerre, Avith 
 their loud shout of Alleluia, gained OA’er the 
 pagan Piets and Scots (an. 429) is another instance 
 of the use of Alleluia for encouragement and 
 triumph (Beda, Ilistoria Ecclesiastica, i. c. 20, 
 p. 49); and Sidonius A])ollinaris (lib. ii. Ep. 10, 
 p. 53) speaks as if he had heard the long lines of 
 haulers by the riA^er side, as they toAved the 
 boats, chanting Alleluia as a “celeusma,” to make 
 them pull together. These instances are of course 
 not altogether free from susjdcion; but they 
 serve to shoAV that in early times the Alleluia 
 Avas regarded as a natural expression of Christian 
 exultation or encouragement. 
 
 2. A special use of the Alleluia is found in the 
 liturgies both of Last and West. In most Eastern 
 liturgie.s, it folloAvs immediately ujwn the Chk- 
 RUUIC Hvmn, which precedes the greater Ex- 
 TRAXCD ; as, for instance, in those of St. James, 
 St. Mark, and St. Chrysostom (Neale’s Tetralogia, 
 pp. 54, 55). In the Mozarabic, Avhich has many 
 Oriental characteristics, it is sung after the 
 Gospel, Avhilo the priest is making the oblation : 
 “ Inteidm quod chorus dicit Alleluia, offerat sacer- 
 dos hostiam cam calice ” (Neale’s Tetralogia, 
 p. 60). In the West, it folloAvs tlie Gkadual, 
 
66 
 
 ALLELUIA 
 
 ALL SAINTS 
 
 and so immediately precedes the reading of the 
 Gospel. In early times it seems to have been 
 simply intoned by the cantor who had sung the 
 Gradual, standing on the steps of the Ambo, and 
 repeated by the choir; but before the 8th cen¬ 
 tury the custom arose of prolonging the last syl¬ 
 lable of the Alleluia, and singing it to musical 
 notes (Ordo Romanus II., in Mabillon’s Museum 
 Italicum, vol. ii. p. 44). This was called jubila- 
 iio. The jubilant sound of the Alleluia, however, 
 was felt to be fitting only for seasons of joy; 
 hence its use was in many churches limited to 
 the interval between Easter and Whitsunday. 
 Sozomen, indeed (^H. E. vii. 19, p. 307) seems to 
 say that in the Roman Church it was used only 
 on Easter-day; but we cannot help suspecting 
 that he must have misunderstood his informant, 
 who may have used the word “ Pascha ” to de¬ 
 note the Avhole of the seA^en weeks folloAving 
 Easter-day; for St. Augustine distinctly says 
 (Ap. ad Janarium; Ep. 119 [al. 55] p. 220 
 Migne) that the custom of singing Alleluia dur¬ 
 ing those fifty days Avas universal, though in 
 seA'eral churches it Avas used on other days also. 
 In the Rule of St. Benedict (c. 15, p. 297) the 
 use of Alleluia in the responsories of the mass 
 seems to be limited to the season from Easter to 
 Whitsunday ; but soon after Benedict’s time it 
 AA^as probably more common in the West to inter¬ 
 mit its use only from Septuagesima to Easter. 
 For at the end of the 6th century, Gregory the 
 Great Avidtes to John of Syracuse (^Epist. ix. 12, 
 p. 940) that some murmured because he (Gregory) 
 Avas OA'ermuch given to folloAving the customs of 
 the Greek Church, and in particular because he 
 had ordered the Alleluia to be said at mass 
 beyond the Pentecostal season (extra tempora 
 Pentecostes); so fai*, he continues, is this from 
 being the case, that Avhereas the Church of Rome 
 in the time of Pope Damasus had adopted, 
 through Jerome’s influence, from the Church of 
 Jerusalem the limitation of the Alleluia to the 
 season before Pentecost, he had actually inno- 
 A'ated on this Greek custom in orderingr the 
 
 O 
 
 Alleluia to be said at other seasons also. This 
 seems the most probable sense of this much-con- 
 troA'erted passage, as to the reading and interpre¬ 
 tation of AA'hich there is much difference of 
 opinion. (See Baronius, Ann. 384, n. 27, Ami. v., 
 
 р. 578; and IVIabillon, Museum Italicum, ii. xcAui.). 
 The 4th Council of Toledo (canon 11) orders that 
 (in accordance Avith the uniAmrsal custom of 
 Christendom) the Alleluia should not be said in 
 the Spanish and Gaulish churches during Lent— 
 an injunction Avhich seems to imply that its use 
 was permitted during the rest of the year. The 
 same canon (in some MSS.) also forbids the Alle¬ 
 luia on the Kalends of January, “ quae propter 
 errorem gentilium aguntur,” but on AA'hich Chris¬ 
 tians ought to fast. 
 
 The intermission of Alleluia during a particular 
 season is expressed by the phrase “Alleluia clau¬ 
 sum ” (Du Cange, s. a'.). 
 
 3. We haA'e already seen that St. Benedict 
 prescribed the use of the Alleluia in the respon¬ 
 sories of the Mass from Pasch to Pentecost. He 
 prescribed it also in the ordinary offices (Eegula, 
 
 с. 12, p. 286). From Pentecost to Ash-Wednes- 
 day, howcA'er, it AA'as to be said in the nocturnal 
 office only Avith the six last Psalms: “A Pen- 
 tecoste autem ad caput quadragesimae omnibus 
 noctibus cum sex posterioribus Psalmis tan- 
 
 tum ad nocturnas dicatur” (^Rogula, c. 15, p 
 297). 
 
 In the Roman arrangement of the ordinary 
 offices, the Alleluia folloAvs the “ InA'ocation ” in 
 all the hours ; but from Septuagesima to the 
 Thursday in Holy Week the A'erse, “ Laus tibi 
 Domine; Rex aeternae gloriae,” is substituted. 
 
 4. We learn from Jerome {Ep.21 [108], ^19, 
 p. 712, ad Eustochium ; cf. 23 [38], § 4, p. 175) 
 that the sound of the Alleluia summoned monks 
 to say their offices : “ Post Alleluia cantatum, quo 
 signo A'ocabantur ad collectam, nulli residere 
 licitum erat.” 
 
 5. It Avas chanted at funerals; as, for instance, 
 at that of Fabiola (Jerome, Ep. ad Oceanum, 30 
 [77], p. 466); at that of Pope Agapetus in Con¬ 
 stantinople (Baronius, ann. 536, § 64, vol. ix., 
 p. 544). 
 
 This usage is found in the Mozarabic rite, and 
 perhaps once existed in the ancient Gallican (Ba¬ 
 ronius, ann. 590, § 39, a'oI. x. p. 485). 
 
 (Bona, Be Diviim Psahnodia, c. xvi. § 7; De 
 Rebus Liturgicis, lib. ii., c. 6, § 5 ; Krazer, De 
 Liturgiis, p. 419.) [C.] 
 
 ALL SAINTS, Festival of {Omnium Sanc¬ 
 torum Natalis, Festivitas, Solemnitas). —In the 
 Easteim Church a particular Sunday, the first 
 after Pentecost, Avas appropriated in ancient 
 times to the commemoration of all martyi*s. 
 Chrysostom, in the 'Ejudgiou els rovs aylovs 
 nduTas tovs ev oXy rZ K6(Tfj.Cj> p.apTvpr](ruvTas, 
 says that on the OctaA'e of Pentecost they find 
 themseh’es in the midst of the band of martyrs ; 
 irapeAa&ev pfids p.apTvpo>v (0pp. ii. 711): 
 
 and there is a similar allusion in Orat. contra 
 Judaeos, y\. (0pp. ii. p. 650). This FestiA'al of 
 All Martyrs became in later times a Festival of 
 All Saints, and the Sunday next after Pcnteco.st 
 appears in the Calendar of the Greek IMenologion 
 as KvpiaKT] tZv 'Ayiwu irarTuv. The intention 
 in so placing this commemoration probabl v was 
 to crown the ecclesiastical year Avith a solemnity 
 dedicated to the Avhole glorious band of saints 
 and martyrs. 
 
 In the West, the institution of this festival 
 is intimately connected Avith the dedication to 
 Christian purposes of the Pantheon or Rotunda 
 at Rome. This temple, built in honour of the 
 victory' of Augustus at Actium, Avas dedicated 
 by' M. Agrippa to Jupiter Vindex, and AA-as called 
 the Pantheon, probably from the number of 
 statues of the gods Avhich it contained, though 
 other reasons are a.ssigned for the name. 
 
 Up to the time of St. Gregory the Great, idol- 
 temples AA'ere generally' throAA’u doAvn, or, if they 
 AA'ere suffered to remain, Avere thought unworthy 
 to be used in the service of God. Gregory 
 himself at first maintained this principle, but in 
 the latter part of his life, thought it Avould con¬ 
 duce more to the con\'ersion of the heathen if 
 they' were alloAved to Avorship in the accustomed 
 spot Avith ncAV rites (see his Avell-knoAvn letter 
 to Mellitus, in Bede, Hist. Eccl. ii. 30 ; 0pp. A'i. 
 p. 79); and from this time, the principle of con- 
 A'erting heathen fanes to Christian uses seems to 
 haA'e become familiar. In the beginning of the 
 7th century, the Pantheon remained almost the 
 solitary monument of the old heathen Avorship 
 in Rome. In the year 607 Boniface III. obtained 
 from the Emperor Phocas the important re¬ 
 cognition of the supremacy of Rome OA'er all 
 
ALL SAINTS 
 
 ALL SOULS 
 
 67 
 
 otlier churches; and in the same year his suc¬ 
 cessor, Boniface IV., having cleansed and restored 
 the Pantheon, obtained the emperor’s permission 
 to dedicate it to the service of God, in the name 
 “ S. Mariae semper Yirgiuis et omnium hlar- 
 tyrum {Liber Pontif. in Muratori, Her. Ital. 
 Scriptores, iii. 1, 135). This dedication is com¬ 
 memorated, and is believed to have taken place, 
 on May 13. On this day we find in the old Ro¬ 
 man iiartyrology edited by Rosweyd, “ S. Mariae 
 ad i\Iartyres dedicationis dies agitur a Bonifacio 
 Papa statutus.” Baronius tells us, that he found 
 it recorded in an ancient MS. belonging to the 
 Church itself, that it was first dedicated “ In 
 honorem S. Mariae, Dei Genetricis, et omnium 
 SS. Martyrum et Confessorum and that at the 
 time of dedication the bones of martyrs from 
 the various cemeteries of the city were borne in 
 a procession of, twenty-eight carriages to the 
 church. {Martyrol. Pom. p. 204.) The technical 
 use of the word “ confessor ” seems, however, to 
 indicate a somewhat later date than that of the 
 dedication ; and Paulus Diaconus {Hist. Longo- 
 bard. iv. 37, p. 570) tells us simply that Phocas 
 granted Boniface permission, “ Ecclesiam beatae 
 semper Virginis Mariae et omnium Martyrum 
 fieri, ut ubi quondam omnium non deorum sed 
 daemonum cultus erat, ibi deinceps omnium fieret 
 momoria sanctorum,” and the church bears to 
 this day the name of “ S. Maria dei Martiri.” 
 This festival of the 13th May was not wholly 
 confined to the city of Rome, yet it seems to have 
 been little moi'e than a dedication-festival of the 
 Rotunda, corresponding to the dedication-festivals 
 of other churches, but of higher celebrity, as the 
 commemoration of the final victory of Christianity 
 over Paganism. 
 
 The history of the establishment of the 
 festival of All Saints on Nov. 1 is somewhat 
 obscure. The Martyrologium Pom. Vet., al¬ 
 ready quoted, gives under “ Kal. Novembr.” a 
 “ Festivitas Sanctorum, quae Celebris et gene- 
 ralis agitur Romae.” The very terms here used 
 show that this “ Festivitas Sanctorum ” was a 
 sjiecially Roman festival, and it was probably 
 simply the dedication-feast of an oratory dedi¬ 
 cated by Gregory III. “ In honorem Omnium 
 Sanctorum.” But in the 8th century, the ob- 
 seivance of the festival was by no means con¬ 
 fined to Rome. Beda’s Metrical Martyrology has 
 
 “ Multiplici nitilat gemma ceu in fronte November, • 
 Cunctorum fulget Sanctorum laude decoris.’’ 
 
 In the ancient Hieronymian calendar in 
 D’Achery {Spicileg. tom. ii.), it appears under 
 Kal. Novemb., but only in the third place; 
 “ Natal is St. Caesarii; St. Andomari Episcopi; 
 sive Omnium Sanctorum.” The list of festivals 
 in the Penitential of Boniface gives “ In solemni- 
 tate Omnium Sanctorum ; ” but the feast is not 
 found in the list given by Chrodogang (an. 762), 
 or in Charlemagne’s Capitulary {Op]). Caroli 
 Magni, i. 326) on the subject of festivals. It 
 appears then to have been observed by some 
 churches in Germany, France, and England in 
 the middle of the 8th century, but not univer¬ 
 sally. It was perhaps this diversity of practice 
 which induced Gregory IV., in the year 835, to 
 suggest to the Emperor Lewis the Pious, a ge¬ 
 neral ordinance on the subject. Sigebert, in "his 
 Chronicon (in Pistorius, Script. Ge.>'m. tom. i.), 
 tells us, under that year, “Tunc monente Gre¬ 
 
 gorio Papa, et omnibus episcopis assentiontibus, 
 Ludovicus Imperator stiituit, ut in Gallia et 
 Germania Festivitas Omnium Sanctorum in Kal. 
 Novemb. celebraretur, quam Romani ex institute 
 Bonifacii Papae celebrant.” (Compare Adonis 
 Martyrol. ed. Rosweyd, p. 180.) It would seem 
 from this, that the festivals of May 13 and 
 Nov. 1 had already coalesced on the latter day, 
 and that the one festival then observed was 
 referred to Boniface IV., who, in fact, instituted 
 that of May 13. The time was perhaps chosen 
 as being, in a large part of Lewis’s dominions, 
 the time of leisure after harvest, when men’s 
 hearts are disposed to thankfulness to the Giver 
 of all good. From this time. All Saints’ day be¬ 
 came one of the great festivals of the Church, 
 and its observance general throughout Europe. 
 
 It probably had a Vigil from the first, as be¬ 
 fore the time of its general observance a Vigil 
 and Fast preceded the groat festivals of the 
 Church. It may, perhaps, have had an octave 
 from its first institution in Rome itself; but this 
 was not the case in other churches, for an octave 
 of All Saints does not seem to be found in any 
 calendar earlier than the 13th century. Proper 
 collects, preface, and benediction for the “Natalis 
 Omnium Sanctorum ” are found in some, but not 
 the most ancient, MSS. of the Gregorian Sacra- 
 mentaiy (p. 138). 
 
 (Baronius in Martyrologio Pomano, May 13 
 and Nov. 1; Binterim’s Denkwurdigkeiten, vol. 
 V. pt. 1, p. 487 ff.; Alt in Herzog’s Peal-Ency- 
 clopddie, i. 247.) [C.] 
 
 ALL SOULS, Festival of {Omnium fde- 
 lium dcfunctorum memoria or commemoratio). 
 Very ancient traces of the observance of a day 
 for the commemoration of “ the souls of all 
 those who have died in the communion of the 
 body and blood of our Lord ” (according to 
 Cyprian) appear in the Fathers of the Church. 
 
 Tertullian {He Corona Militis, c. 3) says, 
 “ Oblationes pro defunctis annua die facimus.” 
 And to the same effect he speaks {De Exhort. 
 Castitatis, c. 11, and De Monogam. c. 10) of 
 annual offerings (oblationes) for the souls of the 
 departed. These were probably made on the an¬ 
 niversary of the death, and were especially the 
 business of surviving relatives. So Chrysostom 
 {Horn. 29 in Acta Apost.), speaks of those who 
 made commemoration of a mother, a wife or a 
 child. Similarly Augustine {De Cura pro Mor¬ 
 tals, ch. 4). 
 
 It appears from an allusion in Amalarius of 
 Metz (before 837) that in his time a day was 
 specially dedicated to the commemoration of all 
 souls of the departed, and it seems probable that 
 this was the day following All Saints’ Day. 
 Amalarius says expressly {De Eccl. Ojfficiis, lib. 
 iii. c. 44) “ Anniversaria dies ideo repetitur 
 pro defunctis, quoniam nescimus qualiter eorum 
 causa habeatur in altera vita.” And in c. 65, 
 he says “ Post officium Sanctorum inserui of- 
 ficium pro mortuis ; multi enim transierunt de 
 praesenti saeculo qui non illico sanctis conjun- 
 guntur, pro quibus solito more officium agitur.” 
 The festival of All Souls is here regarded as a 
 kind of supplement to that of All Saints, and 
 may very probably have taken place on the 
 morrow of that day. But the earliest definite 
 injunction for the observance of a commemoral ion 
 of all souls of the departed on Nov. 2 appears to 
 
68 
 
 ALMACHIL'S 
 
 ALMS 
 
 be that of Odilo, Abbot of Clugny, in the 10th 
 century. A pilgrim returning from Jerusalem, 
 says Peter Damiani (^Vita Odilonis, 0pp. ii. 410), 
 reported to Odilo a woful vision which he had 
 had on his journey of the suffering of souls in 
 purgatorial fire : Odilo thereupon instituted in 
 the churches under his control a general com¬ 
 memoration of the souls of the faithfu4 departed 
 on the day following All Saints’ Day; “ per 
 omnia monasteria sua constituit generate de- 
 cretum, ut sicut primo die Mensis Novembris 
 juxta universalis Ecclesiae regulam omnium 
 Sanctorum solemnitas agitur ; ita sequenti die 
 in psalmis, eleemosynis et praecipue Missarum 
 solemniis, omnium in Christo quiescentium 
 memoria celebraretur.” This order was soon 
 adopted, not only by other monastic congrega¬ 
 tions, but by bishops for their dioceses; for 
 instance, by the contemporary Bishop Notger of 
 Liege {Chronicon Belgicum, in Pistorius’s Scrip- 
 torcs German, iii. 92). The observance appears, 
 in fact, in a short time to have become general, 
 without any ordinance of the Church at large on 
 the subject. 
 
 But even after the observance of a commemo¬ 
 ration of All Souls on Nov. 2 became common, 
 we find (^Statutes of Cahors, in Martene, The¬ 
 saurus Anecdot. iv. 766) that in some places the 
 morrow of St. Hilary’s Day (Jan. 14), and in 
 others the morrows of the Octaves of Easter 
 and Pentecost were appropriated to the special 
 commemoration of the souls of the departed 
 (Binterim’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. v. pt. 1, p. 
 492 tf.). [C.] 
 
 ALMACHIUS, martyr at Borne, commemo¬ 
 rated Jan. 1 {Mart. Rom. Vet.^ Bedaef [C.] 
 
 ALMS {'EKctj pocrwri, non-classical in this 
 sense, either word or thing ; although for the 
 thing, see Seneca, Be Benefic. vi. 3, and Martial, 
 Epigr. V. 42 ; and for the word also, Diog. Laert. 
 V. 17 : first found in the special meaning of alms in 
 LXX., Dan. iv. 24 [27 Heb.], where the original 
 reads “righteousness;” so also Tobit xii. 9, xir. 
 11 [and elsewhere], Ecclus. iii. 30, iv. 2, vii. 10, 
 xxix. 15, 16, XXXV. 2). Alms recognized as a duty 
 throughout the 0. T., but brought into promi¬ 
 nence in the later Jewish period (cf. Buxtorf, 
 F.o il. Jfebr. p. 88; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in 
 Matt. vi. 2, Luc. ii. 8), when they were formally 
 and regularly given in the synagogues (Vitring. 
 Be Syn. Vet.^ to be distributed by appointed 
 officers, as also by putting them into certain 
 trumpet-shaped alms-boxes in the temple, called 
 yo.^ocpvXdKia (Le Moyne, Not. in Var. Sac. ii. 
 75; De)ding, Observ. Sac. iii. 175 ; distinct from 
 the ya^o(pvXd.Kiov or treasury of St. Luke xxi. 1). 
 They were regarded also as a w'ork specially 
 acceptable to God (Prov. xix. 17, xxii. 9, ike.; 
 Tobit, and Ecclus., passim ; St. Luke xi. 41, Acts 
 X. 2). In like manner they became in the Chris¬ 
 tian Church— 
 
 I. A fundamental law of Christian morality 
 (St. Matt. X. 42, xix. 21, xxv. 35; St. Luke xii. 
 33; Acts ii. 44, iv. 34-37, xi. 29, 30; Rom. xii. 
 13, XV. 25; 2 Cor. viii. 12, ix. 7 ; Gal. ii. 1, vi. 
 10; Ephes. iv. 28 ; 1 Tim. vi. 18; Hebr. xiii. 
 16; 1 Pet. iv. 8, 9; 1 John iii. 17), so tho¬ 
 roughly recognized as to make it both super¬ 
 fluous and impossible . to enumerate patristic 
 allusions to it. Special tracts on almsgiving, 
 by St. Cyprian, Be Opere ct Eleemos. ; St. Greg. 
 
 Nyss., Be Pauperihus Amandis Oratt. IT. St. 
 Greg. Naz., Be Paupeium Amore Drat. ; St. Basil 
 M., Semt'. de Eleemos. inter Setmon. XXIV.; St. 
 Ephraem Syrus, Be Aw/yre Pauperum; St. I.eo 
 M., Sermones VI. Be Collectis et Eleemos.; St. 
 Maximus, Ad Joann. Cubic. Epnst. II. {Be Elee¬ 
 mos.') ; and among the sermons attributed to St. 
 Chrysostom, one Be Jejun. et Eleemos., and three 
 Be Eleemos., &c. (and see a collection of patristic 
 citations in Drexelius, Be Eleemosyna). Even 
 Julian the Apostate, c. a.d. 351, bears testimony 
 that the almsgiving of “ the Galileans ” over¬ 
 flowed beyond their own poor to the heathen 
 {Epist. adArsac.,V:\)\st.x\{x.; and compare Lucian, 
 as quoted below); and thinks it expedient to 
 boast of his own kindness {Ad Themist.). Com¬ 
 pare also such notable examples as those, e.g., 
 of Pope Soter as described by his contemporary 
 Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, c. A.D. 160 (ap. 
 Euseb. II. E. iv. 23); of Paulinus of Nola; of 
 Deo Gratias Bishop of Carthage towards Gen- 
 seric’s captives (see Milman, I. C. i. 205, and 
 Gibbon); of Johannes “ Eleemosynarius,” Patri¬ 
 arch of Alexandria, A.D. 606-616 : and the oc¬ 
 currence of such expressions as, “ Hoc praestat 
 eleemosyna quod et Baptisma ” (St. Hieron. in 
 Ps. cxxxiii.), “ Christian! sacrificium est eleemo¬ 
 syna in pauperem” (St. Aug. Se7'm. xlii., from 
 Heb. xiii. 16); or again, that almsgiving is the 
 “ characteristic mark of a Christian,”— 
 TYipiariKhv Xpiariavov, and that it is ixi]Tt)p 
 dydirr^s, (pdppaKOV afjLapTTjfxdTuv, els rhy 
 
 obpauhv iaT-ppiypevT] (St. Chrys. in Heb. Horn. 
 xxxii., and in Tit. Horn, vi.); or again, that 
 “res ecclesiae” are “patrimonia pauperum.” 
 
 II. An integral part of Christian worship (Acts 
 ii. 42, vi. 1; 1 Cor. xvi.l ; 1 Tim. v. 3,16) : alms 
 for the poor, to be distributed by the clergy (Acts 
 xi. 30), being a regular portion of the offerings 
 made in church, among those for the support of 
 the clergy, and oblations in kind for the Church 
 services (Justin M., Apol. I. p. 98, Thirlby ; St. 
 Greg. Naz., Orat. xx., 0pp. i. 351 ; Constit. 
 Apostol. iv. 6, 8; St. Chrys., Ho7n. 1. in S. 
 Matth. 0pp. vii. 518, Ben.; Cone. Gangrens., 
 circ. A.D. 324, c. 8; for the East:—St. Iren., 
 Adv. Ilaer. iv. 18 ; St. Cypr., Be Op. et Eleem., 
 203, Fell; TertulL, Apol. 39; Arnob., Adv. 
 Gent, iv., in fin. ; St. Ambros., Ep. xvii. Ad 
 Valent. 0pp. ii. 827, Ben. ; Cone. Eliber.. a.d. 
 304, cc. 28, 29; Cone. Carthag. iv., a.d. 398, 
 cc. 93, 94 ; Optatus, Be Schism. Bonat. vi. p. 93, 
 Albaspin. ; Cone. Matiscon. ii., a.d. 585, c. 4; 
 Horn, cclxv. in Append, ad S. Aug. 0pp. v.; 
 Resp. Greg. M. ad Qu. Aug. ap. Baed. H. E. 
 i. 27 ; for the West: Psalms being sung, at least 
 at Carthage, during the collection and distribu¬ 
 tion, St. Aug. Retract, u. 11); and this as a pri¬ 
 vilege, the names of considerable donors being 
 {Constit. Agostol. iii. 4; St. Cypr., A/.Ysf. 
 ix. al. xvii., lx. al. Ixii.; St. Hieron., in let'em, xi. 
 lib. ii., in ETech, a viii.; St. Chrys., //om. xviii. 
 in Act.: Gest. Checil. et Felic. ad fin. Optati p. 95), 
 and the offerings of evil-livers, euergumeni, ex¬ 
 communicate persons, suicides, and of those at 
 enmity with their brethren, being rejected (St. 
 Iren., Adv. Ilaer. iv. 34; TertulL, Be Praescrip. 
 30; Constit. Agost. iv. 5-7 ; St. Athan., Ep. ad 
 Solitar., p. 364, ed. 1698; Epist. ad Bonifac. in 
 App. ad 0pp. S. Aug. ii.; Cone. Herd. A.D. 524, c. 
 13; and A' tissiod. i., A.D. 578, c. 17 : the Irish 
 synods assigned to St. Patrick, c. 12, Wilk. i. 3, 
 
ALMS 
 
 ALMS 
 
 59 
 
 and c. 2, ib. 4; and St. Ambrose, Optatus, and the 
 Councils of Lerida and Carthage, above quoted ; 
 or later still, Capit. Herard. Archiep. Turon, 
 116, in Baluz. Capit. i. 1294, and repeatedly in 
 the Capitularies). There was also an alnis-box 
 (yo-^o(pv\(iKiou, corhona, see St. Cypr., De Op. et 
 £leeinos., and St. Hieron., Epist. 27, c. 14), placed 
 in the church for casual alms, to be taken out 
 monthly (Tertull. Apol. 39). And Paulinus 
 {Epist. 32) speaks of a table (mensa) for re¬ 
 ceiving the offerings. Collections for the poor in 
 church both on Sundays and on week days are 
 mentioned by St. Leo the Great {Serm. de Col- 
 lectis). The poor also habitually sat at the 
 church door, at least in the East, to receive alms 
 (St. Chrys., Horn. xxvi. De Verb. Apost., Horn. i. 
 in 2 Tim.,' Horn. iii. De Poenit.). 
 
 III. An institution having a formal list of re¬ 
 cipients, mainly widows and orphans (St. Ignat., 
 ad Pohjearp. iv.; Constit. Apost. iv. 4, &c.); or, 
 upon occasion, martyrs in prison or in the mines, 
 or other prisoners, or shipwrecked persons (Dion. 
 Corinth, ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 ; Tertull., De 
 Jejun. 13 ; Lucian, De Morte Peregrin. § 11, Op. 
 viii. 279, Bipont.; Liban., A.D. 387, Orat. xvi. 
 in Tisamcn., Orat. de Vinctis, ii. 258, 445, ed. 
 Reiske): and special officers, as for other directly 
 ecclesiastical functions, so also for managing the 
 Church alms, viz. deacons {Const. Apost. ii. 31, 
 32, iii. 19; Dionys. Alex. ap. Euseb. //. E. vii. 
 11 ; St. Cypr., Epist. xli., and xlix. al. Iii., Fell.; 
 St. Hieron., Ad Nepot. Epist. xxxiv.); and among 
 women, deaconesses, commonly widows of ad¬ 
 vanced age {Constit. Apost. iii. 15 ; St. Hieron., 
 Ad Nepot. Epist. xxxiv.; and Lucian and Libanius 
 as ,above). See also Tertullian {Ad Uxor. ii. 
 4 and 8) for the charitable works of married 
 Christian matrons. 
 
 IV. These arrangements were supplemented 
 when necessary by special collections appointed 
 by the bishop (Tertull., De Jejun. 13), after the 
 pattern of St. Paul, for extraordinary emer¬ 
 gencies, whether at home or among brethren or 
 others elsewhere; e.g. St. Cypj'ian’s collection 
 of “ sestertia centum millia nummorurn ” for 
 the redemption of Numidian captives from the 
 barbarians (St. Cypr., Epist. lx.) ; mostly accom¬ 
 panied by fast days (Tertull. ib. —and so, long 
 after, Theodulph, a.d. 787 [_CajDit. 38], enjoins 
 almsgiving continually, but specially on fast days), 
 tut sometimes at the ordinary Church service 
 (St. Leo M., De Collectis): a practice which grew 
 sometimes into the abuse which was remedied by 
 the Council of Tours (ii. a.d. 567, c. 5), enact¬ 
 ing that each city should provide for its own 
 poor, and by Gregory the Great, desiring the 
 Bishop of Milan to protect a poor man at Genoa 
 from being compelled to contribute to such a 
 collection (St. Greg,, Epist. ix. 126). See also 
 St. Hieron., Adc. Vigilantium. 
 
 The hyairai also may be mentioned in this 
 connection (1 Cor. xi. 20, Jude 12 ; Tertull., 
 Aj.ol. 39 ; Constit. Apost. ii. 28; prohibited 
 Cone. Laod., A.D. 364, c. 5, and see Cone. Quini- 
 sext. A.D. 762, c. 74; and under Agapae). Also 
 the ^fydiufs or ^fvoUoxda (St. Chrys., Horn. xlv. in 
 Act. Apostol.; St. Aug., Tract, xcvii. in Joh. 
 § 4); the TTreoxorpo^fta, managed by the “/cArj- 
 piKoi or acpTjyovpeyoi rwv TrTwxeiwv ” {Cone. 
 Chalccd. A.D. 451, c. 8 ; and Pallad., /fist. Laiis. 
 
 V.); the 7 '> 7 poKO)Li€ta, the votroKOjuera (Pallad., V. 
 Chrys. p. 19), the 6p<pavorpo(pe7a: of which the 
 
 names explain themselves (and see abundant re¬ 
 ferences in Suicer, sub voce., and Justinian also 
 enacts laws respecting such institutions and the 
 clergy who manage thenr.), and which came into 
 being with the Christian Church. E. g., the 
 ^aaiXeias of St. Basil at Caesarea stands as a 
 notable example of a Christian hosjatal, at once 
 for sick and strangers (St. Basil. M., Epist. 94; 
 St. Greg, Naz., Orat. xxvii, and xxx. ; Sozom. vi. 
 34), with its smaller offshoots in the neighbour¬ 
 ing country (St. Basil. M., Epist. 142, 143); and 
 so also the hospital of St. Chrysostom, with his 
 advice on the subject to the faithful of Con¬ 
 stantinople (St. Chrys., Horn. xlv. in Aet. Ap.ost. 
 0pp. ix. 343); and the Xenodoehiurn founded 
 “ in portu Romano ” by Pammachius and Fabiola 
 (St. Hieron., Ad Ocean. Ep. Ixxxiv.). Add also 
 the alms given at marriage and at funerals (St. 
 Chrys., Horn, xxxii. in S. Matth.; St. Hieron., 
 Ad Pammach. de Obitu Uxor. Ep. liv.; Pseudo- 
 Origen., Comment, in Job. lib, iii. p. 437 ; St. 
 Aug., Cont. Faust, xx. 20; and see Bingham). 
 Our own Council of Cealchyth, in A.D, 816 (c. 
 10), directs the tenth of a bishop’s substance 
 to be given in alms upon his death. The Mani- 
 chaeans appear to have refused alms to needy 
 persons not Manichaeans on some recondite ))rin- 
 ciple of their connection with the principle or 
 evil, for which they are condemned by St. Aug. 
 {De Mor. Manich. ii. 15, 16) and Theodcret 
 {Hacr. Fab. i. 26). 
 
 There was apparently no specified rule for 
 division of ecclesiastical revenues, originally of 
 course entirely xmluntary offerings, anterior to 
 the 5th century; the bishop being throughout 
 their chief administrator, but by the hands of 
 the deacons (see e. g. St. Cypr., about Felicis- 
 simus, Epist. xli.; and Cone. Gangr., c. 8, and 
 Epiphan, Haer. xL, condemning the Eustathians 
 for withdrawing their alms from the bishop or 
 the officer appointed by him). In the Western 
 Church in the 5th century (setting aside the 
 questionable decree of the Synod of Rome under 
 Sylvester in 324) we find a fourfold division of 
 them: 1, for the bishop ; 2, for the clergy; 3, 
 for the poor ; 4, for the fabric and sustentation 
 of the churches. Or again, for 1. Churches; 
 2. Clergv ; 3. Poor; 4. Strangers. This origin- 
 ated with the Popes Simplicius {Epist. 3, a.d. 
 467) and Gelasius (in Gratian Cans. 12 qu. 2, 
 c. Sancimus, a.d. 492); is mentioned repeatedly 
 by St. Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th 
 century {e.g. Ep. iv. 11, v. 44, vii. 8, xiii. 44 ; 
 Pesp. ad August., &c.;—and see also Cone. Aurel. 
 1. c. 5), was varied in Charlemagne’s and Lnd. 
 Pius’ Capitularies (i. 80, Baluz. 718), as re¬ 
 garded voluntary offerings, into two-thirds to 
 the poor and one-third to the cleigy in rich 
 place.s, and half to each in poor ones; but was 
 repeated in the old form by the Capd. of Cnarle- 
 iiiagne him.-elf respecting tithes (Baluz. i. 356) 
 and by the Counc. of Hon//S, a.d. 868, c. 7; 
 Tribur., A.D. 895, c. 13 ; and Nantes, A.D. 895 (?), 
 c. 10 (if at least this last is not to be referred 
 to the Council of Nantes in 658). 
 
 The special otKce of Lleinwsynarius or Almoner 
 occurs in later times, afterwards the name of 
 the superintendent of the alms-house or hosjiital, 
 but at first a distributor of alms : both in monas¬ 
 teries (described at length by Du Cange, fjom a 
 MS of St. V^ictor of Paris), although the office in 
 the older Egyptian monasteries belonged to the 
 
60 
 
 ALMS 
 
 ALTAK 
 
 oeconomus, under the special name of ZiaKovla 
 (Cussian, Collat. xviii. 7, xxi. 9) ; and afterwards, 
 in England at least, as an officer attached to 
 each bishop {Cone. Oxon., a.d. 1222; Lyudw., 
 Frovinc. i. 13, p. 67); and lastly to the king, as 
 e.g. in England, and notably to the Kings of 
 France (see a list in Du Cange). 
 
 In the history of doctrine, the subject of alms- 
 civing is connected—I. With the notions of oom- 
 n.unity of goods, voluntary poverty, and the 
 difficulty of salvation to the rich; the current 
 voice of fathers, as e. g. TertulL, A[X)l. 39, Justin 
 M., Apol. i., Arnob. Adv. Gent. iv. in fin., magni¬ 
 fying the temper indicated by ra twj/ (p'lAwy 
 TrduTa KOLud, while others, as St. Clem. Alex. 
 (^Strom. iii. 6, p. 536, Potter), rejected its literal 
 and narrow perversion (see also his tract at 
 length, Quis Dices Salvetur)’ which perversion 
 indeed the Church condemned in the cases of the 
 Apostolici or Aj otactitae (St. Aug., De Haer. xl. 
 0pp. viii. 9 ; St. Epiphan., Haer. Ixi.), and of the 
 Massalians (St. Epiphan. Haer. Ixx.), and again 
 m that of the Pelagians, who maintained that 
 rich men must give up their wealth in order to 
 be saved (so at least Pseudo-Sixtus III., De 
 Divitiis ; and see St, Aug., Epist. cvi. ad Paulin.^ 
 and Cone. Diospolit. § 6, A.D, 415). Compare 
 Mosheim’s Diss. de Vera Nat. Commun. Bono- 
 rum in Eccl. Hieros. II. With the relation of 
 good works to justification; alms and fasting 
 standing prominently in the question, i. as com- 
 pai’atively outward and positive acts, ii. as being 
 specially urged from early times as parts of 
 repentance and charity (e. g. Hermas, Pastor 
 X. 4; Salvian, Adv. Avarit. ii, p. 205; Lactant., 
 Div. List it. vi. 13, tom. i. p. 470 ; Constit. S. 
 Clem. vii. 12 ; St. Ambros., De Elia ct Jejun. 
 XX. ; St. Chrys., Horn. vii. de Poenit. § 6, 0pp. 
 ii. 336 C). “ Date et dabitur vobis,” found its 
 
 answer in the repeated occurrence of the w'ords 
 (e.g. St. Caesar. Arel., Horn, xv, ; St. Eligius, in 
 Vita ii. 15, ap. D’Ach., Spicil. ii. 96), “Da, Do- 
 mine, quia dedimus; ” but the whole doctrine 
 derived its colour in each case from the succes¬ 
 sive phases of the doctrine of merit. Ill, With 
 (in time) the idea of compounding for other sins 
 by alms, a feeling strengthened by the imposition 
 of alms by way of satisfaction and of commuta¬ 
 tion of penance. The introduction of the practice 
 is attributed to Theodore of Canterburv, c. a.d, 
 700, but upon the ground only of the Peniten- 
 tials hitherto falsely attributed to him ; while the 
 abuse of it is severely condemned by the Counf’il 
 of Cloveshoe, a.d. 747 (c. 26), and by Theodulph 
 (Cap/it. 32, A.D. 787). Its grossest instance is 
 probably to be found in the ledger-like calcula¬ 
 tion of the payments, by which “ powerful men ” 
 could redeem their penances, in Eadgar’s canons, 
 in pn. (Thorpe, ii, 286-289), about a.d. 963. 
 See also Morinus, De Poenit. lib. x. c. 17, who 
 treats the question at length. IV. With alms 
 for the dead. See Cone. Carth. iv., a.d. 398, c. 
 79 ; St. Chrys., as before quoted, and Bingham. 
 See also for later times, Car. M., Capit. v. 364, 
 ap. Baluz. i. 902. 
 
 Plough-alms in England (eleem. carucarum, 
 Suhl-aelm issati), viz., a penny for every plough 
 used in tillage, to be paid annually fifteen days 
 after Easter (Laws of Eadgar and Guthrun, a.d. 
 906, c. 6; Eadgar’s Laws i. 2, and can. 54, a.d. 
 959 and 975 ; Ethelred’s, ix. 12, a.d, 1014; 
 CnuCsyC. 8, c. A.D. 1030; Rectit. '>ing Pers., § de 
 
 Viliams'), were rather a church due than alms 
 properly so called. As was also St. Peter’s 
 penny, Eleemos. S. Petri. And lAhera Eleemo- 
 syna, or Frank-AImoign, is the tenure of most 
 Church lands from Saxon times (viz., tenure 
 on condition, not of specific I religious services, 
 but of Divine Service generally), although now 
 incapable of being created de novo (Stat. Quia 
 Emptores, 18 Edw, I.). See Stephen’s Blacksione, 
 i., Bk. II. Pt. i. c. 2, in pn. [A. W. H.] 
 
 ALNENSE CONCILIUM. [Alcester, 
 Council of.] 
 
 ALTAR.—The table or raised surface on 
 which the Eucharist is consecrated. 
 
 I. Names of the Altar. 
 
 1. Tpdyrefa, a table ; as rpdirc^a Kuptov, 1 Cor. 
 X. 21. This is the term most commonly used bv 
 the Greek Fathers and in Greek Liturgies ; some¬ 
 times simply, r] rpdne^la, as the Table by pre¬ 
 eminence (Chrysost. in Ephes. Horn. 3), but 
 more frequently with epithets expressive of awe 
 and reverence; pvcTiKr), m/evpaTiKT], (po^^pd, 
 (ppiKT-f), (ppiKwdrjs, ^aariKiK-i] dOdi/aros, lepd, ayla, 
 Beta, and the like (see Suicer’s Thesaumis, s. v.). 
 St. Basil in one passage (Ep. 73, 0pp. ii. 870) 
 appears to contrast the Tables (rpaTreCas) of the 
 orthodox with the Altars (dv(riaaTr]pia) of Basi- 
 lides. Sozomen (Etcl. Hist. ix. 2, p. 368) says 
 of a slab wffiich covered a tomb that it was 
 fa.shioned as if for a Holy Table (Sianep ds Updp 
 i^ga-KUTo rpdwf^au), a passage which seems to 
 show that he was familiar with stone tables. 
 
 2. Ova-iaarrjpiov, the place of Sacrifice; the 
 word used in the Septuagiut for Noah’s altar 
 (Gen. viii. 20), and both for the Altar of Burnt- 
 sacrifice and the Altar of Incense under the 
 Levitical law, but not for heathen altars. 
 
 The word Bvaiaarnpiop in Heb. xiii. 10, is 
 reffirred by some commentators to the Lord’s 
 Table, though it seems to relate rather to the 
 heavenly than to the earthly sanctuaiy (Thomas 
 Aquinas). The Bvaiaar-fipiov of Ignatius, too 
 (ad Philad.\\ compare Magn. 7; Trail. 7), 
 can scarcely designate the Table used in the 
 Eucharist (see Lightfoot on Philippians, p. 263, 
 n. 2). But by this word Eusebius (Hid. Eccl. 
 X. 4, § 44) describes the altar of the great 
 church in Tyre, and again (Panegyr. sub fin.) he 
 speaks of altars (Bvaiaarrpia) erected through¬ 
 out the world. Athanasius, or Pseudo-Athana¬ 
 sius (Disp. emit. Arium, 0pp. i. 90), explains 
 the word Tpd-n-f^a by Bvcriaarripiop. This name 
 rarely occurs in the liturgies. (dvaiaarfipiov 
 not unfrequently designates the enclosure within 
 which the altar stood, or Bema (see Mede, On the 
 JSamc Altar or Qucrtaarnpiop, Works, p. 382 fl'.). 
 
 3. The Copts call the altar 'Waarripiov, the 
 word applied in the Greek Scriptures to the 
 Mercy-Seat, or covering of the Ark [compare 
 Arca] ; but in the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil 
 they use the ancient Egyptian woi’d Pimaner- 
 sc/ioouschi, which in Coptic ver.sions of Scripture 
 answers to the Heb. HSTD and the Greek Bvcia- 
 (TTripLov (Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 181). 
 
 4. The word Bcouhs (see Nitzsch on the 
 Odyssey, vol. ii. p. 15) is used in Scripture and 
 in Christian wudters generally for a heathen 
 altar. Thus in 1 Maccab. i. 54, we read that in 
 the persecution under Antiochus an “abomina¬ 
 tion of desolation” was built on the Temple-altar 
 
ALTAR 
 
 (^Qvaiaa'T'fjpLOv), while idol-altars (Bw/tol) were 
 set up in the cities of Judah; and, again (i. 59), 
 iacrihces were offered “ eVl t6v Bcc/j.d^i' hs ini 
 rov Qv<Tia(TTr)plov.” The word Bw/xos is, how¬ 
 ever, applied to the Levitical altar in Ecclesias- 
 ticus 1. 12, the work of a gentilizing writer. It 
 is generally repudiated by early Christian writers, 
 except in a figurative sense : thus Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom, vii. p. 717) and Origen (c. 
 Celsum viii. p. 389) declare that the soul is the 
 true Christian altar (Bwgds), the latter expressly 
 admitting the charge of Celsus, that the Chris¬ 
 tians had no material altars. Yet in later times 
 Bugos was sometimes used for the Christian 
 altar; Synesius, for instance (KaTaCTaais, c. 19, 
 p. 303), speaks of flying for refuge to the 
 unbloody altar (Bw/xoV). 
 
 5. The expression “ Mensa Domini,” or “ Mensa 
 Dominica,” is not uncommon in the Latin Fathers, 
 especially St. Augustine (e.g. Sermo 21, c. 5, on 
 Ps. Ixiii. 11). And an altar raised in honour of 
 a martyr frequently bore his name ; as “ Mensa 
 Cypriani ” (Augustine, Sermo 310). The word 
 “ mensa ” is frequently used for the slab which 
 formed the top of the altar (v. infra). 
 
 6. Ara, the Vulgate rendering of Bco/ids (1 
 Maccab. i. 54 [57], etc.), is frequently applied 
 by Tertulliau to the Christian altar, though not 
 without some qualification ; for instance, “ ara 
 Dei” (de Oratione, c. 14). Yet ara, like B'c/xds, 
 is repudiated by the early Christian apologists 
 on account of its heathen associations; thus 
 Minucius Felix (Octavius, c. 32) admits that 
 “ Delubra et aras non habemus ; ” compare Arno- 
 bius (adv. Gentes vi, 1) and Lactantius (Divin. 
 Inst it. ii. 2). In rubrics, Ara designates a port¬ 
 able altar or consecrated slab. (Macri Hiero- 
 lexicon, s.v. “ Altare.”) Ara is also used for the 
 substructure on which the mensa, or altar proper, 
 was placed; “ Altaris aram funditus pessum- 
 dare ” (Prudentius, Peristeph. xiv. 49), Compare 
 Ardo Smaragdus, quoted below. 
 
 7. But by far the most common name in the 
 Latin Fathers and in Liturgical diction is altare, 
 a “ high altar,” from altus (Isidore, Origines, xv. 
 4-, p. 1197; compare alveare, collare). This is 
 the Vulgate equivalent of OvcriaaT-ppiov. Ter- 
 tullian (de Exhort. Castitatis c. 10) speaks of the 
 Lord’s Table as “ altare ” simply ; so also Cyprian 
 (Epist. 45, § 3, ed. Goldhorn), who, by the 
 phrase “altari posito,” indicates that the church- 
 altar in his time was moveable ; and who, in 
 another place (Epist. 59, § 25), contrasts the 
 Lord’s Altar (“ Domini Altare ”) with the “ ara ” 
 of idols. So again (Epist. 65, § 1) he contrasts 
 “ aras diaboli ” with “ Altare Dei.” So Augus¬ 
 tine (Sermo 159, § 1) speaks of “Altare Dei.” 
 Yet Cyprian speaks (Ep. 59, § 15) of “diaboli 
 altaria,” so uncertain was the usage. In the 
 Latin liturgies scarcely any other name of the 
 altar occurs but altare. The plural altaria is 
 also occasionally used by ecclesiastical writers, 
 as invariably by classical authors, to designate 
 an altar; thus Caesarius of Arles (Horn. 7) says 
 that the elements (creaturae) to be consecrated 
 “sacris altaribus Imponuntur.” (Mone’s Griech. 
 u. Lat. Messen, p. 6.) 
 
 The singular “ altarium ” is also used in late 
 writers: as in the Canon of the Council of 
 Auxerre quoted below, mass is not to be said 
 more than once a day, “ super uno altario.” 
 Altarium is also used in a wider sense, like 
 
 ALTAR 61 
 
 Ovcriaar-fipiov, for the Bema or Sanctuary; so 
 also altaria. 
 
 8. In most European languages, not only of 
 the Romanesque family, but also of the Teutonic 
 and Slavonic, the word used for the Lord’s Table 
 is derived, with but slight change, from altare. 
 In Russian, however, another word, prestol, pi’o- 
 perly a throne, is in general use. [C.] 
 
 II, Parts composing altars .—Although in strict¬ 
 ness the table or tomb-like structure consti¬ 
 tutes the altar, the steps on which it is placed, 
 and the ciborium or canopy which covered it, 
 may be considered parts of the altar in a larger 
 sense, oi-, at least, were so closely connected with 
 it, as to make it more convenient to treat of 
 them under the same head. 
 
 The altar itself was composed of two portions, 
 the supports, whether legs or columns, in the 
 table form, or slabs in the tomb-like, and the 
 “mensa” or slab which formed the top. 
 
 The expression “ cornu altaris,” horn of the 
 altar,” often used in rituals (as in the Sacrament. 
 Gelasianum 1, c. Ixxxviii.), appears to mean 
 merely the corner or angle of the altar, no known 
 example showing any protuberance at the angles 
 or elsewhere above the general level of the 
 mensa, although in some instances (as in that in 
 the church of S. GioAmnni EA^angelista at Ravenna 
 hereafter mentioned) the central part of the sur¬ 
 face of the mensa is slightly hollowed. By the 
 Cornu EA^angelii is meant the angle to the left of 
 the priest celebrating, by Cornu Epistolae that to 
 the right. These phrases must, however, it would 
 seem, date from a period subsequent to that 
 when the Gospel was read from the ambo. 
 
 III. Material and form of altars .—It is admitted 
 by all that the earliest altars were tables of 
 wood ; in the high altar of the church of S. Gio¬ 
 vanni Laterano at Rome is enclosed an altar of 
 the tomb-like form, the mensa and sides formed 
 of wooden planks, on which St, Peter is asserted 
 to have celebrated the Lord’s Supper, and at 
 Sta. Pudenziana, in the same city, fragments of 
 another are preserved to which the same tra¬ 
 dition attaches. [Arca.] 
 
 This shows an ancient belief that altars were 
 of wood. And there is abundant proof that in 
 Africa at least the Holy Table was commonly of 
 wood up to the end of the fourth century. 
 Athanasius, speaking of an outrage of the Arians 
 in an orthodox church (Ad Monachos, 0pp. i. 
 847), says that they burnt the Table (^vXivg 
 yap fjv) with other fittings of the church. Op- 
 tatus of MileA'’e, describing the violence of the 
 Donatists, mentions their planing afresh, or 
 breaking up and using for firewood, the Holy 
 Tables in the churches of their rivals (De Schis- 
 mate Donatista7'U/n vi. 1, p, 90 ff.) ; and St. Augus¬ 
 tine (Epist. 185, c, 27) declares that they beat 
 the orthodox Bishop Maximinianus with the 
 wood of the altar under which he had taken 
 refuge. In England, at a much later date, if we 
 may trust William of Malmesbury (FiYa S. 
 Wulstani, in De Gestis Pont if. Angl. iii. 14), 
 Wulstan, bishop of Worcester (1062-1095), de¬ 
 molished throughout his diocese the wooden 
 altars which were still in existence in England 
 as in ancient days, “altaria lignea jam inde a 
 priscis diebus in Anglia.” Martene (De Antiq. 
 Eccl. Ritihus i. 3) and Mabillon (Acta SS. Pene- 
 dict. Saec. vi., pars 2, p. 860) have shown that 
 wooden altars w’ere anciently used in Gaul. 
 
62 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 Yet there is distinct evidence of the exist¬ 
 ence of stone altars in the fourth century. 
 Greacory of Xyssa (Z^c Christi Baptisnvite, Opp, 
 iii. 309) speaks of the stone of which the altar 
 was made being hallowed by consecration. To 
 tlie same effect St. Chrysostom (on 1 Cor. Horn. 
 20). And stone became in time the usual canon¬ 
 ical material of an altar. The assertion that 
 Pope Sylvester (314-335) first decreed that 
 altars should be of stone rests upon no ancient 
 authority (Bona, De Reb. Lit. i., c. 20, § 1). 
 The earliest decree of a council bearing on the 
 subject is one of the provincial council of Epaona 
 (Pamiers in France) in 517, the 2dth Canon of 
 which (Bruu’s Canoiies ii. 170) forbids any other 
 than stone altars to be consecrated by the appli¬ 
 cation of Chrism. 
 
 As this council was only provincial, its decrees 
 were no doubt only partially received. The 
 14t2j chap, of the Capitularies of Charles the 
 Great, a.d. 769 (IMigne’s Patrologia, xcvii. 124), 
 orders that priests should not celebrate unless 
 “ in mensis lapideis ab Episcopis consecratis.” 
 This seems to mark a period when the use of 
 wooden altars, although disapproved of, was by 
 no means unknown. In the Eastern churches 
 the material of the altar has been deemed a 
 matter of less importance, and at all times down 
 to the present day altars have been made of 
 wood, stone, or metal. 
 
 Assemani (Bibl. Orient, iii. 238) cites a Canon 
 of a Svnod of the Syro-Jacobites, held circa A.D. 
 908, which orders the use of fixed altars of stone, 
 and the disuse of wood; he adds that in the 
 churches of the Maronites and of the Jacobites 
 the altars were sometimes of wood, sometimes 
 of stone (compare Xeale, Eastern Ch. Intr, 181). 
 In some instances at the present day pillars of 
 stone are iised to support a mensa of wood. 
 
 This change of material was in some degree 
 occasioned or accompanied by the adoption of a 
 different tvpe of form, that of the tomb. Such 
 adoption lias been usually accounted for by the 
 supposition that the tombs in the Roman cata¬ 
 combs known as “ arcosolia ” were used during 
 the period of persecution as altars. These arco¬ 
 solia were formed by cutting in the wall of the 
 chamber or oratory, at a height of about three 
 feet from the floor, an opening covered by an 
 arch. In the wall below this opening an exca¬ 
 vation was made sufliciently large to receive one 
 or sometimes two bodies, and this was covered 
 by a slab of marble. 
 
 Such tombs would evidently furnish suffici¬ 
 ently convenient altars, but there appears to be 
 some deficiency of proof that they were actually 
 so used during the period of persecution, to 
 which, indeed, the far greater number are by 
 some centuries posterior. Some writers assert 
 that up to the time of St. Sylvester the only 
 altars in use were wooden chests [compare 
 Arca] carried about from place to place where- 
 ever the Roman bishop had his habitation. 
 Whether this opinion be or be not well-founded, 
 it is certain that traces of altars occupying the 
 normal position, viz., the centre of the apse, have 
 been found in the oratories of the catacombs. 
 Bosio and Boldetti state that they had met with 
 such, the one in the cemetery of Priscilla, the 
 other in that of SS. Marcellinus and Peter, and 
 Ivlartigny (Diet, des Antiq. Chret. p. 58), adds 
 that he had been shown by the Cav. de Rossi in 
 
 the cemetery of Calixtus the traces left by the 
 four pillars which had supported an altar. The 
 date of the altars in question does not, however, 
 appear to have been clearly ascertained. 
 
 It was, however, not only in Rome that the 
 memorials of martyrs and altars were closely 
 associated; the 83rd Canon of the Codex Can. 
 Eccl. Afric. A.D. 419 (in Brun’s Canones. i. 
 j 176) orders that the altaria which had been 
 ; raised everywhere by the roads and in the fields 
 as “ Memoriae Martyrum,” should be overturned 
 when there was no proof that a martyr lay 
 beneath them ; and blames the practice of erect¬ 
 ing altars in conseauence of dreams and “ iuanes 
 revelationes.” 
 
 j In the Liber Pontificalis it is stated that Pope 
 Felix I. (a.d. 269 — 274) “ constituit supra sejml- 
 ^ era martyrum missas celeb raid,” but perhaps the 
 most clear proofs of the prevalence of the prac¬ 
 tice of jilacing altars over the remains of martvrs 
 and saints at an early period, are furnished by 
 passages in Prudentius, particularly that so often 
 quoted (Beristeph., Hymn XI. v. 169—174):— 
 
 “ Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur opertis 
 Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo, 
 
 Ilia sacramenti danatri.x mensa eadenique 
 Gustos fida sui martyris app<jsita, 
 
 S*rvat ad aetemi spem judicis ossa sepulcro 
 Pascit item sanctis tibricolas dapibu.s.'' 
 
 The practice of placing the altar over the re¬ 
 mains of martyrs or saints may probably have 
 arisen from a disposition to look upon the sufier- 
 ings of those confessors of the faith as analogous 
 with that sacrifice which is commemorated in 
 the Eucharist; and the passage in the Reve¬ 
 lation (chap. vi. V. 9), “ I saw under the altar 
 the souls of them that were slain for the word 
 of God,” no doubt encouraged or in^^tigated the 
 observance. The increasing disposition to vene¬ 
 rate martyrs and their relics fostered this prac¬ 
 tice, by which, as Prudentius says (Beristeph., 
 Hymn. HI. v. 211)—• 
 
 “ Sic venerarier ossa libet 
 Ossibus altar et impositum.” 
 
 And it took firm root in the Western Church; 
 so much so that a rule has long been established 
 that every altar must contain a relic or relics, 
 among which should be one of the saint in whose 
 honour it was consecrated. [CD2\SECRatiox of 
 Churches; Relics.] 
 
 This practice, no doubt, conduced to the change 
 of material from wood to stone, and also to a 
 change of form from that of a table to that of 
 a chest or tomb, or to the combination of the 
 two. The table-form seems to have been still 
 common in Africa in the earlv part of the 5th 
 century: for Synesius (KaraaTaa-is, c. 19, p. 
 303), says that, in the terrors of the Vandal 
 invasion, he would cast himself beneath the 
 altar, and clasp the columns that supported it. 
 The annexed woodcut furnishes an example of 
 the combination of the table-form with the 
 tomb-form. It was discovered in the ruins of 
 the so-called basilica of S. Alessandro pn the 
 Via Nomentana, about seven miles from Rome, 
 and may with all probability be ascribed to the 
 fifth century. The mensa is a slab of porphyry, 
 the rest is of marble. The small columns were 
 not placed as represented in the woodcut at the 
 time when the sketch from which it is taken 
 was made ; they were, however, found close by 
 
ALTAK 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 63 
 
 the altar, and there can be little doubt but that 
 they were originally so placed. Beneath the 
 altar is a shallow excavation lined v/ith marble, 
 
 in which the bones of St. Alexander are believed 
 to have been deposited. The square opening in 
 the cancellated slab was probably used for the 
 purpose of introducing cloths [Brandea], which 
 were laid on the tomb of a saint, and afterwards 
 preserved as relics. A part of the inscription on 
 the front has been lost: what remains reads “ et 
 Alexandro Delicatus voto posuit dedicante Aepis- 
 copo Urs . . ” The name wanting at the begin¬ 
 ning is supposed to be that of Eventius, also buried 
 in the same cemetery. Ursus is believed to have 
 been bishop of Nomentum. 
 
 The altar in the sepulchral chapel at Rav^enna, 
 known as “ SS. Nazzaro e Celso,” is an example 
 of the simple tomb-like form. The chapel was 
 built about A.D. 450, and this altar may be of 
 about the same date. According to the Rev. B. 
 Webb {Sketches of Continental Ecclesiolojiy, p. 
 429) it is composed of three slabs of alabaster 
 supporting a mensa; on the ends are carved 
 crosses ; on the front is a cross between two 
 sheep; and on each side of it the device of a 
 crown suspended from a wreath. It is shewn 
 in the engraving of the chapel in Gaily Knight’s 
 Eccl. Arch, of Italy. 
 
 In the somewhat earlier mosaics in the bap¬ 
 tistery of the cathedi’al of Ravenna, altars are 
 represented as tables supported by columns with 
 capitals; the tables are represented red and the 
 columns gold, indicating perhaps the use of por¬ 
 phyry and gilt bronze as the materials. Nor, 
 although the tomb-like form eventually became in 
 the Western Church the ruling one, was the table- 
 form disused, for examples of it of a date even as 
 late as the thirteenth century are still extant. 
 
 Altar, from Anriol ill France. 
 
 A variety of the table-form, in which the 
 mensa is supjiorted by only one leg, is shown in 
 
 the accomjianying woodcut. This altar was 
 found in the neighbourhood of Auriol, in the 
 department of the Bouches-du-Rhone, in France, 
 ana may be attributed to the fifth or sixth 
 century. 
 
 Martigny {Diet, des Antiq. Chret., p. 59) men¬ 
 tions other examples in which the mensa is sup¬ 
 ported by five columns, one being in the centre. 
 One of these found at Avignon is supposed to 
 have been erected by S. Agricola (dec. A.D. 580). 
 Another, in the Musee at Marseilles, he attri¬ 
 butes to the 5th century, and a third he says 
 exists in the crypt of the church of St. Martha, 
 at Tarascon. 
 
 In the baptistery of the cathedral of Ravenna 
 is an altar composed of a mensa with two columns 
 in front, and a quadrangular block of marble, in 
 which is a recess or cavity now closed by a 
 modern brass door; the front of this block has 
 some decoration of an architectural character, a 
 small cross, doves, ears of wheat, and bunches of 
 grapes. This central block would appear to be 
 an altar (or part of one) of the 6th century. A 
 very similar block is at Parenzo, in Istria, and is 
 engraved in Heider and Eiselberger’s AJittelalter- 
 liche Kunstdenkmale des Oesterreichischen Kaiser- 
 staates (i. 109) ; the writer of that work is, 
 however, disposed to consider it not an altar but 
 a tabernacle. 
 
 Mr. Webb {Sketches of Cont. Ecclesiology, pp. 
 430, 440) mentions two altars at Ravenna, one 
 in the crypt of S. Giovanni Evangelista, the other 
 in the nave of S. Apollinare in Classe, of the same 
 form as that of the baptistery of the Cathedral 
 described above, and seems to consider this ar¬ 
 rangement as original; but says of the altar of 
 the baptistery that it was the tabernacle of the 
 old Cathedral. He remarks that the mensa of 
 the altar in S. Giovanni is not level, but slightly 
 hollowed so as to leave a idm all round. 
 
 Many notices of altars may be found in the 
 Liber I’ontificalis (otherwise known as Anastasias 
 Bibliothecarius de Vitis Fontificum). as that Pope 
 Hilarus (A.D. 461-467) made at S. Lorenzo f. 
 1. m. “ altare argenteum pensans libras quadra- 
 ginta,” that Leo III. (a.d. 795-816) made at S. 
 Giovanni Laterano “altare majus mirae mag- 
 nitudinis decoratum ex argento purissimo pensans 
 libras sexaginta et novem.” 
 
 In these and in the numerous like instances it 
 is either expressly stated that the altar was 
 decorated with gold or silver, or the quantity of 
 the metal employed is evidently quite insutheient 
 to furnish the sole material; but we are not told 
 whether the altar was constructed of stone or of 
 wood. 
 
 In a mosaic at S. Vitale, at Ravenna, dating 
 from the 6th century (engraved in Webb’s Cont. 
 Ecclcs. p. 437), an altar doubtless is represented 
 as standing on feet at the angles, and therefore 
 of the table form. It has, according to Mr. 
 Webb, an ornamental covering of white linen 
 with a hanging beneath. 
 
 The annexed woodcut taken from the same 
 work (p. 440) shows an altar similarly re¬ 
 presented in a mosaic in S. Apollinare in Classe 
 at Ravenna. This church was commenced 
 between 534 and 538, and dedicated between 
 546 and 552, but much of the mosaic was not 
 executed until between 671 and 677 (Hiibsch, 
 Altchristlichen Kirchen'). 
 
 Paul the Silentiary, in his poetical description 
 
64 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 of St. Sophia at Constantinople, as rebuilt by 
 Justinian (between A.u. 532 and a.d. 563), 
 
 A tar, from a m saic of S. Apolliiiiirc in Cla^ at 
 Itavoiiiia. 
 
 describes the altar as of gold, decorated with 
 precious stones and supported on golden columns. 
 This has of course long since been destroyed, 
 but there still exists an altar of almost equal 
 splendour, though of the other type, viz., that of 
 the tomb, and more recent by three hundred 
 years. This is the high altar of S. Ambrogio, at 
 Milan, made in A.D. 835, measuring 7 ft. 3 in. in 
 length and 4 ft. 1 in. in height, the mensa being 
 4 ft. 4 in. wide. The front is of gold, the back 
 and sides of silver. It is covered with subjects 
 in relief in panels divided by bands of ornament, 
 and many small ornaments in cloisonne enamel 
 are interspersed. The subjects on the back are 
 chiefly incidents in the life of St. Ambrose; 
 those of the front are Christ seated within an 
 oval compartment within a cross, in the branches 
 of which are the symbols of the Evangelists, 
 figures of the Apostles being placecj above and 
 below. On the right and left are subjects from 
 the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles. On the 
 ends of the altar are crosses in compartments, 
 surrounding which are angels in various attitudes 
 of adoration. It is represented in the woodcut. 
 
 Altar of S. Ambrogio, at Milan. 
 
 Two examples of the tomb-like form, of stone 
 and of earlier date, may be seen in the lateral 
 ap.ses of the basilican church which forms part 
 of S. Stefano at Bologna. These perhaps date 
 from the 7th or 8th century. On one are a cross 
 and two peacocks, and an inscription in honour 
 of S. Vitalis ; on the other, figures of a lion and 
 a stag or ox. It is not clear whether these were 
 construc^d to serve as altars, or are tombs con¬ 
 verted to that use; but the first seems the more 
 probable suggestion. 
 
 The account given by Ardo Smaragdus, in his 
 life of St. Benedict of Aniane {Act. Sanct. Feb. 
 vol. ii. die 12, p. 614), of one of the altars con¬ 
 structed by the latter in the church of that place 
 (in A.D. 782?), is, though somewhat obscure, too 
 remarkable to be passed over; the altar was hol¬ 
 low within, having at the back a little door; in 
 
 the cavity boxes (capsae) containing relics were 
 preserved on non-festive days. This “altare,” 
 which was the high altar, w'*s so constructed 
 (in altari . . . tres aras causavit subponi) as to 
 symbolize the Trinity. 
 
 It is difficult to find the date at W’hich it 
 became customary to incise crosses, usually five 
 in number, on the men.sa of an altar; they do 
 not appear to exist on the mensa of the wooden 
 altar in S. Giovanni Laterano at Rome, which is 
 no doubt of an early date, on that of the altar of 
 S. Alessandro, near Rome, or on those of the early 
 altars at Ravenna, or Auriol, or even on the altar 
 of S. Ambrogio. Crosses are however found on 
 the portable altar which was buried with St. 
 Cuthbert (A.D. 687). The very fragmentary 
 state of this object makes it impossible to deter¬ 
 mine with certainty how many crosses were on 
 it. Two are to be seen on the oaken board to 
 which the plating of silver was attached, and 
 two on the plating itself, but it is quite possible 
 that originally there were five on each. In the 
 order for the dedication of a church in the 
 Sacramentary of Gregory the Great (p. 148), 
 the bishop consecrating is desired to make 
 crosses with holy water on the four corners of 
 the altar; but nothing is said of incised crosses. 
 
 The practice of making below the mensa a 
 cavity to contain relics, and covering this by a 
 separate stone let into the mensa, does not appear 
 to be of an early date. [Consecration.] 
 
 IV. Structural accessories of the altar .— 
 Usually, though not invariably, the altar was 
 raised on steps, one, two, or three in number. 
 From these steps the bishop sometimes preached ; 
 hence Sidonius Apoll., addressing Faustus, Bishop 
 of Riez, says {Carm. XVI. v. 124),— 
 
 “Seu te consplcuis prradibns venerabiJis arae 
 Concionaturum plehs sedala circunisistit.” 
 
 Beneath the steps it became customary, from 
 the fourth century at least, at Rome and v/herever 
 the usages of Rome were followed, to construct 
 a small vault called confessio ; this w'as originally 
 a mere grave or repository for a body, as at S. 
 Alessandro near Rome, but gradually expanded 
 into a vault, a window or grating below the altar 
 allowing the sarcophagus in ivhich the body of 
 the saint was placed to be visible. [Confessio ] 
 
 In the Eastern Church a piscina is usually 
 fbund under the altar (Neale, Eastern Church 
 Introd. 189), called Diore com¬ 
 
 monly QkKaaaa or daKaaaihiov. What the an¬ 
 tiquity of this practice may be does not seem to 
 be ascertained, but it mav have existed in the 
 Western Church, as appears from the Frankish 
 missal published by Mabillon {Liturg. Gall. iii. 
 § 12, p. 314), where, in consecrating an altar, 
 holy water is to be poured “ad basem.” So the 
 Gregorian Sacrarnentary, p. 149. 
 
 The altar w'as often enclosed within railings of 
 wood or metal, or low walls of marble slabs; 
 these enclosures were often mentioned by early 
 writers under the names “ ambitus aitaris,*' 
 “circuitus altaris;” the railings weie called 
 “ cancelli,” and the slabs “ transennae.’’ Some 
 further account of these will be found under the 
 words. 
 
 Upon these enclosures columns and arches of 
 silver were often fixed, and veils or. curtains of 
 rich stuffs suspended from the arches: they are 
 frequently' mentioned in the Lib. Pontif.. as in 
 
ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 65 
 
 the instance where Pope Leo III. gave 96 veils, 
 some highly ornamented, to be so placed round 
 the “ambitus alturis” and the “presbyterium ” 
 of St. Peter’s at Rome. 
 
 V. Ciborium, otherwise umbraculum, Gr. ki- 
 $xpiou. Ital. baldachino.—Down to the end of 
 the period with which we are now concerned, 
 and even later, tlve altar was usually covered by 
 a canopy suppoxted by columns, the ciborium. 
 The word is no doubt derived from the Greek 
 KL^ccpiov, the primary meaning of which is the 
 cup-like seed-vessel of the Egyptian water-lily. 
 
 It does not appear when the oiborium came 
 first to be in use, though this was probably at as 
 early a date as that in which architectural 
 splendour was employed in the construction of 
 churches. Augusti quotes Eusebius ( Vit. Const. 
 M. lib. iii. c. 38) as using the word KiPcapiov 
 when describing the church of the Sepulchre at 
 Jerusalem, and connecting it with the word 
 (T<pa(piov ; but in this there seems to be a mistake, 
 as neither word occurs in cap. 38, while in cap. 
 37 the latter occurs in connection with ic€(p- 
 dkaiov : by which last it would seem that the 
 apse was meant. 
 
 Pauliuus of Nola has been thought to allude 
 to the ciborium in the verses (Z{6. ii. Epig. 2): 
 
 “ Diviniim veneranda tegunt altaria focdiis, 
 
 Compositisque sacra cum cruce maityribus.” 
 
 Ciboi'iuiu, from mosaic in the charcb of St. ueorge at 
 Thessalouico. 
 
 Veils are mentioned by St. Chiysostom (7/om. 
 iii. in Ephes.) as withdrawn at the con.secration 
 of the Eucharist, and it is probable that these 
 were attached to the ciborium in the fashion 
 represented by the accompanying woodcut, 
 where a ciborium is shown with the veils con¬ 
 cealing the altar. This representation, taken 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 from Messrs. Te.\ier and Pullan’s work on By¬ 
 zantine Architecture, is found in the mosaics 
 of St. George at Thessalonica, works certainly 
 not later than A.D. 500, and perhaps much 
 earlier; the authors are indeed disposed to refer 
 them to the era of Constantine the Great. 
 
 Ciboria ai-e not mentioned in the Liber Pon- 
 tificalis in the long catalogue of altars erected in 
 and gifts made to churches erected in Rome and 
 Naples by Constantine, unless the “ fastiginm” 
 of silver weighing 2025 lbs. in the basilica of St. 
 John Lateran was, as some have thovfs:ht, a 
 ciborium. Much doubt, it must be remembered, 
 has been thrown on the trustworthiness of this 
 part of the Liber Pontifcalis, nor does any men¬ 
 tion of one occur until the time of Pope Symma- 
 chus (498—514), who, it is stated, made at S. 
 Silvestro a ciborium of silver weighing 120 lbs. 
 Mention is made in the same work of many 
 other ciboria ; they are generally described as of 
 silver or decorated with silver. The quantity of 
 metal varies very much : one at S. Paolo f. 1. m. 
 is said to have been decorated with 2015 lbs. of 
 silver, that of St. Peter’s, of silver-gilt, weighed 
 2704 lbs. 3 oz., and that at S. Giovanni Laterano 
 only 1227 lbs. All these were erected by Pope 
 Leo 111. (795-816). The last is described as 
 “ cyborium cum columnis suis quatuor ex 
 argento purissimo diversis depictum historiis 
 cum cancellis et columnellis suis mirae magni- 
 tudinis et pulchritudinis decoratum.” The 
 “cancelli” were, no doubt, railings running from 
 column to column and enclosing the altar. The 
 ciborium in St. Sophia’s, as erected by Justinian, 
 is described by Paul the Silentiary as having 
 four columns of silver which supported an 
 octagonal pyramidal dome or blunt spire crowned 
 by a globe bearing a cross. From the arches 
 hung nch veils woven with figures of Christ, St. 
 Paul, St. Peter, &c. 
 
 Ciboria were constructed not only of metal, 
 or of wood cov'ered with metal, luit of marble ; 
 the alabaster columns of the ciborium of the 
 high altar of St. Mark’s at Venice are said to 
 have occupied the same position in the chapel of 
 the Greek Emperor at Constantinople. They 
 are entirely covered with subjects from Biblical 
 history, sculptured in relief, and appear to be of 
 as early a date as the fifth century ; but perhaps 
 the earliest ciborium now existing is one in the 
 church of S. Apollinare in Classe at Ravenna, 
 which is shown by the inscription engraved upon 
 it to have been erected between a.d. 806 and 
 A.D. 810. 
 
 Various ornaments, as vases, crowns, and 
 baskets (cophini) of silver, were placed as deco¬ 
 rations upon or suspended from the ciboria ; and, 
 as has been already said, veils or curtains were 
 attached to them; these last were withdrawn 
 after the consecration but before the ele\atiou of 
 the Eucharist. These curtains are mentioned 
 repeatedly in the Ijiber J'ontif. as gifts made by 
 various popes of the seventh, eighth, and ninth 
 centuries, e. g., “ Vela alba holoserica rosata 
 quae pendent in arcu de cyborio numero qua¬ 
 tuor,” given to S. Maria Maggioro by Pope 
 Leo III. (A.D. 795-816). 
 
 It does not appear when the use of these veils 
 was discontinued in the Western Chiu-ch ; in the 
 Eastern a screen (elKov6ara(Tis) with doors now 
 serves the'like purpose. Some of the ciboria .\t 
 Rome, according to Martigny (Art. Colonibi 
 
66 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 Eucharistique), having a ring fixed in the centre 
 of the vault, from which he conceives a receptacle 
 for the liost to have been suspended. [Peri- 
 STERlUlil]. No ciborium now existing at Rome 
 seems to be of earlier date than the twelfth 
 century, but the practice of suspending such 
 receptacles is no doubt much earlier. 
 
 jMartignv is of o})inion that besides the cibo¬ 
 rium, the columns of which rested on the ground, 
 there was sometimes a lesser one, the columns of 
 which rested on the altar, and that^these last 
 were more properly called ‘‘ peristeria,” as enclos¬ 
 ing a vessel in the form of a dove, in which the 
 host was contained. [CiRORiUJi, TuRRiS, Peri- 
 STERIUil.] 
 
 Ciborium of St. Apollinare in Classe, at Ravenna. 
 
 VI. Appendages of the Altar. —In ancient times 
 nothing was placed upon the altar but the 
 Altar-cloths and the sacred vessels with the 
 Elements. A feeling of reverence, says Mar- 
 tene (de Antiq. Eccl. Kit. i. 112), permitted not 
 the presence of anything on the altar, except the 
 things used in the Holy Oblation. Hence there 
 were no candlesticks on the altar, nor (unless on 
 the columns, arches, and curtains of the ciborium) 
 any images or pictures. Even in the ninth cen¬ 
 tury we find Leo IV. (an. 855) limiting the objects 
 which might lawfully be placed on the altar to 
 the shrine containing relics, or perchance the 
 codex of the-Gospels, and the pyx or tabernacle 
 in which the Lord’s body was reserved for the 
 viaticum of the sick. {De Cura Fastorali, § 8, 
 in ^ligne’s Putrologia, cxv. 677.) 
 
 The Book of the Gospels seems anciently to 
 have l>een frequently placed on the altar, even 
 when the Liturgy was not being celebrated 
 (Neale, Eastern C/i. Introd. 188). An example 
 may be seen in the frescoes of the Baptistery at 
 Ravenna (Webb’s Continental Ecclesiologg, 427). 
 
 With regard to the relics of saints, the ancient 
 rule was, as St. Ambrose tells us {Ad Marcel- 
 Unam, Epist. 85) “ Hie [Christus] super altare . . 
 isti [martyres] sub altariand this was the 
 practice not only of the age of St. Ambrose, but 
 
 of much later times, even up to the middle of 
 the ninth century, as Mabillon {Ada SS. Be- 
 nedid. Saec. iii. Praefatio § 105), assures us; for 
 the anonymous author of the Life of Servatius 
 of Tongres says expressly that the relics of this 
 saint, when translated by command of Charles 
 the Great, were laid before the altar, as men 
 did not yet presume to lay anything except the 
 sacrifice on the altar, which is the Table of the 
 Lori of Hosts. And even later, Odo of Clugny 
 tells us {Collationes ii. 28) that when Berno 
 (an. 895) laid the relics of St. Walburgis on 
 the altar, they ceased to work miracles, resenting 
 the being placed “ ubi majestas divini !Mvsterii 
 solummodo debet celebrari.” The passage ol 
 Leo IV., quoted above, seems in fact the first 
 permission to place a shrine containing relics on 
 the altar, and that permission was evidentlv not 
 in accordance with the general religious feeling 
 of that age. 
 
 In the earlv centuries of the Christian Church, 
 the consecrated bre<ad was generally reserved in 
 a vessel made in the form of a dove and sus¬ 
 pended from the ciborium [Peristerium], or 
 perhaps in some cases placed on a tower on the 
 altar itself {Liber Fontif., Innocent I. c. 57, and 
 Hilary, c. 70). Gregory of Tours {De Gloria 
 Alartyruia i. 86) speaks distinctly of the deacon 
 taking the turns from the sacristy and placing 
 it on the altar, but this seems to have contained 
 the unconsecrated elements [Turris], and to have 
 been placed on the altar only during celebration; 
 nor does the reservation of the consecrated bread 
 in the turris, capsa or pyxis on the altar appear 
 to be distinctly mentioned by any earlier autho¬ 
 rity than the decree of Leo IV. quoted above 
 (Binterim’s Denkmirdigheiten, ii. 2, 167 ff.). 
 
 No instance of a Cross placed permauentlv on 
 the mensa of an altar is found in the first eight 
 centuries, as we should expect from the decree 
 of Leo IV. The vision of Probiauus (Sozomen, 
 Hist. Eccl. ii. 3. p. 49) shows that crosses were 
 seen in the sanctuary {Oo(naaTT]piov) in the 
 fourth centuiy; the cross was found on the sum¬ 
 mit of the ciborium, as in the great church of 
 St. Sophia at Constantinople (Paul the Silentiary, 
 Descrip. S. Sophiae, 737 [al. ii. 320]), and, in some 
 churches both at Rome and in Gaul, suspended 
 from the ciborium over the altar (Gregory of 
 Tours, De Gloria Mart. ii. 20), but not on the 
 mensa of the altar itself. A cross was, however, 
 placed on the altar during celebration. See 
 Sacrum. Gelas. i. 41. 
 
 The third Canon of the Second Council of 
 Tours (an. 567, Bruns’s Canones ii. 226), “ ut 
 corpus Domini in altari non in imaginario ordiue, 
 sed sub crucis titulo componatur,” which has 
 been thought to mean, that the Body of the 
 Lord should not be reserved among the images 
 in a receptacle on the reredos, but under the 
 cross on the altar itself, might possibly refer to 
 a suspended cross; but it is probably rightly 
 explained by Dr. Neale {Eastern Ch. Introd. 520) 
 to mean that the particles consecrated should 
 not be arranged according to each man’s fancv, 
 but in the form of a cross, according to the 
 rubric. 
 
 Tapers were not placed on the altar within 
 the period which we are considering, though it 
 is a very ancient practice to place lights about 
 the altar, especially on festivals. [Lights.] 
 
 Flowers appear to have been used for the 
 
ALTAR 
 
 festal decoration of altars ai, least as early as 
 the sixth century; for Venantius Fortuuatus 
 {Cui'mina viii. 9) says, addressing St. Rhadegund, 
 
 '• Texistis vafiis altaria festa coronis." 
 
 They appear as decorations of churches as 
 early as the fourth century. 
 
 VII. Number of altars in a Church. —There was 
 in primitive Tmes but one altar in a church, and 
 the arrangements of the most ancient Basilicas 
 testify to the fact. (See Pagi on Baronius, aun. 
 813, No. 15.) Eusebius (///si. EccL x. 4, § 45), 
 in the description of the great church at Tyre, 
 mentions only one altar. St. Augustine (on 
 1 John, Tract. 3) speaks of the existence of two 
 altars in one city (civitate) as a visible sign of 
 the Donatist schism. But his words should per¬ 
 haps not be taken in their literal sense; for in 
 the time of St. Basil, there was more than one 
 altar in Neo-Caesarea ; for he, speaking (Horn. 19, 
 in Gordium) of a pei’secution of Christians in that 
 city, says that “ altars (dvaLa<TT7]pia^ were over¬ 
 thrown.” 
 
 The Greek and other oriental churches have 
 even now but one altar in each church (Renau- 
 dot, Lit. Orient, i. 182) ; nor do they consecrate 
 the Eucharist more than once on the same day 
 in the same place. They have, however, and have 
 had for several centuries, minor altars in Trape/c- 
 H\r](TLai or side-chapels, which ai’e really dis¬ 
 tinct buildings. Such side-chapels are generally 
 found where there has been considerable contact 
 with the Latin Church (Neale, Eastern Church, 
 Introd. 183). 
 
 Some writers, as Martigny (Diet, des Antiq. 
 Chre't., art. AiiteV), rely upon the “ arcosolia ” 
 or altar-tombs in the catacombs as proving the 
 early use of many altars: two, three, and more 
 such tombs are often found in one crypt, and in 
 one case, a crypt in the cemetery of St. Agnes 
 near Rome, there are as many as eleven arco¬ 
 solia (Marchi, Mon. delle Arti prim. Crist., tav. 
 XXXV., XXX vi., XXX vii.), eight of which, according 
 to Padre March.i, might have been used as altars 
 (p. 191); but there seems to be generally a 
 deficiency of proof that such tombs were actually 
 so used, nor is their date at all a matter of 
 certainty in the great majority of cases. 
 
 It would appear p>robable that the practice of 
 considering the tomb of a martyr as a holy place 
 fitted for the celebration of the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice, and such celebration as an honour and 
 consolation to the martyr who lay below, led first 
 to the use of several altars in a crypt in the; 
 catacombs where more than one martyr might 
 rest, and then, when the bodies of several martyrs 
 had been transferred to one church above ground, 
 to the construction of an altar over each, from 
 a wish to leave none unhonoured by the celebra¬ 
 tion of the Eucharist above his remains. Such 
 ideas were prevalent as early as the beginning of 
 the fifth century, as may be seen in the writings 
 of Prudentius (Peristeph. Hymn. XI. v. 169- 
 174; Hymn. III. v. 211), Pope Damasus, and St. 
 Maximus, Bishop of Turin (Sermo LXIII. De na- 
 tali saiu torum; v. Marchi, p. 142 et seq.). At 
 that period, and indeed long after, the disturbance 
 of the relics of saints was held a daring and 
 scarcely allowable act, and was prohibited by 
 Theodosius and much disapproved of by Pofie 
 Gregory the Great; nor was it until some cen¬ 
 turies later that the increasing eagerness for the 
 
 ALTAR 67 
 
 posse.ssion of such memorials was gratified by tho 
 dismemberment of the holy bodies. 
 
 It has been contended that more than one 
 altar existed in the Cathedral of Milan in the 
 latter part of the fourth century. That St. 
 Ambrose more than once uses the plural “al¬ 
 taria” in connection with the church proves 
 nothing, for “altaria” frequently means an 
 altar; but in describing the restoration of the 
 chiu-ch to the orthodox (an. 385), after the 
 attempt of the Arians to occupy it, he has been 
 understood to say that the soldiers rushing in 
 kissed the altar : hence it is argued that, as they 
 could not reach the altar of the Bema or sanc¬ 
 tuary, which was closed to the people, there 
 must have been at least one altar in the nave. 
 But the woi’ds “milites irruentes in Altaria o.s- 
 culis significare pacis signum ” (ad Marcellin'm, 
 Ep. 33) seem rather to imply that the soldiers 
 rushing into the Bema signalized by their kisses 
 the making of peace. Altaria is used in the 
 same sense, as equivalent to “sanctuary,” in the 
 Theodosian Codex. [Altarium.] However this 
 may be, at the end of the sixth century we find 
 distinct traces of a plurality of altars in Western 
 churches. Gregory of Tours (De Gloria Mar- 
 tijrum i. 33) speaks of saying masses on three 
 altars in a church at Braisne near Soissons; and 
 Gregory the Great (Epist. v. 50) says that he 
 heard that his correspondent Palladius, bishop 
 of Saintonge, had placed in a church thirteen 
 altars, of which four remained 000008001X1164 
 for defect of relics. Now' certainly Palladius 
 would not have begged of the Pope, as he ^id, 
 relics for his altar-s, if the plurality of altars 
 had not been generally allowed. Moreover, the 
 Council of Auxerre of the year 578 (Can. 10; 
 Bruns’s Canones ii. 238) forbade two masses to 
 be said on the same day on one altar, a prohi¬ 
 bition w'hich probably contributed to the multi¬ 
 plication of altars, which was still further acce¬ 
 lerated by the disuse of the ancient custom of 
 the priests communicating with the bishop or 
 principal minister of the church, and the intro¬ 
 duction of private masses, more than one of 
 which was frequently said by the same priest on 
 the same day (Walafrid Strabo, De lieb. Eccl. 
 c. 21). Bede (Hist. Eccl. v. 20) mentions that 
 Acca, bishop of Hexham (deposed an. 732), col¬ 
 lected for his church many relics of apostles 
 and martyrs, and placed altars for their vene- 
 I'atiou, “ distinct is porticibus ad hoc ipsum intra 
 muros ejusdem ecclesiae,” . placing a separate 
 canopy over each altar wMthiu the w'alls of the 
 church. There were several altars in the church 
 built by St. Benedict at Aniane (Acta Sanctorum, 
 Feb. ii. 614). 
 
 In the seventh and eighth centuries the num¬ 
 ber of altars had so increased that Charlemagne, 
 in a Capitulary of the yeai’s 805-6 at Thionville, 
 attempted to restrain their excessive multiplica¬ 
 tion. See Capitula infra Ecclesiam, c. 6 (Migne’s 
 Patrol. 97, 283). 
 
 This was not very effectual, and in the ninth 
 century the multiplication of altars attained a 
 high ])oint, as may be seen by the plan of the 
 church of St. Gall in Switzerland [Church], 
 prepared in the beginning of that century. In 
 this are no less than seventeen altars. The 
 will of Fortunatus Patriarch of Grado (dec. 
 c. A.D. 825) also affords proof of the increase in 
 the number of altars then in active progress * in 
 
 F ' 
 
68 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR 
 
 one oratory he placed three altars, and five others 
 in another (^Marin. Com. dei Veneziani, t. i. 
 p. 270). 
 
 VIII. Places of Altars in Churches. —From the 
 earliest period of which we have any knowledge, 
 the altar was usually placed, not against the 
 wall as in modern times, but on the chord of the 
 apse, when, as was almost invariably the case, 
 he church ended in an apse; when the end of 
 -he church was square, the altar occupied a 
 corresponding position. St. Augustine therefore 
 says (Serrno 46, c. 1.) “Mensa Christi est ilia in 
 medio posita.” The officiating priest stood with 
 lus back to the apse and thus faced the congre¬ 
 gation. In St. Peter’s at Rome, and a very few 
 other churches, the priest still officiates thus 
 placed; but though in very many churches, 
 particularly in Italy, the altar retains its ancient 
 position, it is very rarely that the celebrant 
 does so. 
 
 That such was the normal position of the altar 
 is shown by many ancient examples, and by the 
 constant usage of the Eastern churches. The 
 ancient rituals invariably contemplate a detached 
 altar as when, in the Sacramentary of Gregory, 
 in the order for the dedication of a church (p. 
 148), the bishop is directed to go round the altar 
 (vadit in circuitu altaris), or in the Sacramentary 
 of Gelasius where the subdeacon (L. 1, cxlvi.) 
 is directed, after having placed the Cross on the 
 altar, to go behind it (vadis retro altare). 
 
 Exceptions at an early date to the rule that 
 the altar should be detached, are of the greatest 
 rarity, if we except the tombs in the catacombs, 
 which have been supposed to have been used as 
 altars. It is possible, also, that in small chapels 
 with rectangular terminations, as the chapel 
 of St. John the Evangelist, annexed to the bap¬ 
 tistery of the Lateran, the altar may for con¬ 
 venience have been placed against the wall. 
 When, however, it became usual to place many 
 altars in a church it was found convenient to 
 place one or more against a wall; this was done 
 in the Cathedral of Canterbury [Church], where 
 the altar enclosing the body of St. Wilfrid was 
 placed against the wall of the eastern apse; 
 another altar, however, in this case occupied the 
 normal position in the eastern apse, and the 
 original high altar was placed in the same 
 manner in the western apse. 
 
 In the plan of the church of St. Gall, prepared 
 in the beginning of the ninth century, the places 
 of seventeen altars are shown, but of these only 
 two are placed against walls. 
 
 In a few instances the altar was placed not on 
 the centre of the chord of the arc of the apse but 
 more towards the middle of the church; such 
 was the case in S. Paolo f. 1. m. at Rome, if the 
 altar occupies the original position. In this in¬ 
 stance it stands in the transept. In some other 
 early churches at Rome, the altar occupies a posi¬ 
 tion more or less advanced. The Lib. Pontif. tells 
 us that in the time of Pope Gregory IV. (a.d. 827— 
 844) the altai’ at S. Maria in Trastevere stood in 
 a low plaoe^ almost in the middle of the nave (in 
 humili loco paene in media testudine), the Pope 
 thei’efore removed it to the apse, and the altar 
 al S. Maria Maggiore seems to have been in the 
 time of Pope Hadrian I. (a.d. 772-795), as 
 appears from the account in the same book of the 
 alterations, effected by that Pope in that church. 
 It is thought by some that in the large drcular 
 
 or octagonal churches of the fourth and fifth 
 centuries, as S. Lorenzo Maggiore at Milan, and 
 S. Stefano Rotondo at Rome, the altar was placed 
 in the centre. 
 
 In the churches of Justinian’s period con¬ 
 structed with domes, there is usually, as at St. 
 Sophia’s Constantinople and S. Vitale, Ravenna, a 
 sort of chancel intervening between the central 
 dome and the apse; when such is the case, the 
 altar was placed therein. 
 
 IX. Use of Pagan Altars for Christian purposes. 
 —Pagan altars, having a very small superficies, 
 ai*e evidently ill suited for the celebration of the 
 Eucharist; nor would it appear probable that a 
 Christian would be willing to use them for that 
 purpose ; nevertheless, traditions allege that in 
 some cases pagan altars were so used (v. Mar- 
 tigny art. Autel), and in the church of Arilje in 
 Sorvia, a heathen altar sculptured with a figure 
 of Atys forms the lower part of the altar. 
 (Mittheil. der K K. Central Comm, zur Erfor- 
 schung und Erhaltung der Baudenhmale, Vienna, 
 1865, p. 6.) Such altars, or fragments of them, 
 were, however, employed as materials (par¬ 
 ticularly in the base.s) in the construction of 
 Christian altars. Instances are stated by Mar- 
 tigny to have been observed in the churches of 
 St. Michele in Vaticano and of St. Nicholas de’ 
 Cesarini at Rome. 
 
 X. Portable Altars (altaria portatilia, gesta- 
 toria, viatica) are probably of considerable anti¬ 
 quity ; indeed, it is evident that from the time 
 when the opinion prevailed that the Eucharist 
 could not be fitly celebrated unless on a conse¬ 
 crated mensa or table, a portable altar became a 
 necessity. Constantine the Great (Sozomen, flist. 
 Eccl. i. 8) carried with him on his campaigns a 
 church-tent, the fittings of which no doubt in¬ 
 cluded a portable altar, as the participation of 
 the mysteries is especially mentioned. Bede 
 (^Hist. Eccl. V. 10) tells us that the two Hewalds, 
 the English missionaries to the continental 
 Saxons (an. 692), took with them sacred vessels 
 and a consecrated slab to serve as an altar (tabu- 
 lam altaris vice dedicatam); and bishop Wulfram, 
 the apostle of Friesland (before 740), was accus¬ 
 tomed to carry with him on his journeys a port¬ 
 able altar, in the midst and at the four corners 
 of which were placed relics of saints (Jonas in 
 Surius’s Eist. Sanctorum ii. 294). The portable 
 altar of St. Willebrord is described by Brower 
 (^Annal. Trevirens. an. 718, § 112, p. 364); it 
 bore the inscription: “ Hoc altare VVillebrordus 
 in honore Domini Salvatoris consecravit, supra 
 quod in itinere missarum oblationes Deo offerre 
 consuevit, in quo et continetur de ligno crucis 
 Christi et de sudario capitis ejus.” This, how¬ 
 ever, is probably not a contemporary inscrip¬ 
 tion, and the genuineness of the relic may per¬ 
 haps be doubted. St. Boniface also carried an 
 altar with him in his journeys. And the monks 
 of St. Denys, when accompanying Charles the 
 Great in his campaign against the Saxons, 
 carried with them a wooden board, which, covered 
 with a linen cloth, served as an altar (Anonymus 
 de Mirac. S. Dionysii i. 20, in Mabillon, Acta SS. 
 Ben. saec. iii. pt. 2, p. 350). 
 
 These portable altars seem to have been in 
 almost all cases of wood. Not until the latter 
 part of the eighth century do we find instances 
 of such altars being made of any other material. 
 The capitulary of 796 (quoted above) seems to 
 
ALTAR 
 
 ALTAR CLOTHS 
 
 C9 
 
 enjoin the use of stone tablets for portable as well 
 as fixed altars. Hincmar, bishop of Reims ((7a- 
 pitulare lii. c. 3 ; in Hardouin’s Concilia v. 408), 
 forbids any priest to celebrate mass e.xcept on a 
 regular altar, or on a “ tabula ab episcopo conse- 
 crata,” which table might be “ de marmore vel 
 nigra petra ant licio honestissimo.” If the read- 
 ino- be correct, the last term certainly seems to 
 indicate a consecrated cloth [Antimensium] of 
 very rich material; though «ome (Binterim’s 
 Denkuurdigkeiten iv. 1, 106) connect “licium” 
 with “sublicius,” and suppose that it means a 
 thick piece of wood. An “ altare portatile ” is 
 said to have been given by Ch-arles the Bald to 
 the monastery of St. Denys at Paris, square in 
 shape, made of porphyry set in gold, and con¬ 
 taining relics of St. James the Less, St. Stephen, 
 and St. Vincent (t6. 107). 
 
 A portable altar of wood is preserved in the 
 church of S. Maria in Campitelli at Rome, 
 which is said to have belonged to St. Gregory 
 * Nazianzen, but it does not appear to have a 
 legitimate claim to so high an antiquity. Pro¬ 
 bably no earlier existing example is to be found 
 than that which was found with the bones of 
 St. Cuthbert (dec. a.d. 687) in the cathedral of 
 Durham, and doubtless belonged to him: it is 
 now preserved in the chapter library. The an¬ 
 nexed woodcut will render anv detailed de- 
 
 Portable Altar of St. Cuthbert. 
 
 scription needless: it measures 6 inches by 5}, 
 an 1 is composed of wood covered with x'ery thin 
 silver: on the wood is inscribed in honor . . 
 s. PETRV . . and two crosses. The sense of the 
 letters on the silver has not been satisfactorily 
 made out (v. St. Cuthbert^ by James Raine, 
 p. 200). A similar portable altar is recorded by 
 Simeon of Durham {Monumenta Hist. Brit. p. 659 
 d) to have been found on the breast of St. Acca, 
 Bishop of Hexham (ob. A.D. 740), when his body 
 was exhumed more than 300 years afterwards. 
 It was of two pieces of wood joined by silver 
 nails, and on it was cut the inscription, “ Alme 
 Trinitati agie Sophie Sanctae Mari.ae.” Whether 
 relies were placed in it, the writer adds, is not 
 known. 
 
 The “ taboot ” still in use in the Abyssinian 
 
 churches is a square slab of wood, stone or metal, 
 on which the elements are consecrated, in fact, a 
 portable altar. [Arca.] 
 
 In the Greek Church the substitute fur a port¬ 
 able altar was the Antimensium. 
 
 For the consecration of altars, see Consecra 
 T iON OF Churches. 
 
 XI. Literature. — Besides the works quoted in 
 this article, the following may be mentioned : - 
 J. B. Thiers, Dissertation sur les Principaiix 
 Autels, la Cloture du Chantr et les Jube's des 
 Eglises : Paris, 1688. J. Fabricius, De Aris I V- 
 terum Christianorum: Helmstadt, 1698. G.Voigt, 
 Thysiasteriologia, seu De Alta7'ihus Veterum Ch>'is- 
 tianorurn: Ed. J. A. Fabricius; Hamburg, 1709. 
 S. T. Schbnland, Histor. Nachricht von Altdren: 
 Leipzig, 1716. J. G. Geret, De Veterum Chris- 
 ti morum Altaribus : Anspach, 1755. J. T. Trei- 
 ber, De Situ Altarium versus Orientem: Jena, 
 1668. Kaiser, Dissertatio De Altai-ibus Borta- 
 tilibus: Jena, 1695. Heideloff, Der Christ!. 
 Altar: Nurnberg, 1838. [A. N.] 
 
 ALTAR CLOTHS (linteamina, pallia or 
 pallae altaris. In Greek writers, ‘'Ap<pia, ajXTpi- 
 aapara, iirdpcpia, aTr\cifi.aTa, eVSuTai, and in 
 authors “ infimae aetatis,” rh KardcrapKa. and rb 
 Tpairi^o<p6pov). Cloths of different kinds, and of 
 various materials (in the earliest ages, probably 
 of linen only), must have been used in connection 
 with the celebration of Holy Communion from 
 the very earliest times. They were needed 
 partly for the covering of the holy table, and of 
 the oblations, and of the consecrated elements 
 [Corporale] ; partly also for the cleansing of 
 the sacred vessels, and the like [Mappa]. The 
 first of these uses, of which we have now 
 more particularly to speak, is referred to by St. 
 Optatus, Bishop of Milevis in Africa (circ. 370 
 A.D.) as matter of general notoriety. “ Who is 
 there,” he asks, “ among the faithful, who 
 knows not that during the celebration of the 
 mysteries the wood of the altar is covered with 
 a linen cloth (‘ ipsa ligna linteamine cooperiri,’ ” 
 De Schism. I'onat. lib. xd. c. i. p. 92.) With 
 this we may compare the allusion made by 
 Victor Vitensis (Z><? Fersec. Afric. lib. i. cap. 12). 
 Writing in the year 487, he says that Genseiic, 
 the Vandal, some sixty years before, sent Pi’o- 
 culus into Zeugitana, and the latter required 
 the x'essels used in holy ministry, and the books, 
 to be given up; and when these were refused 
 they were violently seized by the Vandals, who 
 “ rapaci manu cuncta depopulabantur, atque de 
 palliis altaris proh nefas ! camisias {shirts) sibi 
 et femoralia faciebant.” In the 6th century 
 St. Gregory of Tours speaks of an altar, with 
 the oblations upon it, being covered with a silken 
 cloth during the celebration of mass. “Cum 
 jam altarium cum oblationibus pallio serico 
 opertum esset” {Hist. Franc, vii. 22; compare 
 Mabillon, Liturgia Gallicana, p. 41). A little 
 later in the same passage he speaks of one claim¬ 
 ing right of sanctuary in the church, and laying 
 hold on the “pallae altaris” for his protection. 
 It is i-emarkable that at Rome no mention is 
 found of any pallia altaris among the many do¬ 
 nations to churches recorded by Anastasius, till 
 after the close of the 6th century. Writing of 
 Vitalianus Papa {sed. 658-672), Anastasius sa\T 
 that in his time the Emperor Constans came to 
 Rome and went to St. Peter’s in state, “ cum 
 
70 
 
 ALTAR CLOTHS 
 
 ALTARIUM 
 
 exei’citu siio,” attended by his guards, the clergy 
 coming out to meet him with wax tapers in their 
 hands; and he ofl'ered upon the altar “pallium 
 auro textile,”, or, according to another reading, 
 
 “ pallam auro textilem,” after which mass was 
 celebrated (Anast. Bibl. 135,1.15; Migne, P. C. C. 
 tom. 128, p. 775). The same writer, speaking 
 of Zacharias Papa (^sed. 741-752), says that he 
 “ fecit vestem super altare beati Petri ex auro 
 textam, habentem nativitatem Domini et Salva- 
 toris nostri Jesu Christi, ornavitque earn gemmis 
 pretiosis.” The earliest monument in the west, 
 showing an altar (or holy table) set out for the 
 celebration of “mass,” is of the 10th or 11th 
 century ( Vestiarium Christianum, PI. xliii.), one 
 of the frescoes in the hypogene church of S. 
 Clemente at Rome. The holy table is there 
 covered with a white cloth, which is pendent in 
 front, but apparently not so on the two sides. 
 A richly ornamented border, several inches in 
 breadth, appears on the lower edge of this “ lin- 
 teamen ” (if such be intended) as it hangs down 
 in front of the altar. 
 
 The allusions in Greek writers of early date 
 correspond in character with those above quoted. 
 In the' collection of Canons Ecclesiastical (:S,vv- 
 ■rayiia Kavovwu) formed by Photius of Constan¬ 
 tinople, the earliest in date, bearing upon this 
 point, is one of the so-called “ Canons of the 
 Apostles ” {Kau. 73) to this effect: “ Let no one 
 alienate for his own private use any vessel of 
 gold or of silver, which has been set apart for 
 holy use” (ayiacrdeu), “or any linen” (hQ6vqv')'^ 
 and the inference we naturally draw that the 
 “linen” here spoken of has reference to altar 
 linen (perhaps also to ministering vestments) 
 is confirmed by the subsequent language of the 
 First and Second Councils of Constantinople. In 
 Canons 1 and 10, after quoting the “ (janon of 
 the Apostles ” above mentioned, the Council 
 identifies the o06vr\ of that earlier canon with 
 T/ cre^acrixia t^s ayias rpa-wi^-qs iuBuri], “ the 
 sacred covering of the holy table.” On the other 
 hand a passage of Theodoret, which has been 
 alleged (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Cliretiennes, 
 in voc. ‘ Alltel ’) as proving the use of rich cloths 
 for the altar eiirly in the 4th century, has j)ro- 
 bably a very different meaning from that attri¬ 
 buted to it. The word Qvaiacrz-qpiov in early 
 ecclesiastical Greek is more fi-equently used in 
 the sense of the whole space immediately about 
 the holy table, the “sanctuary,” than of the 
 “altar” itself. When therefore Theodoret states 
 (^Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. xxix. al. cap. xxxi.) that 
 at the consecration of a church at .Jerusalem, in 
 the time of Constantine the Great, SLeKoaixiiro 
 rd diiou 6v(na<TT^piou ^a(Ti\iKo7s re irapaireTd- 
 (TfiLacnv Ka\ Kei/xr}\iois \i6oKoWr}Tois the 
 
 reference is in all probability to rich curtains, or 
 “ veils,” hung about the sanctuary, not to altar- 
 cloths properly so called. Much more certainly 
 to the purpose is a passage of St. Chrysostom 
 (//oOT. 1. al. li. in Matt. cap. xiv. 23, 24), part 
 of a homily originally delivered at Antioch, in 
 which he draws a contrast between the cover¬ 
 ings of silk, often ornamented with gold {xpvad- 
 TTaara (Tri0\r}iJ.ara), bestowed upon the holy 
 table, and the scanty covering grudgingly given, 
 or altogether refused, to Christ in the person of 
 His poor members upon earth. Among the Acts 
 of the Council of Constantinople, held in the year 
 536, is preserved (Labbe’s Concilia, by Mansi, 
 
 tom. ix. pp. 1102, 3) a curious lettei drawn up 
 by the clergy of the church of Apamea in Sjria 
 Secunda. They complain of the iniquitous con¬ 
 duct of Severus, bishop of Antioch, and of their 
 own bishop Petrus; and amid many grave charges 
 brought against the latter, one is that owing to 
 the gross carelessness (worse than carelessness is 
 charged by the letter) with which he celebrated 
 the Holy Liturgy, the purple covering of the 
 altar was defiled* (Karexpct'cre irTvafiari rov ae- 
 TTTOv dvaiao'T'qpiou tt]v aXovpy'iSa). In the 7th 
 and 8th centuries we find evidence that these 
 richer coverings of the altar were in some cases 
 adorned with symbolic ornaments and with pic- 
 tui’es of saints '^apa/cx'/jpe? ay'iwu'), which in¬ 
 curred the condemnation of the Iconoclasts, who 
 carried them away together with images and 
 pictures of other kinds. So we learn from Ger- 
 manus of Constantinople, early in the 8th century 
 (Seti. Germani Patriarchae de Sanctis Synod is, &c. 
 apud Spicileg. Rom. A. Mai, tom. vii. p. 62). 
 On the other hand, in times of grievous public*" 
 calamity, we read, in one instance at least, of th^ 
 altar as well as the person of the bishop and his 
 episcopal throne being robed in black.' So Theo- 
 dorus Lector records of Acacius, patriarch ot 
 Constantinople : koX eavrdu koX rbv dp6uov Kai 
 TO OvaiaffTripiov fxe\avo7s iv5v/j.aaiv ^fx<piecr€v. 
 In the later liturgical offices (see Goar, Euchol. 
 Grace, pp. 623, 627, sqq.), and in writers such 
 as Symeon of Thessalonica (circ. 1420 A.D.), we 
 find mention of an inner covering of linen, known 
 as KardaapKa, and of a second and more costly 
 covering without. Patriarch Symeon makes 
 further mention of four pieces of cloth on each 
 of the four corners of the altar. “The holy 
 table hath four pieces of woven cloth (rea-aapa 
 pepy v(j>da/j.aTos') upon the four corners thereof; 
 and that because the fulness of the Church was 
 formed out of all the quarters of the world ; and 
 on these four pieces are the names of the four 
 Evangelists, because it was by their instrument¬ 
 ality that the Church was gathered, and the 
 Gospel made circuit of the whole compass of the 
 world. But the [inner cover] called KardcrapKa, 
 has an outer covering (Tpajre^ocpbpor) imme¬ 
 diately above it. For here is at once the tomb, 
 and the throne, of Jesus. The first of these cover- 
 ings is as it were the linen wherein the de.ad 
 body was wrapped; but the second is as an outer 
 garment (wepi^oKr}) of glory according to that 
 of the psalm, said at the putting on thereof, 
 
 ‘ The Lord is king : he hath put on beauteous 
 apparel ’ ” (Symeon of Thessalonica, apud Goar, 
 Euchol. Grace, p. 216). Of the two wonls here and 
 elsewhere emjiloyed as the technical designation 
 of these two altar-cloths, the first, KardaupKo, 
 was originally used of an inner chiton, or tunic, 
 worn “ next the skin” (/cara adpua). Thence its 
 secondary usage as a compound word (to Kazd- 
 (TapKo) in speaking of any inner covering, as here 
 of an inner covering, of linen, for the holy table. 
 The use of the word rpairf^ocpbpuv, as a desig¬ 
 nation for the more costly outer cover, belongs 
 in all probability to a comparatively late date. 
 The word does occur in earlier writers, but in a 
 wholly different sense, and one more in accord¬ 
 ance with classical analogy. [W. B. M.] 
 
 ALTARIUM (corhpre Altar). This word 
 is sometimes used to designate not merely an altar, 
 but the space within which the altar stood. • For 
 
ALTINO 
 
 AMBITUS 
 
 71 
 
 instance, Perpetuus, Bishop of Tours, built a 
 basilica in honour of St. Martin, which had 
 “ fenestras in alt a-io triginta duas, in capso vi- 
 giuti“ ostia octo, tria in altario, quinque in 
 capso” (Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc, ii, 14), 
 Ruinart remarks upon the passage that by “alta- 
 rium ” we are to understand the presbytery, by 
 “ capsum ” the nave. Compare Mabillon, de Lit. 
 Gall. i. 8, § 1, p. 69. [Bema.] 
 
 The plural “ altaria ” is also used in a similar 
 sense ; as by St, Ambrose in the passage (Epist. 
 33) quoted under Altar ; and in the Theodosiau 
 Codex, where (Lib. ix. tit. 45, De Spatio Ecclcsi- 
 astici Asyli) it is provided : “ Pateant summi 
 Dei templa timentibus; nec sola altaria," etc. 
 The equivalent word in the Greek version is 
 duaiacTTripia. 
 
 The same extended sense is found in some 
 modern languages, e.g. in Portuguese “ altar 
 mor ” (great or high altar) is used in the sense 
 of choir or chancel (Burton, Highlands of the 
 Brazil, i. 128). [A. N.] 
 
 ALTINO (near Aquileia), Council of (Al- 
 TiNENSE Concilium), a.d. 802; considered as 
 fictitious by Mansi (xiii. 1099-1102); said to 
 have been held by the Patriarch of Aquileia to 
 appeal to Charlemagne for protection against the 
 Doge of Venice. [A. W. H.] 
 
 ALYPIUS, Holy Father, commemorated Nov. 
 26 (^Cal. Bgzant.). [C.] 
 
 AMA (A/nit/a, Hama, Hamula ; compare Germ. 
 Ahm, Ohiiie). 
 
 “ Amae vasa sunt in quibus sacra oblatio con- 
 
 tinetur, ut vinum.Amula, vas vinarium. 
 
 Amulae dicuntur quibus oftertur devotio sive 
 oblatio, simile arceolis” (Papias, in Ducange’s 
 Glossary, s. v.). The vessel in which wine for 
 the celebration of the Eucharist was oft'ered by 
 the worshippers. 
 
 The word Ama is used by Columella and other 
 classical authors, but the earliest instance of its 
 use as a liturgical vessel which has been noticed 
 is in the Charta Cornutiana of the year 471 
 (^Mahillon de Be Dipl. vi. 262), Avhere “ hamulae 
 oblatoriae ” are mentioned. “ Amae argenteae ” 
 m-e mentioned in the Ordo Romanus 1. (p. 5) 
 among the vessels which were to be brought 
 from the Church of the Saviour, now known 
 as St. John Lateran, for the Pontifical Mass 
 on Easter-Day; and in the directions for the 
 Pontifical Mass itself in the same Ordo (p. 10), 
 we find that after the Pope had entered the 
 senatorium or presbytery, the archdeacon follow¬ 
 ing him received the amulae, and poured the 
 wine into the larger chalice (calicem majorem) 
 which was held by the subdeacon; and again 
 (c. 14, p. 11) after the altar was decked, the arch¬ 
 deacon took the Pope’s amula (compare Ama- 
 lariu.', Ecloga, 554) from the oblationary sub¬ 
 deacon, and poured the wine through the strainer 
 (super colum) into the chalice [Cha.lice]; then 
 those of the deacons, of the primicerius, and the 
 others. Whether the “ amae argenteae ” are iden¬ 
 tical with the “ amulae ” may perhaps be doubted; 
 but at any rate the amulae seem to have been 
 church-vessels provided for the purpose of the 
 offertory. Among the pi-esents which Pope Ad¬ 
 rian (772-795) made to the church of St. Adrian 
 at Rome, the Liber Pontijicalis (p. 346) mentions 
 “amam unam,” and also an “amulam offertoriam ” 
 
 of silver which weighed sixty-seven pounds. 
 They were, however, often of much smaller size, 
 and the small silver vessels (see woodcuts) pre¬ 
 served in the Museo Cristiano in the Vatican 
 are deemed to be amulae. They measure only 
 about 7 inches in height, and may probably date 
 from the 5th or 6th century. Bianchini in his 
 * edition of the Lib. Pontif. has given an engraving 
 j of a similar vessel of larger size. On this the 
 I miracle of Cana is represented in a tolerably 
 good style. Bianchini supposes this to be of 
 the fourth century. 
 
 Ama, from the Vatican Mnsenm. 
 
 The material of these vessels was usually 
 silver, but sometimes gold, and they were often 
 adorned with gems. Gregory the Great {Epist. 
 i. 42, p. 539) mentions “ amulae onychinae,” 
 meaning probably vessels of onyx, or glass imi¬ 
 tating onyx. [A. N.] 
 
 AMACIUS, bishop, deposition of, July 14 
 (^Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AMANDUS, Bishop and confessor. Natalis, 
 Feb. 6 {Mart. Bedae')', translation, Oct. 26 {lb ). 
 His name is recited in the Canon in one MS. of 
 the Gregorian Sacrainentarii. (See Menard’s ed. 
 p. 284.) [C.l 
 
 AMANTIUS. (1) Martyr at Rome, com¬ 
 
 memorated Feb. 10 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Of Nyon, commemorated June 6 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AMATOR, Bishop of Auxerre, commemorated 
 Nov. 26 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AMATUS, confessor, commemorated Sept. 13 
 {Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AMBITUS, compass, in music. {Toni debi- 
 
 tus ascensus et descensus.) The compass of the 
 earliest Church melodies did not in some instances 
 reach, in few did it exceed, a fifth. “ Princijiio 
 cantilenae adeo simplices fuere apud primores 
 Ecclesiae, ut vix diapente ascensu ac descensu 
 implerent. Cui consuetudini proximo accessisso 
 dicuntur Ambrosiani. Deinde paulatiin ad Dia¬ 
 pason deventum, verum omnium Modorum sys- 
 tema.” (Glareanus, Dodecachordon, lib. i. cap. 
 xiv.) In Gregorian music the uctave wa* the 
 
AMBITUS ALTAIilS 
 
 AMBO 
 
 72 
 
 limit; the four authentic scales [Authentic] 
 moving from the key-note to its 8ve, the four 
 jjlagal [Plagal] from the 4th below the key¬ 
 note to the 5th above it. In later times this 
 compass (^ambitus) was much extended. A me¬ 
 lody occupying or employing its whole compass 
 was called Cantus Perfectus; falling short of it, 
 Cantus Fmperfectus; exceeding it, Cantus Plus- 
 quamperfectus. Subsequently other interpre¬ 
 tations (such as the course of modulation per¬ 
 mitted in fugue) have been given to the word 
 ambitus. With these we are not now concerned. 
 (Gerbert, Script. Mus. ; Forkel; Kock, Mus. 
 Lex.) [J. H.] 
 
 AMBITUS ALTARIS (TepoTetov, Renaudot, 
 Ljit. Orient, i. 182). This expression is some¬ 
 times used, as apparently by Anastasius (^Lib. 
 Fontif. in Vita Sergii IF.), for the enclosure 
 which surrounded the altar. Pope Sergius II. 
 (a.d. 844—877), he says, constructed at St. John 
 Laterau an “ambitus altaris ” of ampler size 
 than that which had before existed. 
 
 It would seem that it was, in some cases and 
 perhaps in most, distinct from the presbyterium 
 or “ chorus cantorum and according to Sarnelli 
 (^Antica Basilicographia, p. 84) there was usually 
 between the presbyterium and the altar a raised 
 space called “solea.” Various passages in the 
 FJb. Pontif. — e.g. those in which the alterations 
 made by Pope Hadrian I. (a.d. 772-795) at 
 S. Paolo f. 1. M., and by Pope Gregory IV. (a.d. 
 827-844) at Sta. Maria in Trastevere, are de¬ 
 scribed—show that the position of the altar and 
 the arrangement of the enclosures were not alike 
 in all cases. It seems not improbable but that in 
 the lesser churches one enclosure served both to 
 fence round the altar and to form the “chorus.” 
 
 In the plan prepared for the church of St. 
 Gall in the beginning of the 9th century (v. 
 woodcut, s. V. Church) an enclosure is marked 
 “ chorus,” and a small space or passage intervenes 
 between this and an enclosure shutting off the 
 apse, within which stands the altar. This is at 
 the west end of the church; at the east end the 
 apse is in like manner enclosed, but the enclosure 
 of the “ chorus ” is brought up to the steps 
 leading to the raised apse without a break. A 
 small enclosure is shown round all the altars, 
 except those which are within the enclosures of 
 the apses. 
 
 It appears not unlikely that the squai-e en¬ 
 closure in the church at Djemla in Algeria 
 [Church] may be such an “ambitus;” Mr. 
 Kergusson considers this enclosure a cel la or 
 choir, and says that it seems to have been enclosed 
 up to the roof, but that the building is so ruined 
 that this cannot be known for a certainty. A 
 choir enclo.sed by solid walls would be a plan so 
 anomalous in a Christian church that very 
 strong evidence would be required to prove its 
 having existed. The building in question may, 
 from the purely classical character of the mosaic 
 floor, be safely assigned to an early date, probably 
 anterior to the fourth century. 
 
 It is doubtful whether any early example of 
 an “Ambitus altaris” now exists. We may learn 
 from the Lib. Pontif. that they were usually of 
 stone or marble, no doubt arranged in posts or 
 uprights alternating with slabs variously sculp¬ 
 tured, and pierced in like manner with the 
 presbyterium at S. Clemente in Rome. The Lib. 
 
 Pontif. tells us of the Ambitus which is above 
 mentioned Pope Sergius II. constructed at St. 
 John Lateran, that he “ pulchris columnis cum 
 marmoribus desuper in gyro sculptis splendide 
 decoravit: ” many fragments of marble slabs 
 with the plaited and knotted ornament charac¬ 
 teristic of this period are preserved in the 
 cloister of that church, and may probably be 
 fragments of this “Ambitus.” 
 
 In the richer churches sih'er columns bearing 
 arches of the same metal were often erected on 
 the marble enclosure, and from these arches hung 
 rich curtains, and frequently vessels or crowns 
 of the precious metals ; repeated mention of such 
 decorations may be found in the Lib. Pontif., and 
 a passage in the will of Fortunatus Patriarch of 
 Grado (Hazlitt, /Fist, of the- Republic of Venice, 
 vol. i. App.), who died in the early part of the 9th 
 century, describes a like arrangement very clearly 
 in the following words: “Post ipsum altare alium 
 parietem deauratum et deargentatum similiter 
 longitudine pedum xv. et in altitudine pedes iv. et 
 super ipso pariete arcus volutiles de argento et 
 super ipsos arcus imagines de auro et de argento.” 
 
 This expression “ ambitus altaris ” may per¬ 
 haps also sometimes stand for the apse as sur¬ 
 rounding the altar. [A. N.] 
 
 AjMBO (Gr. ''A/xfiuv, from ava^aiv^iv). The 
 raised desk in a church from which certain 
 parts of the service were read. It has been 
 also called irvpyos, pulpitum, suggestus. By 
 Sozomen (Rccles. FFist. ix. 2, p. 367) the ambo 
 is explained to be the “ firf/jLa riav avayvwaruv ” 
 —the pulpit of the readers. From it were read, 
 or chanted, the gospel, the epistle, the lists of 
 names inscribed on the diptychs, edicts of bishops, 
 a^id in general any communications to be made 
 to the congregation by presbyters, deacons, or 
 subdeacons; the bishop in the earlier centuries 
 being accustomed to deliver his addresses from 
 the cathedra in the centre of the apse, or from a 
 chair placed in front of the altar; St. John Chry¬ 
 sostom was, however, in the habit of preaching 
 sitting on the ambo (IttI rov Socrates 
 
 Eccl. FFist. vi. 5), in order that he might be 
 better heard. Full details as to the use of the 
 ambo will be found in Sarnelli (^Antica Basilico- 
 grafia, p. 72), and Ciampini (Tef. Mon., t. i. p. 
 21 et seq.); but the examples which they describe 
 are probably later by several centuries than the 
 period v.’ith which we are now concerned, and 
 the various refinements of reading the gospel 
 from a higher elevation than the epistle, and 
 the like, are probably by no means of very early 
 introduction. Two and even three amboncs some¬ 
 times existed; one was then used for the gospel, 
 one for the epistle, and one for the reading of 
 the prophetical or other books of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret.). In the 
 old church of St. Peter’s there was, however, 
 but one, which Platner (^Beschreibung vo7i Rom) 
 thinks was a continuance of the ancient usage. 
 
 Something in the nature of an ambo or desk no 
 doubt was in use from a very early perioil. 
 Bunsen {Basiliken des Christlichen Roiyis, p. 48) 
 expresses his opinion that the ambo was origin¬ 
 ally moveable. In the earlier centuries much of 
 the church furniture was of wood, and the am- 
 bones were probably of the same material. 
 Wherever a “ presbyterium ” or “ chorus can¬ 
 torum” (i.e. an enclosed space in front of the 
 
AMBO 
 
 AMBROSIAN MUSIC 
 
 73 
 
 altar reserved for the use of the inferior clergy) 
 existed, an ambo was probably connected with it, 
 being placed usually on one side of the enclosure. 
 Where no “chorus” existed, the ambo was pro¬ 
 bably placed in the centre. 
 
 At St Sophia’s in Constantinople the ambo con- | 
 structed by Justinian stood nearly in the middle ' 
 of the church, but more towards the east. A full 
 account of it is given by Paul the Silentiary in a 
 poem in hexameter verse upon it. From this we 
 learn that it was ascended by two flights of 
 stairs, one from the west, the other from the east; 
 and that it was covered by a canopy i-esting on 
 eight columns. It was constructed of the mos^ 
 precious marbles, and adorned wjth gold and 
 precious stones. The area at the top of the stairs 
 was sufficiently spacious for the coronation of the 
 Emperor, and the space below enclosed by rail¬ 
 ings was occupied by the singers. During the 
 services the gospels and epistles were no doubt 
 i-ead from the raised part. 
 
 Pope Pelagius (555-559) erected an ambo in 
 Ct. Peter’s (Zj6. I'ontif.), and in the cathedral of 
 Ravenna are the remains of one ei'ected by 
 Archbishop Agnellus (558-566). This last is 
 ornamented with figures of lambs, peacocks, 
 doves, fishes, &c., within panels, the design and 
 execution being poor and rude. 
 
 WiliP;l|l|ll"l||l'l|l 
 
 mjii.ii’im I'utuij 
 
 Ambo of S. ApoUinare Nuovo, at Ravenna 
 
 {aiiinmuiiuiiuiii 
 
 The ambo represented in the woodcut is in the 
 church of S. ApoUinare Nuovo at Ravenna, the 
 date of its erection has not been ascertained 
 with certainty, but it would seem not impro¬ 
 bable that it formed a part of the original fittings 
 of the church built between a.d. 493 and a.d. 
 525. The pillars on which it is now elevated 
 were doubtless added at some later period, when 
 it was arranged in order to be employed as a 
 pulpit 
 
 The ambones in S. Clemente at R. me are of 
 different periods: the smaller and ear’ier may 
 perhaps be of the same date as the cn( rus with 
 which it is connected (6th century ?), but there 
 is some difference in the character of the work. 
 The larger dates probably from the 12th century, 
 as no doubt does also that in S. Lorenzo f. 1. M. at 
 Rome. The circumstance upon which the Abbe 
 Martigny (^Dict. des Antiq. Cht'et.) relies as prov¬ 
 ing the high antiquity of this last, viz. that a 
 part of its base is formed from a bas-relief relating 
 to pagan sacrifices, cannot be considered as having 
 much weight, as a part of the superstructure is 
 formed from a slab bearing an early Christian 
 inscription, and as the whole style and character 
 of the work are so evidently those in use at Rome 
 during the 12th and 13th centuries. 
 
 The lesser and earlier ambo at S. Clemente has 
 two desks—-one, the most elevated, looking towards 
 the altar, the other in the contrary direction ; 
 the later ambo has a semi-hexagonal projection 
 on each side, and is ascended by a stair at each 
 end. This latter plan seems to have been the 
 more usual; the ambones at Ravenna and those at 
 Rome of the 12th and 13th centuries are all thus 
 planned. 
 
 In the plan for the church of St. Gall (c. A.D. 
 820), the ambo is placed in the middle of the 
 nave but near its eastern end, in front of the 
 enclosure marked “ chorus,” and is within an 
 enclosure. 
 
 A tall ornamented column is often found at¬ 
 tached to the ambo ; on this the paschal candle 
 was fixed. This usage may have existed from 
 an early period, but perhaps the earliest existing 
 example of such a column is one preserved in the 
 museum of the Lateran at Rome, w’hich however 
 is probably not older than the 11th century. It 
 is engraved by Ciampini (Vet. 3fon., t. i. pi. xiv.). 
 
 According to Sarnelli (A7it. Bas. p. 84), the 
 word ambo is the proper expression for the raised 
 platform or chorus cantorum ; he however gives 
 no authorities for this use of the word. [A. N.] 
 
 AMBROSE. (1) Bishop of Milan, confessor, 
 commemorated April 4: (Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., 
 Bedae)', Dec. 7 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (2) Bishop, commemorated Nov. 30 (Mart. 
 Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 AMBROSIAN MUSIC, the earliest music 
 used in the Christian Church of wffiich we have 
 any account, and so named after Ambrose, bishop 
 of Milan (374-398), who introduced it to his 
 diocese about the year 386, during the reign of 
 Constantine. 
 
 The notions prevailing among musical and 
 other writers respecting the peculiarities of 
 Ambrosian music are based rather on conjecture 
 than knowledge. It may be considered certain 
 that it was more simple and less varied than the 
 Gregorian music which, about two centuries 
 later, almost everywhere superseded it. Indeed 
 it has been doubted whether actual melody at 
 all entered into it, and conjectured that it was 
 only a kind of musical speech—monotone with 
 melodic closes, or Acckntus Ecclksiastici’S, 
 a kind of music, or mode of musical utterance, 
 which Gregory retained for collects and responso.-J, 
 but which he rejected as too simple for psalms 
 and hymns. On the other hand, it has been 
 argued more plausibly that, to whatever extent 
 the Accentus or Modus choraliter legendi may 
 
74 
 
 AMBROSIAN MUSIC 
 
 AMBROSIAN MUSIC 
 
 nave been used in Ambrosian music, an element 
 more distinctly musical entered largely^ into it ; 
 that a decided ca itus, as in Gregorian music, was 
 used for the psalms; and that something which 
 might even now be called melody was employed 
 for (especially metrical) hymns. That this me¬ 
 lody was narrow in compass [Ambitus], and 
 little varied in its intervals, is probable or cer¬ 
 tain. The question however is not of quality, 
 but of kind. Good melody does not of necessity 
 involve many notes; Rousseau has composed a 
 very sweet one on only three (Consolations des 
 Miseres de ma 1 ie, No. 53). 
 
 The probability that this last view of Ambro- 
 .sian music is the right one is increased by the 
 accounts of its effect in performance, given in 
 the Benedictine Life of St. Ambrose, drawn from 
 his own works, wherein one especial occasion is 
 mentioned on which the whole congregation sang 
 certain hymns with .such fervour and unction 
 that many could not restrain their tears—an 
 incident confirmed by an eye-witness, St. Augus¬ 
 tine. “ How did I weep,” he says, “ in Thy 
 hymns and canticles, touched to the quick by 
 the voices of Thy sweet attuned Church ! The 
 voices flowed into mine ears, and the truth dis¬ 
 tilled into my heart, whence the affections of my 
 devotions overflowed, and tears ran down, and 
 happy was 1 therein.”® It is difficult to attri¬ 
 bute to mere “ musical speech,” however em¬ 
 ployed, such effects as these, even upon the 
 rudest and least instructed people, a fortiori, on 
 persons like Augustine, accomplished in all the 
 learning and the arts of his time. The hymns 
 and canticles must surely have been conjoined, 
 and the voices attuned to a sweeter and more 
 expressive song. “ Dulcis est cantilena,” says 
 Ambrose (Op.t. i. p. 1052) himself, “quae non 
 corpus effeminat, sed mentem animamque con- 
 firmat.” Whatever its properties, its usefulness, 
 or its dignity, no one would apply the epithet 
 dulcis to the Accentus Ecclesiasticus, or speak of 
 it, or anything like it, as cantilena. 
 
 That neither Augustine nor any contemporary 
 writer has described particularly, or given us 
 any technical account of, the music practised by 
 the Milanese congregations of the end of the 4th 
 century, however much we may regret it, need 
 hardly cause us any surprise. We are very im¬ 
 perfectly informed about many things nearer to 
 us in point of time, and practically of more im¬ 
 portance. Augustine has indeed told us in what 
 manner the psalms and hymns were sung in the 
 church of St. Ambrose, and that this manner was 
 exotic and new.*’ But of the character of the 
 song itself—in what the peculiarity of the Cantus 
 Anihrosianus consisted—he tells us nothing. Pos¬ 
 sibly there was little to tell; and the only pecu¬ 
 liarity consisted in the employment in psalmody 
 of more melodious strains than heretofore — 
 strains not in themselves new, but never before 
 
 a “ Quantum flevi In hymnis et canticis tuis, suave 
 sonantis Ecclesiae tiiae vocibus commotus acriter! Voces 
 illae influebant auribus meis, et eliquabatur veritas in cor 
 meum; et exaestuabat inde affectus pietatis, et currebant 
 lacrimae, et bene mihi erat cum eis.”—-S. Augustini 
 Cmfessionum, lib. ix. cap. vi. c. 14. 
 
 b “Tunc hymni et psalmi ut ‘canerentur’ secundum 
 morem orientalium partiutn, ne populus maeroris taedio 
 contabesceret, institutum est; et ex illo in hodiemuin re- 
 teiitum, Hiultis jam ac pene omnibus gregibus tuis, et per 
 cetera orbis imitanlibus."— Con/., lib. ix. cap. 7-15. 
 
 .so employed ; for, “ in the first ages of Chri.sti- 
 anity,” says St. Isidore, “ the psalms were re¬ 
 cited in a manner more approaching speech than 
 song.”' In this view most writers on Ambrosian 
 music have concurred ; that it was veritable 
 song, in the proper musical sense of the word, 
 not musical speech or “half-song;” and that, 
 not on>ly was it based on a scale system or tona¬ 
 lity perfectly well understood, but that its 
 rhythmus was subject to recognised laws. S. 
 Ubaldo, the author of a work (Disquisitio de 
 cantu a D. Ainhrosio in Mediolanensem ecclesiiim 
 introducto, Mediolani, 1695) especially devoted 
 to Ambrosian music, says expressly that St. Am¬ 
 brose was not the first to introduce antiphonal 
 singing into the West, but that he did introduce 
 w'hat the ancients called Cantus Ifarmonicus, on 
 account of its determined tonality and variety of 
 intervals, properties not needed in, and indeed 
 incongruous with, musical speech. With this 
 Cantus Harmonicus was inseparably connected 
 the Cantus Ixhythmicus or Metricus; so that, bv 
 the application of harmonic (i. e. in the modern 
 sense, melodic') rule, a kind of melody was jiro- 
 duced in some degree like our own. That Am¬ 
 brosian music was rhythmical is irrefragably at¬ 
 tested by the variety of metres employed by 
 Ambrose in his own hymns, and that such was 
 held to have been the ca.se for many centuries is 
 confirmed by Guido Aretinus and John Cotton 
 (11th century). 
 
 The first requisite of melody is that the sounds 
 composing it be not only in the same “ system,” 
 but also in some particular scale or succession, 
 based upon and moving about a given sound. 
 The oldest scales consisted at the most of four 
 sounds, whence called tetrachords. The influ¬ 
 ence of the tetrachord was of long duration ; it 
 is the theoretical basis even of modern tonality. 
 Eventually scales extended in practice to penta¬ 
 chords, hexachords, heptachords, and ultimately 
 octachords, as with us. The modern scale 
 may be defined as a succession of sounds con¬ 
 necting a given sound with its octave. The 
 theory and practice of the octachord were fami¬ 
 liar to the Greeks, from whose system it is 
 believed Ambrose took the first four octachords 
 or modes, viz. the Phrygian, Dorian, Hypolydian, 
 and Hypophrygiau,* called by the first Christian 
 writers on music Protus, Deuterus, Tritus, and 
 Tetrardus. Subsequently the Greek provincial 
 names got to be misapplied, and the Ambrosian 
 system appeared as follows : 
 
 Protcs or Dorian. 
 
 
 
 Tin ^ 
 
 
 xSz^ 'S' 
 
 
 S’ 
 
 Decterus or Phrygian. 
 
 —y - ^ ^ 
 
 
 ^- 
 
 Tritus or Aeolian. 
 
 
 -J/t - ' - 
 
 
 
 
 ^ - - 
 
 Tetrardus or Mvxolydian. 
 
 -9— -- ^ —1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r—^ 
 
 These scales differ essentially from our scales, 
 
 ' “Ita, ut pronuntianti vicinior esset, quani psalleuti." 
 —De OJic., cap. vii. 
 
AMBROSIAN MUSIC 
 
 AMEN 
 
 75 
 
 major or minor, of D, E, F, G, which are virtu¬ 
 ally transpositions of one another, or identical 
 scales at a higher or lower pitch, the seats of 
 whose two semitones are always in the same 
 places,—between the 3rd and 4th and the 7th 
 and 8th sounds severally. Whereas the Greek 
 and Ambrosian scales above are not only unlike 
 one another (the seats of the semitones being in 
 all different), but they are also unlike either our 
 modern typical major scale of G, which has its 
 semitones between the 3rd and 4th and 7th and 
 8th sounds, or our typical minor scale of A, 
 which has one of its semitones always between 
 the 2nd and 3rd sounds, another between the 5th 
 and 6th or the 7th and 8th, and in its chromatic 
 form between both. 
 
 Modern Typical Major Scale. 
 
 Modern Typical Minor Scale. 
 
 i 
 
 The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ambrosian scales 
 or tones therefore are not what we now call 
 “keys,” but “modes,” differing from one another 
 as the modern major and minor modes differ, in 
 the places of their semitones. Melodies there¬ 
 fore in this or that Ambrosian “ tone ” have a 
 variety of character analogous to that which 
 distinguishes our major and minor modes so very 
 widely. Thus tenderness is the popular attri¬ 
 bute of the minor mode; strength and clearness 
 are those of the major. In like manner one 
 Ambrosian tone was supposed to be characterised 
 by dignity, another by languor, and so on. 
 
 The rhythmus of Ambrosian melody is thought 
 by some to have consisted only in the adaptation 
 to long and short syllables of long and short 
 notes. “Of what we call time,” says Forkel 
 (^Gesch. der Musik, ii. 168),—the proportion 
 between the different divisions of the same 
 melody,—“ the ancients had no conception.” 
 He does not tell us how they contrived to march 
 or to dance to timeless melodies—melodies with 
 two beats in one foot and three in another, or 
 three feet in one phrase and four in another, nor 
 how vast congregations were enabled to sing 
 them ; and if anything is certain about Ambrosian 
 song it is that it was above all things congrega¬ 
 tional. 
 
 Whether Ambrose was acquainted with the 
 use of musical characters is uncertain. Probably 
 he was. The system he adopted was Greek, and 
 he could hardly make himself acquainted with 
 Greek music without having acquired some 
 knowledge of Greek notation, which, though in¬ 
 tricate in its detail, was simple in its principles. 
 But even the invention, were it needed, of cha¬ 
 racters capable of representing the compara¬ 
 tively few sounds of Ambrosian melody could 
 have been a matter of no difficulty. Such cha¬ 
 racters needed only to represent the pitch of 
 these sounds j their duration was dependent on. 
 
 and sufficiently indicated by, the metre. Copies 
 of Ambrosian music-books are preserved in .somo 
 libraries, which present indications of what may 
 be, probably are, musical characters. Possibly 
 however these are additions by later hands. It 
 is certain that, in the time of Charlemagne, Am¬ 
 brosian song was finally superseded, except in 
 the Milanese, by Gregorian. The knowledge 
 of the Ambrosian musical alphabet, if it ever 
 existed, may, in such circumstances, and in such 
 an age, have easily been lost, though the melo¬ 
 dies themselves were long preserved tradition¬ 
 ally. [J. H.] 
 
 AMBROSIANUM.—This word in old litur¬ 
 gical writings often denotes a hymn, from S. 
 Ambrose having been the first to introduce 
 metrical hymns into the service of the Church. 
 Originally the wmrd may have indicated that the 
 particular hymn was the composition of S. 
 Ambrose, and hence it came to signify anv hymn. 
 Thus S. Benedict, in his directions for Nocturns, 
 says, “Post hunc psalmus 94 (Venite) cum anti- 
 phona, aut certe decantandus.® Inde sequatur 
 Ambrosianum: Deinde sex psalmi cum anti- 
 phonis.” Also, S. Isidore de Divin. off. lib. i. 
 c. 1, § 2, speaking of hymns, mentions S. 
 Ambrose of Milan, whom he calls “a most illus¬ 
 trious Doctor of the Church, and a copious com¬ 
 poser of this kind of poetry. Whence (he adds) 
 from his name hymns are called Amhrosians,” 
 (unde ex ejus nomine hymni Ambrosiani appel- 
 lantur). [H. J. H.] 
 
 AMEN (Heb. |1^^<). The formula by which 
 
 one expresses his concurrence in the prayer of 
 another, as for instance in Deut. xxvii. 15. 
 
 1. This word, which was used in the services 
 of the synagogue, was transferred unchanged in 
 the very earliest age of the Church to the 
 Christian seiwices [compare Alleluia] ; for the 
 Apostle (1 Cor. xiv. 16) speaks of the Amen of 
 the assembly which followed the evxapiaria, or 
 thanksgiving. And the same custom is traced 
 in a series of authorities. Justin Martyr {ApoL 
 i. c. 65, p. 127) notices that the people present 
 say the Amen after prayer and thanksgiving; 
 Dionysius of Alexandria (in Euseb. H. E. vii. 9, p. 
 253, Schwegler) speaks of one who had often 
 listened to the thanksgiving (euxapiffTld), and 
 joined in the Amen which followed. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem (^Catechismus Mystag. 5, p. 331) says 
 that the Lord’s Prayer is sealed with an Amen. 
 Jerome, in a well-known passage (Prooemium in 
 lib. ii. Comment. Ep. Gal., p. 428) speaks of the 
 thundering sound of tiu Amen of the Roman 
 congregations. 
 
 2. The formula of consecration in the Holy 
 Eucharist is in most ancient liturgies ordered to 
 be said aloud, and the people respond Amen. Pro¬ 
 bably, however, the custom of saying this part 
 of the service secrete —afterwards universal in 
 the West—had already begun to insinuate itself 
 in the time of Justinian ; for that emperor ordered 
 (Novella 123, in Migne’s Patrol, tom. 72, p. 1026), 
 that the consecration-formula should be said 
 aloud, expressly on the ground that the people 
 might respond Amen at its termination. [Com¬ 
 pare Canon.] In most Greek liturgies also, 
 
 * This is explalred as “oninino protrahendo et ah uno 
 aut a pluribus iii<rose” or as “in directum .‘>ine Antl- 
 phona.” Marti ni- e Ant. Mon. rit.. Lib. 1. cap. ii. 22. 
 
AMENESIUS 
 
 AMICE 
 
 76 
 
 when the priest in administering says, “ o-w/xa 
 Xpiarov,” the receiver answers A7nen. So, too, 
 in the Clementine Liturgy, at'ter the ascription 
 of Glory to God (^Apost. Const, viii. 13, p. 215, 
 ’Jltzen). (Bona, De liebus Liturgicis, 1. ii. cc. 5, 
 12, 17.) [C.] 
 
 AMENESIUS, deacon, commemorated Nov. 
 
 iO (^Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AMICE (^Amictus, Humerale., Superhuinerale 
 or Ephodi Anaboladiuin, Anabolagiurn, Anagolai- 
 uin). § 1. The word Amictus is employed in clas¬ 
 sical writers as a general term for any outer 
 garment. Thus Virgil employs it (Acn. iii. 405) 
 in speaking of the toga, ornamented with purj)le, 
 the end of which was thrown about the head by 
 priests and other official persons when engaged 
 in acts of sacrifice. (See for example “ the 
 Emperor sacrificing,” from the column of Trajan, 
 Vest. Christ, pi. iii.) The same general usage 
 may be traced in the earlier ecclesiastical writers, 
 as in St. Jerome, and in Gregory of Toui-s, who 
 uses the word in speaking of a bride’s veil. St, 
 Isidore of Seville (circ. 630 A.D.) nowhere em¬ 
 ploys the word as the designation of any par¬ 
 ticular garment, sacred or otherwise. But in 
 defining the meaning of anaboladium (a Greek 
 word which at a later time was identified with 
 amictus as the name of a sacred vestment), he 
 describes it as “ amictorium lineum feminarum 
 quo humeri operiuntur, quod Graeci et Latini 
 sindonein vocant.” (Origines, xix. 25.) With 
 this may be compared St. Jerome on Isaiah, cap. 
 iii., where in referring to the dress of Hebrew 
 women, he says, “ Habent sindones quae vocantur 
 amictoria.” This usage of “ amictorium,” and 
 its equivalent “ anaboladium,” in speaking of a 
 linen garment worn by women as a covering for 
 the shoulders, will prepare us for the first refer¬ 
 ence to the “amictus” as a vestment early in 
 the 9th century, when it is compared by Rabanus 
 Maurus (such seems to be his meaning) with the 
 “ superhumerale” of Levitical use (^Be Instit. 
 Cler. Lib. 1. cap. 15). Rabanus, however, does 
 not use the word “ amictus,” though he seems 
 evidently to refer to the vestment elsewhere so 
 called. Amalarius of Metz, writing about the 
 same time (circ. 825 A.D.), speaks of the “ amic¬ 
 tus” as being the first in order of the vestments 
 of the Chui’ch, “ primum vestimentum nostrum 
 quo collum undique cingimus.” Hence its sym¬ 
 bolism in his eyes as implying “ castigatio vocis,” 
 the due restraint of the voice, whose organs are 
 in the throat (JDe Eccl. Off. ii. 17.). Walafrid 
 Strabo writing some few years later (he was a 
 pupil of Rabanus), enumerates the eight vest¬ 
 ments of the Chui'ch, but without including in 
 them the amice (i)<? Reb. Eccl. c. 24.). But in all 
 the later liturgical writers the vestment is named 
 under some one or other of the various designa¬ 
 tions enumerated at the head of this article. 
 As to its use in this country there is no evidence 
 till nearly the close of the Saxon i^eriod. It is 
 not mentioned in the Pontifical of Egbert. In 
 a later Anglo-Saxon Pontifical (of the 10th cen¬ 
 tury, Dr. Rock says,) among the vestments 
 enumerated occurs mention of the “ super¬ 
 humerale seu poderem,” an expression whioh has 
 been supposed to point to the amice, though the 
 use of “ poderis,” as an alternative name, seems 
 to make this somewhat doubtful. (Quoted by 
 
 Dr. Rock, Church of our Fathers, vol. i. p. 465; 
 from the Archaeologia, vol. xxv, p. 28.) 
 
 § 2. Shape of the Amice, its Material, and orna¬ 
 mentation. The amice was originally a square or 
 oblong piece of linen, somewhat such as that 
 which forms the background in the accompany¬ 
 ing woodcut, and was probably worn nearly as 
 shown in Fig, 1, so as to cover the neck and 
 
 Amice. 
 
 shoulders. Early in the 10th century (a.d. 925) 
 we hear, for the first time, of ornaments of gold 
 on the amice. (^Testamentum Reculfi Episcopi in 
 Migne’s Patrologia, tom. cxxxii. p. 468, “ caligas 
 et sandalias paria duo, amictos [sfc] cum auro 
 quattuor.”) This ornament was probably an 
 “ aurifrigium ” or “ orfrey.” From the 11th 
 century onwards the richer amices were adorned 
 with embroidery, and at times even with pre¬ 
 cious stones. These ornaments were attached to 
 a portion only of the amice, a comparatively 
 small patch, known as a plaga, or pat-ui'a (i. e., 
 paratura) being fastened on (see Fig. 4 in wool- 
 
 Fig. 4. 
 
 cut) so as to appear as a kind of collar above the 
 alb (see Fig, 3). An example is given of late 
 date, to show the shape of the pat'ura, as, from 
 the nature of the material, very early amices 
 are not extant. These parurae were known in 
 later times as “ collaria ” or “ colleria ” (see 
 Rock, Ch. of our Fathers, i. 470). 
 
 § 3. How uoi-n .—All the earlier notices of 
 the amice are such as to imply that it was worn 
 on the neck and shouldei-s only. Honorius of 
 Autun (writing circ. 1125 .y.D.) is the first who 
 speaks of it as being placed on the head. “ Hu- 
 merale quod in Lege Ephot, apud nos Amictus 
 dicitur, sibi imponit et illo caput et collum et 
 humeros (unde et Humerale dicitur) cooperit, et 
 in pectore copula turn duabusvittis ad mammillas 
 cingit. Per Humerale quod capiti imponitur 
 spes caelestium intelligitur.” (^Oemma animae, i. 
 c. 201.) It appears to have been temporarily 
 placed on the head (as shown in Fig. 2 of the 
 above woodcut) till the other vestments were 
 arranged, after which it was turned down so 
 that the parura might appear in its proper 
 place. To this position on the head is to be 
 referred its later symbolism as a helmet of 
 
AMICUS 
 
 AMPULLA 
 
 77 
 
 Galvation. “ Amictus pro galea caput obnubit.” 
 Durandi Rationale iii. 1. For other symbol' 
 isms see Innocent III., De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, 
 i. cc. 35 and 50. (The woodcut above is from 
 Dr. Bock’s Geschichte der liturgischen Gewdnder^ 
 
 B. ii. Taf. ii.) [W. B. M.] 
 
 AMICUS, confessor at Lyons, commemorated 
 July 14 (^Mai't. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AMMON. (1) Commemorated Feb. 7 (^Mart, 
 Hieron.)^ 
 
 (2) Commemorated Feb. 9 (3f. Hieron.^ Bedae'). 
 
 (3) 'A/j-fiovy, the deacon, with the forty women 
 his disciples, martyrs, commemorated Sept. 1 
 (^Cal. Byzant.)- 
 
 (4) Commemorated Sept. 10 (Af. Hieron.^ 
 Bedae'). 
 
 (6) Martyr at Ale.\andria, Dec. 20 {Mart. 
 Rofin. Vet.., Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AMMON ARIA, martyr at Alexandria, com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 12 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.T 
 
 AMMONIUS. (1) Martyr, Jan. 31 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (2) Infant of Alexandria, commemorated Feb. 
 12 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (3) Commemorated Oct. 6 {M. Hieron.). [C.J 
 
 AMOS, the prophet, commemorated June 15 
 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AMPELUS of Messana, commemorated Nov. 
 20 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 AMPHIBALUM or AMPHIBALUS. § 1. 
 This word appears to be confined to Gallican 
 writers. And this fact, coupled with its Greek 
 derivation, pointing as this does to a very early 
 period for its introduction, is noticeable, as one 
 among many instances of diversities of usage 
 in minor matters, characteristic of the Gallican 
 church, and indicating an origin distinct from 
 that of other western churches. 
 
 § 2. Form of the vestment, and its prevailing 
 use. There are three passages to which refer¬ 
 ence may here be made as determining all that 
 can with certainty be known with regard to 
 the vestment now in question. St. Remigius, 
 Archbishop of Arles, dying about 500 a.d., 
 left to his successor in the see “ Amphibalum 
 album paschalem,” a white amphibalus for 
 use on Sundays and high festivals. (For 
 ‘paschalis’ see Ducange in voc.) We cannot 
 here conclude with absolute certainty that it 
 is of a vestment for church use that he is 
 speaking, though the context seems to imply 
 this. (The quotation is from the Testamentum 
 S. Remigii Remensis, apud Galland, Bibliothec. 
 Pat., tom. X. p. 806.) But in the passages that 
 follow this meaning is beyond doubt. In a life 
 of S. Bonitus {alias S. Bonus), f circ. 710, a.d. 
 written, as it is supposed, by a contemporary 
 {Acta Sanctorum Januar., d. xv. p. 1071 sqq.), we 
 are told that the saint was much given to weep¬ 
 ing even in church ; so much so, that the upper 
 part of his amphibalus, which served as a cover¬ 
 ing for his head, was found to be wet with the 
 tears he shed. “ Lacrimarum ei gratia in sacro 
 non deei'at officio ita ut amphibali summitas, qua 
 caput tegebatur, ex profusione earum madida 
 videretur.” This “upper part” of the amphi¬ 
 balus was evidently a kind of hood (like that of 
 
 the casula), separable, in some sort, from the 
 rest of the garment. For the saint is repre¬ 
 sented as appearing after death, in a vision, to a 
 certain maiden, devoted to God’s service, and 
 sending through her a message to the “ mother ” 
 of the neighbouring monastery, bidding her keep 
 by her (no doubt as a relic) that part of his 
 amphibalus which covered his head. “ Ut par¬ 
 tem amphibali mei qua caput tegitur, secum r?.- 
 tineat.” 
 
 Even in this passage, however, though it is 
 evidently spoken of as worn in church, and 
 during the “ holy office,” it does not follow that 
 a sacerdotal vestment, distinctively so called, is 
 there intended. The mention of the hood (or 
 hood-like appendage) as worn over the head 
 points rather to use in the choii*. But in a 
 fragmentary account of the Gallican rite, of un¬ 
 certain date, but probably of the 9th or 10th 
 century, the word amphibalus is used as equiva¬ 
 lent to the “ casula,” then regarded as specially 
 belonging to sacerdotal ministry. “ The casula, 
 known as amphibalus,” the writer says, “ which 
 the priest puts upon him, is united from top to 
 bottom . . . it is without sleeves . . . 
 joined in front without slit or opening 
 ‘ Casula, quam amphibalum vocant, quod sacer- 
 dos induetur {sic), tota unita . . . Ideo 
 
 sine manicas {sic) quia sacerdos potius benedicit 
 quam ministrat. Ideo unita prinsecus, non scissa, 
 non aperta,’ ” &c. (See Martene, Thesaurxis 
 Anecdotorum, tom. v.) 
 
 From the above passages we may infer that 
 “ amphibalus ” was a name, in the Gallican 
 church of the first eight or nine centuries, for 
 the more solemn habit of ecclesiastics, and par¬ 
 ticularly for that which they wore in offices of 
 holy ministration. Having regard to its (pro¬ 
 bably) Eastern origin, and to its subsequent iden¬ 
 tification with the casula, we shall probably be 
 right in thinking that it resembled in shape the 
 white phenolia, in which Eastern bishojis are re¬ 
 presented in mosaics of the 6th century, in the 
 great church (now Mosque) of St. Sophia at 
 Constantinople. For these last see the article 
 Vestments (Greek), later in this work, and 
 Salzenberg’s Altchristiiche Baudenhmale, plates 
 xxviii. and xxix. [W. B. M.] 
 
 AMPHILOCHIUS, bishop of Iconium, com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 23 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AMPIDIUS, commemorated at Rome Oct. 14 
 {Mart. Hieron.). fC.] 
 
 AMPLIAS, “ Apostle,” commemorated Oct. 
 31 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AMPODIUS, commemorated Oct. 11 {Mart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AMPLFLLA (Probably for amb-olla, from its 
 swelling out in every direction), a globular ves¬ 
 sel for holding liquid. In ecclesiastical language 
 the word denotes — 
 
 1. The flasks or cruets, generally of precious 
 metal, which contain the wine and water used 
 at the altar. The word “ pollen,” used in some 
 districts of Germany to designate these vessels 
 (Binterim’s Denkmirdigheiten, iv. 1. 183) is pro¬ 
 bably derived from “ Ampullae.” 
 
 When the custom of making offerings of wine 
 for the Holy Communion ceased, ampullae seem 
 to have taken the place of the larger A. MAE. 
 
78 
 
 AMPULLA 
 
 AMULETS 
 
 The notion of the ampullae themselves having 
 been large vessels is probably founded on the 
 ancient etymology, “ampulla, quasi vas am- 
 pluman etymology which Walafrid Strabo 
 (De lieh. Eccl. c. 24) adapts to the facts of his 
 own time by reversing it, “ampulla quasi parum 
 ampla.” The first mention of ampullae as altar- 
 vessels, appears to be in the Liber Pontificalis 
 (c. 110) in the life of John III. (559-573), who 
 is said to have ordered that the oratories of the 
 martyrs in the city of Rome should be supplied 
 with altar-plate, including ampullae [al. amulae] 
 from the Lateran church. 
 
 2. More commonly the word ampulla denotes 
 a vessel, XrjKvOos^ used for holding consecrated 
 oil or chrism. In this sense it is used by Optatus 
 Milevitanus (^contra Donatistas ii. 19, p. 42), 
 when he tells us that an “ampulla chrismatis” 
 thrown from a window by the Donatists mira- 
 culouslv remained unbroken. In the Gregorian 
 Sacramentanj (p. 65), in the directions for the 
 benediction of Chrism on the “ Feria V. post 
 Palmas,” or Thursday in Holy Week, “ampullae 
 duo cum oleo” are ordered to be prepared, the 
 better of which is to be presented to the Pope. 
 [Chrism.] 
 
 P>y far the most renowned ampulla of this 
 kind is that which was said to have been brought 
 by a dove from heaven at the baptism of Clovis, 
 and which was used at the coronation of the 
 Frank kings. Hincmar, in the service which he 
 drew up for the coronation of Charles the Bald 
 (840), speaks of the first Christian king of the 
 Franks having been anointed and consecrated 
 with the heaven-descended chrism, whence that 
 which he himself used was derived (“ caelitus 
 sumpto chrismate, unde nunc habemus, perunc- 
 tus et in regem sacratus”), as if of a thing well 
 Known. In Flodoard, who wrote in the first 
 halt of the 10th century, we find the legend fully 
 developed. He tells us (^Hist. Eccles. Eemensis, 
 i. 13, in Migne’s Patrol, vol. 135, p. 52 c.) that 
 at the Baptism of Clovis, the clerk who bore the 
 chrism was prevented by the crowd from reach¬ 
 ing his proper station; and that when the 
 moment for unction arrived, St. Remi raised his 
 
 eyes to heaven and prayed, when “e:ce subito 
 columba ceu nix advolat Candida rostro deferens 
 ampullam caelestis doni chrismate repletam.” 
 This sacred ampulla (the “ Sainte Ampoulle”) 
 was preserved in the abbey of St. Remi, at Reims, 
 and used at the coronation of the successive kings 
 of France. It was broken in 1793, but even 
 then a fragment was said to have been preserved, 
 and was used at the coronation of Charles X. 
 The ampulla represented in the woodcut, from 
 Monza, is said to be of the 7th century. It is 
 of a metal resembling tin, and has engraved 
 upon it a representation of the Adoration of the 
 Magi and of the Shepherds, with the inscription, 
 €AeON HYAOY ZcoHC TojN AFIwN XPICTOV 
 TOricoN, having been used for preserving Hoh 
 Oil. [Oil, Holy.] [C.] 
 
 AMULETS. The earliest writer in whom 
 the word occurs is Pliny {H. N. xxix. 4, 19 ; xxx. 
 15, 47, et al.), and is used by him in the sense of 
 a “ charm ” against poisons, witchcraft, and the 
 like (“ veneficiorum amuleta ”). A Latin deriva¬ 
 tion has been suggested for it as being that 
 “quod malum amolitur.” Modern etymologists, 
 however, connect both the word as well as 
 the thing with the East, and derive it from the 
 Arabic hamrnalet (= a thing suspended). The 
 practice which the word implies had been in the 
 Christian Church, if not from the first, yet as 
 soon as the Paganism and Judaism out of which 
 it had emerged began again to find their way 
 into it as by a process of infiltration, and the 
 history of amulets pre.sents a strange picture of 
 the ineradicable tendency of mankind to fall back 
 into the basest superstitions which seem to belong 
 only to the savage bowing before his fetiche. 
 Man has a dread of unseen powers around him— 
 demons, spectres, an evil eye—and he believes 
 that certain objects have power to preserve him 
 from them. That belief fastens sometimes upon 
 symbolic forms or solemn words that have once 
 served as representatives of higher thoughts, 
 sometimes upon associations which seem alto¬ 
 gether arbitrary. When the Israelites left 
 Egypt, they came from a people who had car¬ 
 ried this idea to an almost unequalled extent. 
 The scarabaeus, the hawk, the serj)ent, the 
 uraeus, or hooded snake, an open eye, outsjuead 
 wings, with or without formulae of prayer, 
 deprecating or invoking, are found in countless 
 variety in all our museums, and seem to have 
 been borne, some on the breast, some susjiended 
 by a chain round the neck. The law of Moses, 
 by ordering the Zizith, or blue fringe on the gar¬ 
 ments which men wore, or the papyi'us scrolls 
 with texts (Exod. xiii. 2-10, 11-17 ; Dent. vi. 
 4—9, 13-22), which were to be as frontlets on 
 their'brows, and bound upon their arms, known 
 by later Jews as the Tephillim, or when nailed on 
 their door posts or the walls of their houses as 
 the Mesusa, sought, as by a wise “ economy,” to 
 raise men who had been accustomed to such 
 usages to higher thoughts, and to turn what had 
 been a superstition into a witness for the truth. 
 The old tendency, however, crept in, and it seems 
 clear that some at least of the ornaments named 
 
 by Isaiah (iii. 23), especially the D'C’nb, were of 
 
 the nature of amulets (^Bib. Diet. Amulets). And 
 the later (pvXaKrrjpia of the N. T., though an at¬ 
 tempt has been made by some archaeologists to 
 explain the name as though they reminded 
 
AMULETS 
 
 ANAGNOSTES 
 
 men <pvKd(Tff€iv rhu v6fjiOP (Schottgen) were, 
 there can be little doubt, so called as “ pre¬ 
 servatives ” against demons, magic, and the evil 
 e 3 ’e.* Through the whole history of Rabbinism, 
 the tendency was on the increase, and few Jews 
 believed themselves free from evil spirits, unless 
 the bed on which they slept was guarded by the 
 Mesxisa. Mystic figures—the sacred tetragram- 
 maton, the shield of David, the seal of Solomon— 
 with cabalistic words, AGLA (an acrostic formed 
 from the initial letters of the Hebrew words for 
 “ Thou art mighty for everlasting, 0 Lord ”j, 
 Abracalan, and the like, shot up as a rank after¬ 
 growth. Greek, Latin, Eastern Heathenism, in 
 like manner, supplied various forms of the same 
 usage. Everywhere men lived in the dread of 
 the fascination of the “ evil eye.” Sometimes in¬ 
 dividual men, sometimes whole races {e.g. the 
 Thibii of Pontus) were thought to possess the 
 power of smiting youth and health, and causing 
 them to waste away (Plutarch, Syinpos. v. 7). 
 And against this, men used remedies of various 
 kinds, the ’Ecpexria ypaggara, the phallus or 
 fascinum. The latter was believed to operate as 
 diverting the gaze which would otherwise be 
 fixed on that which kept it spell-bound (Plu¬ 
 tarch, 1. c.; Varr. de Ling. Lat. vi. 5), but was pro¬ 
 bably connected also with its use as the symbol 
 of life as against the evil power that was working 
 to destroy life. It is obvious that superstitions 
 of this kind would be foreign to Christian life in 
 its first purity. The “ bonfire ” at Ephesus was 
 a protest against them and all like usages (Acts 
 xix. 19). They crept in, however, probably in 
 the first instance through the influence of Juda- 
 izincr or Orientalizing Gnostics. The followers 
 of Basilides had their mystical Abraxas and Jal- 
 dabaoth, which they wrote on parchment and 
 used as a charm [Chr. Biogr. art. Basilides]. 
 Scarabaei have been found, with inscriptions 
 (Jao, Sabaoth, the names of angels, Bellerman, 
 Uber die Scarabaeen, i. 10), indicating Christian 
 associations of this nature.** The catacombs of 
 Rome have yielded small ob jects of various kinds 
 that were used apparently for the same purpose, 
 a bronze fish (connected, of com-se, with the 
 mystic anagram of IX0T2), with the word 
 shSAlS on it, a haul holding a tablet with 
 ZHCE2, medals with tne monogram which had 
 figured on the labarum of Constantine (Aringhi, 
 Bom i Snbterranea, vi. 23 ; Costadoni, Del Pesce, 
 pi. ii., iii., 19 ; Martigny, s. v. Poisson). In the 
 E !st we find the practice of carrying the Gospels 
 (3t3^ta or cvayyeKia juiKpd) round the neck 
 as (puXaKTvpia (Chrysost. Horn. Ixxiii. in Matt.); 
 and Jerome (in Matt. iv. 24) confesses that 
 he had himself done so to guard against disease. 
 When the passion for relics set in they too were 
 employed, and even Gregory the Great sent to 
 Theodelinda two of these (pvkaKT-fjpia, one a cross 
 containing a fragment of the true cross, the other 
 a box containing a copy of the Gospels, each with 
 Greek invocations, as a charm against the evil 
 spirits or lamiae that beset children (A’/?/), xii. 7). 
 In all these cases we trace some Christian asso- 
 
 • This is distinctly stated in the Jerusalem Gemara 
 (Bi-rach. fol. 2,4). Comp, the exhaustive article by I.eyrcz 
 on ‘ Phylakterien ’ in Herzog. 
 
 •> The mention of “ the horns of the Scarabaeus ” as an 
 amuUt by Pliny (ff. .V. xxviii. 4) shews how widely the 
 old Egyptian feeling about it had spread in the first 
 century of the Christian era. 
 
 7 It 
 
 ciations. Symbolism passes into superstition. 
 In other instances the old heathen leaven waa 
 more conspicuous. Strange words, irepltpyoi 
 yapuKTripfs (Basil, in Ps. xlv., p. 229 A), names 
 of rivers, and the like (Chrysost. Horn. Ixxiii. in 
 Matt.), ligaturae” ot'nW kinds (August. Tract vii. 
 in Joann.), are spoken of as frequent. Even a 
 child’s caul (it is curious to note at once the 
 antiquity and the persistency of the superstition), 
 and the fyudKiriop eudv/xa became an kyKSXmov 
 in another sense, and was used by mid wives to 
 counteract the “ evil eye ” and the words of evil 
 omen of which men were still afraid (Balsamon, 
 in Cone. Trull., c. 61). Even the strange prohibi¬ 
 tion by the Council just referred to of the practice 
 of “ leading about she bears and other like beasts 
 to the delusion (-n-phs iraiyviov) and injury of the 
 simple,” has been referred by the same writer 
 {ibid.), not to their being a show as in later 
 times, but to the fact that those who did so car¬ 
 ried on a trade in the (pvXaKTrjpia, which they 
 made from their hair, and which were in request 
 as a cure for sore eyes. 
 
 Christian legislation and teaching had to carry 
 on a perpetual warfare against these abuses. 
 Constantine indeed, in the transition stage which 
 he represented, had allow'ed “ i-emedia humanis 
 quaesita corporibus ” {Cod. Theodos. ix. tit. 16, 
 s. 3), as well as incantations for rain, but the 
 Council of Laodicea (c. 36) forbade the clergy 
 to make (poXauriipia, which w^ere in reality “Secr- 
 poDT-npia for their owm souls.” Chrysostom fre¬ 
 quently denounces them in all their forms, and 
 lays bare the plea that the old women who sold 
 them were devout Christians, and that the prac¬ 
 tice therefore could not be so very wrong {Horn. 
 viii. in Coloss. p. 1374 ; Horn., vi. c. Jud.; Horn. 
 Ixii. p. 536, in Matt. p. 722). Basil (7. c.) speaks 
 in the same tone. Augustine {1. c. and Serm. eexv. 
 De Temp.) warns men against all such “ diabolica 
 phylacteria.” Other names bj' which such amulets 
 were known were ireplairTa, TrepidfiixaTa. We 
 may inler from the silence of Clement of Alex¬ 
 andria and Tertullian that the earlier days of the 
 Church were comparatively free from these super¬ 
 stitions, and from the tone of the writers just re¬ 
 ferred to that the canon of the Council of Laodicea 
 had been so far effectual that the clergy were no 
 longer ministering to them. [E. H. P.] 
 
 ANACHORETAE. [Hermit.] 
 
 ANACLETUS, the pope, martyr at Rome, 
 commemorated April 26 {Mart. Pom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ANACTORON {'AvdKTopov from dvdKrwp), 
 the dwelling of a king or ruler. In classical 
 authors, generally a house of a god, especially 
 a temple of the Eleusinian Demeter or of the 
 Dioscuri; also, the innermost recess of a temple, 
 in which oracles were given (Lobeck’s Aglaopha- 
 mxis, i. pp. 59, 62). Eusebius {Punegyr. c. 9) 
 applies the word to the church built by Constan¬ 
 tine at Antioch, whether as equivalent to /Satri- 
 XiKT], or with reference to the unusual size and 
 splendour of the church, or with a reminiscence 
 of the classical use of the word, is difficult to sav. 
 (Bingham’s Antigxiities, viii. 1. § 5.) [C.] 
 
 AN AGNOSTES—T .ECTOR READER.— 
 
 Tertullian is the earliest writer who mentions 
 this office as a distinct order in the Church {De 
 Praes^r. c. 41). It would seem that, at first, tlu 
 j public reading of the Scriptures was. j*erformed 
 
80 
 
 ANANIAS 
 
 ANASTASIS 
 
 indifferently by presbj’ters and deacons, and pos¬ 
 sibly at times by a layman specially aj)pointed 
 by the bishop. From Tertullian’s time, how¬ 
 ever, it Avas included among the minor orders, 
 and as such is frequently referred to by Cyprian 
 (^Epp. 29, 38, &c.). It is also one of the three 
 minor orders mentioned in,the so-called Apos¬ 
 tolical Canons, the other two being the vnodid- 
 Kovos and the \J/d\Tr)s. The Scriptures were 
 read by the Anagnostes, from the pulpitum or 
 tribunal ecclesiae. If any portion of the sacred 
 writings was read from the altar, or more pro¬ 
 perly from the bema or tribunal of the sanc¬ 
 tuary, this was done by one of the higher clergy. 
 By one of Justinian’s Novels it was directed 
 that no one should be ordained reader before 
 the age of eighteen ; but previously young boys 
 were admitted to the office, at the instance 
 of their parents, as introductory to the higher 
 functions of the sacred ministry (Bingham, 
 Thorndike). [D. B.] 
 
 ANANIAS. (1) Of Damascus (Acts ix. 10), 
 commemorated Jan. 25 {Mart. Rom. 1 cA); Oct. 
 1 {Cal. Ihjzant.')', Oct. 15 ((7. Armen.'). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Persia, April 21 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (3) Martyr, Avith Azarias and Misael, Dec. 16 
 
 (76.); April 23 {Mart. Bedae)] Dec. 17 {Cal. 
 Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ANAPHORA. {’Apa<popd. The word dva- 
 (pepnv acquired in later Greek the sense of 
 “lifting up” or “offering:” as auacpepciv 6v- 
 aias, Heb. A'ii. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; dvacpfpeiv eo- 
 XapiCTiap, evcprifiiap, So^o\oylap, Chrysostom in 
 Suicer, s. a% 'Ava<popd AA^as also used in a cor¬ 
 responding sense ; in Ps. 1. 21, [LXX], it is the 
 
 equiA'alent of the Hebrew nS'y, “ that A\ hich 
 goeth up on the altar.”) 
 
 1. In the sense of “lifting up” Anaphora 
 came to be applied to the celebration of the 
 Holy Eucharist; Avhether from the “lifting 
 up ” of the heart Avhich is required in that 
 sei'A'ice, or from the “ oblation ” Avhich takes 
 place in it; probably the latter. 
 
 In the litui-gical diction of the Copts, AAffiich 
 has borroAved much from the Greeks, the Avord 
 Anaphora is used, instead of liturgy, to designate 
 the Avhole of the Eucharistic serA'ice, and the 
 book Avhich contains it; but more commonly its 
 use is restricted to that more solemn part of the 
 Eucharistic office Avhich includes the Consecration, 
 Oblation, Communion, and Thanksgiving. It be¬ 
 gins with the “ Sursum Corda,” or rather Avith 
 the benediction Avhich precedes it, and extends 
 to the end of the office, thus corresponding AA'ith 
 the Preface and Canon of Western rituals. 
 
 The general structure of the Anaphorae of 
 Oriental liturgies is thus exhibited by Dr. Neale 
 {Eastern Church, Introduction, i. 463). 
 
 The Great Euchanstic Prayer — 
 
 1. The Preface. [Sursttm Cohda.J 
 
 2. The Prayer of the Triumphal Hymn. [Preface.] 
 
 3. The Triumphal Hymn. [Sanctus.] 
 
 4. Commemoration of our I^ord’s Life. 
 
 5. Commemoration of Institution. 
 
 The Covsecration — 
 
 6. Words of Institution of the Bread. 
 
 7. Words of Institution of the Wine. 
 
 8. Oblation of the Body and Blood. 
 
 9. Introductory Prayer for the Descent of the 
 
 Holy Ghost 
 
 10. Prayer for the Change of Elemerta. 
 
 The Great Intercessory Prayer— 
 
 11. General lutorcession for Quick and Dead. 
 
 12. Ih-uyer before the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 13. The Lord’s IVayer 
 
 14. The Embolisinus. 
 
 The Communion — 
 
 15. The Pj-ayer of Inclination (ras (ce«^)aAas icAi- 
 
 yoyfiev). 
 
 16. Td ayia toi? oyioi? and Elevation of Host. 
 
 17. The Fraction 
 
 18. The Confession. 
 
 19. The Communion. 
 
 20. The Aatidoron ; and Prayers of Thank.<glving. 
 
 This table exhibits the component parts of the 
 Anaphorae of all, or nearly all, the Eastern litur¬ 
 gies, in the stale in which they haA’e come down 
 to us; but different parts are A'ariously de- 
 A'eloped in different liturgies, and even the order 
 is not ahvays preserved; for Instance, in the 
 existing Nestorian liturgies, the general inter¬ 
 cession is placed before the invocation of the 
 Holy Ghost, and other minor variations are found. 
 The principal of these Avill be noticed under their 
 proper headings. 
 
 It is in the Anaphorae that the characteristics 
 are found Avhich distinguish different liturgies 
 of the same family; in the introductory or pro- 
 anaphoral portion of the liturgies there is much 
 less A’ariety. “ In every liturgical family there 
 is one liturgy, or at most two, AA'hich supplies 
 the former or pro-anaphoral portion to all the 
 others, and such liturgies Ave may call the normal 
 offices of that family; the others, both in MSS. 
 and printed editions, commence with the ‘ Prayer 
 of the Kiss of Peace,’ the preface to the Ana¬ 
 phora ” (Neale, Eastern Church, i. 319). Thus, 
 Avhen the liturgy of Gregory Theologus or of 
 Cyril is used, the pro-anaphoral portion is taken 
 from that of St. Basil; the Ethiopian Church has 
 tweh'e liturgies, which have the introductory 
 portion in common ; the numerous Syro-Jacobite 
 liturgies all take the introductory portion from 
 that of St. James; the three Nestorian from 
 that of the Apostles. Further particulars Avill 
 be found under Canon and Communion. 
 
 2. The word dva<popd is sometimes used in 
 liturgical writings as equiA’alent to the d^p or 
 Chalice-veil; and has found its Avay in this sense, 
 corrupted in form {Xuphir) into the Syrian 
 liturgies. (Renaudot, Lit. Orient, ii. 61.) [C.] 
 
 ANASTASIA. (1) Martyr under Diocletian. 
 Her Natalis, an ancient and famous festiA’al, falls 
 on Dec. 25 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae). 
 Her name is recited in the Gregorian Canon. 
 The proper office for her festival, in the Gre¬ 
 gorian Sacram. (p. 7), is headed, in Menai’d’s 
 text, Missa in Mane prima Nat. Dom., site S. 
 Anastasiae; and is inserted between the Missa 
 In Vigilia Domini in Nocte and the Missa In Die 
 Natalis Domini. The titles in the other MSS. 
 are equivalent. In the Byzantine Caleruiar she 
 is commemorated as <f>app.aKo\vTpl(i, dissolver of 
 spells on Dec. 22 (see Neale’s Eastern Church, 
 Introd. 786). 
 
 (2) Of Rome, bcnopdprvs, commemorated Oct. 
 29 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ANASTASIS.—The Orthodox Greek Church 
 commemorates the dedication of the Church of 
 the Anastasis by Constantine the Great {'EyKa'i- 
 via Tov NaoD dyias rod Xpiarov /cal 0fov 
 
 Tj/xuv 'Avaardcfuis) on Sep. 13. (Daniel, Codex 
 
ANASTASIUS 
 
 ANCHOK 
 
 81 
 
 Liturgicus, iv. 268.) This festival refers to the ' 
 dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchi’e, 
 or of the Resurrection of the Lord, at Jerusalem, ' 
 A.D. 335. (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iii. 26 ff.) 
 A similar name was given to the room where ' 
 Gregory of Nazianzus preached at Constantinople, 
 afterwards converted into a magnificent church. 
 (Gibbon’s Home, iii. 367, ed. Smith.) [C.] 
 
 ANASTASIUS. (1) The monk, martyr in 
 Persia, commemorated Jan. 22 (Ga/. Byzant., 
 Mart. Rom. Vet., Ilieron.^. 
 
 (2) Saint, April 1 {Mart. Bedae'). 
 
 (3) The pope, April 27 {Mart. R. F., Bedae '); 
 Oct. 28 {Cal. Armen.^. 
 
 (4) Saint, May 2 {M. Bedae). 
 
 (5) The Cornicularius, martyr, Aug. 21 {Mart. 
 R. V.). 
 
 (6) Commemorated Aug. 26 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (7) Bishop, Oct. 13 {M. Bedae, Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANATHEMA, the greater excommunica¬ 
 tion, answering to Cherem in the Synagogue, 
 as the lesser form did to Niddui, i.e. Separation: 
 this latter is called in the Constitutions 
 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 The excision of obstinate offenders from the 
 Christian fellowship was grounded upon the 
 words of Christ—“ If he will not hear the Church, 
 let him be as a heathen man and a publican.” 
 So St. Gregory interprets them—“ let him not 
 be esteemed for a brother or a Christian ”—“ vi¬ 
 delicet peccator gravis et scandalosus, notorius 
 aut accusatus et convictus ”; being reproved by 
 the bishop in the public assemblies of the Church, 
 if he will not be humbled but remains incorri¬ 
 gible and perseveres in his scandalous sins— 
 “ turn anathemate feriendus est et a corpore Ec- 
 clesiae separandus” (St. Gregory in Ps. v.), and 
 St. Augustine {Tract xxvii. in Johan.) vindicates 
 this severity of discipline on the Church’s part 
 in such a case—“ quia neque influxum habet a 
 capite, neque participat de Spiritu Christi.” 
 
 This application of the word Anathema to the 
 “ greater excommunication ” was warranted, in 
 the belief of the ancient Church, by St. Paul’s 
 use of it (Gal. i. 8, 9), and the discipline itself 
 being distinctly warranted by our Lord’s words, 
 as well as by other passages in the New Testa¬ 
 ment, the anathema was regarded as cutting 
 a man off from the way of salvation; so that 
 unless he received the grace of repentance he 
 would certainly perish. 
 
 A milder sense, however, of the word Ana¬ 
 thema, as used by St. Paul, has not been without 
 its defenders, both among our own Divines as 
 Hammond and Waterland, and by Grotius. The 
 latter writer, commenting on Rom. ix. 3, gives 
 the following interpretation: “Hoc dicit: Velim 
 non modo carere honore Apostolatus, verum 
 etiam contemptissimus esse inter Christianos, 
 quales sunt qui excommunicati sunt.” 
 
 And as to the effect of the Ecclesiastical Ana¬ 
 thema—it is maintained by Vincentius Lirinen- 
 sis that it did not bear the sense of cursing 
 among the ancient Christians, as Chei'em did 
 among the Jews. 
 
 It is certain, however, that the word Ana¬ 
 thema is uniformly employed by the LXX as the 
 equivalent of Cherem; and it can hardly be 
 questioned, therefore, that where it occurs in 
 the N. T. it must be understood in the deeper 
 sense—as i*elating to the spiritual condition— 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 and not merely to exclusion from Church privi 
 leges, whatever may have been the force subse¬ 
 quently attached to the word, as expressing the 
 most solemn form of ecclesiastical excommuni¬ 
 cation. On this point and on the history of the 
 word in general, the reader is referred to Light- 
 foot on Galatians; Thorndike, vol. ii. 338; Bp. 
 Jeremy Taylor {Ductor Du'ntantium) ; J. Light- 
 foot, De Anathemate Maranatha. [D. B.] 
 
 ANATOLIA, martyr, commemorated July 9 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ANATOLIUS, bishop, commemorated July 3 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ANAXARBE (Synods of), a.d. 431, to con¬ 
 firm the deposition of St. Cyril, and those who 
 held with him. Another was held there two 
 years later, as at Antioch, to make peace with 
 St. Cyril. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ANCHOR (as Symbol). The anchor is an 
 emblem very frequently used, from the earliest 
 ages of Christianity, in symbolism. As the anchor 
 is the hope and often the sole resource of the 
 sailor, the ancients called it sacred; to weigh 
 anchor was, “Anchoram sacrum solvere.” St. 
 Paul adopts an obvious symbolism, when he 
 says (Heb. vi. 19) that we have hope as “ an 
 anchor of the soul both sure and stedfastso 
 that, in its special Christian sense, the anchor 
 would seem to be an emblem of hope. 
 
 By the early Christians we find it used, some¬ 
 times with reference to the stormy ocean of 
 human life, but more often to the tempests and 
 the fierce blasts of persecution which threatened 
 to engulf the ship of the Church. Thus the 
 anchor is one of the most ancient of emblems; 
 and we find it engraved on rings, and depicted 
 on monuments and on the walls of cemeteries in 
 the Catacombs, as a type of the hope by which 
 the Church stood firm in the midst of the storms 
 which surrounded it. In this, as in other cases, 
 Christianity adopted a symbol from Paganism, 
 with merely the change of application. 
 
 The symbols on sepulchral tablets often con¬ 
 tain allusions to the name of the deceased. The 
 Chevalier de Rossi {De Monum. IX0TN exhib. p. 
 18) states that he has three times found an 
 anchor upon tituli bearing names derived from 
 Spes or ikiris ; upon the tablet of a certain 
 ELPIDIVS (Mai, Collect. Vatican, v. 449), and 
 upon two others, hitherto unpublished, in the 
 cemetery of Priscilla, of two women, ELPIZVSA 
 and Spes. In some cases, above the transverse 
 bar of the anchor stands the letter E, which is 
 probably the abbreviation of the word ’EAtti's. 
 Further, we find the anchor associated with the 
 fish, the symbol of the Saviour [IX0T2J. It is 
 clear that the union of the two symbols expre.sses 
 “ hope in Jesus Christ,” and is equivalent to the 
 formula so common on Christian tablets, “ Spes 
 in Christo,” “ Spes in Deo,” “ Spes in Deo 
 Christo.” 
 
 The transverse bar below the ring gives the 
 upper part of the anchor the appearance of a crux 
 an;Safa [Cross] ; and perhaps this form may have 
 had as much influence in determining the choice 
 of this symbol by the Christians as the words of 
 St. Paul. The anchor appears, as is natural, very 
 frequently upon the tombs of martyrs. (See 
 Lupi, Severae Epitaphium, pp. 136, 137 ; Boldetti, 
 Osservazioni, 366, 370, &c.; Fabretti, Inscrip- 
 
ANCYRA 
 
 82 
 
 tionum Explic. 568, 569 ; and Martigny, Diet, 
 des Antiq. Chrdt. s. v. ‘ Ancre.’) [C.] 
 
 ANCYRA. —Two synods of Ancyra are re¬ 
 corded ; the first of which stands at the head of 
 those provincial synods whose canons form part 
 of the code of the universal Church. It was 
 held under Vitalis of Antioch, who signs first; 
 and of the 18 bishops composing it, several* 
 attended the Nicene Council subsequently. 
 Twenty-five canons were passed, about half of 
 which relate to the lapsed, and the rest to dis¬ 
 cipline generally (v. Beveridge, Synod, ii. ad 1.'). 
 The date usually assigned to it is A.D. 314. 
 Another synod met there, A.D. 358, composed 
 of semi-Arians. They condemned the second 
 Synod of Sirmium, accepted, the term homoi- 
 ousion„ and published 12 anathemas against all 
 who rejected it, together with a long synodical 
 letter. Another synod of semi-Arians was held 
 there, A.D. 375, at which Hipsius, Bishop of 
 Parnassus, was deposed. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ANCYRA, THE SEVEN VIRGINS OF, 
 
 are commemorated by the Armenian Church on 
 June 20, as fellow-martyrs with Theodotion, or 
 Theodorus, of Salatia, the first Bishop of Ancyra 
 of whom we have any account. (Neale, Eastern 
 Church, Introd. p. 800.) [C.] 
 
 ANDEGAVENSE CONCILIUM. [An¬ 
 gers, Council of.] 
 
 ANDELAENSE CONCILIUIil. [Ande- 
 LOT, Council of.] 
 
 ANDELOT, COUNCIL OF (Andelaense 
 Concilium), near Langres ; summoned by Gun- 
 tram, King of Orleans (at a meeting to ratify a 
 compact, also made at Andelot, between himself 
 and Childebert, Nov. 28 or 29, 587), for March 1, 
 A.D. 588, but nothing further is recorded of it, and 
 possibly it was never held at all (Greg. Turon., 
 tlist, Fr. ix. 20', Mansi, ix. 967-970). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ANDOCHIUS or ANDOCIUS, presbyter, 
 commemoi-ated Sept. 24 (ATari. Hieron., 
 Bedie). [C.] 
 
 ANDREAS. (1) Martyr, commemorated 
 Aug. 19 (^Mart. Rom. Vet.'). 
 
 (2) King, Hedar 16 = Nov. 12 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (3) The general, with 2953 companion mar¬ 
 tyrs, commemorated Aug. 19 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 ( 4 ) Of Crete, daiopdpTvs, Oct. 17 {Cal. 
 
 Byz.). [C.] 
 
 ANDREW, Saint, Festival of. —As was 
 natural, the name of the “ brother fisherman ” 
 of St. Peter was early held in great honour. 
 He is invoked by name as an intercessor in the 
 prayer “ Libera nos ” of the Roman Canon, with 
 the Virgin, St. Peter, and St. Paul; and his 
 principal festival was anciently placed on the 
 same level as that of St. Peter himself (Krazer, 
 De Liturgiis, p. 529). His “ Dies Natalis,” or 
 martyrdom, is placed in all the Martyrologies, 
 agreeing in this with the apocryphal Acta Andreae, 
 on Nov. 30. It is found in the Calendar of Car¬ 
 thage, in which no other apostles are specially 
 commemorated except St. Peter, St. Paul, and 
 St. James the Great; and in St. Boniface’s list 
 of Festivals, where no other apostles are named 
 except St. Peter and St. Paul (Binterim’s Denk- 
 wurdigkeiten, v. i. 299). The hymn “ Nunc An- 
 dreae solemnia,” for the festival of St. Andrew, 
 U attributed to Venerable Bede. Proper offices 
 
 ANDREW, SAINT 
 
 for the Vigil and Festival of St. Anirew arc 
 found in the Sacramentaries of Leo and Gregory. 
 In the latter (p. 144) there is a clear allusion to 
 the Acta (see Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocry¬ 
 pha, p. 127), where it is said that the saint frankly 
 proclaimed the truth, “ nec pendens taceret in 
 cruce; ” and in the ancient Liher Responsalis, 
 which bears the name of Gregory, is one equally 
 clear to the same Acta in the words of St. An¬ 
 drew’s prayer, “ Ne me patiaids ab impio judice 
 deponi, quia virtutem sanctae crucis agnovi ” (p. 
 836). A trace of the influence of these same Acta 
 is found again in the Gallo-Gothic Missal (pro¬ 
 bably of the 8th century), published by Mabillon, 
 in which the “ contestatio,” or preface {Lltiirgia 
 Gall. lib. iii. p. 222), sets forth that the Apostle, 
 “ post iniqua verbera, post carceris saepta, alli- 
 gatus suspendio se purum sacrificium obtulit. 
 . . . Absolvi se non patitur a cruce . . . turba 
 . . . laxari postulat justum, ne pereat populus 
 hoc delicto ; interea fundit martyr spiritum.” 
 The Armenian Church commemorates St. Andrew 
 with St. Philip on Nov. 16. 
 
 The relics of the apostle were translated, pro¬ 
 bably in the reign of Constantins, though .some 
 authorities place the translation in that of Con¬ 
 stantine (compare Jerome, c. Vigilantium, c. 6, 
 p. 391, who says that Constantins translated the 
 relics, with Paulinus, Carm. 26, p. 628), to Con¬ 
 stantine’s great “Church of the Apostles” at 
 Constantinople, where they rested with those of 
 St. Luke; the church was indeed sometimes 
 called, from these two great saints, the church 
 of St. Andrew and St. Luke. Justini in built 
 over their remains, to which those of St. Timothy 
 had been added, a splendid tomb. 
 
 The Martyrologium Hieronymi places the trans¬ 
 lation of St. Andrew on Sept. 3, and has a 
 “ Dedicatio Basilicae S. Andreae ” on Nov. 3 ; but 
 most Martyrologies agree with the Martyro¬ 
 logium Romanum in placing the translation on 
 May 9. Several Martyrologies have on Feb. 5 
 an “ Ordinatio Episcopatus Andreae Apostoli,” in 
 commemoration of the saint’s consecration to 
 the see of Patras (Florentinus, in MaHyrol. 
 Hieron. p. 300; Baronius, in Martyrol. Romano, 
 Nov. 30, p. 502; Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. i. 320, 
 589; Binterim’s Denkwii. digkeiten, v. i. 503, ff.). 
 
 As was natural in the case of so distinguished 
 a saint as the first-called Apostle, churches were 
 dedicated in honour* of St. Andrew in early times. 
 Pope Simplicius (c. 470) is said to have dedicated 
 a basilica at Rome in his honour (Ciampini, Vet. 
 Alonum. i. 242); and somewhat later (c. 500) 
 Pope Symmachus converted the “Vestiarium 
 Neronis” into a church, which bore the name 
 “ S. Andreae ad Crucem.” This was not far from 
 the Vatican (Ciampini, De Sacris Acdif. p. 86). 
 Later examples are frequent. 
 
 The representation of St. Andrew with the 
 decussate cross (X) as the instrument of his 
 martyrdom belongs to the Middle Ages. In 
 ancient examples he appears, like most of the 
 other apostles, simply as a dignified figure in 
 the ancient Roman dress, sometimes bearing a 
 crown, as in a 5th-century Mosaic in the 
 church of St. John at Ravenna (Ciampini, Vetera 
 Monumenta, tom. i. tab. Ixx. p. 235), sometimes 
 a roll of a book, as in a 9th-century Mosaic 
 figured by Ciampini (u. s. tom. ii. tab. lin. 
 p. 162), where he is joined with the favoured 
 disciples, SS. Peter, and James, and John. [C.J 
 
ANGELS AND AKCHANGELS 83 
 
 ANDRONICUS 
 
 ANDRONICUS. ( 1 ) Saint, April 5 (if. 
 
 Bedue). 
 
 (2) AT ay 13 (if. Hieron.'). 
 
 (3) “ Apostle,” with Junia (Rom. xvi. 7), com¬ 
 memorated May 17 (^Cal. Byzant.'); invention 
 of their relics, Feb. 22 (/&., Neale). 
 
 (4) Commemorated Sept. 27 (if. Hieron.'). 
 
 (5) “ Holy Father,” Oct. 9 {Val. Byzant.). 
 
 (6) Martyr, commemorated Oct. 10 {Mart. 
 
 Hieron.); Oct. 11 {M. Rom. Vet.); Oct. 12 {Cal. 
 Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ANESIUS, of Africa, commemorated March 
 31 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANGARIENSE CONCILIUM. [Sanga- 
 RiicNSE Concilium.] 
 
 ANGELS and ARCHANGELS, in Chris¬ 
 tian Art. The representations of angels in 
 Christian art, at various periods, reproduce in 
 a remarkable manner the ideas concerning them, 
 which from time to time have prevailed in the 
 Church. In one and all, however, we may trace, 
 though with various modifications of treatment, 
 an embodied commentary upon the brief but ex¬ 
 pressive declaration concerning their nature and 
 office which is given in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (i. 14). Worship or service rendered unto 
 God {\€iTovpy'ia),^ and work of ministration 
 {SiaKOvia) done on God’s behalf to men, these are 
 the two spheres of angelic operation suggested in 
 Holy Scripture, and these, under various modifi¬ 
 cations curiously characteristic of the successiA^e 
 ages in which they are found, come before us in 
 a series of monuments extending from the fourth 
 to the close of the 14th century. 
 
 § 2. First three Centuries. Existing monu¬ 
 ments of early Christian art, illustrative of our 
 present subject, are, for the first 500 years, or 
 more, almost exclusiA’-ely of the West, and, with 
 one or two doubtful exceptions, all these are of 
 a date subsequent to the “ Peace of the Church,” 
 under Constantine the Great, and probably, not 
 earlier than 400 A.D. As a special interest 
 attaches to these earliest monuments, it may be 
 well here to enumerate them. The earliest of them 
 all, if D’Agincourt’s judgment {Histoire, etc. vol. 
 v. Peinture, PI. vii. No. 3.) may be trusted, is 
 a monument in the cemetery of St. Priscilla,® 
 
 » Heb. i. 14. keirovpyiKa rrvfvfjiara. airoa’Tekkofxeva elf 
 SiaKoviav. The distinction of the two words noticed 
 above is lost in our English version. It is well brought 
 out by Origen, cent. Celsum, lib. v. (quoted by Bingham, 
 Avtiq., book xiii. cap. iii. $ 2, note 2). See this further 
 illustrated in the description of woodcut iu $ 6 below. 
 
 b Absent (almost, if not altogether) for the first four 
 centuries (see $ 2), they subserve purposes of dogma 3) 
 in the 5tb century ; they are Scriptural still, but also in 
 one case legendary (^ 4) in the 6th. From that time for¬ 
 ward canonical and" apocryphal Scripture and mediaeval 
 legend are mixed up together. We find them Imperial 
 in character, or sacerdotal and liturgical, as the case may 
 be; while in the later middle ages even feudal notions 
 were characteristically mixed up with the traditions con¬ 
 cerning them derived from Holy Scripture. (For this last 
 see Jameson. Sacred and Legendary Art, 3rd edit. vol. i. 
 p. 95, quoting from II Pcrfdi .0 Legendario.) 
 
 ® The Abb^ Martigny {Dictionnaire, &c .in voc.• Anges ’) 
 speaks with evident doubt of the date assigned to this 
 fresco. D’Agincourt himself in his description gives no 
 particulars a.s to the source from which his drawing was 
 derived. Neither earlier nor later antiquaries know any¬ 
 thing of its history. And this being so, an unsupported 
 opinion as to its date, resting on the authority of D’Agin- 
 
 dating, as he thinks, from the second century. 
 It is a i-epre.sentation of Tobias and the angel. 
 (This same subject, suggestive of the “ Guardian 
 Angel,” reappears in .some of the Vetri Antichi, 
 of the 4th and 5th century.) Another fresco of 
 early but uncertain date in the cemetery of 
 St. Priscilla (Aringhi, R. S. ii. p. 297) has been 
 generally interpreted as repre.senting the Annun¬ 
 ciation. The angel Gabriel (if such be the inten¬ 
 tion of the painter) has a human figure, and the 
 dress commonly assigned to Apostles and other 
 Scriptural personages, but is without wings, or 
 any other special designations. With these 
 doubtful exceptions, no representations of angels, 
 now remaining, are earlier than the fourth cen¬ 
 tury, and probably not earlier than the fifth. 
 
 §3. Fourth and fifth Centuries. There was an 
 interval of transition from this earlier period, 
 the limits of which are indicated by the Council 
 of Illiberis,^ A.D. 305, on the one hand, and on 
 the other by the Christian mosaics of which wo 
 first hear ® at the close of that century, or early 
 in the next. The first representation of angels 
 in mosaic work is supposed (by Ciampinus and 
 others) to be that of the Church of S. Agatha at 
 RaA^enna. These mosaics Ciampinus admits to be 
 of very uncertain date, but he believes ^ them to 
 be of the beginning of the 5th century. (See his 
 Vetera Monumenta, vol. i. Tab. xlvi.) The first 
 representations of the kind to which a date can 
 with any certainty be assigned, are those in the 
 Church of S. Maria Major at Rome, put up by 
 Xystus III. between the years 432 and 440 A.D. 
 In those of the Nave of this Church (Ciampini 
 V. M. tom. i. Pll. 1. to Ixiv.) various subjects from 
 the Old Testament have their place; and amongst 
 others the appearance of the three angels to 
 Abraham (PI. li.) and of the “ Captain of the 
 Lord’s Hosts” (by tradition the archangel 
 Michael) to Joshua (PI. Ixii.). But on the 
 “Arcus Triumphalis ”s of this same Church, 
 there is a series of mosaics, of the greatest pos¬ 
 sible interest to the history of dogmatic theology; 
 and in these angels have a prominent part. 
 This series was evidently intended to be an em- 
 
 court alone, carries but little weight. The same subject is 
 reproduced in the Cemetery of S§. Thraso and Satuminus 
 (Ferret, vol. iii. pi. xxvi.). 
 
 d The 37th canon forbids the painting upon walls the 
 objects of religious worship and adoration. “ Placuit pic- 
 turas in ccclcsia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur 
 in parietibus deplngatur.” Roman writers, for obvious 
 reasons, seek to explain away the apparent meaning 
 of this prohibition. As to this, see Bingham, C. A., 
 book viii. cap. viii. $ 6. 
 
 * Paullinus, bishop of Nola, early in the 5th century, 
 describes at much length In a letter (Ep. xii.) to his friend 
 Severus the decorations with which he had adorned his 
 own church. His descriptions accord closely with some 
 of the actual monuments (sarcophagi and mosaic pictures) 
 of nearly contemporary date, w hich have been preserved 
 to our own lime. 
 
 t The form of the Nimbus here assigned to our Lord 
 seems to indicate a later date. 
 
 e By the “ triumphal arch ” of a Roman church is 
 meant what will correspond most nearly with the chancel 
 arch of our own churches. It was full in view of the 
 assembled people on entering the church. And for the 
 first six centuries (or nearly that time) it was reserved 
 exclusively for such subjects as had immediate reference 
 to our I.ord ; more particularly to His triumph over sin 
 and death, and His session as King In heaven. S* *-? 
 i farther on this subject Ciampini, V. M. tom. L p. 19 jJ, sqq. 
 
84 
 
 ANGELS AND AliCHANGELS 
 
 ANGELS AND ARCHANGELS 
 
 bodimeut in art of the doctrine deci’eed just j 
 previously in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. j 
 The angels represented in the scenes of “The 
 Annunciation,”' the Worship of the Magi (see I 
 woodcut annexed), and the Presentation in the , 
 Temple, are here made to serve to the declaration | 
 of what had just before been proclaimed, viz.: j 
 that He who was born of Mary was not a mere 
 man in whom the Word of God might afterward j 
 take up his abode,* but was himself God, as well ■ 
 as man, two natures united in one person. The 
 angels throughout are represented as ministering | 
 as it were in homage to a king. Even in the 
 Annunciation, not Gabriel only is represented, ' 
 but two other angels are seen standing behind 
 the seat on which the Virgin Mary is, placed. 
 Of these Ciampinus rightly says, that they are to ' 
 be regarded as doing homage to the Word then 
 become incarnate. “ Duo illi .... astant, sive 
 Gabrielis asseclae, sive Deiparae custodes, aut • 
 potius incaruato tunc Verbo obsequium ex- 
 liibeutes.” They embody, as he observes, the ■ 
 thought expressed by St. Augustine. “All 
 
 angels are created beings, doing sei’vice unto 
 Christ. Angels could be sent to do Him homage, 
 (ad obsequium) could be sent to do Him service, 
 but not to bring help (as to one weak or helpless 
 in himself): and so it is written that angels 
 ministered to Him, not as pitying one that needed 
 help, but as subject unto Him who is Almighty.” 
 (S. Aug. in Psal. Ivi.) 
 
 § 4. Sixth Century. Between 500 A.D. and 
 600 A.D., the following examples may be cited : 
 the triumphal arch of the Church of SS. Cosmas 
 and Damlanus at Rome (Ciampini V. M. tom. ii. 
 Tab. XV.) circ. 530 A.D., and fifteen years later the 
 mosaics of S. Michael the archangel at Ravenna, 
 ibid. Tab. xvii.). In the apse of the tribune is 
 a representation of Our Lord, holding a lofty 
 cross, with Michael r. and Gabrihel (sic) 1. On 
 the wall above, the two archangels are again 
 seen on either side of a throne, and of one seated 
 thereon. These two bear long rods or staves, 
 but on either side are seven other angels (four r. 
 and three 1.) playing upon trumpets. There is 
 here.an evident allusion to Rev. viii. 2, 6, “ I saw 
 
 Worship of the Magi, from S. Maria Major at Home. 
 
 the seven angels, which stand before God, and to ' 
 them were given seven trumpets.” Comp. I 
 
 ,Ezek. X. 10, Tobit xii. 15, and Rev. i. 4; iv. j 
 5. (Ciampini V. M. ii., xvii., comp. Tab. xix.) 
 Michael and Gabriel appear yet again on the 
 arch of th^ Tribune of S. Apollinaris in Classe 
 (t6«c?. .Tab. xxiv.); and there ai-e representations 
 of the four archangels, as present at the Worship 
 of the Magi,.in the S. Apollinaris Novus (ibid. 
 jTab. xjxvii.) towards the close of that century. 
 To this period also is to be assigned the diptych 
 of Milan,which is remarkable as containing an 
 
 h| For further particulars as to this see $ 15 below. 
 
 ■ i See ('yiiL Alex. Epist. ad Morachos, in which the 
 patriarch of Alexandria, the chief opponent of Nestorius, 
 represents in tliese terms the doctrine condemned at 
 Ephesus. 
 
 Figured and described in Bugatl, Memorie di S. Cdso 
 Martire, Append, tab. 1. and ii. J’he particular group 
 above referred to is figured in Martigny, Du tionnaire, &c., 
 under ‘ Annonciation.’ Tbe whole diptych is published 
 In facsimile of fictile ivory by the Arundel Society. 
 
 ' embodiment (probably the first in Christian art) 
 
 I of legends concerning the appeai’ance of Gabriel 
 I to the Virgin Mary, derived from the Apocryphal 
 Gospels. 
 
 § 5. From 600 to 800 A.D. Art monu¬ 
 ments of this period are but few in number. 
 For examples, bearing upon our present subject, 
 see Ciampini V. M. vol. ii. Tabb. xxxi. and 
 xxxviii. and D’Agincourt,'" Peinture, tom. v., 
 PI. xvi. and xvii. They contain nothing to call 
 for special remark, save that, in the 8th century 
 particularly, the wings of angels become more 
 and more curtailed in proportion to the body; 
 a peculiarity which may serve as an indication of 
 date where others are wanting. One such ex¬ 
 ample in sculpture, of Michael and the Dragon, is 
 referred to below, § 10. 
 
 § 6. Eastern and Greek Representations. Early 
 monuments of Christian art in the East are un- 
 
 See also his pi. x. and xii., containing frescoes of lat« 
 but uncertain date from the Cirtacombs. 
 
ANGELS AND AECHANGELS 
 
 ANGELS AND AECHANGELS 85 
 
 fortunately, very rare, the zeal of the Iconoclasts, 
 and at a later period of Saracens and Turks, 
 having been fatal to many, which might other¬ 
 wise have been preserved. The earliest example 
 in (jreek art is a representation of an angel in 
 a MS. of Genesis in the Imperial Library at 
 Vienna, believed to be of the 4th or 5th century. 
 It is figured by Seroux D’Agincourt, PeitUure^ 
 PI. xix. It is a human figure, winged, and with¬ 
 out nimbus or other special attributes. The 
 
 will be seen that the Saviour is hei-e repre¬ 
 sented in glory. And the various angelic powei's 
 appear in three different capacities’. Beneath the 
 feet of the Saviour, and forming as it were 
 a chariot upon which He rises to Heaven, is what 
 the Greeks call the Tetramorphon. The head 
 and the hand of a man (or rather, according to 
 Greek tradition, of an angel), the heads of an 
 eagle, a lion, and an ox, are united by wings that 
 are full of eyes (comp. Ezekiel i. 18). On either 
 side of these again are two pairs of fiery wheels, 
 “ wheel within wheel,” as suggested again by the 
 description in Ezek. i. 16. These serve as 
 
 fiery sword, etc., spoken of in Gen. iii. is there 
 represented not as a sword, in the hand of the 
 angel, but as a great wheel “ of fire beside him. 
 Next in date to this is an interesting picture of 
 the Ascension, in a Syriac MS. of the Gospels, 
 written and illuminated in the year 586 a.d, at 
 Zagba in Mesopotamia. We have engraved this, 
 as embodying those Oriental types of the angel 
 form which have been characteristic of Eastern 
 and Greek art from that time to this. It 
 
 symbolic representations of the order of angels 
 known as “thrones” (comp. § 7 below), and of the 
 cherubim. Of the six other angels, here repre¬ 
 sented in human form, and winged, four are min¬ 
 istering to Our Lord (^\eiTovpyovi/T€s'), either by 
 active service, as the two who bear Him up in 
 
 " Compare the mosaic of the S. Vitalis at Ravenna 
 (Clamp. V. M. ii. tab. xlx.), in the tipper part of which 
 two angels are seen upholding a mystic " wheel.” Ciam- 
 pinns, apparently without undershindlng what was the 
 symbolism Intended, rightly describes it in the words 
 (p. 72) ” duo angeli .... quandam rotam prae manibua 
 , tenenles.” 
 
86 
 
 ANGELS AND ARCHANGELS 
 
 ANGEI.S AND ARCHANGELS 
 
 their hands, or by adoration, as two others who are 
 offering Him crowns of victory ((rrecpavoi'). Two 
 others, lastly, have been sent on work of ministry 
 to men (comp, note “ above), and are seen, as 
 St. Liflce’s narrative suggests, asking of the 
 eleven disciples, “ Why stand ye here gazing 
 up into heaven?” and the rest. (The central 
 figure of the lower group is that of the Virgin 
 Mary.) 
 
 § 7. The Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius. 
 The best comment on the picture last described is 
 to be found in the ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ of Diony¬ 
 sius. The whole number of celestial beings are 
 to be divided (so he tells us), into three orders, in 
 each of which a triple gradation is contained. In 
 the first order are contained the “thrones,” the 
 seraphim and cherubim. And these are con¬ 
 tinually in the immediate presence of God, nearer 
 than all others to Him, reflecting, without inter¬ 
 vention of any other created being, the direct 
 effulgence of His glory. Next to these, and of 
 the second order, are dominions, authorities, 
 powers (Kupidrtjres, i^ovciai, Svi'd/xeis'), forming 
 a link between the first and the third order. To 
 these last (principalities [apx“C> archangels, 
 and angels) he assigns that more immediate ex¬ 
 ecution of the divine purposes in the sphere of 
 creation, and towards mankind, which in the 
 belief of religious minds is generally associated 
 with the idea of angelic agency. 
 
 This teaching of Dionysius, regarded as it was 
 both in East and West as of all but apostolic 
 authority, has served as a foundation upon which 
 all the later traditions have been built up. And 
 this language, with the additional comments 
 quoted in the next section, will give the reader 
 the key to much that wmuld be otherwise obscure 
 in the allusions of Greek fathers, and in the 
 forms of Greek art. 
 
 § 8. Anyels in later Greek Art. The language 
 of the 'Epfiyvela Ttjs ^wypaipiKrjs, ° or ‘ Painter’s 
 Guide ’ of Panselinos, a monk of Mount Athos in 
 the 11th century, may be regarded [see under 
 Apostles] as embodying the unchanging rules of 
 Greek religious art from the 8th century to the 
 )n'esent time. Taking up the division quoted 
 above, the writer says, as to the first order, that 
 “ the thrones are represented as wheels of fire, 
 compassed about with wflngs. Their wings are 
 full of eyes, and the whole is so arranged as to 
 produce the semblance of a royal throne. The 
 cherubim are represented by a head and tw'o 
 wings. The seraphim as having six wings, 
 whereof two rise upward to the head, and two 
 droop to the feet, and two are outspread as if for 
 flight. They carry in either hand a hexapteryx, p 
 inscribed with the words ‘ Holy, Holy, Holy.’ 
 It is thus that they w'ere seen by Isaiah.” Then, 
 after describing the “ Tetramorphi,” he proceeds 
 to speak of angels of the second order.” These 
 are dominions, virtues, powers. “These,” he 
 says, “are clothed in white tunics reaching to 
 the feet, with golden girdles and green outer 
 robes. * *1 They hold in the right hand staves of 
 
 Obtained by M. Didron in MS. at Mount Athos, and 
 published by him in a French translation. 
 
 p The “ flabellum ” or “ fan ” of the Greeks was called 
 efaJTTepv^, as containing the representation of a six- 
 winged seraph. The “ thrones,” represented as wheels 
 (with wings of flame), described by Panselinos, may be 
 seen in the second of the illustrations of this article. 
 
 1 Outer robes. “ Des Stoles vertes,” says M. Didron. 
 
 gold, and in the left a seal formed thus 
 
 Then, of the third order, (principalities, arch¬ 
 angels, angels), he writes thus. “These are 
 represented vested as warriors, and with golden 
 girdles. They hold in their hands javelins and 
 axes; the javelins are tipped with iron, as 
 lances.” 
 
 § 9. Attributes of Anyels. There are two 
 sources from which we may infer the attributes 
 regarded as proper to angels in early times; the 
 description given of them in the treatise of 
 Dionysius already quoted, and the actual monu¬ 
 ments of early date which have been preserved 
 to our times. As to these Dionysius writes that 
 angels are represented as of human form in regard 
 of the intellectual qualities of man, and of his 
 heavenward gaze, and the loi-dship and dominion 
 which ai’e naturally his. He adds that bright 
 vesture, and that which is of the colour of fire, 
 are symbolical of light and of the divine likeness, 
 while sacerdotal vesture serves to denote their 
 office in leading to divine and mystical contem¬ 
 plations, and the consecration of their whole life 
 unto God. He mentions, also, girdles, staves or 
 rods (significant of royal or princely power), 
 spears and axes, instruments for measurement or 
 of constructive art (to yecafxerpiKa ual tskto- 
 viKo. OTKevr)), among the insignia occasionally 
 attributed to angels. If, from the pages of 
 Dionysius, we turn to actual monuments, we find 
 the exact counterpart of his descriptions. They 
 may be enumerated as follows :—1. The human 
 form. In all the earlier monuments (enumerated 
 above, §§ 3, 4), angels are represented as men, 
 and either with or without wings. In this 
 Christian art did but follow the suggestions of 
 Holy Scripture. But St. Chrysostom expresses 
 what was the prevailing (but not the universal) 
 opinion of early Christian w'riters, when he says 
 {De Sacerd. lib. vi. p. 424 D) that although 
 angels, and even God Himself, have ofttimes 
 appeared in the form of man, yet what was then 
 manifested was not actual flesh, but a semblance 
 assumed in condescension to the weakness of 
 mankind® (ou aapuhs d\7}deia dwd (TvyKard- 
 fiaais). Both in ancient and in modern art 
 examples are occasionally found of angels thus 
 represented as men, without any of the special 
 attributes enumerated below. 2. TLm^s. As 
 heavenly messengers ascending and descending 
 between heaven and earth, angels have, wffth a 
 natural propriety* as well as on Scriptural 
 
 But we suspect that in the original he found &ro\ai, a word 
 which Greek wTiters never use in the technical sense of 
 “ stoles ” (the ecclesiastical vestment known as stola in 
 the West since the 8th century). 
 
 »■ This is what was known in mediaeval times as the 
 “ Signaculum Dei,” or Seal of God. Such a seal is repre¬ 
 sented in the hand of Lucifer before his fall, in the Borlus 
 Dcliciarum, a MS. once in the Library of Strasbourg. 
 
 * With this agrees the language of Tertullian, De Besur- 
 rectione Camis, cap. Ixii.: ‘‘ Angell aliquando tanquam 
 homines fuenmt, edondo et bibendo, et pedes lavacro por- 
 rigendo, humanam enim induerunt superficiem, salva 
 intus substantia propria. Igitur si angeli, factt tanquam 
 homines, in eadem substantia spiritus permanserunt,' &c. 
 Similar language reappears in other Latin Fathers. 
 
 t Comp. Fhilo, Quaest. in Exod. xxv. 20, ai tov Oeov 
 Tra<rai SvrdfJieii 7rTfpo<ftvov<ri ttjs ayto npos tov Tlardpa 
 o&ov yKL\6p.eva.t t€ Kai e<f)tep.evai. And very beautifully 
 elsewhere he speaks of the angels as going up and down 
 between heaven and earth, and conveying (Siayye'A- 
 
ANGELS AND ARCHANGELS 
 
 ANGELS AND ARCHANGELS 87 
 
 authority, “ been represented in all ages of the 
 church as furnished with wings. We may add 
 that this mode of expressing the idea of ubiquity 
 and powei’, as superhuman attributes, had pre¬ 
 vailed in heathen art from the earliest times, 
 and that in East and West alike. Examples of 
 this in Assyrian art are now familiar to us. 
 Similar figures are found in Egypt. They were 
 less common in classical art. Yet Mercury, as 
 the messenger of the gods, had wings upon his 
 feet; and little winged genii were commonly repre¬ 
 sented in decorative work, and thence were ti’ans- 
 ferred (probably as mere decorations) into eaidy 
 Christian * * works of art. As to the number of 
 these wings, two only are to be found in all the 
 earlier representations. We do not know of any 
 example of four, or of six wings, eaidier than the 
 9th century, though the descriptions given in Holy 
 ,Scripture of the “Living Creatures” with six 
 wings, and the four-winged deities of primitive 
 Eastern art, might naturally have suggested 
 such repi’esentations. As to later representations 
 of cherubim and seraphim, and the like, see 
 below, section 14. 3. Vestm'e. The vesture 
 
 assigned to angels, in various ages of the Church, 
 has ever been such as was associated in men’s 
 minds with the ideas of religious solemnity, and 
 in the later centuries, of sacerdotal ministry. In 
 Holy Scripture the vesture of angels is described 
 as white (Matt, xxviii. 3; John xx. 12; Rev. iv. 
 4; XV. 6),y and in mosaics of the 5th and 6th 
 centuries, at Rome and Ravenna (where first we 
 ean determine questions of colour with any 
 accuracy), we find white vestments generally 
 assigned to them (long tunic and pallium), ex¬ 
 actly resembling those of apostles. But in 
 mosaics, believed to be of the 7th century (St. 
 Sophia at Thessalonica)* angels have coloured 
 himatia (outer robes) over the long white tunic, 
 and their wings, too, are coloured, red and blue 
 being the prevailing tints. And these two 
 colours had, long ere that time, been recognised 
 as invested with a special significance, red as the 
 colour of flame, and symbolical of holy love 
 (caritas), blue as significant of heaven, and of 
 heavenly contemplation or divine knowledge. 
 And in the later traditions of Christian art (from 
 the 9th century onwards) “ these two colours 
 were as a general rule assigned, red more espe¬ 
 cially to the seraphim as the spirits of love, and 
 blue to the cherubim as spirits of knowledge or 
 of contemplation; while the two colours com¬ 
 bined, as they often are found, are regarded as 
 
 Kovaai) the biddings of the Father to His children, and 
 the wants of the children to their Father. 
 
 “ See the passages in Fjcodus, Isaiah, and Ezekiel already 
 referred to; and compare the expression in Rev. xiv. 6, of 
 an angel Jlyivg (TrerdfAevos) there. 
 
 * For examples see Aringhi, Ronut SubteiTavea, tom. i. 
 pp. 323,615; tom. ii. p. 16’7. Compare p. 29, where similar 
 figures, without wings, Sre introduced in an ornamental 
 design. 
 
 y See Ciamplnl, V. M. il. pp. 58 and 64. He speaks of 
 “ tunicae ” and “ pallia ” as being white; and of “ stoles ” 
 (really stripes on the tunic), and wings of violet. 
 
 * Texler and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture, pi. xl. 
 Compare the curious picture of the Holy Family, a bishop 
 (or other ecclesiastic), and two angels, from Urgub, figured 
 in plate v., where the robes of the angels are white, their 
 wings blue and reddish yellow. 
 
 * “ The distinction of hue in the red and blue angels we 
 find wholly omitted towards the end of the 15th r.eutury ” 
 (Mrs. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art). 
 
 suggesting the union of the two qualities of love 
 and knowledge, the perfection of the angelic 
 nature. It should be added that the vestments 
 of angels have not unfrequently such ornament 
 appended to them as was of ordinary usage from 
 time to time in ecclesiastical di'ess, viz., coloured 
 stripes on the tunic, in the earlier centuries, 
 afterwards oraria or stoles, and even “omophoria,” 
 the distinctive insignia of episcopal office in the 
 East. 4. The Nimbus. In the early Greek MS. 
 already noticed, § 6, and in one or two early 
 representations in the catacombs at Rome, angels 
 are represented without the Nimbus. But from 
 the middle of the 5th century onward, this orna¬ 
 ment is almost invariably assigned to them. 
 [Nimbus.] 5. The Wand of Power. Only in 
 exceptional instances during the first eight cen¬ 
 turies, are angels represented as bearing anything 
 in the hand. Three examples may be cited, in 
 mosaics,** of the 6th century, at Ravenna, in 
 which angels attendant on our Lord (see § 3) 
 hold wands'^ in their hands, which may either 
 represent the rod of divine power, or, as some 
 have thought, the “ golden reed ”—the “ mea- 
 suring reed,” assigned to the angel in Rev. xxi. 
 15, as in Ezek. xl. 3. The representations Oi 
 archangels, particularly of Michael, as warriors 
 with sword, or spear, and girdle, ai’e of later date. 
 6. Instruments of Music. One early example 
 has been already referred to (§ 4) of a Ravenna 
 mosaic, in which the “ Seven Angels ” are repre¬ 
 sented holding trumpets in their hands. In the 
 later traditions of Christian art, representations 
 of angels as the “ Choristers of Heaven ” have 
 been far more common, various instruments of 
 music being assigned to them. 
 
 § 10. Michael .—The archangel Michael is first 
 designated by name in mosaics of the 5th cen¬ 
 tury, at Ravenna (Ciampini, vol. ii. pi. xvii. and 
 xxiv.). And in other cases where we see two 
 angels specially marked out as in attendance on 
 our Lord, we may infer that Michael and Gabriel 
 are designated. For the names of these two 
 alone are prominent in Holy Scripture. And 
 according to a very ancient tradition, traced back 
 to Rabbinical belief, perpetuated as many such 
 traditions were in the East, and thence handed 
 on to Western Christendom, these two arch¬ 
 angels personified respectively** the judgment 
 
 Ciampini, V. M. ii. tab. xvii., xix., and xxiv. Com¬ 
 pare in his plate xlvi. of vol. i. the mosaic at S. Agatha, 
 which we believe to be of nearly the same date. 
 
 In the church dedicated in the name of the archangel 
 Michael at Ravenna, in the year 545, an indication of 
 special honour is given to him by the small cross upon his 
 wand, which is wanting in that of Gabriel (Ciamp. V. M. 
 ii. tab. xvii.). 
 
 4 In yet other traditions the mercy of God, and more 
 particularly His healing grace, Is ministered by Raphael. 
 There is great variety in the older Jewish traditions. 
 According to one (Joma, p. 37, quoted by Bohmer in 
 Herzog’s Encycl.), when the three angels appeared to 
 Abraham, Michael, as first in rank, occupied the central 
 place, having Gabriel, as second, on his right hand, and 
 Raphael, as third in rank, on his left. This place on the 
 right hand of God is elsewhere assigned to Gabriel, as 
 being the angel of his 'power (comp. Origen, opxwv, 
 i. 8), and to Raphael that on the left (near the heart), as 
 being the angel of His mercy. And again in Philo (Qiiaest. 
 in Gen. iii. 24), the two cherubim on either side of the 
 mercy-seat represent respectively the raes-sengers of the 
 Wrath, and of the Mercy, of the Lord (comp. Fvod. xxxlv, 
 5-7> 
 
88 ANGELS and ARCHANGELS 
 
 ANGELS AND ARCHANGELS 
 
 a&d the mercy of God, and were therefore fitly 
 placed, Michael, as the angel of power, on the 
 right hand, Gabriel, nearer to the heart, on the 
 left hand. For the special traditions concerning 
 “St. Michael,” his appearances in vision at 
 Mount Galgano in Apulia, to St. Gregory the 
 Great on the mole of Hadrian, now the castle of 
 Sf. Angelo, and to Aubert, Bishop of Avranches 
 in 706, A.D., at “Mount St. Michel” in Nor¬ 
 mandy (to this our own St. Michael’s Mount 
 owes its designation), see Jameson’s Sacred and 
 Legendary Art, pp. 94 sqq. The oldest ex¬ 
 ample in sculpture of St. Michael treading under 
 foot the dragon (see Rev. xii. 7, S), is on the 
 porch of the Cathedral of Catana, believed to be 
 
 St. Michael. 
 
 of the 7th century. [Figured above.] Later 
 pictures often represent St. Michael as the angel 
 of judgment, holding scales in his hand, in which 
 souls are weighed. 
 
 § 11. Gabriel (Heb. “ Man of God,”) as the 
 me.ssenger more especially of comfort and of good 
 tidings, occupies a prominent place in the New 
 Testament, as announcing the birth both of John 
 the Baptist to Zacharias and of our Lord to the 
 Virgin Mary. (In apocryphal legend he is repre¬ 
 sented as foretelling to Joachim the birth of the 
 Virgin Mary.) In the language of Tasso he is 
 “ I’Angelo Annunziatore.” Though only twice 
 (as far as I have obseiwed) designated by name 
 in early Christian Art (Ciampini, F. M. ii.. Tab. 
 xvii. and xxiv.), yet in the various pictures of 
 the Annunciation, which are many, it is he, of 
 course, who is to be understood. By a singular 
 fate, having been regarded by Mahomet as his 
 immediate inspirer, he is looked upon in many 
 parts of the East as the great protecting angel 
 of Islamism, and, as such, in direct opposition to 
 Michael the protector of Jews and Chri.stians. 
 
 § 12. Raphael (Heb. the Healer who is from 
 God, or “Divine Healer”) is mentioned in the 
 book of Tobit as “ one of the seven holy angels 
 which go in and out before the glory of the Holy 
 One,” cap. xii. 15. Through the influence of 
 this beautiful Hebrew story of Tobias and 
 Raphael, his name became associated in early 
 times with the idea of the guardian angel. As 
 
 such he is twice figured in the Roman catacombs, 
 and allusions to the same story are frequent 
 in the Vetri Antichi. [Glass, Christian.] In 
 mediaeval Greek art the three archangels already 
 named are Sometimes represented together, de¬ 
 signated by their initial letters M, F, and P, 
 Michael as a warrior, Gabriel as a prince, and 
 Raphael as a priest—the three supporting be¬ 
 tween them a youthful figure of our Lord, him¬ 
 self I’epresented with wings as the “angelus” 
 or messenger of the will of God. (Figured in 
 Jameson’s S. L. A., p. 9.3.) 
 
 § 13. Uriel. (The Fire of God.) The fourth 
 archangel, named Uriel in Esdras ii. 4, has been 
 much less prominent in legend and in art than 
 the three already named.® He is regarded as 
 charged more particularly with the interpreta¬ 
 tion of God’s will, of judgments and prophecies 
 (with reference, doubtless, to Esdras ii.). These 
 “archangels” of Christian tradition are to the 
 Jews the first four of those “Seven Angels” who 
 see the glory of God (Tobias xxii. 15); the other 
 three being Chamuel (he who sees God), Jophiel 
 (the beauty of God), and 2kidkiel (the righteous¬ 
 ness of G(^). But these last three names have 
 never been generally recognised either in East or 
 West. And in the first example of the repre¬ 
 sentation of these Seven Angels in Christian art 
 they are distinguished from the two archangels 
 Michael and Gabriel, who hold wands, while to 
 the seven, as already noticed, § 4, trumpets are 
 assigned. (Ciampini, V. M., ii., pi. xvii.) 
 
 § 14. Seraphim and Chervhim. These two 
 names appear, the first in Isaiah vi. 2 (there only), 
 and the latter in Exodus xiv. 18, where t"-o 
 are spoken of, and in Ezekiel i. 4—14, who speaks 
 of four (compare the four “ living creatures ” 
 of Rev. iv. 6). They have been perpetuated in 
 
 Seraphim and Cbembim 
 
 Christian usage, and the" descriptions given of 
 them in Holy Scripture have been embodied 
 (those of the cherubim or four “ living creatures,” 
 first, and somewhat later those of the seraphim) 
 in Christian art from the 5th century onwards. 
 They were regarded (see above § 9) as the spirits 
 of love and of knowledge respectively. For fuller 
 details concerning the two in Holy Scripture see 
 
 « From the name of Uriel being little known, the fourth 
 archangel is designated in some mediaeval monument* 
 I (Jameson, S. and L. Art, p. 92) as “ St. Cherubin,” 
 
ANGELS OF CHUKCHES 
 
 ANGELS OF CHURCHES 
 
 89 
 
 * Dictionaiy of the Bible.’ In art they do not 
 appear as Angel forms, with any special modi¬ 
 fication of the ordinary type, as far as-we have 
 observed, in any earlier representation than that 
 of the Syriac MS. already described and figured. 
 Later modifications of this oldest type may be 
 seen in Jameson, S. and L. Art, p. 42 sqq., 
 from which the cut given above is taken; 
 D’Agincourt, Sculpture, pi. xii. 16 (the diptych 
 of Rambona, 9th century), Peinture, pi. 1. 3 
 (Greek MS. of 12th century). Cherubic repre¬ 
 sentations of the four “ Living Ci’eatures” will 
 be separately treated under Evangelists. 
 
 § 15. J'he Illustrations to this Article. Great 
 interest attaches to the mosaic of Xystus III., 
 which forms the first of the illustrations to this 
 article, from its bearing upon the history of 
 doctrine, and especially of the cultus of the 
 Virgin Mary, and as restorations made in the 
 time of Benedict XIV. (1740-1758) have pro¬ 
 duced considerable changes in the mosaic here 
 figured, it will be well to state the authority 
 for the present representation. The only pub¬ 
 lished picture of the mosaic in its older state 
 (that here reproduced), is a very rude engraving 
 in Ciampini, Vetera Monumenta, i. p. 200, Tab. 
 xlix. In some important particulai-s of archaeo¬ 
 logical detail his engraving varies from the care¬ 
 fully drawn and coloured pictures, from which 
 the illustration above given has been taken. But 
 in the general arrangement and outline of the 
 figures the two are in accord. The coloured 
 drawings of which we speak, form part of a col¬ 
 lection (in two large folio volumes) which was 
 made by Pope Clement XL when Cardinal 
 Albano. These, with a number of other volumes 
 containing classical antiquities of various kinds, 
 were purchased at Rome by an agent of George III., 
 and are now in the Royal Library at Windsor. 
 
 The second of the illustrations (from a Syidac 
 MS.) is from a photolithogi’aph, reproducing the 
 outline given by Seroux d’Agincourt, Peinture, pi. 
 xxvii. That author speaks of it as “ caique' sur 
 I’original,” and from a comparison with an exact 
 copy made from the original by Professor West- 
 wood, we are able to vouch for the perfect accu¬ 
 racy of the present illustration. [W. B. M.] 
 
 ANGELS OF CHURCHES—Bishops. It 
 does not appear that the bishops of the Primitive 
 Church were commonly spoken of under this 
 title, nor indeed did it become in later times the 
 ordinary designation of the episcopal office. In¬ 
 stances, however, of this application of it occur 
 in the earlier Church historians, as, e. g., in So¬ 
 crates, who so styles Serapion Bishop of Thomais 
 (Lib. iv. c. 23). The word Bydel also, which is 
 Saxon for angel or messenger, is found to have 
 been similarly employed (see Hammond on Pev. 
 i. 20). But though no such instances were 
 forthcoming, it would prove nothing against the 
 received interpretation, as it may be considered, 
 of the memorable vision of St. John, recorded in 
 the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, in 
 which he is charged to convey the heavenly 
 message to each of the seven churches through 
 its “ Angel.” It should be remembered that 
 the language of this vision, as of the whole 
 book to which it belongs, is eminently mystical 
 and .symbolical; the word “ Angel,” therefore, 
 as being transferred from an heavenly to an 
 earthly ministry, though it would very signifi¬ 
 
 cantly as well as honourably characterize the 
 office so designated, could yet scarcely be ex¬ 
 pected to pass into general use as a title of 
 individual ministers. By the same Divine voice 
 from which the Apostle receives his commission 
 the “ mystery ” of the vision is interpreted. 
 “ The seven stars,” it is declared, “ are the 
 angels of the seven chui'ches; and the seven 
 candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven 
 churches.” The symbol of a star is repeatedly 
 employed in Scripture to denote lordship and 
 pre-eminence (e.g. Num. xxiv. 17). “There shall 
 come a star out of Jacob,” where it symbolises 
 the highest dominion of all. Again, the actual 
 birth of Him who is thus foretold by Balaam is 
 announced by a star (Matt. ii. 2 ; cf. Is. xiv. 12). 
 Faithful teachers are “stars that shall shine for 
 ever ” (Dan. xii. 3) ; false teachers are “ wander¬ 
 ing stars ” (Jude 13), or “stars which fall from 
 heaven ” (Rev. vi. 13, viii. 10, xii. 4). Hence it 
 is naturally inferred from the use of this symbol 
 in the present instance that the “angels” of the 
 seven churches, were placed in authority over 
 these churches. Moi-eover, the angel in each 
 church is one, and the responsibilities ascribed 
 to him correspond remarkably with those which 
 are enforced on Timothy and Titus by St. Paul 
 in the Pastoral Epistles. Again, this same title is 
 given to the chief priest in the Old Testament, 
 particularly in Malachi (ii. 7),—where he is stylea 
 the angel or messenger of the Lord of Hosts, 
 whose lips therefore were to keep knowledge, 
 and from his mouth, as from the oracle, the 
 people were to “ seek the law,” to receive know¬ 
 ledge and direction for their duty. To the chief 
 minister, therefore, of the New Testament, it may 
 be fairly argued, the title is no less fitly applied. 
 
 By some, however, both among ancient and 
 modern writers, the word “ angel ” has been 
 understood in its higher sense as denoting God’s 
 heavenly messengers; and they have been supposed 
 to be the guardian angels of the several churches 
 — their angels—to whom these epistles were ad¬ 
 dressed. It is contended that wherever the 
 word angel occurs in this book, it is employed 
 unquestionably in this sense ; and that if such 
 guardianship is exercised over individuals, much 
 more the same might be predicated of churches 
 (Dan. xii. 1). Among earlier writers this inter¬ 
 pretation is maintained by Origen (Horn. xiii. in 
 Luc. and Horn. xx. in Num.') and by Jerome (in 
 Mich. vi. 1, 2). Of later commentators, one of 
 its most recent and ablest defenders is Dean 
 Alford. But besides the obvious difficulty of 
 giving a satisfactory explanation to the word 
 “ write ” as enjoined on these supposed heavenly 
 watchers, there remains an objection, not easily 
 to be surmounted, in the language of reproof>nd 
 the imputation of unfaithfulness, which on this 
 hypothesis would be addressed to holy and sin-, 
 less beings,—those angels of His Avho delight to 
 “ do His pleasure.” So is it observed by Au¬ 
 gustine (Ep. 43, § 22) : “ ‘ Sed habeo adversuin 
 te, quod caritatem primam reliquisti.’ Hoc de 
 superioribus angelis dici non potest, qui per- 
 petuam retinent caritatem, unde qui defecerunt 
 et lapsi sunt, diabolus est et angeli ejus.” 
 
 By presbyterian writers the angel of the 
 vision has been variously interpreted :—1. Of the 
 collective presbytery ; 2. Of the presiding pres¬ 
 byter, which office, however, it is contended was 
 soon to be discontinued in the Church, because 
 
90 
 
 ANGERS 
 
 ANNE 
 
 of* its foreseen corruption. 3. Of the yiesseugers 
 sent from the several churches to St. John. It 
 hardly falls within the scope of this article to 
 discuss these interpretations. To unprejudiced 
 readers it will probably be enough to state them, 
 to make their weakness manifest. It is difficult 
 to account for them, except as the suggestions of 
 a foregone conclusion. 
 
 On the other hand, as St. John is believed on 
 other grounds to have been pre-eminently the 
 organiser of Episcopacy throughout the Church, 
 so here in this wonderful vision the holy Apostle 
 comes before us, it would seem, very remarkably 
 in this special character; and in the message 
 which he delivers, under divine direction, to each 
 of the seven churches through its angel, we 
 recognize a most important confirmation of the 
 evidence on which we claim for episcopal govern¬ 
 ment, the precedent, sanction, and authority of the 
 apostolic age. (Bingham, Thorndike, Archbishop 
 Trench on Epp. to Seven Churches.') [D. B.] 
 
 ANGERS, COUNCIL OF (Andegavense 
 Concilium), a.d. 453, Oct. 4 ;* wherein, after 
 consecrating Talasius, Bishop of Angers, there 
 were passed 12 canons i*especting submission 
 of presbyters to bishops, the inability of 
 “ digami ” to be ordained, &c. (Mansi, vii. 899- 
 902). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ANGLICAN COUNCILS (Concilia Ajigli- 
 cana); a designation given to English general 
 councils, of which the precise locality is un¬ 
 known ; e. g. a.d. 756, one of bishops, presbyters, 
 and abbats, held by Archbishop Cuthbert to 
 appoint June 5 to be kept in memory of the 
 martyrdom of St. Boniface and his companions 
 (Cuthb. ad LuUum, intr. Epist.S. Bonif. 70; Wilk. 
 i. 144; Mansi, xii. 585-590); A.D. 797 (Alford), 
 798 (Spelman), held by Ethelheard preparatory to 
 his journey to Rome to oppose the archbishopric 
 of Lichfield (W. Malm. G. P. A. lib. i. ; Pagi ad an. 
 796, n. 27 ; Mansi, xiii. 991, 992). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ANIANUS. (1) Patriarch, commemorated 
 Hedar 20 Nov. 16 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (2) Bishop ; translation, June \i(Mai't. Bedae, 
 Hieron.) ; deposition at Orleans, Nov. 17 (M. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANICETUS, martyr, commemorated Aug. 
 
 12 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.j 
 
 ANNA, the prophetess, commemorated Sept. 1 
 (Ado, De Festiv.f Martyrol.) ; Jakatit 8 = Feb. 2 
 (Cal. Ethiop.). [C.] 
 
 ANNATES : lit. the revenues or profits of 
 one year, and therefore synonymous with first- 
 fruits so far; but being, in their strict anc 
 technical sense, a development of tiie Middle 
 Ages, the only explanation that can be given of 
 them here is how they arose. Anciently, the 
 entire revenues of each diocese were placed in 
 the hands of its bishop, as Bingham shews (v. 6. 
 1-3), who with the advice and consent of his 
 senate of presbyters distributed, and in the 
 Western Church usually divided them into 4 
 parts. One p.-irt went to himself; a 2nd to his 
 clergy ; a 3rd to the poor; a 4th to the mainte¬ 
 nance of the fabric and requirements of the 
 diocesan churches. Of these the 3rd and 4th 
 were claimants, so to speak, that never died ; 
 but in the case of the two former, when ofiices 
 becanae vacant by death or removal, what was 
 
 to be done with the stipend attaching to them, 
 till they were filled up ? Naturally, when en¬ 
 dowments became fixed and considerable, and 
 promotions, from not having been allowed at all, 
 the rule, large sums constantly fell to the dis¬ 
 posal of some one in this way ; of the bishop, 
 when any of his clergy died or were removed ; 
 and of whom, when the bishop died or was re¬ 
 moved, by deposition or by translation, as time 
 went on, but of the metropolitan or primate at 
 last, though, perhaps, at first of the presbytery ? 
 And then came the temptation to keep bishop¬ 
 rics vacant, and appropriate “ the annates,” or 
 else require them from the bishop elect in return 
 for consecrating him. It was but a step further 
 in the same direction for Rome to lay claim to 
 what primates and archbishops had enjoyed so 
 long, when the appointment of both, so far as 
 the Church was concerned, became vested in 
 Rome. But, on the other hand, it is equally 
 certain, that had the primitive rule, founded as 
 it was in strict justice, been maintained intact, 
 each parish, or at least each diocese, would have 
 preserved its own emoluments, or, which comes 
 to the same thing, would have seen them applied 
 to its own spiritual exigencies in all cases. The 
 34th Apostolical canon, the 15th of Ancyra, and 
 the 25th of Antioch, alike testify to the old rule 
 of the Church, and to what abuses it succumbed. 
 Still, De Marca seems hardly justified in ascrib¬ 
 ing the origin of annates to direct simony (De 
 Concord. Sac. et Imp. vi. 10). [E. S. F.] 
 
 ANNE (^kvva, nsn). Mother of the Virgin 
 Mary. July 25 is observed by the Orthodox 
 Greek Church as the commemoration of the 
 “ Dormitio S. Annae,” a Festival with abstinence 
 from labour (dpyia). The same day is said to have 
 been anciently dedicated to S. Anne in the West 
 also, and the feast was pi’obably transferred in the 
 Roman Calendar to the 26th (the day on which 
 it is at present held) from a desire to giA’e 
 greater prominence to S. Anne than was possible * 
 on S. James’s Day. In the Greek Calendar, also, 
 Joachim and Anna, “ ©eoTraropes,” have a festival 
 on Sep. 9, the day following the Nativity of the 
 Virgin Mary. Both the Armenian and the Greek 
 Calendars haA’^e on Dec. 9 a “ Festival of the Con¬ 
 ception of the Virgin Mary,” or (as it is called 
 in the latter) 'H (rv\\7)\pis rrjs ayias Kat deoirpo- 
 pLrfTopos ''Auvrjs, I. e. S. Anne’s Conception of 
 the Virgin, Ka\ yap avri) d.TreKvgo'e inrhp 
 \6yov rhv Aoyov Kvf)(Ta<Tav. In the Ethiopic, 
 
 “ Joachim, avus Chidsti,” has April 7; and on 
 July 20 is commemorated the “ Ingressus Annae 
 Matris Mariae in Templum ” or “ Purificatio 
 Annae.” (Daniel’s Codex Liturgicus, tom. iv.; 
 Alt’s Kirchenjahr.) There is no evidence of any 
 public recognition of S. Anne as a patron saint 
 until about the beginning of the 6th century, 
 when Justinian I. had a temple built in her 
 honour, which is described by Procopius (De 
 Aedific. Justin, ch. iii.) as lepoTrpcTres re Kai 
 dyaarhu o\a>s cdos ’'Avut) ayia, ‘‘ Avhom,” he 
 adds, “ some belieA'e to be /iTjrepa OeoroKOu and 
 grandmother of Christ; ” and we are informed 
 bv Codinus that Justinian II. founded another in 
 705. 
 
 Her body was brought from Palestine to Con¬ 
 stantinople in 740, and her “Inventio Corporis ” 
 was celebrated with all the honour due to a 
 saint. [C.] 
 
ANNOTINUM PASCHA 
 
 ANTIMENSIUM 
 
 91 
 
 ANNOTINUM PASCHA. In the Grego¬ 
 rian Liber Lesponsalis, and in some MSS. ot the 
 Sacramentaryj following the Dominica in Albis 
 (First after Easter), we find an office in Pas- 
 cha Annotina. That it was not, however, in¬ 
 variably on the day following the Octave of 
 Easter is shown by Martene (quoted by Binterim, 
 V. i. 246), who found it placed on the Thursday 
 before Ascension Day in an ancient ritual of 
 Vienne. And it is mentioned in later autho- 
 I’ities as having been celebi’ated on various days, 
 as on the Sabbatum in Albis, the Saturday alter 
 Easter-Day. 
 
 As to the meaning of the expression there are 
 various opinions. Natalis Alexander Eccl. 
 
 Diss. ii. quaest. 2), with several of the older au¬ 
 thorities, supposed it to be the anniversary of 
 the Easter of the preceding year. If this anni¬ 
 versary was specially observed, when it fell in 
 the Lent of the actual year it would naturally 
 be omitted, or transferred to a period when the 
 Fast was over; for the services of the Pascha 
 annotinum were of a Paschal character, and con¬ 
 sequently unsuited for a season of mourning. 
 
 Probablv, however, the nature of the Pascha 
 annotinum is correctly stated by the Micrologus 
 (c. 56); Annotine Pascha is a" term equivalent 
 to anniversary Pascha; and it is so called because 
 in olden time at Rome those who had been bap¬ 
 tized at Easter celebrated the anniversary of 
 their baptism in the next year by solemn ser¬ 
 vices. Honorius of Autun, Durand, and Beleth, 
 give the same explanation, which is adopted by 
 Thoinasius, Martene, and Mabillon. To this call¬ 
 ing to mind of baptismal vows the collects of 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary (p. 82) refer. The 
 words of the Micrologus, that this was observed in 
 olden time (antiquitus) seem to imply that even 
 at the time when that treatise was written 
 (about 1100), it liad become obsolete (Gregorian 
 Sacram. Ed. Menard, p. 399; Binterim’s Denh- 
 ww'diykeiten, v. i. 245 ffi). [C.] 
 
 ANNUNCIATION. [Mary the Virgin, 
 Festivals of.] 
 
 ANOINTING. [Unction.] 
 
 ANOVIUS, of Alexandria, commemorated 
 July 7 {Mart. Ilieron.). 
 
 ANSENTIUS. Commemorated August 7 
 {Mart. Hieron.}. [C.] 
 
 ANTEMPNUS, bishop, commemoi*atcd April 
 27 {Mart. Hieron.^. [C.] 
 
 ANTEPENDIUM (or Antipendium), a veil 
 or hanging in front of an altar. The use of such 
 a piece of drapery no doubt began at a period 
 when altars, as that at S. Alessandro on the Via 
 Nomentana near Rome [Altar], began to be 
 constructed with cancellated fronts: the veil 
 hanging in front would protect the interior 
 from dust and from profane or irreverent curio¬ 
 sity. Ciampini {Vet. Mon. t. ii. p. 57) says 
 that in a crypt below the church of SS. Cosmo 
 e Damiano at Rome there was in his time an 
 ancient altar “ cum duabus columnis ac epistilio 
 et corona; nec non sub ipso epistilio anuli sunt 
 ferrei e quibus vela pendebant.” (Compare t. i. 
 p. 64.) 
 
 In the 7th and 8th centuries veils of rich and 
 costly stufls are often mentioned in the Z»6. 
 Pontif. as suspended “ante altare,” as in the 
 
 case where Pope Leo III. gave to the church of 
 St. Paul at Rome “ velum rubeum quod pendet 
 ante altare habens in medio crucem de chrysoclavo 
 et periclysin de chrysoclavo,” a red veil which 
 hangs before the altar, having in the middle 
 a cross of gold embroidery and a border 
 of the same. It is possible, however, that in 
 this and like cases the veil was not attached to 
 the altar, but hung before it from the ciborium 
 or from arches or railings raised upon the altar 
 enclosure. [A. N.] 
 
 ANTEEOS, the pope, martyr at Rome, 
 commemorated Jan. 3 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Bedae'). [C.] 
 
 ANTHEM. [Antiphon.] 
 
 ANTHEMIUS, commemorated Sept. 26 {Cal. 
 Armen.). [C.] 
 
 ANTHIA, mother of Eleutherius, comme¬ 
 morated April 18 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ANTHIMUS. (1) Bishop, martyr at Nico- 
 media, commemorated April 27 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, martyr at Rome, May 11 {Tb. 
 et Bedae). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Aegaea, Sept. 27 {Mart. 
 
 R. V.). [C.] 
 
 ANTHOLOGIUM {' Av0o\6yiov), a compi¬ 
 lation from the Paracletice, Menaea, and Horo¬ 
 logium, of such portions of the service as are most 
 frequently required by ordinary worshippers. It 
 generally contains the offices for the Festivals of 
 the Lord, of the Virgin Mary, and of the prin¬ 
 cipal saints who have festivals (twv eopra^o- 
 [xevav ayiwv) ; and tho.se ordinary offices which 
 most constantly recur. (Neale, Eastern Church, 
 Inti'od. 890.) This book, which was intended to 
 be a convenient manual, has been so swollen by 
 the zeal of successive editors, that it has become, 
 says Leo Allatius, a very monster of a book. {De 
 lAbris Ecclesiasticis Graecorum, p. 89.) [C.] 
 
 ANTIGONUS, of Alexandria, commemorated 
 Feb. 26 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANTIMENSIUM, a consecrated altar-cloth, 
 “cujus nominis ratio haec est, quod ea adhibeant 
 loco mensae sive altaris ” (Bona, De Rebus Lit. 
 I. xx. § 2). This seems the natural derivation, 
 especially if, as Suidas says (in Suicer’s Thesaurus 
 s. V.) the word was a Latin one, meaning a table 
 placed before a tribunal {irpb SiKaarTjp'iov kci- 
 yevy). Nevertheless, the Greeks always write 
 the word avr ifiivaiop, and derive it from fxivaos, 
 a canister (Neale, Eastern Church, Introd. p. 186). 
 
 These Antimensia were, and are, consecrated 
 only at the consecration of a church (Goar’s Eu- 
 chologion, p. 648), when a piece of cloth large 
 enough to form several antimensia was placed on 
 the altar, consecrated, and aftei’wards divided 
 and distributed as occasion required. “ Relics 
 being pounded up with fragrant gum, oil is poured 
 over them by the bishop, and, distilling on to the 
 corporals, is supposed to convey to them the 
 mysterious virtues of the relics themselves. The 
 Holy Eucharist must then be celebrated on them 
 for seven days, after which they are sent forth 
 as they may be wanted ” (Neale, u. s. p. 187). 
 As to the antiquity of these ceremonies it is 
 difficult to speak with certainty. 
 
 Tlieodore Balsamon (in Suicer, s. v.) .says that 
 these Antimensia were for use on the Tables of 
 
92 
 
 ANTIOCH 
 
 ANTIOCH . 
 
 Oratories (twp ev/cTTjpiwi'), which were probably 
 for the most part unconsecrated; and Manuel 
 Charitopulus (in Bona, u. s.) says that they were 
 for use in cases where it was doubtful whether the 
 altar was consecrated or not. They were required 
 to be sufficiently large to cover the spot occupied 
 by the paten and chalice at the time of conse¬ 
 cration. 
 
 The Syrians do not use these cloth antimensia, 
 but in their stead consecrate slabs of wood, which 
 appear to be used even on altars which are con¬ 
 secrated (compare the Ethiopia Area [Arca]). 
 The Syriac Nomocanon quoted by Renaudot (ZjA 
 Orient, i. 182) in the absence of an Antimensium 
 of any kind permits consecration of the Eucharist 
 on a leaf of the Gospels, or, in the desert and in 
 case of urgent necessity, on the hands of the 
 deacons. [C.] 
 
 ANTIOCH, COUNCILS OF. Cave reckons 
 only 13 Councils of Antioch between A.D. 252 
 and 800, at which date the first vol. of his Hist. 
 Liter aria stops : Sir H. Nicolas as many as 33, 
 and Mansi nearly the same number. Numbering 
 them, however, is unnecessary, as there are no 
 first, second, and third Councils of Antioch as of 
 Carthage and elsewhere. They may be set 
 down briefly in chronological order, only three 
 of them requiring any special notice. 
 
 A.D. 252—under Fabian, against the followers 
 of Novatus (Euseb. vi. 46). 
 
 — 264, 269—On their dates see Mansi i. 
 1089-91 : both against Paul of Samosata, 
 who was also Bishop of Antioch after De- 
 metrian (Euseb. vii. 27-9). For details, 
 see below. 
 
 — 331—Of Arians, to depose Eustathius, 
 Bishop of Antioch, for alleged Sabellianism 
 (Soc. i. 24). 
 
 — 339—Of Arians, to appoint Pistus to the 
 see of Alexandria, to which St. Athanasius 
 had just been restored by Constantine the 
 younger (^Life of St. At!ia7iasius by his 
 Benedictine editors). 
 
 — 341—known as the Council of the Dedi¬ 
 cation : the bishops having met ostensibly 
 to consecrate the great church of the 
 metropolis of Syria, called the “ Dominicum 
 Aureum,” the only council of Antioch 
 whose canons have been preserved (Soc. 
 ii. 8). For details, see below. 
 
 — 345—Of Arians : when the creed called 
 the “ Macrostiche,” from its length, was 
 put forth (Soc. ii. 18). 
 
 — 348—Of Arians: at which, however, 
 Stephen, Bishop of Antioch, himself an 
 Arian, was deposed by order of Constantins 
 for the monstrous plot oi'ganised by him 
 against the deputies from Sardica (New¬ 
 man’s Arians, iv. 3, 4). 
 
 — 354—Of Arians : against St. Athanasius. 
 
 — 358—under Eudoxius : rejected the words 
 Homoousion and Ilonioiousion equally: 
 but “ without venturing on the distinct 
 Anomoean doctrine ” (Newman’s Arians, 
 iv. 4). 
 
 — 361—To authorise the translation of St. 
 Meletius from Sebaste to Antioch. A 
 second was held shortly afterwards, by the 
 same party, to expel him for having made 
 proof of his orthodoxy. 
 
 «— 363—Of semi-Arians ; addressed a sy¬ 
 
 nodical letter to the new emperor Jovian, 
 
 as had been done bv the orthodox at Alex- 
 ¥ 
 
 andria. St. Meletius presided, and signed 
 first (Soc. iii. 25). 
 
 A.D. 367—Creed of the Council of the Dedica¬ 
 tion confirmed. 
 
 — 379—under St. Meletius: condemned Mar- 
 cellus, Photinus, and Apollinaris. Ad¬ 
 dressed a dogmatic letter to St. Damasus 
 and the bishops of the West, who had sent 
 a similar one to St. Paulinus. 
 
 — 380—For healing the schism there : when 
 it was agreed that whichever survived— 
 St. Meletius or St. Paulinus—should be ac¬ 
 cepted by all. Here the rSfjLOs or synodical 
 letter of the Westerns was received (at 
 least so says De Marca, Explic. Can. V. 
 Concil. Const. A.D. 381, among his Dis¬ 
 sertations). St. Meletius signed first of 146 
 others. St. Paulinus, apparently, was not 
 present at all. A meeting of Arians took 
 
 . place there the same year on the death of 
 their bishop Euzoius, when Dorotheus was 
 elected to succeed him (Soc. iv. 35, and 
 V. 3 and 5). 
 
 — 389—To prevent the sons of Marcellus, 
 Bishop of Apamea, from avenging his 
 murder by the barbarians. 
 
 — 391—Against the Messalians. 
 
 — 424—or, as Mansi thinks (iv. 475) in 418 : 
 at which Pelagius was condemned. 
 
 — 431—under John of Antioch, condemning 
 and deposing St. Cyril and five others 
 (Mansi, 5, 1147). 
 
 — 432—under John also; for making peace 
 with St. Cyril : after which he in this, or 
 another synod of the same year, condemned 
 Nestorius and his opinions. 
 
 — 435—Respecting the works of Theodorus 
 of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus 
 lately translated into Armenian. 
 
 — 440—On the same subject: occasioned by 
 a letter of Proclus, patriarch of Constanti¬ 
 nople. 
 
 — 445—under Domnus : in which a Syrian 
 bishop named Athanasius was condemned. 
 
 — 448—under Domnus also: when Ibas, 
 Bishop of Edessa, was accused ; but hLs 
 accusers were excommunicated. 
 
 — 471—At which Peter the Fuller was de¬ 
 posed, and Julian consecrated in his room ; 
 then Peter, having been restored by the 
 usurper Basilicus in 476, was again ejected 
 by a synod in 478 on the restoration of 
 Zeno. 
 
 — 482—At which the appointment of Ca- 
 lendio to that see was confirmed ; but he 
 in turn was ejected by the emperor Zeno 
 in 485, and Peter the Fuller restored, who 
 thereupon held a synod there the same 
 year, and condemned the 4th Council. 
 
 — 512—at which Severus was appointed 
 patriarch. 
 
 — 542—Against Origen. 
 
 — 560—under Anastasius: condemning those 
 who opposed the 4th Council. 
 
 — 781—under Theodoric : condemning the 
 Iconoclasts. 
 
 Of these, the two synods A.D. 264 and 269 
 against Paul of Samosata were conspicuous both 
 from the fact that the accused was bishop of the 
 city in which they were held, and from the novel 
 
ANTIOCH 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 93 
 
 character of their proceedings. They came to 
 the stern resolution of deposing him, yet had to 
 apply to a pagan emperor to enforce their sen¬ 
 tence, who, strange to say, did as they requested. 
 No such case had occurred before: it was the 
 gravity of their deliberations and the justice of 
 their decisions tliat caused them to be respected. 
 With the first of them, as we learn from Eu¬ 
 sebius, there were some celebrated names as¬ 
 sociated. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappa¬ 
 docia, the well-kuown advocate for re-baptisiilg he¬ 
 retics with St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the wonder¬ 
 worker, and Athenodorus his brother, the bishops 
 of Tarsus and Jerusalem, and others. Dionysius 
 of Alexandria was invited, but sent excuses on 
 account of his age; declaring his sentiments on 
 the question in a letter addressed to the whole 
 diocese, without so much as naming the accused, 
 its bishop. Those who were present exposed his 
 errors ; but Paul, promising amendment, man¬ 
 aged to cajole Firmilian, aud the bishops sepa¬ 
 rated without passing sentence. At the second 
 council, having been convicted by a presbyter 
 uamed Malchion, occupying the highest position 
 in the schools of Antioch as a sophist, he was 
 cut off from the communion of the Church ; and 
 a synodical letter was addressed in the name of 
 those present, headed by the bishops of Tarsus 
 and Jerusalem—Firmilian had died on his road 
 to the council—and of the neighbouring churches, 
 to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, and the 
 whole Church generally, setting forth all that 
 had been done in both synods, as well as all the 
 false teaching and all the strange practices—so 
 much in harmony with what is attributed to 
 the sophists of Athens in Plato—for which Paul 
 had been deposed, also that Domnus, son of 
 Deinetrian, his predecessor in the see, had been 
 elected in his place.* Still, condemned as he had 
 been, Paul held his ground till the emperor 
 Aurelian, having been besought to interfere, com¬ 
 manded that “ the house in which the bishop 
 lived should be given up to those with whom 
 the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome com¬ 
 municated as regards dogma.” This settled his 
 fate ouce for all. 
 
 The remaining council of Antioch to be spe¬ 
 cially noticed is that of the Dedicatio A.D. 341. 
 It was attended by 90 bishops, says St. Atha¬ 
 nasius, or by 97 as St. Hilary. Of these but 36 
 are said to have been Arian : yet they carried 
 their point through Constantins so far as to 
 substitute Eusebius of Hems for St. Athanasius, 
 and, on his hesitating, to get George or Gregory 
 of Cappadocia sent out to be put in possession of 
 the see of Alexandria without delay. 
 
 Not content with this, they got their 12th 
 canon levelled against those who, having been 
 deposed in a synod, presume to submit their 
 case to the emperor instead of a larger synod, 
 averring that they deserved no pardon, and 
 ought not ever to be restored again. In this 
 way the restoration of St. Athanasius to Alex¬ 
 andria by Constantine the younger was virtually 
 declai'ed uncanonical and his see vacant. To 
 this canon St. Chrysostom afterwards objected, 
 when it was adduced against him, that it was 
 framed by the Arians. Lastly, they managed to 
 pi'omuigate four different creeds, all intended to 
 undermine that of Nicaea. Yet, strange to say, 
 the 25 canons passed by this council came to be 
 among the most respected of any, and at length 
 
 admitted into the code of the Universal Church. 
 They are termed by Pope Zacharias “ the canons 
 of the blessed Fathers;” by Nicholas I. “the 
 venerable and holy canons of Antioch;” and by 
 the Council of Chalcedon “ the just rules of the 
 Fathers.” Hence some have supposed two 
 councils : one of 50 orthodox bishops, or more, 
 who made the canons; another of 30 or 40 
 Arians, who superseded St. Athanasius (Mansi, ii. 
 1305, note). But canon 12 plainly was as much 
 directed against St. Athanasius as anything else 
 that was done there. On the other hand, it laid 
 down a true principle no less than the rest ; and 
 this doubtless has been the ground on which 
 they have been so widely esteemed. Among 
 them there are five which cannot be passed over, 
 for another reason. The 9th, for distinctly 
 proving the high antiquity of one at least of the 
 Apostolical canons, by referring to it as “ tho 
 antient canon which was in force in the age of 
 our fathers,” in connexion with the special 
 honour now claimed for metropolitans—on which 
 see Bever., Synod, ii. ad loc.—canons 4 and 5, for 
 having been cited in the 4th action of the Council 
 of Chalcedon, or rather read out there by Aetius, 
 Archdeacon of Constantinople, from a book as 
 “canons 83 and 84 of the holy Fathers ;” and 
 likewise canons 16 and 17, for having been read 
 out in the 11th action of the same council bv 
 Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia, from a book as 
 “ canons 95 and 96 ; ” being in each case the 
 identical numbers assigned to them in the code of 
 the Universal Church, thus proving this code to 
 have been in existence and appealed to then, and 
 therefore making it extremely probable, to say 
 the least, that when the Chalcedonian bishops in 
 their first canon “ pronounced it to be fit and 
 just that the canons of the holy Fathers made in 
 every synod to this present time be in full force,” 
 they gave their authoritative sanction to this 
 very collection. Hence a permanent and in¬ 
 trinsic interest has been imparted to this council 
 irrespectively of the merits of its own canons in 
 themselves, though thei^ are few councils whose 
 enactments are marked throughout by so much 
 good sense. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ANTIPAS, Bishop of Pergamus, tradition¬ 
 ally the “ angel ” of that church addressed in 
 the Apocalypse, commemorated April 11 (CaL 
 Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ANTIPHON-^Gr. 'AutI^covov : Lat. Anti- 
 phona: Old English, Antefn, Antem [Chaucer]: 
 Modern English, Anthem. For the change of 
 Antefn into Antem^ compare 0. E. Stefn [prow] 
 with modern Stem. French, Antienne.') “ An- 
 tiphona ex Graeco interpretatur vox recipi'oca ; 
 duobus scilicet choris alternatim psallentibus 
 ordine commutato.” (Isidore, Oriyines vi. 18.) 
 
 There are two kinds of responsive singing used 
 in the Church ; the Responsorial, when one singer 
 or reader begins, and the whole choir answers in 
 the alternate verses; the present Anglican prac¬ 
 tice when the Psalms are not chanted; and the 
 Antiphonal (described in Isidore’s definition) when 
 the choir is divided into two parts or sides, and 
 each part or side sings alternate verses. Of 
 these forms of ecclesiastical chant we are now 
 concerned only with the second, the Antiphonal. 
 We shall endeavour, as briefly as may be, to men¬ 
 tion (1) Its origin. (2) The different usages of 
 the term “Antiphon.” (3) Its application in the 
 
94 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 Missal, and in the Breviary; pointing out as 
 they occur any peculiarity or difi’erence of usage 
 between the Eastern and the Western Churches. 
 
 I. Its origin may be found in the Jewish 
 Church. For we read (1 Chron. vi. 31 &c.), that 
 David divided the Levites into three bands, and 
 “ set them over the service of song in the house 
 of the Lord, after that the ark had rest. And 
 they ministered before the dwelling-place of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation with singing, 
 until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in 
 Jerusalem; and then they waited on their office 
 according to their order.” It appears further 
 that the sous of the Kohathites, under “ Heman a 
 singer” (v. 33), stood in the centre while the 
 Gershomites, led by Asaph, stood on the right 
 hand, and the Merarites, led by Ethan (or Jedu- 
 thuu), on the left. These arrangements, and the 
 further details given in 1 Chron. xxv. clearly 
 point to some definite assignment of the musical 
 parts of the tabernacle and temple worship. 
 Some of the psalms, moreover, as the xxiv. and 
 the cxxxiv. appear to be composed for antiphonal 
 singing by two choirs. 
 
 It appears on the evidence of Philo, that this 
 mode of singing was practised by the Essenes. 
 Speaking of them he says : “ In the first place 
 two choirs are constituted ; one of men, the other 
 of women. They then sing hymns to the praise 
 of God, composed in different kinds of metre and 
 verse—now with one mouth, now with anti¬ 
 phonal hymns and harmonies, leading, and direct¬ 
 ing:, and ruling: the choir with modulations of 
 the hands and gestures of the body; at one time 
 in motion, at another stationary; turning in one 
 direction, and in the reverse, as the case requires. 
 Then, when each choir by itself has satisfied 
 itself with these delights, they all, as though 
 inebriated with divine love, combine from both 
 choirs into one.” 
 
 Pliny appears to allude to antiphonal chanting 
 when, in a well-known passage (Epist. x. 97), he 
 saj’-s that the Christians sing a hymn to Christ 
 as God, “ by turns aifiong themselves ” (secum 
 invicem). 
 
 The introduction of antiphonal singing among 
 the Greeks is ascribed by an ancient tradition to 
 Ignatius of Antioch (Socrates, Eccl. Hist. vi. 8), 
 who saw a vision of antiphonal chanting in 
 heaven. And this tradition probably represents 
 the fact, that this manner of singing was early 
 introduced into Antioch, and spread thence over 
 the Eastern Church. 
 
 We learn from S. Basil that it was general in 
 his time. He says (^Ep. ccvii. ad Cleric. Neo- 
 caesar.) prefacing that what he is going to speak 
 of are the received institutions in all the churches 
 (ra vvv KeKpaTriK6Ta €07} irdcrais 'rats rov &€ou 
 eKK\T](r'iais (rvi^cpda icrri Kal (rvfKpuya), “ that the 
 people, I’esorting by night to the house of prayer 
 
 .at length, rising from prayer, betake 
 
 themselves to psalmody. And now, divided into 
 two parts, they sing alternately to each other 
 Siauep-TjOfVTes, avTi^dWovaiv dWr)Kois . .). 
 Afterwai’ds they commit the leading of the 
 melody to one, and the rest follow him.” 
 
 Theodoret (Hist. Eccles. ii. 19) ascribes the 
 introduction of antiphonal singing to Flavian 
 and Diodorus, who, while still laymen, he says, 
 were the first to divide the choirs of singers into 
 two parts, and teach them to sing the songs of 
 David alternately (ovroi TtpSiroi, ^iXV SteXdyres 
 
 rovs tS>u rpaWdyruy x^povs, 4 k SiaSoxrjs dS(i$ 
 rrju Aavi5iKT)u edida^ou p.fKcpSiav'), and then he 
 adds that this custom, which thu.s took its rise at 
 Antioch, spread thence in every direction. 
 
 In the Western Church the introduction of 
 Antiphonal singing after the manner of the Ori¬ 
 entals (secundum morem Orientalium), is attri¬ 
 buted to S. Ambrose, as S. Augustine says 
 (Confess, ix. c. 7, § 15), and he gives as a reason, 
 that the people should not become weary. 
 
 A passage, indeed, is adduced from Tertullian 
 (ad Uxor, ii.), from which it is argued that the 
 practice of alternate singing was in vogue before 
 the time of S. Ambrose. It has also been con¬ 
 tended that Pope Damasus, or again Caelestiue, 
 was its originator in the Western Church. As 
 these opinions do not seem to be generally adopted, 
 and as the arguments by which they are sup¬ 
 ported may easily admit of another interpreta¬ 
 tion, it does not appear to be necessary to occupy 
 space by discussing them here. 
 
 II. The word Antiphon, however, has been 
 used in several ditferent senses. 
 
 1. Sometimes it appears to denote the psalms 
 or hymns themselves, which were sung anti- 
 phonally. Thus Socrates (Hist. Eccl. vi. 8) calls 
 certain hymns which were thus sung “Anti- 
 phonas.” When the word is used in this sense 
 there is generally a contrast expressed or implied 
 with a “psalmus directus,” or “ directaneus.” 
 “ Psallere cum antiphona” is a phrase much 
 used in this connexion, to which “ psallere in 
 directum” is opposed. Thus S. Aurelian in the 
 order for psalmody of his rule, “ Dicite Matu- 
 tinarios, id est primo canticum in antiphona: 
 deinde directaneum, Judica me Deus. ... in 
 antiphond dicite hymnum. Splendor paternae 
 gloriae.” It is not quite certain what is meant 
 by these two expressions; the general opinion is 
 that “ psallere cum (or in) antiphona,” means to 
 sing alternately with the two sides of the choir; 
 and “psallere directaneum” to sing either with 
 the whole choir united, or else for one chanter to 
 sing while the rest listened in silence (this latter 
 mode of singing, however, is what is usually 
 denoted bj’’ “ tractus;”) while some think that 
 “ psallere in ” or “ cum antiphona” means to sing 
 with modulation of the voice ; and that “ psallere 
 directaneum” denotes plain recitation without 
 musical intonation. Thus Cassian (De Instit. 
 Coenob. ii. 2), speaking of psalms to be sung in 
 the night office, says, “ et hos ipsos antiphonarura 
 protelatos melodiis, et adjunctione quarumdam 
 modulationumand S. Benedict directs that 
 some psalms should be said “ in directum,” but 
 many more “ modulatis vocibus.” A third 
 opinion is that “psallere cum antiphona” means 
 to sing psalms with certain sentences inserted 
 between the verses, which sentences were called 
 antiphons, from thefr being sung alternately 
 with the verses of the psalm itself. Of this 
 method of singing we shall speak more fully 
 presently. In opposition to this sense, “ psallere 
 directum” would mean to sing a psalm straight 
 through without any antiphon; and it may be 
 remarked that the “ psalmus directus,” said daily 
 at Lauds, in the Ambrosian office, has no Anti¬ 
 phon. The expression “ oratio recta” seems also 
 to be used in much the same sense. 
 
 2. The word Antiphona* is also used to denote 
 
 • “A distinction is made by llturgi('.al writers between 
 
ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 95 
 
 a sacred composition, or compilation of verses 
 from the Psalms, or sometimes from other parts 
 of Scripture, or several consecutive verses of the 
 same psalm appropriate to a special subject or 
 festival. This was sung by one choir, and after 
 each verse an unvarying response was made by 
 the opposite choir; whence the name. 
 
 Compilations of this nature are to be found in 
 the old office books, e.g., in the Mozarabic office 
 for the dead, where, however, they are called “ a 
 Psalm of David,” as being said in the place of 
 psalms in the Nocturns ; and they have this pecu¬ 
 liarity, that each verse (with very few excep¬ 
 tions) begins with the same word. Thus the 
 verses of one such “psalm” all begin with “Ad 
 te;” those of another with “ Miserere;” of 
 another with “Libera;” of another with “ Tu 
 Domine,” and so on. Thev are also found in the 
 Ambrosian burial offices, where they are called 
 Antiphonae, each verse being considered as a 
 separate Antiphon, and are headed Antiph. i. 
 Antiph. ii. and so on. The Canticles, which were 
 appointed to be said instead of the “ Venite” in 
 the English state services, there called “ hymns,” 
 and directed to be said or sung “ one verse by 
 the Priest, and another by the Clerk and people ” 
 (L e. antiphonally), are of this nature. 
 
 3. The word “ Antiphona” denotes (and this 
 is the sense in which we ai‘e most familiar with 
 its use), a sentence usually, but by no means 
 invariably, taken from the psalm itself, and ori¬ 
 ginally intercalated between each verse of a psalm, 
 but which, in process of time, came to be sung, 
 wholly or in part, at the beginning and end only. 
 We shall speak more at length on this head pre¬ 
 sently. 
 
 4. The word “Antiphona” came to denote 
 such a sentence taken by itself, and sung alone 
 without connexion with any psalm. These Anti¬ 
 phons were frequently original compositions. 
 (We thus arrive at our common use of the word 
 anthem as part of an Anglican choral service.) 
 Antiphons of this description are of common 
 occurrence in the Greek offices. 
 
 As an example take the following from the 
 office for the taking the greater monastic habit 
 (too iJL€yd\ov o'x'^/iaTos). In the Liturgy, after 
 the entrance of the Gospels, the following Anti¬ 
 phons (’AvTt^coj'a) are said :— 
 
 Ant. 1. “Would that I could wipe out with tears the 
 handwriting of my offences, 0 Lord: and please Thee by 
 repentance for the remainder of my life: but the enemy 
 deceives me, and wars against my soul. 0 Lord, before 1 
 finally perish, save me. 
 
 " Who that is tossed by storms, and makes for it, docs 
 not find safety in this port? Or who that is tormented 
 with pain and falls down before it, does not find a cure in 
 this place of healing? 0 thou Creator of all men, and 
 physician of the sick, 0 Lord, before 1 finally perish, 
 save me. 
 
 “ I am a sheep of Thy rational flock; and I flee to Thee, 
 the good Shepherd; save me the wanderer from Thy fuld, 
 0 God, and have mercy on me.” 
 
 Then follows “ Gloria Patri ” and a “ Theoto- 
 kion,” which is a short Antiphon or invocation 
 addressed to the B.V.M. as “Theotokos.” Then 
 Antiphon ii., after the model of the first, but in 
 
 antiphona, and antiphonum, the neuter form denoting 
 antiphons of the nature here described; and the feminine 
 a sentence or modulation sung as a prefix or adjunct to a 
 given psalm ‘ quasi ex opposite respondens.’ ”—Goar, Euch. 
 p. 123. 
 
 two clauses only. So after another “ Gloria ” 
 and “ Theotokion,” Antiphon iii. in one clause. 
 
 III. We shall now refer to the principal uses 
 of Antiphons in the services of the Church. 
 
 1st. In the Liturgy, or office of the Mass. 
 
 We will take the Greek offices first. In these 
 (and we will confine ourselves to the two Litur¬ 
 gies of SS. Basil and Chrysostom) before the lesser 
 entrance (i.e. that of the Gospels) 3 psalms, or 
 parts of psalms are song with a constant re¬ 
 sponse after each verse. These are called re¬ 
 spectively the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Antiphon, and 
 each is preceded by a prayer, which is called tho 
 prayer of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Antiphon respec¬ 
 tively. 
 
 The Greek liturgical Antiphons consist each of 
 four versicles with its response, though occasion¬ 
 ally, as on Christmas Day, the third Antiphon 
 has but three; that “ Gloria Patri ” is said after 
 the first and second Antiphons, but not after the 
 third. (This is doubtless because the office passes 
 on immediately after the third Antiphon to other 
 singing with which we are not now concerned.) 
 In the first Antiphon the antiphonal response 
 is always the same, and is that given in the 
 cases quoted ; in the second it varies with the 
 day to the solemnity of which it has reference; 
 it always begins with the words “ Save us,” and 
 ends with “ Who sing to Thee, Alleluia ” (cSxtov 
 ^ fxds . . . rpaWovTas <Toi ’A\\T]\ov'ia)’, in the 
 third it varies likewise with the day, but is not 
 of so uniform a type. It is, as a rule, the same 
 as the “ Apolyticon,” an Anthem which is sung 
 near the end of the preceding vespers. That 
 after the “ Gloria ” in the second Antiphon, in¬ 
 stead of repeating the proper response of the 
 Antiphon “ 0 only begotten Son and Word of 
 God,” &c., is sung as a response. (This invoca¬ 
 tion occurs in the office of the “ Typics.”) 
 
 Other compositions, which are virtually Anti¬ 
 phons, are found in Greek offices, and will be 
 spoken of under their proper heads ; see Conta- ' 
 KiON, Theotokion. 
 
 We turn now to the Liturgies of the Western 
 Church. 
 
 The three Antiphons of the Greek Liturgies 
 correspond both in structure and position with 
 the single Antiphon of the Western Church. 
 The chant which the Church uses at the begin¬ 
 ning of the Mass is commonly called “ Introitus,” 
 or “ Antiphona ad Introitum,” from its being 
 sung Antiphonally when the priest enters upon 
 the service, or mounts to the altar; for both ex¬ 
 planations ai’e given [Introit]. It still retains 
 its name of “ Introitus ” in the Roman missal; 
 and the word “ Introit ” is frequently used among 
 ourselves at the present day with a similar mean¬ 
 ing. 
 
 In the Ambrosian Liturgy the corresponding 
 Antiphon was called “ Ingressa ” for the same 
 reason ; while in the Mozarabic and Sarum Litur¬ 
 gies it was called “ Officium.” In the Galilean 
 rite it was called “Antiphona” or “Antiphona 
 ad praelegendum,” or “ de praelegere.” 
 
 The institution of the Antiphon at the Introit 
 is almost universally ascribed to S. Caelestine, 
 who w'as Pope a.D. 422, and who is said to have 
 borrowed this kind of singing from S. Ambrose, 
 and to have appointed that the cl. psalms of 
 David .should be sung antiphonally before the 
 Sacrifice, which was not done previously, but 
 only tho Epistles of S. Paul and the Gospel 
 
96 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 were read, and thus the Mass was conducted.*’ 
 In the account given by S. Augustine {de Civ. 
 Dei, xxii. 8 sub fin.') of a Mass which he cele¬ 
 brated, A.D. 425, there is no mention of such an 
 Introit. After speaking of certain preliminary 
 thanksgivings (as we should say occasional) for 
 a i-ecent miracle, he says, “ I saluted the people ” 
 . . . when silence was at length established, the 
 appointed lections of Holy Scripture were read 
 as though that was the bbginuing of the Mass. 
 
 It seems, however, doubtful what we are to 
 understand by the singing of Psalms thus insti¬ 
 tuted by Caelestine —whether an entire Psalm, 
 varying with the office, was sung, or only cer¬ 
 tain verses taken from the Psalms, and used as 
 an Antiphon. The former opinion is held by 
 Honorius (Gemraa animae, 87), who says that 
 
 Caelestine appointed Psalms to be sung at the 
 Introit of the Mass, from which (de quibus) 
 Gregory the Pope afterwards composed Anti¬ 
 phons for the Introit of the Mass with musical 
 notations (modulando composuit.)” Also by 
 Priscus in his “ Acts of the Popes,” and by Cardi¬ 
 nal Bona, 
 
 The latter opinion is held by Micrologus 
 (cap. i.), and by Amalarius (Jde Eccl. Off. iii. 
 5), who, in explaining this addition of Caeles- 
 tine’s, says, “ Which we understand to mean 
 that he selected Antiphons out of all the Psalms, 
 to be sung in the office of the Mass. For previ¬ 
 ously the Mass began with a lection, which cus¬ 
 tom is still retained in the ‘vigils of Easter and 
 Pentecost.” 
 
 It has again been argued with much force that 
 it was customary to sing Antiphons taken from 
 the Psalms at the Mass before the time of Caeles¬ 
 tine.S, Ambrose (jie Myst. cap. 8) and the 
 writer de Sacr. (iv. 2) speak as though the use 
 of the verse “ Introibo,” &c,, at the Introit were 
 familiar. So, too, Gregory Nazian. says. When 
 he (the priest) is vested, he comes to the altar 
 saying the Antiphon “ I will go unto the altar of 
 God ” (Introibo ad altare Dei). It is also noticeable 
 that some of the verses said to have been used as 
 Antiphons in early times differ somewhat from 
 Jerome’s version. This is sti-ong evidence that 
 the use of Antiphons at the Introit was anterior 
 to the time of Caelestine. However this may 
 be, Caelestine may well have so organized or 
 .altered, or developed the custom, as to be called 
 its inventor. And on the whole the more pro¬ 
 bable opinion seems to be that he appointed en¬ 
 tire Psalms to be sung before the Mass and that 
 afterwards Gregory the Great selected from them 
 verses as an Antiphon for the “ Introit,” and 
 oth-ers for the “ Responsory,” ** “ Offertory,” and 
 “ Communion,” which he collected into the book 
 which he called his Antiphonary. In support of 
 this view it may be observed that the Respon¬ 
 sory &c. (which are really Antiphons, though 
 the Introit soon monopolized that name) are 
 often taken from the same Psalm as the Introit. 
 
 The form of the Antiphon at the Introit was 
 as follows. After the Introit, properly so called, 
 a psalm was sung, originally entire, but after- 
 
 b Liber pontificaJis in vita S. Caelestini. See also the 
 Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, April, vol. i. (Henschen 
 and Papebroch). 
 
 c Vide Radulph. Tungrens, De Can. Observ. prop. 23. 
 Cassian, Tnstit. iii. 11. 
 
 d Afterwards known as the “Gradual.” In the Anti¬ 
 phonary it is called “ Responsorium gradale." 
 
 wards a single verse with “Gloria Patri.” The 
 Introit was then repeated, and some churches 
 used to sing it three times on the more solemn 
 days. 
 
 The Introit in the Antiphonary of S. Gregory 
 is taken from the Psalms, with a few exceptions, 
 which Durandus (^Rat. iv. 5) calls “ Irregular 
 Introits.” These Introits, taken from other parts 
 of Scripture, are in all cases followed by their 
 appointed “ Psalmus.” There are also a few In¬ 
 troits which are not taken from any part of 
 Scripture. Such is that for Trinity Sunday in 
 the Roman and Sarum missals. 
 
 “ Blessed be the Holy Trinity, and the undivided 
 Unity; we will give thanks to It, for It has dealt merci¬ 
 fully with us.” 
 
 And that for All-Saints Day in the same Missal. 
 
 “ Let us all rejoice celebrating the festival in honour 
 of all the Saints, over whose solemnity the angels rejoice, 
 and join in praising the Son of God.” 
 
 These non-script ural Introits, however, are 
 mostly, as will be observed, for festivals of later 
 date, and are not found in Gregory’s Antiphonary. 
 A metrical Introit is sometimes found. Thus 
 in the Roman Missal in Masses, “ in Coinmemora- 
 tione B.V.M., a purif. usque ad pasch.” the 
 Introit is:— 
 
 Salve, sancta Parens, enixa puerpera Regem, 
 
 Qui coelum terramque regit in secula seculorum.e 
 Psalmus. —Virgo Dei genetrix, quern totus non capit orbis 
 In tua se clausit viscera factus homo. 
 
 Gloria Patri. 
 
 Here the “ Psalmus ” is not from the Psalms, 
 which is very unusual, though this is not a soli¬ 
 tary case. That of Trinity Sunday is another. 
 The lines are the beginning of an old hymn to 
 the Virgin, which is used in her office in various 
 Breviaries. 
 
 The different Sundays were often popularly 
 distinguished by the fii'st word of their “ Officium,” 
 or “ Introitus.” Thus, the first four Sundays in 
 Lent were severally known as, “ Invocavit,” 
 “ Reminiscere,” “ Oculi,” “ Laetare.” Low Sun¬ 
 day as “ Quasimodo,” and so in other cases. 
 So too we find week days designated, i.e. Wednes¬ 
 day in the third week in Lent called in Missals, 
 “ Feria quarta post Oculi.'' In rubrical direc¬ 
 tions this nomenclature is very frequent. 
 
 The Ambrosian “ Ingressa ” consists of one un¬ 
 broken sentence, usually but by no means always, 
 taken from Scripture, and not followed by a 
 “ Psalmus,” or the “Gloria Patri.” It is often 
 the same as the Roman “Officium.” It is never 
 repeated except in Masses of the Dead, when its 
 form approaches very nearly to that of the Ro¬ 
 man “Introitus.” 
 
 The form of the Mozarabic “ Officium ” though 
 closely approaching that of the Roman “ In¬ 
 troitus ” differs somewhat from it. The Anti¬ 
 phon is followed by a “ versus,” corresponding to 
 the Roman “Psalmus,” with the “Gloria Patri,” 
 before and after which the second clause alone of 
 the Antiphon is repeated.^ 
 
 Durandus (^Rat. lib. iv. cap. 5) and Beleth (^De 
 Div. Off. cap. 35) state that in their time a 
 Tropus "was sung, in some churches, on the more 
 solemn days before the Antiphon. 
 
 e The line is thus given in the Roman and Sarum 
 jMissals. It was probably read “ in secla sSclorum.” 
 
 ^ This is the Roman manner of repeating the “Re- 
 sponsorles ’ at Matina. 
 
ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 97 
 
 We now come to that use of Antiphons with | 
 which we are pi'obably most familial*—as sung 
 as an accompaniment to Psalms and Canticles. 
 In general terms an Antiphon in this sense is 
 a sentence which precedes a Psalm or Canticle to 
 the musical tone of which the whole Psalm or 
 Canticle is sung, in alternate verses by the oppo¬ 
 site sides of the choir jvhich at the end unite in 
 repeating the Antiphon. This sentence is usually, 
 but by no means univei’sally, taken from the 
 Psalm itself, and it varies with the day and 
 occasion. Originally the Psalm was said by one 
 choir, and the Antiphon was intercalated between 
 each verse by the opposite choir: whence the 
 name. Ps. 136 (Confitemini) and the Canticle 
 “ Benedicite ” are obvious examples of this 
 method of singing. Indeed in Ps. 135 (v. 10-12) 
 we have very nearly the same words, without 
 what we may call the Antiphon (“for His mercy 
 endureth for ever”), which occur in ft. 136 with 
 that Antiphon inserted after each, clause, and 
 the “ Benedicite ” is often recited without the 
 repetition of its Antiphon after every verse.? 
 Pss. 42 and 43 (^Quemadrnodum and Judica), 80 
 (Q«t regis Israel), and 107 (^Confitemini) will at 
 once suggest themselves as containing an Anti- 
 phonal verse which is repeated at intervals. 
 
 There are many examples of this earlier use of 
 Antiphons in the Greek Services. For instance: 
 at Vespers on the “Great Sabbath” (t. e. Easter 
 Eve), Ps. 82 (Beus stetit) is said with the last 
 verse, “Arise, 0 God, and judge Thou the earth, 
 for Thou shalt take all heathen to Thine inheri¬ 
 tance,” repeated with beautiful application, as an 
 Antiphon between each verse. 
 
 Again, in the Office for the Burial of a Priest, 
 Pss. 23 (^Dominus regit me), 24 (^Domini est 
 terra), 84 ( Quam dilecta), are said with “Alleluia, 
 Alleluia,” repeated as an Antiphon between 
 each verse. Here the three Psalms are called 
 respectively the first, second, and third Anti¬ 
 phons. 
 
 It appears that in the Roman Church the same 
 custom of repeating the Antiphon after each 
 verse of the Psalm originally prevailed. In an 
 old mass, edited by Menard, in the Appendix to 
 the Sacramentary of S. Gregory, we read, “ An- 
 nuente Episcopo, incipiatur psalmus a Cantore, 
 cum Introitu reciprocante.” * 
 
 Amalarius, too {Be Ordine Antiphonarii, cap. 
 iii.), speaking of the Nocturns of weekdays, has 
 the words, “ Ex senis Antiphonis quas vicissim 
 chori per singulos versus repetunt.” We have 
 evidence that this custom W’as not obsolete (in 
 places at least) as late as the 10th century, in the 
 life of Odo, Abbot of Cluny, where we are told 
 that the monks of that house, wishing to pro¬ 
 long the office of the Vigils of S. Martin (Nov. 
 11), when the Antiphons of the office are short,*' 
 
 8 E.g. in the Lauds of the Ambrosian Breviary, and in 
 a still more compressed form in the Mozarabic Lauds; 
 where the word " Benedicite ’’ is omitted from the begin¬ 
 ning of each verse after the first.. 
 
 The use of “ Alleluia ” on this and on similar occa¬ 
 sions of mourning (e.g. during Lent) is different from the 
 usage of the Western Church. 
 
 » This seems to point more to the mode of singing the 
 Introit than Psalms in the daily office. 
 
 The circumstance of their frequent repartition has 
 been sus:ge.sted as a reason why the Antiphons to the 
 Psalms in the daily office are, as a rule, so much shorter 
 than that at the Introit of the Mass, 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 I and the nights long, till daybreak, used to repeat 
 every Antiphon after each verse of the Psalms, 
 We find also, m a letter by an'anonymous author 
 to Batheric, who was appointed Bishop of 
 Ratisbon, A.D. 814 (quoted by Thomasius), the 
 writer complaining that he has in the cour.se of 
 his travels found some who, with a view to "get 
 through the office as rapidly as possible, that 
 they may the quicker return to their worldly 
 business, recite it “ without Antiphons, in a 
 perfunctory manner and with all haste ” (“ sine 
 Antiphonis, cursim, et cum omni velocitate ” ). 
 Theodoret also I’elates (^Hist. Eccl. iii. 10) that 
 Christians, in detestation of the impiety of 
 Julian, when singing the hymns of David, added 
 to each verse the clause, “ Confounded be all they 
 that worship carved images.” / 
 
 A familiar instance of this older use of an 
 Antiphon is found in the “ Reproaches ” (“ versi- 
 culi improperii ” or “ improperia ”) of the 
 Roman Missal for Good Friday. 
 
 These are Gregorian: the introductory rubric 
 as it stands in the Roman Missal is cited, as it is 
 so precise as to the manner of singing them. It 
 runs thus: “Vei'siculi sequentes improperii a 
 binis alternatim cantantur, utrosque choro simul 
 repetente post quemlibet versum Popule, &c.” 
 
 Sometimes metrical hymns were sung anti- 
 phonally after this manner. Thus at the “ Salu¬ 
 tation of the Cross” the verse of the hymn 
 “ Pange lingua,” which begins “ Crux fidelis,” is 
 sung in the Sarum rite at the beginning, and 
 after every Averse of the hymn, the rubric being—• 
 
 “ Chorus idem repetat post unumquemque versum. 
 “Crux fidelis inter omnes,” &c. 
 
 (. . . Sacerdotes can tent hunc rersum seqiientem.) 
 
 “ Pange lingua gloriosi proelium certaminis,” &c. 
 
 Chorus —*‘ Crux fidelis,” &c. 
 
 And so on. So also before the Benediction of 
 the Paschal Candles on Easter Eve, according 
 to the Sarum rite, the hymn “ Inverdor rutili ” 
 is sung in the same manner, with the first stanza 
 repeated antiphonally after each stanza. 
 
 A variation of this form of antiphonal inter¬ 
 polation is when the interpolated clause itself 
 varies. The following is a striking example :— 
 On the morning of Easter Eve in the Greek 
 office, the following Antiphons (rpoirdpia) are 
 said with Ps. 119, “saying” (as the rubric 
 directs) “one verse (crrlxov) from the Psalm 
 after each troparium.” These are known as to 
 iyKu>p.ia. 
 
 “ Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord, 0 teach me Thy statutes. 
 Blessed are those that are undefiled in the way, and walk 
 in the law of the Lord.” 
 
 “Thou, 0 Christ, the Life, wast laid low in the 
 grave, and the angelic hosts were amazed, glorifying 
 Thy condescension.” 
 
 “ Blessed are they that keep His testimonies, and seek 
 Him with their whole heart,” 
 
 "0 Life, how is it that Thou dost die? How is it 
 that Thou dost dwell in the grave ? Thou payest the 
 tribute of death, and raiscst the dead out of Hades.” 
 “For they w'ho do no wickedness walk in His ways.” 
 
 “ We magnify Thee, 0 Jesu the King, and honour 
 Thy burial, and Thy passion, by which Thou hast saved 
 us from destruction.” 
 
 And so on throughout the whole Psalm. 
 
 In the same manner at the burial of monks, 
 the blessings at the beginning of the Sermon on 
 
 “ The rubrical directions with respect to the ‘‘Impro* 
 perla ” in the Mozarabic Missal are very full. 
 
98 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 the Mount (oi fiaKapiaixoi) are recited with a 
 varying antiphonal clause after each, beginning 
 from the fifth. 
 
 As an example from the Western Church, we 
 may refer to the following, which belongs to 
 Vespers on Easter Eve. It is given in S. Gre¬ 
 gory’s Antiphonary, with the heading Antiph. and 
 Ps. to the alternate verses. 
 
 Antiph. “ In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn 
 towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, 
 and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Alleluia. 
 
 Pa. “ My soul doth magnify the Lord.” 
 
 Antiph. “ And behold, there was a great earthquake, for 
 the angel of the Lord descended from heaven.” Alleluia. 
 
 I’s. “ And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” 
 
 And so the Magnificat is sung with the suc¬ 
 cessive clauses of the Gospel for the day used as 
 Antiphons after each of its verses. 
 
 The missal Litanies which are said in the Am¬ 
 brosian Mass on Sundays in Lent, and the very 
 beautiful Preces with which the Mozarabic 
 Missal and Breviary abounds, are so far anti¬ 
 phonal that each petition is followed by an un¬ 
 varying response. Their consideration, however 
 interesting, scarcely belongs to our present 
 subject. 
 
 The repetition of the Antiphon after each 
 verse was called “ Antiphonare.” In the old 
 Antiphonai'ies we frequently find such directions 
 as “ Hoc die Antiphonamus ad Bemdictus^’’ or 
 simply “ Hoc die antiphonamus.” The word 
 “ antiphonare ” is explained to mean to repeat 
 the Antiphon after each verse of the Canticle. 
 The “ Greater Antiphons ” {i. e. “ 0 Sapientia,” 
 &c.) are directed to be sung at the Benedictus^^ 
 with the rubric, “Quas antiphonamus ab In Sanc- 
 titate which means that the repetition of the 
 Antiphon begins from the verse of which those 
 are the first words.® 
 
 At a later period the custom of repeating the 
 Antiphon after each verse of the Psalm dropped, 
 and its use was gradually limited to the beginning 
 and end of the Psalm. A relic of the old usage 
 still survives in the manner of singing the 
 “ Venite ” at Nocturns, in which Psalm the 
 Antiphon is repeated, either wholly or in part, 
 several times during the course of the Psalm. 
 
 It remained a frequent custom, and more par¬ 
 ticularly in the monastic usages, at Lands and 
 Vespers on the greater feasts to sing the Anti¬ 
 phon three times at the end of Benedictus and 
 of Magnificat, once before Gloria Patri, once 
 before Sicut erat, and once again at the conclu¬ 
 sion of the whole. This seems to have been the 
 general use of the Church of Tours; and the 
 Church of Rome I’etained the practice in the 
 12th century, at least in certain offices of the 
 festivals of the Nativity, the Epiphany, and S. 
 Peter. It was called “ Antiphonam triumphare,” 
 which is explained by Martene (^De Ant. Eccl. 
 Bit. iv. 4) as “ ter fari.” Antiphonam lemre,^ or 
 imponere, means to begin the Antiphon. 
 
 Other variations in the manner of singing the 
 Antiphon are mentioned by other writers. Thus 
 
 “ This differs from the later (and the present) practice, 
 according to which these Antiphons are said to the Mag¬ 
 nificat at Vespers. 
 
 o This is the manner in which the "/aoufapio-^xot ” men¬ 
 tioned above are recited. The first four are followed by 
 no antiphonal sentence. 
 
 p Compare our English tue of the word to raise. 
 
 we are told “i that sometime.s the Antiphon was 
 said twice before the Psalm; or at least, if only 
 said once, the first half of it would be sung bv 
 one choir, and the second half by the other. 
 This was called “ respondere ad Antiphonam.” 
 
 It appears that this method of singing tne 
 Antiphon was confined to the beginning and end 
 of the Psalm or Canticle. When repeated during 
 the Psalm, the Antiphon was always sung by one 
 choir, the other taking the verse. 
 
 The repetition of the Antiphons was in later 
 times still further curtailed, and the opening 
 woi-ds only sung at the beginning of the Psalm 
 or Canticle, the entire Antiphon being recited at 
 the close. Still later, two or more Psalms were 
 said under the same Antiphon, itself abbreviated 
 as just stated. This is the present custom of the 
 Roman Breviary. When the Antiphon w’as taken 
 from the beginning of the Psalm or Canticle, 
 after the Antiphon the beginning of the Psalm or 
 Canticle was not repeated, but the recitation was 
 taken up from the place where the Antiphon 
 ceases. For instance, the opening verses of the 
 92nd Psalm are said at Vespers on Saturday in 
 the Ambrosian rite in this manner :— 
 
 Ant. “ Bonum est.” 
 
 Ps. “ Et psallere nominl Tuo Altissime,” &c. 
 
 “Gloria Patri,” &c. 
 
 Ant. “ Bonum est confiteri Domiuo Deo nostro.” 
 
 Where the recitation of the Psalm begins with 
 the A’^erse following the Antiphon, though the 
 opening woi'ds onlg of the Antiphon are said at 
 the beginning. 
 
 On the more important festiA^als the Anti¬ 
 phons at Vespers, Matins, and Lauds (but not at 
 the other hours), were said entire before as well 
 as after the Psalms and Canticles. These feasts 
 were hence called “double;” those in which the 
 Antiphons were not thus repeated, “ simple.” 
 
 There are a few peculiarities in the use of 
 Antiphons to the Psalms and Canticles in the 
 Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites which may be 
 mentioned. 
 
 1. The Ambrosian Antiphons are divided into 
 simple and double. The simple Antiphons are 
 said in the same manner as the Roman Antiphons 
 on days which are not “double.” They are 
 always so said whatever be the nature of the 
 feast. In Eastertide the Antiphon is said entire 
 before the Psalm, and instead of its repetition 
 at the end, “ Alleluia, Alleluia,” is said. 
 
 The double Antiphons consist of two clauses, 
 the second being distinguished by a ^.(i. e. versus), 
 and is said entire both before and after the 
 Psalm. The following is a specimen which is 
 said to be one of the Psalms on Good Friday:— 
 
 Ant. duplex. “Simon, sleepest tbou? Couldest not thou 
 watch with me one hour ? ” 
 
 r. “ Or do ye see Judas, how he sleeps not, but hastens 
 to deliver Me to the Jews ?” 
 
 These double Antiphons occur occasionally and 
 irregularly on days which have proper Psalms. 
 
 1 By Amalarins, De Eccl. Off. iv. 7. 
 
 r In the Vatican Antiphonary we find the foil 'wing 
 direction on the Epiphany:—“ Hodie ad omnes Antiphonas 
 respondemus,” and so in other instances. In a MS. of the 
 church of Rouen the antiphon before and after the “ Mag¬ 
 nificat ” at first Vespers of the Assumption is divided into 
 four alternate parts between the two sides of the choir, 
 and after the “Gloria Patri ” is again gnng by both sides 
 together. 
 
ANTIPHON 
 
 ANTIPHON 
 
 99 
 
 Thus on Wednesday before Easter, out of nine 
 Psalms, one was a double Antiphon; on Thurs¬ 
 day, out often, none, and on Good Friday, out of 
 eighteen, one ; on Christmas Day, out of twenty- 
 one, four; and on the Epiphany, out of twenty- 
 one, six. Festivals are not divided into “ double ” 
 and “ simple ” as distinguished by the Anti¬ 
 phons. 
 
 2. The Mozarabic Antiphons are said entire 
 befoi’e as well as after their Psalm or Canticle. 
 Occasionally two Antiphons are given for the 
 same Canticle.® They are often divided into two 
 clauses, distinguished by the letter in which 
 case at the end of the Psalm the “ Gloria ” is in¬ 
 tercalated between the two clauses. 
 
 Of the nature of the sentence adopted as an 
 Antiphon little is to be said. It is, for the most 
 part, a verse, or part of a verse, from the Psalm 
 it accompanies, varying with the day and the 
 occasion, and often with extreme beauty of ap¬ 
 plication. Sometimes it is a slight variation of 
 the verse ; or it is taken from other parts of 
 Scripture; sometimes it is an original composi¬ 
 tion, occasionally even in verse. E. g. in the 
 3rd Nocturn on Sundays between Trinity and 
 Advent in the Sarum Breviary: 
 
 2b Ps. 19 {Coeli enarrant), 
 
 “ Sponsus ut e thalamo processit Chrlstns in orbem: 
 
 Descendens coelo jure salutifero.” 
 
 The Antiphons for the Venite are technically 
 called the Invitatoria." 
 
 The corresponding Antiphons of the Eastern 
 Church need not detain us, as they are less pro¬ 
 minent and important, and present no special 
 features. They are always taken from the Psalm 
 itself, and are said after the Psalm only, and are 
 prefaced by the words /col iraKiv (and again), 
 and are introduced before the “ Gloria Patri.” 
 
 Thus Ps. 104 {Benedic anima med) is said 
 daily at Vespers. It is called the prooemiac 
 Psalm; and the Antiphon at the end is— 
 
 And again. 
 
 “The sun knoweth his going down. Thon makest 
 darkness that it may be night. 
 
 “ 0 Lord, how manifold are Thy works. In wisdom 
 hast Thou made them all.” 
 
 “ Glory be,” &c. “ As it was,” &c. 
 
 Antiphona Post Evangelium. —An Antiphon 
 said, as its name indicates, after the Gospel, in 
 the Ambrosian rite. It consists of a simple un¬ 
 broken clause, and is sometimes taken from the 
 Psalms or other parts of Scripture; sometimes 
 it is composed with reference to the day. One 
 example will show its form, that for the Christo- 
 phory or return of Christ out of Egypt (Jan. 7). 
 
 “ Praise the Lord, all ye angels of His; praise Him all 
 His host. Piai.se Him sun and moon: praise Him all ye 
 stars an<l light.” 
 
 There is nothing corresponding in the Roman 
 Monastic and Sarum Missals, in which the Gospel 
 
 * We do not feel sure whether In these cases it is in¬ 
 tended that both Antiphons be used at once, or a choice 
 given between the two. 
 
 ‘ It does not seem quite clear what this P. represents. 
 Probably it stands for Psalmus. 
 
 “ The Roman is taken rather than any other Breviary 
 as giving a short form. The Invitatories of the Sarum 
 Breviary are nearly the same for the weekdays. For 
 ordinary Sundays there is a greater variety, which would 
 have made them longer to quote, without adding to the 
 value of the illustration. 
 
 IS immediately followed by the Creed. In the 
 Mozarabic office the Lauda followed the Gospel. 
 (The Creed, it will be Temembered, is sung after 
 the con.secration.) 
 
 Antiphona ad Confractionem Panis. —An Anti¬ 
 phon said in the Mozarabic Mass on certain days 
 at the breaking of the consecrated Host.* It 
 occurs for the most part during Lent, and in 
 votive Masses. Also on Whitsunday and on 
 Corpus Christi. It is usually short and said in 
 one clause. Thus from the 4th Sunday in Lent 
 (^Mediante die Festo'), up to Maundy Thursday 
 (Ai coend Domini), and also on Corpus Christi, 
 it is— 
 
 “ Do Thou, 0 Lord, give us our meat in due season 
 Open Thine hand, and fill all things living with plen- 
 teousness.” 
 
 In the Ambrosian Missal the Confractorium 
 corresponds to the Antiph. ad Confrac. There 
 is*no Antiphon appointed at the same place in 
 the Roman and Sarum Missals. 
 
 Antiphona in Choro. —An Antiphon said in 
 the Ambrosian rite at Vespers on certain days. 
 It occurs near the beginning of the office, before 
 the Hymn, and is said on Sundays, and at the 
 second Vespers of festivals. It is also said at 
 the first Vespers of those festivals which have 
 the office not solemn 7 (officium non solemne) and 
 of some, but not of all, “ Solemnities of the Lord.” 
 It is not said at first Vespers of a Solemn Office, 
 This is the general rule, though there are oc¬ 
 casional exceptions. It varies with the days, and 
 is usually averse of Scripture, in most cases from 
 the Psalms, and has no Psalm belonging to it. 
 Sometimes it is an adaptation of a passage of 
 Scripture, or an original composition. Thus, on 
 Easter Day, we have— 
 
 Ant. in ch. Hallel. Then believed they His words, 
 and sang praise unto Him.” Hallel. 
 
 Anti])hona ad Crucem. —An Antiphon said in 
 the Ambrosian rite at the beginning of Lauds 
 after the Benedictus. It is said on Sundays 
 (except in Lent), on Festivals which have the 
 “Solemn Office” (except they foil on Satur¬ 
 day), in “ Solemnities of the Lord ” (even 
 though they fall on Saturday), and during 
 Octaves. It is usually a verse from Scripture, 
 but sometimes an original composition with very 
 much of the character of a Greek rpuirdpiov, and 
 always ends with Kyr. Kyx-. Kyr. (i. e. Kyrie 
 eleison, sometimes written K. K. K.). It is said 
 five times, the Antiphon itself is repeated three 
 times, then follows Gloria Patri, then the Anti¬ 
 phon again, then Sicut erat, and then the Anti¬ 
 phon once more. On Sundays in Advent, except 
 the 6th, on Christmas Day, the Circumcision, 
 and the Epiphany, it is said seven times, i. e., is 
 repeated five times before the Gloria Patri. 
 
 * In the Mozarabic rite the Host after consecration is 
 divided, as is well known, into nine parts, which are 
 arrangf'd on the paten in a prescribed order, which it 
 would be foreign to our present purpose to describe. In 
 the Eastern Church the Host is broken into four parts by 
 tlie Priest, who recites an unvarying form of words. But 
 this is not an Antiphon, and therefore beyond our pro¬ 
 vince. 
 
 y Festivals are divided in the Ambrosian rite into So- 
 
 whlch have the oflRce solemn (ofllcium solemne), or not 
 J solemn (officium non solemne). 
 
 H 
 
100 
 
 ANTIPHONARIUM 
 
 ANTIPHONARIUM 
 
 Thus on Ascension Day— 
 
 Ant. ad criicem quinquies. “Ye men of Galilee, why 
 stand ye gazing up into heaven? As ye have seen Him 
 go into heaven, so shall He come.” Hallel. Kyr. Kyr. Kyr. 
 
 “Ye men,” &c. 
 
 “Ye men,” &c. 
 
 “ Glory be,” &c. 
 
 “Ye men,” &c. 
 
 “ As it was,” &c. 
 
 “Ye men,” &c. 
 
 An Antiphoha ad crucem, apparently recited 
 once only, often occurs in the Aiitiphonary of 
 Gregory the Great, after the Antiphons of Ves¬ 
 pers or Lauds. The early writers on the offices 
 of the Roman Church make no mention of it, so 
 that it was probably peculiar to the monastic 
 rites, which more readily admitted additions of 
 this nature. It has been conjectured that the 
 monastic orders derived it from the Church of 
 Milan. 
 
 Antiphona ad Accedentes or ad Accedendum .— 
 An Antiphon in the Mozarabic Mass, sung after 
 the Benediction, and before the Communion of 
 the Priest. They do not often change. There 
 IS one which is said from the Vigil of Pentecost 
 to the first day of Lent inclusive, one which is 
 said from Easter Eve to the Vigil of Pentecost. 
 In Lent they vary with the Sunday, that for 
 the first Sunday being said on weekdays up to 
 Thursday before Easter exclusive. The first of 
 these which is said during the greater part of 
 the year, is as follows :— 
 
 “ 0 taste and see bow gracious the Lord is.” Allel. 
 Allel. Allel. 
 
 V. “ 1 will always give thanks unto the Lord. His 
 praise shall ever be in my mouth.” P. Allel. Allel. Allel. 
 
 V. “ The Ix)rd delivereth the souls of His servants j 
 and all they that put their trust in Him shall not be des¬ 
 titute.” P. Allel. Allel. Allel. 
 
 V. “Glory and honour be to the Father, and to the 
 Son. and to the Holy Ghost, world without end.” Amen, 
 i*. Allel. Allel. Allel. 
 
 In the Apostolical Constitutions., Ps. 24 (Bene- 
 dicam), from which this Antiphon is taken, is 
 appointed to be said during the Communion, as 
 it is in the Armenian Liturgy during the dis¬ 
 tribution of the Azymes.'' (During the com¬ 
 munion of the people another Canticle is sung.) 
 S. Ambrose alluded to the practice in the words 
 “ Unde et Ecclesia videns tantam Gratiam, horta- 
 tur, Gustate et videte.” 
 
 The second Antiphon, that used between Easter 
 and Pentecost, has reference to the Resurrection. 
 It is adapted from the words of the Gospel nar¬ 
 rative, and we need not quote it. 
 
 That for Thursday before Easter is much 
 longer, and is broken into many more antiphonal 
 clauses, and is an abstract of the Gospel narra¬ 
 tive of the institution of the Sacrament of the 
 Lord’s Supper. Those in use during Lent are of 
 precisely the ordinary form. 
 
 There is nothing in the other Western Liturgies 
 which exactly corresponds to this Antiphon. 
 The Roman and Sarum Communio, and the Am¬ 
 brosian Transitorium. which are the analogous 
 parts of those offices, are said after the Recep¬ 
 tion. [H. J. H.] 
 
 ANTIPPIONAKIUM (also Antiphonale, An- 
 tiphonarius, Antiphonarius liber), an office book 
 of the Latin Church, containing the Antiphons 
 
 and other portions of the Service, which w’ere 
 sung antiphonally. 
 
 The name Antiphonarium is applied to such 
 books by John the Deacon, in his Life of Gregory 
 the Great, who says that that Pontiff w’as the 
 author of Antiphonaides. The complete collec¬ 
 tion, however, of Antiphons and Responsories, 
 known by the general name of Antiphonarium 
 or Responsorium, was usually divided into three 
 parts in the Roman Church. 
 
 Amalarius writes:® “It is to be observed 
 that the volume which w'e call Antiphonarium 
 has three names ^ (tria habet nomina) among 
 the Romans. That part which we term Gradical 
 (Gradale) they term Cantatory (Cantatorium), 
 which is still, according to their old custom, in 
 some churches bound in a separate volume. The 
 following part they divide under two headings 
 (in duobus nominibus). The part which contains 
 the Responsories is called the Responsorial (Re- 
 sponsoriale); and the part which contains the 
 Antiphons is called the Antiphonary (Antiphon¬ 
 arius).” 
 
 As to the name Cantatorium, we find in the 
 “ Ordo Romanus 1.” (§ 10) the direction :— 
 “ After he [the Subdeacon] has finished reading 
 [the epistle], the singer (Cantor), with the Canta¬ 
 tory, mounts,® and sings the Response.” And 
 Amalarius (^De Eccl. Off. iii. 16) says : “ The 
 singer holds the Tablets (Tabulas),” where the 
 word Tabulas is thought to mean the same thing 
 as Cantatorium, i. e. the book itself 
 
 The derivation of these words is obvious. The 
 book was called Cantatorium from its containing 
 the parts of the Service which were sung: Gradale, 
 Gradalis, or Graduale (Gradual or Graile), from 
 their being sung at the steps of the ambo or 
 pulpit; and Tabulae in all probability from the 
 plates in which the book was contained, and 
 which appear to have been of bone, or perhaps 
 horn. Amalarius, in the context of the passage 
 quoted, says that the tabulae w’hich the Cantor 
 holds are usually made of bone (solent fieri de 
 osse). 
 
 By whatever name this book was known, it 
 contained those portions of the office of the Mass 
 which were sung antiphonally, and w'as the first 
 of the three divisions above alluded to. The 
 second part, the Re sponsor iale, contained the 
 Responsories after the lessons at Nocturns ; and 
 the third part, the Antiphonarium, the Antiphons 
 for the Nocturns and diurnal offices. 
 
 The three parts together make up what is 
 generally understood by the Antiphonale or An¬ 
 tiphonarium. The book is also sometimes called 
 the Official Book, or the Office Book (Liber offi- 
 cialis. A MS. of the Monastery of St. Gall, of 
 part of an Antiphonary and Responsorial of the 
 usual type, is headed “ Incipit officialis liber ”). 
 It seems also to have been occasionally called the 
 Capitular Book (Capitulare). In a MS. of St. 
 Gall, of apparently about the beginning of the 
 11th century, w'e find the direction, “ Respon- 
 soria et Antiphonae sicut in Capitulari habetur 
 and though, according to the old Roman use of 
 words, “ Capitulare” means the Book of Epistles 
 and Gospels, the context in this place necessitates 
 
 » De ord. Antiph., Prologus. 
 b i.e. consists of three parts, as the context shows. 
 
 ® i.e. the Ambo or its steps, for the cnstom would seem 
 to have varied. 
 
 * These corresiwnd to the French pain bent. [Eclogiae.] 
 
ANTIPHONARIUM 
 
 ANTIPHONARIUM 
 
 101 
 
 the meaning of Antiphonary. The word occurs, 
 moreover, throughout the MS. in the same 
 sense. 
 
 Antiphonaries are sometimes found in old 
 MSS. divided into two parts — one beginning 
 with Advent, and ending with Wednesday or 
 some later day (for the practice is not uniform) 
 in the Holy Week, and the other comprising 
 the rest of the year. Sometimes, again, they 
 were divided into two pai'ts, containing respect¬ 
 ively the services for the daily and the nocturnal 
 olfices. Among the books of the Monastery of 
 Pisa (Muratori, Ann. Jtal. iv.) we meet with 
 “ Antiphonarios octo, quinque diurnales, tres noc- 
 turniles" and in an old inventory of the church 
 of Tarbes “ Antiphonarium de die ” and “ Anti- 
 phonarium de nocte are mentioned. We have 
 thus to distinguish between— 
 
 (1.) The Antiphonanum (pi'operly so called), 
 which contained the Antiphons for the Nocturns 
 and dail}’' office. 
 
 (2.) The Liher Besponsorialis et Antiphona- 
 rius, frequently, and in the Roman Church 
 usually, called for brevity Antiphonarium, which 
 comprised the contents of the last-mentioned 
 book, together with the Responsories, originally 
 divided into two distinct parts, but afterwai'ds 
 united into one, and arranged in order of 
 sequence. 
 
 (3.) The Antiphonarium, otherwise called Gra¬ 
 duate, Gradale, or Gradalis, and which contains 
 those portions of the missal which are sung anti- 
 phonally. This is what is called by some Canta- 
 torium. 
 
 Those which are most frequently met with^re 
 of classes 2 and 3. 
 
 2. As to the origin of Antiphonaries,—St. 
 Gregory the Great is, as we have stated, usually 
 considered to have been the author of Antipho¬ 
 naries. It is, however, maintained by some,** and 
 with much I’eason, that as the use of Antiphons 
 and Responsories in the Roman Church was older 
 than the time of Gregory, it is likely that books 
 of Antiphons and Responsories existed likewise 
 previously, and that that Pontiff merely revised 
 and rearranged the Antiphonal and Responsorial 
 books he found in use, much in the same manner 
 as he recast the old Sacramentary of Gelasius 
 into what is now universally known as the Gre¬ 
 gorian Sacramentary. 
 
 It has been also questioned by some whether 
 Gregory, the reputed author of Antiphonaries, 
 may not be Pope Gregory II. A.D. 715. But as 
 the title of the Great was not ascribed to Gregory 
 I. till long after his death,® the argument founded 
 on the absence of that title, which is much relied 
 on, does not seem of great force. 
 
 The Roman Antiphonary^ substantially, we 
 may suppose, as Gregory compiled it, was sent 
 by Pope Adrian I. (a.D. 772-795) to Charle¬ 
 magne. The received story is that the Pope 
 sent two Antiphonaries to the Emperor by two 
 singers (Cantores) of the Roman Church.*' Of 
 these, one fell ill on his journey, and was received 
 at the Monastery of St. Gall, to which monastery 
 
 <* As by Thomasius, Opera, iv. p. xxxiv. 
 
 « In the writincts of Bede, Gregory of Tours, &c. kc., 
 he is called B. Gregorius, or Gregorius Papa, or Gre¬ 
 gorius Ecclesiae Doctor, but not Gregorius Magnus. 
 
 f It was after this, according to Thomasius {Ep. i. ad 
 Sch»‘nk), that the Antiphonary was divided into the parts 
 ftbove named. 
 
 he left an Antiphonary. The other book reached 
 its destination, and was deposited at Metz. This 
 Antiphonary was held in high estimation, as we 
 learn from St. Bernard, who says that the early 
 Cistercians, who could find nothing more authen¬ 
 tic, sent to Metz to transcribe the Antiphonary, 
 which was reputed to be Gregorian, for their 
 use. It is also said that the clergy of Metz 
 excelled the rest of the Gallic clergy in the 
 Roman Church song (Romana Cantilena) as much 
 as the Roman clergy excelled them. 
 
 A Roman Antiphonary was also sent by Pope 
 Gregory IV. (A.D. 827-844) to the then Abbat of 
 Corbie, which was known as the Corbie Anti¬ 
 phonary ; and as this often varies from that of 
 Metz, it is inferred (as is probable) that certain 
 changes and variations between different copies 
 had by that time crept into the Antiphonary as 
 compiled by Gregory. 
 
 After the Gregorian Antiphonary was intro¬ 
 duced into France, it soon underwent many addi¬ 
 tions and modifications. 
 
 Walafrid Strabo, who lived in the 9th century, 
 says that the Chui-ch of Gaul, which possessed 
 both learned men and ample materials for the 
 divine offices of its own, intermingled some of 
 these with the Roman offices. Hence a great 
 variety in the usages of the different French 
 churches, on which we need not touch. 
 
 3. As examples of the contents of these books, 
 we will give a sketch of two. 
 
 (1.) The Antiphonary for the Mass, or Gra¬ 
 dual, attributed to St. Gregory. This is headed 
 “ In Dei nomine incipit Antiphonarius ordinatus 
 a St. Gregorio per circulum anni.” 
 
 This title is followed in the St. Gall MS. by 
 the well-known lines— 
 
 “Gregorius Praesul meritis et nomine dignus. 
 
 Unde genus ducit Suramum conscendit Honorem,” etc. 
 
 The book contains the various Antiphons sung 
 at the Mass for the course of the ecclesiastical 
 year, divided into two parts; that for the Sun¬ 
 days and moveable feasts, and that for the Saints’ 
 days. The first part, corresponding to the 2'em- 
 porale of the Missals, has no special heading. It 
 begins with a rule for finding Advent (that it 
 must not begin before V. Kal. Dec., or after 
 HI. Non. Dec.), and then proceeds with the 
 Sundays and Festivals in their course, beginning 
 with the first Sunday in Advent (Dom. 1"‘* de 
 Adventu Domini), giving for each day the Station, 
 the Antiphona ad Introitum, with the tone for 
 the Psalm ; the Responsorium Gradale, the Trac- 
 tus, when it occui’s ; the Antiphona ad Ojferend i, 
 and the Antiphona ad Communionem,s each with 
 its versus ad repetendum, and the last with its 
 psalm also. 
 
 In the arrangement of the year, there is little 
 to be noticed. The Sundays during the summer 
 are counted from the Octave of Pentecost, and 
 are called Dominica prirna post Octavas Pente- 
 costas; and so on until the 5th, which is called in 
 some ^ISS. Dominica prirna post Natale Aposto- 
 lorutn,^ the numbering from the Octave of Pente¬ 
 cost being likewise continued till Advent. After 
 six of these Sundays post-Natale, &c., comes 
 
 8 These are now called respectively the Gradual (Gra- 
 duale, or Gradale), the Offertory (Offertorlum), and the 
 Communion (Communio), and the last two are shortened 
 into a Single verse, 
 t i.* as. I'eter and Paul. 
 
102 
 
 ANTIPHONAEIUM 
 
 ANTIPHONAEIUM 
 
 Dominica prima post St. Laurentii^ and so on for 
 six Sundays more, when we come to Dominica 
 prima post S. Angeli,^ of which last set of Sun¬ 
 days seven are . provided. Trinity Sunday does 
 not appear, but the last Sunday before Advent is 
 called “cfc SS. T7'initate, [al.'] Dom. xxi^. post 
 Octav.-Pentec. ; and the Antiphons are those now 
 used in the Roman Church on Trinity Sunday, 
 i.e., the Octave of Pentecost. The Festival of the 
 Circumcision does not appear, the day being called 
 Oct. Domini. There is also a second office pro¬ 
 vided for the same day, according to an old prac¬ 
 tice, called variously In Natal. Sanctae Mariae 
 or De Sancta Maria in Octava Z>"‘, or Ad hono~ 
 rem Sanctae Mariae.'^ 
 
 The offices for Good Friday “ac? crucem ado- 
 randam” and the Reproaches (called here simply 
 Ad crucem Aiitiphona) and that for baptism on 
 Easter Eve, as also various Litanies and other 
 occasional additions to the usual office, are found 
 in their proper places. 
 
 The second part is headed “ De natalitiis 
 Sanctorum," and cori’esponds with the Sanctoy'ale 
 of later books. It begins with the festival of St. 
 Lucy [Dec. 13], and ends with that of St. Andrew 
 ’[Nov. 30]. This is followed in the St. Gall MS. 
 by offices for St. Nicholas, the Octave of St. 
 Andrew, St. Damasus [Dec. 11], and the Vigil of 
 St. Thomas, and one for the Festival of St. Thomas, 
 which differs from that previously given. There 
 are also a variety of occasional and votive offices. 
 
 The Festival of All Saints is found in some 
 MSS. There is one Festival of the Chair of St. 
 Peter in one of the St. Gall copies on Jan. 18,“ 
 and one in three MSS. on Feb. 22.® There is no 
 addition in either case of the words Romae or 
 Antiochiae, and both are not, it seems, found in 
 the same MS. 
 
 As a specimen of the arrangement, take the 
 first Mass for Christmas Day, that in media node 
 or in gain cantu. 
 
 “VIII. Kalendas Jannarii 
 Nativitas Domini nostri Jesu Cbristi. 
 
 Ad Saiictam Mariam. 
 
 Antiphona ad Introitum. 
 
 Dominos dixit ad me, Filius meus es to. Ego hodie 
 genui te. [Dominos dixit.] 
 
 Ton. ii. oia, euonae. 
 
 Ps.2. Qoare fremoerunt gentes? et popoli medltati 
 sunt inania ? [Dominos dixit] [Gloria. Dominos dixit] 
 
 Fe ad repetendum. Postola a me, et dabo tibi gentes 
 haereditatem tuam, et possessionem toam terminos terrae. 
 [Dominos dixit.]’' 
 
 Then follow successively the Responsorium 
 gradate, the Antiphona ad offerenda, and the 
 Antiphona ad Communionem, each with its 
 versus, and the last with its psalm and versus ad 
 repetendum. All these Antiphons are repeated 
 in the manner which has been explained in the 
 article on Antiphons; and as they are of the 
 
 * i.e. Ang. 10. 
 
 k i.e. Midhaelmas, as we shoold say. 
 
 “ This has been pot forward as an argument for the 
 Gregorian authorship of this Antiphonary, as it Is said 
 that St. Gregory was in the habit of celebrating two 
 masses on this day, the second of which was “ de Sancta 
 Maria.” 
 
 “ This corresponds with the present festival of the 
 Chair of St. Peter at Rome. 
 
 o This corresponds with the present festival of the 
 Chair of St. Peter of Antioch. 
 
 ordinary form, it does not seem necessary to set 
 them out at length here. 
 
 (2.) As an example of an Antiphonary for the 
 canonical hours, w'e will take the Antiphonary of 
 the Vatican Basilica. It is a MS. with musical 
 notation differing from that adopted later. It 
 represents the use of the Roman Church in the 
 12th century, and may be considered as embody¬ 
 ing the substance of the Gregorian Antiphonary, 
 together with some later additions. It is headed 
 —“ In nomine Domini Jesu Christi incipit Re- 
 sponsoriale et Antiphonarium Romanae Ecclesiae 
 de circulo anni juxta veterem usum Canonicorum 
 Basilicae Vaticanae St. Petri,” It begins with a 
 calendar, with the usual couplets of he.xametei-s 
 at the head of each month, and then, wnthout 
 any further title, proceeds with the Antiphons 
 at the first Vespers of the fii-st Sunday in Ad¬ 
 vent, and thence onwards throughout the course 
 of the year, giA'ing the Antiphons at Nocturns 
 and all the hours; and the Responsories after 
 the lessons at Nocturns. These Antiphons and 
 Responsories are so nearly the same as those in 
 the present Roman Breviary that it is unneces¬ 
 sary to quote more than the following specimen 
 of the manner in which they are set out:— 
 
 “Dominica i. de Adventu Domini. 
 
 Statio ad Sanctam Mariam Majorem ad Praesepe. 
 
 Istud Invitatorium cantamus eo die ad Matutinom 
 usque in Vigil. Natal. Domini, exccptis Festivitatibus 
 Sanctorum. 
 
 Regem venturum Dominom, venite adoremus. Venite. 
 
 In i. Noctumo. 
 
 Ant. Missus est Gabriel Angelus ad Mariam Virginem 
 desponsatam Joseph. Psal. Beatns vir. Quare fremu- 
 erunt. Domine quid. Domine ne in. 
 
 Ant. Ave Maria, gratia plena, benedicta tu inter mnli- 
 eres. Psal. Domine Deus meus. Domine Dominus 
 noster. Confitebor. In Domino confido. 
 
 Ant. Ne timeas Maria, invenisti gratiam apud Domi- 
 num; ecce concipies et paries Filium. Alleluja. Psal. 
 Salvum me fac. Usquequo. Dixit insipiens. Domine 
 quis. 
 
 F. Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam Tuam. 
 
 R. Et salutare Tuum da nobis.” 
 
 Then follows a long rubric, directing how the 
 Responsories should be sung, and then the three 
 well-known Responsories:— 
 
 (1) Aspiciens a longe, &c, 
 
 (2) Aspiciebam in visu noctis, &c. 
 
 (3) Missus est Gabriel, kc. 
 
 The lessons are not indicated; but the Re¬ 
 sponsories are usually taken from the book which 
 is being read in its course. Thus, on the Octave 
 of Pentecost the Books of the Kings p were 
 begun; and we have the rubric, “ Historia 
 Regum cantatur usque ad Kalendas August!,” 
 followed by a series of Responsories taken or 
 adapted from those books for use during that 
 time.*! 
 
 The Antiphons, &c., for ordinary week days 
 (^Feriae') are given after the Octave of the Epi¬ 
 phany. On days on which there are nine lessons, 
 nine Responsories are given. According to the 
 present Roman custom, the ninth is replaced by 
 Te Deum on those days on W’hich it is said. 
 
 There is also an Antiphonary of this description 
 
 p Including what we call the Books of Samuel. 
 
 <1 The older Roman custom was to sing in the Octave 
 of Pentecost and during the following week Responsories 
 from the Psalms (de Psalmists) after that from the Kings, 
 
ANTISTES 
 
 APOLLONIUS 
 
 103 
 
 attributed to St. Gregory, which exists at St. 
 Gall. It is headed by au introduction in verse, 
 which begins thus— 
 
 “ Hoc quoque Gregorius Patres de more secutus, 
 Instauravit opus, auxit et in melius. 
 
 His vigili Clerus mentem couamine subdat 
 Ordinibus, pascens hoc sua corda favo.” 
 
 (and so on for 14 lines.) 
 
 The MS. bears the heading—“Incipiunt Re- 
 spousoria et Antiphonae per circulum anni.” 
 These are in the main identical with those in the 
 Antiphonary just mentioned, but are ari’anged 
 with reference to the monastic distribution of 
 'psalms and lessons. 
 
 Towards the end of the Antiphonary is a large 
 number of Antiphons, given for the Benedicite, 
 the Benedictus, and the Magnificat respectively. 
 
 In a portion of an Antiphonary (“ ex vetus- 
 tissimo codice MS. membranaceo Palatino signato 
 num. 487 in Bibliotheca Vaticana, in quo conti- 
 nentur vetustiores, germanioi’esque libelli Ordinis 
 Romani ”), containing the service for Easter 
 week, one or more of the Antiphons to the 
 psalms for each day is given in Greek, but 
 written in Roman characters, the others remain¬ 
 ing in Latin. Thus at Vespers on Easter Tuesday, 
 the Antiphon to Ps. cxii. is thus given— 
 
 “ Alleluja. Prosechete laos mu to nomo mu; clinate to 
 us hymon is ta rhimata tu stomatos mu. 
 
 V. .Anixo en parabolaes to stoma mu ; pbthenxomae 
 problemata aparcbes.’"^ 
 
 Those to the other psalms at the same Vespers 
 are in Latin. 
 
 This may suffice to explain the general nature 
 of Antiphonaries. The consideration of the many 
 points of interest which their details present is 
 beyond the scope of this article. [H. J. H.] 
 
 ANTISTES. —This title appears to have 
 been common to bishops and presbyters in the 
 Early Church. As the name “ sacerdos ” is com¬ 
 mon to both estates in respect of the offices of 
 divine service which were performed by both, 
 so in respect of the government of the Church 
 in which they were associated, we find them 
 designated alike, sometimes as “ Presbyters ” as 
 marking their age and dignity—sometimes in 
 respect of their “ cure ” or charge—as “ antis- 
 tites,” Trpoea-TUTfs, praepositi. Thus in the first 
 canon of the Council of Antioch, a.d. 341, the 
 bishop and presbyter are both expressly classed 
 among the wpoeerTUTes, and the corresponding 
 title of “Antistites” is evidently extended to 
 the second order of the ministry by St. Augus¬ 
 tine (Serm. 351 de Poenitentid), as follows: “ Ve- 
 niat (peccator) ad antistites^ per quos illi in 
 ecclesia claves ministrantur, et . . . a praepo- 
 sitis sacramentorum accipiat satisfactionis suae 
 moduin.” Here it is plain that “ antistites in 
 ecclesia” are not the bishop alone, but the bishop 
 and the presbyters. This usage of the word 
 agrees with that of Archisynagogus in the 
 Jewish synagogue, and may have been suggested 
 by it. (Thorndike, Primitive Government of 
 Churches, voL i. p. 34.) [D. B.] 
 
 ANTONICUS, saint, commemorated April 19 
 {Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ' iTfioaixtTt \a6f fiov t<Z vofiu fiov ‘ Kklvare to ovt 
 v^uiu eis Ta p^/iara rou (TTo/jtaTOS ftov. 
 
 avoL^m (V n-apa/SoXoTf to OTOjuia /now, ^Oey^ofiai. Trpo- 
 Bki^ara in’ 
 
 ANTONINA, martyr, commemorated June 
 10 {Cal. Byzant., Neale). [C.] 
 
 ANTONINUS. (1) Abbat, Jan. 17 (M. 
 Bieron.). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Nicomedia, May 4 {3f. Hieron.'). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Apamea, commemorated Sept. 2 
 {Mart. Pom. Vet .); Sept. 3 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANTONIUS. (1) The hermit, Jan. 17 {Mart. 
 Bedae, Cal. Byzant., Armen.). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome, commemorated Aug. 22 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (3) In Piacenza, Sept. 30 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (4) In Caesarea, commemorated Nov. 13 
 
 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ANYSIA, martyr of Thessalonica, commemo¬ 
 rated Dec. 30 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.j 
 
 APER, bishop, commemorated Sept. 15 {Mart. 
 Bedae, Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 APOCREOS (’ATrJ/epews).—The Sunday in 
 the Orthodox Greek Calendai*, which corresponds 
 to our Sexagesima Sunday, is called KvpiaKri 
 ’An^Kpeeas, because from it the abstinence from 
 flesh begins, though the more strict observance of 
 the Lent fast does not commence until the follow¬ 
 ing Sunday. [Lent.] The whole of the preceding 
 week is also named from this Sunday, and is a 
 kind of carnival. (Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, iv. 
 214; Suicer, Thesaurus, s. v. ’An^Kpeus.) [C.] 
 
 APODOSIS (’ATrJSotrjs).—V/hen the com¬ 
 memoration of a Festival is prolonged over several 
 days, the last day of this period is called in the 
 Greek Calendar the “Apodosis” of the Festival. 
 For instance, on the Thursday before Pentecost 
 is the Apodosis of the Ascension {airoSidoTai r] 
 'EopTTj rrjs ’AvaX-fixpews). In this case, and in 
 some others (for instance, the Exaltation of the 
 Cross and the Transfiguration) the Apodosis 
 coincides with the octave ; but this is not always 
 the case. Sometimes the peidod is more than an 
 octave ; Easter-day, for instance, has its Apodosis 
 on the eve of the Ascension; but generally it is 
 less ; the Nativity of the Theotokos (Sept. 8), for 
 instance, has its Apodosis Sept. 12. (Neale’s 
 Eastern Church, Introd. 764; Daniel’s Codex 
 Liturgicus, iv. 230.) [C.] 
 
 APOLLINARIS. (1) Bishop, martyr at 
 Ravenna, commemorated July 23 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae). Antiphon for Natalis Sancti Apol- 
 linaris in Liber Antiphon, p. 704. 
 
 (2) Commemorated Aug. 23 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (3) “ Avernus,” Sept. 26 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (4) Bishop, Oct. 5 {lb. et Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 APOLLINARIUS, martyr, commemorated 
 June 5 {Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 APOLLONIA, virgin, martyr at Alexandria, 
 commemorated Feb. 9 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 APOLLON, bishop and martyr, commemo¬ 
 rated Feb. 10 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 APOLLONIUS. (1) Commemorated March 
 19 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (2) Of Egypt, commemorated April 5 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet.); Dec. 14 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) Presbyter, of Alexandria, April 10 {P). et 
 Hieron.). 
 
 (4) Senatoi*, martyr at Rome, April 18 {Ih. 
 et Bedae). 
 
104 APOSTASY 
 
 (5) Commemorated July 7 (Mart. Bedae et 
 Hieron.). 
 
 (6) Commemorated Dec. 23 (M. Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 APOSTASY (aTTocTTao’io, apostasia, praevari- 
 catio) is of three kinds. 1. Apostasy a fide, or 
 perfidiae; 2. Apostasy a religione ; 3. Apostasy 
 ah ordine suscepAo. Of these the two last will 
 be more appropriately considered under the 
 articles Monasticism and Desertion. 
 
 Apostasy a fide is the voluntary and com- 
 ^ilete abandonment of the Faith by those who 
 have been made members of the Church by 
 baptism. It is voluntary, and herein to be dis¬ 
 tinguished from the sin of the lapsed [Lapsi], 
 who fall away through compulsion or the fear 
 of death ; it is also complete, and consequently a 
 graver crime than heresy, which is the denial 
 of one or more of the articles of the Faith, but 
 not an entire rejection of the Faith itself. Lastly, 
 Apostasy is an abandonment of the Faith, and 
 therefore an offence which could only be com¬ 
 mitted b)' members of the Church, by those 
 who had in baptism taken the soldier’s oath to 
 fight under her standard. For this reason apos¬ 
 tates were accounted to be betrayers of their 
 Master’s cause, and deserters from the ranks 
 in which they had sworn to serve. “ Praeva- 
 ricatores eos existimamus, qui susceptam fidem 
 et cognitionem Dei adeptam relinquunt; aliud 
 pollicitos, et aliud nunc agentes ” (St. Hilar. 
 Piet, in Ps. 118, vers. 119). 
 
 It would also appear that catechumens were 
 by some considered capable of committing the 
 sin of apostasy (Cod. Theod., De Apjostat. xvi. 7, 2), 
 although their guilt was not so great as that of 
 the baptized apostate. 
 
 Apostates a fiide were of two classes: those 
 who became Jews, and those who became Pagans. 
 Of the former class there were those who entirely 
 abandoned the Christian Faith, and who there¬ 
 fore were properly called apostates; and those 
 who did not altogether reject it, but mingled to¬ 
 gether Christianity and Judaism, and, as it were, 
 made for themselves a new religion. Such were 
 the Coelicolae, Cerinthiani, Ebionaei, Nazaraei, 
 Elcesaei, and Samsaei. There were others, again, 
 who were also called apostates, who, without 
 embracing any distinctive Jewish doctrines, ob¬ 
 served parts of the ceremonial law, such as rest¬ 
 ing on the Sabbath, or who kept the Jewish 
 feasts and fasts, or consulted Jews with the 
 object of procuring charms for the cure of sick¬ 
 ness. 
 
 And, secondly, there were those who volun¬ 
 tarily abandoned Christianity and returned to 
 heathenism. And persons, who without going 
 to this length, accepted the office of flamen, or 
 who attended sacrifices (except in the discharge 
 of duty), or joined as actors, stage players, or 
 charioteers in the heathen games, or who sold 
 animals or incense for sacrifice, or manufactured 
 idols and the like, were considered to have be¬ 
 trayed their faith and to be guilty of a sin almost 
 as grave as that of apostasy, and to merit the 
 name of apostates (Devoti. Inst. Can. iv. 3; 
 Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 6, 4). 
 
 The crime of apostasy was punished in the 
 same way as heresy, though it was a graver 
 offence. There are also special enactments in re¬ 
 ference to it, both in the canons of Councils and 
 in the constitutions of the Christian emperors. 
 
 APOSTASY 
 
 By the 11th canon of the Oecumenical Council 
 of Nicaea (a.d. 325), those who had voluntarily 
 denied Christ, if they gave proof of hearty re¬ 
 pentance, were admitted for three years amongst 
 the audnentes. For the next seven years they 
 were peraiitted to become substrati, and were 
 obliged to leave the church at the same time a.* 
 the catechumens. After the expiration of this 
 term they were allowed to join as consistentes in 
 the prayers of the faithful; but two years had 
 still to elapse before they were permitted 
 to make oblations, or to partake of the Holy 
 Eucharist; then they were said ixBelu iirl rh 
 re\(iov (cf. Beveridge, Pand. Can. Annotationes 
 in loc., and Bingham, Antiq. viii. 3 ; xviii. 1). 
 
 These provisions were an amelioration of the 
 earlier discipline of the Church, as we learn from 
 St. Cyprian (a.d. 252). “Apostatae vero et de- 
 sertores vel adversarii et hostes et Christi Eccle- 
 siam dissipantes, nec, si occisi pro nomine foris 
 fuerint, admitti secundum Apostolum possunt 
 ad ecclesiae pacem, quando nec Spiritus nec Eccle- 
 siae tenuerunt unitatem ” (St. Cyprian, Ep. Iv. 
 ad fin.). 
 
 By the 63rd (or 64th) of the Canons of the 
 Apostles, clerks who went into synagogues to 
 pray were deposed and excommunicated; and if 
 laymen committed a like offence they were ex¬ 
 communicated (on the interpretation of this canon 
 with regard to the question whether or not clerks 
 were to be excommunicated as well as deposed, 
 see Beveridge, Pand. Can. Annotationes, in loc.). 
 The same punishments were by the 65th (or 
 66th) canon inflicted on clerks and laymen who 
 fasted on the Loi*d’s Day, or upon any Sabbath 
 Day except the Great Sabbath, Easter Eve; and 
 by the 69th (or 70th) canon, those were included 
 who observed Jewish fasts or feasts, or (canon 
 70 or 71) who gave oil for consumption in syna¬ 
 gogues or heathen temples. 
 
 By the 11th canon of the “Concilium Quini- 
 sextum,” or “in Trullo ” (a.d. 691 or 692), the 
 clergy and laity were forbidden—the former under 
 pain of deposition, and the latter under pain of 
 excommunication—to eat unleavened bread with 
 Jews, or to have any friendly intercourse with 
 them, or to consult them in sickness, or even to 
 enter the baths in their company. 
 
 In Africa, by the 35th canon of the 3rd 
 Council of Carthage (a.d. 397) “ Apostaticis con- 
 versis vel reversis ad Dominum gratia vel re- 
 conciliatio non negetur.” 
 
 In the East, by the 29th canon of the Council 
 of Laodicea (a.d. 365, according to Beveridge) 
 Christians were forbidden to Judaize (lovSat(^iv) 
 under the penalty of anathema. By the 37th 
 and following canons of the same Council they 
 were forbidden to be present at Jewish or Pagan 
 feasts. 
 
 In Spain, the Council of Eliberis (a.d. 305 or 
 306) contains several provisions for the suppres¬ 
 sion and punishment of apostasy ; for example, 
 by the first canon persons of full age, who after 
 baptism went to a heathen temple and sacrificed 
 to an idol were refused communion, even at the 
 hour of death. By the 46th canon of the same 
 Council apostates who have not been guilty of 
 idolatry are admitted to communion after ten 
 years’ penance ; by the 49th the blessing of the 
 fruits of the earth by Jews is forbidden, and 
 those who allow that ceremony to be performed 
 are cast out altogether from the Church. Upon 
 
APOSTASY 
 
 APOSTLE 
 
 105 
 
 this canon Hefele (^Conciliengeschichte, i. 148) ob¬ 
 serves : “ In Spain the Jews had become so nu¬ 
 merous and powerful during the early ages of the 
 Christian era that they believed they might ven¬ 
 ture to attempt to convert the whole country. . . 
 There is no doubt that at that period many 
 Christians in Spain of high standing became con¬ 
 verts to Judaism.” I 
 
 Again, by the 59th canon of the 4th Council of 
 Toledo (a.d. 633), apostate Jews who practise 
 circumcision are punished ; but (canon 61) their 
 children, if believers, ai'e not excluded from suc¬ 
 cession to their property. The next canon (62) 
 forbids any intercourse between converted Jews 
 and those who remain in their old faith ; and there 
 are several other canons which show that apos¬ 
 tasy to Judaism was still a prevalent crime in 
 Spain ; as, for instance, the 64th canon, whieh 
 ordains that the evidence of apostate Jews should 
 not be received in a court of justice. 
 
 In the French Councils there are several canons 
 relating to apostasy. By the 22nd canon of the 1st 
 Council of Arles (a.d. 314) it was forbidden to 
 S^'ve communion to apostates who sought it in 
 sickness, until they were restored to health, and 
 had exhibited proper evidence of their repent¬ 
 ance. 
 
 By the 12th canon of the Council ofVennes 
 (a.d. 465) the clergy were forbidden to attend 
 Jewish banquets or to invite Jews to their own 
 tables—a prohibition which was repeated in the 
 40th canon of the Council of Agde (a.d. 506), and 
 extended to laymen by the 15th canon of the 
 Council of Epone (a.d. 517), and also by the 13th 
 canon of the 3rd Council of Orleans (a.d. 538), 
 and the 15th canon of the 1st Council of Macon 
 (a. d. 581). 
 
 In the collections of the Imperial Law—the 
 * Codex Theodosianus ’ (which was promulgated 
 A.D, 438) contains various provisions made by the 
 Christian emperors for the punishment of apos¬ 
 tasy. Constantine the Great ordained (a.d. 315) 
 that apostates to Judaism should suffer “ poenas 
 meritas ” (Cof?. Theod. xvi. 8, 1), which were de¬ 
 fined by Constantins (a.d. 357) to be the confis¬ 
 cation of the property of the offender (Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. 8, 7). They were deprived by Valen- 
 tinian the Younger (a.d. 383) of the jus testandi, 
 but the action upsetting the will had to be 
 brought within five years of the death of the 
 testator, and by persons who had not in his 
 lifetime known of his offence, and remained 
 silent (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7, 3). Apostates to Pa¬ 
 ganism were deprived by Theodosius the Great 
 (a.d. 381) of the jus testandi (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7, 
 1) ; but another constitution of the same emperor, 
 promulgated A.D. 383, made a distinction be¬ 
 tween the baptized (Christiani ac fdeles) and 
 catechumens (Christiani et catechumeni), and the 
 latter were permitted to execute testamentary 
 dispositions in favour of their sons and bi'others 
 german. By this constitution it was further pro¬ 
 vided that apostates should not only be unable, 
 with the foregoing exceptions, to bequeath pro¬ 
 perty by will, but should also be incapable of 
 receiving property under the will of another 
 person (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7, 2). One day later 
 Valeutinian the Younger promulgated through¬ 
 out the Western Empire the constitution cited 
 above, which applied to all classes of apostates 
 alike (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7, 3). By a constii ution 
 of the year 391 the same emperor ordained that 
 
 baptized apostates professing Paganism should be 
 deprived of the right of bequeathing by will, of 
 receiving property under a will, of bearing wit¬ 
 ness in a court of justice, and of succeeding to an 
 inheritance. They were also condemned “ a con- 
 sortio omnium segregari ” (on the meaning of 
 this expression see the note of Godefroi, in loc.), 
 and were dismissed from all posts of civil dignity. 
 It was also declared that these penalties remained 
 in force even though the apostate repented of 
 his sin—“ perditis, hoc est sanctum Baptismum 
 profanantibus, nullo remedio poenitentiae (quae 
 solet aliis criminibus prodesse) succurritur ” (Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. 7, 4—5). Arcadius (a.d. 396) extended 
 the power which his father Theodosius the Gi’eat 
 had given to apostate catechumens to make cer¬ 
 tain testamentary dispositions, and ordained that 
 all apostates, whether baptized or catechumens, 
 should have the poAver to bequeath property to 
 their father and mother, brother and sister, son 
 and daughter, and grandson and granddaughter 
 (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7, 6). The last constitution 
 contained in the Codex Theodosianus under this 
 title is a very severe enactment of Valentinian 
 the Third (a.d. 426), abrogating the provisions 
 of the above-cited constitution of Valentinian the 
 Younger of the year 323, as far as it related to 
 apostates to Paganism. Under its provisions a 
 person could be accused of apostasy at any time, 
 although fiA-^e years may have passed since his 
 death, and it Avas immaterial whether the accuser 
 had or had not been privy to the oftence. Apo¬ 
 states Avere also prohibited from disposing of 
 their property by will and from alienating it by 
 sale or gift (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7 ult.). The “ Para- 
 titlon ” prefixed to this title in the edition of 
 Godefroi (Leipsic, 1736, &c.) giA^es a brief but 
 very useful summary of its contents. 
 
 The “ Codex Repetitae Praelectionis ” promul¬ 
 gated by Justinian in December A.D, 534 contains 
 a title, “ De Apostatis ” (Lib. i. tit. 7), the first 
 four Sections of Avhich relate to this subject, and 
 consist of extracts from the “ Codex Theodosi¬ 
 anus.” 
 
 The first section re-enacts the constitution of 
 Constantins (a.d. 357), by Avhich the property of 
 apostate JeAvs is confiscated (Cod. Theod. xah. 8, 
 7). The second section contains that part of the 
 constitution of Valentinian the younger (a.d. 
 383), Avhich limits the time in Avhich an accusa¬ 
 tion of apostasy could be brought (Cod. Theod. 
 xvi. 7, 3). In the thii'd section the constitution 
 of the same emi)eror (a.d. 391) is re-enacted, 
 which is contained in the Codex Theodosianus (xvi. 
 7, 4), and is cited abov'e. The fourth section re¬ 
 peats the enactment of Valentinian the Third 
 (a.d. 426), by Avhich very seA'ere penalties were 
 inflicted on apostates (Cod. Theod. xvi. 7 ult. 
 cited above). It appears, therefore, that the le¬ 
 gislation of Justinian was not more tolerant than 
 that of his predecessors in its treatment of this 
 oftence. 
 
 Although beyond the limits of this article, it 
 may be noted that the title of the Decretals re¬ 
 lating to apostasy is the 9th title of the fifth 
 book (“De Apostatis et Reiterantibus Baptisma ”). 
 The subject is also considered by St. Thomas 
 Aquinas (Sumrna Thcol. 2-2, quaestio 12). [I. B.] 
 
 APOSTATE (cLToaTaT-qs, apostata, praevari- 
 cator). See Apostasy. 
 
 APOSTLE (in Hagiology). The Avord 'A7r<i- 
 
106 
 
 APOSTLES 
 
 APOSTLES 
 
 iTToXos is used in the Greek Calendar to designate 
 not only those who are called Apostles in the 
 New Testament, but the Seventy Disciples and 
 others who were companions of the Apostles, 
 strictly so called.' It is applied, for instance, to 
 Agabus, Rufus, Asyncritus, and others, supposed 
 to be of the Seventy (April 8); and to Ananias 
 of Damascus (Oct. 1). But the Apostles, in the 
 narrower sense, are distinguished from others to 
 whom the title is applied by some epithet or 
 description. For instance, Nov. 30 is described 
 as the Festival tov aylov eudo^ou Kal irai'evcpr)- 
 fjiov *AiroaT6\ov ’AvSpeou rod IlpajTO/fArjTOU, 
 K.T.X .; SS. Peter and Paul are described by 
 the terms ■jrpa)TOKopu(pcuoi, in addition to the 
 epithets applied to St. Andrew. It is noteworthy 
 that the Constantinople “ Typicum ” expressly 
 forbids St. Peter to be called the Apostle of Eome^ 
 
 inasmuch as he was a teacher and enlightener of 
 the whole world; and it hints that if any place 
 is to be connected with his name, it should be 
 Antioch (Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 261). 
 
 The term ’laairSaroKos, the equal of the 
 Apostles, is applied to 
 
 1. Bishops supposed to be consecrated by 
 Apostles ; as Abercius of Hierapolis (Oct. 22). 
 
 2. Holy women who were companions of the 
 Apostles: as Mary Magdalene, Junia, and Thekla. 
 
 3. Princes who have aideil the spread of the 
 Faith; as Constantine and Helena in the Ortho 
 dox Greek Church, and Vladimir in the Russian 
 Church. 
 
 4. The first preachers, or “ Apostles,” of the 
 
 Faith in any country; as Nina, in the Georgian 
 Calendar (Neale, Eastern Churchy Introd. p. 
 761). . [C.] 
 
 The Twelve Apostles on thrones, in-ith Onr Lord in centre. 
 
 APOSTLES IN CHRISTIAN ART. § 1. j 
 In representations of the Twelve, antecedent to j 
 the year 1300 A.D. or thereabouts, only slight 
 variations of treatment are to be observed, 
 whether in Eastern or in Western monuments. 
 It will be convenient to speak separately of these 
 two classes. 
 
 § 2. Of the Eastern and Greek Churches .— 
 Eastern monuments of an early date are very 
 limited in number, owing to the destructive zeal, 
 first of the Iconoclasts, and afterwards, in many 
 cases, of the Turks. And among these the only 
 representations of the Twelve Apostles known to ! 
 the present writer are the following. In an early 
 Syriac manuscript of the Gospels written at 
 Zagba in Mesopotamia in the year 585 A.D., now 
 in the Libi'ary of the Medici at Florence, is a 
 picture of the Ascension, in which twelve (not 
 eleven only) Apostles are represented, the Virgin 
 Mary standing in the midst of them (see this 
 figured under Angels). Of about the same date 
 are some mosaics in the church of St. Sophia at 
 Thessalonica, figured by Texier and Pullan in 
 their ‘ Byzantine Architecture,' pi. xl., xli. Se¬ 
 parate representations of many of the Apostles 
 will be found among the illuminations of the 
 Menologium Graecorum of the emperor Basil. 
 These, though of considerably later date (10th or 
 11th centuiy), are all but identical in character 
 
 with those above mentioned. Indeed the reli¬ 
 gious art of the Greeks, as everything else per¬ 
 taining to religion, has been stereotyped once for 
 all from the close of the 8th century until now. 
 “ Greek art,” says M. Didron, “ is wholly inde¬ 
 pendent of time and place. The painter of the 
 Morea I’eproduces at this day art such as it was 
 at Venice in the lOth century; and those Vene¬ 
 tians again reproduce the art of Mount Athos 
 four or five centuries before. The costume of 
 the personages represented is everywhere and 
 at all times the same, not only in shape, but 
 in colour and drawing, even to the very number 
 and size of the folds of a dress.” For in the eyes 
 of the Greeks, at all times, religious art has been, 
 what one of the Fathers of the Seventh Genei’al 
 Council described it—not a matter to be regu¬ 
 lated by the luAVutive power of p.ainters, but by 
 the prescriptions and tradition of the Church 
 (Labbe’s Concil. tom. vii. col. 831). 
 
 § 3. Early Monuments in the —Repre¬ 
 sentations of the Apostles in monuments of early 
 date, still existing in Italy and in France, are 
 very numerous, and of very v'arious kinds; as, 
 for example, in mosaics, frescoes, marble sai’co- 
 phagi, and even in smaller objects of art, such 
 as vessels of glass or ornaments of bronze. The 
 principal works in which these are figured or de¬ 
 scribed are enumerated in § 12 below. 
 
APOSTLES 
 
 APOSTLES 
 
 107 
 
 § 4. Costume and Insignia. —In all the early 
 monuments above referred to, whether of the 
 East or of the West, in which the Twelve are 
 represented, almost exactly the same costume 
 and insignia are attributed to them. Only St. 
 Peter and St. Paul [see Paul and Peter below] 
 have any special attributes. The dress assigned 
 to them is a long tunic reaching to the feet (with 
 rare exceptions, which are confined, as far as the 
 writer knows, to some of the Roman catacombs) 
 and with a pallium Cg-dnov) as an outer gar¬ 
 ment. The insignia by which they are designated 
 are a roll of a book (volumen') generally in the 
 left hand, indicative of their office as Preachers 
 of the Divine Word, or a chaplet (corona\ also 
 held in the hand, significant either of the Mar¬ 
 tyr’s crown, or of what is but a slight variation 
 of the same idea, the crown of Victory which 
 the Lord bestows upon them who contend faith¬ 
 fully unto the end. The scroll above spoken of 
 is sometimes replaced by a codex or book of the 
 more modern form (this latter is generally the 
 distinctive mark of a bishop). In the mosaics of 
 St. Sophia at Thessalonica above mentioned (§ 2) 
 the roll is assigned to some, the codex to others, 
 while others are represented without either. 
 [For an example of the codex assigned to an 
 apostle in Western Art, seeCiampini, Vet. Mon. 
 tom. ii. tab. xliii., a monument of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury.] They are occasionally represented as seated 
 on ‘ thrones ’ or chairs of state (see woodcut, p. 
 106) in reference to their delegated authority 
 (compare Luke xxii. 30) to rule in Christ’s name 
 over the Church. And in one mosaic, probably 
 of the 5th century, in the church of St. John in 
 Fonte at Ravenna, all the Twelve wear a kind of 
 tiara or peaked cap, suggestive of the thought 
 that the office of the Apostles in the Church 
 corresponds to that of the High Priest under 
 the Law. [See further under Tiara.] This 
 monument is engraved by Ciampini, Vet. Mon. 
 tom. i. tab. Ixx. 
 
 § 5. Names of the Apostles in early Monuments. 
 —In early representations of the whole number of 
 the Twelve the addition of names to each is 
 of very exceptional occurrence. The only ex¬ 
 ample known to the present writer is that of a 
 mosaic referred to above in the church of St. 
 John m Fonte at Ravenna. The arrangement 
 thei’e is a circular one, the figures being so dis¬ 
 posed that St. Peter and St. Paul occupy the 
 principal position, while the names, and figures, 
 of the rest occur in the following order: An¬ 
 dreas—Jacobus—Joannes—Piiilipus—Bar¬ 
 tolomeus—Simon—Judas Thadeus—Jacobus 
 MI —Mateus — Thomas. It will be observed that 
 the number Twelve is obtained, after insert¬ 
 ing the name of St. Paul, by omitting that of 
 Mathias. This last omission is generally made 
 in similar enumerations of the Twelve in later 
 centuries. 
 
 § 6. Mode of representation. —In Western mo¬ 
 numents of the first eight centuries (the period 
 with which we are here principally concerned) 
 the Twelve are almost invariably represented as 
 standing, or as seated, on either side of our Lord, 
 who is either figured in His human person, or 
 (much more rarely) symbolically designated. In 
 either case He is distinguished from the Apostles 
 them.selves by conventional designations of higher 
 dignity. And in the case of the Apostles them¬ 
 selves symbolical designations sometimes take the 
 
 I lace of any more direct representation, w'hile in 
 other cases, as on many of the sarcophagi, the 
 two modes of representation are combined. 
 
 § 7. Direct representation —In many early mo¬ 
 numents (see under Paul and Peter) there has 
 been an evident attempt at portraiture in the 
 case of the two “ chiefest Apostles.” Of the rest, 
 some are represented as of youthful appearance, 
 and beardless, others as bearded, and of more ad- 
 A^anced years. But beyond this no special tradi¬ 
 tionary rules of representation can be traced in 
 early monuments. 
 
 § 8. Symbolical designation. —Of the symbols 
 employed to represent the Twelve, the most 
 common is that of twelve sheep, adopted”(so it 
 has been thought) with reference to those Avords 
 of Our Lord, “ Behold I send you forth as sheep 
 in the midst of avoIa'cs.” The.se twelve sheep are 
 commonly represented six on either side of Our 
 Lord (personally or symbolically represented), 
 who is generally seen standing upon a rock, 
 whence flow four streams. To such a repre¬ 
 sentation Paulinus refers (in his Epist. xxxii. ad¬ 
 dressed to his friend Severus, bishop of Milevis 
 in Africa; Migne, P. C. C. tom. Ixi. p. 366) in 
 speaking of his own church at Nola in Campania. 
 He is writing circ. 400 A.D. 
 
 “ Petram superstat Ipse petra Ecclesiae, 
 
 De qua sonori quatuor fontes meant, 
 Evangelistae, viva Christi flumina." 
 
 The tAvo groups, each of six sheep, are generally 
 represented as issuing from tAvo towers repre¬ 
 senting Betnlehem and Jerusalem, the cities of the 
 birth and the passion of Our Lord, the beginning 
 and the end, as it were, of that Life upon earth, 
 of Avhich the Apostles were the chosen witnesses. 
 Another symbol, founded also, in all probability 
 on Avords of Our Lord (“ Be ye ... . harmless as 
 doA'es,” Matt. x. 16) is that of twelve doA'es. Pau¬ 
 linus, bishop of Nola, in the letter already quoted, 
 speaks of a mosaic picture on the roof of the apse 
 of his church, on Avhich Avas represented, mter 
 alia, a Cross surrounded Avith a ‘ Corona,’ a circle 
 of light, to use his own Avords. and round about 
 this Corona the figures of twelve doves, emblem¬ 
 atic of the tweh'e Apostles. Beneath this picture 
 was the following inscription, descriptive of its 
 meaning:— 
 
 " Pleno coruscat Trinitas mysterio: 
 
 Stat Ohristus agno; vox Patris caelo tonat; 
 
 Kt per columbam Spiritus ."^anctus Quit, 
 
 Crucem corona lucido cingit globo, 
 
 Cui coronae sunt corona Apostoli, 
 
 Quorum figura est in columbarum choro.” 
 
 A representation® of the Twelve, nearly .an¬ 
 swering to this description, forms the frieze of an 
 early sarcophagus preserved in the Museum at 
 Marseilles, and figured below (after Milliu, Voy¬ 
 ages, etc. plate Ivi. 6). Yet other symbols are 
 
 occa.sionally used in designation of Apostles, but 
 these, as being less capable of definite interpre¬ 
 tation, are rather accompaniments of personal 
 
 » 4 crucifix with twelve doves upon the four portiona 
 of the cross itself, in the apse of the church of St. Clement 
 at Rome, is of the 13th century. So Didron, in tlie Aunaht 
 Archaeologiqiies, tom. xxvi. p. 17. This cross Is figured hjf 
 Alltgran/a, Sf^fgazionc, kc., tom. i. p. 118. 
 
108 
 
 APOSTLES 
 
 APOSTLES 
 
 represeD tat ions of the Twelve, than substitutes 
 for them. Such are palm trees, vines, and other 
 trees, to which a mystical reference was given 
 in Christian art as well as in early Christian 
 literature. St. Hilary of Poitou, commenting on 
 Matt. xiii. (the parable of the ‘ Sinapis ’ or Mus¬ 
 tard Plant), sees in the seed committed to the 
 ground, and then springing up therefrom, a type 
 of Christ, and in the branches of the tree, put 
 forth by the Power of Christ, and embracing the 
 whole earth beneath their shade, a type of the 
 Apostles, branches to which the Gentiles, like 
 birds of the air, should fly from the world’s 
 troubling storms, and And rest. St. Augustine 
 uses nearly similar language in reference to the 
 same parable. (^Sermo in Festo S. Laurcntii.) 
 And this traditional application affords a nro- 
 
 the walls of the cemetery of St. Callixtus is an 
 inscription, in rude characters, much such as 
 that here given :— 
 
 The central letters of the inscription are believed 
 to represent the A and fl, which frequently occur 
 in early monuments as symbols of Our Lord ; 
 while the twelve letters on either side signify 
 the twelve Apostles, who in early monuments, 
 and especially on sarcophagi, are frequently re¬ 
 presented, six on either hand. 
 
 § 9. Later conventional designations of the 
 different Apostles .—Christian art in the West 
 for the last five centuries, or rather more, has 
 assigned special attributes to each one of the 
 Twelve, most of them having reference to late 
 traditions concerning them, unknown to the early 
 Church. These traditions, by the.ir late date, 
 lie beyond the range properly embraced by the 
 present work. But for the sake of comparison 
 and contrast with the older repi’esentations above 
 described, it may be well very briefly to notice 
 them. For fuller particulars, the reader should 
 consult Didron’s Manuel d'Iconographie (see be¬ 
 low § 12) and Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary 
 Art. 
 
 § 10. As Authors of separate Articles of the 
 Creed .—Probably the earliest of these later modes 
 (after 1300 A.D.) of designating the several 
 Apostles, is that of assigning to each (w’ritten on 
 a scroll held in the hand) the particular article 
 of the Creed of which each was, by tradition, the 
 author. (For the tradition as to this authorship, 
 see Durandi, Rationale, lib. iv. cap. xxv.) In the 
 cathedral church of Albi (Didrcn, Manuel d’/co 
 nographie, p. 304) the Apostles are represented 
 in this manner. 
 
 bable interpretation of the small bush-1 ike trees* 
 which are seen associated in some early frescoes 
 with figures of Our Lord and the Apostles. The 
 symbolism of the vine resulted naturally from 
 the words addressed to His disciples by Our Lord 
 (“I am the vine: ye are the branches,” Joh. xv. 
 5). The palm-tree, as the recognised symbol of 
 victory and of triumph, was suggestive of the 
 same thoughts as those indicated by the victor’s 
 chaplet (corona') which Apostles often bear in 
 their hands, or have bestowed upon them by a 
 hand from heaven. 
 
 Yet one other symbol may be referred to, 
 unique of its kind, adopted, so it has been inge¬ 
 niously suggested,^ by some poor man who could 
 not by any other more elaborate means express the 
 Christian faith and hope in which he rested. On 
 
 § 11. Distinguished by special Insignia .—As 
 an example of yet another mode of designating 
 the Apostles individually, we may refer (with 
 M. Didi’on) to a series of enamels by Leonard 
 Limousin in the church of St. Peter at Chartres. 
 The Twelve are there represented with the fol¬ 
 lowing insignia :—St. Peter with the Keys ; St. 
 Paul with a Sword St. Andrew with a Cross, 
 saltier-wise;® St. John with a Chalice St. James 
 the Less with a Book ? and a Club ; ^ St. James the 
 Elder with a Pilgrim’s Staff,*' a broad Hat ** with 
 scallop-shells, and a Book;? St. Thomas with an 
 Architect’s Square;* St. Philip with a small 
 
 As, for example, in that of our Lord as the giver of 
 the Divine Word, with two Apostles on either side, in the 
 cemetery of St. Agnes at Rome. Aringhi, R. S. tom. ii. 
 p. 329 ; figured also in Vestiarhim Christianum, pi. xii. 
 
 c Lupi (Antonniaria), Dissertazione, kc. Faenza, 1785, 
 4to.; tom. i. p. 260. 
 
 4 As the instrument by which he was believed to have 
 suffered martyrdom : or (so Durandus, Rat. i. cap. iii. 16) 
 as a soldier of Christ, armed (so he probably would suggest) 
 with “ the sword of the Spirit.” 
 
 e “ En sautoirthe ” crux decussata,” shaped like an 
 X, and generally known as St. Andrew's Cross. In Greek 
 Martyrologies (and in one or two Western examples) 
 St. Andrew is depicted as crucified on a cross of the ordi¬ 
 nary form. See the Menologium Graecorum, vol. i. p. 221 
 (Nov. 30). 
 
 f Originally perhaps with reference to the words (Matt 
 XX. 23), “ Ye shall indeed drink of my cup.” For the later 
 legendary stories of a poisoned chalice given to him, see 
 Jameson, S. and L. Art, voL i. p. 159. 
 
 g Equivalent to the scroll (see $ 4) of primitive 
 Christian art 
 
 t All the insignia here mentioned are assigned to St. 
 James (the St. lago of Spanish h'gend), as the patron of 
 pilgrims. The pilgrimage to Compostella, the reputed 
 place of St lago’s burial, was a favourite object of medi¬ 
 aeval devotion. 
 
 i In allusion to a beautiful legendary story (.Tameson, 
 and L. A. p. 246), in respect of which St. Thomas Is 
 recognised as the patron of architects and builders. 
 
 ApjsUea. 
 
APOSTLES’ FESTIVALS AND FASTS 
 
 109 
 
 Cross, the staff of which is knotted like a reed;'* 
 St. Matthew with a Pike (or Spear);™ St, Ma¬ 
 thias with an Axe;™ St. Bartholomew with a 
 Book" and a Knife St. Simon with a Saw." 
 
 § 12. Authorities referred to. —In the follow¬ 
 ing section are enumerated the principal works 
 in which the monuments above referred to are 
 figured or described. For the Syriac MS. re¬ 
 ferred to in § 2, see the Bibliotheca Medicea of 
 
 S. E. Assemanus, Florentine, fol. 1742. For the 
 Greek Monuments, see Texier and Pullan, Byzan¬ 
 tine Architecture, fol, London, 1864. The Meno- 
 logium Graecorum referred to in § 2 was published 
 at Urbino, 3 vols. fol. 1727. And on the subject 
 of the later Greek Religious Art generally, see Di- 
 dron, Manuel d’Tconographie Chretienne, Grecque, 
 et Latine, Pains, 1845. (This is a French trans¬ 
 lation of the 'Epfirjueia rrjs pa<piKys, or 
 ‘Painter’s Guide’ of Penselinos, a monk of Mount 
 Athos in the 11th century, and the recognised 
 authority in the school of Greek Art which has 
 its centre in the same “ holy mountain ” to this 
 day. It is enriched with very valuable notes by 
 the editor. For what relates to the Apostles, 
 see p, 299 sqq.) For early monuments at Rome 
 and Ravenna — Ciampini, Vetera Monumenta, 
 Romae, fol. 1699; and for those of the Roman 
 Catacombs more particularly — Aringhi, Boma 
 Suhterranea, 2 vols. fol. Romae, 1651, or Bottari, 
 Sculture e Fitture sagre, etc., Romae, fol. 1737 ; 
 Perret, Catacomhes de Rome, 6 vols. fol. Paris, 
 1851 (not always to be depended on in matters 
 of detail); Alemannus, de Parietinis Lateranen- 
 sibus, Romae, 4" 1625 ; and for ancient ornaments 
 in Glass, chiefly from the Roman Catacombs, 
 Garrucci, Vetri ornati, etc. Roma, 1864. For 
 monuments at Verona, Maffei, Verona Illustrata, 
 fol. 1732; and at Milan, Allegranza (Giuseppe), 
 Spiegazione e Riflessioni, etc., Milano, 4® 1757. 
 For early sarcophagi at Arles, Marseilles, Aix, 
 and other towns in France, the chief authority 
 is Millin, Voyages dans les Departemens du Midi 
 de la France, 8" and 4° Paris, 1807-1811. One 
 monument of special interest, that of the Sancta 
 Pudentiana at Rome (the figures of the Twelve, 
 ten only of which now remain, are believed with 
 good reason to be of the 4th century, though 
 the upper part of the mosaic is of the 8th) may 
 best be studied in the coloured drawing and 
 description given by Labarte, FTistoire des Arts 
 Industriels, etc., vol. iv. p. 166 sqq., and the 
 Album of Plates, vol. ii. pi. cxxi. This mosaic 
 is also represented in Gaily Knight, Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Architecture of Italy (London, 1842), vol. i. 
 pi. xxiii. [W. B. M.] 
 
 APOSTLES’ FESTIVALS AND FASTS. 
 —1. Festivals. — 1. In the Apostolical Consti¬ 
 tutions (viii. 33, § 3) we find abstinence from 
 labour enjoined on certain “ days of the Apostles” 
 (tos rjfMepas toov aTro(TT6\wv apye'iTuxTav), but 
 
 ^ “ Petite croix de roseaux." So Didron. A reference 
 to Jameson’s S. and L. A. p. 242, and to the drawing there 
 given, suggests the explanation above given. The shape 
 described is that of a traveller's staff; and the emblem 
 marks the apostle as a preacher of Christ crucified to 
 distant nations. 
 
 “ See note 4, preceding page. 
 
 " See note 8, preceding page. 
 
 ® According to Western tradition he was sawn asunder; 
 but in the Greek representation of his martyrdom he 
 is affixed to a cross exactly like that of our Saviour 
 (Jameson, voL 1. p. 253). 
 
 what these days were does not appear, though 
 the injunction to abstain from labour betokens 
 a great festival. 
 
 2. As the services of Easter week, following 
 the evangelic narrative of the events after the 
 Resurrection, placed a commemoration of the 
 solemn sending and consecration of the Apostles 
 (St. John Xx. 21-23) on the first Sunday after 
 Easter, this day appears to have been sometimes 
 called “ the Sunday of the Apostles.” This 
 Sunday was one of the highest festivals in the 
 Ethiopian Calendar (Alt, Christliche Cultus, ii. 
 33, 184). 
 
 3. In the West the commemoration of all the 
 Apostles was anciently joined with tliat of the 
 two gr*eat Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul; and 
 this festival appears to have been, at the time of 
 its first institution, the only festival in honour 
 of the Apostles; for we find in the Missae for 
 that festival in the Leonine Sacrameniary 
 (Migne’s Patrol, vol. 55, p. 44) an “oratio super 
 oblata,” which runs, “ Omnipotens sempiterno 
 Deus, qui nos omnium apo.stolorum merita sub 
 una tribuisti celebritate venerari.” And this 
 seems to have been the case also w'hen the 
 “ Epistola ad Chromatium” quoted by Cas- 
 siodorus (in Leonine Sacram. p. 44) was written ; 
 for we there read that the Apostles were com¬ 
 memorated on one day, “ ut dies varii non 
 videantur dividere quos una dignitas Apostolatus 
 in coelesti gloria fecit esse sublimes.” 
 
 4. It was no doubt from this close connection 
 with the Festival of SS. Peter and Paul (June 29) 
 that the Festival of the Twelve Apostles (2uva|ts 
 tS)v daSeKa 'Aito<tt6\o}v) came to be celebrated in 
 the orthodox Greek church on the morrow of 
 that festival—June 30—as it is to this day. 
 This is a great festival, with abstinence from 
 labour ('Apy(a). 
 
 5. In the Ai'menian calendar, the Saturdav of 
 t’ne sixth week after Pentecost is dedicated to the 
 Twelve Holy Apostles, and their chiefs, Peter 
 and Paul; and the Tuesday in the fifth week 
 after the elevation of the Cross is dedicated to 
 Ananias of Damascus, Matthias, Barnabas, Philip, 
 Stephen, Silas and Silvanus, and the Tw^elve 
 Apostles. (Alt, Christliche Cultus, ii. 242, 256.) 
 
 6. The Micrologus tells us (c. 55) that on 
 May 1, “ invenitur in Martyrologiis sive in 
 Sacramentariis festivitas SS. Philippi et Jacob. 
 et omnium Apostolorum.” The existing Mar- 
 tyrologies and Sacramentaries, however, men¬ 
 tion no commemoration on May 1, beyond that 
 of SS. Philip and James ; but the mention of a 
 commemoration of all Apostles may have arisen ^ 
 from the “ Deposition” of the bodies of SS. Philip 
 and James in the “ Basilica omnium Apostolo- 
 rum.” (Binterim’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, v. i. 365 ; 
 Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexicon, xii. 57.) 
 
 7. The 15th of July is in the Roman calendar 
 the Feast of the “ Division of the Apostles,” 
 (Divisio SS. Apostolorum). This was j)robably 
 intended to commemorate the traditional event 
 1 ‘elated by Rufinus (//. E., i. 9), that the Apostles, 
 before leaving Jerusalem to begin their work of 
 preaching the Gospel to all nations, determined 
 by lot the portions of the world which each 
 should evangelise. By others, however, the 
 Feast is supposed to commemorate the “ Divisio 
 ossium Petri et Pauli.” The legend to which 
 this refers is as follows:—The remains of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul were placed together after their 
 
110 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 martyrdom, and when Pope Sylvester, at the 
 consecration of the great church of St. Peter, 
 desired to place the sacred remains of the patron 
 saint in an altar, it was found impossible to dis¬ 
 tinguish them from those of St. Paul; but after 
 fasting and prayer, a divine voice revealed that 
 the larger bones were those of the Preacher, the 
 smaller of the Fisherman; and they were con¬ 
 sequently placed in the churches of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul respectively. (Ciampini, de Sacris 
 Aedijiciis, p. 53, quoting Beleth, Explicat. Divin. 
 Offic. c. 138.) 
 
 II. Fasts. —1. As early as the Apostolical 
 Constitutions (v. 20, § 7) we find the week fol¬ 
 lowing the octave of Pentecost marked as a fast. 
 The intention of this probably was, as no fast 
 was allowable in the joyful season between Pasch 
 and Pentecost, lhat men should endeavour to 
 render themselves fit recipients of the gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit by subsequent mortification. 
 This fi\st was afterwards extended to the eve of 
 the Festival of SS. Peter and Paul, and as it 
 now filled the whole space between the “ Apostle 
 Sunday ” and the great commemorations of the 
 Apostles on June 29 and June 30, it came to be 
 called the “Apostles’ Fast,” "N-qaTeia rootf aylau 
 'ATToa-ToKwu. (August!, Handbuch der Christl. 
 Archdologie, iii. 481.) 
 
 2. There is a collect for a Fast in the mass 
 already referred to in the Leonine Sacramentary. 
 This, perhaps, indicates that an extraordinary 
 fast, instituted in the time of St. Leo for the 
 relief of Rome, or for some other reason, con¬ 
 curred with the Festival of All Apostles. (Note 
 in the Leonine Sacram. Migne’s Patrol, vol. 55, 
 p. 44.) 
 
 III. Dedications. —A church (Maprvptoy), de¬ 
 
 dicated to the Twelve Apostles, second in 
 splendour only to that of St. Sophia, was built 
 at Constantinople by Constantine the Great, who 
 intended it for the place of his own sepulture 
 (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, lib. iv., cc. 58-60). 
 He also dedicated at Capua, in honour of the 
 Apostles, a church to which he gave the name of 
 Constantinian {Liber Pontif., under ‘ Sylvester,’ 
 Muratori Scriptores, iii. 1). The ancient church 
 at Rome dedicated to the Apostles, is said to have 
 been begun by Pope Pelagius I. (555-560), and 
 completed by his successor John III. (560-573). 
 (Ciampini, de Sacris Aedif. p. 137.) [C.] 
 
 APOSTOLUS, the formal missive of the judge 
 of a lower court, whereby a cause w^as trans¬ 
 ferred to a higher court to which appeal had 
 been made from him. See Justinian, Cod. vii. 
 62, &c. &c., and under Appeals. [A. \V. H.] 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS. About 500 
 A.T)., Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman monk of great 
 learning, at the request of Stephen, Bishop of 
 Salona, made a collection of Greek canons, trans¬ 
 lating them into Latin. At the head of this 
 collection he placed 50 canons, with this title, 
 “ Incipiunt Regulae Ecclesiasticae sanctorum 
 Apostolorum, prolatae per Clementem Ecclesiae 
 Romanae Pontificem.” At the same time, how¬ 
 ever, Dionysius says in the preface to his w'ork, 
 “ In principio itaque canones, qui dicuntur Apos¬ 
 tolorum, de Graeco transtulimus, quibus quia 
 plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem, hoc 
 ipsum vtstram noluimus ignorare sanctitatem, 
 quamvis postea quaedam cocstituta pontificum 
 ex ipsis canonibus assumpta esse videantur.” 
 
 These w'ords obviously point to a difTerence of 
 opinion prevailing in the Church, though it has 
 l>een doubted by some whether the dissentients 
 spoken of rejected the canons altogether, or 
 merely denied that they were the work of the 
 apostles. And with regai*d to the last clause, it 
 is much disputed whether pre\’tous popes can be 
 shown to have knowm and cited these canons.® 
 Hefele denies that “ Pontifices ” means Popes, and 
 would understand it of bishops in their synodical 
 constitutions.** 
 
 The subsequent course taken by the Church of 
 Rome in relation to these canons is not altogether 
 clear. In the last decade of the 5th century 
 Pope Gelasius published a decree De Libris non re- 
 cipiendis, and in the text of this decree as it now 
 stands in the Decretum Gratiani there appears, 
 amongst other rejected works, ‘ Liber canonum 
 Apostolorum apocryphus.’ But it is said that 
 these words are not found in the most ancient 
 MSS. of the decree, and Hincmar of Rheims, in 
 speaking of it, expressly says that Gelasius is 
 silent as to the Apostolical Canons. ^Moreover. 
 Dionysius, "who was by birth a Scythian, does not 
 seem to have come to Rome until after the death 
 of Gelasius, and consequently his collection cannot 
 have appeared at the time of the decree.® 
 
 Hefele thei'efore thinks that the words in ques¬ 
 tion were for the first time inserted by Pope Hor- 
 misdas (514—523), w^hen he republished the decree 
 ‘ De Libris non recipiendis ’ {Conciliengeschidde^ i. 
 719)."* If so, the point is not very material. It 
 is clear that Dionysius, in setting forth a later 
 collection during the popedom of Hormisdas (of 
 which the preface alone is now extant) left out 
 these canons. He says : “ Canones qui dicuntur 
 Apostolorum et Sardicensis concilii atque Afri- 
 canae provinciae quos non admisit universitas, ego 
 quoque in hoc opere praetermisi, &c.” ® 
 
 “ Bishop Pearson contends that Leo, Innocent, and Ge- 
 lasius himself, refer to them ( Vindic. Ignat., part i. cap. 
 iv.); but this has been as strongly denied. Bickell thinkf* 
 that Dionysius may have had in view expressions of 
 Siricius {Ep. ad Div. Episc., anno 386) and Innocent (Ep. 
 ad Victric., anno 404), which, however, he conceives him 
 to have misunderstood {Gesch. des Kirchenrechts, p. 74). 
 Von Drey seems to think the canons were not known at 
 Rome till the version of Dionysius; but Hefele observes 
 that they might have been known in their Greek form. 
 Dionysius in his preface says that he had been exhorted 
 to the work of translation by his friend Laurentius, who 
 was “ confusione prisctie translationis ofFensus.” Does this 
 poirit to an existing version of the canons, or is it to be 
 understood of the other matters contained in his col¬ 
 lection ? The latter seems most in accordance with the 
 received theory. 
 
 •> See his Conciliengeschichte, vol. i. p. 767. But unless 
 it can be limited to Eastern bishops, this view would 
 equally admit that the canons so quoted or relied on must 
 have been known in the Western Church. 
 
 c Dionysius says in his preface: “ Xos qui eum (Ge- 
 lasium) praesentia corporali non vidimus.” This in itself 
 would not be conclusive as to the decree, though the only 
 alternative would be to admit that the canons were known 
 at Rome before Dionysius’s translation. Bishop Pearson 
 seeks to throw doubt on the decree ( Vmdic. Ignat., part i. 
 cap. iv.); but much of his reasoning is not inconsistent 
 with the theory of Hefele. 
 
 4 So too, apparently, Bickell, vol. i. p. 74. 
 
 ' Cited in Bickell (i. 75), who also mentions that they 
 were omitted from the Spanish collection of canons in the 
 7th century, with these words: “ Canones autem qui 
 dicuntur Apostolorum, sed quia eosdem nec sedes ajos- 
 tolica rccipit, nec SS. patres illis consensum pracbucruut. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 At all events it must ne taken that the Church 
 of Rome at the present day does not accept these 
 canons as of apostolic authority. Though the 
 citations made by Gratian under the head “De 
 auctoritate et numero Canonum Apostolorum,” 
 are not very consistent v/ith each other, yet the 
 latest canonists S^peak more distinctly. 
 
 “ Canones illi non sunt opus genuinum aposto¬ 
 lorum, nec ah omni naevo immunes ; merito tamen 
 I'eputantur insigne monumentum disciplinae Ec- 
 clesiae per priora secula,” says M. Icard in his 
 Praelectiones Juris Canonici at St. Sulpice (pub¬ 
 lished with the approbation of the authorities of 
 the Church) in 1862, and he then cites the Gela- 
 sian decree declaring them apocryphal. 
 
 Nevertheless great attention has been paid to 
 them. Extracts were admitted by Gratian into 
 the Deeretum, and, in the words of Phillips (‘ Du 
 Droit ecclesiastique dans ses Sources,’ Paris, 1352) 
 “ ils ont pris rang dans la legislation canonique.” 
 
 But we must return to the 6th century. 
 About fifty years after the work of Dionysius, 
 John of Antioch, otherwise called Johannes Scho- 
 lasticus, patriarch of Constantinople, set forth a 
 cvurayfia Kav6v(t}v, which contained not 50 but 
 85 Canons of the Apostles. And in the year 692 
 these were expressly recognized in the decrees of 
 the Quinisextine Council, not only as binding 
 canons, but (it would seem) as of apostolic ori¬ 
 gin.^ They are therefore in force in the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 How it came to pass that Dionysius translated 
 only 50 does not appear. Some writers have 
 supposed that he rejected what was not to be re¬ 
 conciled with the Roman practice, s But, as 
 Hefele observes, this could hardly be his motive, 
 inasmuch as he retains a canon as to the nullity 
 of heretical baptism, which is at variance with 
 . the view of the Western Church. Hence it has 
 been suggested that the MS. used by Dionysius 
 was of a different class from that of John of An¬ 
 tioch (for they vary in some expressions, and 
 have also a difference in the numbering of the 
 canons), and that it may have had only the 50 
 translated by the former. And an inference has 
 also been drawn that the 35 latter canons are of 
 later date.** Indeed, according to seme, they 
 are obviously of a different type, and were pos¬ 
 sibly added to the collection at the same time 
 
 pro eo quod ab haereticis sub nomine Apostolorum com- 
 positi dignoscuntur, quamvis in eisdem quaedam inve- 
 niuntur utilia, auctoritate tamen canonica et apostolica 
 eorum gesta constat esse remota et inter apocrypha 
 dcputata,” 
 
 ^ ’ESo^e KoX TOVTO rrj ayi<f ravr/j avv6S<o KaWitTra re 
 K<u <TnovSai6raTa, tixTre fieveiv Kal airh rov yvv /3e/3a(Ov; 
 »cai i<7<f>aX.€r? Trpb? \lrv\biv Oepairetav KaX iarpeCav iradutv 
 Tovs VITO jibv irpo rip.cju ayiuv teal p.aKapi<xiv nareptav 
 6tx9€vra$ KaX KvpoiBivTa^, aXXa p.rfv KaX trapetfiofleVrat 
 rip.lv hv6p.ari twv ay[<ov KaX evSo^iav ano<TT6\<ov bySo^- 
 *ovTa nevre Kavova^. Can. II., cited in Ultzen, Pref. 
 p. ix. 
 
 Beveridge argues that the word hvopLart shews that, 
 while their validity as canons of the Church was admitted, 
 their apostolical origin was not decided. Contra Hefele, 
 Cmciliengesch. i. 768. 
 
 The additional 35 canons in the collection of Scho- 
 lasticus have not been in any way recognized by the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 8 As, for instance, De Marca; and see AylifFe's Parergon, 
 Introd., p. iv. 
 
 •* See on this subject, Hefele, 1. 768. Scholasticus says 
 there were previous collections containing 85. 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 111 
 
 that the canons w^ere appended to the Constitu¬ 
 tions.' 
 
 It is time to come to the Canons themselves. 
 Both in the collection of John of Antioch and in 
 that of Dionysius they are alleged to have been 
 drawn up by Clement from the directions of the 
 Apostles. In several places the Apostles speak in 
 the first person,** and in the 85th canon Clement 
 uses the first person singular of himself. 
 
 Their subjects are briefly as follow :—* 
 
 I & 2 (I. & II.). Bishop to be ordained by two 
 or thi’ee bishops ; presbyters and deacons, and the 
 rest of the clerical body by one. 
 
 3 & 4 (HI.) relate to what is proper to be of¬ 
 fered at the altar; mentioning new corn, grapes, 
 and oil, and incense at the time of the holy ob¬ 
 lation. 
 
 5 (IV.). First-fruits of other things are to be 
 sent to the clergy at their home, not brought to 
 the altar. 
 
 6 (V.). Bishop or presbyter or deacon not to 
 put away his wife under pretence of piety. 
 
 7 (VI.). Clergy not to take secular cares on 
 them. 
 
 8 (VH.). Nor to keep Easter before the vernal 
 equinox, according to the Jewish system. 
 
 9 (VHI.). Nor to fail to communicate without 
 some good reason. 
 
 10 (IX.). Laity not to be present at the read¬ 
 ing of the Scriptures without remaining for 
 prayer and ^le Communion. 
 
 II (X.). None to join in prayer, even in a 
 house, with an excommunicate person. 
 
 12 (XL). Clergy not to join in prayer with a 
 deposed man as if he were still a cleric. 
 
 13 (XII. & XHL). Clergy or lay persons, being 
 under excommunication or not admitted to Com¬ 
 munion, going to another city not to be received 
 without letters. 
 
 14 (XIV.). Bishop not to leave his own diocese 
 and invade another, even on request, except ^or 
 good reasons, as in case he can confer spixitval 
 benefit; nor even then except by the judgment cf 
 many other bishops, and at pressing request. 
 
 15 (XV.). If clergy leave their own diocese, 
 and take up their abode in another without con¬ 
 sent of their own bishop, they are not to perform 
 clerical functions there. 
 
 16 (XVL). Bishop of such diocese not to treat 
 them as clergy. 
 
 17 (XVIL). One twice married after baptism, 
 or who has taken a concubine, not to be a cleric. 
 
 18 (XVIIL). One who has married a widow or 
 divorced woman, or a courtesan or a slave, or 
 an actress, not to be admitted into the clerical 
 body. 
 
 i So Bickell, i. 86 and 235. For the Constitutions, see 
 the next article. 
 
 k Beveridge however contends, from the variations and 
 omissions in MSS. and versions, that the introduction of 
 the first person is a mere interpolation of late date, in 
 order to promote the fiction of apostolic origin {Cod. Can. 
 in Cotel., vol. ii. p. 73, Appendix). See instances in 
 Canons XXIX., L.. LXXXII., LXXXV. The various read¬ 
 ings may be seen in Ultzen's edition, and in Lagarde’s 
 Rtliq. Jut. Eccles. Antiquiss. 
 
 1 The numbering varies. Thus Canon III. of the Greek 
 text is divided into two by Dionysius. The Arabic nu¬ 
 merals represent the order in Dionysius; the Roman that 
 in the Greek of Johannes Scholasticus. Coteleriiis, again, 
 gives a different numbering, making the canons only 76 
 in all. 
 
112 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANOXS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 19 (XIX.). Nor one who has married two sis¬ 
 ters or his niece. 
 
 20 (XX.). Clergy not to become sureties. 
 
 21 (XXI.). One who has been made a eunuch 
 by violence, or in a persecution, or was so born, 
 may be a bishop. 
 
 22 (XXII.). But if made so by his own act, 
 cannot be cleric. 
 
 23 (XXIII.). A cleric making himself so, to be 
 deposed. 
 
 24 (XXIV.). A layman making himself a 
 eunuch to bo shut out from Communion for three 
 years. 
 
 25 & 26 (XXV.). Clerics guilty of inconti¬ 
 nence, perjury, or theft, to be deposed, but not 
 excommunicated (citing Nah. 1, 9 ovk 4k^ik^(T€ 19 
 Sis eVi rb avrb). 
 
 27 (XXVI.). None to marry after entering the 
 clerical body, except readers and singers. 
 
 28 (XXVII.). Clergy not to strike offenders. 
 
 29 (XXVIII.). Clergy deposed not to pi’esume 
 to act, on pain of being wholly cut off from the 
 Church. 
 
 30 (XXIX.). Bishop, &c. obtaining ordination 
 by money to be deposed, and, together with him 
 who ordained him, cut off from communion, as 
 was Simon Magus by me, Peter. 
 
 31 (XXX.). Bishop obtaining a church by 
 means of secular rulers to be deposed, &c. 
 
 32 (XXXI.). Presbyters not to set up a sepa¬ 
 rate congregation and altar in coutempt of his 
 bishop, when the bishop is just and godly. 
 
 33 (XXXII.). Presbyter or deacon under sen¬ 
 tence of his own bishop not to be received else¬ 
 where. 
 
 34 (XXXIII.). Clergy from a distance not to 
 be received without letters of commendation, nor 
 unless they be preachers of godliness are they 
 to have anything beyond the supply of their 
 wants. 
 
 35 (XXXIV.). The bishops of every nation are 
 to know who is chief among them, and to consi¬ 
 der him their head, and do nothing without his 
 judgment, except the affairs of their own dio¬ 
 ceses, nor must he do anything without their 
 judgment. 
 
 36 (XXXV.). Bishop not to ordain out of his 
 diocese. 
 
 37 (XXXVI.). Clergy not to neglect to enter 
 on the charge to which they are appointed, nor 
 the people to refuse to receive them. 
 
 38 (XXXVII.). Synod of bishops to be held 
 twice a year to settle controversies. 
 
 39 (XXXVIII.). Bishop to have care of all ec¬ 
 clesiastical affairs, but not to appropriate any¬ 
 thing for his own family, except to grant them 
 relief if in poverty. 
 
 40 (XXXIX. & XL.). Clergy to do nothing 
 without bishop. Bishop to keep his own affairs 
 separate from those of the Church, and to provide 
 for his family out of his own property. 
 
 41 (XLI.). Bishop to have power over all eccle¬ 
 siastical affairs, and to distribute through the 
 presbytei’s and deacons, and to have a share him¬ 
 self if required. 
 
 42 (XLIL). Cleric not to play dice or take to 
 drinking. 
 
 43 (XLIII.). Same as to subdeacon, reader, 
 singer, or layman. 
 
 44 (XLIV.). Clergy not to take usury. 
 
 45 (XLV.). Clergy not to pray with heretics, 
 still less to allow them to act as clergy. 
 
 46 (XLVL). Clergy not to recognize heretical 
 baptism or sacrifice. 
 
 47 (XLVIL). Clergy not to rebaptize one truly 
 baptized, nor to omit to baptize one polluted by 
 the ungodly,™ otherwise he contemns the cross 
 and death of the Lord, and does not distinguish 
 true priests from false. 
 
 48 (XLVIIL). Layman who has put away his 
 wife not to take another, nor to take a divorced 
 woman. 
 
 49 (XLIX.). Baptism to be in name of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, not of three eternals, or 
 three sons, or three paracletes. 
 
 50 (L.). Baptism to be performed by three im¬ 
 mersions, making one initiation—not one single 
 immersion into the Lord’s death. 
 
 LI. Clergy not to hold marriage or the use of 
 meat and wine things evil in themselves, or to 
 abstain on any other than ascetic grounds. 
 
 LII. Bishop or presbyter to receive, not to re¬ 
 ject penitents. 
 
 LIII. Clergy not to refuse to partake of meat 
 and wine on feast days [as if evil, or on other 
 than ascetic grounds]. 
 
 LIV. Clerics not to eat in taverns except on a 
 journey. 
 
 LV. Clerics not to insult bishop. 
 
 LVI. Nor presbyter or deacon. 
 
 LVII. Nor to mock the maimed, deaf, dumb, 
 blind, or lame, nor must a layman do so. 
 
 LVIII. Bishops and presbyters not to neglect 
 their clergy or people. 
 
 LIX. Nor to refuse succour to the needy 
 clergy. 
 
 LX. Nor to publish in the church as sacred 
 works forged by the ungodly in false names. 
 
 LXI. Those convicted of incontinence or other 
 forbidden practices not to be admitted into the 
 clerical body. 
 
 LXII. Clerics from fear of Jew or Gentile or 
 heretic denying Christ to be excommunicated, oi 
 if only denying that they are clerics, to be de¬ 
 posed. On repentance, to be admitted as laymen. 
 
 LXIII. Cleric eating blood, or things torn by 
 beasts, or dying of themselves, to be deposed, on 
 account of the prohibition in the law. Laymen 
 doing so to be excommunicated. 
 
 LXIV. Cleric or layman entering synagogue of 
 Jews or heretics to pray, to be deposed and ex¬ 
 communicated. 
 
 LXV. Cleric in a struggle striking a single 
 blow that proves mortal to be deposed for his 
 pi’ecipitancy. Laymen to be excommunicated. 
 
 LXVI. Neither cleric nor layman to fast on 
 Sunday or on any Saturday but one.“ 
 
 LXVII. Any one doing violence to an unbe¬ 
 trothed virgin to be excommunicated. He may 
 not take another, but must keep her, though 
 poor. 
 
 LXVIII. Clergy not to be ordained a second 
 time, unless when ordained by heretics, for those 
 baptized or ordained by heretics have not really 
 been brought into the number of the faithful or 
 of the clergy. 
 
 LXIX. Bishop, presbyter, deacon, reader, or 
 singei", not fasting in the holy forty days, or on 
 the fourth and sixth days, to be deposed, unles.s 
 
 n» I. e. baptized by heretics. Heretical baptism is 
 styled not an initiation, but a pollution. See Jpost. 
 Const, vi. 15. 
 
 “ Namely, that before Easter day. Apost. Const T. 
 18 and 20. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 113 
 
 suffering from bodily weakness. Laymen to be 
 excommunicated. 
 
 LXX. None to keep fast or feast with the 
 Jews, or receive their feast-gifts, as unleavened 
 bread and so forth. 
 
 LXXI. No Christian to give oil for a heathen 
 temple or Jewish synagogue, or to light lamps at 
 their feast times. 
 
 LXXII. Nor to purloin wax or oil from the 
 Church. 
 
 LXXIII. Nor to convert to his own use any 
 consecrated gold or silver vessel or linen. 
 
 LXXIV. Bishop accused by credible men, to be 
 summoned by tlie bishops; and if he appear and 
 confess the charge, or be proved guilty, to have 
 appropriate sentence ; but if he do not obey the 
 summons, then to be summoned a second and 
 third time by two bishops personally; and if he 
 still be contumacious, then the Synod is to make 
 the tit decree against him, that he may not ap¬ 
 pear to gain anything by evading justice. 
 
 LXXY. No heretic, nor less than two wit¬ 
 nesses, even of the faithful, to be received against 
 a bishop (Deut. 19, 15). 
 
 LXXVI. Bishop not to ordain relatives bishops 
 out of favour or affection. 
 
 LXXVII. One having an eye injured or lame 
 may still be a bishop, if worthy. 
 
 LXXVIII. But not one deaf, dumb, or blind, as 
 being practical hindrances. 
 
 LXXIX. One that has a devil not to be a cleric, 
 nor even to pray with the faithful, but when 
 cleansed he may, if worthy. 
 
 LXXX. A convert from the heathen or from a 
 vicious life not foi-thwith to be made a bishop ; 
 for it is not right that while yet untried he 
 should be a teacher of others, unless this come 
 about in some way by the grace of God.® 
 
 LXXXl. We declare that a bishop or presbyter 
 is not to stoop to public [secular] offices, but to 
 give himself to the wants of the Church (Matt. 
 6, 24). 
 
 LXXXII. We do not allow slaves to be chosen 
 into the clerical body without consent of their 
 masters, to the injury of those who possess them, 
 for this would subvert households. But if a slave 
 seem worthy of ordination, as did our Onesimus, 
 and the masters consent and set him free, let him 
 be ordained. 
 
 LXXXIII. Clergy not to serve in the army, and 
 seek to hold both Roman command and priestly 
 duties (Matt. 22, 21). 
 
 LXXXIV. Those who unjustly insult a king or 
 ruler to be punished. 
 
 LXXXV. For you, both clergy and laity, let 
 there be, as books to be reverenced and held holy, 
 in the Old Testament—five of Moses, Genesis, Exo¬ 
 dus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy—of Jesus 
 the sou of Nun, one ; of Judges, one ; Ruth, one ; of 
 Kings, four ; of Paraleipomena the book of days, 
 two ; of Esdras, two ; of Esther, one ; of Macca¬ 
 bees, three ; of Job, one ; of the Psalter, one ; of 
 Solomon, three—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of 
 Songs ; of the Prophets, thirteen ; of Isaiah, one ; 
 of Jeremiah, one; of Ezekiel, one ; of Daniel, one. 
 Over and above is to be mentioned to you that 
 your young men study the Wisdom of the learned 
 Sirach. But of ours, that is of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, let there be four gospels, Matthew’s, 
 
 ° I. e. unless he be designated as such in some special 
 way by the hand of God. Beveridge refers to the case 
 of A mbrose. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 Mark’s, Luke’s, John’s; fourteen epistles of 
 Paul; two epistles of I’eter ; three of John ; one 
 of James ; one of Jude ; two epistles of Clement; 
 and the regulations addressed to you bishops 
 through me, Clement, in eight books,P which it is 
 not right to publish before all, on account of the 
 mysteries in them; and the Acts of us, the 
 Apostles. 
 
 The above is merely the substance of the 
 canons in an abridged form. It will not of course 
 supersede the necessity of referring to the origi¬ 
 nal in order to form an exact judgment. For the 
 sake of breAuty the penalties haA^e been in most 
 cases omitted. They are usually deposition for 
 the clergy, excommunication for laymen. 
 
 Turrianus attemptel to maintain that those 
 canons really are what they profess to be, the 
 genuine Avork of the apostles. Daille, on the 
 other hand, contended that they wci’e a produc¬ 
 tion of the middle or end of the 5th century. 
 Against him Bishop BeA^eridge entered the field ; 
 and in tAvo treatises of great learning, acuteness, 
 and vigour,'! sought to show that though not the 
 Avork of the apostles themselves, they AA’ere yet 
 of great antiquity, being in substance the decrees 
 of primitiA’e Synods coiu'ened in different places 
 and at different times during the latter part of the 
 2nd, or at latest the earlier part of the 3rd cen¬ 
 tury. And he further thinks that during the 
 3rd century they Avere brought together and 
 formed into a collection or Codex Canonum, 
 Avhich Avas recognized, and cited as of authority 
 in the Church. *■ 
 
 Bishop Pearson also holds the canons in a col¬ 
 lected form to haA'e been in existence prior to the 
 Council of Nice ( Vmdic. Ignat, part i. cap. iA". 
 in Cotel., Ami. ii., append, p. 295). * 
 
 It Avill be Avell to endeaAmur to give some 
 samples of the eA’idence Avhich Beveridge adduces 
 to show that the canons are quoted at all eAmnts 
 from the first part of the 4th century down- 
 Avards. 
 
 George of Cappadocia buys the favour of the 
 Praefect of Egypt, and is thrust into the bishopric 
 of Alexandria. Athanasius thereupon says, tou - 
 To rovs iKicKrjffiaa'TiKovs Kav6vas ivapaXv<X€i' (ad 
 ubique orthod. c. 1, p. 945). The reference, it is 
 alleged, is to Apost. Can. 30 (xxix.) and 31 (xxx.) 
 
 p Viz. the Apost. Constitutions. See next article 
 ‘Judicium de Canonihus Apostolicis,’ to be found in 
 Cotel. I'atres Apost. vcl. i. p. 432, edit. 1724 ; and ‘ Codex 
 Canonum Ecclesiae Primitivae illustratus, ibid. voL ii. 
 Appendix, p. i. 
 
 r ‘Judic.’ in Cotel. vol. i. pp. 436-441 ; and see Cod. 
 Can. in Cotel. vol. ii. Append, pp. 8-10, et alibi. He 
 appears to think that in many cases they may represent 
 apostolical traditioris. They were called “ apostolical'* 
 from this feeling, and also because framed by apostolical 
 men. He allows, however, that they were probably col¬ 
 lected by divers persons, some of Avhom put together 
 more, some fewer. Hence Dionysius found only 50 in 
 the Codex from A\’hich he translated, Avhile Scolasticus 
 found 85. Hincmar of Bheims is cited by Beveridge as 
 cn his side; but it would seem that he looked on the 
 Apostolical Canons as collections of apostolical tradi¬ 
 tions made by pious persons, rather than as decrees of 
 synods. He speak.< of them as “ antequam episcopi concilia 
 libere inciperent cclebrare, a d-'votls quibusque collectos.’’ 
 See Cod. Can. in Cotel. a'oI. ii. App. p. 12. 
 
 » The question of the collection, however, stands on 
 very different grounds from that of the antiquity of par¬ 
 ticular canons, and the two points should be kept sep.irate 
 In investigating the subject. 
 
114 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 Basil, in his letters to Amphilochius (which 
 h we themselves obtained the aiithority of 
 Canons in the Greek Church) says a deposed 
 deacon is not. to be excommunicated, Sidrt 
 apxcfios eVrt Kavwv rovs airh fiadfiov TreirTCi>K6- 
 Tas, TovTU} rpS-rrcf} rrjs KoXacecos iiiro- 
 
 fidWeadai. Reference alleged to be to Apost. 
 Can. 25.* 
 
 Again he says, rovs 5iyd/iov$ -n-avreXus 6 
 Kav^u rrjs virrjpecr'ias aTre/fAetce. Comp. Can. 17. 
 
 Once more he says, the Chui’ch must SouAeuetv 
 CLKpi^dq KavovMu, and reject heretical baptism. 
 See Apost. Can. 46. 
 
 The Council of Nice, Can. 1, while treating 
 self-inflicted mutilation as a bar to orders, says: 
 —jxnrtp 5e rovro TrpdSrjXov, on repl ruv iTTirr]- 
 SfvovTcvv rh TTpaypLa Kai roXiidvruiv kavrovs 
 kKTkfjLveiv efprjrai' ovrws ef rives virb ^ap^dpcav 
 ^ becTTcoriav evvovx>’<^^'>](^°-v , evpicTKOivro Se dXXoiS 
 d^LOi. rovs roiovrovs els KXripov irpocr'ierai 6 
 Kavdv. Reference alleged to Can. Apost. 21 
 and 22. 
 
 Again Can. 2 says, that things had lately been 
 done irapd rov Kavova rhv eKKXrjaiacrriKhv, to 
 correct which it enacts that no neophyte is to be 
 made a presbyter. The reference is alleged to 
 be to Apost. Can. Ixxx. 
 
 Can. 5 says :— Kparelru ^ yvd>p.r) Kara rhv 
 Kavova rhv Ziayopevovra rovs ixp' erepuv diro~ 
 $X7]devras, ixp' krepcov fii] Trpo(rie(rdaL. Comp. 
 Can. Apost. 13 (xii. and xiii.) and 33 (xxxii.) 
 
 Again, Can. 9, concerning the ordination of 
 known sinners, treats it as vapd Kavova, and 
 savs, rovrohs 6 Kavd/v ov ’irpoa'ierai. See Can. 
 Apost. Ixi. 
 
 Can. 10, concerning such as are ordained in 
 ignorance of their having lapsed, says :— rovro ov 
 TTpoKpivei r<p KavSvi rep eKKX‘r](ria(TriK<p' yvuxr- 
 Oevres yap KaOaipovvrai. Bev. thinks the re¬ 
 ference is to Can. Apost. Ixii., and that the 
 Council of Nice found it needful to extend the 
 rule to those who had lapsed before ordination. 
 
 Can. 15 and 16 restrain the clergy from 
 moving from city to city, a practice which it 
 calls <rvvT]6eLa irapd rhv KavSva, and speaks of 
 such persons as pifire rhv eKKX’qriarriKhv Kavdva 
 elhores. Comp. Can. Apost. 14 and 15. 
 
 The Synod of Gangra, held in the middle 
 of the 4th century against the Eustathians, after 
 passing several canons on matters more or less 
 similar to those treated in some of the Apost. 
 Canons, declares that its object has been to con¬ 
 demn those who bring in novelties,— Trapd rds 
 ypaepds /col rovs eKKXr}<ria(rriKovs Kavdvas. 
 
 The Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, speaks 
 of a ttoAoios 6ecr/jihs, as well as the Nicene 
 Canon, for bishops to ordain in the e-rrapxla or 
 ecclesiastical province to which they belong. 
 Bev. finds in the mention of “ provinces,” a re¬ 
 ference to the authority of Metropolitans, Can. 
 Apost. 35 (xxxiv.). 
 
 Not long afterwards a synod at Carthage says : 
 —6 dpxouos rvTTOs (pvXaxGfiererai, 'Iva ^rroves 
 rpiuv rd'v opKrdevrwv els x^^po^o*'****' ’Eirta/cd- 
 TTwv dpKeffoxxiv. Comp. Can. Apost. i. 
 
 * Daille, and his ally, “ Observator” (who seems to have 
 been Matt, de la Roque) contend that the context shews 
 that Basil cannot have meant to allude to the Apostolical 
 Canons. Beveridge replies at length {Cod. Can. 38, 39). 
 
 Bickell takes the same view as Daille {GefcJi. des Kirchen- 
 
 rezhts, L 83, note), but without noticing the arguments of 
 
 Beveridge. 
 
 The Council of Ephe.sus, 431 a.d., sent three 
 times to summon the accu.sed bishop, Nestorius, 
 to appear, saying, that it did so in obedience r^ 
 Kav6vi, and afterw'ards informed the Emperor of 
 the course taken, —rwv Kavdva v irapaKeXevo- 
 pevcvv rp rpirp KXpaei wapaKaXeiirOai rhv airei- 
 dovvra. 
 
 And in like manner at Chalcedon, 451 A.D., 
 upon the third summons sent to Dioscorus, the 
 bishops who were the bearers of it say that 
 the Council sent them to him: — rplrrjv ijdrj 
 KXri(Tiv ravr^v Troiovpevp Kard rT}v clkoXov- 
 Qiav ru)v ay'iuiv Kavdvwv. Compare Can. Apost. 
 Ixxiv. 
 
 At Ephesus a complaint was made against the 
 Bishop of Antioch for trying to subject to him¬ 
 self the Island of Cyprus:—“Contrary to the 
 Apostolic canons and the decrees of the most 
 holy Nicene Synod.” Comp. Can. Apost. 36 
 (xxxv.) 
 
 We may now perhaps pause in cur extracts 
 from Councils and Synods, as we are approaching 
 a period about which there is less dispute : but 
 we must go back to the Nicene times in oi'der to 
 cite one or two individual testimonies. Alex¬ 
 ander, bishop of Alexandria, writes that Arias, 
 though excommunicated there, was received bv 
 other bishops, which he blames, —rip pr]re rov 
 'ATrocrroXiKdv Kavdva rovro rvyx'upe'iv (apud 
 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. i. c. iv.). See Can. Apost. 
 13. 
 
 About the same time Eusebius, declining to be 
 translated from Caesarea to Antioch, Constantine 
 the Great writes to praise him for observing rds re 
 evroXds rov 0eov Kal rhv 'ATToaroXiKdv Kavova, 
 Kol rys eKKXpcrlas (Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 61). 
 The reference is alleged to be to Can. Apost. 14, 
 while eKKXpaias is said to allude to the 15th 
 Canon of Nice. 
 
 Again, during the reign of Constantine, Pope 
 Julius, writing of the dep/osition of Athanasius 
 and the intrusion of Gregory into his see, declares 
 it to have been done in violation of the Canons 
 of the Apostles. See 2nd Ap)ol. of Athanasius. 
 The reference is asserted to be to Can. 36 (xxxv.) 
 and Ixxiv. (Gregory being an untried lay¬ 
 man.)** * 
 
 Once more, in a provincial synod at Con¬ 
 stantinople, 394 A.D., it was detennined that the 
 deposition of a bishop must not be merely by two 
 or three bishops,— dXXh. TcXeiovos ervvdhov rpriepo}, 
 Kal rwv rps eirapxlcis, KaOins Kal ol ’AirocrroXiKol 
 Kavoves hiiaplcravro. The allusion is said to be 
 to Can. Apost. Ixxiv. 
 
 Of late years not much has been done by 
 English scholars in the way of original investiga¬ 
 tion into the subject, but German writers have 
 given a good deal of attention to it during the 
 present century, and have arrived at results 
 widely different from those we have just been 
 considering. Among these Von Drey and Bickell 
 stand conspicuous. The former seems to con¬ 
 sider that the first 50 canons were collected in 
 the early part of the 5th century, partly out of 
 decrees of post-Nicene Councils, partly out of 
 the so-called apostolical constitutions; and that 
 the other 35 w'ere added subsequently, probably 
 
 “If this could be considered to be proved, it would 
 settle the point that the Canons were known at Rome, 
 and referred to by popes before Dionysius’s version of 
 them. And if the LXXlVth be really in tender!, it would 
 show that more than 50 were then recognised. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 • 115 
 
 at the beginning of the 6th century, when the 
 whole 85 were appended to the constitutions.* * 
 Bickell while adopting a similar theory does 
 not press it so far. He believes the collection to 
 have been made out of like materials to those 
 specified by Drey, but to be not later than the 
 end of the 4th century ; and holds that the apos¬ 
 tolical canons were quoted at Chalcedon (instead of 
 being in part derived from the decrees of that Coun¬ 
 cil as Drey would maintain), and possibly also at 
 Ephesus and Constantinople, 448 (Gesch. des Kir- 
 chenrechts, vol. i. p. 83; see also Hefele Conci- 
 liengesch., vol. i. p. 771). Both Von Drey and 
 Bickell agree in denying the position of Beve¬ 
 ridge that the collection was made not later 
 than the 3rd century, and was composed out of 
 bond fide previous canons then existing. And 
 they meet his citations by denying that Kauccv 
 dea-gos and such like words always imply what 
 we call a canon, and by alleging that they are 
 used in early times of any generally received 
 rule in the Church. Thus kuvcdv diro<TToXiKhs 
 might either refer to some direction ot the Apos¬ 
 tles contained in the New Testament, or to some 
 ecclesiastical practice supposed to have been 
 originated by them, and to have their authority. 
 
 Thus Clem. Rom. speaks of wpicr/iivov rris 
 XeiTovpy'ias avrov Kavova (fiEp. i. 41), and it is 
 not to be supposed that he can here allude to 
 any synodical decree. Comp. Iren. Ad, Haer. i. 9 ; 
 Polycrates, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24 ; Clem. 
 Al. Strom, i. 350, vi. 676, vii. 753, 756, 764 (see 
 also the instances in De Lagarde Bel. Jur, Eccl. 
 Ant. pref. p. vi.). Accordingly Bickell would 
 thus interpret (as Daille had done before him) 
 the use of the words kuvwv and Kapov^Kos pSpos, 
 in canon 15 of Neocaesarea, and in canons 13, 15, 
 18, of Nioc.y So also Cornelius Ad Fabium 
 
 * The following table gives what he supposes to be the 
 original of the various Canons:— 
 
 I., 11., VI.. Vll., XVll., XVllL, XX.. XXVI., XXXIll., 
 
 (Euseb. vi. 43) Kara top rr^s eV/cATjo'fas kupSpu, 
 and Firmilian Ad Cyprian,(p\K 75) and Cone. Are- 
 lat. canon 13, “ ecclesiastica regula,” and comp. 
 Euseb. vi. 24. Bickell also thus interprets the 
 letter of Alexander to Meletius, and that of 
 Constantine, which as we have seen {a)de, p. 114) 
 Beveridge takes as allusions to the apostolical 
 canons. 
 
 In short Von Drey and Bickell maintain that 
 the instances brought forward by Beveridge are 
 not really proofs that the set of canons called 
 apostolical are there quoted or referred to, but 
 rather that allusion is made to broad and gene¬ 
 rally acknowledged principles of ecclesiastical 
 action and practice, whether written or un¬ 
 written (see Bickell, i. p. 2, and p. 81, 82, and 
 the notes).* But they go further and proceed 
 to adduce on their side what they consider to be 
 a positive and decisive argument. Many canons 
 of the Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, correspond 
 not only in subject but to a very remarkable 
 degree in actual phraseology with the apostolical 
 canons. Vet they never quote them, at least eo 
 nomine. 
 
 The following table gives the parallel cases:— 
 
 Antioch I. compared with Can. Apost. VII. 
 
 II. 
 
 
 HI. 
 
 >> 
 
 IV. 
 
 J 9 
 
 V. 
 
 t J 
 
 VI. 
 
 9 f 
 
 VII., VIII. 
 
 9 } 
 
 IX. 
 
 * f 
 
 XIII. 
 
 9 9 
 
 XVII., I 
 
 
 XVIII. 5 
 
 9$ 
 
 XX. 
 
 9 > 
 
 XXI. 
 
 9 1 
 
 XXII. 
 
 f 9 
 
 xxiir. 
 
 9 9 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 f 9 
 
 XXV. 
 
 9 9 
 
 i Vlll., IX., X, 
 txi., XII., XIII, 
 XV., XVI. 
 XXVIII. 
 XXXI. 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 XII., XXXIII 
 XXXIV. 
 XXXV. . 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 LXXVI. 
 
 XL. 
 
 XLK 
 
 XLVI., XLVII., XLIX., LI., LIL, LIIL, LX., LXIV., are 
 all taken from the Apostolical Constitutions ; the first 
 six books of which he considers as of latter half of 3rd 
 century. 
 
 LXXIX. is from the 8th book, which is later, but 
 before the year 325. 
 
 XXL-XXIV., and LXXX., are taken from the Nicene 
 Decrees. 
 
 ViII.-XVI., and XXVIII., and XXXI.-XLI., from 
 those of Antioch. 
 
 XLV.. LXX., LXXL, from those of Laodicea. 
 
 LXXV. from those of Constantinople, a d. 381. 
 
 XXVII. from those of Constantinople, a.d. 394. 
 
 XXIX., LXVIL, LXXIV., LXXXI., LXXXIIL, from 
 those of Chalcedon. 
 
 XIX. from Neocaesarea. 
 
 XXV. from a canonical letter of Basil. 
 
 LXJX. and LXX., out of the supposed Epistle of 
 Ignatius, Ad PhilaJeLph. 
 
 About a third of the Canons Drey treats as of unknown 
 origin. The subject matter of many of them he considers 
 may be more ancient, but not in the form of canons. 
 
 As to the distinction said to be apparent between the 
 first 50 Canons and the residue, see Bickell, i. 86 and 236. 
 
 y For an examination of these instances from a con¬ 
 trary point of view, see Beveridge {Cod. Can. lib. i. cap. 
 xi.). But the reader should notice that in Nic. Can. 18, 
 he Inexactly translates ioanep ovre 6 KcuvoiP ovre ij avp- 
 tjOfia napdSojKf by “ nec canonem nec consuetudinem 
 esse,” and neglects the words napa Kavova koX napa rd^ev 
 at the end of the Canon. He understands the Canon of 
 Neocaesarea, that there must be seven deacons, Kara r'ov 
 Kavova, to allude to Acts vi. (the written law of Scrip- 
 
 On this state of facts Von Drey and Bickell 
 maintain that the apostolical canons are ob¬ 
 viously borrowed from those of Antioch, while 
 Beveridge argues that the converse is the case. 
 The argument turns too much on a close com¬ 
 parison of phrases, and of the respective omis¬ 
 sions, additions, and modifications, to admit of 
 being presented in an abridged form. It will be 
 found on one side to some extent in Bickell, vol. 
 i. p. 79, et seq., and p. 230, et seq. (who give^ 
 
 ture). Some might possibly contend that the words of 
 the Epistle of Alexander (sitpra,.p. 114) refer to 2nd Epist. 
 John 10. He also deals with a Canon of Ancyra (Can. 
 21), which mentions that 6 nporepos opo? refused com¬ 
 munion, except on the death-bed, to unchaste women 
 guilty of al)ortion. This Beveridge argues'does not mean a 
 “ Canon " at all, but rather a decision of Church discipline. 
 Hefele, on the other hand, thinks it alludes to a Canon 
 of Elvira, refusing the sacrament to such even at death 
 (^Conciliengesch. i. 208). 
 
 * To a certain extent, Beveridge discusses this theory 
 when put forward by “Observator ” (see Cod. Can. lilx i. 
 c. ll,p. 44), and appears to contend that Kavtiv is n(>t used 
 for unwritten law, at all events by Councils in their de¬ 
 crees. There certainly seems some apparent distinction 
 drawn in Nic. Can. 18, ovre 6 kuvcov cure >; ovvyjOeia 
 jrapdSioKt. 
 
 “ It will be observed that all the Apostolical Canons 
 except one, for vhich parallels are here found in the 
 Antioch decrees, fall within the fir.st 50; and the parallel 
 to the LXXVIth Canon is very far-fetched. 
 
116 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 the references to the corresponding parts of Von 
 Drey’s work); and on the other, in Beveridge’s 
 Codex Canonum, lib. i. cap. iv. and cap. xi., and 
 elsewhere in tha,t treatise.** 
 
 As a general nile the apostolical canons are 
 shorter, the Antioch canons fuller and more ex¬ 
 press : a circumstance which leads Bickell to see 
 in the former a compendium or abridgment of 
 the latter, but which, according to Beveridge, 
 proves the former to be the brief originals, of 
 which the latter are the subsequent expansion. 
 
 Beveridge observes with some force that 
 though the apostolical canons are not quoted by 
 name, the canons of Antioch repeatedly profess 
 to be in accordance with previous ecclesiastical 
 rules, whereas the apostolical canons never men¬ 
 tion any rules previously existing.*^ Still the 
 same question must arise here as in relation to 
 the canons of Nice, viz., whether the allusion 
 really is to pre-existing canons of councils, or 
 whether the terms used are to be otherwise ex¬ 
 plained. And as regards the silence of the apos¬ 
 tolical canons as to anything older than them¬ 
 selves, it must be recollected that any other 
 course would have been self-contradictory. They 
 could not pretend to be apostolic and yet rely on 
 older authorities. Hence even had such refer¬ 
 ences been found in the materials of which they 
 were composed, these must have been struck out 
 vhen they were put together in their present 
 shape. 
 
 The synod of Antioch lying under the re¬ 
 proach of Arianism, it may seem improbable that 
 any decrees should have been borrowed from it. 
 To meet this objection Bickell urges that though 
 the Antioch clergy were Arian, the Bishop Me- 
 letius was not un-orthodox, and was much re¬ 
 spected by the Catholics. And he throws out 
 the theory that the apostolical canons, which 
 shew traces of Syrian phraseology, may be a 
 sort of corpus canonum made at that period in 
 Syria, and drawn up in part from the Antioch 
 decrees, in part from the apostolical constitutions 
 (which shew like marks of Syrian origin), and 
 in part from other sources.** This work, it is 
 conjectured, Meletius brought with him when 
 he came to the Council of Constantinople (where 
 he died) in 381 A.D., and introduced it to the 
 favourable notice of the clergy: a hypothesis 
 which is thought to account for the apostolical 
 canons being cited (as Bickell thinks for the first 
 time) at the Piovincial Synod of Constantinople, 
 A.D. 394-. 
 
 The opinion of Hefele may be worth stating. 
 He thinks that though there is a good deal to be 
 said for the theory that many of the apostolical 
 canons were borrowed from those of-Antioch, 
 
 b The suggestion is there made that the Council stu¬ 
 diously re-enacted certain orthodox canons, in order to 
 gain a good reputation, while they thrust in here and 
 there a canon of their own so framed as to tell against 
 Athanasius and the Catholics. See Cod. Can. lib. i. cap. iv. 
 ad Jin. 
 
 c However, it is to be observed that the 37-39 Canons 
 of Laodicea, which closely resemble the LXX. and LXXI. 
 Apostolical Canons, do not in any way refer to them, 
 though on Beveridge’s theory the A post. Canons must 
 have been in the hands of the Fathers of Laodicea. 
 
 In Can. XXXVII. the Syro-Macedouian name of a 
 mouth, Hyperberetaeus, occurs in connexion with the 
 time for the autumnal synod. Similar n imes of months 
 occur in Ap. Const, v. 17, 20, and at viii. 10. Kvadius, 
 Bishop of Antioch, is prayed for as “ our bishop.” 
 
 the converse is quite possible, and the point by 
 no means settled. In regard to the Council of 
 Nice, it would appear, he thinks, that it refers 
 to oltlcr canons on the like subjects with those 
 which it was enacting. And it is by no means 
 impossible that the allusion may be to those 
 which arc now found among the apostolic canons, 
 and which might have existed in the Church 
 before they were incorporated in that collection. 
 This view he thinks is supported by a letter from 
 certain Egyptian bishops to Meletius at the com¬ 
 mencement of the 4th century,® in which they 
 complain of his having ordained beyond the 
 limits of his diocese, which they allege is con¬ 
 trary to “ mos divinus ” and to regula eccle- 
 siastica ; ” and remind him that it is the “ lex 
 patrum et propatrum. ... in alienis paroeciis 
 non licere alicui episcoporum ordinationes cele- 
 bi*are.” The inference, Hefele thinks, is almost 
 irresistible that this refers to what is now the 
 36th (xxxv.) Apostolical Canon. And at all 
 events he appears to hold with Bickell that the 
 apostolical canons are referred to at Ephe.sus, 
 Constantinople (a.d. 448), and Chalcedon. But 
 such a view falls short of that of Beveridge. 
 
 Coming to the internal evidence, we find great 
 stress to have been laid bv Daille. Von Drev, 
 Bickell, and others on the contents of the canons, as 
 distinctly marking their late date. Thus the 8th 
 (vii.) (as to Easter) is in harmony with the pre¬ 
 sent interpolated text of the apostolical consti¬ 
 tutions, but is at variance with what Epiphanius 
 read there, and with the Syriac didascalia (see 
 infra, pp. 122,123). It relates to the settlement of 
 a particular phase of the Easter controversy which 
 did not, according to Hefele, spring up until 
 the 3rd century (Conciliengesch. i. 303 and 776).^ 
 Moreover, if known and recognized previous to 
 the Council of Nice, it seems extraordinary that 
 this canon should not have been mentioned in 
 Constantine’s famous letter to the Nicene Fathers 
 on the Easter Controversy (Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 
 18-20). 
 
 Canon 27 (xxvi.) hardly savours of a very 
 early time. On this canon Beveridge (^Annot. in 
 Can. Apost., sub Canone xxvi.) cites the Council 
 of Chalcedon (a.d. 451), as saying that in many 
 provinces it was permitted to readers and singers 
 to marry ; and understands it of those provinces 
 in which the apostolical canons had been put in 
 force, they having been, he says, originally passed 
 in different localities by provincial synods. (See 
 also his Jvd. de Can. Apost. § xii. in Cotel. vol. i. 
 p. 436.) This seems to derogate somewhat from 
 the general reception which he elsewhere appears 
 disposed to claim for them. So limited an opera¬ 
 tion even in the 5th century is scarcely what was 
 to be expected if the whole collection had been 
 made, and promulgated a century and a half be¬ 
 fore. 
 
 The 31st (xxx.), the Ixxxi., and Ixxxiii., all 
 appear to speak of a time when the empire was 
 Christian (see Hefele, vol. i. p. 783, 789 ; Bic¬ 
 kell, i. 80.).K 
 
 e Given in Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol iii. pp. 381, 382. 
 
 f If Hcfele’s view on this subject be accept'd, Beveridge 
 must be held to have confused the special point here ruled 
 with other questions in dispute in the Easter controversy 
 (l7od. Can. lib. 2, c. iii.). 
 
 e Von Drey, however, points out that it Is difiRcult to 
 suppose a council under the empire would set its«'lf so 
 openly against the emperor’s interference. If bo , some 
 
APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 117 
 
 The 35th (xxxiv.), recognizing a kind of metro¬ 
 politan authority, has also been much insisted 
 on by Von Drey and Bickell, as well as by Daille, 
 in pi'oof of an origin not earlier than the 4th 
 century (see contra, Bev. Cod. Can. lib. 2, cap. v.).** 
 
 The 46th suggests the remark that if it were in 
 existence at the time of Cyprian, it would surely 
 have been cited in the controversy as to heretical 
 baptism. It agrees with the doctrine of the apos¬ 
 tolical constitutions vi. 15, and according to some 
 has probably been taken thence. Beveridge indeed 
 observes that Cyprian (^Epist. to Jubajanus) does 
 rely on the decree of a synod held under the 
 presidency of Agrippinus (see Jud. de Can. Ap. 
 § xi. and Cod. Can. lib. 3, cap. xii.). This de¬ 
 cree he seems to think may be the original of 
 canon 46. If so, hov/ever, it would seem to shew 
 the local and partial character of the apostolical 
 canons, for we know that the Roman Chui'ch 
 held at this very time a contrary view (Comp, 
 the admissions of Bev. in Jud. de Can. § xii.). 
 
 Again, other orders besides bishop, priest, and 
 deacon apj^ear in the clerical body. We have sub¬ 
 deacons, readers, and singers (canon 43).* Though 
 the second of these is found in Tertullian, the 
 first and last are not to be traced further back 
 than the middle of the third century. 
 
 Not to mention other instances, it may in con¬ 
 clusion be observed that much contest has taken 
 place over the list of canonical books in the last 
 canon, and as to the reference therein to the con¬ 
 stitutions. Beveridge thinks that the variation 
 in that list from the canon of Scripture as eventu¬ 
 ally settled, is a proof that it was drawn up at 
 an early date and before the final settlement 
 was made. But at the same time he (somewhat 
 inconsistently) is inclined to take refuge in the 
 theory that this last canon has been interpolated. 
 Here again it would be vain to attempt an 
 abridgement of the argument (see Cod. Canon. 
 lib. 2, c. ix. and Jud. de Can. Apost. § xvi. ct seq.') 
 
 Before concluding, the opinions of one or two 
 other writei’s must be mentioned. Krabbe thinks 
 that at the end of the 4th or early in the 5th 
 century, a writer of Arian or Macedonian ten¬ 
 dencies drew up both the 8th book of the consti¬ 
 tutions and the collection of canons, the former 
 being composed out of precepts then in circulation 
 under the Apostles’ names, with many additions of 
 his own, the latter out of canons made in diflerent 
 places during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, with 
 
 support might be hence gained for the theory that these 
 canons (in the present form, at all events) did not really 
 emanate from any council. 
 
 Beveridge observes that the Apostolical Canon merely 
 speaks of top npiorov kttitTKonov, whereas the corre¬ 
 sponding Canon of Antioch has rov iu rjj /jLrjrpoTroXei 
 7 rpoe<TTtt>Ta enCarKowov; the latter being in conformity 
 with the name metropolitan. This name did not arise till 
 the 4th century; and he therefore thinks the Apostolical 
 Canon is proved to be the older of the two, and to be 
 before that era. Moreover the Canon of Antioch pro¬ 
 fesses its enactment to be Kara top apxaCorepop Kpa~ 
 njo-ai/Ta etc to)p narepuiP ij/xtov Kapopa. It may be worth 
 observing that there is no trace of a primacy among 
 bishops in the Apostolical Constitutions, even in their 
 present state. 
 
 ‘ Sometimes we find only a general expression, as in 
 ^n. 9 tviii.), which runs el rt? eViVtcoTros 77 TTpea^vrepoi 
 t) fiiaKovo; fj etc toO tcarakoyov tov lepariKov ; the latter 
 words comprehending the other orders, and being appa¬ 
 rently strictly equivalent to the phrase Ij oAws rov Kara- 
 Aoyov TUP tcAjjpitcwi/ iu Can. 15. 
 
 the interpolation of the 7th and 85th canons 
 forged by himself (see Ultzen, p. xvi. pref.). 
 
 Bunsen attaches much importance to the apos¬ 
 tolical canons. He regards them as belonging 
 to a class of ordinances which were “ the local 
 coutumes of the apostolical Church,” i. e. if not 
 of the Johanneau age, at all events of that imme¬ 
 diately succeeding. Yet such “never formed 
 any real code of law, much less ^vere they the 
 decrees of synods or councils. Their collections 
 nowhere had the force of law. Every ancient 
 and great church presented modifications of the 
 outlines and traditions here put together; but 
 the constitutions and practices of all churches 
 were built upon this groundwork ” {Christ, and 
 Mankind, vol. ii. 421). Our apostolical canons 
 sei’ved this purpose in the Greek Church. The 
 fiction which attributes them, to the Apostles is 
 probably ante-Nicene (vol. vii. p. 373) ; but they 
 are now in an interpolated state. 
 
 Internal evidence shews, he thinks, that the 
 original collection consisted of three chapters:— 
 
 I. On ordination. 
 
 II. On the oblation and communion. 
 
 III. On acts which deprive of official rights 
 or offices. 
 
 These comprise, with some exceptions, rather 
 more than a third of the whole. To these, he 
 says, were appended, but at an early date— 
 
 IV. On the rights and duties of the bishop; 
 and subsequently when the collection thus ex¬ 
 tended had been formed— 
 
 V. Other grounds of deprivation. 
 
 Canons 6 (v.), 27 (xxvi.), he considers from 
 internal evidence to be interpolations. Relying 
 on the fact that the Coptic version (to which he 
 attaches much weight, calling it “ The Apos¬ 
 tolical Constitutions of Alexandria ”) omits 
 canons xlvii., xlviii., xlix., 1., he treats these 
 also as of later date. Canon 35 (xxxiv.) he 
 appears to consider as a genuine early form of 
 what subsequently became the system of metro¬ 
 politan authority. ‘ 
 
 Coming then to what he styles “The Second 
 Collection, which is not recognized by the Roman 
 Church,” i. e. to the canons not translated by 
 Dionysius, he says they “ bear a more decided 
 character of a law book for the internal dis¬ 
 cipline of the clergy, with penal enactments.” 
 
 Canon Ixxxi. is a repetition and confirmation 
 of one in the first collection, viz., xx. compared 
 with 31 (xxx.). This and canons Ixxxiii., Ixxxiv., 
 are post-Nicene. The canon of Scripture also is 
 spurious, as contradicting in many points the 
 authentic traditions and assumptions of the eariy 
 Church. It is wanting in the oldest MS., the 
 Codex Barberinus {Christianity and Mankind, 
 vol. ii. p. 227). 
 
 Ultzen, though modestly declining to express 
 a positive judgment, evidently leans to the view 
 of Bickell that the Antiochene decrees were 
 the foundation of many of the canons, and re¬ 
 grets that Bunsen should have brought up again 
 the theory of Bev'eridge, which, he considers, 
 “ recentiores omnes hu jus rei judices refuta- 
 verant ” (Pref. p. xvi. note, and p. xxi.). 
 
 There are Oriental versions of the apostolical 
 canons. As Bunsen has observed, the Coptic and 
 Aethiopic (the former being a very late but 
 faithful translation from an old Sahidic version, 
 see Tattam’s Edition, 1848) omit certain of the 
 canons relating to heretical baptism. Except in 
 
118 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CANONS 
 
 this and in Can. Ixixv. they do not differ in any 
 important degree Some account of these ver¬ 
 sions, and also of the Syriac, may be seen in Bickell, 
 vol. i. append, iv. He considers even the last- 
 named to be later than our Greek text, and that 
 little assistance is to be derived from them (see 
 p. 215); others, however, as Bunsen, rate them 
 highly. The subject deserves further inquiry. 
 
 To attempt to decide, or even to sum up so 
 large a controversy, and one on which scholars 
 have differed so widely, would savour of pre¬ 
 sumption. It must suffice to indicate a few 
 points on which the decision seems principally 
 to turn. The first question is. Can we come to 
 Beveridge’s conclusion that a corpus canonum 
 corresponding to our present collection, and pos¬ 
 sessing a generally recognized authority, really 
 existed in the 3rd century ? If so, much weight 
 would deservedly belong to it. 
 
 But if an impartial view of Beveridge’s argu¬ 
 ments should be thought to lead merely to the 
 conclusion, that a number of canons substanti¬ 
 ally agreeing with certain of those now in our 
 collection, are quoted in the 4th century, and 
 presumably existed some considerable time pre¬ 
 viously, we find ourseh’'es in a different position. 
 
 In this case the contents of our present col¬ 
 lection may possibly be nothing more than de¬ 
 crees of synods held at difterent and unknown 
 times,! and in different and uncertain places, not 
 necessarily agreeing with each other, and not 
 necessarily acknowledged by the Church at large, 
 at all events till a later period.”* * 
 
 Again, if our present collection as a whole be 
 not shewn to be of the 3rd century, the question 
 at once arises when and how it was made, and 
 whether any modification or interpolation took 
 place in the component materials when they were 
 so collected together.** 
 
 If it be to be looked upon as a digest of pre¬ 
 existing canons brought together from various 
 sources, it is necessary to consider how far the 
 fact that any particular canon is authenticated 
 
 k In Can. LXXXV. tbe Coptic omits Esther from the 
 0. T. and puts Judith and Tobit in place of Maccabees, 
 and after mentioning the 16 Prophets, it goes on; “ These 
 also let your young persons learn. And out of the Wis¬ 
 dom of Solomon and Esther, the three Books of Maccabees, 
 and the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, there is much in¬ 
 struction.’' In N. T. it adds the Apocalypse, between 
 Jude and the Epistles of Clement, and says nothing what¬ 
 ever about the eight books of regulations. “ The Acts ” 
 are merely mentioned by that name, and follow the 
 Gospels in tbe list. 
 
 * Some may, no doubt, be of an early date: thus Von 
 Drey admits the probable antiquity of Can. 1, Can. 10 (ix.). 
 Can. 11 (x.), and others. See notes to the Canons in 
 Hefele’s Conciliengeschichte, vol. i. Append.; and comp. 
 Bickell, vol. i. pp. 80, 81. 
 
 “ Beveridge speaks of the Apostolical Canons as the 
 work “ not of one but of many synods, and those held in 
 divers places” (Cod. Can. lib. 1, cap. li.). He thinks 
 that the name of the month Hyperberetaeus in Can. 
 XXXVII. shews that Canon to be of Eastern origin; 
 while he argues that the rule as to Easter in Can. VII. 
 proves that Canon to belong to the Western Church, 
 inasmuch as the rule in question does not agree with the 
 Oidental practice (Jud. de Can. s. 12; and see s. 27). 
 
 “ As to admissions of interpolations, see Bev. Jwl. de 
 Can. ad finein, and Cod. Can. in Cotel. vol. ii. Append, 
 pp. 10, 73, 114. Nor can it be forgotten that, in the only 
 shapes in which we know of their having been collected, 
 they are introduced by the untrue pretext of being the 
 words of the Apostles dictated to Clement. 
 
 by being cited at Nice or elsewhere, in any 
 degree authenticates any other canon not so 
 cited. For unless some bond of connexion can 
 be shewm, two canons standing in juxtaposition, 
 may be of quite different age and origin. 
 
 These considerations have been principally 
 framed wMth reference to the arguments of Beve¬ 
 ridge. Of course if the views of Von Drey be 
 adopted, any importance to be attached to the 
 canons is materially diminished. (Jp to a certain 
 point Beveridge certainly argues not only with 
 ingenuity but force, and his reasoning does not 
 seem to have received its fair share of attention 
 from Von Drey and Bickell.® Still, after allow¬ 
 ing all just weight to w'hat he advances, a careful 
 consideration of the points just suggested, may 
 perhaps tend to shew that it is not difficult to 
 see why controversialists of modern times have 
 not ventured to lay much stress on the apos¬ 
 tolical canons. 
 
 But there is another reason for this. No 
 Western church can consistently proclaim their 
 authority as they now stand. Protestant churches 
 will hardly agree, for instance, to the rule that 
 one who was ordained unmarried, may not after¬ 
 wards marry, nor will they recognize the Mac¬ 
 cabees as a canonical book; wdiile the canons 
 w'hich require a trine immersion in baptism, and 
 the repetition of baptism when performed by 
 heretics, will not be accepted by either Protest¬ 
 ant or Roman Catholic.? 
 
 It may be proper to add that the canons here 
 discussed are not the only series extant which 
 claim apostolical authority. 
 
 Thus, for instance, besides the Aiard^eis rav 
 ay'iovp dTro(rT6\wy nepl I’’’" 
 
 rroKvrov and At hiaraya\ at dia KKripevTos Kal 
 KavSves eKKXrjffiao'TiKol rwu aylwv airoaTdXup 
 (both of which will be treated of in connexion 
 with the Apost. Constitutions), w'e have certain 
 pretended canons of an apostolic council at An¬ 
 tioch (the title being rov aylov tepopdpTvpos 
 riOjU^iAou 6/c TTjs ep ’AvTtox^*? d-noa'rdXojp 
 
 crup65ov, tovt' ecrrip %k tup cppoSikup avrap 
 Kapdpup fxepos tup vtt’ abrov evpedepTcop els rijp 
 '^Ipiyepovs fiifi\io6r}Kr]p'). They are in Bickell, 
 i. 138, and Lagarde, Selig. Juris Eccles. p. 18. 
 
 We also find another set of apostolic canons 
 (8pos KUPOPiKhs TMP ayiwp cnroa'TdXwp') also 
 published by Bickell, i. 133, and Lagarde, p. 36 
 (and of which the latter critic says that it is 
 “ nondum theologis satis consideratum ”); and 
 yet again a curious series of alleged apostolic 
 ordinances (many of which resemble parts of 
 the apostolical constitutions), in three ancient 
 Syriac MSS., one translated into Greek by Lagarde 
 {Eel. Jur. Eccl. p. 89), and two into English, with 
 notes, by Cureton, in ‘Ancient Syriac Documents, 
 
 o Yet it is certainly remarkable that, when we first 
 hear of these Canons, the question seems to be whether 
 they are apostolic or apocryphal. The view that they 
 are an authentic collection of post-apostolic synodical 
 decrees does not seem to have then suggested itself. 
 
 p Refined distinctions have indeed been drawn to qua¬ 
 lify the apparent sense of some of these Canons (see J^v. 
 Cod. Can. in Cotel. vol. ii. Append, p. 100, and p. 130); 
 but the difficulty attending them has probably had its 
 share in preventing their full recognition. Hefele spt'aks 
 of the Canon on Heretical Baptism as contrary to the 
 Roman rule. Can, LX VI. is also contrary to the disci¬ 
 pline of Rome; but not being in the first 50, it is held 
 apocryphal. 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 119 
 
 relating to the earliest establishment of Christi¬ 
 anity in Edessa,' &c., with preface by W. Wright, 
 Lond. 18G4. It appears that in Cod. Add. 14,173, 
 fo). 37, in Brit. Mus. this document is quoted as 
 “ Canons of the Apostles.” 
 
 It is not perhaps a wholly unreasonable hope 
 that further researches into the ecclesiastical 
 MSS. of Syria may be the means of throwing 
 more light on the perplexing questions which 
 surround alike tlie apostolic canons and the apos¬ 
 tolic constitutions, both of them, in all proba¬ 
 bility, closely connected in their origin with that 
 Church and country.* *! 
 
 Authorities.—Centuriatores Magdeburg, ii. c. 7, 
 p. 544, &c. Fr. Turrianus, Pro Canon. Apost. et 
 Epp. Decret. Pontif. Apost. Adversus Magd. Centur. 
 Defensio (Flor. 1572, Lutetiae 1573), lib. i. P. de 
 Marca, Com. Sacerd., iii. 2. J. Dallaeus, DePseud- 
 epigraphis. Apost., lib. iii. Pearsoni Vindic. 
 Ignat, (in Cotelerius, Patr. Apost., voL ii. app. 
 p. 251), part i. cap. 4. Matt. Larroquanus in 
 App. Olys. ad Pearsonianas Ignatii Vindic. (Rotho- 
 mag. 1674). Beveregii Judicium de Can. Apost. 
 (in Coteh, Pair. Apost., edit. 1724, vol. i. p. 432). 
 Beveregii Adnotationes ad Can. Apost. (Ibid. p. 
 455). Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universalis Vin- 
 dicatus a Gul. Beveregio (Ibid. vol. ii. app. p. 1, 
 and Oxford 1848.) Brunonis Judicium de Auctore 
 Canonum et Const it utionum Apostolicorum (Cotel, 
 vol. ii. app. p. 177). Proleg. in Ignatium Jac. 
 Usserii (Ibid. vol. ii. app. p. 199), see cap. vi. 
 Regenbrecht, Eiss. de Can. Ap. et Cod. Ecc. 
 Hisp., Ratisb. 1828. Krabbe, De Cod. Can. qui 
 Apost. dicuntur, Eitt. 1829. Von Drey, Neue 
 Enter such, uber die Konst it. und Kanones der 
 Apost., Tubingen 1832. Bickell, Geschichte des 
 Kirchenrechts, Giessen 1843, vol. i. Hefele, Con- 
 ciliengeschichte, Freiburg 1855, vol. i. append. 
 Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind, London 1854. 
 tiltzen, Constitutiones Apost., Suerini 1853, pre¬ 
 face § 2. Dc Lagarde, Reliquiae Juris Ecclesi- 
 astici Antiquissimae, 1856. [B. S.] 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. The 
 .apostolical constitutions consist of eight books. 
 Their general scope is the discussion and regula¬ 
 tion (not in the way of concise rules, but in 
 diffuse and hortatory language) of ecclesiastical 
 affairs. In some places they enter upon the 
 private behaviour proper for Christians; in 
 other parts, in connexion with the services of 
 the Church, they furnish liturgical forms at 
 considerable length.* A large share of the 
 whole is taken up with the subjects of the sac¬ 
 raments, and of the powers and duties of the 
 clergy. 
 
 At the end of the eighth book, as now com¬ 
 monly edited, are to be found the apostolical 
 canons. These we have already treated of in the 
 previous article. 
 
 Ihe constitutions, extant in MSS. in various 
 libraries,** appear during the middle ages to have 
 been practically unknown. When in 1546, 
 
 1 Bickell, however, warns us that the fruits of such 
 researches must be tised with caution, on account of the 
 uncritical way in which various pieces are put to¬ 
 gether in these MSS. (vol. i. p. 218). 
 
 * '1 hese belong especially to the question of Liturgies, 
 and will not therefore be considered at length here. 
 
 ** An account of the MSS. is given in Ultzen’s edition, 
 and hy Lagarde in Bunsen’s Christ, and Man., vol. vi. 
 Fk 3S. 
 
 Carolus Capellus, a Venetian, printed an cpitomo 
 of them in Latin translated from a MS. found in 
 Crete, Bishop Jewell spoke of it as a work “ in 
 these countries never heard of nor seen before.” 
 (Park. Soc., Jew., i. 111.) In 1563 Bovius pub¬ 
 lished a complete Latin version, and in the same 
 year Turrianus edited the Greek text. It is not 
 expedient here to pursue at any length the 
 question of subsequent editions, but it may be 
 as well to mention the standard one of Cote¬ 
 lerius in the Patres Apostolici and the useful and 
 portable modern one of Ultzen (Suerin, 1853). 
 There is also one by Lagarde, Lipsiae, 1862. 
 
 The constitutions profess on the face of them 
 to be the words of the Apostles themselves 
 written down by the hand of Clement of Rome. 
 
 Book 1 prescribes in great detail the manners 
 and habits of the faithful laity. 
 
 Book 2 is concerned chiefly with the duties of 
 the episcopal office, and with assemblies for 
 divine worship. 
 
 Book 3 relates partly to widows, partly to the 
 clergy, and to the administration of baptism. 
 
 Book 4 treats of sustentation of the poor, of 
 domestic life, and of virgins. 
 
 Book 5 has mainly to do with the subjects of 
 martyrs and martyrdom, and with the rules for 
 feasts and fasts. 
 
 Book 6 speaks of schismatics and heretics, and 
 enters upon the question of the Jewish law, and 
 of the apostolic discipline substituted for it, and 
 refers incidentally to certain customs and tradi¬ 
 tions both Jewish and Gentile. 
 
 Book 7 describes the two paths, the one of 
 life, the other of spiritual death, and follows out 
 this idea into several points of daily Christian 
 life. Then follow rules for the teaching and 
 baptism of catechumens, and liturgical pre¬ 
 cedents of prayer and praise, together with a list 
 of bishops said to have been appointed by the 
 Apostles themselves. 
 
 Book 8 discusses the diversity of spiritual 
 gifts, and gives the forms of public prayer and 
 administration of the communion, the election 
 and ordinations of bishops, and other orders in 
 the Church, and adds various ecclesiastical regu¬ 
 lations. 
 
 This enumeration of the contents of the books 
 is by no means exhaustive—the style being 
 diffuse, and many other matters being incident¬ 
 ally touched upon—but is merely intended to give 
 the reader some general notion of the nature of 
 the work. 
 
 From the time when they were brought again 
 to light down to the present moment, great 
 differences of opinion have existed as to the date 
 and authorship of the constitutions. 
 
 Turrianus and Bovius held them to be a 
 genuine apostolical work, and were followed in 
 this opinion by some subsequent theologians, and 
 notably by the learned and eccentric Whiston, 
 who maintained that (with the exception of a 
 few gross interpolations) they were a record of 
 what our Saviour himself delivered to his 
 Apostles in the forty days after his resurrection, 
 and that they were committed to writing and 
 were sent to the churches by two apostolic 
 councils held at Jerusalem, a.d, 64 and A.D. 67, 
 and by a third held soon after the destruction 
 of the city. 
 
 On the other hand Baronins, Bellarmine and 
 Petavius declined to attach weight to the Con- 
 
120 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 Btitutions, while Daille and Blondel fiercely at¬ 
 tacked their genuineness and authority. 
 
 Whiston’s main argument was that the early 
 Fathers constantly speak of SiSa(rKa\(u otto- 
 <TTo\iK'f}, diard^eis, diarayai, Siardyfiara raiy 
 a.TToa'rhXwv. ko.vwv rijs XtiTOvpyias, Kavd)V rjjs 
 aXTjdeias, and so forth, which is true ; but he 
 has not proved that these expressions are neces¬ 
 sarily used of a definite book or books, and far 
 less, that they relate to what we now have as 
 the so-called Apostolical Constitutions. 
 
 It will be well to look at some of the chief of 
 these passages from the Fathers. 
 
 We may begin with the words of Ireuaeus in. 
 the fragment first printed by Pfaff in 1715. ot 
 raus SevTfpais rwv aTroaroXcov ^lard^effi irapr}- 
 KoXovBriKOTes icraai rdu Kvpiov veav Trpo(T<popdv 
 iv T7J Kaivfi diad-f}K'p Ka^etrrrj/ceVat Kara rd 
 MaXax'tov k, t. X. 
 
 Professor Lightfoot is disposed to see here a 
 reference to the apostolical constitutions, but 
 does not recognise the Pfaffian fragments as 
 genuine.® (Lightfoot On Epist. to Philippians, 
 London, 18d8, pp. 201, 202.) But if the genu¬ 
 ineness be admitted, the reference is surely in 
 the highest degree vague and uncertain. There 
 is no evidence that the ordinances spoken of 
 (whatever they Avere) were to be found in any 
 one particular book—still less is there anything 
 to identify what is spoken of with the apostolical 
 constitutions either as we now have them, or 
 under any earlier and simpler form. Moreover, 
 it appeal’s singular that if the Constitutions were 
 really what the writer was relying on, he should 
 not quote some passage from them. Instead of 
 this, he goes on to cite the Revelation, the Epistle 
 to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 almost as if these contained the Siard^ets in 
 question. What is meant by the word Sevrepai 
 it seems A*ery difficult to say with certainty. 
 
 Origen speaking of fasting (in his 10th Homily 
 on Leviticus) says, “ Sed est et alia adhuc re- 
 ligiosa [jejunandi ratio], cujus laus quorundam 
 apostolorum Uteris praedicatur. Invenimus enim 
 ill quodam libello ab apostolis dictum, Beatus 
 est qui etiam jejunat prae eo ut alat pauperem. 
 Hujus jejunium valde acceptum est apud Deum 
 et revera digne satis : imitatur enim Ilium qui 
 animam suam posuit pro fratribus suis.” 
 
 The terms in which Origen introduces this 
 citation do not seem very appropriate to such a 
 work as the Constitutions, nor in point of fact 
 do the words (which seem meant as an exact 
 quotation) occur in it. There is indeed (Book 
 V. 1) a general exhortation to fast in order to 
 give the food to the saints, but the passage has a 
 primary reference (at all events) to saints im¬ 
 prisoned on account of the faith. There is, there¬ 
 fore, a considerable divergence between the words 
 in Origen and those in the Constitutions; and 
 we are hardly justified in seeing any reference to 
 the latter in the former.** 
 
 e Hilgenfeld appears to take a like view, both as to the 
 Apostolical Constitutions being intended, and as to the 
 passage not being genuine. {Nov. Test, extra Canon, recept. 
 I’ascic. iv.'pp. 83, 84.) Bunsen thinks the Fragment ge¬ 
 nuine, and that it refers to some early “ Ordinances,” not 
 necessarily the same as we now have; Christ, and Man., 
 vol. ii. p. 398, et seq. 
 
 d Priraa facie, too, “ literae quorundam apostolorum” is 
 not an apt designation of a work professing to represent 
 the joint decrees of all. 
 
 A later treati.se entitled ‘ De Aleatoribus,’ of 
 unknown date and authorship, erroneously as¬ 
 cribed to Cyprian, refers to a passage “ in doc- 
 trinis apostolorum,” relating to Church discipline 
 upon offenders. Here again no effort has suc¬ 
 ceeded in tracing the words of the citation either 
 in the con.stitutions or in any known work. 
 There is, indeed, a passage of a similar effect 
 (Book ii. c. 39), but the actual language is not 
 the same; and a similarity of general tenor is 
 not much to be relied upon, inasmuch as the 
 subject in hand is a very common one. 
 
 We come now to Eusebius, In his list of 
 books, after naming those generally allow-ed, and 
 those which are dvnXey6p.evoi, he goes on,—“ We 
 must rank as spurious {y66oi) the account of the 
 ‘ Acts of Paul,’ the book called ‘ The Shepherd,’ 
 and the ‘ Revelation of Peter,’ and besides these, 
 the epistle circulated under the name of ‘ Bar¬ 
 nabas,’ and what are called the ‘ Teachings of 
 the Apostles ’ (Twv aTTocTTiiAcoi/ o.l XeySpevai Si- 
 dayat), and moreover, as I said, the ‘Apocalypse 
 of John,’ if such an opinion seem correct, which 
 some as I said reject, while others reckon it 
 among the books generally received. We may 
 add that some have reckoned in this division the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrew’s, to which those 
 HebreAVS Avho have receiA’ed [Jesus as] the Christ 
 are especially attached. All these then will be¬ 
 long to the class of controverted books.” (Euseb. 
 Eist. Eccl. iii. 25.) 
 
 The place here given to the StSoxod (eA’en 
 supposing them to be the constitutions) is in¬ 
 consistent with their being held a genuine work 
 of the Apostles. It speaks of them, how’ever, as 
 forming a well-known book, and from the con¬ 
 text of the passage, they seem to be recognised 
 as orthodox; but there is nothing to identify 
 them directly Avith our present collection. 
 
 Athanasius, among books not canonical, but 
 directed to be read by proselytes for instruction 
 in godliness, enumerates the Wisdom of Solomon, 
 the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, 
 and W’hat he styles SiSax^ KaXovp.eirq rwv diro- 
 rrroXwv. The same remarks obA’iously apply to 
 this Father as to Eusebius (Op. S. Athan. i. 963, 
 Ed. Bened.). 
 
 The language of neither of them indicates that 
 the work in question W’as looked upon as an au¬ 
 thoritative collection of Church laAvs. Lagarde 
 denies that either of them is to be considered 
 as quoting any book of our constitutions, laying 
 much stress on the distinction between hihaxa'i 
 and Siard^eis or Siarayal dnoaroXeav. (Bunsen, 
 Christ, and Man., a’oI. vi. p. 41.®) Bunsen, how- 
 eA’er, himself is inclined to see here a real refer¬ 
 ence to a primitiA’e foi’m of the constitutions. 
 (Vnd. vol. ii. p. 405.) 
 
 We noAV come to Epiphanius, w’ho, w’riting at 
 the close of the 4th century, has numerous 
 explicit references to the didra^is of the Apostles, 
 meaning thereby apparently some book of a 
 similar kind to that AA’hich w’e noAV haA'e. His 
 view of its character and authority is to be found 
 in the following passage :— 
 
 “ For this purpose the Audiani themseh’es 
 [a body of heretics] allege the Con-stitution of 
 the Apostles, a work dl^puted indeed As’ith the 
 
 e In this work Lagarde writes under the name of 
 Boetticher, which he has since changed for family reasons 
 to Lagarde. 
 
APOSTOIJCAL CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 121 
 
 majority [of Christians] yet not worthy of re¬ 
 jection/ For all canonical order is contained 
 therein, and no point of the faith is falsified, nor 
 yet of the confession, nor yet of the adminis¬ 
 trative system and rule and faith of the Church.” 
 {Haer. 70, No. 10 ; comp, also Ibid. No. 11, 12 ; 
 75, No. 6; 80, No. 7.) 
 
 But when we examine his citations, we find 
 that none of them agree exactly with our present 
 text, while some of them vary from it so widely, 
 that they can be connected with it only by the 
 supposition that they were meant to be made ad 
 sensum not ad literam. Even this resource fails 
 m a famous passage, immediately following that 
 just cited, where Epiphanius quotes the consti¬ 
 tutions as directing Easter to be obseiwed ac¬ 
 cording to the Jewish reckoning,^ whereas in our 
 present copies they expressly enjoin the other 
 system, (See Book v. 17.) 
 
 In a work known as the ‘opus imperfectum in 
 Matthaeum,’ once ascribed to Chrysostom, but 
 now considered to have been the production of 
 an unknown writer in the 5th century, there is 
 a distinct reference to “ the 8th book of the 
 apostolic canons.” And words to the effect of 
 those quoted are found in the second chapter. 
 Another citation, however, in the same writer 
 cannot be verified at all. 
 
 It is not necessary to pursue the list further. 
 From this time forwards references are found 
 which can be verified with more or less exactness, 
 and in the year 692 the council of Constantinople, 
 known as Quinisextum, or the Trullan council, 
 had the work under their consideration, but came 
 to a formal decision, refusing to acknowledge it 
 as authoritative on account of the extent to which 
 it had been interpolated by the heterodox. 
 
 It appears then that we must conclude that 
 there is no sufficient evidence that the Church 
 generally received as of undoubted authority any 
 collection of constitutions professing to have 
 come from the Apostles themselves, or at least 
 to be a trustworthy primitive record of their 
 decisions. Even Epiphanius bases his approbation 
 of the work of which he speaks on subjective 
 grounds. He refers to it, because he thinks it 
 orthodox, but admits that it was not received as 
 a binding authority. Yet had such a work 
 existed, it should seem that from its practical 
 character it must have been widely known, per¬ 
 petually cited, and generally acted upon. 
 
 Indeed that the so-called apostolic constitu¬ 
 tions, as they now stand, are not the production 
 of the Apostles or of apostolical men, will be 
 clear to most readers from their scheme and con¬ 
 tents. “ Apostles,” says the author of an article 
 on the subject in the ‘ Christian Remembrancer ’ 
 in 1854, “ are brought together who never could 
 have been together in this life: St. James, the 
 greater (after he was beheaded), is made to sit 
 in council with St. Paul (Lib. vi, c. 14), though 
 elsewhere he is spoken of as dead (Lib. v. c, 7). 
 Thus assembled, they condemn heresies and 
 heretics by name who did not arise till after 
 
 Tali' aTTocToAoii' Sidra^Lv, ovaav }ieu toIs ttoA.- 
 \ol% (V an^iKeKTW, a\k’ ovk aS6K^nov. ■ 
 
 * Opi^ouo'i yap ev rf} ax/rfi 6taTa^€i ol aTToiTToXoi oTi* 
 Yp.«r? n'rf \l/r)<j)i^r]re, aWa noLtlre orav oi aSe\<f>oi vp-ati/ ot 
 €<f TTjs jrepiTOfx^?" fier' avriav dp.a noielre. And he adds : 
 riopa Tols OTTOITToXoi? 5€ TO pTqTOV fit’ O/utOI'Otal'CTl iifiepcTat, 
 uis^€7ripapTvpoC<ri \eyovTfs OTt Kar re n\avtjOit)<Ti, /xijfie 
 VMti' ptKtrv. 
 
 their death (Lib. vi. c. 8); they appoint the 
 observance of the days of their death (Lib. viii. 
 c. 33). nay, once they are even made to say 
 ‘ These are the names of the bishops whom we 
 ordained in our lifetime ’ (Lib. viii. c. 47).” 
 
 Most persons will also be of opinion that there 
 is a tone about the constitutions themselves 
 which is by no means in harmony with what we 
 know of apostolic times. Thus for instance, the 
 honour given to the episcopate is excessive and 
 hyperbolical. 
 
 ovro’i [i. e. 6 CTrlor/coTros] vfiSsv ^aa'i\ehs Ka\ 
 SvydffrrfS' ovrns vjxwv iiriyelos 0eos /aera 0eJr, 
 6s rris Trap' vfjLwy TtftTjs dTroAttweir (citing 
 
 Ps. Ixxxii. 6 and Exod. xxii.-xxviii. in LXX.). 
 'O yap iiTL(TKOTros TrpoKade^fada} vfxuu ais @€OV 
 d^la T6T£/iTj|U6Vos, rj Kparei tov KX'fjpov Ka\ tov 
 \ aov TravrJs &px^^ (Book ii. 26 ; comp, also 
 Book ii. 33). 
 
 And in Book vi. 2 we read:— 
 
 et yap 6 ^aaiX^vaiv iTreyeipSixfvos KoXacrews 
 d|ios, K^LV ui'Js p, Kti.y <plXo^‘ Trdcrep ^dXXop b 
 Upev(Tiv iiravKTTdfxeyos ; '’Offcp yap iepwavvTj 
 ^aaiXeias dfx^ivwv, irepl \pvxvs exovrra tov 
 dywva, roaovrep Ka\ ^apvrepav ttji/ 
 
 p'lav b ravri] ToKixT]aas iLyTOixfiaT^Tv, fjTr^p b tt} 
 fiatriXeia.^ 
 
 A system, too, of orders and classes in the 
 Church stands out prominently, especially in the 
 8th book, of which there is no trace in the ear¬ 
 liest days (see Bickell, vol. i. p. 62). Thus we 
 have subdeacons, readers, &c., with minute direc¬ 
 tions for their appointment. Ceremonies also are 
 multiplied. The use of oil and myrrh in baptism 
 is enjoined (Book vii. 22), and the maiTiajie of 
 the clergy after ordination is forbidden (vi.* *i7). 
 
 We must therefore feel at once that we have 
 passed into n different atmosphere from that of 
 Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and that 
 the connection of Clement’s name with the work- 
 must be a fiction, no less than the assertion that 
 he wrote its contents at the mouth of the aj)os- 
 tles. Even those who think that they trace 
 something like the origin of such a system in the 
 letters of Ignatius must allow that it is here 
 represented in a state of develojauent which 
 must have required a considerable period of time 
 to bring about. 
 
 The questions, however, still remain 
 
 To what date are we to assign the work in the 
 form in which it now exists? 
 
 Can we show that it was in any degree formed 
 out of pre-existing materials ? 
 
 Bishoj) Pearson * and Ai'chbishop Usher regard 
 the variations between the citations of EjiipHa- 
 nius, and what we read in our present copies ot 
 the constitutions, as conclusive evidence that 
 there have been alterations and interj)olations on 
 a large scale since the time of that Father, and 
 the latter of these writers thinks that the same 
 falsifier has been at work here, who expanded tbe 
 shorter epistles of Ignatius into the so-called 
 longer epistles.! 
 
 h Comp. U.sher, in Cotel. I'atr. Apost. vol. ii. p. 220, 
 edit. 1724. 
 
 i Vind. Ignat. Part i. c. 4 prope fin. And see tbe 
 opinion of Heveridge, Cod. Cun. lib. 2, cap. ix. 
 
 j Cotel. rat7-. Ap. vol. ii. Append, p. 22S. Bickell has 
 collectod .some instances of correspondence in jiliraseolotfy 
 between tlie Ignatian Kpistles and the Coiistituiions as 
 they stand, vlikh the reader may refer to in order to 
 examine the probability of the latter theory {Gasch tics 
 
122 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIOXS 
 
 According to Peai’son, we should probably 
 attribute the work in its existing form to about 
 the middle of the 5th century, while Usher re¬ 
 fuses to jilace it higher than the Gth century. If, 
 on the other hand, we could suppose that Epipha- 
 nius quoted loosely, and that the book which he 
 had may, with occasional exceptions, have re¬ 
 sembled in substance what we now hax'e, we 
 should be able to put its antiquity somewhat 
 higher. But whatever conclusion may be come 
 to on this point, there is no satisfactory evidence 
 to warrant its being assigned to any period suffi¬ 
 ciently early to make it, as it stands, an authority 
 as to apostolic usage. 
 
 But the question still remains. Can we trace 
 its composition, and in any degree identify the 
 materials out of which it has been put together ? 
 
 That the work was a pure and simple forgery 
 is improbable. Such xvas not the course which 
 matters took in early days; nor would the mea¬ 
 sure of acceptance which it obtained be easily ac¬ 
 counted for on this theory. 
 
 Moreover it contains passages which seem 
 manifestly to belong to an early age. Thus in 
 case of quarrels the Christian is recommended 
 to seek reconciliation even at a loss to himself, 
 Kal iirl KpiT-ppiou iOviKSv (book ii. 
 
 c. 45)—words which at all events savour of a 
 time before the empire was Christian. So again, 
 the .secular judges are .said to be iOviKoi Kal ov 
 yivaxTKoi'Tis fleoTTjxa. So also martyrdom and 
 persecution on account of Christianity are spoken 
 of as by no means exclusively" belonging to the 
 past (see Lib. 5, init. et alibi). 
 
 And to mention but one more point, the charge 
 of Arianism, which was at one time freely brought 
 against the constitutions, and used to prove that 
 they had been corrupted, if not forged, by here¬ 
 tics,* has in later days been sometimes made the 
 ground of an opposite inference. It is thought by 
 some modern writers merely to show that the 
 phrases excepted against date from a time before 
 the controversy arose, and when therefore men 
 spoke with less of dogmatic exactness. 
 
 Perhaps it is possible to go even a step further, 
 at all events, by way of not unreasonable conjec¬ 
 ture. We have seen that Whiston relied on a 
 number of places in which the early Fathers 
 speak of didaxai, 5i5acrKa\'iai, Slara rutv diro- 
 (tt6\oi}u, and some years before Whiston wrote. 
 Bishop Pearson (in his Vindiciae /gnatianae) 
 had suggested the idea that, so far as such ex¬ 
 pressions really referred to any specific works at 
 all, they were to be understood of smaller, more 
 ancient, and more fragmentary treatises, of a 
 kind not rare in the Primitive Church, professing 
 to contain the words of the apostles or of aposto¬ 
 lical men on matters of doctrine and Church 
 order. Some of these were the production of here¬ 
 tics, some were of an orthodox chai’aoter. Those 
 which related to doctrine were called didascaliae, 
 
 Kirchenrechts, vol. i. p. 58, note). Pearson takes a some¬ 
 what different view, Vivd, Ignat, nbi supra. 
 
 Comp. Bickell, 1. pp. 57, 58, note. Eplphanius, how¬ 
 ever, never quotes from the 7th or 8th book-;, which on 
 any theory are doubtless of later dtite. 
 
 1 See for instance Le Clerc, in Cotel. Pair. vol. ii. 
 
 App. p. 492, et seq.; and Bruno, ibid. p. 177, et seq. 
 Indeed Photius and the Trullan Council had insinuated 
 the same accusation (Pibliolh. Can. 112, 113). 
 
 See Bickell, p. 58, note, p. 61, and p. 69. note. Comp. 
 Bull, Im/. Fid. Nic, lib, 2, c. 3, $ 6 
 
 those which gave rules of ritual or discipline, 
 Siand^eis or Constitutiones. These works, written 
 at dilferent times and in diflerent parts of the 
 Church, furnished (as Pearson supposes) the mate¬ 
 rials to the compiler, who, with many alterations 
 and interpolations formed out of them our pre.seut 
 constitutions {Vindic. Ignat., Part i. c. 4). 
 
 Other critics have spoken in terms which seem 
 rather to point to a gradual accretion, added to 
 from time to time to express the Church system 
 as developed, and modified at the periods when 
 such additions were respectively made. Thus 
 Lagarde says, “ Communis virorum doctorum fere 
 omnium nunc invaluit opinio, oas [Constitutiones] 
 saeculo tertio clam succrevisse et quum sex ali- 
 quando libris absolutae fuissent, septimo et octavo 
 auctas esse postea ” (^Rcliq. Juris Eccles. Antiq. 
 1856). 
 
 That the work as we have it is a composite 
 one is indeed manifest enough “ from the general 
 want of internal unity, method, or connexion ; 
 the difierence of style in the various portions, and 
 sometimes statements almost contradictory ; the 
 same topics being treated over and over again in 
 diflerent places ; besides a formal conclusion of 
 the end of the sixth book, and other indications 
 of their being distinct works joined together ” 
 {Christ. Beniemhr. ubi sup^a). 
 
 In the Paris Library is a Syriac MS. called the 
 Didascalia or Catholic doctrine of the 12 Apos¬ 
 tles and holy disciples of our Saviour. It con¬ 
 tains in a shorter form much of the substance of 
 the first six books of the constitutions, but with 
 very great omissions, and with some variations 
 and transpositions. 
 
 Its contents were printed in Syriac by De La- 
 garde (without his name) in 1854; and the same 
 critic, in the 6th vol. of Bunsen’s Christianity and 
 Mankind, has published, 1st, our present text, 
 with what he states to be the variations of the 
 Syriac; and 2nd, a shorter Greek text or ‘ Didas¬ 
 calia Purior,’ founded on the Syriac." 
 
 Bickell, who, however, when he wrote had 
 only seen extracts, thought this Syriac MS. a 
 mere abridgement of the larger work, and there¬ 
 fore posterior in date to it, and adding little to 
 our knowledge. 
 
 But Bunsen {Christianity and Mankind, vol i. p. 
 X.), Lagarde {liel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. pref., p. iv.), and 
 the author of the article in the Christian Remem¬ 
 brancer 1854, all agree that we have here an 
 older and more primitive, if not the original 
 work. Hilgenfeld says, “ Equidem et ipse Syria- 
 cam Didascaliam ad hujus operis primitivam 
 formam propius accedere existimo, sed eandem 
 nunquam nmtatam continere valde dubito.”® He 
 concludes, on the whole, “ tertio demum saeculo 
 didascalia apostolica in earn fere formam redacta 
 esse videtur, qiiam Eusebius et Athanasius nove- 
 rant, quam recensionem a nostris constitutionibus 
 ai)ostolicis valde divers.im fuisse antiquissima 
 docent testimonia, praecipue Epiphanii. Ea autem 
 
 " Jt iloes not seem, however, tbat this literal y repre¬ 
 sents the Syriac. For one of the passages given by Hil- 
 geiifeltl (sec infra), which undoubtedly e.xists in the S\'riac, 
 is not to be found in the ' Didascalia Purior.' It is much 
 to be regretted that neitlicr Lagarde nor any other Ori* ntal 
 scholiir has published a litoral translation of the Syriac 
 te.xt. 
 
 « His own view is that the Apostolicid Constiiutions 
 sprang from an Ebionite source, allied to that which pro* 
 duct'd the Clementine Recognitions 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 123 
 
 etiani a Syriaca didascalia quamvis cognata 
 sacpius discedunt.” He thinks that the Syriac 
 appears not to be very consistent on the subject 
 of the calculation of Easter. It seems, however 
 (from the translations which he gives), that it 
 contains a passage agreeing in substance with what 
 Epiphanius quotes as to keeping Easter by the 
 Jewish method (ante p. 121): “ Ihr sollt aber begin- 
 nen dann, wenn eure Briider aus dem \ oik [Israel] 
 das Fascha halten, well, als uuser Herr und Lehrer 
 mit uns das Fascha ass, er nach dieser Stunde von 
 Judas verrathen wurde. Und um dieselbe Zeit 
 haben wir angefangen, bedriickt zu werden, well 
 er von uns genommen war. Nach der Zahl des 
 Mondes, wie wir zahlen nach der Zahl der gliiu- 
 bigen Hebraer, am zehnten im Monat, am Montag 
 haben sich die Friester und Aeltesten des Volks 
 versammelt ” u. s. w., and subsequently — “ Wie 
 also der vierzehnte des Fascha fallt, so sollt ihr 
 ihn halten. Denn nicht stimmt der Monat, und 
 auch nicht der Tag in jedem Jahre mit dieser 
 Zeit, sondern er ist verschieden.” p 
 
 Tills is worthy of serious attention, as an argu¬ 
 ment for the antiquity of this Syriac work. 
 
 It. would seem that it must at all events be ad¬ 
 mitted that the original work from which the 
 Syriac was taken consisted of six books only. 
 The 7th and 8th books, as they now stand, formed 
 no part of it. 
 
 The same is the case with an Aethiopic version 
 translated by Mr. Flatt. This also, though said 
 to be very loose and of little value as a guide to 
 the original text, is a witness to the fact that 
 there were but six books when it was made. The 
 like is true of the Arabic versions, of which some 
 account was first given by Grabe, and of which 
 two MSS. are in the Bodleian. * *1 
 
 Not only do these facts tend to isolate the first 
 six books from the 7th and 8th; but the formal 
 conclusion which occurs at the end of the 6th 
 even in our present Greek, and the style of the 
 contents itself, furnish internal evidence in the 
 same direction. 
 
 It has therefore been contended that the 
 kernel out of which, to a great extent, the first 
 six books sprang was a shorter book called 
 di^a(TKa\(a roiv cnroCTSKau, of which the Syriac 
 version furnishes a fair idea, if not a really pure 
 text. 
 
 And as none of Epiphanius’s citations are made 
 from the two last books, it is suggested that we 
 may have here something like a key to the work 
 as it was in his time, the 7th and 8th books hav¬ 
 ing been added since.' 
 
 Coming to the 7th book, we must notice that 
 its first thirteen chapters or thei'eabouts exhibit 
 a great similarity, both in matter and expression, 
 to the first part of an ancient tract printed by 
 Bickell from a Vienna MS., and entitled Al Sia- 
 Tayai al Sia K\tj/j.€i/tos Kal Kau6i'cs iKK\r)cna<rTi- 
 
 p Sec Hilgenfeld, yovum Test, extra Can. recept. Fasci¬ 
 culus iv. p. 79 , et seq. (Lipsiae, 1866.) 
 
 1 there are in the Arabic five chapters not in the 
 Greek. 
 
 ' I he fact that there is no Oriental version of the eight 
 Greek books as a whole, has been relied on to shew that 
 they had not been united together in one work up to 
 the year 451, when the Egyptian, Aethiopic, and Syriac 
 cimnhes were severed from the eomniunion of the Greeks 
 and l..atlns (CAnVf. Remembr., 1851, p. 278). The same 
 authority is inclined to date the Didascaly in the latter 
 part of the 3rd century. 
 
 Kol rwv ayiwv aTTO<TT6\(av. * This tract professes 
 to contain short and weighty utterances by the 
 apostles (who are introduced as speaking success¬ 
 ively) on Christian morals, and on the ministers 
 of the Church.‘ An Aethiopic version (for it is 
 extant in Coptic, Aethiopic, and Arabic) calls it 
 “ canons of the apostles which they have made 
 for the ordering of the Christian Church.” “ It 
 is the piece which Bickell and others after him 
 have called “ Apostolische Kirchenordnung.” 
 It is assigned by him to the beginning of the 
 3rd century. * The same date is given in the 
 article on the subject in Herzog’s EncyclopdJie, 
 where it is treated as a document independent of 
 the constitutions. Bunsen, removing the dra¬ 
 matic form and presenting only the substance of 
 the piece, considers it to be in facta collection of 
 rules of the Alexandrian Church. This view, 
 however, is warmly disputed by the writer in the 
 Christian liemernbrancer (1854, p. 293), who 
 contends that its whole garb, style, and lan¬ 
 guage show that it was not an authoritative 
 work, but was the production of a pious writer, 
 who arrayed in a somewhat fictitious dress what 
 he sought to inculcate. It is more remarkable for 
 piety than knowledge; for though the number of 
 twelve apostles is made out, it is by introducing 
 Cephas as a distinct person from Peter, and by 
 making him and Nathanael occupy the places of 
 James the Less and of Matthias. St. Paul does 
 not appear at all—a fact, perhaps, not without 
 its bearing on conjectures as to its origin. 
 
 It should be observed that the language of the 
 first pai't of this tract, and of the 7th Book of the 
 Constitutions, coincides to a great extent with the 
 latter part of the Epistle of Barnabas, leaving it 
 doubtful whether it was taken thence or whether 
 the transcribei’s of that epistle subsequently in¬ 
 corporated therewith a portion of this treatise. 
 Borrowing and interpolation must, it would 
 seem, have taken place on one hand or on the 
 other, and, as in other cases, it is diificult to de¬ 
 cide the question of originality. 
 
 Upon this state of facts the writer in the 
 Christ. Rem. argues that this tract fui-nished 
 materials fer the first part of the 7th Book of 
 the Constitutions. He also thinks that it is it¬ 
 self the work referred to by Eusebius and Atha¬ 
 nasius under the name of diSax^ tS>v otto- 
 (tt6\(i3V. We have seen already that the title 
 in the Greek varies from that in the Aethiopic, 
 and it is urged that (considering the subject) 
 there seems no reason why it may not also be 
 suitably designated ‘Teaching of the Apostles.’ 
 Now in an old stichometry appended to Niceph- 
 orus’ chronography,y but perhaps of earlier date 
 than that work, the number of lines contained 
 in certain works is given, and from this it would 
 appear that the ‘ Doctrina Apostolorum ’ was 
 
 • Bickell, vol. i. App. I. It will also be found in 
 Lagarde’s Rel. Juris Keel. Ant., p 74. 
 
 ‘ It is the former of these points alone in which the 
 likeness appears between this work and the 7th Book of 
 the Constitutions. 
 
 “ See Bickell ubi supra; and i. p. 88. 
 
 * It mentions only “Readers” in addition to the three 
 orders of tlie ministry; and as Tertullian does tlie same 
 {De Rraescr. Ilaer., c. 41), this is thouglit a ground for 
 attributing it to his epoch (Bickell, vol. i. p. 92). See 
 also Hilgenfeld, Noo. Test, extra Can. rec.. Fasciculus Iv. 
 pp. 93, 94. 
 
 y A production of the 9th century. 
 
124 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CONSTIU UTIONS 
 
 shorter than the Book of Canticles, and that a 
 book called the ‘Teaching of Clement,’ was as 
 long as the Gospel of Luke. Hence, if the ‘ Doc- 
 trina ’ of this list be the same as that of Euse¬ 
 bius, it must have been a book very much 
 shorter than our present constitutions, and one 
 not far differing in length from the tract of 
 which we have been speaking; while the ‘Teach¬ 
 ing of Clement ’ (a larger work) may be a desig¬ 
 nation of the earlier form of our present first 
 six books—in short, of the Didascalia. Kulfinus, 
 in a list otherwise very similar to those of 
 Eusebius and Athanasius, omits the ‘Teaching 
 of the Apostles,’ and inserts instead ‘ The two 
 wa 3 's, or the Judgment of Peter.’ Assuming 
 that the ‘ Doctrina ’ is the tract we have been 
 discussing, reasons are urged for supposing that 
 it reappears here under a different title. We 
 have afready seen that the Greek and Aethiopic 
 give it two different names, and its contents 
 might perhaps render the designation in Ruf- 
 fiuus not less appropriate. For St. John, w’ho 
 speaks first, is introduced as beginning his ad¬ 
 dress with the words, “ There are two ways, 
 one of life and one of death and St. Peter in¬ 
 tervenes repeatedly in the course of it, and at 
 the close sums up the whole by an earnest ex- 
 nortation to the brethren to keep the foregoing 
 injunctions. Such is the hypothesis of the 
 learned writer in the Clu'ist. Rem. 
 
 Kilgenfeld, it may be mentioned, has independ¬ 
 ently arrived at a conclusion in part accordant 
 with the above. He argues strongly that the 
 treatise published by Bickell is that spoken of by 
 Rutfinus under the name of ‘ Duae viae vel Judi¬ 
 cium Petri,’ but does not apparently identify it 
 wdth the ‘ Doctrina Apostolorum ’ of Athanasius. 
 He thinks the book was known in some form to 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, and agrees that great part 
 of it passed into the 7th Book of the Constitu¬ 
 tions (see Hilgenfeld’s Novum Test, extra Canonem 
 Receptmn, Lipsiae 1866; Fasciculus.iv. p. 93). 
 
 We now come to the 8th Book. Extant in 
 several Greek MSS. (one being at Oxford) are 
 large portions of the matter of the earlier part 
 of this book, not however connected together 
 throughout, but appealing in two distinct and 
 apparentlj' separate pieces. The first of them 
 is entitled ‘ Teaching of the Holy Apostles con¬ 
 cerning gifts ’ (xapio'iudTWJ'), the second ‘ Regu¬ 
 lations (Stard^eis) of the same Holy Apostles 
 concerning ordination [given] through Hippo- 
 I vtus ’ (vrepl T7r7roA.oToo). The 
 
 tw’o together, as just observed, comprise a very 
 large proportion of the 8th Book, but are not 
 without some omissions and several variations 
 from it. In that book as we have it, the two 
 portions represented respectively by these sepa¬ 
 rate treatises stand connected by a short chapter, 
 containing nothing of importance, and seeming 
 to serve only as a link. 
 
 Hence it has been suggested that we have in 
 the treatises in question an older and purer form 
 of the 8th Book, or rather the materials used in 
 its composition. The ‘ Regulations ’ are also in 
 existence in Coptic (indeed there are two Coptic 
 forms differing from each other and from the 
 Greek by additions and omissions and probably 
 in age), in Syriac, Arabic, and Aethiopic, the 
 text being in many cases a good deal modified.* 
 
 ] Bunsen treated these as a collection of Alox- 
 : andrian Church rules, and Mowed the por- 
 I tions common to them and to the 8th Book of 
 the Constitutions as in a great degree derived 
 from a lost wmrk of Hippolytus Trepl 
 Taw^ (Christ, and Man., vol. ii., p. 412). 
 
 On the other hand Bickell argues that the 
 tracts in question are nothing more than ex¬ 
 tracts from the constitutions, more or less 
 abridged and modified. He relies, for example, 
 on the fact that in one of these treatises no less 
 than in the text of our 8th Book, St. Paul (who 
 is introduced as a speaker) is made to command 
 Christian masters to be kind to their servants, 
 “ as W'e have also ordained in vlnt has preceded, 
 and have taught in our epistles.” This he con¬ 
 siders to be a clear reference to what has been 
 before said in the constitutions on the same sul>- 
 ject (Book vii. c. 13). 
 
 Lagarde expresses a similar view, and draws 
 
 mentioned infra, p. 125. See also Christ. Reniembr.,p. 230, 
 as to another Syriac MS., and comp. p. 233. 
 
 ® The inscription on the statue of Hippolytus at Rome 
 mentions among his works nepl xapierp.dT<jjv airoaroXiKtt 
 TrapaSocrii. It is not clear whether the nepi xap- was 
 one treatise and avroa-T. napdS. another, or whether the 
 whole is the title of one work. See Bickeli, p. 60, note. 
 As regards the nepl xeiporonwi', Bunsen considers it to 
 have been the subject of much interpolation, and regards 
 its fate in this respect to have been like that of the Consti¬ 
 tutions themselves, the composition of which he describes 
 in words worth quoting in relation to the general subject; 
 “ Here we see the very origin of these Constitutions. 
 Towards the end of the ante-Nicene period they made 
 the old simple collections of customs and regulations into 
 a book, by introducing different sets of ‘ coutumes,’ by a 
 literary composition either of their own making, or by 
 transcribing or extracting a corresponding treatise of some 
 ancient father. Thus the man who compiled our 7th book 
 has, as everybody now knows, extracted two chapters of 
 the ancient epistle which bears the name of Barnabas. 
 The compiler of the Sth book, or a predecessor in this .sort 
 of compilation, has apparently done the same with the 
 work of Hippolytus on the Charismata” (Christianity 
 and Mankind, vol. ii. 416). Elsewhere, in the same work, 
 he expresses an opinion that the old collections of customs 
 here spoken of were themselves made at a much earlier 
 time—perhaps in the 2nd century—and express the prac¬ 
 tice of various great churches; and that the consciousness 
 of apostolicity in that primitive age justifies, or at least 
 excuses, the fiction by which they were attributed to 
 Apostles,—a fiction which deceived no on®, and was only 
 meant to express an undoubted fact, viz., the apostoliei'y 
 of the injunctions as to their substance (vol. ii. 399). 
 Ascending still a step higher, he believes that the mate¬ 
 rials employed in these old collections were of all but 
 apostolic times. The oldest horizon to which we look 
 back as reflected in them is perhaps the age immediately 
 posterior to Clement of Rome, who himself represents the 
 end of the Jobannean age, or first rentur^' (see vol, iL 
 p. 402). To Bunsen’s mind, full of faith in the power 
 and tact of subjective criticism, this means more 
 than to the mind of theologians of the English school. 
 He believed in the possibility of applying the cri¬ 
 tical magnet to draw forth the true fragments of steel 
 from the mass in which to our eyes they seem inex¬ 
 tricably buried. He thus speaks of the subjective 
 process by which be makes the first step upwards.— 
 “ As soon as we get rid of all that belongs to the bad 
 taste of the fiction, some ethic introductions, and all occa¬ 
 sional moralising conclusions, and generally everything 
 manife.stiy re-written with literary pretension; and lastly, 
 as soon as we expunge some interpolations of the 4th and 
 6th centuries, which are easily discernible, we find our¬ 
 selves unmistakeably in the midst of the life of the Church 
 of the 2nd and 3rd centuries ” (vol. ii. p, 405). 
 
 • The Syriac and Coptic form part of the collections 
 
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 125 
 
 attention to the cii'cumstance that in one part of 
 the Munich MS. of the nepl there 
 
 is a note which expressly speaks of what follows 
 as taken out of the apostolical constitutions.’’ 
 
 In conclusion, it may be remarked that all 
 such researches as those we have been consider¬ 
 ing as to one piece being the basis or original of 
 another, are beset with much difficulty, because 
 certain statements or maxims often recur in 
 several tracts which (in their present state at 
 all events) are distinct from each other, though 
 sometimes bearing similar names. Lagarde points 
 out (KeL Jur. Eccl. Ant., preface p. xvii., and 
 Bunsen’s Christianity and Mankind, vol. vi. p. 38, 
 39) that there once was a Syriac collection in 
 eight books equally professing to be the work of 
 Clement, yet far from being identical with our 
 present Greek constitutions, though here and 
 there embracing similar pieces. Passages which 
 Lagarde deems to be extracts from the 2nd and 
 3rd Books have been edited by him in Syriac 
 from fragments found in the same Paris MS. 
 (Sangerm. 38) which contains the Syriac Didas- 
 calia* *^ (see his Eel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. Syrian. 1856). 
 He has also translated them into Greek (see his 
 Eel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. Graece, p. 80, and Pi’ef. 
 p, xvii.).‘’ Then again, there is an Egyptian col¬ 
 lection,® also in eight books, the relation of which 
 to the abovementioned Syrian Octateuch is dis¬ 
 cussed by Lagarde (^Eel. Jur. Eccl. Ant. preface, 
 and Bunsen’s Christ, and Mankind, vol. vi. p. 39). 
 
 We have thus endeavoured to present a sketch 
 of some of the leading theories which have been 
 put forward as to the apostolical constitutions. 
 Did space permit it would not be difficult to add 
 others. Krabbe appears to have thought that 
 Eusebius, Athanasius, and Epiphanius knew the 
 first seven books, and that they were composed 
 in the East not long after the time of Cyprian 
 (the seventh being a kind of appendix to the 
 others), and probably by one author, whose object 
 was to model the Church on a Levitical pattern, 
 and who perhaps described not so much what 
 existed as what he desired to see. At a later 
 period (end of 4th or beginning of 5th century) 
 the 8th Book was added, embracing divers pre¬ 
 cepts which were commonly supposed to be apos¬ 
 tolical, together with much from the writer him- 
 
 *> Lagarde, Rd. Juris Eccl. Ant., Preface, p. viii.; and 
 see also, ibidem, a theory as to the name of Hippolytus, 
 as connected with the treatise. 
 
 ® This must not be confounded with the Syriac Didas- 
 calia previously mentioned, from which it is quite 
 distinct. 
 
 d Matter closely agreeing with these fragments, though 
 not in quite the same order, and connected with much 
 that is additional, is also found in a MS. of the 12th cent, 
 in the Cambridge Univ. Library. This MS. (brought by 
 Buchanan from Southern India) contained eight books of 
 Cl'-mentine Constitutions placed at the end of a Syriac 
 Bible; but it is now in a dilapidated state. It may be 
 that tlie Paris fragments are extracts from it, or, on the 
 other hand, this MS. (as the later of the two in date) may 
 possibly contain a subsequent development. It may be 
 hoped that further attention will be paid to it by Oriental 
 scholars. Its existence seems to have been unknown to 
 Lagarde. 
 
 * Of this Egj’ptian collection, the first two books arc 
 printed in a Greek version by Lagarde in Bunsen’s Christ, 
 and Mankind, vi. 451; and see Bunsen’s analysis of the 
 collection, ibid. vii. 372. Another Coptic MS. was trans¬ 
 lated by Dr. Tattam in 1848. There is a notice of it in 
 the Christ. Eememtn-. for 1864, p. 282. 
 
 self, probably an Arlan or Macedonian. Tills 
 second writer probably is responsible for many 
 interpolations in the previous books.^ 
 
 Von Drey again, who spent much labour on 
 the subject, advocated the view that the treatises 
 of four distinct writers are combined in our pre¬ 
 sent work. The first six books, he thouglit, 
 were written after the middle of the 3rd century, 
 to teach practical religion, and were adapted for 
 catechumens. The seventh is probably of the 
 date of A.D. 300, and treats of the mysteries for 
 the use of the faithful alone. The 8tli Book is 
 a kind of pontifical of some Eastern Church, being 
 full of liturgies for the use of the clergy, it 
 dates perhaps from the 3rd century, but has 
 been altered and adapted to the state of things 
 in the middle of the 4th. Athanasius, who 
 sj^ieaks of the SiSaxh KaKovy^vr] twu aiTO(TT6\ooi 
 as fit for recent converts desirous of instruction, 
 is to be taken as referring to the six first books.s 
 But before the time of Epiphanius the eight 
 books were joined as one work. 
 
 Interesting as such inquiries are, they cannot 
 at present be considered as having removed the 
 question of the origin and date of the apostolical 
 constitutions out of the class of unsolved problems.’’ 
 The majority of scholars Avill perhaps decline to 
 say with confidence more than that the precise 
 age and composition of the work is unknown, 
 but that it is probably of Eastern authorship,* 
 and comprises within itself fragments of very 
 difterent dates, which we have no certain means 
 for discriminating from one another, and which 
 have undergone great modifications when in¬ 
 corporated with the rest. The consequence is 
 that, as it stands, the work cannot be deemed to 
 reflect a state of things in the Church much, if 
 at all, prior to the Nicene age.** 
 
 Nor can it be said ever to have possessed, so 
 far as we know, any distinct ecclesiastical au¬ 
 thority. We are in the dark as to its author¬ 
 ship, and there is no such proof of its general 
 and public reception at any period as would 
 seem needful to establish its validity as an autho¬ 
 ritative document. There are indeed signs of a 
 common nucleus of which various churches seem 
 to have aA'ailed themselves, but in adopting it into 
 their respective systems they modified it in re¬ 
 lation to their respective needs, with a freedom 
 hardly consistent with the idea that it was en¬ 
 titled to very great veneration. 
 
 Authorities. —F. Turrianus, Prooem. in Lihr. 
 
 t When, however, a very late date is attempted to be 
 assigned, it should be remembered e contra that, as ob- 
 serv d by Bickell, metropolitan authority does not appear; 
 and if we hear of asceticism (in book viii.), there is no 
 mention of monasticism. 
 
 g While, on the other hand, the 85th of the Apostolical 
 Canons perhaps refers to the 7th and ath when it speaks 
 of the Apostolical Constitutions as Siarayal a? ou XPT 
 Snuoateveir errl travTcjv Sia ra ev aurat? ixvariKa. 
 
 ^ See the words of Lagarde in Bunsen, (Joist, and 
 Manic., vol. vi. p. 40. 
 
 • See Bickell, vol. i. p. 63, who assigns several gnmnds 
 for this conclusion. It is worth notice that throughout 
 the Constitutions the Church of Rome never occupies any 
 position of priority or pre-eminence. 
 
 k The age of the Syriac Dida.scalia is of course another 
 question. It demands fuller consideration, which it can 
 hardly receive from scholars in general until it has bi'en 
 literally translated. According to the ‘ I)ida.scalia I'lirior’ 
 in Bunsen, it is not free from very hyperboliv al language 
 in relation to the clergy. 
 
126 
 
 APOSTOLICUS 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 Clementis Rom. de Const. Apost., kc. Antv. 1578. 
 Joh. Dallaeus, De Pseudepigraphis Apost., lib. 
 iii. Harderv. 1653. Jac. Usserii, Diss. de 
 Ignat. Epist. (i-n Cotel. Pair. Ap., vol. ii. app. 
 p. 199, &c. Edit. 1724). Pearsoni, Vindic. Ignat. 
 (in Cotel. Pair. Ap.^ vol. ii. app. p. 251). Part I. 
 chap. 4. Brunoiiis, Judicium (Ibid. p. 177). 
 Cotelerii, Judic. de Const. Apmt. (Cotel. vol. i. 
 p. 195). J. E. Grabe, Spicileg. Patr. Oxon. 
 1711. J. E. Grabe, Essay upon two Arabic MSS. 
 Lend. 1711. W. Whiston, Primitive Christianity 
 Revived. Lond. 1711. Krabbe, Uber den Ur- 
 sprung und den Inhalt der Ap. Const. Hamb. 
 1829. Von Drey, Neue Untersuchungen Uber 
 die Const., kc. Tiibingeu 1832. Rothe, Anfange 
 der Christ!. Kirche. Bickell, Geschirhte der Kir- 
 chenrechts, vol. i. Giessen 1843. Ultzen, Const. 
 Aj.ost. Suerini 1853. Bunsen’s Christianity and 
 Alankind, London 1854. Christian Remembrancer 
 for 1854. De Lagarde, Reliquiae Juris Ecclesi- 
 astici Antiquissimae, 1856. Idem, Syriace 1856. 
 Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra Canonern 
 receptum. Lipsiae 1866; Fascic. IV. The Ethiopde 
 Didascalia ; or, the Ethiopic version of the Apos¬ 
 tolical Constitutions, received in the Church of 
 Abyssinia, With an English translation. Edited 
 and translated by Thomas Pell Platt, F.A.S. 
 London, printed for the Oriental Translation 
 Fund, 1834. The Apost. Constitutions; or, the 
 Canons of the Apostles in Coptic, with an English 
 Translation by Henry Tattam, LL.t)., &c,; printed 
 for the Oriental Translation Fund, 1848. [B, S.] 
 
 APOvSTOLICUS, a title once common to all 
 bishops (the earliest instance produced by Du 
 Cange is from Venantius Fortunatus, 6th century, 
 addressing Gregory of Tours, Prolog, to V. S. 
 Martini and elsewhere ; but none of his quota¬ 
 tions use the word absolutely and by itself, but 
 rather as an epithet); but from about the 9th 
 century restricted to the Pope, and used of him 
 in course of time as a technical name of office. 
 It is so used, e. g., by Rupertus Tuitiensis, 12th 
 century {De Divin. Offic. i. 27); but had been 
 formally assigned to the Pope still earlier, in 
 the Council of Rheims a.d. 1049,—“quod solus 
 Romanae sedis Pontifex universalis Ecclesiae pri- 
 mas esset, et Apostolicus,”—and an Archbishop 
 of Compostella was excommunicated at the same 
 council for assuming to himself “ culmen Apo¬ 
 stolic! nominis ” (so that, in the middle ages, 
 Apostolicus, or, in Norman French, VApostole or 
 rApostoile, which = Apostolicus, not Apostolus, 
 became the current name for the Pope of the 
 time being), Claudius Taurinensis, in the 9th 
 century, recognizes the name as already then 
 appropriated to the Pope, by ridiculing his 
 being called “ not Apostolus, but Apostolicus,'' as 
 though the latter term meant Apostoli cusfos : 
 for which Claudius’s Irish opponent Dungal 
 takes him to task. (Du Cange; Raynaud, Contin. 
 Paronii.') [A. W. H.] 
 
 APOSTOLIUM (’ATToo'ToXctoj'), a church 
 dedicated in the name of one or more of the 
 Apostles. Thus Sozomen {Hist. Eccl. ix. 10, p. 
 376) speaks of the Basilica of St. Peter at Rome 
 as TO lleTpov airo(rTo\fiou’, and the same writer, 
 speaking of the church which Rufinus built at 
 the Oak (a suburb of Chalcedon) in honour of 
 SS. Peter and Paul, says that he called it ’Atto- 
 (TToKeio!/ from them {Hist. AJee/. viii. 17, p. 347). 
 [Marty-rium, Propheteum,] [C.] 
 
 APOTAX AMENI {aTroTa^dpevoi) —rentin- 
 ciantes, renouncers, a name by which the monks 
 of the ancient Church were sometimes designated, 
 as denoting their renunciation of the world and 
 a secular life, e.g. in Palladius Hist. Lausiac., 
 c. 15, and Cassian, who entitles one of his books, 
 De Institutis Renunciantium. (Bingham, book vii. 
 c. 2.) [D. B.] 
 
 APPEAL {Appellatio in reference to the 
 court appealed to, Provocatio in reference to the 
 opponent; ((peais in classical Greek, verb in 
 N. T. iTTiKaXela-dai), a complaint preferred before 
 a superior court or judge in order to obtain due 
 remedy for a judgment of a court or judge of an 
 inferior rank, whereby the complainant alleges 
 that he has suffered or will suffer wrong. We 
 are concerned here with ecclesiastical appeals 
 only. And they will be most conveniently dis¬ 
 cussed if — distinguishing between 1, appeals 
 from an ecclesiastical tribunal to another also 
 ecclesiastical, and 2, appeals from an eccle¬ 
 siastical to a lay tribunal, or vice versa, 
 and further, as regards persons, between (a) 
 bishops and clergy, to whom in some rela¬ 
 tions must be added monks and nuns, and (;3) 
 laity—we treat successively, as regards subject 
 matter, of I. Spiritual Discipline properly so 
 called, II. Civil Causes, and III, Criminal ones. 
 It will be convenient also to include under the 
 term Appeal, both appeals properly so called, 
 where the superior tribunal itself retries the 
 case; and that which is not properly either 
 i-evision or rehearing, where the jurisdiction of 
 the superior tribunal is confined to the ordering, 
 upon complaint and enquiry, of a new trial by 
 the original, or by an enlarged or otherwise 
 altered, body of judges; and that again which 
 is properly a mere i*evision, where the case is 
 revised by a higher tribunal but without sus¬ 
 pending sentence meanwhile; and, lastly, the 
 ti'ansference also of a cause from one kind of 
 tribunal to another not co-ordinate with it, as 
 e.g. from lay to spiritual or vice versa, which, if 
 the first court have completed its sentence, 
 practically constitutes the second into a court of 
 appeal to its predecessor. It is necessary also 
 to bear in mind the difference between a friendly 
 interference, such as brotherly love requires on 
 the part of all bishops if any fall into heresy 
 or sin, but which implies no formal authority 
 of the adviser over the advised ; and an arbitra¬ 
 tion, where the arbiter, who may be any one, 
 derives his authority from the mutual and free 
 consent of (properly) both parties, but (as will 
 be seen) in certain cases sometimes from the sole 
 action of one; and an appeal, where some defi¬ 
 nite superior tribunal may be set in motion by 
 either party, but has in that case exclusive as 
 well as compulsory jurisdiction ; and the yet 
 further step, where (like the intercessio of the 
 Tribuni Plehis') the superior court or magistrate 
 has the power of calling up the case for revision, 
 and of suspending sentence meanwhile, suo motu. 
 An appeal, however, of whatever kind, implies 
 the legality in the absHact, and assumes the 
 fact, of the jurisdiction of the court appealed 
 from as a primary court. And it becomes need¬ 
 ful, therefore, here to assume, although it is 
 no business of this article either to detail or 
 to prove, the extent and Ijmits of ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction in the first instance; in order clearly 
 
APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 127 
 
 to set forth the various checks in the way of 
 appeal placed in such case upon that original 
 jurisdiction. On the other hand, the limitation 
 of the subject to the period antecedent to 
 Charlemagne, excludes from consideration the 
 whole of the elaborate fabric built up by the 
 Canon Law of later times, mainly upon the basis 
 of the False Decretals. And we haA^e nothing 
 t« do, accordingly, Avith that grand innoA'ation, 
 whereby, in the West, the entire system of purely 
 ecclesiastical appeals (and, indeed, of justice) Avas 
 in eft'ect perA^erted and frustrated, viz., the right 
 gradually alloAved of appealing immediately from 
 any ecclesiastical tribunal, high or Ioav, upon 
 any subject great or small, to the Pope at once; 
 nor yet Avith the elaborate disputes upon the 
 nature and limits of majores causae (the phrase, 
 hoAvever, dating from Innocent I.); nor Avith 
 the encroachments of the highest or of other 
 ecclesiastical tribunals upon those of the State ; 
 nor AA'ith the celebrated Appel comme d’Abus in 
 medieA'al and later France; nor Avith such 
 questions as the legitimate effect of the clause 
 appellatione remota or postposita in a Papal 
 brief; nor Avith the appeal from the Pope to a 
 General Council, present or future; or from the 
 Pope ill-informed, to the Pope Avell-informed: 
 nor again, on another side of the subject, Avith 
 distinctions betAveen appeals judicial or extra¬ 
 judicial, or from sentences definitiA^e or inter¬ 
 locutory ; nor Avith the system, at least as sub¬ 
 sequently elaborated, of Apostoli (certainly not 
 deriA^ed from post appellationem) or letters di- 
 missory, whether reverential, refutatory, repo¬ 
 sitory, testimonial, or conventional, Avhereby 
 the under court formally transferred the cause 
 to the upper one ; nor with the fatalia appel- 
 lationum, scil., the fixed times within which an 
 appeal must be laid, carried to the upper court 
 by means of Apostoli. prosecuted, and concluded; 
 nor, in a Avord, Avith any other of the elaborate 
 details of the later Canon Law upon the subject. 
 Our attention must be confined to the system 
 so far as it Avas worked out under the Roman 
 Empire, and rencAA^ed or modified under that of 
 Charlemagne. 
 
 I. 1. Spiritual jurisdiction in matters of dis¬ 
 cipline over clergy and laity alike, rested in the 
 beginning both by Scriptural sanction and by 
 primitiv^e practice Avith the bishop, acting, hoAV- 
 ever, rather Avith paternal authority and in the 
 spirit of mutual love, through moral influence 
 on the one side met by Avilling obedience on the 
 other, than according to the hard outlines of a 
 fixed Church laAV laid doAvn in canons; although 
 such canons gradually grew into existence and 
 into fulness, and the ultimatum of excommuni¬ 
 cation must haA'c existed all along as the punish¬ 
 ment of obstinate or repeated transgression. The 
 Apostolic canons, hoAvever (xxxvii. and Ixxiv.), 
 recognize as the then Church law, and theNicene 
 Council (a.d. 325) formally establishes, the au¬ 
 thority of the synod of each province as a court 
 of (revision rather than) appeal from a single 
 bishop; enacting, that “excommunicate clerks 
 and laymen shall abide by the sentence of their 
 bishop,” but that, “ to prevent injustice, synods 
 of the bishops of a province (iirapxta) shall be 
 held twice a year, in order that questions arising 
 on such subjects may be enquired into by the 
 community of the bishops; a sentence of excom¬ 
 munication, if confirmed by them, to hold good 
 
 until a like synod should reverse it” (Cone. Nic. 
 can. 5) : such right of a})peal being aj'parcntly 
 the common laAv of the Church, and the Council 
 interfering only to secure it by requiring synods 
 to be held with sufficient frequency. And this 
 right, as respects presbyters and all below pres¬ 
 byters, was recognised and confirmed by Cone, 
 Carth., A.D. 390 can. 8, and a.d. 398 can. 29, 
 66, Cone. Milev. a.d. 416 c. 22, for Africa ; by 
 Cone. Vasens. a.d. 442 can. 5, and Cone. Venet. 
 A.D. 465 can. 9 (“ Episcoporum audientiam, non 
 secularium potestatum,” in this last instance), 
 for Gaul and Armorica; by Cone. Ilispal. A.D. 
 590 cc. 5, 9, for Spain; and by Cone. Antioch. 
 cc. 6, 11, A.D. 341, directed both against the Pope 
 and against appeals to the Emperor (adopted into 
 the canons of the Church Catholic), and by the 
 Council of Constantinople in 381, cc. 2, 3, 6, for 
 the East. The last-named Council also in eflect 
 limited the right of appeal from above as Avell 
 as beloAV, by forbidding all bishops rals v-n-fpopiois 
 iKK\T](r'iais cTrteVot, and by establishing each pro- 
 Aunce in an independent jurisdiction (Cone. Con- 
 stantinop. c. 2). 
 
 o. Confining ourselves first to the case of clergy, 
 the right of the bishop to judge his brethren or 
 his clerks, was further limited, in that part of 
 the Church where Church law was earliest and 
 most formally deA'eloped, viz., Africa, by the 
 requirement of tAvelve bishops to judge a bishop, 
 of six to judge a presbytei*, of three to judge a 
 deacon (Cone. Carth. a.d. 348 can. 11, a.d. 390 
 can. 10, A.D. 397 can. 8). And a dispute be- 
 tAveen tAvo bishops was still later refeiTed by the 
 (African) Council of Mileum A.D. 416 (can. 21), 
 to bishops appointed by the metropolitan. In 
 the East, and generally, bishops (and presbyters) 
 AAmuld seem to haA^e been left by the Nicene 
 canon merely to the natural resort of an appeal 
 from one synod to another and a larger one, viz. 
 to the metropolitan and bishops of the next pro- 
 A'ince ; which is the express rule laid down in 
 Cone. Antioch. A.D. 341, cc. 11, 12, 14, 15, and 
 in Cone. Constantinop. a.d. 381, can. 6. So also 
 canon 13 of the collection of Martin of Braga. 
 But betAA'een the Nicene and Constantinopolitan 
 Councils and that of Chalcedon in 451, a further 
 modification took place in accordance Avith the 
 settlement of the several Patriarchates, Avhereby 
 the appeal Avas made to lie from the bishop to 
 the metropolitan with his synod, and then from 
 him to the Patriarch; Avith the further claim 
 gradually emerging on the part of the Bishop of 
 Rome to a right of supreme judicial authority 
 OA'er the entire Church. (But Avhether the sen¬ 
 tence Avas to remain in force pending the appeal 
 seems to have been a doubtful question, A^ariously 
 settled at different times and- places ; see Bal- 
 samon in Can. Afric. 32.) The first step Avas 
 that, in the West, of the Council of Sardica, A.D. 
 347, intended to be oecumenical but in result only 
 Western, and not accepted as authoritative either 
 by the Eastern or even by the African Churches : 
 Avhich attempted to make the system work more 
 fairly, and perhaps to escape reference to an Arian 
 Emperor, by giving presbyter or deacon an ap¬ 
 peal to the metropolitan and the comprovincial 
 bishops (can. 14 Lat.), and by enacting Avith re¬ 
 spect to bishops, in the Avay of reA'ision rather 
 than appeal, that, whereas ordinarily they should 
 be judged by the bishops of their own province, 
 if a bishop thought himself aggrieved, either the 
 
128 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 bishops who tried him or those of the neighbour¬ 
 ing province should consult the Bishop of Rome , 
 and if he judged it right, then the comprovincial 
 or the neighbouring bishops should by his ap¬ 
 pointment retry the case, with the addition (if 
 the complainant requested it, and the Bishop of 
 Rome complied with his request) of presbyters 
 rej)resent ag tlie Bishop of Rome, w’ho were to 
 take their place in that capacity among the 
 judges (can. 4, 5, 7) : no successor to be a])pointed 
 to the deposed bishop pending such new trial. The 
 choice of the Bishop of Rome as referee (to decide, 
 however, not the case itself, but whether there 
 ought to be a new trial) has some appearance of 
 having been personal to Julius the then Pope (as 
 was the subsequent grant of Gratian to Pope 
 Damasus), to whoni the right is granted by name 
 in the Greek version of the canons (so Richerius 
 and De Marca); but certainly it was determined 
 to the see of Rome, not through previous prece¬ 
 dent, or as by inherent right, but as in honour 
 of the one Apostolical see of the West,—“ in 
 honour of the memory of St. Peter.” It was in 
 fact giving to the Pope the right previously 
 possessed e.xcluslv^ely by the Emperor, save that 
 the latter would refer causes to a Council. Prior 
 to 347, the case of Fortunatus and Felicissimus 
 A.D. 252 (striving to obtain the support of Pope 
 Cornelius against their own primate St. Cyprian, 
 and eliciting from the latter an express assertion of 
 the sufficiency and finality of the sentence passed 
 upon them by their own comprovincial African 
 bishops, St. Cypr. Epist. 59, Fell)—and that of 
 Mercian, Bishop of Arles A.D. 254 (whom the 
 bishops of Gaul are e.xhorted to depose for Nova- 
 tianism, St. Cyprian interfering on the sole 
 ground of brotherly episcopal duty to urge them 
 to the .step, and asking Pope Stephen to inter¬ 
 fere also, but solely on the like ground. Id. Epist. 
 68),—and those of Basileides and of Martial, 
 Bishops respectively of Leon with Astorga and of 
 Merida, also A.D. 254 (deposed by the Spanish 
 bishops as having lapsed, and of whom Basileides, 
 having deceived Pope Stephen into re-admitting 
 him to communion, and into “canvassing” for his 
 restoration, was rejected nevertheless by the 
 Spanish, seconded by the African bishops. Id. Epist. 
 67) — sufficiently shew that while the Nicene 
 canons only confirmed and regulated the jire- 
 viously established and natural principle of the 
 final authority of the provincial synod, that of 
 Sardica introduced a new provision, although one 
 rather opening the way for further extensive 
 changes than actually enacting them. In 341, 
 also, the Council of Antioch, representing the 
 East, repudiated the same Pope Julius’s in¬ 
 terference on behalf of St. Athanasius (Sozom. 
 iii. 8 ; Socrat. ii. 15) and passed a canon 
 against the return of a deposed bishop to his see 
 unless by decree of a synod larger than that 
 which had deposed him (can. 12); as well as 
 against appeals of deposed bishops to emperors, 
 unsanctioned by the comprovincial bishops: canons 
 ado])ted into the code of the whole Church. In 
 the West, however, the Sardican canon became 
 the starting point of a distinctly marked ad¬ 
 vance in the claims of the Bishop of Rome, 
 although not without opposition on the part of 
 the Church, nor, on the other hand, without 
 political support from the Emperors. In 367 a 
 Council of Tyana restored Eustathius of Sebastea 
 to his see, among other grounds, on the strength 
 
 of a letter of Pope Liberius ; but the proceed¬ 
 ing was condemned in strong terms by St. 
 Basil the Great (^Ej/ist. 263 § 3). In 378, the 
 Emperor Gratian added State sanction—at least 
 during the Popedom of Damasus, and in reference 
 to the schism of the antipope Ursicinus—to the 
 judicial authority of the Bishop of Rome, but in 
 conjunction with six or seven other bishops if 
 the accused were a bishop himself, and with an 
 alternative of fifteen comprovincial bishops in the 
 case of a meti’opolitan, the attendance of the 
 accused bishop at Rome to be compelled by the 
 civil power (Cone. Rom., Ejrist. ad Gratian. et 
 Valentin. Lnpp. A.D. 378, in Mansi, iii. 624, and 
 the Rescript appended to it of the same Em¬ 
 perors ad Aquilinum Vicariuni). In 381, how¬ 
 ever, the epistle of the Italian bishops (inclu'ling 
 St. Ambrose) to Theodosius, claims no more re¬ 
 specting Eastern bishops in the case of ilaximus 
 (deposed by the Council of Constantinople), than 
 that the voice “ of Rome, of Italy, and of all the 
 West,” ought to have been regarded in the matter. 
 But in some year between 381 and 398 (see 
 Tillemont, Md'm. Eccl.'), although Theodoret (v. 
 23) seems to place it under Innocent I. in 402, 
 Flavian, accepted by the East, but rejected by 
 Egypt and by Rome and the West, as Bishop of 
 Antioch, was summoned by the Emperor to go 
 to Rome to be judged there by the Bishop cf 
 Rome, but refused to submit; and was finally 
 accepted by the Pope, to whom he sent a depu¬ 
 tation of bishops, at the intercession of St. 
 Chrysostom, but without any pretence of trial. 
 In 404-406, Innocent’s interference to procure 
 St. Chrysostom’s own restoration to his see, even 
 to the extent of withdrawing communion from 
 St. Chrysostom’s opponents, proved as great a 
 failui-e as Pope Julius’s like attempt on behalf 
 of St. Athanasius (Sozom. viii. 26-^8, and the 
 letters of St. Chrysostom and Pope Innocent in 
 Mansi, iii. 1081-1118); although the mean pro¬ 
 posed was not a trial by the Pope but a general 
 Council. While St. Chrysostom himself at the 
 same period affirms the old principle, that causes 
 must not virepopiovs ekKeadai, ciAA’ eV rats (irap- 
 
 Xtais Tct TU)v ktrapxi-wv •yi;/ivd^€(r0ai(inMandi, jV>.). 
 But even in the Western Church at the same 
 period the Roman claim was admitted with diffi¬ 
 culty, and only gradually and by continual strug¬ 
 gles. Innocent I. indeed declared that, “si majores 
 causae in medium fuerint devolutae, ad sedein 
 Apostolicam, sicut synodus statuit” (meaning, of 
 course, but exaggerating, the Sardican canons) 
 “ et vetus sive inveterata consuetude exigit, post 
 judicium episcopale referantur ” (Epnst. 2 ad 
 Victric.). But in actual fact, 1. in Africa, A.D. 
 417-425, the appeal to Pope Zosimus of the pres¬ 
 byter .4piarius, condemned by his own Bishop, 
 Urbanus of Sicca, whom the Pope summoned to 
 Rome to be judged, and on refusal sent legates to 
 successive Carthaginian Councils to enforce his 
 claims, was in the first instance provisionally com¬ 
 promised, by a temporary admission of the Papal 
 authority (^Epist. Cone. Afrie. ad Bonifae. Papain 
 A.D. 419, in Mansi, iv. 511), on the ground of the 
 canons of Sardica, alleged by the Popes (Zosimus, 
 Boniface, Celestine) to be Nicenc; but on the 
 production of the genuine canons of Nicaea from 
 Constantinople and Alexandria, was absolutely 
 rejected (EjAst. Cone. Afrie. ad Caelestimm a.d. 
 425, in Mansi, iv. 515): whilst the canon (22^ 
 of Mileum, a.d. 416, which is repeated by Carth- 
 
APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 129 
 
 aginian Councils down to a.d. 525 (Mansi, viii. 
 644), assigns presbyters and all below them to 
 appeal, “ non ad transmarina judicia sed ad 
 primates suarum provinciarum; ad transmarina 
 autem qui putaverit appellandurn, a nullo intra 
 Africam ad communionem suscipiatur and the 
 Cod. Can. Afric. 18 Gr, 31 (a.d. 419), adds to this 
 —“sicut et de Episcopis saepe constitutum est,” 
 the genuineness of which last clause is supported 
 by Tillemont, De Marca, and Beveridge, although 
 denied by Baronins. It seems certainly to have 
 been inserted in the canon by some African coun¬ 
 cil of this period. At the same time, while the 
 gloss of Gratian on the word “ transmarina ”— 
 “ nisi forte ad Romanam sedem appellaverit ”— 
 is plainly of the kind that as exactly as possible 
 contradicts its text; it is evident by St. Augustin’s 
 letter to Pope Celestine in 424 (Epist. 209), that 
 applications from Africa in a friendly spirit to 
 Rome in disputes respecting bishops, both to 
 judge and to confirm othei's’ judgments, and this 
 not only during the provisional admission of the 
 Papal claim (as in the case of the Bishop of 
 Fussala), but before it, had been frequent. It is 
 hard to believe, in the face of the precisely con¬ 
 temporary and unmistakeable language of the 
 assembled African bishops at the close of the 
 controversy respecting Apiarius, that such ap¬ 
 plications could have been in the nature of formal 
 appeals; although the case of Pope Leo I. and Lu- 
 pieinus, a.d. 446, shows the Papal claim to have 
 been still kept up (St. Leo, Epist. xii. al. i. § 12). 
 2. In Illyria,—whereas, in 421, the Emperor 
 Theodosius had decreed that doubtful cases should 
 be determined by a council, “non absque scientia” 
 of the Bishop of Constantinople {Cod. Theod. 
 xvi. tit. 2. s. 45),—in 444, PojJe Leo L, insisting 
 upon the canons apparently of Sardica, and as 
 part of the Papal measures for securing the 
 whole of Illyria to the Roman Patriarchate, 
 commanded appeals (“caussae graviores vel appel- 
 lationes ”) from Illyria to be brought to Rome 
 (St. Leo, Epist. v. § 6). And 3. in Gaul, in 445, 
 the same Pope, ovei’throwing the decree of Pope 
 Zosimus in 418, which had constituted Arles 
 the metropolitan see of the province, insisted on 
 rehearing at Rome in a synod the causes of 
 Bishop Projectus and of Celidonius Bishop either 
 of Vesontio or of Vienne, whom Hilary of Arles 
 had deposed, and carried the point, although with 
 strong opposition from Hilary (St. Leo, Epist. 
 X.). Pope Hilary, however, 461-462, Epist. xi., 
 respecting the Metropolitan of Vienne and Arles, 
 refers his authority as Bishop of Rome to the 
 “ deci’eta principum.” And undoubtedly a decree 
 of the Emperor Valentinian III., in the year 445, 
 definitely assigned to the Pope, not simply an ap¬ 
 pellate jurisdiction, but the right of evoking causes 
 to Rome suo motu, by enacting that “ omnibus pro 
 lege sit quidquid sanxit vel sanxerit Apostolicae 
 sedis auctoritas, ita ut quisquis Episcop<'!rum ad 
 judicium Romani autistitis evocatus venire neg- 
 lexerit, per moderatorem ejusdem provinciae 
 adesse cogatur” (Cod. Theod. Novell, tit. xxiv., 
 Suppl. p, 12). An ultimate appellate jurisdiction 
 was also given at the same period, but by Church 
 authority, viz., by the general council of Chalce- 
 don in 451, to the Bishop of Constantinople : the 
 order of appeal being there fixed from bishop to 
 metropolitan and synod, and from the latter to 
 the particular Patriarch or to the Bishop of Con- 
 •tantinople {Cone. Chalc. c. 9). 
 
 CUUISr. ANT. 
 
 The Eastern rule appears to have henceforward 
 remained the same ; except that Justinian a.d. 
 533, confirming the canon of Chalcedon in other 
 respects, dropped all special mention of the 
 Bishop of Constantinople, but enacted in general 
 that an appeal should lie from bishop to metro¬ 
 politan, and from metropolitan alone to me¬ 
 tropolitan with synod, but that from the synod 
 each Patriarch should be the final court of 
 appeal in his own Patriarchate, as final as was in 
 civil cases the Praefectus Praetorio (Justin. Cod. 
 vii. tit. 62. s. 19); although no cause was to come 
 to him at once unless in the form of a request 
 that he would delegate it to the bishop, who was 
 the proper primary tribunal (Id. i. tit. 4. s. 29; 
 7. tit. 62. s. 19; Novell, cxxiii. 22). A law of Leo 
 and Constantins in 838 (Leunclav. Jus Gr. Rem. II. 
 99) likewise declares the patriarch to be the apxv 
 of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whose decision, there¬ 
 fore, is final, unless indeed he chooses to review it 
 himself. And so also, apparently, the 8th General 
 Council of Constantinople a.d. 870 (Act 10, cc. 
 17, 26). It is to be added, however, that in the 
 case of any one under the degree of bishop, 
 and in cases not ecclesiastical, the bishop was 
 the primary judge, but from him the case might 
 be taken to the civil judge, the Emperor deciding 
 if they ditfered ; but in the case of a bishop, the 
 right of appeal to the patriarch enacted by 
 Justinian is final (Justin., Novell. Ixxxiii. 12, 
 cxxiii. 21, 22). 
 
 In the West, the changes in the matter relate 
 to two points, to the fruitless attempts of the Popes 
 to obtain appellate jurisdiction over the East, 
 and to their more successful eftbrts to secure their 
 Western claim of the like kind under the altered 
 laws and policy of the new Barbarian rulers of 
 Europe; etforts which may be said to have 
 finally secured success under the Caidovingians, 
 in the popedom of Nicholas I. about 858. and as 
 confirmed by the false Decretals, first used by 
 Nicholas in 864 (Gieseler). For the former, in 
 449, Flavian no doubt appealed from Dioscorus 
 and the Ephesine Latrociniurn nominally to the 
 Pope, but Leo’s own lettei to Theodosius in con¬ 
 sequence (St. Leo, Epist. 43 al. 34, and 44 al. 40 ; 
 Liberat. Brev. 12, in Mansi, ix. 379), shows that 
 the tribunal of appeal contemplated by even the 
 Pope himself, was a general council (see Quesnel 
 and Van Espen). In 484, however, Felix 11. in a 
 synod at Rome, as the issue of a long dispute, 
 during which, among other steps, he had sixm- 
 moned Acacius of Constantinople to be tried at 
 Rome upon the strength of the canons of Sardica, 
 misnamed Nicene, made an open schism with the 
 East, which lasted 40 years, by excommunicating 
 and deposing Acacius (Mansi, vii. 1054); a sen¬ 
 tence which, it need not be said, was disregarded. 
 In 587, Pelagius 11. seems to have confirmed the 
 sentence of acquittal passed by a tribunal at 
 Constantinople, summoned by the Emperor, in 
 the case of Bishop Gregory of Antioch, while 
 pi'otesting against the title of universal bishop 
 applied by the same authority to the Bishop of 
 Constantinople (St. Greg. M., Epist. v. 18; Eva- 
 grius, vi. 7); a protest renewed, as every one 
 knows, by Gregory himself. But this implied 
 no formal superiority over Eastern bishops. 
 And the claim unhesitatingly advanced by Gre¬ 
 gory—“ De Constantinopolitana ecclesia quis earn 
 dubitet Apostolicae sedi esse subjectam” (St. Greg. 
 M., Epist. ix. 12)—was assuredly not admitted by 
 
130 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 the Clmi’ch of Constantinople itself. Further 
 on, the Council in 2'i ullo in G91, repeated not 
 only the 3rd canon of Constantinople in 381, 
 but the 28th of Chalcedon in 451, which latter 
 equals Constantinople to Rome (Cone. Quinisext. 
 can, 36) ; and also the 17th of the same Council 
 of Chalcedon (ib. 38), which involves the 9th of 
 the same council, viz., that which (as above said), 
 so regulates the course of appeals as to put the 
 patriarch of a province Avith an alternative of 
 the Bishop of Constantinople as the ultimate 
 tribunal. The dispute which a century after 
 issued in the great schism, cut short the narrower, 
 by absorbing it in the broader, controA’^ersy. For 
 the West, hoAvcA’^er, mattei’s proceeded more suc¬ 
 cessfully. Gelasius (492-496), Avhile allowing 
 the subordination of the Pope to a general 
 council approved by the Church, asserts posi¬ 
 tively (Epist. 13), that the see of St. Peter “de 
 Omni ecclesia jus habeat judicandi, neque cui- 
 quam de ejus liceat judicare judicio,” and that 
 “ ad illam de qualibet mundi parte canones ap- 
 pellari A'oluerint, ab ilia autem nemo sit appellare 
 permissus.” In 503, although the Arian Theodoric 
 appointed a commission of bishops, under the presi¬ 
 dency of a single bishop (of Altino), to judge of the 
 disputed election of Symmachus to the Popedom, 
 and although Symmachus in the fii’st instance 
 admitted their jurisdiction, and both parties 
 appealed to the judgment of Theodoric himself; 
 yet 1. a Roman synod (Synodus Fahnaris) both 
 sanctioned Symmachus’s election Avithout pre¬ 
 suming to make enquiry, and declared the inter¬ 
 ference of laity in Church elections or property 
 to be against the canons (Mansi, \'iii. 201, sq.; 
 Anastas. Lib. Poutif. in v. Symmachi); and 2. Enno- 
 dius of Ticinum, in 511, formally asserted in an 
 elaoorate document the absoluteness of the Papal 
 power, and especially that the Pope is himself 
 the final court of appeal, whom none other may 
 judge (Mansi, viii. 282-284). And at the end 
 of the century Gregory the Great assumes as 
 indisputable that every bishop accused is subject 
 to the judgment of the see of Rome (Epist. ix. 
 59). During the folloAving period, howeA^ei-,— 
 while the suffering African Church, retaining her 
 privilege untouched, but as a privilege, under Gre¬ 
 gory the Great, yet practically gave up her an¬ 
 cient opposition a few years later (Epist. Episc. 
 Afric. ad Papam Theodorum, in Act. Cone. Lat¬ 
 er an. A.D. 649, Mansi, x. 919),—the European 
 Chui’ches Avere practically under the government 
 of the kings, although the theoretical claims of 
 the Popes remained undiminished. The Irish 
 Churches, indeed, AA^ere still independent of the 
 Pope, the end of the seA'enth century being the 
 close of the Celtic schism, except in Wales. In 
 Saxon England, the proceedings of both kings and 
 synods in the appeals of Wilfrid (678-705), when 
 the Pope reversed the judgments of English 
 synods on Wilfrid’s complaint, showed on the one 
 hand a feeling of reverence for the Pope (e.g. the 
 Council of Nidd, a.d. 705 [Eddius 58] did not 
 repudiate the Pope’s decree, but the testimony of 
 Papal letters, Avhich might be forged, as against 
 the viva voce evidence of Archbishop Theodore); 
 but on the other, disregarded such decree in 
 practice, by enforcing that precise severance of 
 Wilfrid’s diocese against which he had appealed. 
 And the Council of Cloveshoo, a.d. 747, pointedly 
 limits appeals to the provincial council, and no 
 further (can. 25), In Spain, although Gregory 
 
 the Great interfered by a legate authori¬ 
 tatively in favour of depo.sed bishops, viz., 
 Stephanus and Januarius, on the ground, fir.st, 
 of Justinian’s law as being their Patriarch, and 
 if that was refused, then by the right of the see 
 of Rome as head of the Church (Epist. xiii. 45), 
 yet in 701 or 704, King Witiza, in a Council of 
 Toledo, expressly forbade appeals to any foreign 
 bishop (Cone. Tolet. xviii.). And a little earlier, 
 admission into Church communion Avas declared 
 dependent on the Avill of the Prince (Cone. Tolet. 
 A.D. 681 c. 3, and 683, c. 9). The Kings in effect 
 were in Spain supreme judges of bishops (Cenni, 
 De. Antiq. Eccl. IJisp. ii. 153, quoted by 
 Gieseler). In Gaul, the cases of Salonius, 
 Bishop of Embrun, and Sagittarius, Bishop ct 
 Gap, depo.sed in 577 by a synod of Lyons, re¬ 
 stored by Pope John III. on appeal, but by per- 
 mi.ssion and poAver of King Guntram, and then 
 again finally deposed in 579 by a Council of 
 Chalons (Greg. Turon., Hist. Franc, v. 21-28), 
 leaA'e the Papal claim in a similar state of half 
 recognition to that in which it stood in England. 
 And in the ensuing century the Royal authority 
 here also practically superseded the Papal. In 
 615, the administration of ecclesiastical disci¬ 
 pline is made subservient to the king’s interces¬ 
 sion (Cone. Paris, c. 3, as confirmed by Chlotarius 
 II.). And many instances of depositions of bishops 
 occur without appeal to the Pope, beginning 
 with that of Saff’aric of Paris, depo.sed by a 
 second synod there, to Avhich he had appealed 
 from a former one, under King Chilperic, a.d. 
 555. Gregory the Great, indeed, renewed the 
 ingenious expedient of appointing the Bishop of 
 Arles his Aucar to decide such causes in Gaul, in 
 conjunction with twelve bishops ; and yet even 
 so, most of such causes were decided without 
 even the presence of the Papal Aucar (De Marca, 
 vii. 19). The Capitula of Hadrian I., sent to 
 Ingilram of Metz in 785, introduced the first 
 great innovation upon preceding rules, by enact¬ 
 ing (c. 3) that no bishop should be condemned 
 unless in a synod called “Apostolica aucto- 
 ritateand again, that, if a deposed bishop, 
 Avhose primary tribunal Avas the comprovincial 
 synod, appealed from it to Rome, “id obseiwandum 
 esset quod (Papa) ipse censuerit” (c. 20, 23, and 
 Epitome Capit. a.d. 773). But they contained 
 also the African prohibition of appeals ad trans- 
 marina judicia (see Gieseler). And Avhile the Ca¬ 
 pitulary of Aix in 789, repeated more expressly 
 by the Council of Aix in 816 (cc. 73, 74), I'epeats 
 the Nicene and Antiochene (341) canons Avithout 
 the addition of those of Sardica, the Capitularies 
 as collected by Benedict Levita contain also the 
 Sardican canons. For bishops, then, Charlemagne 
 alloAved the appeal to Rome for a neAv trial, 
 the comproAuncial synod being still held to be 
 the proper tribunal for such cases: and an appeal 
 being also alloAved to more numerous episcopal 
 judges if dissatisfaction AA^ere felt with those 
 originally appointed by the metropolitan, and, 
 again, from them to a synod (Capit. A'ii. 41.3). 
 or again, from a suspected judge to another (ib. 
 vii. 240, and Add. iii. 25, iv. 18, sq.): — see 
 Capit. V. 401, 410, au. 300, Aui. 102, 103, 314, 
 315, 412, Add. iii. 105 :—but left the ordinary 
 and direct right of a proper appeal to the Pope, 
 and the condition of his prior consent to the trial 
 of an accused bishop, sufficiently unsettled to lead 
 to the great disputes of the following period, of 
 
APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 131 
 
 which the case of Hincmar and Bishop Rothad 
 is the primary case. The Carlovingian Princes, 
 indeed, deposed bishops in synods, just as they 
 elected them, without any reference to the 
 Pope. But the Papal power ^ gradually in¬ 
 creased. And while Gregory ., in 835, and 
 Leo IV., about 850, expressly claim a proper 
 appellate jurisdiction, Pope Nicholas I., 858-807, 
 on the strength of the False Decretals, may 
 be said to have finally established the claim 
 in its fulness. Even in'791, however, the synod 
 of Friuli asserted for the Patriarch of Aquileia 
 the right, that even no presbyter, deacon, or 
 archimandrite be deposed, in his Patriarchate, 
 without consulting him (can. 27) : the same right 
 which Hadrian claimed universally for the Bishop 
 of Rome. As regards all below bishops, the 
 Council of Frankfort in 794, can. 6, re-enacts the 
 order of appeal from bishop to metropolitan, i.e., 
 to the provincial synod, but no further ; and, in 
 addition, orders the civil magistrate (Comes) to 
 act as assessor, and to refer to the Emperor all 
 cases too hard for the metropolitan. And Ca/jit. 
 iii. 1, A.D. 812, includes bishops also among those 
 who are to bring their disputes to the Emperor 
 for settlement. 
 
 In sum, appeal from a bishop or bishops to his 
 neighbouring brethren, under their metropolitan, 
 i.e., from one or few bishops to many, was 
 the Church’s common law; the appeal termi¬ 
 nating there, until the law of Valentinian in 
 445 for the Bishop of Rome, the canon of Chal- 
 cedon in 451 for the Bishop of Constantinople 
 and patriarchs generally, and the law of Jus¬ 
 tinian in 533 for all patriarchs without dis¬ 
 tinction, allowed further appeal from bishops to 
 th'eir patriarchs: the Bishop of Rome, however, 
 alleging also for his right the narrow and in¬ 
 sufficient basis of the canons of Sardica, and cus¬ 
 tom, and in time also the broader and sentimental 
 ground of the privilege of St. Peter. The False 
 Decretals first established in the West, in its full 
 meaning, the absolute both appellate and imme¬ 
 diate jurisdiction of the Popes as of Divine right, in 
 the 9th century, during the Papacy of Nicholas I. 
 It remains to add, that the Cyprian, the Armenian, 
 the Georgian, the Bulgarian, and the Ravennate, 
 claims, to be autocephalous, Avere simply rem¬ 
 nants of the older condition of things before the 
 existence of patriarchates, differing from each 
 other only in the fact that the Cyprian right 
 was actually tried and confirmed by^ a general 
 council. 
 
 /3. The aboA'e canons for the most part leave 
 laymen to their original right of appeal to a 
 provincial synod, according to the canon of Nice. 
 .\nd this was plainly their right, generally 
 speaking, throughout; and is confirmed (as above 
 said) by the Council of Frankfort in 794. In 
 Africa, however, where the right of appeal was 
 more jealously guarded than elsewhere, it was 
 enacted at one time (^Conc. Catih. A.D. 397 can. 
 8, and a.d. 398 can. 22, 23) that the bishop of 
 the place “ agnoscat et finiat” the causes of all 
 below presbyters, although in no case “ absque 
 praesentia clericorum suorum.” Hincmar, in the 
 9th century, limits the same class of appeals to 
 the provincial synod, protesting only against any 
 further right of appeal in such cases to the Pope. 
 
 I. 2. The interference of lay tribunals in causes 
 spiritual, after the Emperors became Christian, 
 belongs properly to other articles. Questions of 
 
 faith and such as were purely ecclesiastical, as it 
 is sufficient here to state upon the unqualified 
 testimony of Gothofred (^Comment, in Cod. Theo 
 16. tit. 2. s. 23, quoted by Bingham), were left 
 ordinarily to bishops and synods, by laws reach¬ 
 ing from Constantins to Justinian (e. g. Novell. 
 Ixxxiii., cxxiii. 21). And the law of Honorius 
 in 399 (Cud. Theod. 16. tit. 11. s. 1), among others, 
 which expressly denies any proper right of 
 Church courts to civil jurisdiction, affirms also 
 that causes of religion as properly belong to 
 them. When, however, either questions of faith 
 or private causes became of political importance, 
 a qualified and occasional practice of appeal to 
 the Emperors from spiritual tribunals naturally 
 grew up. Our business is with the latter, i.e. 
 with judicial cases. And here it may be said in 
 brief, tliat the Emperors throughout claimed and 
 exercised a right of ordering a new trial by- 
 spiritual judges; the choice of whom so far 
 rested with themseh’es, that they took them if it 
 seemed good from another province than that of 
 the parties accused or accusing. So Constantine 
 dealt with Caecilianus in the Donatist contro¬ 
 versy, appointing first Melchiades of Rome and 
 three Gallic bishops to judge the case at Rome, 
 and then, upon the dissatisfaction of the Dona- 
 tists, commanding a synod to rehear it at Arles 
 (without the Pope at all) in 314. The precise 
 question, however, was one of discipline more 
 than of belief. And Constantine disclaimed all 
 right of appeal from the episcopal tribunal to 
 himself. So also Bassianus of Ephesus, and 
 Eusebius of Dorylaeum, asked letters from the 
 Emperor Marcian, that the Council of Chalcedon 
 In 451 might judge their appeals. And at a 
 somewhat earlier period Theodosius in a like 
 case transferred causes from one province to 
 another (De Marca, De Cone. Sac. it Imp. iv. 
 3). So also Theodoric appointed bishops to de¬ 
 cide the case of Pope Sy'mmachus c. a.d. 500, 
 although, after commencing the case, they ulti¬ 
 mately refused to judge the Bishop of Rome, 
 save by a merely formal judgment. And the 
 Council of Mileum in 416, while condemning to 
 deprivation any appellant to a civil tribunal, 
 excepts the case of those Avho ask from the 
 Emperor “ episcupale judicium.” On both sides, 
 howeA’^er, this middle course Avas occasionally 
 transgressed. Bishops sometimes asked the 
 Emperors themseh'es to decide their appeals: 
 e.g., eA'en St. Athanasius, Avhile in his Apol. 
 ii. expressly repudiating the Emperor’s poAver 
 to decide such a cause, yet, after the Coun¬ 
 cil of Tyre had deposed him, requested the 
 Emperor nevertheless, not bnly to assemble a 
 “ laAvful” council of bishops to rehear the case, 
 but as an alternatWe, ^ Kal ainhv St^aadai 
 rijif airoKoyiav (Socrat. i. 33). And the Council 
 of Antioch accordingly, in 341, took occasion (as 
 aboA'e said) to prohibit all applications to tlie 
 Emperor except such as were backed by letters 
 of metropolitan and provincial bishops, and to 
 insist upon the restriction of fresh trials to “a 
 larger synod canons i*epeated down to the 
 days of Charlemagne, and adopted by tlie Church 
 at large, although repudiated as Arian by 
 St. Chrysostom and by Pope Innocent I., Avhen 
 quoted against the former. And about a.d. 380, 
 Sulpicius SeA'erus, again, affirms that he himself 
 and his fellow bishops had done Avrong in allow¬ 
 ing Priscillian to appeal to the Emperor, and 
 
132 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 APPEAL 
 
 lays it down that he ought to have appealed to 
 other bishops. Yet both Pope Symmachus and his 
 opponent Laurentius requested the Arian Lom¬ 
 bard ‘ Theodoric to decide between them. On 
 the other side, when mentioning a very late 
 case, where the Emperor transferred a cause of 
 a spiritual kind from the Patriarch Luke of Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 1156-1169, to a civil court, 
 Balsamon (in can. 15 Syn. Carthag,'), while 
 affirming this to be against the canons, yet ad¬ 
 mits that a lay co-judge might rightly be asked 
 of the Emperor. And Justinian (^Nov.ell. cxxiii. 
 21) reserves indeed a right upon appeal of as¬ 
 signing judges, from whom an appeal lay “se¬ 
 cundum legum ordinem,” i.e. ultimately to the 
 Praefectus Praetorio and Quaestor Palatii (Cod. 
 7. tit. 62. s. 32); but ecclesiastical causes are 
 expressly excepted from such appeal. On the 
 other hand, Arcadius and Honorius expressly 
 prohibit appeals from councils to themselves; 
 unless, indeed, this refers only to civil and 
 criminal causes. The Carlovingian Emperors 
 (as we have seen above) reserved an appeal to 
 themselves in difficult cases from the metro¬ 
 politan, in causes of presbyters and all below 
 them ; besides appointing the civil magistrate 
 as assessor to the metropolitan in the first in¬ 
 stance. And in the case of Leo III. A.D. 800, 
 when Charlemagne convened a synod at Rome to 
 investigate accusations against that Pope, the 
 bishops appointed declined to act, on the ground 
 that it was the Pope’s right to judge them, and 
 not theirs to judge the Pope (Anastas., in V. 
 Leon. III.). 
 
 II. We pass next to civil causes: and the 
 jurisdiction of bishops in these, whether lay or 
 clerical, is of coui*se, as a coercive jurisdiction, 
 purely a creation of municipal law. As founded 
 upon 1 Cor. An. 4, it could not haA'e been until 
 the time of Constantine more than a A'oluntarily 
 conceded poAver of arbitration, Avhereby both 
 plaintiff and defendant, being Christians, agreed 
 to be bound (see Estius, ad loc.'). But upon prin¬ 
 ciples of Christian love and of aA'oiding scandal, 
 the decision of such cases became the common 
 and often the inconA’eniently troublesome busi¬ 
 ness of bishops : e.g., of Paphnutius (see Ruffi- 
 Lus), Gregory Thaumaturgus (St. Greg. Nyss. in 
 Vita'), St. Basil the Great (St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 
 20), St. Ambrose (Epist. 34), St. Augustine (Pos- 
 sid. in T7i«), St. Martin of Tours (Snip. SeA\ 
 Dial, ii.): and is recognized as their Avork by 
 St. Chrysostom (De Sac. iii. 18). The Apost. 
 Consiit. ii. 45-47 regulate the process. St. 
 Cyprian (Ado. Judaeos iii. 44), speaking of resort 
 to the bishop and not to the secular court as the 
 duty of Christians, may serA-e as a specimen of 
 the feeling upon Avhich the practice rested. And 
 while Socrates (A’ii. 37) speaks of Bishop Syl- 
 vanus of 'Pi'oas as declining it either for himself 
 or his clergy, it is recognized e\'en by the Council 
 of Tarragona in 516 (c. 4) as extending to pres¬ 
 byters and deacons also. The practice Avas 
 changed from a precarious to a recognized and 
 legal Institution by Constantine. Either party 
 to a suit AA^as allowed by him, not in form to 
 appeal from magistrate to bishop, but to do so 
 in effect; in that he guA'e to either the poAver to 
 choose the bishop’s court in preference to the 
 magistrate’s, the bishop’s sentence to stand as 
 good in law as if it were the Emperor’s (Euseb., 
 De V. Constantini, iA'. 27 ; Sozom. i. 9); and if 
 
 the law at the end of the Theodosian code is 
 (as Selden, and, among later writers, Haenel 
 and Walter [see Robertson’s p. 80] think, 
 
 but Gothofred denies) his, then took the still 
 further step of empoAvering either, without the 
 other’s consent, and whether the cause were 
 actually pending or even already decided by the 
 civil court, to claim a rehearing in the court of 
 the bishop (Extrav. de ELct. Judic. Episc. Cad. 
 Tiieod. Au". 303). 
 
 a. This power Avas enlarged in the case of the 
 clergy into a compulsory jurisdiction, the Church 
 forbidding clergy to take civil cases in which 
 they Avere concerned before any other tribunal 
 than the bishop’s (Cone. Carth. A.D. 397 c. 9, 
 Cone. Milevit. a.d. 416 c. 19, Cone. Chale. A.D. 
 451 c. 2, Cone. Venetie. a.d. 465 c. 9, Cone. 
 Cahillon. i. a.d. 470 c. 11, Cane. Matiscon. a . d . 
 582 c. 8), while the Emperors permitted and 
 ratified episcopal jurisdiction betAveen clergy in 
 ciAul cases, and Avhere both parties agreed to the 
 tribunal (Valentin. III., Novell, de Epise. Judicio, 
 xii. Gothofr.).. And Justinian in 539 gave civil 
 jurisdiction outright to the bishops OA'er the 
 clergy, the monks, and the nuns, subject to an 
 appeal to the Emperor in case the civil judge 
 decided differently to the bishop (Novell. Ixxix., 
 Ixxxiii., cxxiii. c. 21). The laAV also of Constan¬ 
 tins, in A.D. 355, refers all complaints against 
 bishops without distinction, and therefore ciA'il 
 as Avell as criminal, to an episcopal tribunal 
 (Cod. Theod. 16. tit. 2. s. 12); which Justinian 
 specifies into a regular chain of appeal to metro¬ 
 politan'and patriarch, unless in one exceptional 
 case, where either the Praefectus Praetorio per 
 Orientem, or “judges appointed by the Emperor,” 
 are to decide (Novell, cxxiii. cc. 22, 24). If a 
 layman, hoAveA’er, were a party to the suit, it 
 rested AA-ith him to choose the tribunal. 
 
 3. With respect to laymen, indeed, generally, 
 the laAV of Constantine, if it CA'er did go to the 
 length of alloAAing a transfer of the cause at the 
 Avill of either party, and at any stage of the suit, 
 AA’as soon limited. Arcadius and Honorius a.d. 
 408 require the consent of both parties (Cod. 
 Justin. 1. tit. 4. s. 7, 8). And both they, and 
 Valentinian III. a.d. 452, expressly alloAV a lay¬ 
 man to go if he chooses to the ciAul court, and in 
 all cases and jiersons require the “ A'inculum com- 
 promissi,” and the “A'oluntas jurgantium,” as a 
 prior condition to any episcopal (coercive) juris¬ 
 diction at all; expressly laying doAvn also that 
 bishops and presbyters “ forum non habere nec de 
 aliis causis praeter religionem posse cognoscere ” 
 (Cod. Theod. 16. tit. 11. s. 1 ; and Valentin. KL, 
 as before cited). Justinian, hoAA’CA'er, appear."; to 
 haA'e gone further. 1. He granted to the clergy 
 of Constantinople a right to haA'e all their pe¬ 
 cuniary causes, CA'en if a layman Avere con¬ 
 cerned, tried in the first instance by the bishop; 
 and onlv if the nature of the case hindered him 
 from deciding it, then, but not otherAvise, before 
 the ciA'il court (Novell. Ixxxiii.); and 2. he ap¬ 
 pointed the bishop generally co-judge with the 
 ciA'il magistrate, and Avith an appeal from the 
 latter to the former (Novell. IxxxA'i.). And both 
 in Cone. Carthag. a.d. 399 c. 1 (Cod. Can. Afric. 
 5), and in Justin. Novell, cxxiii. § 7, Cod. 1. tit. 
 3. s. 7, and Cod. Theod. 11. tit. 39. s. 8, provi¬ 
 sion is made to protect a bishop or clergyman, 
 Avho had thus acted as judge, from being subse¬ 
 quently molested by a discontented party* to the 
 
APPEAL 
 
 APSE 
 
 133 
 
 suit, «rho should summon him to give account 
 of his judgment before a secular tidbunal. 
 
 The law of Constantine in its widest form, and 
 as applying to laity as well as clergy, is alleged 
 to have been revived by Charlemagne (Capit. vi. 
 
 , 281), expressly as a renewal of the (extreme) 
 Theodosian enactment, but very serious doubts 
 are thrown on the genuineness of the re-enact¬ 
 ment : viz., that “Quicunque litem habeat, sive 
 possessor sive petitor fuerit, vel in initio litis vel 
 decursis temporum curriculis, sive cum negotium 
 peroratur sive cum jam coeperit promi sententia, 
 si judicium elegerit sacrosanctae legis Antistitis, 
 illico sine aliqua dubitatione, etiam si alia pars 
 refragatur, ad Episcoporum judicium cum ser- 
 mone litigantium du'igatur: . . . omnes itaque 
 causae, quae vel praetorio jure vel civili tractan- 
 tui', Episcoporum sententiis tei’miuatae, perpe- 
 tuo stabilitatis jure firmentur : nec liceat ulterius 
 retr.actari negotium, quod Episcoporum senten¬ 
 tia deciderit—thus interposing an absolute 
 right of appeal in civil causes for either party, 
 whether lay or clerical, at every stage of the 
 civil suit, from the civil judge to the bishop, and 
 forbidding appeal from the latter (see also Capit. 
 vii. 306, and Gratian, Decrct. P. II., c. xi. qu. 1 
 cc. 35-37; and Hallam, Middle A'/es, ii. 146, 
 11th ed.). At the same time it is obvious, by 
 Cone. Franco/. A.D. 794 c. 6, above referred 
 to, that an appeal to the Emperor himself was 
 allowed, even from the metropolitan, in all civil 
 cases. The joint jimsdiction of bishops and 
 aldermen in Saxon England belongs to a different 
 subject. 
 
 III. In criminal cases, this article is not con¬ 
 cerned to define the limits and nature of the 
 exemptions or privileges of clergy, beyond the 
 brief statement that, 1. Clergy, and in particu¬ 
 lar bishops, were exempted from civil tribunals 
 by the Emperors in criminal cases, provided that 
 first the delicta were levia, and next the con¬ 
 sent of the plaintiff if a layman were obtained; 
 and 2. Episcopal intei'cession for criminals, all 
 along looked upon as a duty and regarded with 
 favour, received a civil sanction at the hands of 
 Justinian; while Heraclius A.D. 628 formally 
 committed jurisdiction over the criminal offences 
 of clergy to the bishops, to be judged “ /caret 
 Tovs Belovs Kav6vas” (Leunclav. Jus Graeco- 
 Rom. i. 73). In relation to appeals, we have 
 only to mention, that Justinian, in criminal 
 cases of clerks, appoints the bishop and civil 
 judges to act together, with an appeal to the 
 Emperor {Novell, cxxiii. c. 21); the civil judge 
 to try the case, but within two months, and 
 the bishop then (if the accused is condemned) 
 to deprive {Novell. Ixxxiii.) ; and that in the law 
 of Heraclius, just mentioned, occurs the well- 
 known phrase — that if the case were beyond 
 canonical punishment, then the bishop should 
 be directed, “ rhv toiovtov rots iroAt- 
 TiKols &pxov(ri TT a p a 5 i d 6 a 6 a i, roj 
 Tois ■qp.erepoLS SiwpKTfxeuas v6p.ois rifiwp'ias 
 vTto(Txi]<y6iJ.evovd* And in such cases, therefore, 
 the cause was thenceforth transferred from the 
 spiritual to the lay tribunal. So also .lustinian 
 {Novell. Ixxxiii.) requires the convicted criminal 
 clerk to be first deposed by the bishop, and then, 
 but not before, virh ray twv v6fj.o>v 'Yiveo'dai 
 X^'pas. Under the Carlovingian empire, the 
 Apocrisiarius or Archicapellanus acted as the 
 Emperor’s deputy in the final decision of clerical 
 
 causes of all kinds, the Emperor being the ulti¬ 
 mate judge in these as in secular ones {Cone. 
 Franco/. A.D. 749 c. 6; and see for Cappellani 
 under the Franks, Walafr. Strab., De Reb. Eccl. 
 c. 31). 
 
 (Besides the works of De Marca, Richerius, 
 Quesnel, Thomassin, Van Espen, and Church 
 Historians, such as Fleury, Neander, Gieseler; 
 and Beveridge, Bingham, &c. among ourselves, 
 the works of Allies and of Hussey, on the Pai^al 
 Supremacy, and Greenwood’s Cathedra Petri., 
 Loud., 1856, sq., may be refei-red to; also, He- 
 benstreit. Hist. Jurisd. Eccl. ex legg. utriusque 
 Cod. illustrata, (Lips. 1773), Schilling, Ee Origine 
 Jurisd. Eccles. in Causis Civilibus (Lips. 1825), 
 and Jungk, De Originibus et Progressu Episcop. 
 Judicii in Causis Civilibus Laicorum usque ad 
 Justinianum, Berlin 1832-8, referred to by 
 Gieseler.) [A. W. H,] 
 
 APPROBATION OF BOOKS. [Censor¬ 
 ship OF Books.] 
 
 APRONIANUS, martyr at Rome, comme¬ 
 morated Feb. 2 {Mart. Rom. Vet./ [C.] 
 
 APSE, the niche or recess which terminates 
 a church at the end near which the high altar 
 is placed. This feature existed in the basilicas 
 or halls of justice constructed by the Romans, 
 the tribunal for the presiding magistrate having 
 been placed in the centre of the arc forming the 
 apse. 
 
 In the earlier centuries the apse was almost 
 invariably semicircular, in some churches and 
 particularly in those which would appear to 
 date from the third or early part of the fourth 
 century the apse is internal, so that the building 
 has a rectangular termination. Sta. Croce in 
 Gei’usalemme, at Rome, has this plan, though it 
 is doubtful whether this was the plan adopted 
 when it first became a church; but in Italy it is 
 very rarely found; in Africa and in Asia it seems 
 to have prevailed, particularly in the earlier 
 period : the basilica of Reparatus at Orleansville, 
 in Algeria, believed to date from A.D. 252 ; the 
 churches at Deyr Abu-Faneh near Hermopolis 
 Magna, at Hermouthis (Erment) in Egypt, at 
 Ibrihm in Nubi.a, at Pergamus, and Ephesus, are 
 all thus planned. [Church.] 
 
 In the basilica of St. Reparatus there is a se¬ 
 cond apse, also internal, at the other end of the 
 building; this is believed to have been added 
 about the year 403. 
 
 In the churches built in the fifth century in 
 the East three apses are often found, the aisles 
 as well as the central nave being so terminated ; 
 in the following century this plan, the so-called 
 parallel triapsal, was introduced into Italy and 
 churches at Ravenna, as St. Apollinare in Classe, 
 built A.D. 538-549, (though with a peculiar mo¬ 
 dification), and the Duomo at Parenzo (a.d. 542), 
 exhibit it. In the eighth and ninth centuries it 
 appears at Rome, as in St. Maria in Cosmedin (a.d. 
 772-795), and a few other churches. 
 
 The transverse-triapsal plan, that in which 
 there arc three arises, one projecting from the 
 end, and one from each side of the building, is 
 rarely found in churches of the usual ba.silican 
 plan, or in any anterior to the sixth century. It 
 occurs (with some modification) in St. Sophia's, 
 Constantinople, and in other churches for which 
 that building served in some degree as a model, 
 and in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is com- 
 
134 
 
 APTONIUS 
 
 AECA ARCULA 
 
 mon in Germany. It is, how'ever, found at Rome 
 in oratories, even in the fifth century, as in that 
 of St. John the Baptist opening from the^ bap¬ 
 tistery of the Lateran, built by Pope Hilarus, 
 cir. A.D. 461, and that of Sta. Croce, built by the 
 same pope, but now destroyed. 
 
 About the year 800 churches in Germany were 
 constructed with an apse at each end: the greater 
 church at Reichenau, in the Lake of Constance, 
 begun in 816, has a semicircular apse at one 
 end and a square recess at the other; the plan 
 prepared for the church of St. Gall in the begin¬ 
 ning of the ninth century shows a semicircular 
 apse at each end. 
 
 The altar was usually placed in the chord of 
 the arc of the apse, the cdthedra or chair for the 
 bishop in the centre of the arc against the wall, 
 while a stone bench, or a series of such, one 
 above the other, afforded places for the clergy. 
 At Torcello, near Venice, there are six such 
 ranges. Apses so fitted appear to have been 
 called “apsides gradatae.” [Church.] [A. N.] 
 
 APTONIUS, commemorated May 23 (3fart. 
 Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 APULEIUS, disciple of Peter, martyr at 
 Rome, commemorated Oct. 7 (J/arf. Rom. TcL, 
 Bedae) ; in Rlieims MS. of the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary (see Menard’s ed. p. 418). 
 
 AQUAMANILE (other forms, Aquamani- 
 lium, Aquamanus, Gr. Xepvi$ov'), the bason 
 used for the washing of the hands of the cele¬ 
 brant in the liturgy. The aquamanile with the 
 urceus are the bason and ewer of the sacred 
 ceremony. 
 
 In the Statuta Antiqua called the “Canons of 
 the Fourth Council of Carthage” {Canon V.), it 
 is laid down that a subdeacon should receive at 
 his ordination from the hands of the archdeacon 
 an aquamanile (corruptly written “ aqua et man- 
 tile ”) as one of the emblems of his office. Com¬ 
 pare Isidore, Be Eccl. Off. ii. 10. And these di¬ 
 rections are repeated verbatim in the office for 
 the ordination of a subdeacon in the Gregoidan 
 Sacramentary (p. 221). In the Greek office, the 
 subdeacon receives xep>'tj8o|6(rTo»' koi yavZvXiov^ 
 where the word perhaps includes 
 
 both urceus and aquamanile (Daniel’s Codex Lit. 
 iv. 550). 
 
 In the Ordo Romanus I. (p. 5), the acolytes 
 are directed to carry an aquamanus (among other 
 things) after the Pope in the great procession of 
 Easter-Day. 
 
 Aquamanilia of great splendour are frequently 
 mentioned in ancient records. Desiderius of Aux- 
 erre is said to have given to his church “ aqua¬ 
 manile pensans libras ii. et uncias x.; habet in 
 medio rotam liliatam et in cauda caput homi- 
 nis;” and Brunhilda, queen of the Franks, offered 
 through the same Desiderius to the church of 
 St. G-jrmanus “ aquamanilium pensans libras iii. 
 et uncias ix.; habet in medio Xeptunum cum tri- 
 dente ” (Krazer, Be Liturgiis, p. 210). Compare 
 Urceus. [C.] 
 
 AQUILA. (1) Wife of Severiauus, martyr, 
 commemorated Jan. 23 {3Iart. Rom. Vet.'). 
 
 (2) Husband of Priscilla, July 8 {Ib.) ; July 
 14 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Arabia, Aug. 1 {Mart. Rom. 
 
 Vet.). [C.] 
 
 AQUILEIA, COUNCIL OF (Aquiliense 
 Concilium). I., a.d. 381, provincial, although 
 
 the Easterns were invited, St. Ambros? being the 
 most important bishop present; summoned by 
 the Emperor Gratian, to try the cases of Bishop 
 Palladius and Secundianus, who were there con¬ 
 demned for Arianism (Mansi, iii. 599-632). 
 
 II. A.D. 553, Western or rather provincial, on 
 behalf of the three chapters. It rejected the 
 Oecumenical Council of Constantinople of A.D. 
 550, and thereby severed the Aquileian Church 
 from the Church Catholic for over 100 years 
 (Baed., Be VI. Aetat.; Mansi, ix. 659). III. 
 A.D. 698, a like Synod for a like purpose (Baed., 
 ib.; Paul. Diac., v. 14; Sigebert in an. ; Mansi, 
 xii. 115). [A. W. H.] 
 
 AQUILINA, martyr, commemorated June 13 
 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AQUILINUS. (1) Martyr in Africa, Jan. 4 
 {3Iart. Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (2) Commemorated Feb. 4 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (3) Of Isauria, commemorated May 16 {3Iart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (4) Presbyter, May 27 {31. Hieron.). 
 
 (5) Saint, July 16 {Ib.) ; July 17 {31. 
 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AQUISGRANENSE CONCILIUM. [Aix.] 
 
 ARABICUM CONCILIUM. —A council 
 was held, A.D. 247, in Arabia against those who 
 maintained that the soul died with the body. 
 Origen went to it, and is said to have reclaime I 
 them from their error (Euseb. vi. 37). [E. S. F.] 
 
 ARATGR, commemorated April 21 {3Iart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ARAUSICANUM CONCILLUIM.COrange.] 
 
 ARCA, ARCULA. 1. A chest intended to 
 receive pecuniary offerings for the service of the 
 church or for the poor (Tertullian, Apologeticus, 
 c. 39). Of this kind was probably the “ area 
 pecuniae,” which Pope Stephen (an. 260) is said 
 to have handed over, with the sacred vessels, to 
 his archdeacon when he was imprisoned {Liber 
 Pontif. c. 24); and such that which Paulinus 
 Petricordius says (in Vita S. 3Iartini, lib. iv. ap. 
 Ducange) was committed to the charge of a 
 deacon chosen for the purpose. The box from 
 which priests received their portions is described 
 as “ arcula sancta ” by Marcellus ( Vita S. Felicis, 
 c. 3). 
 
 2. It is used of a box or casket in which the 
 Eucharist was reserved: thus Cyprian {Be Lapsis, 
 c. 26, p. 486) speaks of an “ area in qua Domini 
 sacramentum fuit,” from which fire issued, to 
 the great terror of a woman who attempted to 
 open it with unholy hands. In this case, the 
 casket appears to have been in the house, and 
 perhaps contained the i-eserved Eucharist for the 
 sick. 
 
 3. Among the prayers which precede the Ethi¬ 
 opia Canon (Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 501) is 
 one “ Super arcam sive discum majorem.” The 
 prayer itself suggests that this area was used 
 for precisely the same purpose as the paten, 
 inasmuch as in both cases the petition is that 
 in or upon it may be perfected (perficiatur) the 
 Body of the Lord. Renaudot (p. 525) seems to 
 think that it may have served the purpose of an 
 Antimensium (q. V.). 
 
 It does not appear, however, that its use was 
 limited to the case of unconsecrated altars; and 
 when we remember that the Copts applied the 
 term iKacniipiov to the Christian altar (Kenan* 
 
AKOADIUS 
 
 ARCHDEACON 
 
 135 
 
 dot, i. 182) it does not seem improbable that 
 this area was an actual chest or ark, on the lid 
 of which, the Mercy-Seat, consecration took place. 
 It is worth noticing that chests are said to have 
 been anciently used as altars in Rome [Altar]. 
 Dr. Neale {Eastern Church, Introd. p. 18G) says 
 that the tahout or ark of the Ethiopic Church is 
 used for the reservation of the Sacrament. Major 
 Harris’s informant {Highlands of Ethiopia, iii. 
 138) declared that it contains nothing except a 
 parchment inscribed with the date of the dedi¬ 
 cation of the building. [C.} 
 
 ARCADIUS. (1) Martyi*, commemorated 
 Jan. 12 {Mart. Rom. Vet.\ 
 
 (2) Martyr in Africa, Nov. 12 {Ih.'). [C.] 
 
 ARCANI DISCIPLINA [Disciplina Ar- 
 
 CANl]. 
 
 ARCHANERIS, commemorated at Rome 
 Aug. 10 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ARCHBISHOP.—The earliest use of this 
 title was probably the same as that with which 
 we are familiar in the Modern Church, viz., as 
 designating a metropolitan or chief bishop of a 
 pi’ovince. Afterwards, however, as the hierar¬ 
 chical system of the Church was further extended 
 to correspond with the civil divisions of the 
 Roman empire, it became appropriated to the 
 higher dignity of patriarch. Thus, according to 
 Bingham (ii. 17), Liberatus {Breviar., c. 17) gives 
 all the patriarchs this title of archbishops, and, 
 he adds, so does the Council of Chalcedon fre¬ 
 quently, speaking of the patriarchs of Rome and 
 Constantinople under the name of archbishops 
 also. About the time of Constantine the empire 
 was divided into dioceses, each of which contained 
 many provinces. This division, like the earlier 
 one of provinces, was also adopted by the Church ; 
 and as the State had an exarch or vicar in the 
 capital city of each civil diocese, so the Church, 
 in process of time, came to have her exarchs or 
 patriarchs in many, if not all, the capital cities 
 of the empire. These patriarchs were originally 
 called archbishops, which title had therefore a 
 much more extensive signification than it has at 
 present. The principal privileges of the arch¬ 
 bishops of that period were—1. To ordain all the 
 metropolitans of the diocese, their own ordination 
 being received from a Diocesan Synod ; 2. To con¬ 
 vene Diocesan Synods and to preside in them ; 
 3. To receive appeals from metropolitans and from 
 Metropolitan Synods; 4. To censure metropoli¬ 
 tans, and also their suffragans when metropolitans 
 were remiss in censuring them. The Patriarch or 
 Archbishop of Alexandria had from very early 
 times some peculiar privileges within his diocese, 
 but originally ail patriarchs were co-ordinate, as 
 well as mutually independent as regai’ds actual 
 power, though some had a precedence of honour, 
 as those of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and 
 Jerusalem, to whom the canons gave precedence 
 of all others. 
 
 bor “ Archbishop ” in its later and present sig¬ 
 nification, see Metropolitan. [D. B.] 
 
 ARCHDEACON. — 'Apxi^iaKovos, 'Apxi~ 
 hiaKusv, ’Apx‘A€i>tT 7 js (Catal. Patriarch. Constant. 
 IO 0 O 6 , ap. Mai Script. Vet. iii. 243, though per¬ 
 haps somewhat late), Archidiaconus, Archidia- 
 con, Lecita Septimus {Jo&nvies Secundus, Vit. Greg. 
 Max. I. i. c. 25). 
 
 1. Origin of Name and Office .—That there was 
 
 from the first a primacy among deacons, as there 
 appears to have been among presbyters, and as 
 there was afterwards among bishops, is more a 
 matter of conjecture than of historical certainty. 
 It is reasonable to suppose that some one deacon, 
 either the senior in office or the most eminent in 
 ability, took the lead of the rest, as St. Stephen 
 appears to have taken the lead of the seven first 
 deacons (whence the Menologium gives him the 
 title ’Apx'StaKovos); but it is uncertain when 
 this became a part of the regular ecclesiastical 
 order. The name is sometimes given by later 
 writers to prominent deacons of the first four 
 centuries; for example, St. Lawrence, who had 
 evidently some precedence over his brother 
 deacons, is called archdeacon by St. Augustine 
 {Serin, de Diversis, cxi. cap. 9; Sanctus Laurentius 
 archidiaconus fuit) ; and Caecilian of Carthage is 
 called archdeacon by Optatus ( 1 . i. p. 18, ed. 
 Paris, 1679). But other writers describe the 
 office by a periphrasis ; for example, Theodoret 
 (//. E. i. 26) uses the phrase 6 rov 
 SiukSvcov riyov/xevos to describe the position— 
 which was evidently equivalent to that of an 
 archdeacon—of Athanasius at Alexandria; and 
 there is the negative evidence that neither the 
 name nor the office is mentioned in the Aposto¬ 
 lical Constitutions (although some have .supposed 
 the phrase 6 TrapeerTws rw apxt^pVi diduoyos, in 
 ii. 57, to refer to it), and that Cornelius {ap. 
 Euseb. H. E. vi. 43) omits the archdeacon from 
 his list of Church officers at Rome. The first 
 contemporai-y use of the title is, in the Eastern 
 Church, in the old version of the acts of the 
 Council of Ephesus (Labbe, Supplem. Goncil. p. 
 505), and, in the Western Church, in St. Je¬ 
 rome {e.g. Ep. xcv. ad Rusticum). After that 
 period it is in constant use. 
 
 In both East and West the title appears to 
 have been restricted to the secular clergy; the 
 first in rank of the deacons of a monastery 
 seems to have had, in the East, the title of 
 ■npiarohiaKovos (but not universally, for Joannes 
 Climacus, Seal. Farad, p. 58, also uses the title 
 UpxtSiaKcvy of a monk); a deacon in a similar 
 position in the West seems to have had, at least 
 in early times, no special designation. 
 
 II. Mode of Appointment. —The mode of ap¬ 
 pointment varied with particular times and 
 places. At first, and in some places perma¬ 
 nently, the deacon who was senior in date of 
 ordination appears to have held the office, with¬ 
 out any special appointment, by right of his 
 seniority. That this was the usual practice at 
 Constantinople is clear from the answer of Ana¬ 
 tolius to Leo the Great in the case of Andrew 
 and Aetius. Leo, probably having the use of 
 the Roman Church in his mind, assumes in his 
 letter of remonstrance to Anatolius that the 
 latter had appointed {constituisse) Andrew arch¬ 
 deacon. Anatolius replies that, on the ordina¬ 
 tion .of Aetius as presbyter, Andrew had suc¬ 
 ceeded him as archdeacon in regular order (no« 
 provectus a nobis sed gradu faciente Archidiaconi 
 dignitate honoratus —S. Leon. Mag. Op. vol. L p. 
 653, ed. Paris, 1675). But, on the other hand, 
 Sozomen speaks of Serapion as having been ap¬ 
 pointed by Chrysostom (%v apxi^id.Kovou avroD 
 KaTeVTTjcrc—//. E. viii. 9), and Theodoret notices 
 that Athanasius was at the head of tlie deacons, 
 though young in years {vtos t^v ri\iKlavf which 
 could hardly have been the case in so large a 
 
136 
 
 ARCHDEACON 
 
 ARCHDEACON 
 
 church as that of Alexandria if the rule of 
 seniority had been followed. St. Jerome has 
 indeed been sometimes quoted to show that the 
 practice at Alexandria was for the deacons to 
 elect their archdeacon, but the hypothetical 
 form of the sentence (“ quomodo si ... . 
 
 diaconi eligant de se quern industrium noverint 
 et Archidiaconum vocent ”) makes it difficult to 
 use the passage as an assertion of an existing 
 fact. In the West there appears to have been a 
 similar diversity of practice. The phrases which 
 are sometimes used (e.g. by Joannes Secundus, 
 Vit. S. Greg. Max. i. 25, “ levitam septimum 
 ad suum adjutorium constituit ”) seem to show, 
 what might also be expected from the nature of 
 the case, that when the archdeacon became not 
 so much the first in rank of the minor officers 
 of the Church as the bishop’s secretary and dele¬ 
 gate, the bishop had at least a voice in his ap¬ 
 pointment. But there is a canon of a Gallic 
 council in A.D. 506 (Cone. Agath. can. xxiii., 
 Mansi, viii. 328) which strongly asserts the rule 
 of seniority, and enacts that even in cases in 
 which the senior deacon, propter simpliciorem 
 naturam, was unfit for the office, he was to have 
 the title (Joci sui nomen teneat), although the 
 burden of the duty devolved upon another. In 
 later times, however, it is clear that the right of 
 appointment rested absolutely with the bishop. 
 
 III. Number, and Duration of Office. —It is clear, 
 both from the statement of St. Jerome (^Ep. xcv. 
 ad Rusticum, “ singuli ecclesiarum episcopi, sin- 
 guli archipi’esbyteri, singuli archidiaconi ”) and 
 from the invariable use of the singular number 
 in the canons of the councils which refer to the 
 office, that for several centuries there was but 
 one archdeacon in each diocese. When the 
 number was increased is not altogether clear. 
 The increase seems to have been a result partly 
 of the increase in the number of rural parishes, 
 partly of the difficulty of dividing dioceses 
 which were coextensive with civil diA'isions. 
 The fact of the Council of Merida (a.d. 666) 
 having directly prohibited the appointment of 
 more than one archdeacon in each diocese seems 
 to indicate that such a practice had been con¬ 
 templated, if not actually adopted {Cone. Emerit. 
 can. X., Mansi, xi. 81); but the first actual re¬ 
 cord of a plurality of archdeacons occurs a 
 century later in the diocese of Strasburg. In 
 774, Bishop Heddo divided that diocese into 
 three archdeaconries (archidiaconatus rurales), 
 and from that time there appears to have been 
 thi’oughout the West—except in Italy, where the 
 dioceses Avere small—a general practice of re¬ 
 lieving bishops of the difficulties of the admi¬ 
 nistration of overgrown dioceses by appointing 
 archdeacons for separate diAusions, and giving 
 them a delegatio (ultimately a delegntio perpetual) 
 as to the visitation of parishes. Thence grcAv 
 up the distinction between the “ Archidiaconus 
 magnus ” of the Cathedral Church and the 
 “ Archiffiaconi rurales.” The former was at the 
 head of the cathedral clergy, whence in much 
 later times he Avas knoAvn as the pi’ovost (prae- 
 positus) of the cathedral, ranking as such before 
 the archpresbyter or dean. The latter had a 
 corresponding status in their several districts; 
 they Avere usually at the head of the chapter of 
 a provincial town, and they had precedence, and 
 perhaps jurisdiction, over the “ Archipresbyteri 
 rurales,” who were at the head of subdivisions 
 
 of the archdeaconries, and corresponded to modem 
 “ rural deans.” There was this further diffei’- 
 ence between the two classes, that the rural 
 archdeacons were usually priests, Avhereas the 
 cathedral archdeacon, even so late as the 12th 
 century, was usually a deacon. 
 
 Originally, the office was limited to deacons; 
 an archdeacon who received priest’s orders 
 ceased thereby to be an archdeacon. Proofs and 
 examples of this are numerous. St. Jerome 
 says (in Ezech. c. xlviii.) that an archdeacon 
 “ injuriam putat si presbyter ordinetur.” Anato¬ 
 lius made his archdeacon Aetius a presbyter in 
 order to get rid of him, of Avhich proceeding 
 Leo the Great, in a formal complaint to the 
 Emperor Marcian on the subject, says “ dejec- 
 tionem innocentis per speciem provectionis im- 
 plevit ” (S. Leon. Magn. Epist. 57, al. 84); and 
 Sidonius Apollinaris speaks of an archdeacon 
 John Avho Avas so good an archdeacon that he Avas 
 kept from the presbyterate in consequence (“ diu 
 dignitate non potuit augeri ne potestate posset 
 absolvi ”—lib. iv. ep. 24). It is not certain at 
 what date presbyters were alloAved to hold office 
 as archdeacons; probably the earliest certain 
 evidence on the point is that Avhich is afforded 
 by Hincmar of Rheims, Avho (a.d. 874) addresses 
 his archdeacons as “ archidiaconibus-presbyteris ” 
 (Mansi, xv. 497). 
 
 IV. Functions. —At first an archdeacon dif¬ 
 fered only from other deacons in respect of pre¬ 
 cedence. In the churches of the East he Avas 
 probably never much more. Individual arch¬ 
 deacons attained to eminence, Tbut not by Aurtue 
 of their office. Their office gaA'e them such 
 privileges as the right of reading the Gospel in 
 the cathedral (e.g. at Alexandria; Sozomen, Aui. 
 19), and of receiving the sacred elements before 
 the other deacons (Joannes Citri, Resp. ad Cabasil. 
 ap. Meui'sius, Gl. Graeco-Barb. s. a-.) ; but they 
 appear to haA^e had no administratiA'e functions, 
 and at Constantinople, so unimportant did the 
 office become, from an ecclesiastical point of Auew, 
 that at last the archdeacon became only an officer 
 of the Imperial court (Codinus, De Off. Constant. 
 c. .xvii. 38). 
 
 It was different in the West. Partly from the 
 fact that the deacons, and especially, therefore, 
 the senior deacon, Avere the administratiA-e offi¬ 
 cers of the Church; partly from the fact that 
 the senior deacon had been from earlv times es- 
 pecially attached to the bishop, the office, Avhich, 
 even in the time of St. Leo, Avas called the “ offi- 
 ciorum primatus ” (S. Leon. Magn. Ep. 106, al. 
 71), assumed an importance Avhich at one period 
 was hardly inferior to that of the episcopate 
 itself. 
 
 The functions of the office may conA'eniently 
 be distributed under Iavo heads, according as they 
 greAv out of the original functions of the diaco- 
 nate, or out of the special relation of the arch¬ 
 deacon to the bishop. 
 
 (1) The archdeacon seems to haA^e had charge 
 of the funds of the Church ; e.g. both St. Am¬ 
 brose and St. Augustine, in speaking of St. LaAV- 
 rence, speak of him as haAung the “ opes ecclesiae ” 
 in his custody (S. Aug. Serm. de Divers, cxi. 
 c. 9); and St. Leo describes the appointment of 
 an archdeacon by the phrase “ quern ecclesias- 
 ticis negotiis praeposuit ” (S. Leon. Magn. Ep. 
 85, al. 58). 
 
 This involved the distribution of the funds to 
 
ARCHDEACON 
 
 ARCHDEACON 
 
 137 
 
 the poor; St. Jerome speaks of the archdeacon 
 as “ inensarum et viduarum minister ” (S. Hie- 
 ron. in Ezech. cxlviii.), and the 4th Council of 
 Carthage prohibits a bishop from attending to 
 the “ gubernationem viduarum et peregrinarum ” 
 himself, but orders him to do so “per archi- 
 presbyterum aut per archidiaconum ” (IV. Cone, 
 Garth, can. xvii.; Mansi, iii. 952). 
 
 Afterwards, if we are to trust the letter of 
 Isidore of Seville to the Bishop of Cordova, 
 he appears to have distributed to the clergy of 
 the several orders the money which was oti'ered 
 for their support at the communion (Isid. Hisp. 
 Ep. ad Luidifr.,, Op, ed. Paris, 1601, p. 615). 
 
 ( 2 ) The archdeacon had the “ ordinatio eccle- 
 siae,” that is, the superintendence of the arrange¬ 
 ments of the cathedral church and of divine 
 service. He was “master of the ceremonies.” 
 As such he had (a) to keep note of the calendar, 
 and to announce the fasts and festivals (Isid. 
 Hisp. ibid.; cf. the phrase “ concionatur in po~ 
 pulos” of Jerome in Ezech. c. xlviii.). (/3) He 
 had to correct offences against ecclesiastical order 
 during divine service ; for example, at Carthage 
 a woman who kissed the relics of an unrecog¬ 
 nized martyr was reproved (correpid) by Caeci- 
 lian (Optat. i. p. 18). Probably this was a duty 
 of the archdeacon in the East as well as in the 
 West; at least it is difficult to account for the 
 origin of the unseemly scuffle between Meletius 
 and his archdeacon at Antioch (Sozom. H. E. iv. 
 28) unless we suppose that the latter was exer¬ 
 cising a supposed right. ( 7 ) He had to see that 
 the arrangements of the Church for divine ser¬ 
 vice wore properly made, and that the ritual 
 was pi'operly observ'ed. Isidore of Seville (ibid.') 
 assigns to him in detail, “ cura vestiendi 
 altaris a levitis, cura incensi, et sacrificii 
 necessaria sollicitudo, quis levitarum Aposto- 
 lura et Evangelium legat, quis preces dicat.” 
 (S) The same authority, or quasi-authority, may 
 be quoted for his having also charge of the 
 fabric of the cathedral church : “ pro repa- 
 randis diocesanis basilicis ipse suggeiut sacerdoti ” 
 (ibid.). 
 
 (3) The archdeacon had to superintend and to 
 exei’cise discipline over the deacons and other 
 inferior clergy. This was common to both East 
 and West; and as early as the Council of Chal- 
 cedon we find it stated that a deacon (Maras of 
 Edessa) had been excommunicated by his arch¬ 
 deacon (cLKOLVuvrjTos k(TTi Ibio) apxibLaK6vcf : 
 but the bishop, Ibas, who is speaking, goes on to say, 
 oiidf ifioi iariv oLKoivwyTjTos, which seems to im¬ 
 ply that the bishop and the archdeacon had co¬ 
 ordinate jurisdiction over deacons: Mansi, vii. 
 232). A curious instance of the extent of their 
 authority is afforded by a canon of the Council 
 of Agde, in Gaul, which enacts that “ Clerici q li 
 comam nutriunt ab archidiacono etiamsi nolu- 
 erint inviti detondeantur ” (Cone. Agath. can. xx.; 
 Mansi, viii. 328). This ordinary jurisdiction of 
 an archdeacon over the inferior clergy must be 
 distinguished from the delegated jurisdiction 
 which he possessed in later times. The canon 
 of the Council of Toledo which is cited in the 
 Decretals as giving him an ordinary jurisdiction 
 over presbyters is confessedly spurious (Mansi, 
 iii. 1008). 
 
 (4) This power of exercising discipline was 
 combined with the duty of instructing the in¬ 
 ferior clergy in the duties of their office. The 
 
 4th Council of Carthage enacts that the ostia- 
 rius before ordination is to be instructed by 
 the archdeacon. Gregory of Tours identifies the 
 archdeacon with the “ praeceptor ” (//. F. lib. 
 vi. c. 36), and speaks of himself as living at the 
 head of the community of deacons (Vit. Pair. c. 
 9). The house of this community appears to 
 have been called the “diaconium” (“lector in 
 diaconio Caeciliaui ”— Optat. lib. i. c. 21), and is 
 probably referred to by Paulinus when he says 
 that he lived “ sub cura ” of the deacon Castus 
 (Paulin. Vit. Ambros. c. 42). 
 
 (5) As a corollary from the.se relations of an 
 archdeacon to the inferior clergy, it was his office 
 to enquire into their character before ordination, 
 and sometimes to take part in the ceremony 
 itself. Even in the East it is pos.sible that he 
 had some kind of control over ordinations, for 
 Ibas is said to have been prevented by his arch¬ 
 deacon from ordaining an unworthy person as 
 bishop (/ccoAuflels Trap a. too T-gviKavra apx^b la- 
 k6vov avTov — Cone. Chale. act x., as quote! by 
 Labbe, iv. 647, e., but Mansi substitutes irpea- 
 ^vrepoV —vii. 224). In the African Church the 
 archdeacon was directed to take part in the 
 ordination of the subdeacons, acolytus, and 
 ostiarius (IV. Cone, Carthag.; Mansi, iii. 961). 
 Throughout the West his testimony to charac¬ 
 ter appears to have been required. At Rome 
 this was the case even at the ordination of pres¬ 
 byters ; but Jerome speaks of it as “ unius urbis 
 consuetudiuem ” (S. Hieron. Ep. ci. al. Ixxxv. ad 
 Evang.). In later times the archdeacon enquired 
 into the literary as well as into the moral quali¬ 
 fications of candidates for ordination ; but there 
 is no distinct authority for supposing this to 
 have been the case during the first nine cen¬ 
 turies ; the earliest is that of Hincmar of Rheims, 
 in 874, who directed his archdeacon-presbyters 
 to enquire diligently into both the “ vita et 
 seientia ” of those whom they presented for ordi¬ 
 nation (Mansi, xv. 497). In one other point they 
 appear in some places to have conformed to latei 
 practice, for Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. i. 29) re¬ 
 proves his archdeacon for making money from 
 ordination/ees (a-rrh tiu^s xe'poTovja'j/). 
 
 2. The second class of an archdeacon’s func¬ 
 tions were those which grew out of his close 
 connection with the bishop. The closeness of 
 this connection is shown as early as the 4th 
 century by St. Jerome, who says of the “ primus 
 ministeriorum,” i.e. the archdeacon, that ho 
 never leaves the bishop’s side (“ a pontificis 
 latere non recedit ”—Hieron. in Ezech. c. xlviii.). 
 This expression has, without any corroborative 
 evidence except the indefinite phrase of the 
 Apostolical Constitutions (quoted above), been in- 
 terpreted.exclusively of his attendance upon the 
 bishop at the altar. It is probable that this is 
 included in the expression, but it is improbable 
 that nothing else is meant bv jt. The mass of 
 evidence goes to show that while the .arch-pres¬ 
 byter was the bishop’s assistant chiefly in spi¬ 
 ritual matters, the archdeacon was his assistant 
 chiefly in secular matters. 
 
 (1) He was attached to the bishop, probably 
 in the capacity of a modern cha])lain or secre¬ 
 tary. He transacted the greater part of the 
 business of the diocese ; for example, St. Leo 
 speaks of the office as involving “dispensatiouem 
 totius causae et curae ecclo.siastic.ae ” (Ep. Ixxxiv. 
 al. Ivii.). He conveyed the bishop’s orders to the 
 
138 
 
 ARCHDEACON 
 
 ARCHIMANDRITE 
 
 clergy; for example, when John of Jerusalem 
 prohibited Epiphanius from preaching, he did 
 so “per archidiaconum” (S. Hieron, Ep. xxxviii. 
 al. Ixi,). He acted as the bishop’s substitute at 
 synods ; for example, Photinus at the Council of 
 Chalcedon (Mansi, vi. 567). Compare the canon 
 of the Council of Trullo, in 692 (Mansi, xi. 943), 
 which forbids a deacon from having precedence 
 over a presbyter, except when acting as substi¬ 
 tute for a bishop, and the canon of the Council 
 of Merida, in 666 (Mansi, xi. 79), which expressly 
 disapproves of the practice. Ordinary deacons 
 were sometimes called the “ bishop’s eyes,” 
 whence Isidore of Pelusium, writing to his arch¬ 
 deacon, says that he ought to be “ all eye ” 
 (8Aof ocpdaAjubs 6(p€i\fis VTzapx^iv — Isid. Pel. 
 Ep. i. 29). 
 
 (2) In somewhat later times he was dele¬ 
 gated by the bishop to \dsit parishes, and to 
 exercise jurisdiction over all orders of the clergy. 
 There is no trace of this in the East. It grew 
 up in the West with the growth of large dio¬ 
 ceses, with the prevalence of the practice of ap¬ 
 pointing bishops for other than ecclesiastical 
 merits, and with the rise of the principle of the 
 immunity of ecclesiastical persons and things 
 from the jurisdiction of the secular power. But 
 it is difficult to determine the date at which 
 such delegations became common. The earliest 
 evidence upon which reliance can be placed is 
 that of the Council of Auxerre in 578, which 
 enacted that, in certain cases, a parish priest 
 'wno was detained by infirmity should send “ ad 
 archidiaconum suum" implying a certain official 
 relation between them. More definite testimony 
 is afforded bv the Council of Chalons in 650, 
 which expressly recognises his right of visiting 
 private chapels (“ oratoria per villas potentum ” 
 — r. Cone. Cabill. can. 14; Mansi, x. 1192). A simi¬ 
 lar enactment was made at the second Council 
 of Chalons, in 813, which, however, censures the 
 exacting of fees for visitations (“ ne census exi- 
 gant ”— IT. Cone. Cahill, c. 15). In later times 
 this “ delegatio ” became a “ delegatio perpetua,” 
 not revocable at the pleasure of the bishop who 
 had conferred it; but that such was not the case 
 during the first nine centuries is clear from the 
 letter of Hincmar to his archdeacons (quoted 
 above), and also from the fact that Isidore of 
 Seville, whose authority, or quasi-authority, 
 was so frequently quoted to confirm the later 
 pretensions of the ai'chdeacons, only speaks of 
 their visiting parishes “ cum jussione episcopi.” 
 
 The rise of the separate jurisdiction of the 
 archdeacon is still more obscure. In the 6th 
 century we find him named as the bishop’s as¬ 
 sessor in certain cases (I. Cone. Matise. can. 8, 
 Mansi, ix. 933; II. Cone.Matise. can. 12 j Mansi, ix. 
 954); but there is no trustworthy evidence in 
 favour of the existence of an “archdeacon’s 
 court ” within the period of which the present 
 work takes cognizance. 
 
 (3) In the East, during the vacancy of a see, 
 
 the archdeacon appears to have been its guardian 
 or co-guardian. Chrysostom writes to Innocent 
 of Rome, complaining that Theophilus of Alex¬ 
 andria had written to his archdeacon “ as though 
 the church were already widowed, and had no 
 bishop "(Jtiairfp ijSrj rrjs eKKXrtaias Ka) 
 
 ovK exova-ns eiria-Koirop —Mansi, iii. 1085); and in 
 the letter which the Council of Chalcedon wrote 
 to the clergy of Alexandria to inform them of the 
 
 I deposition of their bishop Dioscorus, the arch¬ 
 deacon and the oeconomus are specially named. 
 In the West it is not clear that this was the case; 
 but sometimes the archdeacon was regarded as 
 having a right of succession. Eulogius {ap. Phot. 
 Bihl. 182) says that it was a law at Rome for the 
 archdeacon to succeed ; but the instance which 
 he gives, that of Cornelius making his arch¬ 
 deacon a presbyter, to cut off his right of suc¬ 
 cession, is very questionable, the date being 
 earlier than the existence of the office. Ko 
 doubt, many archdeacons were chosen to succeed, 
 but the most striking instances which are some¬ 
 times quoted to confirm the statement of Eulogius, 
 those of St. Leo and St. Gregory, were probably 
 both exceptional. 
 
 (Ad amusing blunder identified the archdeacon, 
 who was sometimes called not only “oculus epis¬ 
 copi,” but eor ejjiscopi,” with the chorepiscopus 
 or suffragan bishop; the blunder, which has been 
 not uiifrequently repeated, seems to be traceable 
 in the first instance to Joannes Abbas de trans~ 
 latione reliquiarum S. Glodesindis, quoted in H. 
 Vales. Adnot. ad Tlieodoret., i. 26.) [E. H.] 
 
 ARCHELAUS, or ARCHILLAUS, com¬ 
 memorated Aug. 23 {Moi't. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARCHIMANDRITE (apxwv ttjs fxdvSpas, 
 praefeetus eoenobii), lit. ruler of “ the fold ” 
 —the spiritual fold that is—a favourite me¬ 
 taphor for designating monasteries in the East, 
 and very soon applied. As early as a.d. 376 
 we find St. Epiphanius commencing his work 
 against heresies in consequence of a letter ad¬ 
 dressed to him by Acacius and Paul, styling 
 themselves “presbyters and archimandrites,” 
 that is, fathers of the monasteries in the parts of 
 Carchedon and Beroea in Coele-Syria. Possibly 
 St. Epiphanius omits to style them “ archiman¬ 
 drites ” in his reply, because the term was not 
 yet in general u.se. ® But at the time of the 
 Council of Ephesus the Emperors Theodosius and 
 Valentinian received a petition from “ a deacon 
 and archimandrite,” named Basil (Mansi, tom. iv. 
 p. 1101). At the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 
 448, under Flavian, 23 archimandrites affixed 
 their signatures to the condemnation of Eutvehes, 
 himself an archimandrite. Sometimes the same 
 person was styled archimandrite and hegumen 
 indifferently ; but, in general, the archimandrite 
 presided over several monasteries, and the hegu¬ 
 men over but one. The latter was therefore sub¬ 
 ject to the former, as a bishop to a metropolitan 
 or archbishop. Again, there was an exarch, or 
 visitor of monasterie.s, by some thought to have 
 been inferior to the archimandrite, by some supe¬ 
 rior, and by some different only from him in 
 name. But if it is a fact that archimaudriles 
 were admitted to their office by the patriarch 
 alone, though he, of course may have sometimes 
 admitted the others as well, it would seem to 
 suggest that they occupied the highest rank in 
 the monastic hierarchy, analogous to that of pa¬ 
 triarch amongst bishops. According to Goar 
 (^Euchol. p. 240) archimandrites had the privilege 
 of ordaining readers, which the ordinary hegumen 
 had not; but he has omitted to point out where 
 this privilege is conferred in the form of admis¬ 
 sion given by him further on (p. 492). King 
 (p. 337), in his history of the Greek Church, re- 
 
 Botb letters are pri-fixpil to his work. 
 
 9 
 
ARCOSOLIUM 
 
 ARCHINIMUS 
 
 gards archimandrite as the equivalent for abbot, 
 and hegumen for prior, in the Western monas¬ 
 teries ; but he can only mean that the offices ii 
 each case were analogous. Rarely, but occasion¬ 
 ally, bishops and archbishops themselves were 
 designated archimandrites in the West and East. 
 For'fuller details, see Suicer, Thesaur. Eccl. s. v.; 
 Du Fresne, Gloss. Graec. s. v., /udy5pa; Habert’s 
 Pontifical, Eccl. Graec. p. 570, et seq. [E. S. F.] 
 ARCHINIMUS, confessor, conjmemorated 
 March 29 {Mart. Rom. Vet.fi [C.] 
 
 ARCHIPARAPHONISTA ('ApxiTrapo.<p(^- 
 vi(TTT]sfi a principal officer of the Roman 
 “ Schola Cantorum,” [Cantor] called also 
 “ Quartus Scholae.” It belonged to his office to 
 name the chanters who were to sing the several 
 parts of the service in a Pontifical Mass {Ordo 
 Romanus, I. c. 7 ; HI. c. 7); to go before the pope, 
 and place for him a prayer-desk befoi-e the altar 
 ( 0. R. I. c. 8); and to bring to the sub-deacon 
 the water for use in the celebration of mass 
 (a R. I. c. 14). [C.] 
 
 ARCHIPPUS, the fellow-labourer of St. Paul 
 commemorated March 20 {Mart. Rom, Vet.') ; as 
 “ Apostle,” Feb. 19 {Cal. Byzant.fi [C.] 
 
 ARCHISUBDIACONUS.—This is a word 
 which occurs in the canons of the synod of Aux- 
 erre {Synod. Autissiodor. can. 6 ; Mansi, ix. 912), 
 but apparently not elsewhere. If the reading be 
 genuine, it would appear that in some dioceses 
 the subdeacons as well as the deacons had their 
 primate; but it is probable that the reading 
 should be subarchidiaconum, which may have 
 been another name for the officer known to the 
 Greeks as 6 Sevrepevasu, and to some Western 
 dioceses as secundarius. [E. H.] 
 
 ARCHRRKSBYTER. {dpxnrpeafivT^pos, 
 Sozom. II. E. viii. 12; but the ordinary Greek 
 term was irpwTOTrpeo'IBvTfpos, which is found ap¬ 
 plied to the same person in the corresponding 
 passage of Socrates, H. E. vi. 9; cf. also Phot. 
 Bibl, 59, in the account of the irregular synod 
 against Chrysostom, and Mansi, vii. 252, from 
 which it appears that the word was found in 
 some versions of the acts of the Council of Chal- 
 cedon; in later times = irpuToirdiras, Codin. De 
 Off. Eccl. Const, c. i.; archipresbyter, S. Hieron. 
 Ep. xcv. ad Rustic.) 
 
 The origin of the office is not clear ; after the 
 permanent establishment of the distinction be¬ 
 tween the episcopate and presbyterate it appears 
 that the senior presbyter had certain recognized 
 rights in virtue of his seniority ; but there is no 
 evidence of his having had a distinct name until 
 the close of the 4th century, when we find it, as 
 quoted above, in Socrates. 
 
 For some time the name, when given at all, 
 seems to have been given as a matter of course 
 to the presbyter who was senior in date of ordi¬ 
 nation. But the assertion of Gregory Nazianzen 
 {Orat. xliii. 39) that he refused r))v twv irpea- 
 ^vT(pu)u TrpoTiixri(riu, which Basil offered him, 
 and the phrase of Liberatus {Brev. c. xiv.) “qui 
 [see Diet, of Chr. Biogr. art. Dioscorus OF 
 Alexandria] et eum [_Dict. of Chr. Biogr. art. 
 Protkrius] archipresbyterum fecerat” seem to 
 show that in some places in the East the bishop 
 had the power of making a special appointment. 
 In the West, however, this was regarded as a vio¬ 
 lation of the regular order, for St. Leo {Ep. v. 
 a/, xvii.) finds great fault with Dorus of Bene- 
 
 139 
 
 ventum for giving precedence (he does not use 
 the word archpresbyter) to a newly ordained 
 presbyter over his seniors. 
 
 At first there appears to have been only one 
 archpresbyter in a diocese (cf. S. Hieron. Ep. xcv. 
 ad Rustic., “ singuli ecclesiarum episcopi, singuli 
 archipresbyteri, singuli archidiaconi”). He took 
 i-ank next after the bishop, all of whose functions 
 he performed during the vacancy of a see, and 
 some of them, e.g. baptism, during the bishop’s 
 temporary absence. It has been held lhat he 
 had also a right of succession, but this is hardly 
 proved. With the increase in the population in 
 the large dioceses of the West and the growing 
 difficulty of subdividing them, on account of their 
 identification with civil divisions, began the sys¬ 
 tem of placing an archpresbyter (arch, ruralis) 
 in each of the larger towns, who stood in the 
 same relation to the clergy of the surrounding 
 district as the arch presbyter of the cathedral to 
 the rest of the clergy of the cathedral. The 
 first mention of these rural archpresbyters is in 
 Gregory of Tours {Mirac. i. 78, ii. 22). Their 
 duties may be gathered from various canons of 
 Galilean and Spanish councils. The Council of 
 Tours, in 567, enacted that subpresbyters were to 
 be liable to penance if they neglected to compel 
 the presbyters and other clergy of their re¬ 
 spective districts to live chastely (Mansi, ix. 797). 
 The Council of Auxerre, in 578, indicted a similar 
 but heavier penalty on them if they neglected 
 to inform the bishop or the archdeacon (the first 
 instance of such a subordination of rank) of 
 clerical delinquencies; and* also enacted that 
 “ saeculares ” who neglected to submit to the 
 “ institutionem et admonitioncm archipresbyteri 
 sui ” were to be not only suspended from ecclesi¬ 
 astical privileges but also to be fined at the king’s 
 discretion (Mansi, ix. 797). From Can. 19 of the 
 Council of Rheims, in 630, it would appear that 
 certain feudal rights of seigniority had begun to 
 attach to the archpresbyters, in consequence of 
 which the office was being held by laymen 
 (Mansi, x. 597). The Council of Chalons, in 650, 
 enacted that lay judges were not to visit monas¬ 
 teries or parishes, except on the invitation in the 
 one case of the abbot, in the other of the 
 archpresbyter (Mansi, x. 1191). 
 
 The name decanus, which was given to the 
 archpresbyter of the cathedral, and decanus ru¬ 
 ralis, which was given to the archpresbyter of a 
 country district, as also the struggle for pre¬ 
 cedence between the archpresbyters and the 
 archdeacons, in which the latter were ultimately 
 victorious, belong to a later period. [E. H.] 
 
 ARCHIVES. [Registers.] 
 
 ARCOSOLIUM. This word is derived by 
 Martigny {Diet, des Antiq. Chre't.) from “arcus, 
 an arch, and “ solium,” which according to him 
 is sometimes used in the sense of sarcophagus. 
 Some inscriptions, and particularly one now in 
 the cortile of the Palazzo Borghese (Marchi, 
 Mon. delle Arti Christ, primit. p. 85), which runs 
 thus, “ Domus eternalis Aur. Celsi et Aur. Ilari- 
 tatis compari mees [leg. comparavimus] fecimus 
 nobis et nostris et amicis arcosolio cum parieti- 
 culo suo in pacem,” make mention of it, and it 
 has been supposed to denote those tombs hewn 
 in the living rock of the catacomb.s at Rome (and 
 elsewhere), in which there is an arched opening 
 above the portion reserved for the deposition of 
 
140 
 
 ARCOSOLIUM 
 
 ARCOSOLIUM 
 
 the body to be interred, the grave being dug 
 from above downwards into the reserved portion 
 below the arch. . 
 
 There seems, however, some reason for doubt¬ 
 ing whether the attribution of the woitl is 
 correct, and whether we ought not rather to 
 understand by it the sepulchral chambers or cu- 
 bicula in which the great majority of those 
 tombs are found. 
 
 It is difficult to understand how one tomb of the 
 kind could contain more than about five bodies, 
 even if two were placed in the grave below, and 
 three in loculi cut in the wall umler the arch; 
 while the inscription quoted above would seem 
 to imply that a much larger number were to be 
 placed in the arcosolium made by Aurelius Cel- 
 sus; but it maybe that these persons were all men¬ 
 tioned in order that the right of interment of I'ela- 
 tious or friends might not be disputed if claimed. 
 
 It is not clear how or where the parieticulum 
 or partition could be placed. Martigny says 
 that the arcosolia were divided into several com¬ 
 partments by these walls, but does not explain 
 in what way. If the word mean merely the 
 tomb, parieticulum would probably mean the 
 wall included under the arch. 
 
 The word may really be derived from “ area,” 
 a sarcophagus, and “ solium,” which among other 
 meanings has that of a piscina or reservoir in a 
 bath, and in mediaeval Latin of a chamber gene¬ 
 rally j it may thus denote a vault containing 
 sarcophagi. 
 
 In the tombs of this kind the receptacle for the 
 corj)se was sometimes covered by a slab of marble, 
 or sometimes a marble sarcophagus is inserted. 
 In a few cases the sarcophagus projects forward 
 into the chamber, and the sides of the arch are 
 continued to the ground beyond the sarcophagus. 
 
 Such slabs or sarcophagi have been supposed 
 to have seiwed as altars during the period of per¬ 
 secution, as being the resting-places of saints or 
 martyrs, and in some instances this may have 
 been the case ; but the far greater number of these 
 tombs are no doubt of later date, and simply the 
 monuments used by the wealthier class. The 
 bishops and martyrs of the 3rd century were, as 
 may be seen in the cemetery of Callixtus (on the 
 Via Appia near Rome), placed, not in these “ar¬ 
 cosolia ” or “ monumenta arcuata,” but in simple 
 “loculi,” excavations in the wall just large 
 enough to receive a body placed lengthwise (v. 
 De Rossi, Roma Sott. Crist, t. ii. tav. i. ii. iii.). 
 It seems hardly probable that, when such illus¬ 
 trious martyrs were interred in so humble a 
 manner, more obscure sufferers should be more 
 highly honoured ; this consideration seems to 
 afford ground for the supposition that, where a 
 saint or martyr of the first three centuries has 
 been placed in a decorated tomb, such a memorial 
 IS to be attributed not to the period of the ori¬ 
 ginal intei'ment, but to the piety of a later time. 
 In the 4th and 5th centuries the humble “locu¬ 
 lus ” was altered into the decorated “ monu- 
 mentum arcuatum,” and the whole sepulchral 
 chamber in many cases richly adorned with in¬ 
 crustations of marble, with stucco, and with 
 paintings. A n excel lent example of this is afforded 
 by the chamber in the cemetery of Callixtus, in 
 which the remains of the Popes Eusebius (309- 
 311) and Miltiades (or Melchiades, 311-314) 
 were placed, a part of which is represented in 
 the annexed woodcut. 
 
 In the walls of this chamber are three large 
 “arcosolia,” in front of one of which was a 
 marble slab, with an inscription by Pope Damasus 
 commemorating Pope Eusebius (v. De Rossi, t. 
 ii. tav. iii. iv. and viii.). The whole chamber 
 has been richly decorated with marble incrusta¬ 
 tions, paintings, and mosaics. These decorations 
 it would seem reasonable to assign to Pope Da¬ 
 masus, who undoubtedly set up the inscription. 
 Another inscription by Pope Damasus, found in 
 the crypt of St. Sixtus in the same cemetery, tes¬ 
 tifies the desire then felt to lie in death near the 
 remains of holy personages, and at the same 
 time the awe and respect felt for them in these 
 words— 
 
 “ Hie fateor volui Damasus mea cond^re membra 
 Sed cineres timui sanctos vexare piorum." 
 
 This pious awe gradually diminished, and loculi 
 are found excavated above, below, before, at the 
 side of the sepultures of confessors and martyrs. 
 Hence the formulae “ad sanctos,” “ad martyres,” 
 “supra sanctos,” “retrosanctos,” “ante sanctos,” 
 often found in inscriptions in the catacombs. A 
 good instance of this practice may be seen, over 
 the tomb of Pope Eusebius, where a painting re¬ 
 presenting the Good Shepherd has been cut 
 through in order to form a loculus. 
 
 
 Aroosolium in the Cemetery of Ctdlixtus. 
 
 Loculi so excavated within the arch of the “ar¬ 
 cosolia ” are, however, too common to be always 
 accounted for in this manner, and in many in¬ 
 stances were no doubt intended for the children 
 or near relatives of those who lay below. 
 
 In the year 1859, in the cemetery of St, Cal¬ 
 lixtus, an unviolated “arcosolium” was disco¬ 
 vered : in this a marble sarcophagus was found, 
 in which lay a body swathed in numerous bands 
 of linen exactlv in the manner shown in the early 
 representations of the raising of Lazarus. 
 
 These “arcosolia” were often decorated with 
 paintings, either on the trout of the sarcophagus 
 or on the wall above it. Examples may be found 
 in Perret's work on the ‘Catacombs, 'noI. i. 
 pi. Ivii.-lxx. One of the most remarkable in- 
 
AREA 
 
 ARLES 
 
 141 
 
 stances is the tomb of St. Hermes in the cata¬ 
 combs near Rome called by liis name. 
 
 Tile tombs of this class are more usually found 
 in the “ cubicula,” or small chambers, than in 
 the galleries of the catacombs: in the former, two, 
 three, or more are often found. Martigny seeks 
 to draw a distinction between those found in the 
 “ cubicula,” which he thinks may often or gene¬ 
 rally be those of wealtliy individuals made at 
 their own cost, and those in the so-called chapels 
 or larger excavations, which he thinks were con¬ 
 structed at the general charge of the Christian 
 community. In one such chapel in the cemetery 
 of St. Agnes near Rome there are eleven such 
 tombs. Rostell (^Beschreibung von Bom, by Bunsen 
 and others, vol. i. p. 408) gives it as his opinion 
 that such chapels, specially connected with the 
 veneration of martyrs, do not usually date from 
 an eaidier period than the 4th or 5th century. 
 The work of the Cav. de’ Rossi on the catacombs 
 (^Bo/na Crist. Solterranea) will no doubt when 
 completed throw great light on all these ques¬ 
 tions, which cannot be satisfactorily solved except 
 by that union of the most careful and minute in¬ 
 vestigation, and candid and impartial criticism, 
 which that learned archaeologist will bring to 
 bear upon them. 
 
 Examples of tombs of the same form may be 
 found in structures above ground at a much later 
 date: two such are in the walls of the entrance 
 to the baptistery at Albenga, between Nice and 
 Genoa, a building probably not later than the 
 7th century. One tomb is quite plain, the other 
 decorated with plaited ornaments in the style 
 prevalent circa 800. [A. N.] 
 
 AREA. I. A space within w'hich monuments 
 'stood, which was protected by the Roman law 
 from the acts of ownership to which other lands 
 were liable. Such areae are frequent by the 
 side of most of the great roads leading into Rome, 
 and letters on the monument describe how many 
 feet of frontage, and how many in depth, belong to 
 it. The formula is, IN'FR'P.. . . IN’AG’P. . . . 
 i.e., “In fvonte pedes—“In agro pedes—.” 
 The size of these areae varied much; some were 
 16 feet square, some 24 feet by 15; a square of 
 about 125 feet each way seems to have been 
 common; the example in Horace (^Sat. i. 8, 12) 
 gives us 1000 feet by 300 ; and some appear to 
 have been even larger than this; one of Gruter’s 
 Inscription's, for instance, (i. 2, p. cccxcix. 1), 
 runs, “ Huic raonumento cedunt agri puri jugera 
 decern.” So large a space was required, not for the 
 mausoleum which was to be erected, but in some 
 cases for the reception of many tombs, in others 
 for the performance of sacra, which w'ere often 
 numerously attended (Northcote and Brownlow’s 
 Boma Sotterranea, pp. 47 f.). 
 
 On a monument or a boundary stone of the 
 area was engraved a formula indicating that this 
 plot was not to pass to the heirs of him who set 
 it apm-t for sepulture. This was generally 
 H‘M*H‘N‘S. i.e., “Hoc monumentum haeredes non 
 sequitur ” (Orelli’s Inscriptiones. No. 4379). The 
 •uvresponding Greek foi’m was, “ roiis K\r]poi'6- 
 poii uov ovK iTTaKo\ov9n<T€i TovTo rh iJLvrjiufioy ” 
 (Bockh’s Corpus Inscriptionum, No. 3270). 
 
 In the Roman catacombs care has evidently 
 been taken lest the subterranean excavations 
 should transgress the limits of the area on the 
 surface (Northcote, u.s. 48). 
 
 This reverence of the Roman law for burial- 
 places enabled the early Christians, except in 
 times of persecution or popular tumult, to 
 preserve their sepulchi-es inviolate. The areas 
 about the tombs of martyrs were especially so 
 preserved, where meetings for worship -were held, 
 and churches frequently built. Tertullian {Ad 
 Scapml. 3) tells us that when Hilarianus, a perse¬ 
 cutor, had issued an edict against the formation of 
 such areae, the result was that the areae (thresh¬ 
 ing-floors) of the heathen lacked corn the follow¬ 
 ing year. So the Acta Pi'oconsxilaria of the trial 
 of Felix (in Baronius, ann. 314 § 24) speak of the 
 areae, “ where you Christians make prayy t-i ” (ubi 
 orationes facitis). These areae were freqiiently 
 named from some well-known person buried 
 there; thus St. Cyprian is said to have been 
 buried “ in area Candidi Procuratoris ” {Acta 
 Alart. 8. Cypriani in Ducange’s Glossary s. v.). In 
 the Gesta Purgationis Caeciliani {Ibid.), certain 
 citizens are said to have been shut up “ in area 
 martyrum,” where, perhaps, a church is intended. 
 Compare Cemetery, Martyrium. 
 
 II. The court in front of a church [Atrium.] 
 (Bingham’s Antiquities, viii. 3 § 5.) [C.] 
 
 ARELATENSE CONCILIUM. [Arles.] 
 
 ARETHAS and companions, martyrs, com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 24 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ARGEUS, martyr, commemorated Jan. 2 
 {Mart. Bom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARICION, of Nicomedia, commemorated 
 June 23 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ARIMINENSE CONCILIUM. [Rimini.] 
 
 ARISTARCHUS, disciple of Apostles, com¬ 
 memorated Aug. 4 {Mart. Bom. Vet.); “Apostle,” 
 April 15 [14, Neale], {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTIDES, of Athens, commemorated Aug. 
 31 {Mart. Bom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTION, one of the Seventy Disciples of 
 Christ, commemorated Oct. 17 {Mart. Bom. 
 Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTOBULUS, “Apostle,” commemorated 
 Oct. 31 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTON, and others, martyrs, comme¬ 
 morated July 2 {Mart. Bom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTONICUS, martyi*, commemorated 
 April 19 {Mart. Bom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTONIPPUS, commemorated Sept. 3 
 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 ARISTUS, commemorated Sept. 3 {Mart. 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 ARLES, COUNCILS OF (Arelatensia 
 Concilia). — I. a. d. 314, summoned by the 
 Emperor Constantine to try afresh the cause 
 of the Donatists against Caecilian, Bishop of 
 Carthage,— a cause “ de Sancti Coelestisque 
 Numinis cultu et fide Catholica ;” because 
 the former complained that the judgment given 
 at Rome in 313 by the Pope and certain Gallic 
 bishops (whom Constantine had appointed to try 
 the case there), was an unfair one. The emperor 
 accordingly summoned other bishops, from S-'^ily, 
 Italy (not the Bishop of Rome, lie having been 
 one of the former judges), the Gauls (which 
 include Britain), and Africa itself, to the number 
 of 200 according to St. Augustin, to come to 
 Arles by August 1 to retry the case. The sum- 
 
142 
 
 ARLES 
 
 ARRHAE 
 
 mons to Chrestus of Syracuse (Mansi, ii. 466, 
 467, from Euseb. x.) desires him to bring two 
 presbyters and three servants with him at the 
 public expense. And the letter of Constantine 
 to the Vicarius Africae (ib. 463-465) claims it 
 as the empei'or’s duty to see that such conten¬ 
 tions are put an end to. The sentence of the 
 Council, adverse to the Donatists, is likewise 
 to be enforced by the civil power (liescri/.t. 
 Constant, post Synodum, ib. 477, 478). But Con¬ 
 stantine in the same letter expressly disclaims all 
 appeal to himself from the “judicium sacerdotum” 
 (ib. 478). The Synod also announces its judg¬ 
 ment and its canons to Pope Sylvester, in order 
 that “ per te jjotissimum omnibus insinuari,” re¬ 
 gretting also the absence of their “ frater dilectis- 
 simus,” who probably would have passed a 
 severer sentence. The canons begin with one 
 enacting that the observance of Easter shall be 
 “ uno die et tempore,” the Bishop of Rome “ juxta 
 consuetudinem ” to make the day known. They 
 include also among other regulations a prohibi¬ 
 tion of the rebaptizing of heretics if they had 
 been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity; 
 an exhortation (“ consilium ”) to those whose 
 wives had been guilty of adultery, not to marry 
 another “ viventibus uxorihus;” a requirement 
 to the consecration of a bishop of eight bishops, 
 if possible, but of three at the least; and a con¬ 
 demnation of those “ sacerdotes et Levitae,” who 
 do not abstain from their wives. The Council 
 was purely a Western one, and of the emperor’s 
 selection, although St. Augustine (^De Baj t. cont. 
 Donat., ii. 9, and elsewhere) calls it “ universal.” 
 Among the signatures to it, accoi'ding to the 
 most authentic list, are the well-known ones of, 
 “ Eborius Episcopus de civitate Eboracensi pro- 
 Auncia Britannia; Restitutus Episcopus de civi¬ 
 tate Londinensi provincia suprascripta ; Adelfius 
 Episcopus de ci,vitate Colonia Londinensium ” {i. e. 
 probably. Col. Legionensium i.e. Caerleon on Usk); 
 “ exinde Sacerdos presbyter, Arminius diaconus ” 
 (Mansi, ib. 476, 477). There were present, ac¬ 
 cording to this list, 33 bishops, 13 presbyters, 23 
 deacons, 2 readers, 7 exorcists, besides 2 presby¬ 
 ters and 2 deacons to represent Pope Sylvestei’. 
 
 II.' A.D. 353, of the Gallic bishops, summoned 
 by the Emperor Constans to condemn the person 
 of St. Athanasius (but without discussing doc- 
 tr ine) under penalty of exile if they refused, 
 Paulinus, Bishop of Treves, being actually exiled 
 for refusing (Sulp. Sever., ii.; Hilar., Libell. ad 
 Constant,; and ilansi, iii. 231, 232). 
 
 HI. A.D. 452, called the second, which com¬ 
 piled and reissued 56 canons of other recent Gallic 
 Councils respecting discipline (Mansi, vii. 875), 
 Possibly there had been another in 451 (Id. ib. 
 873). 
 
 IV. A.D. 455, commonly called the third, pro¬ 
 vincial, determined the dispute between Bishop 
 Theodorus and Faustus abbat of Lerins, by de¬ 
 creeing that the right of ordination, and of 
 giving the chrism, &c., pertain to the bishop, 
 but the jurisdiction over laymen in the monas¬ 
 tery to the abbat (Mansi, vii. 907). 
 
 V. A.D. 463, provincial, convened by Leontiiis, 
 Archbishop of .Aides, to oppose Mamertinus, 
 Archbishop of Vienne, who had encroached upon 
 the province of Arles (Mansi, vii. 951, from St. 
 Hilary’s Epist.). 
 
 VI. A.D. 475, provincial, under the same Leon¬ 
 tius, to condemn the error of “ predestinaticn.” 
 
 The books of Faustus, De Gratia Dei, &c., were 
 written to express the sense of the Council, and 
 the Augustinians condemned it as semi-Pelagian 
 (Mansi, vii. 1007). 
 
 VII. A.D. 524, commonly called the fourth, 
 provincial, among other canons on discipline, ap¬ 
 pointed 25 as the age for deacons’ orders, and 30 
 for priests’ (Mansi, viii. 625). 
 
 VIII. A.D. 554, commonly called the fifth, pro¬ 
 vincial, chiefly to reduce monasteries to obedience 
 to their bishop (Mansi, ix. 702). 
 
 IX. A.D. 813, under Charlemagne, enacted 26 
 
 canons respecting discipline, and among others, 
 that the Bishop “ circumeat parochiam suam 
 semel in anno”(c. 17),and that “Comites,judices, 
 seu reliquus populus, obedientes sint Episcopo, et 
 invicem consentiant ad justitias faciendas ” (c. 
 13; Mansi, xiv. 55). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ARMARIUS, in monastic establishments, the 
 precentor and keeper of the church books. Ar- 
 marius is continually used by Bernard (in Ordine 
 Cluniacensi, &c.) for Cantor and Magister Cere- 
 moniarum.® [J. H.] 
 
 ARMENIA, COUNCIL OF.— A council 
 was held in Armenia, .simultaneously Avith an¬ 
 other at Antioch, A.D. 435, condemning the 
 works of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and Diodorus 
 of Tarsus, lately translated into the language 
 of Armenia and circulated there (Mansi, v. 
 1179). [E. S. F.] 
 
 ARMOGASTES, confessor, commemorated 
 March 29 {Mart. Eom. F<?L). [C.] 
 
 ARMORICA, COUNCIL IN, a.d. 555, to 
 excommunicate Maclou, Bishop of Vannes, Avho 
 had renounced tonsure and celibacy on the death 
 of his brother Chanao, Count of Brittany (Greg^. 
 Tur., Hist. iA'. 4; Mansi, ix. 742). [A. \V. H.] 
 
 ARNULPHUS, confessor, Aug. 16 {Mart. 
 Bedae); July 18 {M. Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 ARONTIUS, commemorated Aug. 27 {Mart. 
 Hieron^). [C.] 
 
 ARRIANUS, martyr, commemorated Dec. 14 
 {Cal. Byzant.).' [C.] 
 
 ARRHAE, OR ARRAE SPONSALITIAE, 
 also Arrhabo, Arrabo, earnest money on be¬ 
 trothal. The practice of giving earnest money 
 on betrothal, of Avhich traces are to be found in 
 all parts of the world, has its root eAudently in 
 the A'ieAv, common yet to many saA'age races, of 
 marriage as the mere sale of a Avife, to Avhich 
 betrothal stands in the relation of contract to 
 deliA'ery. 
 
 Among the Jew^s, as will be seen from Selden’s 
 treatise, De Uxore llebraicd (Book ii. cc. 1, 2, 
 3, 4), betrothal Avas strictly a contract of pur¬ 
 chase for money or money’s Avorth (although 
 two other forms Avere also admitted); the coin 
 used being, howcA'er, the smallest that could be 
 had. The earnest Avas given either to the Avife 
 herself, or to her parents. It could not be of 
 forbidden things or things consecrated to priestly 
 use, or things unlaAvfully OAvned, unless such as 
 mi^ht haA’c been taken from the Avoman herself; 
 but a laAvfully given earnest AA'as sufficient to 
 constitute beti'othal Avithout Avoids spoken. In 
 
 » J'raecentor et Armarius: Armarii nomen obtimiit, eo 
 quod in ejns manu solet esse Bibliotheca, quae et in alio 
 nomine Armarium appellaiur.—/lacange. 
 
AKRHAE 
 
 ARRHAE 
 
 143 
 
 strict consistency with tlie view of marriage as a 
 purchase by the man, it was held that the giving 
 of earnest by the Avoman was void. And when, 
 at a later period, the use of the ring as a symbol 
 of the earnest crept into Jewish betrothals from 
 Gentile practice, so carefully was the old view 
 preserved that a previous formal inquiry had to 
 be made of two witnesses, whether the ring 
 offered was of equal A’^alue with a coin. 
 
 The first legal reference among the Romans 
 to the ari'ha on betrothal, and the only one in 
 the Digest, belongs to the 3rd century,— i.e. to a 
 period when the Roman world was already to a 
 great extent permeated by foreign influences,— 
 at this time chiefly Oriental. It occurs in a 
 pt.S!>age from Paul us, who flourished under 
 Alexander Severus, 223-235 (^Dig. 23. tit. 2. 
 s. 38). The jurist lays it down that a public 
 functionaiy in a proAMnce cannot marry a woman 
 from that province, but may become betrothed 
 to her; and that if, after he has given up his 
 oflice, the woman refuses to marry him, she is 
 only bound to repay any earnest-money she has 
 received,—a text which, it will be observed, 
 applies in strictness only to provincial function¬ 
 aries, and may thus merely indicate the ex¬ 
 istence of the practice among subject nations. 
 Certain it is that the chapter of the Digest on 
 betrothals (^De Sponscdibus, 23. tit. 1) says not a 
 word of the arrha ; Ulpian in it expressly states 
 that “ bare consent suffices to constitute be¬ 
 trothal,” a legal position on which the stage 
 betrothals in Plautus supply an admirable com¬ 
 ment. 
 
 About eighty years later, however—at a time 
 when the northern barbarians had ah’eady given 
 emperors to Rome—the arrha appears in full 
 development. Julius Capitolinus—Avho wrote 
 under Constantine — in his life of Maximinus 
 the younger (killed 313), says that he had 
 been betrothed to Junia Fadella, Avho Avas 
 afterAvardS married to Toxotius, “ but there 
 remained with her royal arrhae, Avhich AV'ere 
 these, as Junius Cordus relates from the testi¬ 
 mony of those who are said to have examined 
 into these things, a necklace of nine pearls, a net 
 of eleven emeralds, a bracelet with a clasp of 
 four jacinths, besides golden and all regal A'est- 
 ments, and other insignia of betrothal.”® Am¬ 
 brose indeed (346-397) speaks only of the 
 symbolical ring in relating the story of St. Agnes, 
 Avhom he represents as replying to the GoA'ernor 
 of Rome, who Avished to marry her to his son, 
 that she stands engaged to another loA'er, Avho 
 has offered her far better adornments, and giA'en 
 her for earnest the ring of his affiance (et 
 annulo fldei suae subarrhaAut me, Ep. 34). To 
 a contemporary of Ambrose, Pope Julius I. (336- 
 352) is ascribed a decree that if any shall haA'e 
 espoused a Avife or given her earnest (si quis 
 desponsaA'erit uxorem A^el subarrhaverit) his 
 brother or other near kinsman may not marry 
 her (Labbc and Mansi, Concil. ii. 1266). About 
 a century later, the Avord arrha is used figura- 
 tiA'ely in reference to the Annunciation, considered 
 as a betrothal, by Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop 
 ot Ravenna in 433, as quoted by Du Cange, in 
 terbo. 
 
 In the days of Justinian, we see from the Code 
 
 • A few words of the above passage have greatly exer¬ 
 cised commentators. 
 
 that the earnest-money Avas a regular element in 
 Byzantine betrothal. It was given to the in¬ 
 tended bride or those Avho acted for her, and 
 Avas to be repaid in the event of the death of 
 either party (Cod. 5. tit. 1. s. 3, Law of Gra- 
 tian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, a.d. 380), 
 or of breach of promise by the woman; in 
 the latter case, indeed, the woman sui juris, or 
 the father, mother, grandfather or great-grand¬ 
 father of one under age haAung to pay an equal 
 additional sum by way of penalty ; though a 
 Avoman under age Avas only bound to simple re¬ 
 payment, as Avas also the case in the event of 
 any unlaAvful marriage, or of the occurrence 
 of some cause unknoAvn at the time of betrothal 
 Avhich might dispense the woman from fulfilling 
 her promise. The fourfold penalty of the earlier 
 laAV AA'as still, by the one noAv quoted, made 
 exigible by special contract (Irid. 5, LaAV of Leo 
 and Anthemius, A.D. 469). Simple restitution 
 was sufficient in case, after betrothal, either party 
 chose to embrace a religious life (1. tit. 3. s. 
 56; Noa'. 123, c. xxxix.); or in case of diversity 
 of religious faith between the betrothed, if dis- 
 coA'ered or occurring after betrothal, but not 
 otherAAUse (Code, 1. tit. 4. s. 16, law of Leo and 
 Anthemius, A.D. 469). 
 
 It is difficult not to seek for the reason of this 
 deA'elopment of the arrha within the Roman or 
 Byzantine Avorld of the 6th century in some 
 foreign influence. Accordingly, if Ave turn to 
 the barbarian races Avhich OA'erran the empire 
 from the end of the 4th century, Ave find almost 
 eA'eryAvhere the prevalence of that idea of Avife- 
 buying, Avhich is the foundation of the betrothal 
 earnest; see for instance in Canciani, Leges Bar- 
 barorum Antiquae, a'oI. ii. 85, the (reputed) older 
 text of the Salic law, tit. 47, as to the purchase of 
 a Avidow for three solidi and a denarius, A'ol. iii. 
 17, 18, 22 ; the Burgundian Law, titles xii. 1 
 and 3, xiv. 3, and xxxiv. 2; a'oJ. v. 49, 50; 
 the Saxon Law, titles au. 1, 2, 3, xii. xviii. 1, 2, 
 &c., or (in the A’olume of the Becord Commission^ 
 our OAvn Laws of Ethelbert, 77, 83; Ine, 31. 
 And in the regions overspread by the Frankish 
 tribes in particular, the arrha, as a money 
 payment, is visible as a legal element in be¬ 
 trothal. Gregory of Tours (544—595) repeatedly 
 refers to it (i. 42; iv. 47 ; x. 16). 
 
 In the earlier Avriters there is nothing to 
 connect the betrothal earnest with a religious 
 ceremony. Nor need Ave be surprised at this, 
 when AA'e recollect that, in the early ages of 
 Christianity, marriage itself Avas held by the 
 Roman world as a purely cIauI contract; so that 
 Tertullian, enumerating those ceremonies of 
 heathen society Avhich a Christian might inno¬ 
 cently attend, Avrites that “ neither the virile 
 robe, nor the ring, nor the marriage-bond (neque 
 annulus, aut conjunctio maritalis) floAvs from 
 any honour done to an idol ” (De idoloL, c. 16). 
 And indeed the opinion has been strongly held, 
 as August! points out, Avhilst disclaiming it, that 
 church betrothals did not obtain before the 9th 
 century. The earliest mention of a priestly 
 benediction upon the sjxmsi appears to occur in 
 the 10th canon of the Synod of Reggio, a.d. 850 
 (see Labbe and Mansi, Comil. xiv. p. 934); and 
 it is not impo.ssible that that confusion betw'een 
 the sponsus and maritus, the sponsa and urc/r, 
 was then already creeping into middle age Latin, 
 which has absolutely pre\'ailed in French, where 
 
144 
 
 ARRHAE 
 
 AE3ENIUS 
 
 ^pov^x, ^pouie,, are synonymous with vuiri and 
 feinmc in the sense of uxor. In a contemporary 
 document, the reply of Pope Nicolas I. (858- 
 8(3?) to the consultation of the Bulgarians, the 
 question whether betrothal was a civil or reli¬ 
 gious ceremony remains undecided ; but as he 
 professes to exliibit to them “ a custom which 
 the holy Roman Church has received of old, and 
 still holds in such unions,” his testimony, though 
 half a century later than the death of Charle¬ 
 magne, deserves to be here recorded, bearing wit¬ 
 ness as it does expressly to the betrothal earnest. 
 
 “ After betrothal,” he says, “ which is the 
 promised bond of future marriage, and which 
 is celebrated by the consent of those w'ho enter 
 into this, and of those in whose authority they 
 are, and after the betrother hath betrothed to 
 himself the betrothed with earnest by marking 
 her finger with the ring of affiance, and the be¬ 
 trother hath handed over to her a dow'er satisfac¬ 
 tory to both, with a writing containing such con¬ 
 tract, before persons invited by both parties, 
 either at once or at a fitting time (to wit, in 
 order that nothing of the kind be done before the 
 time prescribed by law) both proceed to enter 
 into the mandage bond. And first, indeed, they 
 are placed in the Church of the Lord with the 
 oblations which they ought to offer to God by the 
 hand of the priest, and thus finally they receive 
 the benediction and the heavenly garment.” 
 
 Tt will be seen from the above passage that 
 whilst Pope Nicolas recognises distinctly the 
 practice of betrothal by arrha, symbolized 
 through the ring, yet the only benediction 
 w'hich he expressly mentions is the nuptial, not 
 the spousal one. 
 
 It has been doubted in like manner whether 
 church betrothals were practised at this period 
 in the Greek Church, and whether the form of 
 betrothal in the Greek Euchologium is not of 
 iate insertion. That at the date of the last quoted 
 authority, or say in the middle of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury, the Greek ceremonies appertaining to mar¬ 
 riage differed already from the Roman aj^pears 
 from the text of Pope Nicolas himself; his very 
 object being to set forth the custom of the Roman 
 Church in contrast to that of the Greek (consue- 
 tudinem quam Graecos in nuptialibus contuberniis 
 habere dicitis). Now the striking fact in refer¬ 
 ence to the form of the Euchologium is that in it 
 the earnest or appa$u)v is not a mere element in 
 betrothal, but, as with the Jews, actually consti¬ 
 tutes it—a practice so characteristic that it can 
 hardly be supposed to flow otherwise than fi'om 
 ancient usage. Here, in fact, the words appa^wu, 
 appa^wriC^crOai^ can only be translated “ be¬ 
 trothal,” “ betrothing.” The formula, repeated 
 alternately by the man and the woman, runs : 
 “ So and so, the servant of God, betroths to him¬ 
 self (^ap^a^wviC'eTai') this handmaid of God in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost, now and ever, and world without 
 end. Amen.” The prayer is in like manner : 
 “ Look upon this Thy servant and this thine 
 handmaid, and confirm their betrothal (aT’pp'i^ov 
 rhv apfia^wra ai/Tcoy') in faith and concord, and 
 truth, and love. For thou. Lord, didst show us 
 to give the earnest and therebv to confirm all 
 things.” And the heading—which may indeed 
 well be more modern—is “ service for betrothal, 
 othenvise of the earnest.” 
 
 The most therefore that can be concluded on 
 
 this still doubtful subject seems to be this— 
 1st. That the earnest-money on betrothal, sym¬ 
 bolizing as it clearly does thf barbarous custom 
 of wife-buying, must essentially have been every¬ 
 where in the first instance a civil, not a religious 
 act. 2. That the practice was unknown to an¬ 
 cient Greek and Roman civilization, and was 
 especially foreign to the spirit of the older 
 Roman law. 3. That it was nevertheless firmly 
 rooted in Jewish custom, and may not impro¬ 
 bably have passed from thence into the ritual 
 of the Eastern Church, where, as with the Jews, 
 the giving of earnest constitutes the betrothal. 
 4. That it was very generally prevalent among 
 the barbarian tribes which overran the Roman 
 empire, and seems from them to have passed into 
 its customs and its laws, making its appearance 
 in the course of the 3rd century, and becoming 
 prominent by the 6th century in Justinian’s 
 Code, at the same time when we also find its 
 prevalence most distinctly marked in Gaul, and 
 as a Frankish usage. 5. That no distinct trace 
 of it in the ceremonies of the Church can how¬ 
 ever be pointed out till the later middle age, 
 although it may very likely have prevailed in 
 the Eastern Church from a much earlier period. 
 
 It follows, however, from what has been said 
 above that whatever may have lingered in latei 
 times of the betrothal arrha must be ascribed 
 to very ancient usage ; as in the formula quoted 
 by Selden from the Parochial of Ernest, Arch¬ 
 bishop of Cologne and Bishop of Liege, which 
 includes the use, not only of the ring, but also, 
 if possible, of red purses with three pieces ot 
 silver, “ loco arrhae sponso dandae.” Our own 
 Sarum ordinal says in reference to betrothal: 
 “ men call arrae the rings or money or other 
 things to be given to the betrothed by the be¬ 
 trother, which gift is called suharratio, particu¬ 
 larly however when it is made by gift of a ring.” 
 And the two forms of Sarum and York respec¬ 
 tively run as follows : (Sarum) “ With this ring 
 I thee wed, and this gold and silver I thee give;” 
 (York) “ With this ring 1 wed thee, and with 
 this gold and silver I honour thee, and with 
 this gift I honour thee.” The latter formula 
 indeed recalls a direction given in one of the two 
 oldest rituals relating to marriage given by Mar- 
 tene, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Jiitibus, vol. ii. p. 127 
 (extracted from a Rennes missal, to which he 
 ascribes about 700 years of antiquity, or say, of 
 the 11th century), entitled, “ Oi-do ad sponsum 
 et sponsam benedicendam,” which says that 
 “ after the blessing of the ring in the name of 
 the Holy Trinity .... the betrother shall hon¬ 
 our her (the betrothed) with gold or silver ac¬ 
 cording to his means ” (honorare auro vel argento 
 prout poterit sponsus). 
 
 As respects the use of the ring in betrothal, 
 see further under Ring, and also Betrothal. 
 
 (August!, Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. ix. 295, and 
 foil, may be consulted, but is far from satis¬ 
 factory. Bingham, Antiquities, book xxii. ch. 
 iii., confounds together everything that can be 
 confounded. Selden, Uxor Hehraica, book ii., 
 remains by far the best single source of re¬ 
 ference.) [J. M. L.] 
 
 ARSENIUS. (1) b ix4yas, May 8 {Cal. By- 
 zant.'). 
 
 (2) Confessor, July 19 {Mart. Btdae). 
 
 (3) Martyr, commemorated Dec. 14 {Mart, 
 Bom. Vei.'^ 
 
ARTEMIUS 
 
 ASCENSION DAY 
 
 145 
 
 ARTEMIUS. (1) Husband of Candida, [ 
 martyr, at Rome, commemorated June 6 {^Mart. 
 Rom. Vet.'). 
 
 (2) Vli’yaXoixapTvp of Antioch, Oct, 20 (^Cal. 
 Byzant.). 
 
 ARTEMON, commemorated Oct. 24 (Cal. 
 Armen.). [0.] 
 
 ARVERNENSE CONCILIUM. [Galli- 
 CAN CouNCir,s.] 
 
 ASCENSION DAY : (Ascensio and Ascensa 
 Domini; dies festus Ascensionts: kopr^ rrjs 
 avaKri^l/ecos ; t] ardXrj^is and Tyxkpa ava\r]\pifios). 
 This festival, assigned, in virtue of Acts i. 3, to the 
 fortieth day after Easter-day, is not one of those 
 which from the earliest times were generally ob¬ 
 served. No mention of it occurs before the 4th 
 century, unless an earlier date can be made good 
 for the “ Apostolic Constitutions,” or for the pas¬ 
 sages in which mention is made of this festival— 
 Lib. V. 19 : “ From the first day (Easter-day) num¬ 
 ber ye forty days to the fifth day (Thursday), and 
 celebrate the Feast of the di/d\rnj/is tov Kvp'iov 
 Kad' %v TrXd^puaas Trd<Tav olKovo/xiav nai Sidra^iv 
 dvriKQe, K. r. A.”: viii. 33, “On what days serv¬ 
 ants are to rest from work : tV dud\rj\pir dpye'i- 
 TuxTav Sid rh Trepas ttjs Kara Xpicrhu oikouo- 
 n'tas." Origen (c. Cels. viii. 362), names as holy- 
 days generally observed, besides the Lord’s Day, 
 only Parasceue (Good Friday), Pascha (Easter- 
 day), and Pentecost. No others than these are 
 mentioned by Tertullian. Of sermons preached 
 on this festival, the oldest seems to be one extant 
 only in a Latin version, ap. Sirmondi 0pp. Varia, 
 t. i. p. 39, which he and Valesius, on insufficient 
 grounds, assign to Eusebius the Church historian; 
 Cave, and later writers, to Eusebius of Emesa. 
 Its title is de Resurrcctione et Ascensione Domini, 
 and the preacher dwells chiefly on the Resurrec¬ 
 tion ; but the opening words show that it was 
 preached on Ascension Day : “ Laetantur quidem 
 coeli de festivitate praesenti, in qua Dominum 
 suscepere victorem.” Next, perhaps, in point of 
 antiquity, is one by Epiphanius (t. ii. 285, ed. 
 Petav.). In the opening, he complains that the 
 greatness of this festival is not duly appreciated, 
 though it is, to the others, what the head is to the 
 bod)’’, the crown and completion. First, he says, 
 is the Feast of Incarnation ; second, the Theopha- 
 nia ; third, the Passion and Resurrection. “ But 
 even this festival brought not the fulness of joy, 
 because it still left the risen Lord fettered to this 
 earth. The Pentecost, also, on which the Holy 
 Ghost was communicated, contains a great, un¬ 
 speakable joy. But to-day, the day of the 
 Ascension, all is filled with joy supreme. Christ, 
 opening highest heavens, &c.” It is, of course, 
 only with a rhetorical purpose that Pentecost is 
 here named before Ascension. There were in¬ 
 deed heretics, Valentinians and Ophites (Iren, 
 i. 1, 5, and 34 ad fin.), and other Gnostics (repi’e- 
 sented by the Ascensio Esaiae, Aethiop.), who 
 assigned a period of eighteen months to our 
 Lord’s sojourn on earth after the Resurrection; 
 and besides, there are traces of a belief among 
 the orthodox that the bodily presence of the 
 risen Lord with his disciples, from time to time, 
 was continued during three years and six 
 months (Eus. Dem. Ev. viii. 400 B. ; Browne’s 
 Ordo Saeclorum, p. 82 f.); but certainly the day on 
 which the Ascension was celebrated was, in all 
 the chui’ches, the fortieth after Easter-day, Of 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 about the same time, is a sermon by St. Gregory 
 of Nyssa, remarkable for its title: Els rrjv 
 XcyofjieyrfP rw iirixtapicp tuv KaTTiraSdKOJV edei, 
 'ETTiau^opLkvrfv, ^tis kariv r] drdXijipis too K. 
 
 ’I. X. Bingham, Augusti, Rheinwald, Alt, 
 and others, explain this as kopr^ rrjs iiricrcuCo- 
 /jifPTjs (pvcreus dpOpwn-'iPTjs (or iirl (pvaei 
 
 duOpwTr'iPT}), with reference to the crowning work 
 of redemption in the glorification of the Manhood 
 The name, marked by Gregory as local to Cap¬ 
 padocia, is not retained in the Greek calendar, 
 but it occurs in the title of St. Chrysostom’s 
 19th sermon on the Statues (ad pop. Antioch., t. 
 ii. 188 Ben.), rp KvpiaKjj rrjs ’ETritrw^o/xeVrjs, al. 
 Soj^ojuci/Tjs. Leo Allatius (de Domrn. et Hebdom. 
 Graecorum, § 28), who evidently knows the 
 designation only from these two places, says that 
 the Sunday is the fifth after Easter, the Sunday 
 of Ascension week. Tillemont (see the Bene¬ 
 dictine Praefat. t. ii. p. xi. sqq.) infers from the 
 place of this sermon in the series between S. 18, 
 preached after mid-Lent, and S. 20, preached 
 at the end of the Quadragesima, that it was 
 delivered on Passion Sunday, 5 Lent. But 
 Chrysostom’s own recital in the first sermon de 
 Ayina (t. iv. 701 A.) clearly shows that the 19th 
 sermon is later by “ many days ” than the 
 21st, preached on Easter-day: see the Bene¬ 
 dictine Moniturn, prefixed to the sermons on 
 Anna, and also (for Montfaucon’s final conclusion) 
 Vit. Chrysost. t. xiii. 128 sqq. ed. Par. Ben. 2. 
 Hence it appears that the Sunday ’Enicrw^o- 
 fikprjs cannot be, as Savile (t. viii. 809) supposes, 
 the octave of Easter, dominica in albis, and it 
 seems most probable that Leo Allatius is right in 
 making it the Sunday of Ascension week. In 
 this case, the term ’ETrto’co^’oyueVTj belongs to the 
 Feast of Ascension. Baumgarten (Erldut. des 
 Christl. Alterthums, p. 299 ap. Augusti) takes 
 it to mean any day specially retained for solemn 
 celebration over and above the great festivals; 
 in this sense, or rather, perhaps, in that of “a 
 holiday gained or secured in addition,” it will be 
 suitable to the Feast of Ascension as one of recent 
 introduction, regarded as a welcome boon espe¬ 
 cially to servants and labourers. On the Feast 
 itself, Chrysostom has one sermon (t. ii. 447), of 
 uncertain date. The celebration was held e|w 
 TrJXeajs : this, "which was the established rule for 
 Good Friday (Serm. de Coemet. et de Cruce, t. ii. 
 397), was here done on a special occasion, in 
 honour of the martyrs whose remains the bishop 
 Flavian had rescued from impure contact, and 
 translated to the martyrium called Romanesia 
 outside the walls. It does not follow that an 
 extramural celebration or procession was the 
 established practice at Antioch on Ascension-day, 
 as some writers have inferred from this passage. 
 In the sermon de b. Philogonio, preached 
 20th Dec. 386, St. Chrysostom (t. i., 497 C.), 
 extolling the dignity of the approaching Feast of 
 Nativity (then of recent introduction), says: 
 “From this the Theophania and the sacred 
 Pascha, and the Ascension, and the Pentecost 
 have their origin. For had not Christ been born 
 after the flesh. He had not been baptised, which 
 is the Theophania; not crucified, which is the 
 Pascha; had not sent the Spirit, which is the 
 Pentecost.” Here the words Ka\ t] dpd\7j\{/is are 
 clearly an interpolation. The three ancient 
 festivals, he would say, are Theophania, Pas¬ 
 cha, Pentecost: they I'equire Nativity as their 
 
146 
 
 ASCENSION DAY 
 
 ASCENSION DAY 
 
 ground. So in Serm. 1 de Pentecoste (t. i. 458) 
 —also of unknown date—he enumerates as the 
 three leading festivals, Epiphany, Pascha, Pen¬ 
 tecost, with no mention of Nativity or of 
 Ascension, although p. 461 he refers to the As¬ 
 cension as an event: “ for, ten days since, our 
 nature ascended to the royal throne,” &c. But 
 in another, the second de Pentecoste (ib. 469), he 
 says: “Not long since we celebrated the Cross 
 and Passion, the Resurrection, after this, the 
 Ascension into heaven of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 
 On the whole, it would seem that, so far as 
 our sources of information go, the institution of 
 this festival, in the East, dates at earliest from 
 the middle of the 4th century. 
 
 Nor do we find it earlier in the Western 
 Church : there is no mention of it in Tertullian, 
 SS. Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, or in the canons 
 of the early councils. In St. Augustine’s time, 
 indeed, the usage was so well-established that he 
 speaks of it as universal, therefore of Apostolic 
 institution. In the Epistle to Januarius, liv. \/d. 
 cxviii.] (t. ii. 123, sqq. Ben.), he ranks it with 
 Pascha and Pentecost. “Ilia autem quae non 
 scrii^ta sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto 
 terrarum orbe seiu'^antur, datur intelligi A'el ab 
 ipsis Apostolis vel plenariis conciliis. . . com- 
 mendata atque statuta retineri, sicuti quod 
 Domini passio et resurrectio et ascensio in caelum, 
 et adventus de caelo Sp. sancti, anniversaria 
 solemnitate celebrantur,” &c. (He does not 
 name the Nativity, this was well understood to 
 be of recent institution.) Beverege, Cod. Can. 
 Vindic. c. ix. puts the argument thus :—“ What¬ 
 ever is universal in the Church must be either 
 Apostolic or ordained by general councils; but 
 no general council did ordain these festivals, 
 therefore they come to us from the Apostles 
 themselves.” On the authority of this passage 
 of St. Augustine, liturgical writers, Martene and 
 others, have not hesitated to conclude that the 
 Feast of Ascension is as old as Pascha and Pente¬ 
 cost. In the silence of the first three centuries, 
 we can, at most, accept the passage as testimony 
 to matter of fact, that at the end of the 4th 
 century Ascension-day was generally kept; as in 
 the second of his five Ascension-sermons (261- 
 265, t. v. 1065 sqq. Ben.), St. Augustine says, § 3, 
 “ Ecce celebratur hodiernus dies toto orbe ter¬ 
 rarum.” From this time, certainly, the observ¬ 
 ance of the day was general in East and West. 
 But it does not appear to have ranked Avith the 
 highest festiA'als, which Avere Nativity, Easter, 
 and Pentecost {Goncil. Agatliense, a. 506. can. 63, 
 and Aurelianense 1, a. 511, can. 25). As a feast 
 of secondary order, it ranked, in the Latin Church 
 Avith Epiphany and St. John Baptist’s-day (comp. 
 Concil. Agath. can. 21). In the Eastern Church 
 it was celebrated with solemn extra-mural pro¬ 
 cessions—possibly as early as St. Chrysostom’s 
 time at Antioch, though, as before observed, 
 this is not necessarily implied in the passage 
 cited; in Jerusalem, to the Mount Olivet, on 
 which the Empress Helena had erected a church. 
 Bede says that the celebration there was almost 
 as solemn as that of Easter; it began at mid¬ 
 night, and Avith the multitude of t.apers and 
 torches the mountain and the subjacent land¬ 
 scape were all ablaze (de loc. sacr. c. 7). Else¬ 
 where, the procession Avas to the neai’est hill or 
 rising ground, from Avhich at the same time a 
 benediction was pronounced on the fields and 
 
 fruits of the earth. In the vA'^estern Church this 
 procession and benediction were transferred to 
 the Rogation-days ; and Avhen Gregory of Tours, 
 ob. 595 (Hist. Franc. A'. 11), speaks of the 
 solemn processions Avith AA'hich Ascension-day 
 was eA’-eryAvhere celebrated, perhaps he means 
 only pi’ocessions into the churches. Martene 
 describes one such as held at Vienne, in France. 
 The archbishop, Avith deacon and subdeacon, 
 headed it: on their return to the church, they are 
 receiA'ed by all standing in the nave; two canons 
 advance tOAvards the cantors: Cant. Quem quae- 
 ritis ? Canon. Jesum qui resurrexit. Cant. 
 Jam ascendit, sicut dixit. Canon. Alleluia. 
 Then all proceed into the choir, and mass is cele¬ 
 brated. There Avas also, on this day, in some 
 churches (in others reserved for Pentecost) a 
 service of benediction over loaves provided for 
 the poor, and also OA^er the neAV fruits of the 
 earth. 
 
 The Augil of Ascension Avas kept by some as a 
 fast, as an exception to the ancient rule, rigidly 
 maintained by the Greeks, and long contended 
 for by many of the Latins. “Hoc [paschali] 
 tempore nullius festi Augiliam jejunare A'el 
 obsei'A^are jubemur, nisi Ascensionis et Pente- 
 costes.” (Micrologus, de Feel. Observat. c. 55.) 
 Isidore of Seville (610) (de Eccles. Off. c. 37) 
 acknoAvledges no fast whatever betAveen Easter 
 and Ascension-day: he holds that all fifty days 
 to Pentecost are days of rejoicing only; but some, 
 he says, on the ground of our Lord’s Avords, St. 
 Matt. ix. 15, “Can the children of the bride- 
 chamber mourn,” &c., kept fast on the eight 
 days from Ascensi(.nto Pentecost. The extended 
 fa.st of three days before Ascension, which 
 Amalarius (de Feel. Off. iv. 37) calls triduanum 
 vigiliae Ascens. jejunium (apologising, as do other 
 early liturgical Avriters, for that institution as 
 an innoA^ation upon the knoAvn ancient rule of 
 East and West) came but sloAvly into general 
 obseiwance in the Western Church. Especially 
 Avas this the case in Spain. “ Hispani, propter 
 hoc quod scriptum est,” says Walafrid Strabo 
 (823) (de rebus Feel. c. 28), “ ‘ Non possunt filii 
 sponsi lugere quamdiu cum illls est sponsus,’ infra 
 qulnquagesimam Paschae recusantes jejunare, 
 litanias suas post Pentecosten posuerunt, quinta, 
 se.xta et septima feriis ejusdem hebdomadis eas 
 facientes.” Accordingly, in the Spanish collection 
 of the Canons, the Avording of those relating to the 
 Rogation fast is altered. In Cone. Aurelian. i. can. 
 27, the title, “De Litaniis ante asc. Domini cele- 
 brandis,” is made, “ Ut Litaniae post Dom. asc. 
 celebrentur; ” and in the body of the Canon, 
 for “ Rogationes, ?.e., Litanias ante asc. Dom. ab 
 omnibus ecclesiis placuit celebrari ita ut prae- 
 missum triduanum jejunium in Dom. ascensionis 
 festivitate soh'atur,” the Spanish codex has, 
 “ Rog., f.e., lit. post Asc. Dom. placuit celebrari, 
 ita ut praem. trid. jej. post Dom. asc. solemni- 
 tatem solvaturand the next canon Avhich 
 pi’onounces censure “ de clerieis qui ad litanias 
 A'enire contempserint,” is made to affect only 
 clerics who refuse to come ad officium, ad opus 
 sacrum genei'ally. 
 
 The Mosarabic Order does not even recognise 
 a vigil of Ascension, though it has one for 
 Pentecost. 
 
 There was no octave of Ascension; the fol- 
 loAving Sunday is simply Dominica post Ascen- 
 sionem. 
 
ASCENSION DAY 
 
 ASCETICISM 
 
 147 
 
 (Binterim. Die vorzuqlichsten Denkxv. der Chrtst- 
 Kathol. Kirche, B. v. th. i. 253-256. Augusti, 
 Denkw. del' Christl. Archdologie, B. ii. 351 sqcj. 
 Rheiowald, Die Kirchliche Archdologie, 204 sq. 
 Horn, Ueber dus Alter des Bimmelfahrtsfestes, in 
 Liturg. Journal, v. J. H. Wagnitz, 1806.) [H. B.] 
 ASCETICISM. The difficulty of tracing the 
 history of asceticism in the early ages of Christi¬ 
 anity arises in part from scantiness of materials, 
 but chiefly from the circumstance that this and 
 the cognate terms have been used in two senses, 
 one general, one more specific. These two signi¬ 
 fications, and this enhances the difficulty, cannot 
 be strictly assigned to different periods, being 
 not infrequently synchronous; nor is it always 
 easy to distinguish one from the other merely by 
 the conte.\t. The neglect of this important dis¬ 
 tinction and the vehemence of partisanship have 
 complicated the conti'oversy on the origin and 
 growth of asceticism ; some writers contending 
 that Ascetics as an order are coeval with 
 Christianity, some denying their existence alto¬ 
 gether till the 4th century. Neither statement 
 can be accepted without some qualification. The 
 following attempt at an historical sketch of 
 asceticism among Christians, in its earlier phases, 
 is based on a collation of the principal passages 
 in early Christian writers bearing on the subject. 
 
 The principle of asceticism, and this is allowed 
 on all sides, was in force before Christianity. 
 The Essenes, for instance, among the Jews, owed 
 their existence as a sect to this principle. It was 
 dohiinant in the oriental systems of antagonism 
 between mind and matter. It asserted itself 
 even among the more sensuous philosophers of 
 Greece with their larger sympathy for the plea¬ 
 surable development of man’s physical energies. 
 But the fuller and more systematic development 
 of the ascetic life among Christians is contem¬ 
 poraneous with Christianity coming into con¬ 
 tact with the Alexandrine school of thought, 
 and exhibits itself first in a country subject 
 to the combined influences of Judaism and of 
 the Platonic philosophy. Indeed, the great and 
 fundamental principle on which asceticism, in its 
 narrower meaning rests, of a two-fold morality, 
 one expressed in “ Precepts ” of universal obliga¬ 
 tion for the multitude, and one expressed in 
 “ Counsels of Perfection ” intended only for those 
 more advanced in holiness, with its doctrine that 
 the passions are to be extirpated rather than 
 controlled (Orig. Ep. ad Rom. Lib. iii.; Tertull. 
 de Pallio, 7, 8; Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 529, vi. 
 775) is very closely akin to the Platonic or Py¬ 
 thagorean distinction between the life according 
 to nature and the life above nature, as well as to 
 their doctrine of the supremacy of the contem¬ 
 plative above the practical life, and is more 
 naturally deducible from this source than from 
 any other (Porphyr. de Abstinent.; Eus. H. E. 
 ii. 17). In fact the ascetics of the 3rd and 4th 
 centuries loved the designation of philosophers 
 (Rosw. Vitae Patr. pass.; cf. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 
 Cutech. 18 ; Soz. H. E. i. 13). At the same time 
 it must be noted that the Church uttered its 
 protests from time to time against the idea of 
 there being anything essentially unholy in matter, 
 and its cautions against excessive abstinence. 
 Thus Origen insists that the Christian reason for 
 abstinence is not that of Pythagoras (c. Celsum 
 V. 264); and the so called “Apostolic Canons” 
 (51, 53) while approving asceticism as a useful 
 
 discipline condemn the abhorren e of things in 
 themselves innocent as if they involved any 
 contamination (cf. Eus. //. E. v. 3). 
 
 During the 1st century and a half of Chris¬ 
 tianity there are no indications of ascetics as a 
 distinct class. While the first fervour of conver¬ 
 sions lasted, and while the Church, as a small and 
 compact community, was struggling for existence 
 against opposing forces on every side, the pro¬ 
 fession of Christianity was itself a profession of 
 the ascetic spirit; in other words, of endurance, 
 of hardihood, of constant self-denial (cf. Acts ii. 
 44; iv. 34, 35). Thus, even at a rather later 
 date, Clemens of Alexandria represents Chris¬ 
 tianity as an i.<rKr]<Tis {Strom, iv. 22; cf. Minuc. 
 Fel. Oct. cc. 12, 31, 36). Similarly the term is 
 applied to any conspicuous example of fortitude 
 or patience. Eusebius so designates certain 
 martyrs in Palestine (de Mart. Pal. 10), a region 
 into which monks, strictly so called, were not 
 introduced till the middle of the 4th century 
 (Hieron. Vit. Hilar. 14), and Clemens of Alex¬ 
 andria, calls the patriarch Jacob an daK-gT^s 
 (Paedagog. i. 7). This more vague and more 
 general use of the word appears again and again 
 even after the formal institution of monachism. 
 Athanasius, or whoever is the author, speaking 
 of the suffei'ings of the martyr Lucian, in prison, 
 calls him “ a great ascetic ” (Synops. Scr. Sacr.). 
 Cyril, of Jerusalem, calls those who, like Anna 
 the prophetess, are frequent and earnest in 
 prayer “ascetics” (Catech. i. 19). Jerome ap¬ 
 plies the word to Picrius for his self-chosen 
 poverty, and to Serapion, Bishop of Antioch 
 (Scr. Ecc. 76. 41); and Epiphanius to Marcion 
 because, prior to his lapse into heresy, he had ab¬ 
 stained, though without any vow, from marriage 
 (Haer. xlii.). Cyril of Alexandria uses tkaKgais 
 as equivalent to self-denial (in Joan. xiii. 35) in 
 the same way as Chrysostom speaks of virtue as 
 a discipline (Horn, in Inscr. Act. Apostol. ii. 0). 
 So far there is nothing to proA^e the existence of 
 an ascetic class or order bound by rules not 
 common to all Christians. 
 
 For about a century subsequent to 150 A.D. 
 there begin to be traces of an asceticism more 
 sharply defined and occupying a more distinct 
 position; but not as yet requiring its Amtaries to 
 separate themselves entirely from the rest of their 
 community. Athenagoras speaks of persons 
 habitually abstaining from matrimony (Apol. pro 
 Chr. xxviii. 129 ; cf. Irenaeus ap. Eus. H. E. v. 
 241; cf. Dionys. Alexandr.). Eusebius mentions 
 deA'out persons, ascetics, but not an order, who 
 ministered to the poor (de Mart. Pal. cc. 10, 11), 
 and calls Narcissus, Bishop of Jeru.salem, an 
 “ascetic” (H. E. vi. 9). Tertullian uses the 
 term “exercitati ” or disciplined, (de Puecr. 14), 
 but, apparently in reference to students of Holy 
 Scripture. Clemens of Alexandria .styles the 
 ascetics ^kX^ktSiv iK\(KTOT€poi “ more elect than 
 the elect” (Horn. “ Quis Dives 36; cf. Strom. 
 viii. 15); and Epiphanius in a later century 
 speaks of monks as ot crTrovSatoi or “ the earn¬ 
 est ” (Expos. Fid. 22; cf. Eus. //. E. vi. 11), 
 just as the Avord “religious” came in the mid¬ 
 dle ages to be restricted to those who devoted 
 themselves to a life of more than ordinary strict¬ 
 ness. This increasing rcA'erence for a\isterities 
 as such is seen in most of the sects, Avhich were 
 prominent in the 2nd century ; only with the 
 exaggeration Avhich usually characterises move- 
 
148 
 
 ASCETICISM 
 
 ASCETICISM 
 
 ments of the kind. The Moiitanists prescribed 
 a rigorous asceticism, not for their more zealous 
 disciples only, but for all indiscriminately. The 
 Syrian Gnostics, the followers of Saturninus and 
 Basilides, the Encratitae, the disciples of Cerdo 
 and lilarcion in Asia Minor and Italy, all car¬ 
 ried the notion of there being an inherent pollu¬ 
 tion in the material world, and of it being the 
 positive duty of Christians to shun all contact 
 with it, to an extent which left even the Church 
 doctrine of asceticism far behind (Iren. adv. Ilaer. 
 
 i. 24 ; Epiphan. Haer. 23). How far their prac¬ 
 tice cori'esponded with theory is doubtful. The 
 proneness of human nature to a reaction into 
 excessive laxity after excessive austerities hardly 
 admits of exception, and gives probability to the 
 allegations made by the orthodox writers of 
 flagrant licentiousness in some cases. 
 
 The middle of the 3rd century marks an era in 
 the development of Christian asceticism. Antony, 
 Paul, Ammon, and other Egyptian Christians not 
 content, as the ascetics before them, to lead a life 
 of extraordinary strictness and severity in towns 
 an 1 villages, aspired to a more thorough estrange¬ 
 ment of themselves from all earthly ties; and 
 by their teaching and example led very many 
 to the wilderness, there to live and die in almost 
 utter seclusion from their fellows. The Great 
 Decian persecution was probably the imme¬ 
 diate occasion of this exodus from the cities 
 into the desert; not only by driving many to 
 take refuge in the desert, but by exciting a spirit 
 which longed to emulate the self-renunciation of 
 the martyrs and confessors. But it was pi’obably 
 the influence of the Alexandrine teaching, as has 
 been already suggested, which had fostered the 
 longing to escape altogether from the contamina¬ 
 tions and persecutions of an evil world. It was 
 no longer, as in earlier days, only or chiefly from 
 external enemies that a devout Christian felt 
 himself in danger. As Christianity widened the 
 circle of its oj)erations, it became inevitably less 
 discriminating as to the character of those who 
 were admitted into the community; and the 
 gradual intrusion of a more secular spirit, among 
 Christians, first forced those who were more 
 thoroughly in earnest to aim at a stricter life in 
 the world, and then thrust them out of the world 
 altogether. Eusebius bears witness to this 
 Alexandrine influence on Christian asceticism in 
 a remarkable comparison of the ascetics of his 
 own creed with the Therapeutae in Egypt (^H.E. 
 
 ii. 17 ; Soz. H. E. i. 13). There seems to have 
 been something in the climate and associations of 
 Egypt (as in Syria) which predisposed men thus 
 to abdicate the duties and responsibilities be¬ 
 longing to active life. The exact position which 
 these Therapeutae occupied is uncertain. Pro¬ 
 bably they were in existence prior to Christianity ; 
 are not to be confounded with the Essones ; but 
 were chiefly, though not exclusively, Jews. 
 From Philo’s account (de Vita Contempl. pp. 
 892-4) it seems clear, at any rate, that this 
 manner of life resembled in many respects that 
 of the Christian ascetics in the desert. They 
 dwelt in separate cells not far from one another; 
 renounced their possessions; practised fastings 
 an 1 other austerities; and devoted themselves 
 partly to contemplation, and in part to study. In 
 this last point their example was not imitated by 
 their Christian anti-types in Egypt. They seem 
 to have been imbued with the mystical spirit of 
 
 Alexandria. Their name signifies that they gave 
 themselves either to serve God, or, more proba¬ 
 bly, to cultivate their own souls and those of 
 their disciples. (Eus. H. E. ii. 17.) 
 
 Hitherto Christian asceticism has been in¬ 
 dividualistic in its character. About the middle 
 of the 4th century it begins to assume a corporate 
 character. Naturally, as the number of recluses 
 increased, the need was felt of organisation. 
 Pachomius is generally regarded as the first to 
 form a “ Coenobium,” that is an association of 
 ascetics dwelling together under one supreme 
 authority (Hieron. Reg. Each.; cf. Graveson Hist. 
 Eccl. i. 116). A fixed rule of conduct and a 
 promise to observe the rule were the natural 
 consequences of forming a society. But the 
 exaction of an irrevocable and lifelong vow be¬ 
 longs to a later phase of asceticism. James of 
 Nisibis speaks of ascetics practising a rigid celi¬ 
 bacy (Serm. 6tus). The term ascetic begins now 
 to be nearly equivalent to monastic. The so- 
 called “ Apostolical Constitutions,” which arc 
 generally assigned to this period, enumerate 
 “ ascetics,” but not “ monks ” among orders of 
 Christians (13). The \6yos aaKrjriKhs of Basil 
 of Caesaraea is on the monastic life. So 6.(TKr]cns 
 is used by Palladius (^Hist. Laus. Proem, c. 46, 
 &c.) ; in canons of the Council of Gangra against 
 excessive asceticism (12, 13), and by Athanasius 
 in his life of Antony. Athanasius calls the 
 two disciples who waited on Antony acrKov/xfvoi, 
 “ learning to be ascetics.” 'AcrKr)Tr\piov in So¬ 
 crates (i/. E. iv. 23) means what is now called a 
 monastery ; dcr/crjTiKTj KaXv^r}, a monastic cell 
 (Theodoret, H. E. iv. 25). At that time jxovaa- 
 rrjplov was, as the word literally expresses, a 
 separate cell ; aaK-qrippiov a common dwelling- 
 place under the rule of a superioi', in which those 
 who desired, according to the idea of the age, a 
 yet higher stage of perfection, might be trained 
 and disciplined for absolute seclusion (Greg. 
 Naz. Or. XX. 359). In the middle ages the word 
 “ asceterium ” was altered into “ arcisterium 
 or “ archisterium ” (Jlw Cange, s. vocc.). 
 
 In the besrinnins: of the 6th centurv the widow* 
 
 o o • 
 
 and virgins who were officially recognised as such, 
 are designated acTK-prpiai (Justinian, Novell, cxxiii. 
 43). At a later period the word means a nun : 
 and is the Greek equivalent for “ sanctimonialis,” 
 or “mouialis” (Phot. Nomocan. Tit. ix. 1 p. 207). 
 
 'ActK grpios is a later form for dcr/crjTTjs. 
 
 The history of asceticism, after the institution 
 of monastic societies belongs to the history of 
 MOXASTiciSM. There it will be seen with what 
 marvellous rapidity this development of Christian 
 asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts 
 of the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; how Basil, 
 Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, Ambrose, were 
 foremost among its earliest advocates and propa¬ 
 gators, and how Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict 
 and others crowned the labours of their prede¬ 
 cessors by a more elaborate organisation. It is 
 enough here to endeavour to trace the gradual 
 and almost imperceptible process by which as¬ 
 ceticism, from being the common attribute of 
 Christianity, became in course of time the dis¬ 
 tinctive speciality ofa chiss within the Christian 
 community. 
 
 (Besides the writers quoted already, see Bing¬ 
 ham, Origines, bk. vii. Paleotimo, Sumnia Anti- 
 quitatum. lib. vii. Gluck’s Atteserrae Origines 
 Rei Monasticae. Jilamachi, Costumi dei primitivi 
 
ASCIIAIMENSE 
 
 ASTERISCUS 
 
 149 
 
 Christiani. Dissertatio de Ascctis praef. S. Jac. 
 Nis. Scrm. vi. Claudii Salmasii Notae in Tertull. 
 de Pallio.) [I. G. S.] 
 
 ASCHABIENSE CONCILIUM.—A coun¬ 
 cil was held, a.d. 763, at Ascheim, under Tas- 
 silo II., Duke of Bavaria, that passed 15 decrees 
 on discipline. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ASCLEPIADES, bishop and martyr, com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 18 {Mart. Rom. Vet.^. [C.] 
 
 ASH WEDNESDAY. [Lent.] 
 
 ASIATICUM CONCILIUM. — A council 
 was held, A.D. 245, in Asia Minor against Noetus, 
 but at what place is uncertain. [E. S. F.] 
 
 ASINARII (Tertull. Apol. c. xvi.), a term 
 of reproach against the early Christians. That 
 the Jews worshipped an ass, or the head of an 
 ass, was a current belief in many parts of the 
 Gentile world. Tacitus {Hist. v. 4) says that 
 there was a consecrated image of an ass in the 
 temple, the reason for this special honour being 
 that a herd of wild asses had been the means of 
 guiding the Jews, when they were in the desert, 
 to springs of water. Plutarch {Sympos. iv. 5, 2) 
 tells virtually the same story. Diodorus Siculus 
 says (lib. xxxiv. Frag.') that Antiochus Epiphanes 
 found in the temple a stone image representing 
 a man sitting upon an ass; but on the other 
 hand Josephus (c. Apion. ii. c. 7) adduces the 
 fact that no such image had been found in the 
 temple by any conqueror as an argument for the 
 groundlessness of the calumny. 
 
 The same belief appears to have prevailed in 
 reference to the early Christians. It is men¬ 
 tioned by both Tertullian {Ad Nat. i. 14; Apol. 
 xvi.) and Minucius Felix {Octav. 9 and 28), but, 
 though referred to in later times, appears to 
 have died out in the course of the 3rd century. 
 (The fact mentioned by Servetus, De Trin. Error. 
 c. 16, that he heard the same reproach made by 
 the Turks against the Christians in Africa is 
 probably to be connected with the mediaeval 
 “ Festival of the Ass ” rather than with the 
 earlier calumny.) 
 
 The origin of the reproach has been a subject 
 of various speculations:—(1) It has been con¬ 
 sidered to have arisen somewhere in the Gentile 
 world, and to have been applied to the Jews 
 before the Christian era. On this hypothesis 
 various explanations of it have been given. 
 Morinus {De Capite Asinino Deo Christiano, Dord¬ 
 recht, 1620) thought that there was a confusion 
 between the two words Chomer ("llOh), which is 
 used (?) for the “pot” of manna in the temple, 
 and Chanior (“lion), which means a “ wild ass,” 
 and that this confusion was confirmed by the 
 appearance of the pot of manna with its two large 
 ears. Hasaeus {De Onolatria olim Judaeis et Chris- 
 tianis unpacta, Erfurt, 1716) thought that the 
 use among the Jews (? more probably late Sama¬ 
 ritans) of the word “Ashima” ( = “name”) for 
 the more sacred word “Jehovah ” may have sug¬ 
 gested the perversion “ asinus ” to the Roman 
 soldiers; and Heinsius (Z>e Laude Asini, p. 186, 
 ed. 1629) thought that the ovpavds which the 
 Jews were reputed to worship (“ nil praeter nubes 
 et coeli numen adorant,” Juv. Sat. xiv. 97) was 
 corrupted into 6yos. (2) It has been considered 
 to have arisen in Egypt, and on this hypotliesis 
 two explanations have been given. Tanaquil 
 Faber {Epist. i. 6) thought that it was a corrup¬ 
 
 tion from the name of Onias, who built a Jewish 
 temple at Heliopolis; and Bochart {Hierozoic. i. 
 2, c. 18) thought that the Egyptians wilfully per¬ 
 verted the expression “Pi iao ” ( = “ mouth of 
 God ”) into “ Pieo,” which in an Egyptian voca¬ 
 bulary edited by Kircher signifies “ass.” (3) It 
 has been viewed as a calumny of the Jews against 
 the Christians, which was reflected back upon the 
 Jews themselves. In favour of this view it is 
 urged that Tertullian distinctly speaks of it as a 
 Jewish calumny; and against it is the prevalence 
 of the story in writers whom a Jewish calumny, 
 however industriously spread, would hardly 
 reach. (4) It has been regarded as having 
 originated from the use of the ass as a symbol 
 by some Gnostic sects. That the ass was thus 
 used is clear from the statement of Epiphanius 
 (c. Haeres. 26, 10 ; see also Origen, c. Cels. vi. 9), 
 Between these various hypotheses it is hardly 
 possible, in the absence of further evidence, tc 
 make a choice; the question must be left un¬ 
 decided. A slight additional interest has been 
 given to it by the discovery at Rome, in 1856, on 
 a wall under the western angle of the Palatine, 
 of a graffito, which forcibly recalls the story 
 mentioned by Tertullian. The apologist’s words 
 are {Ad. Nat. i. 14)—“ nuper quidam perditissi- 
 mus in ista civitate, etiam suae religionis de¬ 
 serter, solo detrimento cutis Judaeus .... pic- 
 turam in nos proposuit sub ista proscriptione 
 ONOCOETES. Is erat auribus canteriorum et 
 in toga, cum libro, altero pede ungulate. Et 
 credidit vulgus infami Judaeo.” The graffito in 
 question represents an almost similar caxdcature, 
 evidently directed against some Christian con¬ 
 vert of the 2nd century. Upon a cross is a 
 figure with a human body wearing an interula, 
 bxit with an ass’s head. On one side is another 
 figure lifting up his head, possibly in the attitude 
 of prayer. Underneath is written AAEEAMENOs 
 SEBETE ©EON (“ Alexamenos is worshipping 
 God”). The form of the letters points to the 
 graffito having been written towards the end of 
 the 2nd century, about the very time at which 
 Tertullian wrote (see P. Garrucci’s article, with 
 a copy of the graffito, in the Civilta Cattolica, 
 serie 3, vol. iv. p. 529). This graffito is now 
 preserved in the library of the Collegio Romano 
 in Rome. [E. H.] 
 
 ASPERGILLUM. The brush or twig used 
 for sprinkling Holy Water [Holy Water]. It 
 anciently was, or was said to be, of hyssop, a 
 plant supposed to possess cleansing virtues, from 
 its use in the Mosaic law, and the well-known 
 reference to it in the 51st Psalm. Thus, in the 
 Gregorian Sacramentary (p. 148) the bishop in 
 the consecration of a church, sprinkles the altar 
 seven times with hyssop. The modern French 
 name Goupil indicates that a fox’s brush was 
 some time used as an aspergillum. {Goupil for 
 Vulpicula, Ducange’s Glossary, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 ASPERSION. [Baptism.] 
 
 ASS, WORSHIP OF THE. [Asinarii.] 
 ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN 
 MARY. [Mary the Virgin, Festivals of.] 
 
 ASTERISCUS (sometimes called Stellula by 
 Latin writers). To prevent the veil from dis¬ 
 turbing the particles arranged on the discus or 
 paten, in preparation for the celebration of the 
 Eucharist, St. Chrys6stom is said to have invented 
 two small arches to suj)port it. These, when 
 
150 
 
 ASTERIUS 
 
 ATHEISTS 
 
 ])lacod so as to cross each other, resembled a star, 
 and hence were called aar^p or a(rri]pi(TKos, the 
 star; hence the priest, placing it over the paten, 
 is directed to say, “ And the star came and stood 
 over where the young child was.” In modern 
 times the arches are riveted together at the point 
 of intersection, but so loosely as to admit of one 
 arch being turned within the other for con¬ 
 venience of carriage. See woodcut. (Neale, 
 Eastern Churchy Introd. 350; Daniel, Codex 
 Liturgicus, iv. 336, 390.) [C.] 
 
 ASTERIUS, martyr, commemorated March 3 
 (^Mart. Eom. Vet.^. [C.] 
 
 ASTORGA, COUNCIL OF (Asturicense 
 Concilium), a.d. 446, condemned certain Mani- 
 chees, or Priscillianists (Cave; Mansi, vi. 490; 
 but omitted by Labbe). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ASTROLOGERS. No element of heathenism 
 was more difficult to eradicate than the belief 
 that the stars in their courses influenced the 
 lives of men, and that the destinies of individuals 
 and of nations might be foretold by those who 
 studied their combinations. Under the names of 
 Chald'iei (as representing those who were more 
 famous than any other people of the ancient 
 world for their devotion to this study), Mathe- 
 matici (in popular language this had become the 
 exclusive meaning of the word), Apotelesmatici 
 (as dealing with the aTroTeAeVyuoTa, or influences 
 of the stars), Genethliaci (as casting horoscopes 
 of the positions of the planets at the hour of 
 birth), they were to be found in every city of the 
 empire. They became on many gi-ounds objects 
 of suspicion to its police. They were cheats and 
 impostors; they brought in the foreign, eastern 
 superstitions of which Roman magistrates stood 
 in dread ; they might at any time play into the 
 hands of political rivals by predicting their suc¬ 
 cess as the favourites of heaven. The annals of 
 the empire accoi'diugly present a series of edicts 
 against them. They were banished from Rome 
 by Agrippa and Augustus (Dion. Cass. xlix. 43, 
 Ivi. 25), by Tiberius (Tacit. Ann. ii. 32 ; Sueton. 
 Tiber, c. 36), by Claudius (Tacit. Ann. xii. 52), 
 by Vitellius (Sueton. Vitell. 14). The frequent 
 repetition of the measure shews how ineradicable 
 was the evil. Sometimes the emperor himself, 
 Vespasian, in his eager ambition (Tacit. Hist. ii. 
 78), Domitian, in his restless suspicion, yielded 
 to their influence. Otho’s murder of Galba had 
 been prompted by their counsels. Over the 
 minds of most men, and yet more, of women, 
 they exercised an unbounded sway (Juven. vi. 
 553-568), often in proportion to the notoriety 
 which they had gained by being mixed up in 
 political or other mysteries, and were on that 
 account expelled from the city. 
 
 Christian feeling was opposed to the practice 
 
 on other grounds. It belonged to the system 
 of demon-worship and lying magic, which Scrip¬ 
 ture had forbidden. The astrologer was a child 
 of the devil. His art had come down from the 
 Egyptians and Chaldaeans (Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 i. 16, p. 132). It substituted the idea of des¬ 
 tiny for that of the providence of God, and 
 tampered with the sense of responsibility by 
 leading men to impute their vices to the stars. 
 (August, de Civ. Dei, v. 1; Tract, in Ps. Ixi.; cfe 
 Mathein. ; Greg. Nyss. Ep. contr. Fatum ; Tertull. 
 de Idol. c. ix. p. 156.) Some teachers pointed to 
 the case of Esau and Jacob, born in the same 
 hour yet with such different destinies, as a proof 
 that the system was false (August, de Doctr. 
 Christ, ii. 21). Some conceding that the heathen 
 world was subject to these influences, favourable 
 or malignant, held that baptism placed men in 
 another region in which they were set, and that 
 the “ new birth ” annulled the horoscope that 
 was cast for the first nativity. The action of 
 the Church was in accordance with the teaching 
 of its chief writers. The burning of the books 
 of those who used “ curious arts ” in Acts xix. 
 19, served as a precedent. Mathematici were to 
 give up their books to the bishop, or to burn 
 them (Constit. Apost. i. 4). Clergy of all orders 
 were forbidden to practise the art under pain of 
 excommunication (C Laod. c. 36). In two or 
 three instances the operation of the laws con¬ 
 nects itself with memorable names. Aquila, the 
 translator of the Old Testament, was said to 
 have been expelled from the Church on the 
 charge of being an astrologer (Epiphan. de Mens, 
 et Pond. § XV. t. ii. p. 171, but the narrative is 
 hardly more than a legend). Eusebius, of Emesa, 
 had to contend against the suspicions to which 
 his love of science exposed him, that he was 
 addicted to the fxipos airoT€\€(Tp.aTiKhu of astro¬ 
 logy (Sozom. II. E. iii. 6). It was one of the 
 crimes imputed to the Priscillianists of Spain 
 that they had revived the old superstitions of 
 the Mathematici, and had taught men that the 
 several parts of their body were under the con¬ 
 trol of the signs of the zodiac (August, de Ilaer. 
 Ixx.) [E. H. P.] 
 
 ASTURICENSE CONCILIUM. [Astorga.] 
 ASYI.UM. [Sanctuary.] 
 
 ASYNCRITUS, “Apostle,” commemorated 
 
 April 8 ((7a/. Bgz.'). [C.] 
 
 ATHANASIUS (1) Bishop of Alexandria; 
 Natale commemorated Jan. 18 ((7a/. Byzant .); 
 Jan. 26 and June 6 (Armen.); May 2 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.) ; Dec. 20 {Mart. Bedae) ; translation, May 2 
 {Cal. Byzant.) ; commemorated Maskarram 13 = 
 Sept. 16, and Ginbot 7 = May 2 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, Oct. 11 {Mart. Bedae, Hieron.). 
 
 ATHEISTS {&d€oi), a name of reproach 
 which was applied to the early Christi.ans. The 
 absence of material symbols of the Deity, of sac¬ 
 rifice, of temples, and of almost all the external 
 observances which constituted the religion of 
 contemporary heathendom, naturally induced a 
 popular cry that Christianity was a new form of 
 atheism. The cry was repe.ated by Jews as well 
 as by Gentiles (see Justin Mai*t. c. Tryph. cviii.). 
 It was a leading cause of the general animosity 
 against the Christians and the apologists were 
 at some pains to refute it (see especially Athenag. 
 Legat.pro Christ. 3 and 4). The following are the 
 
AUDIENTES 
 
 ATHENAGOKAS 
 
 chief allusions to the calumny outside the writings 
 of the apologists:—Eusebius (Zf. E. iv. 15) tells 
 us that the formula in which Polycarp was de¬ 
 sired by the proconsul to abjure his faith was 
 0Llp€ Tovs cLdfovs. Diou Cassius (Ixvii. 14-) relates 
 that Flavius Clemens, the uncle of Domitian, 
 whom some writers have identified with Clemens 
 Romauus, and who was no doubt a Christian, 
 was put to death for atheism. Lucian {Alexand. 
 Pseud, c. 25, cf. c. 38) says that Pontus was full 
 adfcov Kai Xpi(TTtapwu. Even so late as the 4th 
 century we find Licinius accusing Constantine of 
 having embraced ttjv &deov S6^av (Euseb. Vit. 
 Const, c. 15); and Julian summed up his objec¬ 
 tions to Christianity when he described it ar. 
 adeSr-qTa (Julian, Ep.ad Arsac. ap Sozom. H. E. 
 V. 16). But by that time the Christian fathers 
 had already begun to turn the tables upon their 
 adversaries and atheism became a reproach, not 
 of Paganism against Christianity, but of Chris¬ 
 tianity against Paganism (see Clem. Alex. Pro- 
 trept. p. 11). [E. H.] 
 
 ATHENAGOKAS, with ten disciples and 
 five priests, commemorated July 23 (Cal. 
 Armen.'). [t!.] 
 
 ATHENOGENES, martyr, and ten disciples, 
 commemorated July 16 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 ATRIUM, the court attached to churches 
 in the earlier centuries. It was usually placed 
 before the front of the church, and surrounded 
 by porticoes. In the centre of the open area 
 was a fountain, or at least a cantharus [Can- 
 THARUS], a large vessel containing water for ab¬ 
 lution. This fountain was sometimes covered 
 with a roof and surrounded by railings. The 
 atrium was in the earlier ages considered an im¬ 
 portant, almost indispensable adjunct to at any 
 rate the larger churches. Eusebius describes 
 (Eccles. Hist. x. 4, § 39) the atrium with its 
 four porticoes in his account of the church built 
 by St. Paulinus at Tyre; and atria dating from 
 the 5th century existed at St. Peter's and S. 
 Paolo f. 1. M. at Rome. Examples, though not 
 dating from the period with which this work 
 is concerned, may be seen in several churches 
 at Rome, as S. Clemente, S. Cecilia, and others, 
 and indeed elsewhere. In the ruins of the basi- 
 .ica of S. Stefano, in Via Latina, the atrium, in¬ 
 stead of occupying its normal place, is placed by 
 the side of the apse, the reason probably being 
 that the Via Latina ran past the apse, and that 
 those who wished to enter the church from that 
 great thoroughfare would thus pass through the 
 atrium. Where, however, no important street 
 or public building prevented the architect from 
 fully developing his plans, the atrium, it should 
 seem, during the whole period treated of in this 
 work (and indeed until a later period), in Italy 
 at least, and probably elsewhere, formed a part 
 of every important church. [A. N.] 
 
 ATTIGNV, COUNCILS OF (Attiniacen- 
 8IA Consilia), held at Attigny (Attiniacum), a 
 town of France, on the river Aisne, N.E. of 
 Rheims.—I. a.d. 765, provincial, under Ripin 
 (Mansi, xii. 674). 
 
 II. A.D. 822, at which the Emperor Louis did 
 public penance, “de omnibus quae publice perpe- 
 ram gessit,” and especially for his cruelty to 
 his nephew Bernard (Mansi, xiv. 403). 
 
 III. A.D. 834, November, under Ludovicus 
 Pius, a synod of “ the whole empire,” passed 
 
 151 
 
 some canons on behalf of the Church, and re¬ 
 ferred a criminal cause, brought before them 
 by the emperor, to the state tribunal (Mansi, 
 xiv. 655). [A. W. H.] 
 
 ATTINIACENSE CONCILIUM. [At¬ 
 tigny.] 
 
 AUBERTUS or AUTBERTUS, bishop 
 and confessor, commemorated Dec. 13 (Mart. 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AUCTOR, bishop, commemorated Aug. 9 
 (Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AUDACTES, martyr, commemoi’ated Oct. 24 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 AUDACTUS. [Adauctus.] 
 
 AUDAX, martyr, commemorated July 9 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 AUDIENTES (^ AKpoct>p.^voi). Two stages 
 have to be noted in the history and significance 
 of this word. Down to the time of Novatus and 
 the consequent development of the penitential 
 system of the Church, it is used as equivalent 
 to catechumen. The Audierdes are those who 
 are present in the Church, but are not yet bap¬ 
 tized, and who therefore, in the nature of the 
 case, were not present during the passages of 
 the Fideles, or the yet more sacred service which 
 followed. They heard the psalms, the lessons, 
 the sermon, and then left (Tertull. de Poenit. 
 c. vi., vii.; Cypr. Ep. 13). At Carthage they 
 were placed under the special care of a catechist 
 or Audientium Doctor (Cypr. Ep. 31). The trea¬ 
 tise of Augustine, de catechizandis rudibus, was 
 written for such a catechist, and shews fully 
 what was the nature of the instruction given. 
 The word seems to be used with somewhat of 
 the same A’^agueuess by Augustine (Serm. 132). 
 There is no trace at this period, if indeed at 
 any time in the West, of a distinct position for 
 them in the place whei'e Christians met for 
 worship. 
 
 In the East, however, we find from the time 
 of Gregory Thaumaturgiis onwards a more syste¬ 
 matic classification, and that one made subser¬ 
 vient to an elaborate penitential system. The 
 Audientes are the second in a graduated series of 
 those who, as catechumens or members of the 
 Church, have fallen, and need to be restored. 
 Outside the Church stood the Flentes (KXaiSpLevoi) 
 mourning over their guilt, catching only the 
 indistinct sounds of what was passing within, 
 exposed to sun or rain. Then within the 
 narthex^ the portico in one sense outside the 
 church, but communicating with it by open 
 doors, were the Audientes (Greg. Thaum. Can. 
 xi.). They might stay there and listen, like those 
 who bore the same name in the older system, till 
 the sermon was over. Then the deacon bade 
 them depart along with the unbelievers (Const. 
 Apost. viii. 5), and they had not the privilege of 
 joining in any prayers. After a year thus passed 
 they came within the church, as Flectentes 
 (youvK\ivovTfs), joining in the prayers up to 
 the commencement of the proper Eucharistic 
 service, but kneeling in their contrition. Lastly, 
 they became Consistentes (<Tvvi(TTa.iifvoi), stand¬ 
 ing with those in full communion with the 
 Church, but not yet admitted themselves to that 
 privilege. Such was the ideal system laid down 
 by the Council of Nicaea (c. xi.), elaborated by 
 Basil (Can. xxii., Ixxv.), and more or less acted 
 
152 
 
 AUDIEXTIA 
 
 AUrjUSTIXUS 
 
 on throughout the churches of the East. It 
 brought with it, in the risk of degradation from 
 a higher order to one of shame and dishonour, 
 from the position of full membership to any one 
 of them, a system of secondary punishments the 
 actual effect of which it is not easy to estimate. 
 [Catechumens ; Penitents.] [E. H. P.] 
 AUDIEXTIA EPISCOPALIS. This 
 forms one of the heads or titles in the first book 
 of Justinian’s Codex, and is there used in rela¬ 
 tion to an authority, not only in spiritual but 
 also in certain secular matters, conferred upon 
 the bishops of the Church. In conjunction with 
 the temporal magistrates, they were empowered 
 to take part in managing the revenues of cities, 
 the guardianship of young persons, and various 
 other matters of a civil nature (see Guizot, Hist, 
 of Civilisation in Europe, Lecture II., as to the 
 influence which the Church thus exercised in 
 society). But the phrase more especially de¬ 
 notes the power given to the bishops of hearing 
 and deciding disputes as to temporal rights in 
 certain cases. Thus we find {Cod. i. tit. 4. s. 8) 
 “si qui ex consensu apud sacrae legis antistitem 
 iitigare voluerint, non vetabuntur. Sed expo¬ 
 nent ur illius in civili duntaxat negotio, more 
 arbitri sponte residentis, judicium ; ” and {Ibid. 
 s. 9) “ Episcopale judicium ratum sit omnibus, 
 qui se audiri a sacerdotibus elegerint; eamque 
 eorum judicationi adhibendam esse reverentiam 
 jubemus, quam vestris deferri necesse est potesta- 
 tibus, a quibus non licet provocare, &c.” Two 
 limitations appear on the face of these passages : 
 —1. That the matter in controversy must be of 
 a civil character, no criminal cases being to be 
 thus decided. 2. That both parties to the dis¬ 
 pute must voluntarily agree to have their cause 
 thus tried. The result therefore is to make the 
 bishop an authoritative arbitrator, whenever the 
 parties submitted themselves to his decision. 
 This repeats what had been previously autho¬ 
 rized by Arcadius and Honorius (see Theod. 
 Codex. De Jurisdict. ii. 1), and by Valentinian 
 III. ; and, indeed, was perhaps little more than 
 an acceptance and recognition on the part of the 
 state of a custom which had long prevailed in 
 Christian communities, of bringing their disputes 
 before their Christian superiors instead of before 
 heathen judges, in accordance with the words of 
 St. Paul (1 Cor. vi.). At one period, however, 
 there is some ground to believe that the secular 
 power of Rome was inclined to go much further. 
 According to Eusebius {Vit. Const, iv. 27) and 
 Sozomen (i. 9), Constantine ordained that either 
 pai’ty in a dispute of a civil nature might select 
 the bishop as his judge, even against the will of 
 the other party ; and that the episcopal decision 
 should be conclusive, and should be executed by 
 the temporal authorities. This compulsory set¬ 
 ting aside of the ordinary tribunals of the Roman 
 Empire at the pleasure of either litigant, did not 
 long endure, and seems to have been superseded 
 by the more moderate principle .adopted by Arca¬ 
 dius and Honorius. Indeed the le.arned commen¬ 
 tator Gothofred, who is followed by Bingham 
 {Antiq. ii. 7, 3), doubts whether Constantine ever 
 really made any such decree. Later writers, 
 however, have not shared these doubts (see 
 Herzog, Eeal. Encycl. sub voce, “ audientia Epis- 
 copi.”). This alleged decree was in later ages 
 revived in the west, being then attributed to 
 Theodosius. In that form it was accepted by 
 
 Charlemagne {Capit. vi. 306), passed into the 
 collections of laws, and finally found its way into 
 the Decretum of Gratian (Part II. causa xi. 
 quaest. i. 35). Innocent III. lays stress upon it 
 (Decretal. Greg. i. lib. 2, tit. i. 13), and indeed 
 in this sh.ape it was well calculated to minister 
 to the Papal pretensions. [B. S.] 
 
 AUDIFAX, martyr, commemorated Jan. 20 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUDOEXUS or ALTJOIXUS (St. Ouen), 
 bishop of Rouen, commemorated Aug. 24 {Mari. 
 Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 AUFIXUS. Natalis in Africa, Oct. 16 {M, 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUGEXTIUS. In Africa, Jan. 4 {Mart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUGTJLUS, bishop and martyr, comme¬ 
 morated Feb. 7 {Mart. Bedae, Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUGURIES. [Divinations.] 
 
 AUGUSTA, virgin, commemorated July 28 
 {Mart. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 AUGUSTALIS, commemorated at Arles, 
 Sept. 7 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUGUSTIXE’S OAK, Conferences at, be¬ 
 tween Augustine of Canterbury and the British 
 bishops:—1. In A.D. 602 or 603, and probably 
 at Aust on the Severn, or some spot near to it, 
 with a view to induce the British bishops to give 
 up their Easter Rule, and to co-operate with 
 Augustine in preaching to the Saxons. The first 
 conference (B.aed. ii. 2) was only preliminary 
 (Augustine, however, working a miracle at it, 
 acc. to Bede), and led to—II. A more foi*mal 
 conference shortly after, in the same year, at the 
 same place, at which seven British bishops were 
 present, with “ many learned men,” especially 
 from Bangor monastery (near Chester), then 
 under Dinoth as its abbat. On this occasion 
 Augustine limited his demands to three, con¬ 
 formity in keeping Easter, and in the baptismal 
 rite, and co-operation in preaching to the Saxons : 
 suppressing, if Bede’s account is complete, all 
 claim of the jurisdiction which Gregory the Great 
 had bestowed upon him over the British bishops, 
 and saying nothing of the tonsure; but disgust¬ 
 ing the Britons by refusing to stand up at their 
 approach—a token, according to the words of a 
 certain anchorite whom they had consulted, that 
 he was not a man of God, and therefore was 
 not to be followed. The conference accordingly 
 broke up without any other result than that of 
 drawing from Augustine some angry words, 
 which unfortunately came true a dozen yeai-s 
 afterwards, w'hen he was dead, in the slaughter 
 of the Bangor monks at Chester (Baed. ih.). The 
 baptismal difterences have been conjectured by 
 Kiinstmann to relate to trine immersion, by 
 Dr. Rock (upon the better evidence of the 
 Stowe Missal) to have referred to the washing 
 of the feet which the Britons are supposed to 
 have attached to baptism; but both are con¬ 
 jectures only. For the date, locality, and his¬ 
 tory of these conferences, see Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Councils, iii. 40, 41. And for the well-known 
 “ Answer of Dinoth,” which is plainh’^ the 
 work of some mediaeval Welsh antiquarv, see 
 ib. i. 122. [A. W' H.] 
 
 Ali’GCSTIXUS. (1) Martyr at Nicomedia, 
 commemorated May 7 {Mari. Rom. Vet., Hieron.). 
 
AUTOCEPHALI 
 
 AUGUSTODUNENSE 
 
 (2) Bishop and confessor, Apostle of England, 
 May 26 {Martyrol. Bedae, Adonis). 
 
 (3) Commemorated at Rome Aug. 22 (if. 
 Hicron.). 
 
 (4) Bishop of Hippo, confessor, Aug. 28 (^Mart. 
 Bom. Vet., Ilieron., et Bcdae). In Mart. Hieron.,^ 
 under May 26, “ in Africa Agustini Episcopi 
 under Aug. 28, “ Ipono regio Depositio Agustini 
 Episcopiso that May 26 seems to have been 
 given to St. Augustine of Canterbury at a date 
 later than that of Mart. Hkron. His name is 
 recited in the Gregorian Canon. 
 
 (5) Presbyter, Oct. 7 (if. Bedae). 
 
 (6) “ In Cappadocia Agustini Episcopi,” Nov. 
 
 17 (df. Hieron. ). [c.] 
 
 AUGUSTODUNENSE CONCILIUM. 
 [Autun, Council of.] 
 
 AUGUSTUS. (1) Of Alexandria, Jan. 11 
 (if. Hkron.). 
 
 (2) Martyr, commemorated May 7 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (3) Confessor, commemorated at Bourges, Oct. 
 
 7 (if. Hkron.). [C.] 
 
 AURELIANENSE CONCILIUM. 
 [Orleans, Council of.] 
 
 AUREOLA. [Nimbus.] 
 
 AURELIUS, commemorated April 26 {Mart. 
 Hkron.). [C.] 
 
 AUSTERIUS, commemorated Oct. 19 {Mart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUSTREBERTANA, abbess, commemo¬ 
 rated Feb. 10 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUTHENTIC. The sounds connecting the 
 final (in Gregorian music) with its octave, or a 
 . melody in which they only are employed, were 
 called Authentic, in contradistinction to those con¬ 
 necting the 4th below the final with its 8ve, the 
 5th above it, which were called Plagal (v. Plagal). 
 In Ambrosian music authentic scales only were 
 employed, and of these only four; the Phrygian 
 (D—d), Dorian (E—e), Hypolydian (F—f), and 
 Hypophrygian (G—g) of the Greek system. The 
 Aeolian (A—a) and the Ionian (C—c), subse¬ 
 quently added to the number of the church 
 scales (tones or modes), were subjected to the 
 same classification. Authentic scales are cha¬ 
 racterised by the harmonic division (6:4:3) 
 of their octaves ; e.g. C—g—c ; the plagal by the 
 arithmetical division (4:3:2); e. g. G—C—g. 
 Authentic melodies are thought to have gene¬ 
 rally greater dignity and strength than plagal. 
 A good modern example of the former is the 
 well-known German chorale Ein feste Burg ist 
 wiser Gott, and of the latter our Evening Hymn, 
 attributed to Talli§; and it would be difficult 
 to find in pure melodic music better examples 
 of the sublime and the beautiful. But the tune 
 known in England as the Old Hundredth (essen¬ 
 tially plagal) certainly contravenes this theory 
 in a very striking instance and manner. 
 
 The relations of subject and answer in the 
 modern tonal fugue (as when C—g are “ an¬ 
 swered” not by g—d but by g—C) obvio.usly 
 grew out of the division of scales into authentic 
 and plagal. [J. H.] 
 
 AUTifeSIODORENSE CONCILIUM. 
 [Auxerrk, Council of.] 
 
 AUTOCEPHALI {A.vTOK((pa\oi, from avrhi 
 and Kec^aATj), a name given by canonists and in 
 
 153 
 
 the Notitiae —1. To Metropolitans who remained 
 independent of Patriarchs after Patriarchs were 
 established, i. e., who then continued still to be 
 what all Metropolitans originally were. So the 
 Cyprian archbishop {Cone. Ephes. a.d. 431, act. 
 vii.; and again, as late as Cone. Ti-ull. a.d. 691, 
 can. 39, at a time w'hen the Cypriots had fled 
 from Cyprus itself, and had taken refuge in the 
 ^Enapx'io. 'E\\r}(nr6vTios) : to whom Balsamon 
 joins the archbishops of Bulgaria and of Iberia 
 (Georgia). The privilege had been given to the 
 former of these two by Justinian. (See, how¬ 
 ever, Le Quien, Oriens Christ., vol. i. 96.) The 
 latter would seem to have been at first reckoned 
 as subject to the Patiuarchate of Antioch, and 
 then to Constantinople; but from a.d. 450 he 
 styled himself avTouiipaKos, and appears to have 
 been considered as such (Malan, Hist, of Georg. 
 Ch. 35, 196, &c.). The Armenian Church is also 
 so styled in the Notitiae (see Bingh. II. xviii. 2); 
 but it would rather appear to have claimed to 
 be in itself a patriarchate, inasmuch as Nerses 
 its second bishop, present at Cone. Constant n., 
 A.D. 381, styled himself Patriarch and Katho- 
 licos of Armenia, as did thenceforward his suc¬ 
 cessors (Malan, Life of Gregory the Illuminator, 
 27). RaA’’enna in the west is also said to have 
 arrogated the privilege of “ autocephaiism,” and 
 only to have surrendered it under the pontifi¬ 
 cate of Pope Donus, a.d. 676-679. Roman (and 
 Welsh) Britain, which is usually adduced as 
 another western instance, and which undoubtedly 
 had no relations to the Roman patriarchate or 
 any other for three centuries (400-700),—as 
 neither had Celtic Ii’eland nor Columban Scot¬ 
 land,—was rather a case of bishops who still 
 remained without a metropolitan, the legends 
 of the archbishoprics of Caerleon or of St. David’s, 
 or indeed of any archbishopric in the island at 
 all except as an honoraiy and unmeaning title, 
 being without any historical authority whatever. 
 The epithet is applied to Britain only by late 
 controversial writers. 
 
 2. A name given to a class of bishops whe 
 came to exist in the 9th century in the eastei n 
 patriarchates, as Constantinople, Jerusalem, An¬ 
 tioch, who were dependent directly upon their 
 patriarch without the intervention of a metro¬ 
 politan, and who might be more accurately (and 
 sometimes were) called archbishops or metropo¬ 
 litans themselves, only without suffragans (see 
 authorities in Bingh. II. xviii. 3), 
 
 3. The name might be applied, on the same 
 principle upon which it is attached to metropo¬ 
 litans whose independence survived the establish¬ 
 ment of patriarchs, to bishops whose independence 
 survived the establishment of metropolitans. But 
 the origin of metropolitans was too early and too 
 universal to allow of any ancient authority sig¬ 
 nalizing possible temporary exceptions of this 
 kind by a name. The British bishops, however, 
 appear to be (substantially) a case in point. 
 And Valesius, although inaccurately in point of 
 fact, has applied the name to the Bishop of Jeru¬ 
 salem before that Bishop became himself a 
 patriarch (Bingh. ib. 4). 
 
 4. No doubt also the name mi;ht be applied, 
 as Bingham suggests, to any case where there 
 happened to be only one bishop in the country, 
 as in Scythia in the time of Sozomen. 
 
 Aeephalus {'AufipaKos) is said to be sometimes 
 used for Autoeephalus. 
 
154 
 
 AUTONOMVS 
 
 BALANCE 
 
 (Bingliam ; Brerewood, Patriarch, Gov. of 
 Anc. Ch.; Cave, Dissert, on Gov. of Anc. Ch.; 
 Beveridge, Pandet.t. ; Du Cange ; Meursius; 
 Suicer.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 AUTONOMtJS, commemorated June 24 {Cal. 
 Armen.). [C.] 
 
 AUTUN, COUNCIL OF (Augustodun- 
 ENSE Concilium), a.d. 670, under Bishop Leo- 
 degar, passed some canons respecting monks, 
 and one enforcing the Athanasian creed (Mansi, 
 xi. 123). [A. W. H.J 
 
 AUVEEGNE, COUNCILS OF. [Cler- 
 MONT, Council of.] 
 
 AUXENTIUS, holy father, commemorated 
 Feb. 14 (Cal. Byzant.) ; July 28 (.Mart. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AUXEREE, COUNCILS OF (Autissiodo- 
 RENSiA Concilia). I. a.d. 578, diocesan, where 
 the bishop, with his 7 abbats, and 34 presbyters 
 and 3 deacons, passed 45 canons, and among 
 others, one requiring a synod of abbats every 
 November and of presbyters every May (Mansi, 
 ix. 911). 
 
 II. A.D. 841, provincial, gathered by the Em¬ 
 perors Louis and Charles to consult respecting 
 the slaughter in the war between them, for which 
 a three days’ fast was appointed (Mansi, xiv. 
 786). [A. W. H.] 
 
 AVE MAEIA. [Hail Mary.] 
 
 AVITUS. (1) Bishop, deposition, Feb. 5 
 {Mart. Hieron.). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, commemorated June 17 {Mart. 
 Bedue). 
 
 (3) Confessor, June 23 {Ib. et Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 AZARIAS, martyr, with Ananias and Misael, 
 commemorated Dec. 16 {Mart. Rom. Vet.) ; April 
 23 {Mart. Bedae) ; Dec. 17 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 AZYME. [Elements.] 
 
 B 
 
 BABYLAS. (1) Bishop, martyr at Antioch, 
 A.D. 253; commemorated Jan. 24 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Hieron., Bedae)', Sept. 4 {Cal. Byz.). 
 
 (2) Saint, Natale, June 11 {M. Bedae), [C.] 
 
 BACCANCELDENSE CONCILIUM. 
 [Bapchild, Council of.] 
 
 BACCHUS. (1) Secundicerius, martyr, a.d. 
 290; commemorated Oct. 7 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Cal. Byz.). (2) ‘‘ Passio S. Bacchi,” Sept. 25 
 {M. Bedae). [C.] 
 
 BACULUS. [Staff.] 
 
 BAGAJENSE CONCILIUM, Donatist, at 
 Vagais or Bagais, in Numidia, a.d. 394, where 
 310 bishops, under Primian the Donatist Primate 
 of Carthage, condemned Maximian, the Catholic 
 bishop of that city (St. Aug. Cont. Crescon. iii. 
 53, V. 10, 0pp. X. 465, 490; Tillemont, M. E. vi. 
 165; Labb. ii. 1154). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BAGAN, virgin, commemorated with Eu¬ 
 genia, Jan. 22 {Cal. Armen.). [C.] 
 
 BAHED. The name of a fast in the Ethiopic 
 Calendar, .observed on Ter 10 = Jan. 5 (Neale, 
 Eastern Ch. hit. p. 810). [C.] 
 
 BALANCE (Symbol). The balance appears 
 sometimes upon Christian tombs. A sepulchral 
 
 stone from the cemetery of St. Cyriac (Aringh’, 
 Roma Sv})t. ii. 139) displays this instrument in 
 conjunction with a crown; it may also be seen 
 upon a marble slab taken by Bosio from a 
 cemetery of the Via Latina (Aringhi, ii. 658), 
 accompanied by a house, a fish, by a doubtful 
 object which has been taken wrongly for a can¬ 
 delabrum, and by a mummy set up in a niche. 
 A monument of the same nature reproduced in 
 the work of M. Perret {Inscript. No. 37) repre¬ 
 sents a balance with a weight (see woodcut). De 
 Rossi {Roma Sott. T. i. p. 86) notices another 
 example in the church of St. Cecilia at Rome. 
 
 balance with weight, from the Catacombs. 
 
 Some antiquaries, as Mamachi {Origines v. 98) 
 have supposed that the balance is symbolical of 
 judgment or justice. And it is true that it is 
 found, doubtless with this signification, on coins 
 of Gordian, Diocletian, and other emperors of 
 pagan Rome. The mediaeval artists again have 
 frequently made use of this idea. We may see 
 it, for instance, in the tympanum of the great 
 doorway of Notre Dame in Paris, and in that of 
 the cathedral of Autun, where it may be con¬ 
 sidered as a translation in sculpture of the words 
 of the Apociilypse (xxii. 12). But in the first 
 two instances which we have mentioned, and 
 which are almost the only examples transmitted 
 to us by Christian antiquity properly so called, 
 it is important to observe that mention is made 
 of the contract entered into between the pur¬ 
 chasers of the tombs and the fossores Montanus 
 and Calevius: VRSICTNVS ED QVINTILIANA 
 SE BIBI (vivLs) CONPARAVERVNT LOCV A 
 iMONTANV. II CALEVIVS BENDIDIT (ven- 
 didit) AVIN TRISOMY. 
 
 It is therefore more natural to suppose that 
 the balance symbolises purchase and sale, per aes 
 et libram. 
 
 Sometimes upon tombs the balance is simply 
 indicative of a trade, as for example on the slab 
 of a Roman monever found in the cemetery of 
 St. Priscilla (Marini PapiH diplom. p. 332): 
 AYR. YENERANDO. NVM || QYI. YIXIT. 
 ANN. XXXV II ATILIA. VALENTINA. 
 FECIT II MARITO. BENEMERENTL IN. PACE. 
 Bronze balances were found in a Frankish se¬ 
 pulchre of the Merovingian period by the Abbe' 
 Cochct {Sepult. Gauloises, p. 253 and following), 
 where in all probability they indicated the tomb 
 of a monetary officer, or fiscal agent, or accountant 
 of some kind. This is rendered almost certain 
 by the fact that a balance in the Faussett col¬ 
 lection {Inventorium Sepulchrale, p. 43; pi. xvii. 
 fig. 1, 2, 3), was found in the same tomb with a 
 “ touch-stone ” for the trial of metals. Another, 
 found like the preceding in an ancient tomb in 
 Kent, is described and figui’ed by Mr. Roach 
 I Smith in Colle(Aav.ea Antigm, vol. iii. pp. 12-14: 
 
BALBINA 
 
 pi. iv. fig. 1 (Mai-tigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chr^t. 
 p. 67). [C.] 
 
 BALBINA. ( 1 ) Virgin, martyr at Rome, 
 A.D. 130; commemorated March 31 (Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae'). 
 
 (2) Natale, Oct. 6 (M. Bedae). 
 
 BALDEGUNDIS, deposition at Poictiers, 
 Fob. 11 (Mart. Hieron.). 
 
 BANNER. [Labarum; Vexillum.] 
 
 BAPCHILD, COUNCIL OF (Baccancel- 
 DENSE Concilium), or rather Witenagemot. 
 ( 1 ) Between A.D. 696 & 716, at Bapehild, near 
 Sittingbourne, in Kent; a Kentish Witenagemot, 
 at which abbesses and presbyters, as well as 
 bishops and abbats, were present, and where the 
 celebrated Privilege of Wihtred was enacted, 
 granting to the Kentish metropolitan a free 
 election in the case of abbats, abbesses, priests, 
 and deacons. The date cannot be precisely 
 determined; and is further confused by a dis¬ 
 crepancy between the Canterbury Register and 
 the Textus Eoffensis on the one hand, and the 
 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle on the other, respecting 
 the dates of Gebmund and Tobias, successively 
 bishops of Rochester. Spuiious forms of the 
 Privileginm extend it to the election of bishops 
 and to the whole of Saxon England. See Haddan 
 and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 238-247.— (2) A.D. 798, 
 if at all; said to have been held under Kenulf, 
 king (not of Kent, but) of Mercia, and Archbishop 
 Athelard, with bishops (two lists, both spurious), 
 abbats, and an archdeacon; and to have prohi¬ 
 bited lay interference with churches and mo¬ 
 nasteries, in compliance with a mandate of Pope 
 Leo III. The decree, however, is verbatim that 
 of the (genuine) Council of Cloveshoo of A.D. 803, 
 from which also one of the lists of bishops is 
 partially taken (Kemble, Cod. Dipl. 1018, 1024, 
 Wilk. i. 162 ; Haddan and Stubbs, G.unc. iii. 
 517). The copy" in Reg. A 1 at Canterbury, 
 however has no signatures. [A. W. H.] 
 
 BAPTISM. This Article is arranged as 
 follows:—I. Terms used to designate Baptism. 
 
 II. The Order of Baptism in various Churches. 
 
 III. The several Parts of the entire Ritual, viz.: 
 Consecration of the Water; Interrogations and 
 Responses (Renunciation and Profession); Pre- 
 pai-atory Unction ; Unclothing of the Catechu¬ 
 men ; the Immersion; the Baptismal J'ormula; 
 the subsequent Ceremonies, viz. : the Kiss, the 
 lighted Tapers, the white Garments, the red 
 and white Thread, the Chaplet, and the washing 
 of Feet. IV. At what times, in what places, 
 and by whom. Baptism was administered ; with 
 what matter, in what mode, and at what age. 
 V. Graphic I'epresentations of Baptism. VI. Li¬ 
 terature. The subject of Sponsors, and that of 
 Baptismal Names, are treated separately in their 
 alphabetical order. 
 
 I. Terms used to designate Baptism. 
 
 § 1. BaTTTi^etv and derived words. The meaning 
 of this verb is not, as commonly asserted, identical 
 with that of iSaTTreii/, to “dip,” but presented this 
 idea under special modifications characteristic of 
 the various ages in which it was employed. In 
 classicjil usage it was commonly used meta¬ 
 phorically in speaking of one “ drenched ” with 
 wine, “overwhelmed” with misfortunes, and 
 the like. Polybius uses it (iii. 72) in speaking 
 ot troops passing through water which reached 
 
 BAPTISM loo 
 
 up to their breasts; fx6\is k'cos rwu jaacTTwi/ 
 ot TTcfot ^aTTTL^dfXfvoi Si4l3atj/ov. In the Canon¬ 
 ical Books of the LXX it occurs but once 
 in speaking of Naaman either “ washing ” or 
 “dipping ” himself in the Jordan (1 Kings v. 14). 
 In the Apocrypha, in speaking of one washing 
 herself (eSairr'iCexo iirl rris TTTjyrjs, Jud. xii. 7) 
 at a spring; and again (Ecclus. 24, 37 al. 29) of 
 one washing himself after touching a dead body; 
 both cases having reference to ceremonial puri¬ 
 fication. In the New Testament it is occasionally 
 used metaphorically (Matt. xx. 22; Mark x. 38, 
 .39 ; Luke xii. 50). But it generally has reference 
 either to Jewish ceremonial purification (Mark 
 vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 28), or to Christian Baptism. 
 
 § 2. AovTphr, or lavacrum, fons. These 
 
 terms (laver and font) have reference, like the 
 last noticed, to the outward circumstances of the 
 Baptismal Rite. Aovrphv, the Latin lavacrum, 
 means literally, “ what serves for washing the 
 body,” that is, either the vessel, or the water so 
 used. St. Paul twice (Eph. v. 26, and Tit. iii. 5) 
 uses the word in reference to bapti.sm. In Justin 
 Martyr it appears as an evidently technical de¬ 
 signation of baptism (rh Aovrphu iroiovvTai, Apol. 
 I. c. 79), and from that time onward the word is 
 repeatedly used. The terms irriy^ and fons, 
 meaning a spring, or a pool fed by a spring, date 
 as technical terms from the time when either 
 natural pools (see § 39) in the open air, or bap¬ 
 tisteries supplied, as was commonly the case, by 
 natural springs, were made use of for the purpose 
 of Christian baptism. 
 
 § 3. Terms expressive of doctrine. —The most 
 common of these doctrinal designations are those 
 which have reference to the idea of Regeneration 
 —in Greek avayivpqois, and more rarely naAiy- 
 yeu^tria and deoy4v€(ris, in Latin regeneratio, 
 secunda or spiritualis nativitas, renasci, and re- 
 nascentia. Terms of regeneration had been used 
 in a figurative sense both by classical authors 
 and by Hellenists, such as Philo and Josephus, 
 before they were adopted into the language 
 of Christianity. They served to express the idea 
 of an entire change of condition, as for ex¬ 
 ample the passing out of a state of misery, of 
 slavery or of subjection, into a state of well¬ 
 being, of freedom and of independence. (See 
 Wetsteiu on Matt. xix. 28 ; Trench’s Sgnonyms of 
 N.T. pp. 71, 72. Add Tertullian, de Bapt. c. 5.) 
 The Rabbinical use of such terms more directly 
 illustrates the Christian meaning of these words, 
 but the ultimate date to which that use is to 
 be traced is open to doubt. (See Lightfoot on 
 John iii. 4; 0pp. tom. ii. p. 610, fol. Rotterdami 
 1687 ; Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. i. p. 704, Dresdao 
 4, 1733 ; Carpzovii Annotationes in Th. Goodwini 
 Mosen et Aaronem, Francofurti 4, 1748, lib. i. 
 cap. iii. § vii.) 
 
 § 4. 'Zeppay'ts, Signaculum, &c. Baptism is 
 not unfrequently spoken of as “ the seal,” or 
 more fully “the seal of the Lord,” (Clemens 
 Alex.), and that partly perhaps with reference to 
 the language of Holy Scripture (2 Cor. i. 22, 
 Eph. i. 13, and iv. 30). But other thoughts were 
 also connected with the term, as e.g. that of the 
 sign of the cross (this being more especially the 
 seal) being the seal of the Christian covenant or of 
 the “spiritual circumcision.” (St. Cyril. Hieros. 
 Cotech. V. Mera tI/v tt'kttiu rqv trufu/xaTiK^ 
 Xa/x^dvopfu (TippayiSa. 'Aylcv npev/Liart 5ia to 
 Kot/rpov TrepiTfppopepoi.) Hence further modi- 
 
 a 
 
156 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 fioatioas cf the same idea, such as “ Character 
 Dominicus,” the mark impressed by the Lord 
 (St. Augustine de Bapt. c. Donat, lib. vi. cap. i. 
 and Epist. 184 Ws, c. vi. § 23. Migne, tom. ii, 
 p. 803); SefTTroretas arjiuLe'iooa-is, a mark indicative 
 ot“ ownership or dominion (St. Greg. Naz. Oi\ xl.; 
 comi)are St. Isa^ic of Armenia, quoted below, 
 § 101); or again the Nota Militaris (St. Augus¬ 
 tine de Bapt. lib. i. cap. iv.), ^ too (TTpariwrov 
 (Tcppay'is (St. Chrysostom in ii. Cor. Horn. iii. ad 
 fin.), the mark put upon soldiers to ensure their 
 recognition. 
 
 § 0 . Terms of Initiation or Illumination. —The 
 idea of baptism being an initiation (pvr)(Tis, 
 p.v<TTayo}y'ia, TeXery?) into Christian mysteries, 
 an enlightenment (ppoiricrpdts, illurninatio, illus- 
 tratio) of the darkened understanding, belonged 
 naturally to the primitive ages of the Church, 
 when Christian doctrine was still taught under 
 great reserve to all but the baptized, and when 
 adult baptism, requiring previous instruction, 
 was still of prevailing usage. Most of the Fathers 
 interpreted the (pcariarOfVTcs, “once enlightened,” 
 of Heb. vi. 4, as referring to baptism. In the 
 middle of the second century (Justin M. Apol. ii. 
 Ka\€?Tai Se tovto rh Kovrpov (pwriaphs ws (t>(o- 
 Ti^o/j.€j/ccv TTju Siduoiav tS>v Tavra piardavdvTujv') 
 we find proof that “illumination” was already 
 a received designation of baptism. And at a 
 later time (St. Cyril Hieros. Catech. passim)^ oi 
 (pwTi^opevoi (illuminandi) occurs as a technical 
 term for those under preparation for baptism, 
 01 (pcortaBej/res of those already baptised. So oi 
 ap.vr]Toi and oi p.ep.vr)pevoi, the uninitiated and 
 the initiated, are contrasted by Sozomen, H. E. 
 lib. i. c. 3. 
 
 § 6. Modern terms. —In most of the modern Eu¬ 
 ropean languages the words expressive of baptism 
 are derived directly from the Latin baptizare, and 
 testify to the fact of Latin having been in the 
 Western Churches the one ecclesiastical language 
 almost to the exclusion of all others. But there 
 IS one notable exception. The German taufen, 
 to “ baptize,” akin to our English “ dip,” has the 
 same technical meaning as baptizare, and recals 
 the time when on the conversion of the German 
 tribes baptism was as a rule performed by “ dip¬ 
 ping ” (see § 92), and when not Latin, but as far 
 as possible the mother-tongue of the converts 
 was employed in the baptismal offices. Our 
 countryman, St. Boniface, in his Statuta (Mar- 
 tene, de Ant. Ecc. Bit. tom. i. p. 48) desires that 
 the catechumens be taught to make the Renun¬ 
 ciations and Confessions of Faith in Baptism “ in 
 .■psa lingua qua nati sunt,” and directs any pres¬ 
 byter to leave the diocese who is too proud to 
 obey this direction. 
 
 II. The Order of Baptism in various Churches 
 of the East and of the West. 
 
 § 7. Described by Justin Martyr. —The earliest 
 description of the actual rite of baptism is that 
 given by Justin Martyr in his first Apology (cap. 
 Ixxix.), which dates from the middle of the 
 second century. “ We will now relate after what 
 manner we dedicated (av^Q-pKap.^v) ourselves unto 
 God, when we were new-made through Christ 
 (^KaivoTTon)Q4vTfs Sid rov X.). So many as are 
 convinced, and believe the truth of what we 
 teach and affirm, and who promise to be able to 
 live accordingly, are taught both to pray, and 
 with fasting to ask of God remission of their past 
 
 sins, while we join with them in their prayers 
 and in their fast. Then they are conducted 
 by us to a place where there is water, and 
 they are regenerated (duayivvwvTai) after the 
 same manner of regeneration as that in which 
 we our.selves were regenerated. For they then 
 make their ablution (rh Xovrphv iroiovvrai) in 
 the water, in the name of God, the Father and 
 Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. For Christ said : 
 ‘Except yc be regenerated (^tdvpip dvaytvvpQriTT) 
 ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ” 
 
 § 8. It will be seen that the description here 
 given is without full details concerning the rite 
 itself, as was natural in one writing concerning 
 a Christian Sacrament to per-sons who were not 
 Christians themselves. But we may trace clear 
 allusions to the prefatory instruction and guid¬ 
 ance of the catechumens—to the baptismal pro¬ 
 mises or stipulations—to a place of baptism apart 
 from the ordinary place of assembly for the 
 faithful (dyovrai v(pl ypwv fu6a vSwp iarif We 
 find also the baptismal formula, “ In the name 
 of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” 
 though with slight interpolations which are pro¬ 
 bably due to the need of some exj)lanation in 
 addressing a heathen audience on such a subject. 
 
 § 9. Bitual described by Tertullian. —About 
 fifty years later than Justin Martyr, and about 
 the close of the second century, we find evidence 
 in the works of Tertullian of the nature of the 
 baptismal rite as observed at that time. He 
 speaks first of the Preparation of the Catechumens 
 immediately before Baptism—saying that they 
 should be frequent in prayer, with fasting and 
 kneeling (then a penitential attitude), and watch¬ 
 ing, and with confession of all former sins. 
 
 “ Ingressuros baptismum, orationibus crebris, 
 jejuniis et geniculationibus, et pervigiliis, orare 
 oportet, et cum confessione omnium retro delict- 
 orum, ut exponant etiam baptismum Joannis. 
 Tinguebantui’, inquit, confitentes delicta sua ” 
 {pe Bapt. c. 20). § 10. He describes the solemn 
 
 renunciation of the devil and his pomp, and his 
 angels, distinguishing the renunciation made at 
 the time of baptism from that made some time 
 previously in the church (on admission as cate¬ 
 chumens). (“Aquam adituri ibidem, sed et ali- 
 quanto pi’ius in ecclesia sub antistitis manu, 
 contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo et pompae et 
 angelis ejus.” De Cor. Mil. c. 3.) He speaks then 
 of other “ responses ” made by the baptized while 
 standing in the water, alleging these as an ex¬ 
 ample of custom founded on tradition onlv, not on 
 any express direction of our Lord. (“Dehinc ter 
 mergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quam 
 Dominus in evangelio determinavit.” Ibid. See 
 below, § 93.) § 11. The words (ter mergitamur) 
 
 just quoted, and those of the treatise De Bapt. c. 1, 
 
 “ in aquam homo demissus et inter pauca verba 
 tinctus,” have reference to the Trine Immersion 
 then customary (see below, § 49) and the u.-e 
 of the words implicitly prescribed in Matt, xxviii. 
 19. These points he more exactly determines 
 elsewhere. (“ Novissime mandans ut tinguerent 
 in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, non in 
 unum : nam nec semel sed ter, ad singula nomina, 
 in personas singulas tiuguimur.” Ado. Praxeam., 
 c. 26.) § 12. Among the traditionary customs, 
 
 Tertullian mentions the tasting of a mixture 
 (concordiam) of honey and milk on leaving the 
 font (“ Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 157 
 
 praegustanius.” De Cor. Mil. c. 3). But there is 
 no reference to this in his treatise de baptismo, so 
 that it may not improbably have been of occa¬ 
 sional or local usage only in his time. § 13. The 
 anointing with a consecrated (benedicta) oil, and 
 the imnosition of hands by the bishop, which 
 followed upon baptism, is spoken of as being 
 intimately connected with the actual baptism. 
 In the font, according to his view, we are washed 
 from sin, and so prepared for the reception of 
 the Holy Spirit. (“Non quod in aquis spiritum 
 sanctum consequamur sed in aqua emundati sub 
 Angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur .... An¬ 
 gelas baptism! arbiter supervcnturo Spiritui 
 Sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum quam 
 tides impetrat obsignata in Patre et Filio et 
 Spiritu Sancto .... Exinde egress! de lavacro 
 perungimur benedicta unctione .... Dehinc 
 manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans 
 et invitans Spiritum Sanctum.” Be bapt. cc. 6, 
 7, 8). The evidence of Tertullian on other points 
 will come under notice later in this article. 
 
 § 14. Ritual at Jerusalem, A.D. 347. The 
 Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, delivered in 
 Lent, a. 347, picture to us in tolerably full 
 detail the ceremonial usages there customary in 
 his time. Throughout Lent {Catech. i. Tfaaapd- 
 Kovra 7}iJ.4pas ov tt} irpoa'evxfj j and 
 
 again reaaapdKovTa rjixfpcov /uerduoiai/) the 
 
 catechumens assembled day after day in the 
 church of the Anastasis (Cat. xiv.) for prayer, 
 and for catechetical instruction. § 15. And at 
 the close of Lent, on the “ Sabbath,” or Easter 
 Eve, as the evening (Myst. Catech. i. /car’ 
 rod ^aTTriapaTos t^u kairtpau. Compare Chry- 
 sost. in 1 Cor. Horn, xl., where he speaks of t^v 
 kaiTipav e/ceij/Tjv, that CA^ening in which baptism 
 is solemnized) closed in upon the holy city, those 
 to be baptized assembled in the outer chamber 
 of the baptistery (ets rhv -npoavXiop rov ^aTni<r- 
 ryplov oIkov, Myst. Cat. i.) and facing towards 
 the west, as being the place of darkness, and of 
 the poAvers thereof, Avith outstretched hand, 
 made open renunciation of Satan. § 16. Then 
 turning them about, and Avith face towards the 
 East, “ the place of light,” they exclaimed, “ I be- 
 lieA’-e in the Father (ets Thv 11.) and in the Son, 
 and in the Holy Ghost, and in one baptism of 
 repentance.” § 17. This said, they Avent forward 
 into the inner chamber (oIkos) of the baptistery, 
 and (Myst. Cat. ii.) put off the garment (chiton) 
 wherewith they were clothed, and being thus 
 naked Avere anointed with oil from head to foot. 
 § 18. After this preparatory unction they were 
 led by the hand to the font itself, and then each 
 one Avas asked, “ Dost thou believe in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ? ” and they, in ansAver, witnessed the 
 saving confession of their faith, and dipped them¬ 
 selves thrice in the Avater, and thrice lifted 
 themselA’’es up from out thereof; and so set 
 forth, by symbol, the three days’ burial of the 
 Lord, and his Resurrection; and the saA'ing 
 water Avas to them at once death and life,^ at 
 once “a tomb and a mother.” § 19. Then,*on 
 coming forth from the Avater, they were clothed 
 with Avhite garments, significant of the purity 
 and brightness of that spiritual vesture with 
 which they Avei'e ever henceforth to be clothed 
 (Myst. Cat. iv. in fin.). § 20. Afterward, as 
 Christ, coming up out of the waters, was 
 anointed with the unction of the Holy Ghost, 
 
 descending upon Him in bodily shape as a dove, 
 an unction, not bodily but spiritual, so the bap¬ 
 tized, when made partakers of “ the anointed,” 
 ai'e themseh'es “anointed” with a holv oil “on 
 the forehead, the ears, the nostrils, and the 
 breast; and Avhile the body was thus touched 
 with material ointment, the spirit was sanctified 
 [or ‘ consecrated,’ a 7 jd^ 6 Tai] by the holy and 
 lifegiving Spirit” (Myst. Cat. iii.). §21. Holy 
 Communion. After this followed holy communion, 
 of which all the newly baptized were partakers, 
 therein becoming “ of one body and of one blood ” 
 Avith Christ (o'vo'O'wpoi Ka\ avvaipoi too Xpiarov), 
 and there partaking of a heaA'enly bread, and of a 
 cup of salvation, that sanctify both soul and body 
 (lb. iA'.). § 22. Psalms and lights. Under the 
 
 figurative language employed by St. Cyril in his 
 prefatory address, Ave may see evident allusions to 
 the accompanying ceremonial of the great Easter 
 rite. This Avas celebrated, as Ave have already 
 mentioned, on the eve, and during the night 
 (ttStc phv vp7p 6 debs iKe'iprjp ’tt]P 
 
 pvKTa K.T.A., Praefatio) preceding Easter day. 
 And the use of artificial light, thus rendered 
 necessary, Avas singularly in harmony Avith the 
 occasion, and with some of the thoughts most 
 prominently associated Avith it (see § 5 above). 
 It'would be difficult to imagine any scene more 
 moving than that pictured to us in the pages of 
 St. Cyril, Avhen on the eve of the Saviour’s 
 resurrection, and at the doors of the church of 
 the “Anastasis,” the white-robed (§ 19) band 
 of the neAvly baptised was seen approaching from 
 the neighbouring baptistery, and the darkness 
 was turned into day (rb <tk6tos rb ^p€po(paP€S, 
 Praefat. ad Catech.) in the brightness of unnum¬ 
 bered lights. And as the joyous chant swelled 
 upwards, “ Blessed is he A\'hose unrighteousness 
 is forgiven, and whose sin is covered,” it might 
 well be thought that angels’ voices Avere heard 
 echoing the glad acclaim, “ Blessed is the man 
 unto Avhom the Lord imputeth no sin, and in 
 whose spirit there is no guile.” (8t6 vpuip ao.6ev- 
 Twp, i. e., after your baptism, ot &yy€\oi iirKpa:- 
 p^aovorip, MuKdpioi S>p d(i>edr}(rap, k.t.A,, Prae¬ 
 fat.) 
 
 § 23. Other Eastern rites. In Egypt. The 
 order of baptism AA'^hich Ave have traced aboA'e as 
 observed at Jerusalem in the year 347 A.D., bears 
 a close resemblance in all its more important de¬ 
 tails to those of which Ave find record elscAvhere. 
 The limits of this article do not admit of our 
 quoting these in full. For the order folloAved in 
 the Egyptian Church, see the Constitutiones Eccle- 
 siae Aegyptiacae, § 46 seqq., published by Lagarde 
 (al. Bbtticher) in his Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastici 
 antiqu ssimae. It Avill be found also in Bunsen’s 
 Christianity and Mankind, a'oI. aJ. J). 465, seqq., 
 in a Greek translation by Lagarde from the 
 Coptic original. With this, which may probably 
 date from the 4th or 5th century (not as a MS. 
 but as a rite), may be compared the Ordo Bap- 
 tismi of Severus, Patriarch of Alexandria in the 
 7th century (Bihlioth. Max. Patrum, Paris, fol. 
 1654, tom. A’i. col. 25), and, for a much later 
 time, see Vansleb, Histoire de I'^glise d*Alex- 
 andrie, Paris, 1677, cap. 21, p. 80. 
 
 § 24. In Aethiopna. The Ethiopic rite must 
 originally haA'e resembled that of Alexandria. 
 Our first detailed accounts of it come to us from 
 the Jesuit missionaries (Bibl. Max. Pair, as 
 above, tom. vi. col. 57, seqq.). With their state- 
 
158 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 meuts, which coming from various quarters 
 appear at times somewhat inconsistent with 
 eacli other, may be compared the account given 
 by Ludolf in his Historia Aethiopica, lib. iii. 
 cap. vi. 
 
 § 2y. The Descriptions of the Rite given by 
 Dionysius, the so-called Areopagite (^Ecc. Hier. 
 lib. ii.), and in the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 cannot be assigned with certainty to any par¬ 
 ticular date or locality ; but they afford interest¬ 
 ing points of comparison w'ith the ritual de¬ 
 scribed elsewhere. 
 
 § 26. Western Rites. The only complete 
 Ordines Baptismi of any early Western churches 
 are the Roman and the Gallican. The Roman 
 may be traced with slight variations in the 
 sacramentary attributed to Gelasius (Migne, 
 Patrol, tom. 74, p. 1105, and Muratoid, Liturg. 
 Rowan. Veti), and that of Gregory the Great 
 (ed. H. Menard). Many variations of the Gallican 
 Ordo Baptismi are given by Martene (^De Ant. 
 Ecc. Bit. tom. i. Part 1), and of these we select 
 one example as being of exceptional interest. 
 
 § 27. The Gotho-Gallican Rite. The earliest 
 of tlie Gallican Ordines Baptismi is probably 
 tiiat sometimes described as the Gothic, as 
 having been in use in the Visigothic Church. 
 The order commences with a prefatory address, 
 remarkable for the figurative language employed, 
 which is utterly unlike that to be met with in 
 any other known ritual, and in which we may 
 pi’obably see traces of the peculiar circumstances 
 under which Christianity was first introduced 
 into Gaul. “Standing, dearest brethren, on the 
 bank of this crystal-clear fount, bring ye from the 
 land to the shore new-comers to ply the traffic 
 whereof they have need (mercaturos sua com- 
 mercia). Let all who embark on this voyage 
 make their way over this new sea, not with 
 a rod virga,’ probably with reference to 
 Moses and the Red Sea], but with the cross; 
 not with bodily touch, but with spiritual appre¬ 
 hension ; not with traveller’s staff, but in sacra¬ 
 mental mysteiw (non virga, sed cruce, non tactu 
 sed sensu, non baculo sed Sacramento). The 
 place is small but full of grace. Happy hath 
 been the pilotage of the Holy Spirit. Therefore 
 let us pray the Lord our God, that He will sanc¬ 
 tify this fount, and make it a laver of most 
 blessed regeneration in remission of all sins; 
 through the Lord.” § 28. The Collect then 
 follows, being a prayer for the benediction of 
 the font. “ God who didst sanctify the fount 
 of Jordan for the salvation of souls, let the angel 
 of thy blessing descend upon these waters, 
 that thy servants being bathed (perfusi) there¬ 
 with may receive remission of sins, and being 
 boim again of water and the Holy Spirit, may 
 devoutly serve thee for ever ; through the Lord.” 
 § 29. The Contestatio. “ It is meet and right. 
 Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Initiator of the 
 Saints, Father of all Unction, and author of a 
 new sacrament through thine only Son our Lord 
 God ; Who, through the ministry of water be- 
 etowest in place of the riches of the world ante 
 divitias muudi,’ evidently from the Greek 6.vti 
 TOO ttKovtov too uSa/xov') thine Holy Spirit ; 
 Thou that providest the waters of Bethesda 
 through the healing operation of the Angel; 
 Who didst sanctify the channel of Jordan by the 
 worthiness of Christ thy Son ; have regard, 0 
 Lord, to these waters prepared for the doing 
 
 away of the sins of men; grant that the Angel 
 of thy fatherly love (pietatis tuae) may be pre¬ 
 sent to this holy fount; may he wash off the 
 stains of the former life, and sanctify a .shrine 
 wherein Thou mayest dwell, causing them that 
 herein .shall be regenerated to grow and be 
 strengthened evermore in the inner man (ju’oeu- 
 rans ut regenerandorum viscera aeterna florescant, 
 probably iVa dd\Kr) th rhv alcava rd (nrKd’yx^a 
 Tojv dvay^vviapLivoov), and bestowing that true 
 renewal which is of baptism. l>le.ss. Lord God, 
 this water that Thou didst create, and let Thy 
 healing power (virtus tua) descend upon it. 
 Pour down from above Thy Holy Spirit, the 
 Paraclete, the messenger [angel] of truth. Sanc¬ 
 tify, 0 Lord, these waters as thou didst the 
 .streams of Jordan; that they who go down into 
 this fount, in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may be found 
 worthy to obtain both pardon of sins and the 
 on-pouring of the Holy Spirit, through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, Who with (apud) Thee and the 
 Holy Ghost is blessed for evermore.” § 30. 
 Consecration with Chrism. “ Then thou makest 
 a cross with chrism, and sayest: I exorcise 
 thee, thou water of God’s creation ; I exorcise 
 thee, the whole army of the devil, the whole 
 power of the adversary, and all darkness of evil 
 spirits; I exorcise thee in the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ of Nazareth, to w'hom the Father 
 hath subjected all things in heaven and in earth. 
 Fear and tremble. Thou and all the malice that 
 is thine: give place to the Holy Spirit, that all 
 who descend into this font may have the laver 
 of the baptism of regeneration, unto remission of 
 all sins, through Ouy Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 will come unto the judgment seat of the Majesty 
 of His P'ather with the holy angels, to judge 
 thee thou enemy, and the world, through fire, 
 forevermore.” ^ Insufflation. “Then thou 
 shalt breathe (see § 42) three times upon the 
 water, and put chrism therein in the form of a 
 cross, and say: ‘ the on-pouring of the salutary 
 chrism of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that this may 
 be made a fountain of water springing up unto 
 life eternal.’ Amen.” § 32. The interrogations 
 and the baptism. “ While baptizing thou shalt 
 make the interrogations (dum baptizas inter- 
 rogas : see below, § 43) and .say : ‘ I baptize thee 
 (naming him) in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, unto remission of 
 sins, that thou mayest have eternal life. Amen.’ ” 
 § 33. Unction. “ While touching him with 
 chrism thou shalt say: ‘ I anoint thee with the 
 (chrism) unction of holiness, the clothing of im¬ 
 mortality, w'hich our Lord Jesus Christ first 
 I’eceived, bestowed by the Father, that thou 
 mayest present it entire and undiminished before 
 the judgment seat of Christ, and mayest live for 
 ever and ever.” § 34. The washing of feet, 
 “ While washing his feet, thou shalt say : ‘ I 
 wash thy feet, as our Lord Jesus Christ did 
 unto his disciples. Do thou the like to strangers 
 and pilgrims, that thou mayest have eternal 
 life.’” The clothing. “ While putting the 
 
 garment upon him thou shalt say : ‘ Receive this 
 white garment, which thou mayest keep and 
 present (quam perferas) before the judgment 
 seat of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ” § 36. The 
 
 collect. “ Let us pray, most dear brethren, our 
 Lord God, for these his neophytes, now baptized, 
 that when the Saviour shall come in His ma- 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 159 
 
 jesty, He will cause them whom He hath 
 regenei’ated of watei' and the Holy Spirit to 
 be clothed for ever with the garment of salva¬ 
 tion ; through the Lord,” § 37. Another collect. 
 “ For these who are now baptized, and crowned 
 (see § 65) in Christ, on whom our Lord hath 
 deigned to bestow regeneration, we pray thee. 
 Almighty God, that they may preserve undefiled 
 unto the end the baptism which they have 
 received ; through Our Lord.” 
 
 § 38. Peculiarities of this Bite. —There is strong 
 internal evidence that this rite in its present 
 shape is a translation into debased Latin of an 
 older Greek original. There are many parts 
 of it of ^vhich the sense can only be guessed by 
 first translating it back into Greek, word for 
 word, taking Latin, such as that of the translator 
 of Irenaeus, as a guide in so doing. And this 
 fact, coupled with that of the metaphors in the 
 opening address being taken wholly from the lan¬ 
 guage of trade and of navigation, bears out in 
 a remarkable manner the conclusion to which 
 other independent evidence points, viz., that 
 Christianity was introduced into Gaul through 
 Greek missionaries, and in connection with the 
 great line of commercial traffic of which Mar¬ 
 seilles was the chief western entrepot, and the 
 cities of Cyzicus, Phocaea, and Alexandria the 
 principal eastern ports. It has another point 
 of interest for English readers, viz., that there 
 are strong grounds for believing that the primi¬ 
 tive British and Irish rites were based on the 
 old Gallican use, of which that just quoted 
 presents, probably, the oldest example now re¬ 
 maining. 
 
 § 39. British and Irish Rites. —No complete 
 Ordo Baptismi appears to have been preserved 
 which will illustrate the primitive usage of the 
 British and Irish Churches. Incidental notices 
 of the latter in ancient documents serve to de¬ 
 termine many points of detail which will be 
 noticed in their place. The fullest of these, and 
 one which is of great interest on many grounds, 
 is the story told by Tirechan (6th century) in the 
 Book of Armagh, concerning St. Patrick’s bap¬ 
 tising the two daughters of King Laoghaire at 
 the pool of Clebach in Connaught. For this, see 
 Todd’s Life of St. Patrick, p. 452. 
 
 § 40, Spanish Bite. —Such details as can now 
 be determined concerning the primitive baptismal 
 rite in Spain are contained in a treatise of St. 
 Ildephonsus of Seville (7th century), De Cogni- 
 tione Baptismi. Further particulars may be 
 inferred from Isidore of Seville De off. Eccl. 
 lib. ii. cap. 24 ; and from the Mozarabic Liturgy, 
 attributed by some to him. That Spanish usage 
 in the 4th century differed in some respects from 
 that of Rome, is indicated by the letter of 
 Siricius of Rome to Himerius Tarraconensis. See 
 below, § 73. 
 
 III. Details of the Ritual of Baptism. 
 
 § 41. Theodulf, bishop of Orleans, just at the 
 close of the 8th century, wrote a treatise De 
 Ordine Baptismi (Migne’s Patrol, cv. 223). 
 in which he describes the complicated Ritual 
 practised in Western Churches in his own time. 
 Taking his description as a basis, but omitting 
 here the notice of such points as will come 
 under separate discussion in other articles, we 
 may proceed now to describe separately the main 
 features of the order of baptism as they had been 
 
 developed in the 8th century, viz., the Conse¬ 
 cration of the Water, the Renunciations, the 
 Profession of Faith, the Immersion with accom¬ 
 panying Interrogations, and the subsequent 
 ceremonial. 
 
 § 42. Consecration of the Water of Baptism .— 
 This consecration is first mentioned by Tertullian 
 (de Bapt. c. iv.) as brought about by invocation 
 of God. St. Cyprian (Epist. Ixx. ad .Januar.), 
 speaks of the water “being cleansed beforehand 
 and sanctified by the bishop (a sacerdote)and 
 a Council held at Carthage under him, speaks of 
 this sanctification being brought about (prece 
 sacerdotis) by the bishop’s prayer. St. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, Catech. iii., speaks of the water re¬ 
 ceiving power and being sanctified upon invo¬ 
 cation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ. St. Basil 
 the Great (de Sp. Sancto, cap. 27) reckons the 
 blessing of the baptismal water among the 
 traditional customs derived from the Apostles. 
 From St, Augustine, however (de Bapt. lib. vi. 
 c. 25) we learn that the “ Invocations ” were not 
 regarded as essential to the validity of the sacra¬ 
 ment. In St. Augustine first (in Joann. Evang. 
 Tract. 118 ad fin.) we hear of the sign of the 
 cross being made at this Invocation. Oil also, 
 poured crosswise, was used, at least in some 
 churches, in the consecration of the water, (Dio- 
 nys. Areop. De Hier. Eccl. cap. 11; Severus 
 Patriarch. Alexandr. De Ordine Baptismi, Bibl. 
 Patt. Max. t. vi, p. 25.) To the same effect the 
 Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great and the 
 early Gallican Rite already quoted in § 30, 
 This ceremony, and the baptism of an infant 
 by immersion, are represented in the engraving 
 below, which is from a Pontifical of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury. A further ceremony, used as time went 
 on, was Exorcism accompanied by Insufflation, 
 or breathing upon the waters. See § 31 above, 
 and Martene, De A. E. B. tom. i. pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Consecration of Water, and Baptism. 
 
 The Interrogations and Responses. 
 
 § 43. Renunciation and Profession. —The two 
 portions of the Order of Baptism next to be con¬ 
 sidered, viz.. Renunciation followed by Profession 
 of Faith, are often classed together in early 
 writers under the designation of the Interro^ 
 gationeset Responsa, i-TrepwT'fio'cis ual atroKpiads, 
 in reference to the formulae of question and an¬ 
 swer by which both one and the other were ex¬ 
 pressed. These phrases had their ultimate origin 
 probably in an exceptional word (iirepuTOpta, 
 an answer formally made to a question formally 
 put) used by St. Peter (1 Pet. iii. 21) in speaking 
 of bapti.sm. This was a word of technical legal 
 use, having reference e.specially to forms of co¬ 
 venant stipulation. And this, with very slight 
 modification only, appears as a received technical 
 
160 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 term of the baptismal ceremonial in the middle 
 of the 3rd century. At that time there were 
 forms of interrogation and response recognised as 
 of “ legitimate ecclesiastical rule ” in Africa 
 (Tertullian, above, § 10; Cyprian. Epist. Ixx. ad 
 Jarmar.), in Egypt (Dionysius apud Euseb. H. E. 
 lib. vii. c. 9), in Cappadocia (Firmilianus apud 
 Cyprian. 0pp. Baluz. Ep. Ixxv.), and at Rome (i6.). 
 
 § 44. 2he ceremonial of Renunciation. —The 
 Catechetics of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, when com¬ 
 bined with allusions incidentally made by Dio¬ 
 nysius, St. Basil, and others, put before us very 
 vividly the ceremonial with which these renun¬ 
 ciations were made. St. Cyril (^Cat. Myst. i.) 
 addressing the neophytes, says, “Ye entered in 
 first into the outer chamber of the baptistery, 
 and standing with your faces to the west ye heard 
 how ye were bidden to stretch forth the hand 
 with a gesture of repulsion (Ji-iTuQovvra ra? 
 X^lpas, Dionys. Areop. Ecc. Hier.), and ye re¬ 
 nounced Satan, as though there present before 
 you . . . saying, ‘ I renounce thee, Satan ’ . . . 
 Then, with a second word thou art taught to 
 say, ‘ and thy works ’ . . . and then again thou 
 sayest, ‘ and [his] thy pomp.’ And afterward 
 thou sayest, ‘ and all thy worship ’ {Karp^iav') . . . 
 When thou hadst thus renounced Satan, breaking 
 altogether all covenants with him, then . . . 
 turning from the west toward the sunrising, the 
 place of light, thou wast told to say, ‘ I believe 
 in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 and in one baptism of repentance.’ ” From Dio¬ 
 nysius we learn further that before making this 
 renunciation the catechumen was divested of his 
 upper garment, and standing barefoot, and in 
 his chiton (shirt) only, made three separate 
 renunciations in answer to questions put to 
 him [this is implied, but not so distinctly stated 
 by St. Cyril], and then being turned toward the 
 east was bidden to look up to heaven, and with 
 uplifted hands (ras avareivavTa) to de¬ 
 
 clare his allegiance unto Christ ((rvi/Ta^aadai 
 T(p Xpicrrcp), and after so doing he again, in 
 answer to questions put to him, thrice made 
 confession of his faith. 
 
 § 45. FForc?s used in Renunciation. —These are 
 given with more or less of detail, according to 
 the use of various churches, by the following 
 writers after Tertullian and Cyprian already 
 quoted:—St. Cyril, Catech. Myst. i.; St. Basil, 
 De Sp. S. capp. xi. and xxvii.; St. Chrysostom, 
 Horn. xxi. ad Pop. Antiochenum ; Liber Sao'am. 
 Gelasii apud Martene, Ee A. E. R. i. p. 65; 
 Isidore Hispal. De Eccl. Off. lib. ii. cap. 20; and 
 St. Ildephonsus, DeCognit. Rapt. cap. iii.; Ephraem 
 Syrus, De Abrenuntiatione, &c. (0pp. ed. Yoss, 
 2 fol. Romae 1589, t. i. p. 199). For the Gallican 
 usage, see Martene, as above, tom. i. p. 64. The 
 mode of making the Renunciations, and the 
 words employed, are very fully described in the 
 treatise De Sacramentis, attributed to St. Am¬ 
 brose, but of uncertain date and of doubtful 
 authenticity. In the Baptism of Infants the 
 Renuntiations and the Profession of Faith were 
 made by the Sponsor. 
 
 The Profession of Faith. 
 
 § 46. Baptism “ in the name of the Fathei-, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” involves 
 in its very nature a profession of Faith. And of 
 the formal Declaration of Faith made in Baptism, 
 we may see the first trace, probably, in Acts 
 
 viii. 37 (si sana est lectio). Fuller details will 
 be found in Tertullian, De Bapt. c. vi. and De 
 Corona Mil. c. iii.; in St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixx. and the 
 letter of Firmilian published with St. Cyprian’s 
 works (Ep. Ixxv.). A comparison of the many 
 passages in later writers referring to these In¬ 
 terrogations and Responses, leads to the con¬ 
 clusion, that this profession was originally a re¬ 
 citation of the Creed, assented to with a “ Credo ” 
 by the Catechumen, much as in our own bap¬ 
 tismal service now. The form, however, varied 
 according to the gradual enlargement of the 
 original Creed, and special questions were some¬ 
 times added having reference to prevailing here¬ 
 sies or schisms in particular Churches. Ex¬ 
 amples will be found in the Missale Gallicanum 
 quoted by Martene (De Ant. Ecc. Rit. t. i. p. 65) 
 and in the Or do iii. ibid. p. 64. 
 
 The Preparatory Unction. 
 
 § 47. Without entering at length upon the 
 subject of “ Unction,” which will be treated in 
 a separate article, it may be well to note here 
 that in many documents dating from after the 
 close of the 3rd century, we find allusions to an 
 Unction preceding Baptism, in addition to that 
 which was given (see § 58) after Baptism. Nei¬ 
 ther Justin Martyr, nor Tertullian, nor St. Cy¬ 
 prian, say anything of such a preparatory Unction. 
 But this is spoken of in the Apostolical Consti¬ 
 tutions (lib. iii. c. 15), even in the earliest form 
 in which they have been preserved to us, and by 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. Alyst. ii,). This 
 last gives us as a fixed date the year 347 A.D. 
 The use may of course have been even earlier 
 than this at Jerusalem and elsewhere. But in 
 Africa we may infer that it had not been intro¬ 
 duced even at the close of the 4th century, as 
 St. Augustine nowhere alludes to any such rite; 
 and, what is more, in one passage (Sermo ccxxvii. 
 in die Paschae; al. De Diversis, 83) he dwells 
 with much emphasis on the fact (necessary to 
 the argument he is pursuing) that the Unction 
 of Christians follows after their baptism. Among 
 books of doubtful date, which contain allusions 
 to this particular rite are the “ Recognitions,” 
 ascribed, though falsely, to St. Clement of Rome 
 (lib. iii. c. jxvii.); the Responsiones ad Ortho- 
 doxos (Quaest. 137, ed. Ben. p. 501, E. 7) falsely 
 attributed to Justin Martyr; the Ecclesiastical 
 Hierarchy of Dionysius, the so-called Areopagite 
 (see § 39, above); and the Constitutions of the 
 Egyptian Church already referred to. 
 
 The Unclothing of the Catechumens. 
 
 § 48. A comparison of all the evitlence leads 
 to the conclusion that the catechumens entered 
 the font in a state of absolute nakedness. See 
 particularly St. Cyril, Hieros. Myst. Catech. ii. ad 
 init.; St. Ambrose, Senn. xx. (0pp. t. v. p, 153, 
 Paris, 1642), and Enarrat. vi Ps. Ixi, 32 (BB. 
 t. i. p. 966); St. Chrysostom, ad Ilium. Cat. i. 
 (Migne, tom. ii. p. 268). Possibly a cincture of 
 some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have 
 been worn, as indicated in some mediaeval works 
 of art. But in any case, the question arises, 
 considering the great numbers, of both sexes and 
 of all ages, baptised at one time, how could the 
 solemn celebrations at Epiphany, Easter, or Pen* 
 tecost have been conducted with decency and 
 order ? The explanation of this dilficulty seems 
 to lie in the construction of the ancient bap- 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 161 
 
 tisteries, in which the actual KoXvjx^iiOpa, or ] 
 pool, occupied the centre of a much larj^er 
 chamber, from which it was in a measure sepa- ^ 
 rated by rows of surrounding columns. If we 
 suppose the intervals of thofre columns to have 
 been occupied at the time of baptism by cur¬ 
 tains, it is easy to imagine how the necessary 
 arrangements could be made without difficulty, 
 the more so, as the custom was for the baptism 
 of men to take place first, that of women after¬ 
 wards. And that curtains were so used we may 
 infer with some certainty from the following 
 facts. St. Gregory of Tours, in his well-known 
 description of the baptism of Clovis and his fol¬ 
 lowers, speaks thus of the preparations made at 
 the baptistery for the occasion (^Hist. Franc, lib. 
 
 ii. c. xxxi.). “ The open spaces of the church 
 are shaded (or are darkened, adumhrantur) by 
 coloured hangings, and fitted up with white cur¬ 
 tains ; the baptistery is duly arranged, balsams 
 diffuse their scent, burning lights are gleaming, 
 and the whole enclosure of the baptistery is be¬ 
 dewed with a divine fragrance,” &c. Similar 
 arrangements to these we find extemporised some 
 centuries later by St. Otto in Pomerania. He 
 himself baptised boys in one place, while the 
 grown men and the women respectively were 
 baptised in separate places by others. Large 
 vessels were let down deep into the ground, 
 the edge reaching upwards, above ground, to 
 the height of the knee, or somewhat less. These 
 were filled with water. And round these cur¬ 
 tains were hung on “ columellae,” probably stout 
 poles, and attached to a rope. A further ai*- 
 rangement is descidbed in the following terms: 
 
 “ Ante sacerdotem vero et comministros, qui ex 
 una parte adstantes sacramenti opus explore ha- 
 bebant, linteum fune trajecto pependit quatenus 
 verecuudiae undique provisum foret.” (S'. Ottonis 
 lifa, lib. ii. c. 15, apud Surium, 2 Julii.) 
 
 The Immersion. 
 
 § 49. Triple Immersion, that is thrice dipping 
 the head (^Kaddnep %v tivi rdcptp Ttp vSari kutu- 
 dv6uTwv ^fiwp rds Kecj)a\ds, St.Chrysost. in Joan. 
 
 iii. 5, Horn, xxv.) while standing in the water, 
 was the all but universal rule of the Church in 
 early times. Of this we find proof in Africa 
 (Tertullian c. Praxeam, cap. xxvi.), in Palestine 
 (St. Cyril Hiero. Catech. Myst. ii.), in Egypt 
 (^Constitt. Feel. Aegypt. see above, § 23), at Anti¬ 
 och and Constantinople (St. Chrysostom, Horn, 
 de Fide, t. ix. p. 855), in Cappadocia (St. Basil 
 De Sp. Seto, c. xxvii. and St. Gregor. Nyssen. De 
 Bapt. vSari eavrovs eyKpvTrrojufU . . . Kal rp'iTov 
 rovTo Troii 7 travT€s). For the Roman usage Ter¬ 
 tullian indirectly witnesses in the second cen¬ 
 tury; St. Jerome {adv. Lucifer, cap. iv. t. iv. 
 p. 294) in the fourth ; Leo the Great (Epist. iv. 
 ad Episc. Sicul. c. iii.) in the fifth ; and Pope Pela- 
 gius (Epist. ad Gaudent. apud Gratian. Distinct. 
 
 iv. cap. Ixxxii.), and St. Gregory the Great 
 (Epist. i. 41, ad Leandrum') in the sixth. Theo- 
 dulf of Orleans witnesses for the general practice 
 of his time, the close of the eighth century (^De 
 Ordine Baptismi, cap. xi. sub trina mersione in 
 fontein . , . descendirnus). Lastly, the Aposto¬ 
 lical Canons, so called, alike in the Greek, the 
 Coptic, and the Latin versions (Can. 42 al. 50), 
 give special injunctions as to this observance, 
 saying that any bishop or presbyter should be 
 deposed who violated this rule. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 ] § 50. Single Immersion. — While trine immer¬ 
 
 sion was thus an all but universal practice, Euno- 
 mius (circ. 360) appears to have been the first to 
 introduce simple immersion “ unto the death of 
 Christ ” (Sozomen. H. E. lib. vi. c. 26; and 
 Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. iv. § 3 ; Schultze, t. iv. 
 
 р. 356). This practice was condemned, on pain 
 of degradation, by the Canon. Apost. 46 [al. 50]. 
 But it comes before us again about a century 
 later in Spain ; but then, curiously enough, w'e 
 find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in oppo¬ 
 sition to the practice of the Arians. These last 
 kept to the use of trine immersion, but in such 
 a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a 
 gradation in the three Persons. Hence arose, 
 and long continued, a diversity of practice in the 
 orthodox Churches, some following one rite and 
 some another. Gregory the Great (Epist. i. 41), 
 when his advice upon the subject was asked by 
 Leander bishop of Hispala, replied that either 
 simple or trine immersion are allowable, the one 
 setting forth the Unity of Godhead, the other 
 the Trinity of Persons. But under the special 
 circumstances of the Spanish Churches, and in 
 view of the fact that trine immersion was there 
 specially the usage of heretics, he thought they 
 would do w'ell to hold to simple immersion. But 
 the matter was still unsettled some twenty or 
 thirty years later. At the Council of Toledo (the 
 4th, held A.D. 633) the practice suggested by 
 St. Gregory was laid down as the rule of the 
 Spanish Churches, and from that time onward, 
 though triple immersion has been the prevailing 
 practice, yet both canons of councils and writers 
 on ritual questions have maintained the legiti¬ 
 macy of simple immersion. (See Martene, De 
 A. E. B. lib. i. cap. i. art. xiv. § viii.) 
 
 The Baptismal Formula. 
 
 § 51. Not less necessary to a valid baptism 
 than the use of water was the pronouncing of 
 the words prescribed by implication by Our 
 Lord, in Matt, xxviii. 19, “I baptize thee in the 
 name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost.” With the slight exceptions noticed 
 below there has been at all times, and in all 
 Christian Bodies, a practically universal assent 
 as to the use of these “ Evangelical Words,” as 
 .they are called by St. Augustine. In this we 
 find complete assent between the Churches of 
 the East and of the West. Tertullian, in reference 
 to this, appeals, not to any ecclesiastical tradi¬ 
 tion, but to the direct command of Our Lord, 
 “ Lex tinguendi imposita, et forma praescripta : 
 ‘ Ite, inquit, docete nationes, tingentes eos in 
 Nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ’ ” (De 
 Bapt. c. 13. Compare his treatise Adv. Praxeam^ 
 
 с. 26, quoted in § 11). St. Cyprian, fifty years 
 later, uses similar language in his Epist. 
 Ixxiii., ad lubai. p. 200. And St. Augustine 
 (de Bapt. lib. vi. cap. 25) asserts that it was 
 easier to find heretics who rejected baptism 
 altogether than to find any who, giving ba})tism, 
 used any other than the generally received for¬ 
 mula. The use of this form was no less care¬ 
 fully maintained in the East. The 41st of the 
 “Canons of the Apostles” orders the degradation 
 of any bishop or Presbyter who baj)tized other¬ 
 wise than according to the commandment of the 
 Lord Fis riarepa Kal tlhv Kal ’'Ayioy Ilpevpa, 
 Didymus of Alexandria (ed. Vallars. 1735, 
 vol. ii. p. 130), St. Basil (De Sp. Seto, cap. 12, 
 
162 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 tom. iii. p. 23), and others, speak of Baptism 
 as invalid if not given with these words. 
 
 § 52. Apparent excejAions. In the language 
 of Holy Scripture itself authority seems, at first 
 sight, to be found for a certain variety of ex¬ 
 pression in giving effect to the command of Our 
 Lord. Thus, in the Book of the Acts of the 
 Apostles we find expressions such as baptizing 
 “ in the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts ii. 38 ; “ in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus,” ibid. A'iii. 16; or 
 simply “ in the name of the Lord,” ibid. x. 48. 
 But in all probability these are only to be re¬ 
 garded as compendious expressions, equivalent in 
 meaning to a statement that the persons in 
 question received “ Christian Baptism.” And 
 the apparent exception afforded by the language 
 of Justin Martyr, quoted above in § 7, is proba¬ 
 bly apparent only, and not real. Addressing 
 himself as he there does to persons unacquainted 
 with Christian Doctrine, he somewhat amplifies 
 the actual formula, which would otherwise have 
 been unintelligible to a heathen, and speaks of 
 Christians being baptized “ in the name of God 
 the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” 
 
 § 53. Real Exceptions. On the other hand we 
 find evidence, even as early as St. Cyprian’s 
 (^Eptist. Ixiii.) time, that there were some who 
 maintained that it was sufficient to administer 
 “ in the name of Jesus Christ.” St. Ambrose 
 favours this opinion, if the treatise De Spiritu 
 Sancto (lib. i. cap. Ill) be really his. In later 
 times this same opinion was formally maintained 
 by more than one authority. The Council of 
 Frejus, a. 792, and Pope Nicholas 1. in his 
 Responsa ad Bulgaros^ all maintain more or less 
 emphatically the validity of such a formula. 
 
 Directly contrary to this is the decree of the 
 Synodus Londinensis, held in the year 605, by 
 Augustine of Canterbury, Laurentius, Justus, 
 and Mellitus. There, as we learn from a letter 
 of Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface, it was decreed, 
 that anyone who had been “washed” without 
 invocation of the Trinity had not the Sacrament 
 of Regeneration. The omission of the name of 
 any one person of the Trinity was held to be fatal 
 to the validity of the rite (Wilkins, Concilia, 
 p. 29). St. Ildephonsus of Toledo (^De Cognit. 
 Baptisrni, lib. i. c. 112), circ. a. 663, uses similar 
 language. “ Quod si omissa qualibet Trinitatis 
 persona baptismum conferatur, omnino nihil 
 egisse baptism! solemnitas deputetur nisi tota 
 Trinitas veraciter invocetur.” For the opinions 
 of the Schoolmen on this question see Martene 
 Be A. E. R., lib. i. cap. i. Art. xiv. 20. And for 
 those of various theologians at the time of the 
 Reformation, and subsequently, see Augusti 
 Denkuiirdigkeiten, vol. vii. p. 239. 
 
 § 54. Slight variations. The passages above 
 quoted shew that all the earlier Church au¬ 
 thorities, almost without exception, speak of the 
 use of the words “ In the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as 
 absolutely required. Yet it is worth noting that 
 it was an essential not a literal identity of ex¬ 
 pression that was required. The main point of 
 faith in the three Pei-sons of the Blessed Trinity 
 being secured, slight verbal variations in the 
 formula were not regarded as of vital importance. 
 Indeed the usage of various churches was not 
 absolutely identical. Thus while in most cases 
 the identical words of Our Lord ets rh ovopa rov 1 
 
 riaTpbs Kal rod Ttov Ka\ rov aylov TlvevpaTOS^ 
 were exactly reproduced (in Latin Ritual “ In 
 Nomine Patris et Filii et Si)iritus Sancli ”), the 
 words els rh ovopa, “in nomine,” were in some 
 churches omitted. The formula, as given by Ter- 
 tullian (§11) and in the Apostolical Constitutions 
 (lib. iii. c. 14), serves to exemplify this omission. 
 Elsewhere additions were made to the formula, 
 as thus; “ In nomine Patris, Amen ; et Filii, 
 Amen; et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.” The cor¬ 
 responding Greek words are the formula of the 
 Greek Church to this day. In the Gothic missal 
 already quoted in § 32, we find “In nomine 
 Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti in remissionem 
 peccatorum, ut habeas vitam aeternam.” In an 
 ancient Gallican Missal, there is still greater 
 variation, “ Baptizo te credentem in nomine 
 Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ut habeas vitam 
 aeternam in saecula saeculorum,” or again, 
 “Baptizo te in nomine Patris etc., . . . unam 
 habentium substantiam, ut habeas vitam aeternam 
 et partem cum Sanctis.” Again IVIartene {Be 
 A. E. R. tom. i. p. 31, § xix.) quotes the for¬ 
 mula once in use at Cambray, in which the 
 words “ Ego te baptizo” were altogether omitted, 
 and the ministrant said only, “ In nomine Patris 
 et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” Hugo de 
 St. Victor, Peter Lombard, and others, held this 
 to constitute a valid baptism ; Pope Alexander 
 III. decided in a contrary sense. This was in the 
 year 1175 A.d. About 400 years earlier, Za¬ 
 charias (Martene § xix.), then Roman Pope, had 
 formally to decide whether Baptism given by an 
 ignorant Priest “In nomine Patria Filia et 
 Spiritua Sanctua ” was valid or no. St. Boni¬ 
 face had decided that such baptism was in¬ 
 valid, and was for rebaptizing a child who 
 had so received it. But he was opposed by two 
 other bishops (Virgilius and Sidonius) whose 
 opinion was endorsed by the bishop of Rome on 
 appeal made to him. “If” (so he wrote) “he 
 who so ministered baptism did so not by way of 
 introducing error or heresy, but only through 
 ignorance of our Roman speech spoke with a 
 broken utterance, we cannot consent to any re¬ 
 petition of the baptism so conferred.” 
 
 § 55. Eastern and Western Forms. One dif¬ 
 ference there is between the mode of employing 
 the “ Evangelical words,” which is characteristic 
 of Eastern and of Western Churches respectively. 
 In the West, with very rare exceptions only, the 
 personal office of the ministrant has been made 
 somewhat prominent by the formula “ I baptise 
 thee (Ego baptizo te) in the name ” etc. But in 
 the Eastern use this is not the case, the third 
 person being employed, fiairrl^erai 6 Suva (some¬ 
 times o SoGAos rod deov, adding the name) els rh 
 ovopa K. r. \. “ Such an one ” (naming him), or 
 “ The servant of God, N. or M. is baptized in the 
 name,” &c. The exceptions among Eastern 
 Churches ai’e very few. The Coptic Formula 
 (Abudacni Historia Jacobitarum sen Coptorum, 
 Oxon. 1675. J. E. Gerhardi, Erercit. de ecclesia 
 Coptica, 1666) is in the first person, “ I baptize 
 thee in the name of the Father, Amen ; I baptize 
 thee in the name of the Son, Amen ; I baptize thee 
 in the name of the Holy Ghost, Amen.” And the 
 Nestorians (Badger’s Nestorians and their Rituals) 
 of Syria, though their own older formula agreed 
 with that of other Eastern Churches, adopted 
 also that prescribed by the Roman Church, ex¬ 
 pressed in the fii’st person. A more remark- 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 1G3 
 
 able exception to the usual Eastern practice is 
 that of the Aethiopian Church, if it really were 
 as described. Alvarez, one of the Jesuit Mis¬ 
 sionaries, states in one place that the form they 
 employ is “ I baptize thee in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and ot the Holy Ghost.” 
 And Ludolf (who has no sympathy with these 
 Roman authorities when he thinks them moved 
 by prejudice) states that in the ritual books of 
 the Ethiopians he had never been able to find 
 any other formula. On the other hand thei'e 
 were others of the same Jesuit Mission who spoke 
 of the great variety of forms which they found 
 in use, obliging them to rebaptize. See Ludolf, 
 Hist. Acthiop. lib. iii. cap. vi. 
 
 Subsequent Ceremonial. 
 
 § 56. The ceremonies subsequent upon the 
 actual baptism are commonly (as by Bellarmine, 
 de Bapt. lib. i. cap. 27) reckoned as five in num¬ 
 ber, the Kiss, the Unction of the Head (distinct 
 from the Unction in Confirmation), the lighted 
 Taper, the white Robe, the Tasting of Milk and 
 Honey. To these may be added the Washing of 
 Feet, and the Chaplet on the head, which found 
 place in the Ritual of some early Churches. 
 
 § 57. The Kiss. We first hear of this as a 
 customary practice in Africa in St. Cyprian’s 
 Epist. Ixiv. (a/, liv.) ad Fidum. St. Augustine 
 quotes the passage (contra duas epist. Pelag. lib. 
 iv. cap. viii. §§ 23, 24) in a way which shews 
 that the usage had been maintained to his own 
 time. It is expressly prescribed (to be given by 
 the bishop fii'st and afterwards by the assembled 
 faithful) in the ritual of the Egyptian Church 
 § 50. (See aboA’^e § 23 of this Article), and in St. 
 Chrysostom (Sermo 50 de util. leg. script, tom. 
 iii. p. 80 I.) we find proof of a similar usage. 
 
 § 58. The Unction of the Head. No trace is 
 to be found in the earliest records of more than 
 one Unction after baptism, viz., that given in 
 Confirmation by the bishop. Its introduction is 
 attributed, by Roman tradition, to St. Sylvester, 
 bishop of Rome, from 314 to 335 a.d. See 
 further under Unction. 
 
 § 59. The Use of Lights. We have already 
 seen that in the 4th century certainly, and pro¬ 
 bably therefore in yet earlier ages, baptism Avas 
 administered after dark (generally late on Easter 
 EA’-e). In this, as in so many other cases, what 
 was perpetuated in late Christian usage for 
 doctrinal or symbolical reasons took its rise in 
 considex'ations of practical convenience or neces¬ 
 sity. References made to the use of Lights by 
 St. Cyril Hieros., have already been alleged 
 (§ 22). And to the same effect, though with 
 more of detail, is the language of St. Gregory 
 Nazianz. Orat. xl. “ The station that thou shalt 
 take before the great bema (of the church), 
 after thy baptism, is a foreshadowing of the 
 glory that shall be from heaA^en ; the psalmody 
 wherewith thou shalt be receiA'ed is a prelude 
 of the hymns that thence shall sound ; the lamps 
 that thou shalt kindle set forth in mystery that 
 procession of many lights- wherewith bright and 
 A’irgir. souls shall go forth to meet their Lord, 
 haying the lamps of faith bright and burning.” 
 ^ ith tt>ese passages compare Ambrosius, de 
 lapsu virg. sac. c. 5 ; Marcus Gazensis, ad Arca~ 
 (Bum Imp. apud Baronium ad ann. 401; Gregor. 
 Turon. Hist. Franc, lib. v. c. 11; St. Gregory 
 the Great, Lib. Sacram. de sabbato sancto; Al- 
 
 cuinus, de Div. off. de sabbato sancto; Amala- 
 rius, de eccl. off. lib. i. c. 18 ; Rabanus, de Inst. 
 Clcr. lib. ii. e. 38, 39 ; St. Ivo, of Chartres, de 
 Sacramento Neophytorum; and the Ordo Bap~ 
 tismi xviii. in Martene, de Ant. Eccl. Bit. tom. i. 
 p. 78. 
 
 § 60. The wearing of white garments (Aeu/eex- 
 pLOveiv or Kafnrpo<pop^7v in Greek Avriters) br 
 the neAvly baptized Avas of universal custom 
 both in West and East, and this Avas continued 
 throughout the Aveek to the Lord’s Day 
 
 immediately folloAving, thence called the “ Do¬ 
 minica in albis depositis,” the Kvpiany rys 
 
 ZiaKaiv7](Tip.ov (Goar, Euchol. Graec. p. 373) of 
 the Greeks. By their colour these garments 
 Avere significant both of innocence and of joy 
 (Marriott, Vestiarium Christianum, p. 182, n. 
 19), and by their material, Avhich Avas generally 
 linen, they Avere associated Avith the idea of de¬ 
 liverance from death (Philo de Somniis, p. 597. 
 Paris, fol. 1640, and Jerome, Epist. ad Fabiol. 
 
 0pp. tom. ii. p. 574. Paris, fol. 1693). The 
 
 -allusions to this practice in early Avriters are in¬ 
 numerable. It Avill suffice here to state a feAv 
 particulars as to the A-arious A’estments of Avhich 
 Ave find mention. 
 
 § 61. The Alb. The outer garment, vestis 
 alba, or simply “alba” (q. a-.), Xaixirpa or Mvay 
 iadiis, or ip-ipooTiov, aams probably not unlike 
 that Avorn in early times as a A-estment of holy 
 ministry. In some instances Ave hear of this 
 being kept as a memorial of baptism, to serve as a 
 coA'ering for the body after death (Antonini Mart. 
 Itinerarium: “induti sindones . . . quas sibi ad 
 sepulturam servant.”) So Constantine the Great, 
 dying shortly after his baptism, Avas buried per' 
 avTwv rwv eiKpooriuip, in the garments Avhieh 
 he had then Avorn (St. Germanus Patriarch. 
 De Sanctis Synodis etc. apud Spicil. Bom. A. 
 Mai, tom. vii. § 14). And so Probus Anicius in 
 his epitaph (Bosio, Bom.Subt. p. 47) is described 
 as one, “Qui noA-a decedens muneris aetherii 
 vestiraenta tulit.” At other times these Avhite 
 garments Avere presented to the Church. This 
 is implied in the story of Elpidophorus and the 
 Deacon Maritta, told by Victor of Utica (De 
 Persec. Vandal, lib. v. Bibl. Patr. Max. tom. 
 viii. p. 699). For the use of the poor they Avere 
 proAuded gratuitously, as e.g. by Constantine 
 the Great (Surii Vit. Sanctorum, in S. Syl- 
 A-estro, die 31 Dec.), and by Gregory the Gi-eat 
 (Epist. iv. 16 ; and vii. 24). 
 
 § 62. The Sabanum. This Avord (in Greek 
 adSavov) as originally used meant either a large 
 Avrapper for covering the body immediately after 
 bathing, or a toAvel used for drying it. The 
 same Avord is occasionally used (as by Victor 
 Uticensis) in speaking of baptismal vestments, 
 and it is used in the Greek Church to this day. 
 A letter is extant from Pope Paul 1. in Avhich 
 he thanks King Pepin for having sent him the 
 “Sabanum” used at the baptism of the king’s 
 daughter Gislana. It is not clear whether tliis 
 is identical Avith the “ alba ” or no. 
 
 § 63. The Chrismale. This was a piece of 
 white linen tied round the head, and intended 
 to retain the chrism upon the head throughout 
 the Aveek “ in albis.” 
 
 § 64. TTie twisted th'-ead. In the Armenian 
 rite, as still celebrated, there is a our'ons relic 
 of the primitive customs in regard of baptismal 
 dress. We here read [Translation, unpublished, 
 
 M 
 
1G4 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 b)' the Rev. S. C. Malan] of the priest “ twist¬ 
 ing the thread.” And the Catholicos (bishop) 
 Joseph, in his Russian translation of this order 
 of baptism, enlarges this rubric as follows: 
 “ While the choir sings, the priest takes two 
 threads, one white and the other red, in remem¬ 
 brance of the water and the blood that flowed 
 from the side of the Saviour of the world. He 
 lifts them up under the holy cross, and lays them 
 *.-.t last upon the catechumen or child to be bap¬ 
 tized.” There can be little doubt that this is a 
 last trace of former white baptismal robes with 
 red embroidery. This hypothesis is confirmed 
 by some references in ancient authors. A MS. 
 at Turin, of unknown authorship and date [from 
 internal evidence it appears to the writer to be 
 of the llth century], thus describes the “ chris- 
 male.” “Induitur deinde chrismali neophytus, 
 scilicet alba veste quae instar cappae lineae capu- 
 tium habet, quo caput quasi quadam mitra ope- 
 ritur, et filo rubeo supersuitur.” Durandus too 
 {Rationale Die. Off. lib. vi. c. 82), mentions a 
 custom still existing in his time (ISth centuiy) 
 in Narbonne, that the w'hite garment of the bap¬ 
 tized had sewn upon it a red band like a ‘ co¬ 
 rona.’ And the same combination of colours 
 was still preserved in the usage of the Ethiopic 
 Church two centuries ago (Ludolf, Hist. Aethiop. 
 lib. iii. cap. 6), and may be traced back in Africa 
 to the 5th century of our era. Victor of Utica 
 {de Pers. Vand. lib. ii.) speaks of the white 
 robe as “ purpura sanguinis Christi decoratam.” 
 
 § 65. The Chaplet (corona or (rT€(pauo<i). The 
 earliest certain reference to this as worn by 
 Neophytes is in the ritual of Alexandria de¬ 
 scribed by Patriarch Severus in the 7th century. 
 “ Then {i. e. after baptism and unction) he takes 
 the baptized to the altar, and gives them the 
 sacrament of the Eucharist, and the priest crowns 
 them wdth garlands ” {Bibl. Max. Patr. Paris 
 1(55-1, tom. vi. p. 25). This usage was still main¬ 
 tained at Alexandria 200 years ago. Vansleb, 
 describing their baptismal ritual, writes as fol¬ 
 lows. The piiest, “ trempe dans I’eau du bap- 
 teme la couronne et la ceinture de I’enfant qui 
 a e'te' baptise] et lui met cette couronne sur la 
 tete, et il lui ceint les reins de cette ceinture,” 
 kc. (^Hist. de VEijlise <TAlexandrie, Paris 1677, 
 12). Allusions to a similar rite, on very slight 
 grounds however of what is probably merely 
 metaphorical language, have been imagined in 
 the Gotho-Gallican Missal (baptizati et in Christo 
 coronati), in St. Chrysostom, Cutech. I. ad Illu- 
 minandos {prav SiaSripa [not a chaplet, but a 
 royal crown], a.va8-{]<n]crd€ twv 7]\iaHwv aKriuuv 
 (patSporepas ^xou Travraxodev iKTnjSdxras Xa/x- 
 TnjSoVas), and Catech. II. rhv areepavov ttJs 
 SiKutoaurris, a quotation from Scripture.) A 
 passage of Gi*egory Nazianz. (Oratio xxiii. ad 
 init.), quoted by Augusti for this usage, has 
 certainly nothing whatever to do with bap¬ 
 tism, as an examination of the entire context 
 will conclusively shew. The “crowns” there 
 spoken of are the words of public encomium 
 wherewith St. Gregory w'elcomes Heron, a con¬ 
 fessor of the faith, comparing him to one who 
 has conquered in the arena. 
 
 § 66. Tasting of milk and honeg. This sym¬ 
 bolical usage, like many others, originated in a 
 prevailing metaphor. “ Quid ergo lac et mel ? ” 
 asks Barnabas. “ Quia nimirum infans lacte et 
 melle vivificatur, sic et nos fide promissionis et 
 
 verbo nutrimur.” Tertullian in more than one 
 passage (see § 12 above, and adv. Marc. lib. i. 
 c. 14); Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. lib. i. 
 cap. vi.); the Third Council of Carthage, can. 
 24; the Constitutions of the Egyptian Church, 
 § 51 ; St. Jerome {adv. Lucifer. 0pp. tom. ii. 
 p. 180, and in Esaiam. cap. Iv.) ; and the Leonine 
 Sacramentary (Muratori, Liturg. Rom. Vet. tom. 
 i.), all allude to the tasting of mingled milk jnd 
 honey after baptism. The rite is again men¬ 
 tioned by Macarius Bishop of Memphis, circ. a. 
 756, and was still preserved both in Alexandria 
 and in the Ethiopic Church two hundred years 
 ago (Vansleb and Ludolf, referred to above). 
 
 § 67. Pedilavium. The washing of feet. A 
 peculiar custom prevailed in the early Gallican 
 ritual, of a symbolical washing of the feet of the 
 newly baptized, having reference to the action 
 of our Lord recorded in the Gospel of St. John 
 (xiii. 1-16). The so-called Gothic missal, 
 and another early Gallican missal (Martene, De 
 A. E. R. tom. i. pp. 63, 64), both contain refe¬ 
 rences to this as a recognized part of the bap¬ 
 tismal ritual. In the first, see above § 34, im¬ 
 mediately after the application of the chrism, 
 we read, “ Dum pedes ejus lavas, dicis, ‘ Ego 
 tibi lavo pedes. Sicut Dominus noster Jesus 
 Christus fecit discipulis suis, tu facias hospi- 
 tibus et peregrinis ut habeas vitam aeternam ” 
 (then follows the impositio vestimenti). In the 
 second of the two documents, a collect is given 
 “ad pedes lavandos,” which follows, as before, 
 immediately upon the “ Infusio Chrismae.” 
 “Dominus et Salvator noster Jesus Christus 
 apvfstolis suis pedes lavit: Ego tibi pedes lavo, 
 ut et tu facias hospitibus et pei’egrinis, qui ad 
 te venerint. Hoc si feceris habebis vitam aeter¬ 
 nam in saecula saeculorum. Amen.” In yet a 
 third Gallican sacramentary (Mabillon, Mus. Ital. 
 tom. i. and Martene, De A. E. R. tom. i. p. 64) 
 the same rite is noticed, but is placed after the 
 clothing with the “ Vestis Candida,” instead of 
 immediately before as in the two earlier MSS.; 
 and there is a slight variation in the terms of 
 the collect prescribed. From two treatises of 
 doubtful authenticity attributed to St. Ambrose 
 (Z)e Sacrarn. lib, iii. c. 1 and De Myster. c. 6), 
 it has been inferred that the rite was in use at 
 Milan. In the first of the two passages the 
 writer, whoever he was, mentions that the rite 
 in question w^as not of Roman usage. No traces 
 of it are now to be found in the Ambrosian 
 ritual. Allusions to a similar rite after baptism, 
 occurring in the works of St. Augustine, are 
 not, as might be thought, a proof of a similar 
 usage in the African Church. They occur in a 
 .sermon (^De tempore 160) which on other grounds 
 had been judged not to be St. Augustine’s, but 
 to have been composed by Caesar i us Arch bp. of 
 Arles (t540). He quotes the words of a Gal¬ 
 lican missal still extant (Martene, De A. E. R. 
 p. 64): “ Secundum quod ipsis in baptismo dic¬ 
 tum est, Hospitum pedes Invent,” &c. The 
 48th canon of the Council of Illiberis, forbidding 
 the practice (neque pedes eorum [qui bapti- 
 zantur] lavandi sunt a sacerdotibus vel clericis), 
 marks probably a previous attempt to introduce 
 the observance in some parts of Spain, in imita¬ 
 tion of the usage elsewhere existing. No traces 
 of the rite are now anywhere to be found in con¬ 
 nection with the administration of baptism. But 
 a ceremonial, similar in its origin in which the 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 165 
 
 Pope takes part, forms one of the ohservauces of 
 the Holy Week at Rome to this day. 
 
 IV. At what times Baptism was administered. 
 
 § 68. In the Apostolic Age no special times 
 were appointed for the administration of bap¬ 
 tism, this being determined by the vary¬ 
 ing circumstances consequent, in the nature 
 of things, on the first establishment of the 
 faith. The first administration of Christian 
 baptism, properly so called, was on the first 
 Christian Pentecost (Acts ii.), when some 
 3000 persons gladly receiving the words of 
 Peter were at once baptized on the same day 
 (vcr. 41). The Ethiopian eunuch (Acts viii.), 
 when Philip, taking occasion from the prophecy 
 of Isaiah (cap. liii.), had taught him the glad 
 tidings of Jesus, was straightway baptized in 
 water by the way side. The jailor at Philippi 
 (Acts xvi.), when the word of the Lord had 
 been spoken unto him (ver. 32) by Paul and 
 Silas, was baptized with all his household while 
 it was night (ver. 33 compared with ver. 25). 
 And neither in Scripture nor in any of the ear¬ 
 lier Christian writers before Tertullian, is any 
 trace to be found of the setting apart of any 
 special season as more suited than others for the 
 administration. This greater liberty of the 
 Apostolic times is often alluded to by early 
 fathers, when dissuading men from the indefinite 
 deferring of baptism under pretext of observing 
 the fixed times appointed by the Church for its 
 more solemn administration. 
 
 § 69. Special seasons spoken of by Tertullian. 
 The first mention of any particular season as 
 being set apart for solemn administration of bap¬ 
 tism, is found in Tertullian (de Bapt. c. xix.) 
 writing about the close of the 2nd century. 
 “ Pascha ” (i. e. Easter), he says, “ offers a more 
 solemn season for baptism, for then was fulfilled 
 the Passion of the Lord into which we are bap¬ 
 tized .... And afterward Pentecost ” (f. e. the 
 whole period from Easter to the day of Pente¬ 
 cost) “ is a lengthened time for the preparation 
 of the waters (ordinandis aquis). Therein was 
 the Resurrection of the Lord celebrated among 
 the disciples, and the grace of the Holy Spirit 
 bestowed, and the hope of the advent of the 
 Lord suggested.” But in mentioning these as 
 times when baptism was administered with more 
 than usual solemnity, he is careful to add, that 
 “ every day is the Lord’s .... no hour, no 
 time, unsuitable for baptism ; the solemnity may 
 oe less, but in the grace given there is no diver¬ 
 sity.” Other I’eferences to these two periods, 
 or one of them, as specially observed for the 
 solemn administration of baptism, will be found 
 in St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianz., St. Chry¬ 
 sostom, and other writers both in East and West. 
 
 § 70. Baptism at Epiphany. Beside the two 
 seasons of Easter and Pentecost, there were not 
 a few churches in w'hich the Epiphany festival 
 was observed in the same way. Towards the 
 close of the 4th century, Siricius Bishop of 
 Rome stated (^Epist. ad flimermm, Labbe, Concil. 
 t. ii. p. 1018), that all Churches agreed with 
 that of Rome in an exclusive observance of 
 Easter and Pentecost. But in this he was mis¬ 
 taken. Many Eastern Churches, and not a few 
 in the West, which by origin or by subsequent 
 intercourse came under Eastern influence, ob¬ 
 served Epiphany (traditionally the time of our 
 
 Lord’s baptism in Jordan) as a season for solemn 
 administration of baptism. We find evidences 
 of this in the churches of Cappadocia (St. Greg. 
 Nazianz. Orat. xl. /ueVw ra (paiTa), at Antioch, 
 but before St. Chrysostom’s time (this by in¬ 
 ference from a comparison of St. Chrysostom’s 
 Catechesis I. ad Illuminandos; Migne, t. ii. p. 
 268; De Baptismo Christi, ibid. p. 433, seqq.; 
 and Horn. HI. in Ephes. i. ibid. t. xi. p. 25); at 
 Jerusalem (^Typicum S. Sabae, quoted by Valesius 
 on Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 27; and the 
 Itinerarium., Antonini Martyris); in Africa 
 (Victor Uticensis, De Persec. Vandal, lib. ii. in¬ 
 ferred from his mention of baptism when “ appro- 
 piuquabat jam futurus dies .... Kalendarum 
 Februarium ”); in Spain and Sicily (Siricius ad 
 Himerium, already referred to, and Leo, ad Epis- 
 copos Siciliae, Labbe, Concil. t. iii. p. 1297): in 
 Gaul (see Martene, de A. E. R. lib. i. cap. i. p. 
 2) ; in Ireland (St. Patricii .... Synodi, Ca- 
 nones, &c., ed. T. P. Villanuova, Dublin! 1835; 
 Wilkins, Concilia., p. 26, can. xix. These canons 
 are of late date in their present form, but pre¬ 
 serve some genuine traditions). 
 
 § 71. Other days were observed in some 
 churches. Thus we hear of “ Natalitia Christi,” 
 or Christmas, in Spain and in Gaul (see Martene, 
 as above), and of Festivals of Apostles and 
 Martyrs, in Spain (Siricius ad Himerium'), in 
 Campania, Samnium, and Picenum (Leo M. 
 Epist. 136), and of the Festival of St. John 
 Baptist (Gregor. Turon. Hist. Franc, cap. 9). 
 All days were allowable for the more private 
 administration in cases of pressing necessity from 
 sickness or other causes. 
 
 § 72. Roman us jge, however, was much more 
 strict in this particular than that of other 
 Western Churches. And with the zeal for ritual 
 uniformity which has ever been characteristic of 
 that Church (Gregory the Great a notable ex¬ 
 ception), her bishops, and a series of councils 
 more or less under Roman influence, made re¬ 
 peated efforts to confine the solemn administration 
 to the two seasons of Easter and Pentecost. 
 
 § 73. Papal decrees to this effect, directed to 
 churches of the Roman obedience, are those of 
 Siricius (385-398), in his epistle (Labbe, Concil. ii. 
 p. 1018) to Himerius, Bishop of Tarraco, in 
 Spain; of Leo the Great (440-461), writing to 
 the bishops of Sicily (Labbe, Concil. iii. p. 1297); 
 of Gelasius (492-496), to the bishops of Lucania; 
 Gregory II. (715-731) to the clergy and people 
 of Thuringia, and Nicolas 1. in his Itesponsa ad 
 Bulgaros, cap. 69. It is curious to find the same 
 Roman tradition seeking to assert itself in England 
 many centuries later, in the face of a superstitious 
 belief on the part of some that it was perilous to 
 have children baptised at those times. So we 
 learn from the language of Otto, Cardinal Legate 
 at the Council of London, a. 1237 (“Nonnulli in 
 Anglia periculum suspicantur si praefatis diebus 
 pueri baptizentur.” Wilkins, Concil. p. 650). 
 
 § 74. Councils. Identical in effect with the 
 decrees last quoted ai’e the canons of a series of 
 provincial councils, extending from the 0th to 
 the 13th century. The earliest of these is the 
 Council of Gerunda, in Hispania Tarraconensis, 
 a. 517. With this agree the Councils of Autis- 
 siodurum (Auxerre), a. 578 ; of Moguntia (May- 
 ence), a. 813, can. 4, ami again, a. 847, can. 3; 
 of Paris (Parisiense vi. a. 829, part 1. can. 7); 
 of Meaui (Meldense, a. 845); of Worms (Worma- 
 
166 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 tiense, a. 868, can. 1) ; of Tribur, or Teuver, 
 near Majence (Triburiense, a. 895, can. 12); of 
 Rouen ( Rothonihgense, a. 1072, can. 23); of 
 Winchester (Wintoniense, a. 1074, can. 7); of 
 London (Londinense, a. 1237). 
 
 § 75. Imperial and other authorities were not 
 wanting from time to time to enforce a practice 
 which popes and provincial councils were thus 
 continually enacting. The capitularies of Charle¬ 
 magne, a. 804, direct “ut nullus baptizare prae- 
 sumat nisi in Pascha et Pentecosten, excepto 
 infirmo.” To the same effect are the capitularia 
 collected by Benedictus Levita (lib. 1, n. 171). 
 “ Ut baptismus non fiat nisi statutis temporibus 
 id est Pascha et Pentecosten, nisi infirmitas inter- 
 cesserit.” And lib. ii. n. 171 : “ Ut nullus bapti¬ 
 zare praesumat nisi per duo tempora, id est vigilia 
 Paschae et vigilia Pentecostes, praeter mortis 
 periculum.” Bishops sometimes made this ob¬ 
 servance matter of special injunction to the clergy 
 at their ordination (St. Hildephonsus De Co^n. 
 Baptismi, lib. i. c. 108; Rodulfi Archiepisc. Bitu- 
 ricensis Capitular, n. 20; Ratherii Vei’onensis 
 Episcopi Synodica, apud Martene, Spicileyium, 
 tom. ii.), or desired parish priests to enforce this 
 duty upon their people from the pulpit (Otto, 
 Cardinalis, apud Wilkins, Concilia, p. 650). 
 
 § 76. Later usage. —The limitation of baptism 
 to one or two special periods in the year was of 
 advantage in the first four centui’ies, or there¬ 
 abouts, when the baptism of adults, requiring 
 previous instruction and preparation, was still of 
 prevailing usage. But this limitation no longer 
 served any important end, when under the changed 
 circumstances of the church the baptism of adults 
 was rare and exceptional. And accordingly these 
 restrictions have long ceased to be observed in 
 churches both of the East and of the West. 
 
 Places of administering Baptism. 
 
 § 77. Originally no limitation of place was 
 observed. Water by the roadside (Acts viii. 36- 
 38), private houses (Acts ix. 18), or a prison 
 (Acts xvi. 29, 30), were all made use of for the 
 purpose. And in sub-apostolic times we find 
 proof of the same freedom from all limitation. 
 See Justin Martyr, quoted above, § 7 ; dementis 
 Eecog. lib. iv. c. 32, and lib. vi. c. 15; Tertullian 
 de Bapt. c. 4. To the same effect are the tradi¬ 
 tionary stories, in early Hagiologies, of baptisms 
 performed in private houses, in prisons, in the 
 public road. See the lives of St. Laurentius 
 (Surii T7f. Sanct. die 23 Julii), of St. Apollinaris 
 {ibid, die 10 August), and of the Deacon Cyriacus 
 {ibid, die 16 Jan.). It is not till the close of the 
 3rd century that we meet with any mention of 
 baptisteries properly so called, and under the 
 name “ baptisterium ” (See the story of St. Cyri¬ 
 acus apud Surium, die 16 Jan.). [Baptistery.] 
 
 Baptism, by whom administered. 
 
 § 78. In the first five centuries, or there¬ 
 abouts, the rule and the practice of the Church 
 was, that the solemn celebration of baptism, 
 whether at Epiphany, Easter, or Pentecost, should 
 be presided over by the bishop. The earliest 
 authorities bearing upon this subject are, St. 
 Ignatius, ad Smyrn. cap. 8; Tertullian de Bapt. 
 c. 17 ; Constit. Apost. lib. iii. cap. xi. (bishops 
 and presbyters to baptize, deacons being in at¬ 
 tendance upon them); St. Gregor. Nyssen. Orat. 
 xl. (Paris, Morell, fol. 1630, tom. i. p. 656) where 
 
 ' baptism by bishops and presbyters is spoken of 
 Council of Illiberis, a. 313, can. 77, decreeing 
 j that if a deacon baptise any one, without either 
 bishop or presbyter, the sacrament must be “com¬ 
 pleted ” afterwards by the benediction of the 
 bishop; St. Jerome, adv. I^ucifer. c. 4 (saying 
 that neither Presbyter nor deacon have the right 
 of baptising without direction from the bishop, 
 though even laymen are frequently allowed to 
 baptise if necessity so require). In the 5th and 
 6th centuries we find at one time (Gelasii Papae 
 Epist. ad univ. episc. and Isidor. Hispal. Off. Eccl. 
 lib. ii. c. 24), a declaration that bishops and pres¬ 
 byters are the only proper administrators (cases 
 of necessity excepted); at another (Concil. Hispal. 
 ii. a. 619, can. 7), the vindication of the supreme 
 right of bishops in this matter, in depreciation 
 of that of presbyters. Of the practice of the 
 Eastern Churches at this time we find an indi¬ 
 cation in a letter written by the people of Edessa 
 at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, a. 451, 
 and inserted among its Acta. In it they beg that 
 Abas, their bishop, will return to them as soon 
 as possible, on account of the approaching Easter 
 Festival, his presence being required for the 
 instruction of the catechumens, and for those who 
 are found worthy to receive holy baptism. More 
 remarkable is a somewhat similar letter (quoted 
 by Martene Be A. E. B. tom. i. p. 7), in which 
 certain of the clergy in Italy write to Constanti¬ 
 nople, begging that the emperor will allow 
 Dacius, bishop of Milan, to return to his diocese 
 after an absence of fifteen or sixteen years, giving 
 as a reason that almost all the bishops custom¬ 
 arily ordained by the Bishop of Milan were now 
 dead, and an immense multitude of people died 
 witnout baptism (quia cum pene omnes episcopi, 
 quos ordinare solet, .... mortui sint, im- 
 mensa populi multitude sine baptismo moritur). 
 It is worthy of note in connection with this that 
 from the time of St. Ambrose to that of Cardinal 
 Borromeo, if not later, the traditions of the 
 Church of Milan have maintained in a raidety of 
 ways the special office of the bishop in the admi¬ 
 nistration of baptism. Paulinus, writing (circ. 
 420) the life of St. Ambrose, says that St. 
 Ambrose had with his own hands baptised more 
 persons than five succeeding bishops. And in 
 the Caeremoniale Ambrosianum, published by 
 Cardinal Borromeo (Martene, p. 7), it is stated 
 that the archbishop administered baptism solem.nly 
 twice in the year, at Easter and at Pentecost, 
 and also at other times throughout the year in 
 the event of any adults, converted from unbelief, 
 being presented for baptism. 
 
 § 79. In later centuries. The provision last 
 mentioned will of itself serve to suggest whv it 
 was that as time went on the personal action of 
 the bishop, as the recognised administrator of 
 baptism, became gradually less and less; while 
 that of presbyters, deacons, and even of clergy 
 of the minor orders, was continually increasing. 
 From the time when the baptism of adults be¬ 
 came the exception rather than the prevailing 
 rule, and when, from the wider extent of the 
 Church, the number of the children brought to 
 baptism was continually increasing, the older 
 practice of the Church gradually changed. It 
 was revived at a later time by missionary bishops, 
 such as our own countryman St. Bonitace in 
 Germany, or St. Otto of Bamberg in Pomerania 
 (^Hist. 3. Bonifacii and Hist. S. Ottonis, lib. ii. 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 c. 19, quoted by Martene De Ant. Ecrl. Hit. lib. i. 
 cap. i. art. iii.). But with exceptions such as 
 these last, exceptions which prove the rule, 
 the tendency in most Churches, from about 
 the close of the 5th century, was to make 
 the administration of baptism of less prominent 
 importance; and the part taken by the bishop 
 himself became gradually less and less. In the 
 Gregorian Sacramentary, not the bishop, but 
 presbyters, are spoken of as being in a special 
 sense the ministers of baptism (ministri baptismi). 
 And even at the more solemn ceremonies of the 
 Easter Baptism at Rome and elsewhere, the 
 bishop merely inaugurated the ceremony by 
 baptising a few himself, leaving the rest to 
 presbyters, to deacons, or if need were to acolytes. 
 (^Ot'do Romanus apud Mabillon Mus. Ital. t. ii., 
 and Martene De A. E. i?. t. i. p. 8, col. 2.) 
 
 § 80. Lay Baptism. Tertullian {de hapt. cap. 
 
 17) and St. Jerome {adv. Lucif. cap. 4 ; see above, 
 § 78) say, in effect, that for a layman to baptise 
 is not contrary to essential Christian principles, 
 though contrary to ecclesiastical order. And 
 such practically has been the judgment of the 
 Church in all later times, forbidding lay baptism 
 as a rule, but recognising it in cases of necessity. 
 See as to this the Council of Illibei’is, a. 313, 
 can. 38. In late mediaeval times the practice of 
 lay baptism became very common. See, as illus¬ 
 trating English usage in this matter, the Council 
 of Durham (between the years 1217 and 1222; 
 in Wilkins, Concil. p. 575) and the Council of 
 Oxfoi'd, a. 1222 {ibid. p. 594). 
 
 § 81. Baptism by Women. The question 
 whether women may lawfully baptise is first 
 adverted to by Tertullian. Nothing can well be 
 stronger than his language, diluted though it be 
 by some later writers into the assertion that 
 women may not “publicly baptise in the church.” 
 After saying {de bapt. cap. 17) that in cases of 
 perilous necessity laymen should not hesitate to. 
 give baptism, he goes on to say that women, 
 though they took upon themselves to teach, 
 would scarcely, with all their presumption, 
 attempt to create a right to administer baptism, 
 unless indeed some strange beast arose like to 
 one that formerly had been. That former one 
 sought to do away with baptism; some successor 
 might perhaps seek to confer baptism herself. 
 Compare De Virgin, veland. cap. 9, and De 
 PraesGript.cfi'g.Al. 'Yha Apostolical Constitutions, 
 lib. iii. cap. 9; Epiphanius, Haeres. 70; and the 
 Fourth Council of Carthage, a. 398, canon 20 
 (“ Mulier, quamvis docta et sancta, viros in con¬ 
 vent u docere, v^el aliquos baptizare, non prae- 
 sumat ”), are all to the same effect. Isidore of 
 Hispala is referred to (by Augusti, Denkw. p. 115) 
 as saying that persons baptised by women are not 
 to be rebaptised. And Joannes Moschus (Pmfwm 
 Spirituale, cap. 3) says that it is contrary to the 
 canons for women to baptise, yet makes an ex¬ 
 ception for cases of the last extremity. Even as 
 late as the 12th century we find Hugo de S. 
 Victore speaks of it as still with some a disputed 
 question whether baptism by women was valid. 
 
 § 82. Baptism by Heretics. The question of 
 the validity or otherwise of baptism by heretics 
 is one which was forced on the attention of the 
 Chui-ch in the 3rd century by the Donatist Schism. 
 The dissension thence aidsing between St. Cyprian 
 (sujiported by all the African bishops and by 
 several of the Eastern Churches) and Stephen 
 
 BAPTISM 167 
 
 Bishop of Rome, is on many grounds of great 
 importance to early Church histoiy. But this 
 lies beyond the scope of the present article. The 
 fiuiil settlement of the question was ba.sed upon 
 the principle that the unworthiness of the mini.s- 
 trant cannot mar the act of God, or as was said, 
 that the wickedness of the sower affects net the 
 vitality of the seed. Hence the question of re¬ 
 baptising or otherwise was for the most part 
 determined simply by the question whether the 
 essential elements of baptism w'ere wanting or 
 no, viz.: water and the words prescribed by our 
 Lord. If these were employed the baptism w’^as 
 regarded as valid, though irregular, and the 
 person so baptised was admitted into communion, 
 if on other grounds found worthy, after impo¬ 
 sition of the hands of the bishop. 
 
 § 83. Baptism by Pagans and Jews, and excom¬ 
 municate persons, has been held to fall under the 
 same rule as that last stated. But opinions have 
 not been altogether at one upon this point. See 
 the authorities quoted by Martene, De A. E. B. 
 lib. i. cap. 1, art. iii. 
 
 § 84. Baptism administered in sport. Perhaps 
 the strongest illustration of the feeling of anti¬ 
 quity in this matter is afforded by the story told 
 by Socrates {Hist. Ecc. lib. ii. c. 16) and by 
 Ruffinus {Hist. Ecc. lib. i. c. 14). When Atha¬ 
 nasius was a boy, so the story is told, he w’as 
 playing with some young companions on the 
 shore at Alexandria. The bishojj, Alexander by 
 name, happened to be looking on from a distance 
 as they played, and observed, to his astonishment, 
 that they were imitating the ceremonial of 
 baptism, Athanasius acting as “ boy-bishop,” to 
 anticipate a phrase of well-known Mediaeval 
 usage. “On diligent inquiry,” we translate now 
 the words of Ruffinus, “ both from those who 
 wei’e said to have been baptised, as to what they 
 had been asked and what they had replied (the 
 eTTfpuTTjaeLS and the aTroKpiaeis, above, § 43), 
 and from him also who had put the baptismal 
 questions, when the bishop found that all things 
 had been duly performed according to the ob¬ 
 servances of religion, he conferred with his clergy 
 in council, and is said to have decided to this 
 effect, that, as water had been poured upon these 
 persons after the interrogations and responses 
 had been duly made, their baptism ought not to 
 be repeated, but only be made complete by the 
 customary sacerdotal acts (adimplere ea quae a 
 sacerdotibus mos est). Doubts have been raised 
 as to whether such an occurrence ever actually 
 took place ; but whether the story be true or no 
 it serves equally to illustrate the feeling of the 
 Church at the time the story was first told. 
 
 § 85. Baptism self-administered. To make this 
 subject complete, it may perhaps be added that 
 on one occasion the question arose whether bap¬ 
 tism self-administered was valid. The question 
 was decided in the negative by Pope Innocent III. 
 on the gi’ound that there is an essential distinction 
 of person between the baptiser and the baptised. 
 The Council of Nismes (a. 1283) embodied this 
 decision in one of their canons: “Si quis se ipsum 
 baptizaverit talem non esse baptizatum ecciesia 
 judicabit.” 
 
 With what matter Baptism was administered. 
 
 § 86. Of water as the material element. Water 
 from natural associations has ever been associated 
 with ideas of life in the minds of must cultivated 
 
168 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 nations. And to Heathens (Tertullian. de hapt. 
 c. 5), as ■well as to Jews, it was associated not 
 in thought only, but in actual ceremonial usage, 
 with ideas of religious purification. This was the 
 material element-employed in the Baptism of our 
 Lord, this that was united in mention by Him 
 with the Name of the Spirit, when speaking 
 (John iii.) of the gift of a new spiritual birth. 
 And this accordingly from the first Christian 
 Pentecost (Acts ii.) to this time, has been re¬ 
 garded in all parts of Christendom and at all 
 times as determined by divine appointment to 
 be the material element in the administration of 
 Baptism. The few exceptions to this statement 
 which require notice are the following. 
 
 § 87. Baptism by fire. Philastrius of Brescia 
 (^De Haeres. n. viii. apud Biblioth. Patr. Galland. 
 tom. vii. p. 489), and St. Augustine quoting him 
 as an authority (^De Haeres. cap. lix. BB. tom, 
 viii. p. 20 s. 7), speak of Seleucus and Hermas as 
 founders of a Sect of which one characteristic 
 was their maintaining the only true baptism to 
 be “ Spiritu et igni.” And in an anonymous 
 Treatise on Heretical Baptism we read of some 
 who, by what means is not known, produced an 
 appearance of fire on the baptismal water, in 
 order to complete what they thoiight necessary 
 for Christian Baptism. And so again Irenaeus 
 and Clement of Alexandria speak of certain 
 heretics (Carpocratians and Heraclians) who 
 branded a mark upon the ears of their aisciples, 
 this being in their eyes the true sealing (^treppayi- 
 Cfiv) with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 § 88. Baptising with wine and the like. The 
 authority of a bishop of Rome, Siricius (a. 384 
 to 389), or according to others of Stephanus II. 
 or III,, has been claimed for the assertion, that 
 Baptism in wine is valid though not to he allowed 
 except in cases of the last necessity. The facts 
 concerning this, much disptited by Roman Ritu¬ 
 alists, may be determined by comparison of the 
 following authorities: Antoninus Augustinus de 
 emendatione Gratiani, p. 200. Baluzius, Notae in 
 Anton. August, p. 431. Martene de Ant. Ecc. 
 Bit. lib. i. cap. i. Art. xiv. Bertini de Sacrament. 
 Vindob. 1774, p. 507. Harduini Dissert, de hap- 
 tismo in vino. Others mingled wine with water 
 and were condemned {Excerpta Egberti, a. 750 
 in Wilkins, Concil. p. 104) for so doing. 
 
 § 89. Baptism with sand. In one cas'i, for 
 which Joannes Moschus is the earliest authority, 
 the question arose not as a mere abstract dispu¬ 
 tation, but in reference to an actual matter of 
 fact, whether baptism in sand be legitimate or 
 no. In the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 
 a certain Jew was travelling in company with 
 some Christians through a dry and desert coun¬ 
 try, when he was seized with gidevous illness; 
 and being apparently at the point of death 
 begged his companions to baptize him. They 
 replied that there was neither priest nor water 
 at hand, and that without these baptism could 
 not be had. “ But being earnestly adjured not to 
 refuse him, they divested the man, and sprinkled 
 him three times with sand instead of water, 
 saying that they baptized him in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost.” Upon this (so the story proceeds) his 
 strength was miraculously restored, and on their 
 return, Dionysius, then Bishop of Alexandria, 
 being consulted on the subject, decided “ Bapti- 
 zatum esse Judaeum si modo aqua denuo per- 
 
 funderetur,” in other words that the only thing 
 wanting to his Baptism was the element of water, 
 with which he was to be “ perfusus.” Autho¬ 
 rities for this will be found in Joannes Moschus, 
 Pratum SjArituale, cap. 176 (De la Bigne, Bi- 
 blioth. Patr. tom, ii. pp. 1132, 113.3), in Nice- 
 phorus (^Hist. Ecc. lib. iii. c, 37); and the story 
 is told in detail by the Magdeburg Centuriatc-";, 
 who are quoted by Bingham {^Antiq. book xi. e. 
 2 , § 5 ). 
 
 § 90. Baptism with milk. Benedictus Abbas 
 Petroburgensis (in Gedis Henrici II. ad ann. 
 1171, edit. Hearne tom. i, p. 38) states that a 
 custom prevailed in the early Irish Church of 
 baptizing the children of the rich in milk. Oc¬ 
 casional references are found elsewhere to such a 
 practice. See Michelet, Histoire de Franxe, vol. 
 i. p. 263. Note. 
 
 § 91. Figurative expressions. Phrases such as 
 “the baptism of blood,’ meaning martyrdom; 
 “ Baptism with fire,” meaning either mai-tyrdom 
 (as in Euseb. H. E. lib. vi. c. 4) or gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit (as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in three 
 different passages) ; the Baptism of Tears, mean¬ 
 ing Repentance (as in Isidore of Seville and 
 others), are merely metaphorical expressions, 
 bearing indeed upon primitive Doctrine, but not 
 in any way upon primitive Ritual to which this 
 article is limited. 
 
 Modes of administering Baptism (by Immersion, 
 Affusion, Aspersion). 
 
 § 92. Immersion. Passages already quoted in 
 this article will have sufficed to show that the 
 ordinary mode of Baptism in primitive times, at 
 least in the case of adults, was that the Cate¬ 
 chumen should descend into a Font of water 
 (whether natural or artificial), and while stand¬ 
 ing therein dip the head thrice under the water. 
 See §§ 11, 18, 49. 
 
 § 93. Affusion. Yet there are not wanting 
 indications both in literature and in art of an 
 other usage, viz., that of the bishop or other 
 administrant pouring water out of the hand, or 
 from some small vessel, on the head of the bap¬ 
 tized. Thus we meet more than once in Latin 
 writers with the expression “ perfusus ” applied 
 to the Catechumen (see §§ 28 and 89; and aqua 
 infusa § 84). And it is to be noted that fhe 
 woi’d BaTTTi^ftz/, w'hich is used in Greek Ritual 
 in speaking of the act of the ministrant, might 
 be used with perfect propriety of such a pouring 
 of water upon the head and body as that now in , 
 question. One common mode of bathing among 
 the ancients w'as the pouring of water from 
 vessels over the body, as we may see in ancient 
 
 Bepresontation of Baptism, from the Cemetery of Calutas. 
 
 vase paintings (compare Ovid’s description of 
 Diana’s bath, •where her attendants “ urnis capa- 
 cibus undam Efiuudunt ”). And it is remarkable 
 that in almost all the earliest representations of 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 169 
 
 Baptism that have been preserved to us, this is 
 the special act represented. Such appears to be 
 the representation in the fresco from the Ceme¬ 
 tery of St, Calixtus here engi*aved. 
 
 In the picture of Our Lord’s Baptism in the 
 Baptistery of St. John at Ravenna (Ciampini 
 Vet. Mon. tom. i. Tab. Ixx.) dating probably 
 from about the year 450, our Lord is standing 
 ii; the Joi'dan, the water reaching to the waist, 
 and the Baptist is standing near, as if upon the 
 bank, and pouring water from a shell, or from 
 some small vessel, upon the head of our Lord. 
 And there is a similar representation, varying, 
 however, in some of its details, in the Church of 
 S. Maria in Cosmedin, also at Ravenna (Ciam¬ 
 pini Vet. Mon. i. Tab. xxiii.), the Mosaics of 
 which are said to date from the year 553 A.D. 
 And it would seem probable on a review of all 
 the evidence, that in primitive times, while adult 
 Baptism was still of prevailing usage, the two 
 modes hitherto described were combined. The 
 dipping of the head under water took place, in 
 some churches certainly, so we find clearly 
 stated, during the final Interrogations. And 
 where this was the case we may infer that the 
 “ Aftusio ” or “ Perfusio,” the pouring on of 
 water by the Ministrant, took place during the 
 pronunciation of the formula. This hypothesis 
 of a double use explains some difficulties in 
 ancient authors, more particularly in the Trea¬ 
 tise De Sacramentis attributed to St. Ambrose, 
 and in the Egyptian Ritual already referred to. 
 And its probability is confirmed by the fact that 
 in the Armenian Order of Baptism even to this 
 day the double usage of Immersion and Affusion 
 is maintained. There the actual administration 
 is described as follows : The priest asks the child’s 
 name, and on hearing it, lets the child down 
 into the water, saying, “ This N. servant of God, 
 who is come from the state of childhood (or 
 from the state of a Catechumen) to Baptism, is 
 baptized in the Name of the Father and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” .... While say¬ 
 ing this the priest buries the child^ (or Catechu¬ 
 men) three times in the water, as a figui’e of 
 Christ’s three days’ burial. Then taking the 
 child out of the water he thrice pours a handful 
 of water on his head, saying, “ As many of you 
 as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
 Christ. Hallelujah. As many of you as have 
 been enlightened by the Father, the Holy Spirit 
 is put into you. Hallelujah.” (Fi’om an unpub¬ 
 lished translation by the Rev. S. C. Malan.) 
 
 § 94, Affusion and Aspersion in clinic Baptism. 
 In one case of very common occurrence in early 
 times, viz., that of the Baptism of the sick under 
 fear of approaching death, the administration 
 was necessarily by Affusion or by Aspersion. And 
 in the middle of the third century we find the 
 question formally raised, by one of the African 
 bishops, whether persons so baptized (clinici, or 
 as they were also called grabatarii, baptized on a 
 sick-bed) could be regarded as “ legitimi Chrls- 
 tiani,” could be supposed, in other words, to have 
 received baptism in a legitimate and regular 
 manner. The manner in which Cypi’ian replies 
 to the enquiry (Cypriani Epist. Ixxvi. al, Ixix. 
 ad Magnum) shows that no formal decision had, 
 to his knowledge, ever been given previously on 
 the question. He judges of the question sub¬ 
 mitted to him to the best of his own abilitv 
 (quantum concipit mediocritas nostra), and ex¬ 
 
 presses an opinion that the mode in which the 
 water was applied was a matter of minor im¬ 
 portance, provided that Faith was not wanting 
 on the part both of Ministi’ant and Recipient. 
 In the ninth century Walafrid Strabo speaks of 
 Baptism by Affusion, “desuper fundendo,” as ex¬ 
 ceptional only (De Beb. Eccl. cap. 26). Not till 
 the 13th century (August! Denkwiirdig. cap. ix. § 
 11) do we find proof that Affusion or Aspersion 
 had become the rule of the Western Church. 
 The older 2 )ractice is maintained in the East to 
 this day. 
 
 Age at which Baptism was conferred. (Infant 
 and Adult Baptism.) 
 
 § 95. Infant Baptism. St. Iremeus. Direct 
 evidence of the practice of Infant Baptism first 
 occurs in St. Irenaeus, who was born, probably, in 
 the year 97 A. D., and who had sat at the feet of 
 Polycarp, the disciple of St. John. In his book 
 against Heresies (lib. ii. cap. 39 al. 22) he says 
 that our Lord came (into the world) in order 
 that through Himself He might save all men, 
 infants, and little ones, and children and youths 
 and elders, even all who through Him are born 
 again unto God. No unprejudiced interpreter 
 acquainted with the forms of speech habitually 
 employed by Irenaeus himself, and by the early 
 fathers generally, will doubt that when Irenaeus 
 thus speaks of infants and little ones, as well as 
 others of more mature age, being “ born again 
 unto God,” he refers to the fact of their being 
 baptized. (For Irenaeus’ own usage see particu¬ 
 larly adv. Haer. lib. i. c. 18 els rod 
 
 ^aivTiaixaros rys els 6ehv avayew/icreus^ and cap. 
 xix., where authority to baptise is described as 
 “ potestas regenerationis in Deum.”) 
 
 § 96. Tertullian was of full age before the 
 death of Irenaeus, and in knowledge of antiquity, 
 and of the usages of the Church, was second to 
 none then living. And he gives absolutely con¬ 
 clusive proof that Baptism of Infants was a com¬ 
 mon practice of the Church in his own time, 
 towards the close of the second century. With 
 characteristic freedom he expresses his own 
 opinion that the practice might wisely be 
 altered, stating reasons for his opinion (^de Bapt. 
 c. 18). But he nowhere says one word to im¬ 
 ply that the practice of his own contemporaries 
 was an innovation upon the earlier usage of the 
 Church. 
 
 § 97. Origen. We have testimony no less 
 decisive from Origen as to what was the tradi¬ 
 tionary practice of the more Eastern Chuvehea, 
 He was born probably in the year 186 A, D. and 
 was a disciple of Clemens Alex, and an inheritor 
 of his great learning. His language in several 
 passages shows not only that Infant Baptism was 
 a recognised practice of the Church in his own 
 day, but that in his belief (and no man knew 
 more of antiquity) had been equally so from the 
 time of the Apostles, See his Horn, viij, on Le¬ 
 viticus (Oberthur t. vi. p. 137) and Horn, xiv, 
 on St. Luke (t. xiii. p. 335), where he argues 
 that infimts must have original sin, “ else why 
 are they baptized ? ”—^and his comment in Ep. 
 ad Rom. lib. v. c. vi. (ecclesia ab ajiostolis tradi- 
 tionem accepit etiam parvuUs baptismum dare). 
 
 § 98, Other early evidence, but indirect and 
 inferential only, has by some been cited (Bing¬ 
 ham C. A. book xi. ch. iv. §§ vi. vii.) from Cle¬ 
 ment of Rome, and from Justin Martyr, Mor« 
 
170 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 conclusive than these is an expression of Clemens 
 Alex, in the second century, when (^Paedag. lib. 
 iii. c. 11) he speaks of twv e’l vSdrtav dvaairwiJLi- 
 vwv TTaiZiwv, the children that are drawn up from 
 out of the water, in a context which shows clearly 
 that it is of Baptism that he speaks. 
 
 § 99. Jems/i Proselyte Baptism .—In order to 
 complete the subject of the evidence for Infant 
 Baptism, it may be w'ell to refer to the argu¬ 
 ments based on the analogy of Christian Baptism 
 both to the Proselyte Baptism of the Jews, 
 wliich was given to infants as well as to adults, 
 and to the rite of circumcision, administered on 
 the 8th day after birth, and only in excejdional 
 cases to adults. For the first of these, the Bap¬ 
 tism of Proselytes, the argument from analogy 
 is exceedingly strong, on the assumption that 
 the practice in question really existed before the 
 Apostolic age. Lightfoot (on Matt. iii. and John 
 iii.) and many other Hebraists assume the pre¬ 
 existence of the Jewish rite without doubt. To 
 the present writer there appear to be the 
 strongest grounds for this opinion. But among 
 Continental scholars at the present time the 
 prevailing opinion appears to be opposed to that 
 of Lightfoot. A summary of the arguments 
 on either side, and full references to the best 
 authorities, will be found in Carpzovius Anno- 
 tationes in T. Gooducini Mosen et Aaronem. Fran- 
 cofurti, 4, 1748. See particularly the Xotes 
 on Lib. i. cap. iii. § vii. For additional authori¬ 
 ties see the Bibliographia Antiquaria of T. A. 
 Fabricius, p. 385. 
 
 § 100. The Analogy of Circumcision (adminis¬ 
 tered as this was in infancy) with Christian 
 Baptism, is recognised both in Scripture (Col. 2. 
 ii.) and in early Christian writers, as Justin 
 Martyr, Dial, cum Tryp. lud .; St. Irenaeus adv. 
 Haer. lib. iv. c. xxx. (this, however, open to dis¬ 
 pute). In St. Cyprian’s time so close was this 
 analogy considered by some as to cause doubt 
 whether in Auew of “ eighth day circumcision ” 
 any day earlier than the eighth were allowable 
 for Christian Baptism (Cypriani Epist. lix.). St. 
 Gregory Nazianz. expressly appeals to this as 
 analogous to the practice of Infant Baptism 
 (prat. xl. de Bapt. p. 658). 
 
 § 101. Adult Baptism. The general conclu¬ 
 sion, resulting from an impartial investigation 
 of all the evidence now available, appears to the 
 jjresent writer to be, that in the first four cen¬ 
 turies of Christian History adult baptism was, 
 from a variety of concurrent causes, the pre¬ 
 vailing practice. Yet that during the .same 
 period infants were always baptised without 
 delay if in apparent danger of death. But in 
 the absence of such danger their baptism was 
 deferred to the time of solemn baptism held at 
 Kpiphany, Easter, or Pentecost. And it is pro¬ 
 bable that in many cases Christian parents may 
 have shared, and have acted on, the opinion ex¬ 
 pressed by Tertullian in the second century, and 
 by Gregory Nazianz, in the fourth, and thought 
 it well to defer the baptism of children, cases 
 of grave sickness excepted, till they were able to 
 make answer on their own behalf to the inter¬ 
 rogations of the baptismal rite (see Gregor. Naz,, 
 Orat. xl. He urges the baptism of infants in 
 case of danger, and yet shortly after advises the 
 deferring their baptism in other cases till they 
 were three years old). In the year 450 or there¬ 
 abouts, we find evidence that in Syria, if not 
 
 elsewhere, the baptism of infants was regarded 
 as not allowable only but matter of absolute 
 duty. (St, Isaac the Great in Assemani Bihl. 
 Oriental, t. i, 221. “ Let the lambs of our flock 
 
 be sealed from the first, that the Robber may 
 see the mark impressed (§ 4) upon their bodies 
 and tremble. Let not a child that is without 
 the seal (§ 4) suck the milk of a mother that 
 hath been baptized .... Let the children cf 
 the kingdom be carried, from the womb, to 
 baptism.”) 
 
 V. Baptism as represented in Ancient Art. 
 
 § 102. Direct Representations. Of two modes 
 in which we find baptism represented in ancient 
 art, the first, that of direct representation, is 
 confined to a very limited number of examples. 
 The earliest, probably, is one of those engraved 
 for this article (see § 93) from the cemetery 
 of St. Calixtus at Rome, and believed by De Ro.ssi 
 to be of the second century. It serves to illus¬ 
 trate what has been .said above of what appears 
 to have been one customary mode of administer¬ 
 ing the rite, viz., by pouring water from the 
 hand, or from a small vessel held in the hand, 
 upon a person standing in shallow water. Two 
 Mosaics, at Ravenna and at Rome, in which the 
 baptism of our Lord is represented, have been 
 already described (see § 93). Another similar 
 representation is painted in fresco on the walls 
 of a chamber in the cemetery of Pontianus, 
 originally u.sed as a baptistery; and yet another 
 in the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin, at 
 Ravenna (the Mosaic said to be of the 6th cen¬ 
 tury), figured in Ciampini, Vet. Alonum. i. p. 78. 
 Millin (Midi de la France) has engraved (Atlas, 
 PI. Ixv. 11) a peculiar representation of this sub¬ 
 ject from a sarcophagus. With this may be 
 compared that on the diptych of Milan, figured 
 and described by Bugati (Memorie di S. Celso, p. 
 282), and reproduced in facsimile by the Arundel 
 Society. No other such representations are 
 known to the present writer, dating certainly from 
 any period antecedent to 800 a.d. But two very 
 curious representations were engraved by Ciam- 
 pinus in his Monumenta Vetera (tom. i. p. 16) 
 of Sarcophagi, to which he attributed a x’ery 
 great antiquity. In the first is represented the 
 baptism of a king and queen (their rank being 
 indicated by a Royal crown on the head of each), 
 and these he supposes to represent Agilulfus and 
 his wife Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards, 
 baptized, as he thinks, in the year 590. On the 
 other sarcophagus a somewhat similar scene is 
 represented. A man somewhat advanced in 
 years kneels to receive baptism, which is admi¬ 
 nistered by affusion only, water being poured 
 upon his head from a small vessel, which h.as 
 been filled evidently from one of larger size (not 
 unlike the upper part of a modern English font) 
 which stands near. Ciampinus supposes (but on 
 very slight grounds) that the event represented 
 is the baptism of Arrichius, second Duke of 
 Benev^entum, a contemporary of Gregory the 
 Great, circ. 591 A.D, It is remarkable that in 
 both these .scenes the ministrant of the baptism 
 has the distinctive dress of a layman, while all 
 the other men represented are designated by an 
 ecclesiastical or a monastic di’ess. The real date 
 of these sarcophagi must, however, be regarded 
 as extremely uncertain. To the 12th century 
 belongs a fresco in the church of St. Lorenzoi 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 171 
 
 nt Rome (ibid. tom. i. Tab. vi.), representing the 
 baptism of St. Romanus, by St. Laurentius. This 
 embodies the tradition alluded to by Walafrid 
 Strabo in the 9th century. “Notandum non 
 solum mergeudo verum etiam desuper fundendo 
 multos baptizatos fuisse, et adhuc posse ita 
 baptizari si necessitas sit, sicuti in passione B. 
 Laureutii quendam urceo allato legimus bap- 
 tizatum. Hoc etiam solet evenire cum provec- 
 tiorum granditas corporum in minoribus vasis 
 hominem tingi non patitur.” The baptism of 
 two adults by St. Paul, represented in the same 
 plate (from a chapel in the church of S. Puden- 
 tiana) is probably of the same date. To the 
 same period is to be assigned the representation 
 of the imaginary baptism of Constantine by St. 
 Silvester, formerly on the fa 9 ade of St. John 
 Lateral!, at Rome (Ciampini de Sac. Aedif. tah. ii. 
 Hg. 4). The picture engraved below is from a 
 
 Baptismal Ceremony, from a Pontiflcal of the Ninth Century. 
 
 Pontifical of the 9th centui’y, now in the S. 
 Minerva Library at Rome. It represents the 
 baptism of an infant and of an adult, and it is 
 remarkable that the latter is represented as 
 wearing a tunic in the font. This is in oppo¬ 
 sition to the conclusions drawn from literary 
 evidence, noticed above in § 48. The en¬ 
 graving in § 43 is from the same MS., or 
 rather from an exact copy in the collection 
 of Pope Clement XL, now in the Royal 
 Library at Windsor. 
 
 § 103. Symbolical Eepresentation. From 
 a very early period indeed, the practice ob¬ 
 tained of representing baptism symbolically 
 under a figure due, probably, in the first 
 instance, to an expression recorded in Mark 
 i. 17 (“I will make you fishers of men”), 
 and to the parable wherein our Lord com¬ 
 pares the heavenly kingdom to a net en¬ 
 closing fish both bad and good. A well- 
 known passage of Tertullian will suffice for 
 illustration of this symbolical meaning. 
 
 “ Nos pisciculi secundum piscern nostrum 
 in aquis nascimur, nec nisi in aquis per- 
 manendo salvi sumus.” We smaller fishes, 
 alter the example of our Ichthus, are born 
 ii- water, and only by continuing in the 
 water do we remain safe (de Bapt. c. 1). 
 
 We find the same figure in a passage of St. 
 Hilary (In Matthaeum, ed Ben. tom. iii. 
 p. 679), in which he says that in the 
 words recorded in Matt. iv. 19, “ The future 
 work of the Apostles is set forth, in draw¬ 
 ing forth men, like fish from out of the 
 
 sea, into the light of the heavenly habitation.” 
 And to come somewhat nearer home we find 
 St. Patrick and his nephew Secundiuus fre¬ 
 quently employing the same language in re¬ 
 ference to the missionary work in which they 
 were engaged. The former says in his “Con¬ 
 fession,” “ Valde debitor sum Deo qui mihi 
 tantam gratiam dedit ut populi multi per me in 
 Deum renascerentur et postmodum consum- 
 marentur .... Idcirco oportet quidem bene et 
 diligenter piscari, sicut Dominus praemonet 
 dicens, venite post me, taciarn vos fieri piscatores 
 hominura.” And Secundinus, speaking of St. 
 Patrick:— 
 
 “ Dominus ilium elogit ut doceret barbaras 
 Nationes, et piscaretur per d»ctrinae retia, 
 
 Ut de saeculo credentes traheret ad gratiam, 
 Dominumque sequerentur sedem ad aetheream.” 
 
 This symbol of the fish is of frequent occurrence 
 in the Roman catacombs, and in various 
 parts of France. The writer has observed in 
 manuscripts, and in ecclesiastical monuments 
 of various kinds at Autun, Clermont Ferrand, 
 and at Paris, a peculiar application of this 
 symbol, which has not hitherto, to his know¬ 
 ledge, been either described or explained. 
 Two fi'ilies are represented in close proxi¬ 
 mity, attached the one to the other by a 
 string which issues from the mouth of one, 
 and attaches to the head of the other. This 
 is in all probability a Christian adaptation 
 of an old Celtic symbol familiar to the 
 Gauls in Pagan times. Their God of Elo¬ 
 quence was represented with a golden cord 
 issuing from his mouth, and entering the 
 ear of one to whom he is supposed to speak. 
 And so in the Christian symbolism of Gaul 
 at a later period. He who spake as never man 
 spake, is represented under the well-known figure 
 of an IX0TC or Fish, drawing to Him by the 
 power of His Word one who is himself (in the 
 language of the Autun inscription) IX0TOC 
 OTPANIOY FENOC, the offspring of that hea- 
 
 OapiUlt (n>m Uie Clinn:b of St. Oermaiii Jos Pi js at Paris 
 
172 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 venly Fish. This repi’esentation may be seen 
 over the western doors of the cathedral at Autuu, 
 in a MS. Bible (11th century probably) in the 
 public library at Clermont Ferrand, and on the 
 capital of a column in the baptistery of the 
 church of St. Germain des Pr& at Paris. There 
 also appears a modification of the fish symbol, 
 which is probably unique in its kind. Figures are 
 represented which are half-man and half-fsh, with 
 their hands clasped upon a fish, which is rising 
 upwards through the water, as shown in the 
 accompanying woodcut. The church in which 
 this capital is still to be seen is, eA’^en in its pre¬ 
 sent state, the oldest in Paris. When it was 
 built in the 11th or 12th century in place of a 
 church, originally built six centuries before, the 
 capitals of many of the older columns were pre¬ 
 served, and employed in the construction of the 
 present building. And on these, as on other 
 grounds which cannot now be stated in detail, 
 there can be little doubt that this representation 
 dates, in origin at least, from the very earliest 
 period of the Gallican Church. (See Marriott’s 
 Testimony of the Catacombs, ^c., p. 142, sq.) 
 
 VI. Literature. 
 
 § 104.—It only remains to mention briefly the 
 chief sources of information upon the various 
 matters treated in this article. Details as to the 
 primitive idtual of baptism are to be sought in 
 the various authoi's and treatises already quoted 
 or referred to. See particularly §§ 27 to 40. 
 Among modern authors, who have treated of the 
 Ritual of Baptism, may be mentioned Hixgo 
 Menardus, whose notes on the saci'amentary of 
 St. Gregory the Great abound with instruction 
 upon this as upon other matters of which he 
 ti'eats. The treatise of Edmond Martene, De 
 Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, part i., is full of infor¬ 
 mation as to Western usages, and gives, what is 
 of especial value, a large collection of the earliest 
 “ Ordines Baptismi.” But he shows little ac¬ 
 quaintance with Greek authors, and his references 
 to them, and occasionally to Latin writers, are 
 not always exact. Goar, in his Euchologion 
 Graecorum, gives full details of the later Greek 
 rites, and his notes upon these, illustrating 
 modern usage from the older writers, are 
 valuable. Bingham (^Antiquities, book xi.) does 
 not appear to have investigated the early ritual 
 of baptism very thoroughly, but the later 
 editions of his treatise are of use as containing 
 in the notes full citations from the original text 
 of the various authors whom he quotes. The 
 Treatise of Augusti, Archaologie der Taufe, form¬ 
 ing vol. vii. of his Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der 
 Christlicher Archaologie, contains more, and more 
 exact information, than any of the older writers 
 on the subject. And it is also valuable as giving 
 lists of writers who have treated either of bap¬ 
 tism generally, or of special questions in con¬ 
 nection with it. Binterim has given (Die Vor- 
 ziiglichsten Denkwwdiglieiten der Christ-Catho- 
 lischen Kirche, vol. i. pt. 1) a fair account of the 
 ceremonies of Baptism, with abundant citations ; 
 and an essay on Baptism in Wine, Milk, and Sand 
 (Denkw. ii. pt. i., pp. 2-34). [W. B. M. 
 
 BAPTISM, Angel of. Tcrtulliau in his 
 treatise de Baptismo, cc. 5 and 6, speaks of an 
 angel who is present at baptism (baptismi 
 arbiter), and who prepares the waters of the 
 
 font (aquis in salutem hominis temperandis adest 
 —aquis intervenit), and under whose auspices 
 men are prepared, by the cleansing of the font, 
 for the following gift of the Holy Spirit (in aqua 
 emundati sub angelo Spiritui Sancto praepara- 
 mur). His language is not inconsistent with a 
 belief that this may have been a mere ir lividual 
 speculation of his own, rather than a loctrine 
 generally accepted in his time. No pa allel to 
 this language has hitherto, as far as tht writer 
 knows, been alleged from any other early writers. 
 But in more than one of the early “ Ordines 
 Baptismi ” there will be found expressions, de¬ 
 rived, in all probability, from this very passage of 
 Tertullian. See the Article Bakiism, § 29, 
 where there is the same allusion as in Tertullian 
 to the angel at Bethesda (angelum aquis inter¬ 
 venire si novum videtur, exemplum futuri prae- 
 cucurrit. Piscinam Bethesdam angel us inter- 
 
 veniens commovebat. de Bapt. c. 5). With 
 
 this compare the “Collectio” of the Gotho-Gal- 
 lican Missal. “ Descendat super has aquas angel us 
 benedictionis tuae,” and again “ qui Bethesdae 
 aquas angelo medicante procuras.ange¬ 
 
 lum pietatis tuae his sacris fontibus adesse dig- 
 nare.” So too in the Liber Sacramentorum of 
 Gelasius Papa (Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Rit. tom. 
 i. p. 66), “ Super has aquas angelum sanctitatis 
 emittas.” [W. B. M.] 
 
 BAPTISM, Iteration of. ('AvaBairr'iCfiv. 
 Denuo baptizare; haptismum iterare.) It has 
 always been held, as matter of theory, that 
 baptism once really conferred can never be really 
 repeated. And yet, from the 2nd century to the 
 present time, questions concerning the repetition 
 of baptism have continually arisen, and have been 
 determined upon other considerations than that 
 of the abstract principle just stated. Yet the 
 principle itself was always maintained. Those 
 who rebaptized heretics did so, as St. Cyril 
 Hieros. says((7a/<?c/i. i. ol alperiKol avaBairTi^ovTai 
 iireib}) rh Trp6Tepov ovk i)v jSaTTTJO'fia), on the 
 ground that the former (reputed) baptism was 
 not really baptism. And baptism administered 
 in cases where the fact of previous baptism was 
 open to doubt, was defended in terms which imply 
 that any conscious or intended repetition of 
 baptism would be matter for grave condemnation. 
 (Non potest in iteration's crimen devenire, quod 
 factum esse omnino nescitur. Leo M. Epist. 
 xxxvii. ad Leon. Ravenn. Labbe t. iii. p. 1326). 
 But the abstract principle was wholly inadequate 
 to the solution of the more difficult question, 
 “ what constitutes valid baptism ? ” 
 
 § 2. Baptism by Heretics. —Among the ques¬ 
 tions thus left open the most important was 
 whether baptism given by heretics and schis¬ 
 matics was to be regarded as valid or no. This 
 question came prominently before the Church in 
 connection with the Donatist controversy in the 
 3rd century. St. Cyprian, supported by many 
 bishops in the East, maintained that baptism 
 given “outside the Church” (extra cccle.siam), 
 i.e. by schismatics or by excommunicated here¬ 
 tics, was not to be accounted valid, and was 
 therefore to be repeated (in theory, given for 
 the first time), in the case of penitents seeking 
 reconciliation with the Church. Similar que.s- 
 tions had to be determined in respect of the 
 Marcionites, Paulinianists, Arians, Euuomia.m 
 and others. 
 
 § 3. Ultimate decision. —The ultimate result of 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 173 
 
 the controversy concerning rebaptization was the 
 acceptance, in the West absolutely, but with 
 more of reserve in the East, of the principle that 
 the validity of the Sacrament depended upon ad¬ 
 ministration in accordance with Christ’s Institu¬ 
 tion (*. e. with water and the “ Evangelic words ”) 
 without regard to the orthodoxy or otherwise of 
 the administrator. This doctrine finds decisive 
 expression in the language of St. Augustine 
 (contra Petil. de unico baptismOy c. 3). “Si de 
 ipsa Trinitatis unitate dissentientem haereticura 
 invenio, et tamen evangelica et ecclesiastica regula 
 baptizatum, intellectum hominis corrigo non 
 Dei violo sacramentum.” And again in speak¬ 
 ing of baptism given by Marcion, “ Si evangelicis 
 verbis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 
 Marcion baptismum consecrabat, integrum erat 
 sacramentum, quamvis ejus fides sub eisdem ver¬ 
 bis aliud opiuantis quam catholica veritas docet 
 non esset integra, sed fabulosis falsitatibus in- 
 quiuata.” The Council of Arles (a. 448) for the 
 reasons stated by St. Augustine, allowed the 
 'baptism of the Bonosiani as valid, but rejected 
 that of the Photinians. And the precedents thus 
 established have been followed in the West, ever 
 since, with scarcely any exceptions. See Baptism 
 §§ 82 to 89. But in the Eastern Churches the 
 difference of tendency indicated in what has been 
 already said may clearly be traced in other cases. 
 St. Cyril Hieros., as we have already seen, says 
 simply that “ Heretics are rebaptized,” as their 
 baptism is not really such. And with this ac¬ 
 cords the language of the Apostolic Canon, quoted 
 by Photius (Syntagma Canonum : Spicil. Rom. A. 
 Mai, tom. vii.). “ If a bishop or presbyter re¬ 
 baptize one who has true baptism (rby Kara 
 aXifdeiav ixovra pdirTi<TfjLd), or if he refuse to 
 rebaptize one who has been defiled ” (i. e. by 
 a pretended baptism—compare St. Athanasius 
 quoted below) “ by the ungodly, let him be re¬ 
 garded as making mockery of the Cross and of 
 the Death of Christ, and not distinguishing 
 priests (tepeas) from pretended priests.” With 
 this St. Athanasius agrees both in doctrine and in 
 expression. The Arians, he says (Orat. ii. cont. 
 Arian. BB. tom. i. p. 510) are in peril as to the 
 fulness of the Sacrament itself. “ The baptism 
 they bestow must be (dWo Uv etrj —falling short 
 of absolute assertion) alien from the truth, eA’en 
 though out of regard to what is written ” [in 
 Holy Scripture] “ they make pretence of naming 
 the Father and the Son.” And again to the 
 same effect (ibid. § 43) speaking of other heretical 
 bodies which do but utter the divine names (in 
 the Formula of Baptism), but without a right 
 intention, and without salutary faith, the water 
 that they bestow is, he says, “ without profit 
 (d\u(riT6A6s), being destitute of true godliness, so 
 that he who is sprinkled (^avTi^Sfifvov^ by them 
 is rather defiled in ungodliness than redeemed 
 with the ransom of Christ.” This aKvaireXes, 
 “ without profit,” reminds us of the recurrent 
 formula of St. Augustine, in speaking of heretical 
 baptism, when followed by repentance and re¬ 
 ception into the Church. In heresy men may 
 have baptism, though they have not (per quod 
 utile est) its beneficial effect. On repentance and 
 conversion, “ prodesse incipit ad salutem,” that 
 baptism “ begins to avail unto salvation,” which 
 before availed only to condemnation (De Baptismo 
 c. Donat, lib. i. cap. xii., lib. iv. capp. iv. and 
 XXV., lib. V. capp. v, and viii., and xviii. &c.). 
 
 A tone like that of Athanasius may be traced in 
 the decisions of various Eastern Councils quoted 
 by Photius. After the “ Canon of the Apostles ” 
 already quoted, there follows Canon 29 of the 
 Council of Nicaea, which orders the rebaptizing of 
 the followers of Paulinus. It has been conjec¬ 
 tured (by St. Augustine first, De Haeres. c. 44) 
 that this was because of some defect in the 
 formula which they employed. This is very i)ro- 
 bable, but there is nothing in the language of the 
 canon to imply this. Forty years later, at the 
 Council of Laodicea, a distinction was made. 
 Canon 78 directs that Novatians or Photinians 
 and Quartodecimans are to be received back on 
 conversion, with chrism and imposition of hands, 
 and then adds, “ Moi'eover we rebaptize, as 
 heathens ('EAA^j/as) Manichaeans, Valentinians, 
 and Marcionists.” See further Canons on the 
 same subject in the Syntagma Canonum of 
 Photius. 
 
 § 4. Rebaptizing in case of doubt.^The second 
 class of cases involving the question of iteration 
 of baptism was that of children whose baptism 
 was matter of doubt. This question was formally 
 brought before a Synod at Carthage (the Fifth, 
 a. 425) in reference to children redeemed from 
 slavery, and who could neither themselves recol¬ 
 lect, nor had witnesses to testify, whether or no 
 they had been baptized. It was determined 
 “absque ullo scrupulo eos esse baptizandos ne 
 ista trepidatio eos facial sacramentorum purga- 
 tione privari.” This canon was re-enacted by 
 Cone. Carthag. vi. a. 525: and in the East, in 
 almost identical terms, by the Quinisext Council 
 (Constantinople a. 691). It appears again in col¬ 
 lections of mediaeval canons, and amongst others 
 in those of Theodore, Archbp. of Canterbury, in 
 the Excerpta of Egbert of York, and the Syntagma 
 Canonum of Photius. The hypothetical form of 
 baptism, “ If thou art not already baptized,” &c., 
 was apparently unknown till the 8th century. 
 The earliest example of it is found in the Statuta 
 of St. Boniface, Archbp. of Mayeuce (Martene 
 De Rit. Antiq. Eccl. t. i. p. 59). “ Si do 
 
 aliquibus dubiurn sit utrum sint baptizati absque 
 ullo scrupulo bapti/entur: his tamen verbis 
 praemissis: non te rebaptizo, sed si nondum es 
 baptizatus ego -te baptizo in nomine Patris et 
 Filii et Spiritus Sancti.” Cases of doubt arising 
 from other causes have been noticed under 
 Baptism, §§ 80 to 89. [W. B. M.] 
 
 BAPTIST, NATIVITY OF. [Sr. John 
 Baptist, Festivals of.] 
 
 BAPTISTERY (Lat. Baptisterium, Greek 
 BaTTTKXTr^pioi/, also Domus illuminationis, (pwri- 
 (Tr^piov), the building or chamber set apart for 
 the celebration of the sacrament of baptism. 
 The receptacle for the water was called in Latin 
 “ piscina,” in Greek “ KoKv/i^'yQpa,'’ and more 
 rarely by some other names, as vnordpos, lava- 
 crum, natatoi'ia. Besides the receptacle for the 
 water a baptistery was furnished with an altar, 
 for the practice existed from a very early period 
 until the 10th century, and perhaps even later 
 (v. Martene, De Antig. Eccl. Rit. t. i. p. 153), of 
 allowing the newly baptized, even if infants, to 
 partake of the Eucharist. In the earliest ages 
 the administration of baptism was confined to 
 the principal church of the diocese ; and this 
 practice still exists at Florence, Pisa, and el.se- 
 where in Italy. Pope Marcellus (a.d. 304-309) 
 
174 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 is said, in the Lih. Pontif., to have appointed 
 twenty-five “tituli” in Rome “as though (quasi) 
 dioceses, on account of the baptism and penance 
 of many.” Many passages in the Lih. I'ontif. 
 shew that baptisteries existed attached to many 
 of the minor churches down to the 9th century, 
 and it is probable that every parish church in 
 Rome had its baptistery. The existence of many 
 baptisteries in one city was, it would seem, al¬ 
 most or quite peculiar to Rome. 
 
 As, during the earlier centuries, immersion, 
 either alone or accompanied by aspersion, and 
 not merely sprinkling, was deemed to be the pro¬ 
 per mode of administering the rite (v. Martene, 
 De Antiq. EccL Lit. t. i. p. 135), a large recep¬ 
 tacle for water was required; and as Easter, 
 Pentecost and the Epiphany were seasons specia’ly 
 appointed for baptisms, and large crowds of 
 people were therefore attendant at those feasts, 
 it became necessary to provide a spacious apart¬ 
 ment in which the sacrament might be adminis¬ 
 tered. When on Holy Saturday St. John Chry¬ 
 sostom was attacked, three thousand men had 
 been baptized, and many more, both men and 
 women, fled, who were still waiting to undergo 
 baptism (Chrysostom, Epist. ad Innocent.; 0pp. 
 iii. 518, ed. Montfaucon ; Palladius, Vita Chry- 
 sost. c. 9). The presence of the “ piscina,” or re¬ 
 ceptacle for water would have been inconvenient 
 in a church, and all the space of even a very large 
 edifice would be required, at the great festivals 
 above mentioned, by those attending the solemn 
 services of those occasions. From these circum¬ 
 stances the practice of constructing a building 
 distinct from the church or basilica very natu¬ 
 rally arose, and though we have no existing 
 baptistery which can be referred to any period 
 earlier than the 4th century, nor indeed any dis¬ 
 tinct account of the building of one before the 
 time of Constantine the Great, it seems highly 
 probable that where in Asia or elsewhere churches 
 had been built at earlier periods they were ac¬ 
 companied by baptisteries. In the earliest ages 
 a river or a pool may have served as a place of 
 baptism, and indeed the spot in the Jordan where 
 our Saviour was baptized by St. John is said to 
 have been lined with marble and resorted to by 
 crowds on the eve of the Epiphany (v. Martigny, 
 Diet, des Atdiq. Chret., art. Baptistere). 
 
 That Easter was still in the 8th century 
 chosen as a peculiar season for baptism at Rome 
 is shewn by a passage in the Lih. Pontif. in the 
 life of Hadrian I. (772-795). This Pope, we are 
 told, repaired the Claudian Aqueduct, which 
 supplied the baths of the Lateran palace and the 
 baptistery of the church, and from which, it is 
 added, many churches were supplied on the holy 
 day of Easter. Charles the Great, by a capitu¬ 
 lary of A.D. 804, ordered that baptisms should 
 take place only at Easter and Pentecost. 
 
 Passages in the writings of Tertullian (^De 
 Coron. Mil. c. 3) and of Justin Martyr (^Apol. 
 i. c. 61) shew that baptism was not administered 
 in the church, but that the place of baptism was 
 without it. Such places of baptism are believed 
 to have existed in the catacombs at Rome ; in 
 one of these, in a cemetery known as the Ostri- 
 anum, not far from the church of St. Agnes on 
 the Via Nomentana, St. Peter is traditionally 
 ^id to have baptized. The spot was known as 
 “ ad Nymphas S. Petri,” or “ fons S. Petri ” 
 (v. De Rossi, Roma Sott. Crist., t. i. p. 189). 
 
 Boldetti believed that he had discovered raoie 
 than one of these baptisteries ; but Padre Marchi 
 says expressly (Mon. delle Arti Crist. Prim., &c., 
 p. 222) that the only “ battisterio ciraiteriale ” 
 known at the time that he wrote (1844) was 
 that in the cemetery of St. Pontianus. This 
 (engraved in PI. xlii. of Marchi’s work) consists 
 of a small cistern or “ ])iscina ” supplied by a 
 current of water. The piscina would appear to 
 be between 3 and 4 feet deep and about 6 feet 
 across; it is approached by a flight of steps, 
 between the base of which and the water is 
 a level space about 5 feet wide, on which the 
 priest or bishop may have stood while performing 
 the rite. There seems to be no trace of an altar, 
 nor, indeed, any fit place for one. Above the 
 water is a painting representing the baptism of 
 Our Lord, and on another side, and partly hidden 
 by the water, a painting of a cross adorned with 
 gems and throwing out leaves and flowers from 
 its stem. Two lighted candelabra rest upon the 
 arms of the cross, and an alpha and an ctnega 
 hang suspended from them by chains. [See 
 A and w, p. 1.] 
 
 The lighted candelabra are no doubt in allusion 
 to the divine illumination of the soul attendant 
 on baptism, whence baptisteries were often called 
 (puTi(rT-f}pia, as has been remarked above. 
 
 This baptistery has been noticed at some 
 length, as although the date of the paintings 
 which decorate it cannot be fixed with any cer¬ 
 tainty, it is perhaps one of the earliest examples 
 now remaining of a chamber set apart for the 
 performance of this rite. 
 
 Of the construction of baptisteries in the time 
 of Constantine the Great we have abundant proof. 
 The anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux, who visited 
 Jerusalem c. A.D. 334 when speaking of the basilica 
 which Constantine had just built at the Sepulchre 
 of our Lord says, that by its side were reservoirs 
 for water, and behind it a bath where children 
 were “ washed ” (balneum a tergo ubi infantes 
 lavantur), that is, no doubt, baptized. Eusebius 
 evidently includes a baptistery among the Exedrae 
 of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, and Faulinus 
 of Nola (Eq). 12, ad Severwn') says that Sever us 
 built a baptistery between two basilicas. Cyril 
 of Jerusalem speaks of the baptistery as having 
 a porch or anteroom, -npoavKios oIk^s. where the 
 catechumens made their renunciation of Satan 
 and Confession of Faith, and an icrcorepos oIkos, 
 the inner room where the ceremony of baptism 
 was performed. This shows that a well-con¬ 
 sidered plan for such buildings then existed. 
 
 Constantine is usually said to have built the 
 baptistery of the Lateran, and the Lib. Pontif. 
 contains a long detail of the magnificence with 
 which he decorated it. Niebuhr understands by 
 the account, which is not without obscurity, that 
 the walls of the baptistery were covered with 
 porphyry and that the piscina was of silver, five 
 feet in height; the water is said to have flowed 
 into this receptacle from seven stags of silver 
 and a lamb of gold. On the right hand of the 
 lamb stood an image of the Saviour, of silver, 
 five feet high, and on the left one of St. John the 
 Baptist, of the same size and of the same metal. 
 In the middle stood columns of porphyry bearing 
 a “phiala” of gold, weighing 52 lbs., in which 
 the Paschal candle was placed. As, however, the 
 expression which Niebuhr interprets to mean 
 the building or baptistery, is “fons sanctus,” and 
 
BAPTISTERY 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 175 
 
 A building very similar to this, the circular 
 church at Nocera dei Pagani, known as Sta. Maria 
 Maggiore, was no doubt constructed for a bap¬ 
 tistery, as it possesses a large and apparently 
 original piscina. It is a circle about 80 feet in 
 diameter, with an apse of about three-fourths of 
 a circle in plan, projecting from one side. Thirty 
 columns arranged, as at Sta. Costanza, in pairs, 
 support arches on which rests a dome, and the 
 aisle has barrel vaults. The piscina in the centre 
 is circular and about 20 feet in diameter and 
 nearly 5 feet deep; within are two steps or 
 benches running round the whole circumference, 
 and there is a raised wall or parapet round it, 
 octagonal on the exterior. This parapet was 
 decorated on the outside with slabs of marble 
 bearing incised patterns, and upon it stood eight 
 columns, which perhaps once supported a canopy; 
 three only of these columns now remain (v. 
 Hiibsch, Alt. Christ. Kirchen, PI. xvii. xviii.). The 
 date of this building is not known from any his¬ 
 torical data, but it may perhaps be attributed 
 with probability to the 5th century. 
 
 Another baptistery, which, though probably 
 considerably older than that at Nocera, has the 
 piscina arranged in a very similar manner, is 
 that at Aquileia. It is now in ruins, but the 
 annexed woodcut copied from the engraving in 
 
 Baptistery at Aquileia. 
 
 the expression “ fons baptisterii ” occurs imme¬ 
 diately afterwards, it may be doubtful whether 
 the meaning of the passage is not that the build¬ 
 ing (i.e. the baptistery) was constructed of or 
 covered with porphyry, but that the piscina which 
 it contained was of porphyry covered with silver. 
 Niebuhr and several other writers have ques¬ 
 tioned whether this part of the Lib. Pontif. can 
 be relied on as historical; the erection of images 
 of the Saviour and of St. John the Baptist is cer¬ 
 tainly not in accordance with the practice of the 
 Church at that period, and, in conjunction with 
 o*her statements of a doubtful nature, must throw 
 considerable doubt upon the trustworthiness of 
 the account of the buildings and donations of 
 Constantine which the book contains. There is, 
 however, no doubt but that Constantine erected 
 a basilica within the Lateran palace, or at least 
 converted some hall of the palace into a church, 
 and a baptistery in all probability formed a part 
 of the group of ecclesiastical buildings. It is 
 generally believed that the existing b^aptistery 
 owes its form (though it has undergone many 
 alterations and been much added to), to Pope 
 Sixtus III. (a.d. 432-440). He is said by the 
 compiler of the Lib. Pontif. to have added, as a 
 decoration to the “ fons,” the porphyry columns 
 which Constantine had collected, and marble 
 ‘‘ epistylia by which we should under¬ 
 stand not only the capitals but the archi¬ 
 traves, as those now there are no doubt 
 antique, and have inscribed upon them six¬ 
 teen verses referring to baptism (printed 
 in the Besch. v. Rom., bd. iii. abt. 1.), 
 which are doubtless those which the Lib, 
 Pontif. alludes to, though by a coi'ruption 
 of the text they are said to have been 
 placed not on the architraves but on the 
 columns. 
 
 The building as it now exists is an octa¬ 
 gon about 62 feet in diameter, in the centre 
 of which are eight columns of porphyry 
 carrying antique capitals and architraves; 
 lesser columns are placed on the archi¬ 
 traves, and support the roof. This octa¬ 
 gon is entered from a large portico with 
 apsidal ends which may answer to the 
 TTpoavAios oiKos mentioned by Cyril of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Hiibsch (Alt. Christ. Kirchen') asserts 
 that the walling as well of the octagon as 
 of the portico to a height of about 50 feet bears 
 the stamp of the Constantinian period. 
 
 Another very remarkable building at Rome is 
 no doubt of the period of Constantine, but it is 
 uncertain whether it is to be regarded as a bap¬ 
 tistery or as a sepulchral church. This is the 
 circular church close to St. Agnes, on the V^ia 
 Nomentana, known as Sta. Costanza. The LAb. 
 Pontif. (in vita S. Silvestri) says that Constantine 
 built “ basilicam Sanctae Martyris Agnetis ” and 
 “ baptisterium in eodem loco and, as no trace 
 of any other baptistery has been found near the 
 place, this church has been usually taken to be 
 the baptistery mentioned in the above-quoted 
 book. No trace of a “piscina” has however, it 
 would seem, been noticed; the building was 
 certainly the place of sepulture of one or more 
 members of the Imperial family; and it appears 
 doubtful whether at that period it would have 
 been deemed right to bury in a basilica or a 
 baptistery any person, of rank however exalted. 
 
 the Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale des (Esterrei- 
 chischen Kaiserstaates, by Heider and Eitelberger 
 : (bd. i. s. 119), will give a good idea of the manner 
 in which a baptistery at the period was arranged. 
 The piscina is hexagonal, and would seem to have 
 one step and a low parapet wall on the outside, 
 
 I and two steps in the inside. The authors of 
 j the above-quoted work, however, state that the 
 I number of steps is five, meaning probably that 
 j any one ascending from the floor and descending 
 I to the bottom of the piscina would mount two 
 steps and descend three. In the eastern angle 
 of the octagon is a small apse. 
 
 This baptistery is entered by a vaulted passage¬ 
 like building in three compartments, which bears 
 the name of “ Chiesa dei Pagani,” and probably 
 served as a place of assemblage and instruction 
 for the catechumens before they were admitted 
 to baptism. It appears to have had an upper 
 storv, which may have been set apart for women, 
 as there is ground for believing that such a 
 
170 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 separation of the sexes was practised in the bap¬ 
 tisteries or the apartments connected with tliem. 
 
 No one of the baptisteries of this period has 
 come down to the present time in a more un¬ 
 altered condition than that of the Cathedral of 
 Ravenna, known, like many other baptisteries in 
 Italy, as S. Giovanni in Fonte. 
 
 It was, if not built, at least renovated and 
 decollated by Neon, archbishop from A.D. 425 to 
 430, as an inscription (v. Ciampini, Vet, Mon, 
 t. i. cap. XXV.) formerly existing within it testi¬ 
 fied. lliibsch (^Alt, Christ, Kirchen) expresses an 
 opinion that the decorations now existing may be 
 considered as for the most part, if not entirely, 
 
 Lower Story. 
 
 the work of Neon. The occurrence of a mono¬ 
 gram, which may be read Maximianus (Arch¬ 
 bishop of Ravenna in the time of Justinian), of 
 an inscription in the mosaics, which appears to 
 refer to Theodoric the Great (Webb, Contin. 
 Eccles, p. 428), and very close similarity in the 
 patterns of the marble inlay on the walls to 
 those in St. Sophia’s at Constantinople, and in 
 the Duomo at Parenzo, in Istria, lead to the con¬ 
 clusion that the work of decoration was only 
 gradually executed and not completed until the 
 middle of the 6th century. 
 
 As will be seen by the plan annexed, the build¬ 
 ing is an octagon, with two niches or apses; it 
 
 Baptistery at Bavenna (horizontal sections). 
 
 measures about 40 feet in diameter. Recent 
 excavations have shewn that there were origin¬ 
 ally four apses. In the centre is the piscina. 
 
 Baptistery at Bavenna (Elevation). 
 
 which, according to Hiibsch, is probably original. 
 The semi-circular indentation in one side, in which 
 the priest stood while baptizing, is remarkable. 
 
 This baptistery affords one of the best examples 
 of the internal decoration of the period, carried 
 through the whole of a building, now existing in 
 
 Europe; the architectural arrangement will bo 
 understood from the elevation and the section. 
 The columns and arches are of marble, and the 
 
BAPTISTERY 
 
 BAPTISTERY 
 
 177 
 
 lower part of the walls is lined with the same 
 material in long slabs; above this are panels of 
 “opus sectile,” marqueterie in porphyry, ser¬ 
 pentine, marbles of various colours, and brick. 
 Beneath the arches carried by the upper range 
 of columns are figures of saints (?) executed in 
 stucco in low relief, as to the age of which there 
 is some difference of opinion. The dome is 
 covered with mosaic; in the centime the baptism 
 of our Lord is represented, round this the twelve 
 Apostles, and below them a range of eight com¬ 
 partments, in each of these are alternately two 
 cathedrae placed under canopies with an altar 
 between them, and two tombs of an altar form 
 st. nding under canopies, between which is w^hat 
 set ms to represent a slab or low tombstone lying 
 on the ground, over which hangs a mass of drapery 
 supported on ornamental posts. The meaning 
 of these representations has not been clearly 
 explained ; the cathedrae and altars have been 
 supposed to symbolize a council, but this leaves 
 unexplained the signification of the tombs; the 
 altar-tombs appear to stand for tombs of confes¬ 
 sors or martyrs, as wreaths appear to crown them 
 and lilies or palm branches to spring from them; 
 the tombs over which the draperies hang are 
 thought by Ciampini (t. i. p. 178) to represent the 
 tombs of bishops. The intention may have been 
 to symbolize the whole Chui'ch, the cathedrae 
 standing for living bishops, the tombs for saints 
 and bishops deceased. 
 
 The church now called S. Maria in Cosmedin, 
 in Ravenna, was also once a baptistery, having 
 been built (it is believed) in the time of Theo- 
 doric for the use of the Arians; it is circular in¬ 
 ternally, octagonal externally, with a small round 
 ended apse projecting from one of the sides and 
 a loggia of three arches from another. It is co¬ 
 vered by a dome, on which are mosaics represent¬ 
 ing the baptism of our Lord and the twelve 
 Apostles. These are believed to be of later date 
 than the original building. 
 
 The baptistery of St. Sophia’s, Constantinople, 
 which no doubt is that erected by Justinian, has 
 a portico or narthex, and is rectangular exter¬ 
 nally, with a rectangular projection containing 
 an apse; internally it is octangular, with on the 
 ground-plan four niches (besides the apse) on 
 four of the sides; the upper story is octangular, 
 with a large window in each side. It is placed 
 near the south-west angle of the cathedral, facing 
 westwards (Salzenberg, Baudenkmale v. Constan- 
 tinopel, pi. vi.). At Parenzo, in Istria, the bap¬ 
 tistery stands in front of the duomo, and con¬ 
 nected with it by a square atrium, which last 
 position was one frequently adopted. 
 
 The preceding examples will give a sufficient 
 idea of the form, arrangements, and decorations 
 of baptisteries down to the 6th century. One 
 curious example, which perhaps should be attri¬ 
 buted to the 7th, is the baptistery at Poitiers: 
 this is in plan an oblong, with an apse projecting 
 from one of the longer sides; this apse is straight 
 lined, but not rectangular on the outside and 
 five-sided within. Two large arches in the end 
 walls make it probable that niches existed en¬ 
 tered by them. A building of later date has 
 been added on the side opposite to the apse, so 
 that the form of the original entrance cannot now 
 be determined. The piscina, nearly in the centre 
 of the oblong, is octagonal. The architectural 
 decoration is partly original and partly made up 
 
 CHRIST. ANT, 
 
 ' from old materials; what is original is rude, but 
 has something of a classical character (v. Gail- 
 habaud, Mon. Anc. et Mod., t. ii.). 
 
 The baptistery at Albenga, between Nice and 
 Genoa, is octangular externally, but within semi¬ 
 circular ; three rectangular niches are formed 
 in the thickness of the wall, and on the eighth 
 side was the entrance. It is roofed by a dome, in 
 the drum below which were tight windows, 
 which were filled with slabs of marble pierced in 
 patterns of circles and crosses. The vault of the 
 niche opposite the entrance and the wall at its 
 back have been covered with mosaic; the labarum, 
 doves, and a lamb can be distinguished. No re¬ 
 mains of the piscina are now to be traced, but a 
 perfectly plain cylindrical font stands in one of 
 the niches. Those architectural details which 
 are original, e.g. the slabs in the windows, are 
 very rudely executed, and the building is per¬ 
 haps not earlier than the 7th or even the 8th 
 century. 
 
 About A.D. 750, Cuthbert, archbishop of Can¬ 
 terbury, erected a church to the east of kis 
 cathedral, and almost touching it, to serve as a 
 baptistery, and for other purposes (Edmer, Vita 
 S. Breguini, Ang. Sac. t. ii. p. 186). It was 
 dedicated in honour of St. John the Baptist. 
 
 During the 8th and 9th centuries baptisteries 
 continued to be in full use in Italy, as we may 
 learn from the Lib. Fontif., where mention is 
 made of the building or rebuilding of five bap¬ 
 tisteries attached to churches in Rome, between 
 A.D. 772 and a.d. 816. In one of these cases, 
 that of S. Andrea Apostolo, rebuilt by Pope 
 Leo III. (795-816), we are told expressly that 
 the place was too small for the people who 
 came to baptism, and that the Pope therefore 
 built a circular baptistery “ ampla largitate,” 
 that he also enlarged the “fons” and decorated 
 it with porphyry columns round about. 
 
 Martigny (^Dict. des Antiq. Chret.') expresses an 
 opinion that in France the practice of placing 
 the baptistery first in the portico and then in the 
 interior of the church, began in the 6th century; 
 but the passage in the Hid. Franc, of St. Gregory 
 of Tours (1. ii. chap, xxi.), to which he refers, 
 seems har^Ry sufficient to prove this statement. 
 St. Gregory himself states that he constructed a 
 baptistery “ ad basilicam” (apparently of St. Per¬ 
 petuus, at Tours), and the baptistery at Poitiers 
 was evidently a separate building. The baptistery 
 at Fr(^jus, which according to Texier and Pullan 
 (^Byz. Arch.') was built in 810, is also a detached 
 structure. 
 
 In Germany and Italy baptisteries were built 
 as detached structures down to a much later 
 date; but this was not an invariable practice, 
 for in the plan for the church of St. Gall 
 [CnuRCiij, prepared in the beginning of the 
 9th century, there is no detached baptistery, but 
 a circular “ fons,” about six feet in diameter, in 
 the middle of the nave towards the west end of 
 the church, surrounded by a screen. 
 
 It has been seen that the earlier baptisteries 
 were, if not circular, octagonal; it is uncertain 
 whether these forms were adopted merely from 
 reasons of convenience, or as symbolical. The 
 circular form was that almost invariably adopted 
 for a sepulchral chapel or memorial church, and 
 the immersions, with which the rite of baptism 
 w.\s in the earlier centuries invariably performed, 
 wert considered as typical of dying to the world. 
 
178 
 
 BARBARA 
 
 BARNABAS 
 
 The octagonal form is said to have been adopted 
 as typical of perfection. 
 
 The piscina was usually octagonal, but some¬ 
 times hexagonal, and sometimes circular. In 
 Lusitania, we are told by Gregory of Tours (Z>e 
 Gloria AlaHyrum, 1. i. c. 23), it was customarily 
 constructed of variegated marble in the form of 
 a cross. 
 
 Of baptisteries in Asia or Africa we have but 
 little information. Texier and Pullan {Byz. Arch. 
 p. 14) however state that small baptisteries are 
 frequently found adjoining ancient churches in 
 the East; and Count de la Vogiie has given a 
 drawing and plan of one at Deer-Seta, in Central 
 Syria (ArcA. Civ. et Relig. en Syria, &c. pi. 117), 
 of an hexagonal form, Avhich would appear to be 
 of the 6th century. It has the peculiarity of 
 three doors, one in each of three contiguous sides; 
 in the centre was an hexagonal piscina, with a 
 column at each angle. 
 
 Mr. Curzon (^Monast. of the Levant, cap. 131) 
 describes as entered from the vestibule of the 
 church of the White Monastery (or Derr Abou 
 Shenood) in Egypt, a small chapel or baptistery, 
 25 feet long, arched with stone, with three niches 
 on each side, and a semicircular upper end, the 
 whole highly decorated with sculptured ornament 
 of very good style. This, as well as the adjacent 
 church, are said to have been built by order of 
 the Empress Helena. 
 
 Besides being used for baptisms, baptisteries 
 were used as places for assemblies. Cuthbert, 
 archbishop of Canterbury, is stated to have built 
 the baptistery mentioned above, in order that it 
 might serve for “ baptisteria, examinationes 
 judiciorum,” and also that the bodies of the 
 archbishops might be there buried (^Anglia Sacra, 
 ii. 186). 
 
 This practice of burying in baptisteries, though 
 prohibited at an earlier period (as by the 14th 
 Canon of the Council of Auxerre in 578), was 
 common before burial in the church was allowed. 
 
 Many of the archbishops of Canterbury were 
 buried in the baptistery from the time of Cuth¬ 
 bert, who built it, until A.D. 1067, when it was 
 burnt. In the original entrance to the baptistery 
 at Albenga are two tombs in the fashion of the 
 “ arcosolia ” of the Roman catacombs, as early as 
 the 8th or 9th centuries. 
 
 Baptisteries appear to have been in the earlier 
 ages (at least in the West), almost always dedi¬ 
 cated under the invocation of St. John the 
 Baptist. [A. N.] 
 
 BARBARA, virgin, martyr in Tuscany, circ. 
 200 ; commemorated Dec. 16 (^Mart. Eom. Vet.')', 
 Dec. 4 (Jf. Hieron., Cal. Byzant.)', Oct. 8 (^Cah 
 Ai'men.). [C.] 
 
 BARBARIANS, BISHOPS FOR. In ordi¬ 
 nary cases the election of a bishop required the 
 consent or suffrage, not only of the clergy of the 
 diocese over which he was to preside, but of 
 the faithful laity also. This rule, however, 
 could obviously be applied only to countries 
 already Christian. When a bishop was to be 
 sent out to a distant or barbarous nation, it was 
 required by the Council of Chalcedon, Can. xxviii., 
 that he should be ordained at Constantinople, 
 to which city, as the New Rome, equal privi¬ 
 leges with “ the Elder royal Rome,” were now 
 to be assigned. The Bishop of Tomi in Scythia, 
 is an instance of a missionary bishop thus or¬ 
 
 dained, and commissioned by the Patriarch oi 
 Constantinople—the consent of the people to 
 whom he was sent to minister being, of necessify, 
 dispensed with. In the previous century it is re¬ 
 corded by the Church historians that Athanasius 
 ordained Frumentius at Alexandria to be Bishop 
 of the Ethiopians, when, as Bingham remarks, ‘‘No 
 one can imagine th.at he had the formal consent, 
 though he might have the presumptive approba¬ 
 tion of all his people.” [D. B.] 
 
 BARCELONA, COUNCIL OF (Barci- 
 NONENSE Concilium), provincial. (1) a.d. 540, 
 of Sergius the metropolitan and six suffragans, 
 passed ten canons upon discipline (Labb. v. 378, 
 379).— (2) A.D. 599, Nov. 1, in the 14th year ot 
 King Recared, under Asiaticus, metropolitan of 
 Tarragona, and eleven suffragans, against simonv, 
 probably in compliance with the repre.sentations 
 of Gregory the Great (Baron, in an. 599, § 23, 
 from Gregory’s letters). It also forbad ordina¬ 
 tions per saltum ; and ordered, in the election of a 
 bishop, a choice by lot from two or three candi¬ 
 dates, to be nominated by the “ clerus et plebs ” 
 of the diocese, and presented to the metropolitan 
 and bishops (Labb. v. 1605, 1606). [A. W, H.] 
 
 BARCINONENSE CONCILILHI. [Bar¬ 
 celona, Council of.] 
 
 BARDINIANUS, martyr in Asia ; comme¬ 
 morated Sept. 25 (J/arf. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 BARNABAS, ST., Legend and Festival 
 OF. There is a tradition that he became a 
 believer after witnessing the miracle wrouo-ht 
 by our Lord at the pool of Bethesda, and that 
 he was one of the seventy disciples. (Eu.sebius, 
 Hist. Eccl. i. 12, and ii. 1.) It is also said that 
 he was the first preacher of Christianity at 
 Rome, that he converted Clemens Romanus to 
 the faith and that he founded the churches of 
 Milan and Brescia. But these and other state¬ 
 ments about him may certainly be regarded as 
 unworthy of credit. There is however a general 
 agreement of testimony about the time, place 
 and cause of his death. From verv earlv times, 
 in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, 
 he has had the credit of martyrdom. It is 
 believed that he was stoned to death by the 
 Jews of Salamis in Cyprus about the year 64 
 A.D. Ti’adition says that his death took place on 
 the 11th of June and that he was buried at a 
 short distance from the town of Salamis. No¬ 
 thing however seems to have been heard of his 
 tomb until about the year 478 a.d. 
 
 The discovery of his body is fully related in 
 the Eulogy of St. Barnabas, written by Alexander, 
 a monk of Cyprus, about the beginning of the 
 sixth century. After giving an account of the 
 martvrdom and burial of Barnabas, this writer 
 asserts that in consequence of the many mira¬ 
 culous cures that had occurred in the neigh¬ 
 bourhood of the tomb the spot had been called 
 the “place of healing” (tJttos iryifias). But 
 the cause of these miracles was unknown to the 
 Cypriotes until the discovery was made in the 
 following way. Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of 
 Antioch, a man who had been very succe.ssful in 
 creating dissensions, was endeavouring to bring 
 Cyprus under his episcopal sway, on the plea 
 that the Word of God in the first instance was 
 carried from Antioch to Cyprus. The Cypriotes 
 resisted this claim on the ground that their 
 church had from the time of its founders been 
 
BARTHOLOMEW 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW 
 
 179 
 
 independent of the see of Antioch. Anthemius, 
 the Bishop of Cyprus, a timid and retiring pre¬ 
 late, was scarcely a match for an opponent so 
 able and experienced as Peter. But he was 
 encouraged by Barnabas himself who appeared 
 to him several times in a vision. At the saint’s 
 bidding he searched a cave in the neighbourhood 
 of the tSttos vyie'ias, and found a coffin con¬ 
 taining the body of Barnabas and a copy of St. 
 Matthew’s Gospel. He proceeded to Constan¬ 
 tinople, where the dispute was heard before the 
 Emperor Zeno, and in support of his claim to 
 remain independent he announced that the body 
 of Barnabas had lately been discovered in his 
 diocese. On hearing this the emperor gave his 
 decision in favour of Anthemius, bade him send 
 at once to Cyprus for the copy of St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel, and as soon as it arrived had it adorned 
 with gold and placed in the imperial palace. 
 After conferring great honours on Anthemius, 
 the emperor sent him back to Cyprus Avith 
 instructions to build a magnificent church in 
 honour of Barnabas neai* the spot where the 
 body was found. This oraerwas strictly carried 
 out, tho body was placed at the right hand of 
 the altar and the 11th of June consecrated to 
 the memory of the saint. (^Acta Sanctorum: 
 Junii xi.) 
 
 HoweA'er ready we may be to reject this 
 account of the finding of the body of Barnabas, 
 there is ev^ery reason to belieA'e that in the 
 Eastern Church these events were the origin of 
 the festival. No church howeA'er was built to 
 the saint’s memory at Constantinople. It is also 
 remarkable that from early times the day was 
 kept in the Eastern Church in honour of Bar¬ 
 tholomew as well as of Barnabas. When the 
 second saint’s name was added is quite uncertain, 
 but there are good grounds for believing that 
 the day was originally saci'ed to Barnabas only. 
 In the Menologium Basilianum, edited by com¬ 
 mand of the Emperor Basil in the year 886 A.D., 
 the day is the joint festival of the two saints. 
 At what time it was first observed in the Western 
 Church is very doubtful. Papebrochius asserts 
 that the festival was not kept in Eastern earlier 
 than in Western Christendom, but he has not 
 proved this statement. The day occurs as the 
 Feast of Barnabas in the calendar of the Venerable 
 Bede, so that unless this be one of the additions 
 made after the author’s death, we may conclude 
 that the day was observed in the Westei’n 
 Church in the 8th century. It does not how¬ 
 ever occur in all the old service-books. In the 
 Martgrologium Romanum it appears as the Fes¬ 
 tival of Barnabas only. 
 
 The principal account of the traditions con¬ 
 cerning Barnabas is the work above referred 
 to, Alexandri Monachi Laudatio in Apost. 
 Barnaham; in Migne’s Patrol., Series Graeca, 
 vol. 87, col. 4087; Surius, Vitae Sanctorum, 
 Junii xi. [W. J. J.] 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW, bishop ; commemorated 
 with Pachomius, Taksas 11 - Dec. 7 (Cal. 
 FAhiop.) [C.] 
 
 BARTHOI.OMEW, ST., Legend and Fes¬ 
 tival OF. The New Testament tells us but 
 little of this Apostle, and there is an equal 
 absence of any great amount of early trust¬ 
 worthy tradition. He is by some, with a great 
 show of probability, identified with Nathanael, 
 
 for the arguments as to which derived from 
 scripture, see Dict. Bidl., under Bartholomew, 
 Nathanael. It may be further remarked in 
 faA^our of the identification that in such a matter 
 Eastern tradition is more to the point than 
 Western (considering, that is, the scene of this 
 Apostle’s labours and martyrdom), and that the 
 former uniformly identifies Nathanael with Bar¬ 
 tholomew. For example, from the Armenian 
 and Chaldaean writers cited by Assemani (Bihl. 
 Or. A"ol. iii. part 2, p. 4), e.g. Elias, bishop of 
 Damascus, and Ebedjesu Sobensis, we may infer 
 that Nathanael was in those churches included 
 among the Apostles, and viewed as one with Bar¬ 
 tholomew ; in fact, Assemani remarks, “ Bartho- 
 lomaeum cum Nathanaele confundunt Chaldaei ” 
 (ibid. p. 5). Moreover in martyrologies and 
 calendars, both of Eastern and Western Churches, 
 the name of Bartholomew is of constant occur¬ 
 rence, while that of Nathanael is ordinarily 
 absent, which would be strange on the hypo¬ 
 thesis of a difference between the tAVo. It must 
 be alloAved, hoAveA'er, that the Egyptian and 
 Ethiopian Churches seem to identify Nathanael 
 Avith Simon the Canaanite, for in their Meno- 
 logies and Calendars, edited by Job Ludolf 
 (Frankfort, 1691), there is no mention of Simon 
 the Canaanite, but on July 10 is “Nathanael the 
 Canaanite ” (p. 33). In Greek Menologies also, 
 under the days April 22, May 10 is a similar 
 identification, as also in the Russian Calendar for 
 the latter day. 
 
 The general account given by tradition of the 
 labours of this Apostle is to the effect that ht- 
 preached the gospel, using especially that by 
 St. Matthew, in India, Avhere he suffei'ed martyr¬ 
 dom by beheading, haA'ing been, according to some 
 Avriters, previously flayed (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 
 10 ; Jerome, De viris Illustr. 36, a’oI. ii. 651, ed. 
 Migne. Cf. also Ado’s Libellus de festiv. SS. 
 Apostolorum in Migne’s Patrol. Lat. cxxiii. 185). 
 In the appendix De vitis Apostolorum to Sophro- 
 nius’s Greek Aversion of the De viris Illustri'>u& 
 allusion is made to the Apostle’s mission ’IrSois 
 Tols KaXovfjLeuois eoSalfioaiu, Avhich might pos¬ 
 sibly refer to Arabia Felix, and it is added that 
 he suffered in Albanopolis, a city of Armenia 
 Major (Jerome, a^oI. ii. 722). The latter state¬ 
 ment is also found in seA'eral other Avriters (e.g. 
 Theodorus Studita and Nicetas Paphlago, A'ide 
 infra: and the Martyrologies of Florus and 
 Rabanus), generally in the form that the Apostle 
 suffered through the machinations of the priests, 
 Avho stirred up Astyages brother to the king 
 Polymius Avhom BartholomcAv had conA’erted. 
 See further the Pseudo-Abdias’s Acta of this 
 Apostle, published by Fabricius (Codex Pseude- 
 pigraphus Novi Testamenti, a’oI. i. pp. 341 seqq.). 
 
 The tenor of the tradition as to the disposi¬ 
 tion of the relics of St. Bartholomew is on the 
 Avhole consistent, though not altogether free from 
 difficulties. Theodorus Lector, a Avriter of the 
 sixth century, tells us (Collectan. 2. in Magn. 
 Bibl. Pair. a'oI. vi. part 1, p. 505 ed. Col. Agr. 
 1618) that the Emperor Anastasius gave the 
 body of St. BartholomeAv to the City ol’Daras in 
 Mesopotamia, Avhich he had recently founded 
 (circa 507 A.D.). Wo next find that before the 
 end of the sixth century, a translation had been 
 effected to the Lipari islands (of. Greg. Turon. 
 De Gloria Martgrum, i. 33). Thence in 809 
 A.D. the relics Avere transferred to Boneventum, 
 
 N 
 
180 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW 
 
 BASIL 
 
 and finally in 983 a.d. to Rome, where they lie 
 in a tomb beneath the high altar in the church 
 of St. Bai-tholomew in the island in the Tiber 
 (See Ciampini, De Sacris Aedificiis &c., vol. iii. 
 ])p. 58, G6, who re-fers to a temporary transference 
 of the relics to the Vatican Basilica in con¬ 
 sequence of an overflow of the Tiber during the 
 Episcopate of Paul IV.). For these statements 
 we may refer, in addition to the writers cited 
 above, to a panegyric of Theodoras Studita 
 (ob. 826 A.D.), translated into Latin by Anasta- 
 sius Bibliothecarius, and published in D’Achery’s 
 Spicilegium (vol. iii. pp. 13 seqq.') ; to an oration 
 of a certain Joseph, po.ssibly Joseph Hymno- 
 graphus, a contemporary of Theodoras Studita 
 (^Acta Sanctorum, August, vol. v. pp. 43 seqq.) ; 
 and to a panegyric of Nicetas Paphlago (Com- 
 bens, Auctar. Nov. Patruni, i. p. 392). 
 
 It would seem that not before the eighth cen¬ 
 tury did the previously existing festival com¬ 
 memorating the collective body of the Apostles, 
 held upon the day after the feast of St. Peter 
 and St. Paul, develope itself into festivals of 
 individual Apostles ; consequently it is in writers 
 of the eighth and ninth centuries that notices are 
 to be looked for of a festival of St. Bartholomew, 
 which would appear to have originated with the 
 Eastern Church (for the notices in Latin writers 
 are later), probably with that of Constantinople. 
 Of this, indeed, the encomiastic orations of Theo¬ 
 doras and Nicetas are evidence, and we further 
 have a direct statement on the part of the latter 
 (§ 2) to the etfect that the festival of this Apostle 
 was then annually celebrated. 
 
 It will of course follow from what has been 
 said that in the more ancient Sacramentaries 
 (e. g. those of Gelasius and Gregory) in their 
 original form there is no trace of a festival of 
 this Apostle, nor indeed is there in any Latin 
 writer for a considerable time after their date. 
 As to the special day or days on which this 
 festival was held, very gi’eat diversity exists in 
 ancient Martyrologies and Calendars :—thus in 
 the Calendar of the Byzantine Church, we find 
 on June 11, “ Bartholomew and Barnabas,” while 
 on August 25 is the “ Translation of Barnabas 
 the Apostle and Titus the Apostle : ” the Arme¬ 
 nians held the feast on February 25 and December 
 8, as may be seen in the two Calendars given 
 by Assemani (^Bibl. Or. vol. iii. part 2, p. 645). 
 The Ethiopic or Abyssinian Church again com¬ 
 memorates St. Bartholomew on November 19 
 and June 17 (Ludolf pp. 11, 31). In the Arabian 
 Calendar the name occurs several times, some¬ 
 times alone, sometimes with the added title 
 martyr, and on November 15 and June 30, with 
 the addition Apostle (Selden, De Synedriis Ve- 
 terum Ebraeorum, bk. iii. c. 15, pp. 228, 243, ed. 
 Amsterdam, 1679). It is explained in the Greek 
 metrical Ephemerides that the one day (June 11) 
 commemorates the martyrdom evdeKarr) (rrav- 
 pwaav ffx<ppoua Bap6o\ofxa7ov ; and the other 
 (August 25), the finding of the relics, (rhr vIkw 
 €^KaSl Tre/MTTTy BapdoXo/xaie i<p€vpi)v —on which 
 latter day several Calendars associate him with 
 Barnabas, e. g. in the Pictoidal Moscow Calendar 
 prefixed by Papebroch, together with the pre¬ 
 ceding, to the Alta Sanctorum for May, vol. i. 
 Cf. Assemani Calendarium Ecclesiae Universae, 
 vol. vi. pp. 420, 541. 
 
 The ancient Latin Martyrology which bears 
 the name of St. Jerome follows the Greek in 
 
 the double announcement, and on June 13 has 
 “In Perside natalis S. Bartholomaei Apostoli; ” 
 on August 24, “ In India natalis S. Bartholomaei 
 Apostoli ” (vol. xi. 463, 472). The later Mar¬ 
 tyrologies content themselves with a notice on 
 August 24 or 25 : for example, those of Bede 
 (Migne, Patr. Lot. xciv. 604), and the amplifica¬ 
 tion of this by Floras (j6. 1015), of Rabanus 
 Maurus (i6. cx. 1164), of Wandelbert {ib. exxi. 
 608), of Ado {ib. cxxiii. 167, 335), and of Usu- 
 ardus {ih. exxiv. 393). 
 
 We subjoin the notice of the day as given in 
 the Metrical Martyrology of Wandelbert, 
 
 “ bartholotnaeus nonam exornat retinetque beatus, 
 Imlia quo doctore Dei cognovit honorem, 
 
 Herculis et Bacchi insanis vix eruta sacris; 
 
 Nunc ilium fama est varia pro sorte sepulcri, 
 
 Acoliuni Lipare Beneventi et tcmpla tenere.” 
 
 With regard to the relative importance of this 
 festival, Binterim {Denkvciirdigkeiten, i. 445) 
 refers to Schulting, who gives an extract from an 
 old English Missal which contained a special pre¬ 
 face for St. Bartholomew’s day, and he adds that 
 before the middle of the tenth century this 
 festival was viewed in England as of considerable 
 importance. It is not certainly known whether 
 the vigil is coeval with the festival; in most 
 Calendars, however, drawn up before the middle 
 of the tenth century the vigil is wanting, while 
 it is marked in later ones. 
 
 We have already called attention to the fact 
 that the date of the rise of this festival is such 
 as to preclude its appearance in the ancient 
 Roman Sacramentaries in their original form. 
 In the various later accretions, however, of 
 Gregory’s Sacramentary, is a collect, kc., for this 
 day (said first to occur in the Cod. Gemeticensis, 
 of about the year 1000 A.D.) on which the 
 collect of our own prayer book is based. (Migne 
 Patrol. Ixxviii. 138.) 
 
 The name of Bartholomew has apparently not 
 been a favourite with the writers of pseudony¬ 
 mous literature. Traces, however, of writings 
 bearino; his name are not altogether wanting. 
 Thus Jerome {Prol. in Comm, in S. Matt, init., 
 vol. vii. 17) refers to an apocryphal gospel 
 bearing the name of Bartholomew, doubtless the 
 same condemned by a Council held at Rome in 
 the episcopate of Gelasius, “ Evangelium nomine 
 Bartholomaei Apostoli apocryphum ” (Migne 
 Patrol, lix. 162) and this also may be that re¬ 
 ferred to by the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, 
 OvTO) yovv 6 0eTos Bap0o\ojua?Ss /cat 
 
 TToWiju T^v 6€o\oyiau elvai Kal e\axt(TTr]v ual 
 rh €vayyeXiou TiXarv Ka\ pi^ya, ual avdis ervu- 
 T6TiJ.r}/jL(yov (Mystica Theologia, c. 1 § 3). Finally, 
 in the Apostolic Constitutions (lib. viii. cc. 19, 
 20) is given under the name of the Apostle Bar¬ 
 tholomew the regulation as to the appointment 
 of Deaconesses. [R. S.] 
 
 BASIL, LITURGY OF. [Liturgy.] 
 
 BASIL. (1) Holy Father and Confessor 
 under Leo the Iconoclast; commemorated Feb. 28 
 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 ( 2 ) Presbyter of Ancyra, martyr under Julian ; 
 commemorated March 22 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Parium, is commemorated as 
 “ Holy Father and Confessor,” April 12 {Cal. 
 Byzant^. 
 
 ( 4 ) Bishop of Amasea, martyr under Licinius, 
 April 12 {Cal. Byz.). 
 
BASILEUS 
 
 BATH 
 
 181 
 
 ( 6 ) The Great, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappa¬ 
 docia, commemorated June 14 (^Mart. Rom. Vet.') ; 
 May 23 (^Mart. Hieron^\ Jan. 1 {Cal. Byzant.')] 
 Nov. 12 (^Cal. Armen.^ ; Ter 6 = Jan. 1 (Ca/. 
 Ethiop.). A standing figure of St. Basil, after 
 ancient precedents, is given in the Benedictine 
 edition of his works; a head in Spizelius’s Aca¬ 
 demia Vetus Christi^ and in Acta SS. June, tom. 
 ii. p. 936. [C.] 
 
 BASILEUS. (1) Martyr at Rome under 
 Gallienus ; commemorated March 2 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.). 
 
 (2) “ In Antiochia Basillei et aliorum xxx 
 martyrum ” Dec. 22 (^Mart. Ilieron.). [C.] 
 
 BASILIANI. [See Diet of Chr. Biogr. 
 Art. Basilius.] 
 
 BASILICA (sc. aedes). This word in 
 its classical acceptation signifies a hall suited for 
 or employed as a court of justice or a place of 
 meeting. Such buildings, often of great size and 
 splendour, existed in every Roman city; they 
 were usually oblong in plan, sometimes with, 
 sometimes without ranges of columns dividing 
 the space into a nave and aisles; at one end was 
 usually a semi-circular apse (v. Diet, of Greek 
 and Roman Antiq., Art. ‘ Basilica ; ’ Bunsen, Die 
 Basiliken des Christ. Roms.). When Christianity 
 became the religion of the state, these buildings 
 were found to be so well adapted to the cele¬ 
 bration of public worship that some were by 
 some slight modifications fitted and used for the. 
 purpose, and the new buildings constructed ex¬ 
 pressly to serve as churches were built almost 
 universally on the same model. Hence basilica 
 came to be used in the sense of church by the 
 writers of the fourth and later centuries without 
 any regard for the form or size of the building. 
 Earlier writers use “ dominicum ” in Latin, or 
 KvoiaKhv in Greek, and some other names 
 [Church]. Eusebius, in his account of the 
 church built by Constantine at Jerusalem, calls 
 it 6 fiaaiKcios reltis, and the nave PaaiKeios 
 oTkos. The use of the word “ basilica ” as 
 meaning a church seems to have arisen gradu¬ 
 ally, for the anonymous pilgrim who, in 333, 
 wrote an itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem, 
 when he says that a “ basilica ” had been built 
 at the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine, adds 
 the explanation, “ id est dominicum.” Mabillon 
 (^Op. posthum., t. ii. p. 355) says that it has been 
 satisfactorily shown that in the writings of au¬ 
 thors who wrote in Gaul in the 6th and 7th cen- 
 tui-ies “basilica” is to be understood as meaning 
 the church of a convent, cathedral and parish 
 churches being called “ ecclesiae ;” the writers of 
 other countries do not observe this distinction. 
 
 Seven churches at Rome—S. Pietro in Vati- 
 cano, S. Giovanni Laterano, Sta. Maria Maggiore, 
 Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme, S. Paolo fuor le 
 Mura, S. Lorenzo in Agro Verano, and S. Sebas- 
 tiano—are styled basilicas by pi'e-eminence and 
 enjoy certain honorific privileges. 
 
 Basilicula is used by St. Paulinus (Epist. xii. 
 ad Severum) and by Avitus Viennensis (^Epist. vi.) 
 for a chapel or oratory. 
 
 The word basilica is found in the Salic Law 
 (tit. 58, c. 3, 4, and 5) in the sense of a monu¬ 
 ment erected over a tomb, apparently the tomb 
 of a person of high rank. With the Franks they 
 appear to have been constructed of wood, as 
 mention is made of their being burnt. Ciampini 
 
 has engraved (Vet. Mon., t. i. tab. xlv.) two mo¬ 
 numents which in his time existed m the portico 
 of S. Lorenzo in Agro Verano at Rome, which 
 he conceives to have been basilicae or basiliculae. 
 One may be described as a model of a temple 
 with four pilasters on each side, and without a 
 cella. It has a somew'hat elegant and almost 
 classical character. The other would seem to 
 have been only the loAver part of a monumeiit; 
 it has three fluted pilasters in front, with au 
 open space behind them. These pilasters carry 
 a base of many mouldings of somewhat classical 
 character, upon which rest the bases of two plain 
 pilasters. Ciampini gives no hint as to the date 
 of these monuments. 
 
 Tombstones of very early date may be found, 
 in which the top is ridged like the roof of a 
 house and carved with an imitation of tiles or 
 shingles; one (engraved in Fosbroke’s Encycl. 
 of Antiq., vi. 1, p. 132) at Dewsbury, in York¬ 
 shire, may be as early as the 7th or 8th century. 
 Tombs in the form of chapels of early date still 
 remain in Ireland (Petrie, Round Towers and 
 Architecture of Ireland, p. 454), and did exist at 
 Iona, and probably at Glastonbury and elsewhere, 
 such structures are no doubt instances of what 
 the Salic Law calls “ basilicae ” [Tomb]. 
 
 The word Basilica is used in the Vulgate (e. g. 
 2 Chron. vi. 13) for the court of the Temple; 
 hence Christian wu’iters occasionally use the 
 expression “ basilica ecclesiae,” as equivalent 
 (seemingly) to the Atrium or fore-court of a 
 church. (Binterim’s Denkaiirdigkeiten, iv. i. 
 24.) [A. N.] 
 
 BASILICLES. (1) Martyr at Rome, with 
 Rogatus and others, under Aurelian; comme¬ 
 morated June 10 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Martyr, with Polymachus and others, 
 under Diocletian, June 12 {31. Hieron., Bedae). 
 This saint has a proper collect, &c., in the 
 Sacram. Greg. (p. 105), “ pridie Idus Junii,” i.e. 
 June 12, with Cyrinus, Nabor, and Nazarius. An¬ 
 tiphon in the Gregorian Lib. Antiph. p. 699. [C.] 
 
 BASILIDIANS. [See Diet, of Chr. Biog. Art. 
 Basilides.] 
 
 BASILISCUS, martyr under Maximian, a.d. 
 308; commemorated May 22 {Cal. Byzant.)', 
 March 3 {31. Rom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 BASILISSA, wufe of Julian, martyr at An¬ 
 tioch, A.D. 296; commemorated June 9 {3Iai't. 
 Rom. Vet.)', May 20 {3Iart. Hieron.)', March 3 
 {Cal. Byzant.)', Nov. 25 {Cal. Armen.f [C.] 
 
 BASILLA. (1) Virgin-martyr at Rome un¬ 
 der Gallienus; commemorated May 20 {3Iart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae). 
 
 (2) Commemorated Aug. 26 {M. Hieron.). 
 
 (3) In Antioch, Nov. 23 {M. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 BASKET. [Canistrum.] 
 
 BASSUS. (1) Saint of Africa, Natale, March 
 19 {31. Bedae). 
 
 (2) Saint, Natale, Oct. 20 (Jf. Bedae). 
 
 (3) In Heraclea, Nov. 20 {Alart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 BATH. Baths in the earlier Christian cen¬ 
 turies w’ere in such frequent use, that they were 
 almost necessary adjuncts to houses of a superior 
 class. Moreover, a practice existed that cate¬ 
 chumens should bathe before baptism, and priests 
 on the eve of certain festivals and other occa¬ 
 sions. We therefore find that baths, Aovrpa, 
 are mentioned among the adjuncts of the Church 
 
182 
 
 BATHING 
 
 BATHING 
 
 of the Twelve Apostles, built by Constantine at 
 Constantinople (Euseb., Vit. Const., 1. iv. c. 59). 
 They are also mentioned in the Codex 2’heod., 
 b. ix. tit. 4, among the buildings and places in¬ 
 cluded within the precincts of churches. 
 
 The anonymous pilgrim of Bordeaux, who was 
 at Jerusalem c. A.D. 333, says that a “ balneum ” 
 was placed behind the basilica, built by Constan¬ 
 tine over the Sepulclu'e of our Lord, but as he 
 adds the words “ ubi infantes lavantur,” it is 
 probable that he speaks of a baptistery, or of 
 the piscina of a baptistery. 
 
 The Lib. Pontif. frequently mentions baths in 
 connexion with churches. Pope Hilarius (a.d. 
 461-467), we are told, built the “balneum” of 
 St. Stephen, and in the life of Pope Hadrian I. 
 (772-795) mention is made of a bath at the La- 
 teran palace, and of another near St. Peter’s; at 
 this last Ave are told the poor who came to receive 
 alms at Easter were accustomed to bathe. Some¬ 
 times these baths were made sources of profit, 
 as Pope Damasus (a.d. 367-385) is stated to have 
 built or given a bath near the “ titulus,” S. Lo¬ 
 renzo in Damaso (which he had created), which 
 bath yielded 27 solidi. Martigny (^Dict. des 
 Antiq. Chret.) mentions other instances of bishops, 
 —as St. Victor of Ravenna, in the 6th century, and 
 Anastasius II. of Pavia—Avho erected or adorned 
 baths for the clergy; and in the 7th, of St. Aguel- 
 lus of Naples, who made an ordinance obliging 
 the priests under his authority to bathe on cer¬ 
 tain days, and made a foundation to furnish them 
 with soap at Christmas and Easter. Certain hot 
 baths at Pozzuoli he states are still known as 
 “ fons episcopi.” 
 
 In an enclosure near the apse of the ruined 
 church of S. Stefano, in Via Latina, near Rome, 
 discovered in the year 1858, is a small reservoir 
 (v. Avoodcut under CilURCir), which has been con¬ 
 sidered to have been a bath. It seems, hoAvever, 
 possible that it may haA^e been the piscina of a 
 baptistery, or, if the area in Avhich it stands was 
 the atrium of the church, the place of the foun¬ 
 tain or cantharus. [A. N.] 
 
 BATHING. The common use of baths 
 throughout the Roman Em})ire presented to 
 Christian converts a special difficulty and danger. 
 The habits of the time had given a marked pre¬ 
 ference to the thermae or hot-air baths such as 
 we noAV know as “ Turkish,” and neither these 
 nor the halneae (swimming or plunge baths) were 
 to be had in their own houses. To give these 
 up Avas to sacrifice comfort, and, it might be, 
 health, and yet to go to them Avas in many cases 
 to run the risk of moral contamination. The 
 feeling of the older Romans, Avhich hindered eA'en 
 a grown-up son from bathing with his father 
 (Cic. De Off. i. 35 ; Valer. Max. ii. 17), had died 
 out, and in the thermae of all large cities Avere 
 to be found croAvds of men and boys, frequently 
 of women also, sitting naked in the tepid trium or 
 Laconicum. It lies in the nature of things that 
 in a society corrupt as was that of the Empire, 
 this, eA’cn without the last-named enormity, must 
 haA^e brought with it many evils, foul speech and 
 fouler acts. It might haA^e seemed at first, as if 
 those who were seeking to lead a purer life would 
 nave had to renounce the habit altogether, as 
 they renounced the obscenities of the mimes, 
 and the fei’ocities of gladiatorial shows. 
 
 It is noticeable, however, that the rigorism of 
 
 early Christian life never reached this point. 
 Doubtless, in eveiy city, there were establish¬ 
 ments of dinercnt grades, and the Christian could 
 choose those which were conducted Avith greater 
 decency. Probably, too, before long, as the em¬ 
 ployment was not a forbidden one, Christians 
 would be found to enter on it and reform its evils. 
 The public baths at Rome which Avere established 
 by emperoi's or placed under magisterial control, 
 were free from the grosser evils of the mixture of 
 the tAVO sexes; and it is recorded to the honour 
 of many of the emperors Avho were, more or less, 
 under the influence of a higher culture, that they 
 sought to check them. Hadrian (Spartianus, p. 
 25), Antoninus Pius (Julius Capit. p. 90), Alex¬ 
 ander SeA’erus (Lamprid. c. 42), are all named as 
 having taken steps to put down the lavacra 
 mixta, which were so flagrant an outrage on all 
 natural decency. As it is, though the practice, 
 like most others in the common routine of life, is 
 but little noticed unless Avhere its accompaniment 
 calls for censure, Ave find traces enough to shoAV 
 that the most devout Christians did not think it 
 necessary to abstain from the public bath. It 
 Avas in the “baths” of Ephesus that St. John 
 encountered Cerinthus (Euseb. H. E. iii. 38). 
 Tertullian, with all his austerity, acknowledged 
 that bathing Avas necessary for health, and that 
 he practised it himself (^Apol. c. xlii.) Clement 
 of Alexandria {Paedag. iii. c. 9), lays doAvn rules, 
 half medical and half moral, for its use. It 
 formed part of the complaints of the Christians 
 of Lugdunum and Vienna, and Avas mentioned by 
 them as the first sign of the change for the 
 worse in their treatment, that they Av^ere ex¬ 
 cluded from, the public baths (Euseb. H. E. y. 1). 
 Augustine narrates how on his mother’s death, 
 led by the popularly accepted etymology of 
 ^aKavetov (as if from fidWeiu duiav) he had 
 gone to the thermae to assuage his sorroAV, and 
 found it fruitless (“ neque enim exsudavit de 
 corde meo moeroris amaritudo.” Confess, ix. 32). 
 The old evils, however, in spite of the reforming 
 Empire, continued to preA\ail, probably in worse 
 forms in the proAunces than in the capital. 
 Epiphanius mentions \ovTpd auSpoyvva as com¬ 
 mon among the Jcaa^s of his time (Haer. 30). 
 Clement describes the mixture of the sexes as 
 occurring in the daily life of Alexandria (^Paedag. 
 iii. 5); Cyprian as in that of Carthage {de Cult. 
 Virg. p. 73); Ambrose as in that of Milan {de 
 Off', i. 18); and both plead against it Avith an 
 earnestness Avhich shows that it was a danger 
 for Christians as Avell as heathens. Even those 
 Avhose sense of shame led them to aA’oid the 
 more public exposure, submitted to the gaze 
 and the cares of male attendants (Clem. Al. 1 . c.). 
 It is even more startling to find that it AA-as 
 necessary, after the conA'ersion of the Empire, to 
 forbid, under pain of deposition, the clergy of all 
 orders from frequenting baths where the sexes 
 were thus mingled (C. Laod. c. 30 ; C. Trull, c. 
 77). Offending laymen AA'ere in like manner to 
 come under sentence of excommunication. Gra¬ 
 dually the better feeling prei’ailed, and the lava¬ 
 cra mixta fell into a disrepute like that of houses 
 of ill fame. It was reckoned a justifiable cause 
 of diAmrce for a Avife to haA'e been seen in one 
 (Cod. Justin. V. tit. 17 de Pejoud.f 
 
 Another aspect of the practice remains to be 
 noticed. Traces meet us here and there of a dis¬ 
 tinctly liturgical use of bathing, analogous to the 
 
BAVO 
 
 BELFRY 
 
 183 
 
 ablutions of Jewish woi’shippers and priests, as 
 preliminary to solemn religious acts, and, in pai-ti- 
 cular, to baptism. The practice existed among the 
 Essenes (Joseph. Vit. c. 2), and there may probably 
 be a reference to it in the “ washed with pure 
 water” of Heb. x. 22. Tertullian {de Orat. c. 
 xi.) condemns as superstitious what he describes 
 as the common custom (“plerique superstitiose 
 curaut”) of washing the whole body before 
 eveiy act of prayer. In Western Africa there 
 was a yet stranger usage, which Augustine cha¬ 
 racterises as “ pagan,” of going to the sea on the 
 Feast of St. John the Baptist, and bathing as in 
 his honour (Serm. cxciv. de Temp. 23). As pre¬ 
 paratory to baptism, it was, however, i-ecog- 
 nised. The catechumens who w'ere to be admit¬ 
 ted at Easter had during the long quadragesimal 
 fast abstained from the use of the bath; and 
 there was some risk in such cases, when large 
 numbers were gathered together for baptism by 
 immersion, and stripped in the presence of the 
 Church, of an uncleanliness which would have 
 been offensive both to sight and smell. Here, 
 therefore, the bath was brought into use (August. 
 Epist. 54), and the halneator attended with 
 his st7'igil, and his flask of oil and his towels, 
 after the usual fashion (Zeno Veron. Invit. ad 
 font. vi.). It may be noted, as implied in this, 
 that the employment was among those which 
 it was not unlawful for Christians to engage in. 
 It was probably for this purpose, as well as for 
 the use of priests before they celebrated the 
 eucharist, that Constantine constructed baths 
 within the precincts of the great church which 
 he built at Constantinople (Euseb. Vit. Const. 
 IV. 59), and that they were recognised as import¬ 
 ant, if not essential, appendages to the more 
 stately churches, and were entitled to the same 
 privileges of asylum (Cbc?. Theodos. ix. tit. 45). 
 Popes and bishops followed the imperial example, 
 and constructed baths in Rome, in Pavia, in Ra¬ 
 venna, and in Naples. A full account of their 
 structure and use is to be found in Sidon. Apol- 
 linar. Epp. ii. 2. (Comp, the monograph De 
 sao'is Christianoi'um balneis, by Paciandi. Rome, 
 1758.) [E. H. P.] 
 
 BAYO, Saint, of Ghent (died 653), Natale, 
 Oct. 1 (J/ar^. Bedae, Adonis in Appendice'). In 
 the 6eims MS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary, 
 the commemoration of SS. Bavo, Germanus, and 
 Vedast, is joined with that of St. Remigius. [C.] 
 
 BEADLE. \_Ang. Sax. Bydel, a messenger.] 
 An inferior officer of the Church answering to the 
 modern beadle, is possibly referred to in a Canon 
 of the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) under the 
 name of -napafiovapios. In the Roman Church 
 the officer was called mansionarius. By Gregory 
 the Great he is also styled Custos Ecclesiae—W'hose 
 business it was to light the lamps or candles of 
 the church. Later critics, however, have given a 
 different interpretation of irapa/jLoi'dpios. Thus, 
 Justellus explains it by “ villicus,” a bailiff’ or 
 steward of the lands; and Bishop Beveridge (Not. 
 in Cone. Chalced. c. 2) styles him “ rerum eccle- 
 siasticarum administrator,” which would have 
 the same meaning (Bingham, iii. 13). [D. B.] 
 
 BEARDS. The practice of the clergy in 
 ancient times in respect of wearing beards was 
 in conformity with the general custom. Long 
 hair and baldness by shaving being alike in ill- 
 repute as unseemly peculiarities, the clergy were 
 
 required to observe a becoming moderation be¬ 
 tween either extreme. To this effect is tho 
 Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage— Clericus 
 nec .omam nutriat nee barbam radat. The con¬ 
 trary practice, however, having obtained in the 
 later Roman Church, it has been contended by 
 Bellarmine and others, that the word radat was an 
 interpolation in the Canon. But this allegation 
 has been disproved by Savaro, on the testimony 
 of the Vatican and many other manuscripts : and 
 it appears further, from one of the Epistles of 
 Sidonius (lib. iv. Ep. 24), that in his time it was 
 the custom of the French bishops to wear short 
 hair and long beards: his friend Maximus Pala- 
 tinus, who had become a clergyman, being thus 
 described—“ Habitus viro, gradus, pudor, color, 
 sermo religiosus: turn coma brevis, barha pro- 
 lixa,'' &c. (Bingham, b. vi. c. iv.) [D. B.] 
 
 BEASTS, IN SYMBOLISM. [Symbolism.] 
 
 BEATITUDES. In the Liturgy of St. 
 Chrysostom, the Beatitudes (p-aKapiapoi') are 
 ordered to be sung by the choir on Sundays, 
 instead of the third Antiphon (Daniel’s Codex 
 Liturgicus, iv. 343; Neale’s Eastern Ch., Tntrod. 
 390). Goar (^Euchologion) seems to have been 
 uncertain of the meaning of the word, or of the 
 practice of the Church ; for he writes that these 
 {jLOLKapKTpoi ai-e “hymni sanctorum beatitudinis 
 memoriam recolentes ; vel potius eae beatitudines 
 de quibus S. Matthaei V.; vel tandem pia 
 viventium vota pro defunctorum requie.” Dr. 
 Neale takes them, no doubt rightly, for the 
 Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. [C.j 
 
 BEATRIX, martyr ; commemoi'ated July 29 
 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Bedae). The Mart. Hieron. 
 has under July 29 “ Veatrix;” July 28, “ Bea¬ 
 trix and again “ Beatrix,” July 30. The 
 Corbey MS. of the Sacram. Greg, has a comme¬ 
 moration of S. Beatrix (with S. Felix and others) 
 on July 29. Antiphon, in Lib. Antiph. p. 704. [C.] 
 
 BELFRY (High-German, Berevrit, Bervrit, 
 a tower for defence; Low-Latin, bertefredum, 
 battefredum, belp-edurn, &c.; Italian, bettifredo, a 
 sentry-box on a tower; Old French, berfroi; 
 Mod. French, beffroi; Eng. belfry, the corrupt 
 etymology of which has limited the application, 
 see Wedgwood’s Diet, of Eng. Etymology, i. 142). 
 The place in wffiich bells hang. Berfredum is 
 also found used for the structure of timber on 
 which a bell is hung, in German Glockenstuhl. 
 In common parlance belfry and its equivalents 
 are used for the whole tow'er in which bells 
 hang. 
 
 The earliest examples of bell-towers connected 
 with churches appear to be those of Ravenna : 
 that of S. Francesco Hiibsch attributes to the 
 beginning of the 6th century, and those of S. 
 Giovanni Battista and S. Apollinare in Classe to 
 the middle or latter part of the same century. 
 Of the towers at Rome he thinks that those of 
 Sta. Pudenziana and S. Lorenzo in Lucina may 
 be in part at least of the 7th ; but no docu¬ 
 mentary notice of bell-towers has been found 
 earlier than that in the Lib. Bontif. of the 
 “turris” built by Pope Stephen III. (,v.D. 768- 
 772) at St. Peter’s, in which he placed three 
 bells “ to call together the clergy and people 
 to the service of God.” (This passage is given 
 by Ducange, but does not appear in all editions 
 of the Lib. Bontif.) Pu])e Leo IV., tiie same 
 
184 
 
 BELL 
 
 BELLS 
 
 book informs us, built a campanile at S. Andrea ' 
 Apostolo, and placed there a bell with a brazen 
 hammer. [A. N.] 
 
 BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE. [£x- 
 
 COilMUJJlCATlON.] 
 
 BELLS. I. Names of Bells. —The name cam- 
 “panum or campana is commonly said to have been 
 given to bells, because they were invented by 
 Panllinus of Nola in Campania. Paullinus, how¬ 
 ever, who more than once describes churches, 
 never mentions bells, and the more probable sup¬ 
 position is, that bells in early times were cast 
 from Campanian brass, which Pliny (^Nat. Hist. 
 xxxiv. 8) describes as the best for such a purpose, 
 and so received the name campana or campanum. 
 The woi'd nola can scarcely be derived from the 
 city Nola, and is pei'haps imitative of the sound, 
 like the English “ knoll.” 
 
 The word which we have in the form clock 
 (compare Irish clog, French cloche, Germ, glocke') 
 w.xs adopted in later Latin, both in the neuter form 
 cloccum (^Vita S. Bonifacii, in Act. Sanct. June, 
 tom. i. p. 472) and the feminine clocca (Bonifacii 
 Epistt. 9 et 75); the latter is the usual form. 
 The “Anonymus Thuanus,” quoted by Binterim 
 (^Denkwilrd. iv. 1. 290) gi^-es the form cloqua for 
 a turret-bell (cloquam turris). 
 
 Signum (Ital. segno, old French seint, whence 
 toesm) is the most usual w'ord for a church-boll 
 f]-om the 6th century. In some cases it appears 
 to designate not a bell, but some other kind of 
 semantron. (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. ; Rosweyd, 
 Vitae Patrum, Onomast. s. v. p. 1056.) 
 
 Small bells, such as were rung by hand in the 
 refectories of monasteries, were called tintinna- 
 bula; and the still smaller bells which were 
 sometimes appended to priestly vestments, were 
 designated tinniola, from their tinkling sound. 
 (Ducange, s. v.) Tintinnum seems to have been 
 sometimes used for a larger bell (see Tatwin, 
 quoted below). 
 
 The word skella, skilla, scilla, squilla, or es- 
 quilla (Ital. squilla. Germ, schelle) is also used for 
 a small bell: see below. In the Tahularium of 
 St. Rerai (quoted by Ducange) a “ schilla de 
 metallo ” is mentioned as well as “ signum 
 ferreum.” 
 
 Other designations occasionally found are aes, 
 aeramentuni, lebes, muta, kuBwv. 
 
 II. Use of Bells. —For the purpose of announcing 
 meetings of Christians in times of persecution a 
 messenger was employed [Cursor]; in quiet 
 times future services were announced by a deacon 
 in time of divine worship; in some parts of 
 Africa a trumpet seems to have been employed 
 to call the people to their assemblies. 
 
 After the time of Constantine some sonorous 
 instrument, whether a clapper [Semantroa^] or 
 a bell, seems to have been generally employed to 
 give notice of the commencement of Christian 
 assemblies. The word “ signum ” in Latin writers 
 is probably used to designate both these instru¬ 
 ments, and it is not always easy to say which is 
 intended. Gregory of Tours (^Hist. Franc, ii. 23, 
 j). 73) mentions a “ signum ” as calling monks to 
 matins, in the time of Sidonius Apollinaris ; and 
 elsewhere (^De Mit'ac. S. Martini, ii. 45, p. 1068) 
 he mentions the “ signum ” (signum quod com- 
 moveri solet) as if it were something swung like a 
 bell. So Venantius Fortunatus (Carm. ii. 10) 
 speaks of the “signum” of the principal church 
 
 ' in Paris calling to prayer. St. Columba is said, in 
 the life by Cumineus Albus (Ac^a S'-?. Junii, tom. 
 ii. p. 188, c. 10), to have gone into the church when 
 the bell rang (pulsante campana) at midnight; 
 and Bede (^Hist. Eccl. iv. 23) mentions that at 
 St. Hilda’s death, one of her nuns at a distance 
 from Whitby heard suddenly the well-known 
 sound of the bell which roused or called them to 
 prayer when one departed from this world.. These 
 testimonies seem to show that bells of considerable 
 size were used in England, at least in convents, 
 as early as the 6th century, Tatwin, archbishop 
 of Canterbury (731—734) in some verses “ De 
 Tintinno ” (Hook’s Archbishops, i. 206) speaks ci* 
 a bell “ superis suspensus in aiuds ” hastening the 
 steps of the crowd. The Excerptiones attri¬ 
 buted to Egbert (canon ii.), enjoin “ ut omne.s 
 sacerdotes horis competentibus diei et noctis su- 
 arum sonent ecclesiarum signa.” 
 
 St. Sturm when dying (an. 779) ordered all 
 the bells (gloggas) of his convent to be rung 
 (Eigil’s Vita S. Sturmii, c. 25, in Migne’s Patrol, 
 cv. 443). 
 
 In Gaul we have already seen that “ signa ” 
 were used as early as the 6th century. At a 
 later period, Flodoard (Hist. Pemens. ii. 12) 
 tells us of the miraculous silence of two of the 
 bells of a Gascon church in which St. Rigobert 
 (t749) was praying. We cannot, of course, in¬ 
 sist upon all the details of this narrative as if 
 they were literally true, but the account shows 
 at any rate that Flodoard (about 950) took foi 
 granted that in the 8th century the great 
 churches in the Gascon territory had many bells, 
 which were rung at certain hours; and that 
 even country churches had more than one, for 
 the two silent bells had been stolen from a 
 country church; moreover, the bells must have 
 been of considerable size, for the narrator speaks 
 expressly of their loud sound (his altisone re- 
 boantibus). It is worth observing, too, that ho 
 uses the words campanae, nolae, and signa as 
 precisely synonymous. 
 
 By the time of Charles the Great, in fact, the 
 use of church-bells seems to have become common 
 in the empire. Charles encouraged the art or 
 bell-founding, and entertained bell-founders at 
 his court. Among the most famous of these was 
 Tancho, a monk of St. Gall, who cast a fine bell for 
 the great church at Aachen. (The Monk of St. 
 Gall De Gestis Caroli, i. 31.) He asked for 100 
 pounds of silver as alloy for the copper, from 
 which we infer that the bell may have weighed 
 400 or 500 pounds. 
 
 Bells appear to have been held in especial re¬ 
 gard by the Irish ecclesiastics of the fifth and 
 succeeding^ centuries. Their bells seem to have 
 been chiefly hand-bells; but Dr. Petrie (Round 
 Towers of Ireland, p. 383) says that “ it is per¬ 
 fectly certain that bells of a size much too 
 large for altar-bells were abundantly distributed 
 by St. Patrick in Ireland, as appears trom his 
 oldest lives.” Sinall of Cill Airis, in the tri¬ 
 partite life of St. Patrick supposed to have 
 been originally written in the 6th century, is 
 called campanarius. Hand-bells are })reserved, 
 which are attributed to Iri.sh Saints or ecclesi¬ 
 astics from the 5th century downwards. They 
 seem to have been reckoned among the most 
 necessary insignia of a bishop: thus in the an¬ 
 notations of Tirechan, in the Book of Armagh, 
 we are told that Patrick conferred on Fiac the 
 
BELLS 
 
 BELLS 
 
 185 
 
 degree of a bishop and gave him a box or satchel 
 containing a bell, a “ monster ” (i. e. a reliquary), 
 a crozier, and a “ polaire ” or ornamental case 
 for a book (Petrie, p. 338). The earliest of these 
 
 bells and the most highly 
 venerated is that known 
 as the ‘Clog-an-eadhachta 
 Phatraic,’—the bell of the 
 will of Patrick,—given to 
 the church of Armagh by 
 St. Columba; this is of 
 quadrangular form, of 
 thick sheet iron, six inches 
 high, five inches by four 
 at the mouth and dimi¬ 
 nishing upwards, with a 
 loop at the top for the 
 
 The Bell of St. PatricK. hand (v. woodcut). It is 
 
 kept in a splendidly orna¬ 
 mented case, made for it between A.D. 1091 and 
 
 1105. 
 
 Many other such bells are in existence, as the 
 bell of St. Gall, in the Treasury of the church 
 of St. Gall in Switzei'land; the bell of St. 
 Mogue (d. A.D. 624), in possession of the Primate 
 of Ireland, &c. 
 
 In the 9th century, according to Dr. Petrie 
 (^Round Toners of Ireland, p. 252), the quad¬ 
 rangular form which is found in all the early 
 bells began to give way to the circular. The 
 early bells are usually of iron, but one of bronze 
 in the collection of the Royal Irish Academy, 
 which has been ascribed to St. Patrick, in con¬ 
 
 sequence of its being inscribed with the name 
 “ Patrici,” is of bronze, as arc some others. 
 
 In the East, church-bells were of later intro¬ 
 duction. No mention of them in the East ap¬ 
 pears to occur until Orso, duke of Venice, towards 
 the end of the 9th century, gave twelve large 
 bells of brass to Michael (or Basil) the Greek 
 emperor, who added a bell-tower to the church 
 of St. Sophia at Constantinople for their re¬ 
 ception. (Baronius, in Augnsti’s Handbuch, i. 
 402.) * [A. N.] and [C.] 
 
 We gather from the above examples that from 
 the 6th century at least bells were used in the 
 West, first in convents, afterwards in churches 
 generally, to summon worshippers to the various 
 services, and to give notice to the faithful of the 
 passing away of one of the brotherhood. Details 
 of the manner of making and hanging these bells 
 are altogether wanting. 
 
 Besides these uses, we find that bells were 
 anciently used by the Western Church in proces¬ 
 sions. For instance, the rubric of the Mozarabic 
 Missal (p. 166, ed. Lesley) directs that a boy 
 ringing a hand-bell (esquillam) should precede 
 the procession which bore the Eucharist to the 
 Sepulchre on Maundy Thursday. 
 
 Another ecclesiastical use of small bells is the 
 following :—Benedict of Aniane (see his Life 
 by Ardo, c. 8, in Acta SS. Febr. tom. ii. p. 612) 
 ordered a squilla to be rung in the monk’s dor¬ 
 mitory before the signum of the church rang for 
 the nocturnal “ Hours.” 
 
 It is generally agreed, that there is no trace 
 within our period of the practice of ringing either 
 a small bell or the great bell of the church at 
 the elevation of the Host. The ancient Irish 
 
 hand-bells may probably have been used in pro¬ 
 cessions, or in monasteries for such uses as those 
 described above. 
 
 The belief that the ringing of bells, whethei 
 the great bells of a church or hand-bells, tended 
 to dispel storms is of considerable antiquity. The 
 origin of this belief is traced by hagiographors to 
 St. Salaberga, who lived in the beginning of the 
 7th century. The story is, that a small boll 
 attached to the neck of a stag, was brought from 
 heaven to St. Salaberga, for the relief of her 
 daughter Anstrudis, who was terrified at thunder. 
 This belief is expressed in the lines 
 
 “ Relliquiae sanctae Salabergae ef canipana praesens 
 Expellunt febres et ipsa tonitrua pellit.” 
 
 See Mabillon’s Acta SS. Bened. saec. ii. p. 414 ; 
 Bollandist Acta SS. Sept. tom. vi. p. 517. 
 This supposed property of dispelling storms is 
 alluded to in the services for the benediction or 
 “ baptism ” of bells. 
 
 III. Benediction of Bells. —It is probable that 
 from the time that bells first became part of the 
 furniture of a church, they were subjected, like 
 other church-furniture and ornaments, to some 
 kind of consecration. Forms for the benediction 
 of a church-bell fAd signum ecclesiae benedicen~ 
 dum) are found in the Reims and the Corbej 
 MSS. of the Gregorian Sacramentary fSacram. 
 Greg. ed. Menard, p. 438) to the following efiect. 
 After the benediction of the water to be used in 
 the ceremony. Psalms 145-150 (Vulg.), were 
 chanted; meantime the bell was washed with 
 the holy-water, and touched with oil and salt, 
 by the officiating bishop, who said at the same 
 time the prayer, beginning, “ Deus, qui per 
 Moysen legiferum tubas argenteas fieri praece- 
 pisti; ” the bell was then wiped with a napkin, 
 and the Antiphon followed, “ Vox Domini super 
 aquas” (Ps. xxix. 3, Vulg.); the bell was then 
 touched with chrism seven times outside and 
 four times inside, while the prayer was said, 
 “ Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui ante arcam 
 Foederis, &c.; ” it was then fumigated with 
 incense within and without, and “ Viderunt te 
 aquae ” (Ps. Ixxvi. 16) was chanted; the service 
 concluded with the collect “ Omnipotens Domi- 
 nator Christe, quo secundum assumptionom 
 carnis dormiente in navi,” &c. Both the verses 
 and the prayer allude to the supposed power of 
 the bell to calm storms. 
 
 The office Ad signum ecclesiae henedicendum 
 given in Egbert’s Tontifical (pp. 177 ft’, ed. Sur¬ 
 tees Society, 1853) difters in no essential point 
 from the Gregorian. 
 
 The custom of engraving a name upon a bell 
 is said by Baronius fAnnales, an. 961, c. 93) to 
 have originated with Pope John XllL, who con¬ 
 secrated a bell and gave it the name John. This 
 will probably be accepted as sufficient testimony 
 to the fact, that the custom of engraving a name 
 on a bell, in connexion with the ceremony of con¬ 
 secration, did not arise in Italy before the 10th 
 century. It is, of course, possible that in other 
 countries, as in Ireland, it may be of earlier date ; 
 or the names engraved on some ancient Irish bells 
 may simply indicate ownership. 
 
 In Charles the Great’s capitulary of the year 
 789, c. 18, the words occur, “ Ut cloccae non 
 baptizentur.” As it is almost certain that some 
 kind of dedication-rite for church-bells was 
 practised continuously through the i)eriod, we 
 must either conclude that some j)articular 
 practice in the matter—it is impf.'isible to de¬ 
 termine what—is here condemned or that the 
 
186 
 
 B£MA 
 
 BENEDICITE 
 
 “ cloccae ” here intended were hand-bells for 
 domestic use. The latter supposition is strength¬ 
 ened by the fact that the direction immediately 
 follows in the capitulary, that papers should not 
 be hung on poles to avert hail; clearly a domes¬ 
 tic supei’stition. (Binterim, Denkwwdigkeiten 
 iv. 1, 29-r.) The connexion suggests, that these 
 “ cloccae ” were house-bells to be used for avert¬ 
 ing storms. See the legend of St. Salaberga, 
 above. 
 
 IV. Literature. N. Eggers, De Origine et 
 Nomine Campanarum (Jena, 1684); De Cam- 
 pamirum Materia et Forma (Ib. 1685). H. 
 VVallerii Diss. De Campanis et praecipuis earum 
 Usibus (Holm. 1694). P. C. Hilscher, De Cam¬ 
 panis Templorum (Lipsiae, 1692). J. B. Thiers, 
 Traite des Cloches, &c. (Paris, 1719). J. Mon¬ 
 tanas, Historische Nachricht von den Glocken, 
 V. s. w. (Chemnitz, 1726). C. W. J. Chrysander, 
 Mist. Nachricht von Kirchen-Glocken (Rinteln, 
 1755). Canon Barraud in Didron’s A7inales 
 ArcheoL, xvi. 325; xvii. 104, 278, 357; xviii. 
 57, 145. [C.] 
 
 BEMA, otherwise tribunal, sanctuarium (Gr. 
 ^rgxci). The part of a church i-aised above the 
 rest, shut otf by railings or screens, and reserved 
 for the higher clergy. The part so reserved, 
 when the apse was large, was sometimes the apse 
 alone, but often a space in front of the apse was 
 included. When, as is the case in many churches 
 of the basilican type at Rome and elsewhere, 
 there was a ti-ansept at that end of the church, the 
 bema often commenced at the so-called triumjjhal 
 arch at the end of the nave. In the old church 
 of St. Peter at Rome the bema appears to have 
 comprised the apse alone, but at S. Paolo f. 1. M. 
 the whole ti'ansept is slightly raised. Some¬ 
 times where a transept exists, the bema does not 
 extend into the arms of fhe transept, which are 
 parted oft' by screens. The altar was usually 
 placed withm in the bema, often on the chord of 
 the arc of the apse. Beneath the altar was 
 usually a ciypt or confession. Round the wall 
 of the apse or “ conchula bematis ” ran a bench 
 for the presbyters, which was interrupted in the 
 centre by the cathedra or throne for the bishop. 
 These seats are alluded to by St. Augustine 
 when (Ajo. 203) he speaks of “ apsides gradatae ” 
 and “ cathedrae velatae.” Such an ari*angemeut 
 as this was probably in use as early as the time 
 of Constantine; for, from the description given 
 us by Eusebius of the church built by Paulinas 
 at Tyre {Eccles. Mist. x. 14), we find that the 
 altar stood in the middle, and, together with the 
 seats for the dignitaries, was surrounded by rail¬ 
 ings of wood admirably worked. We should 
 probably understand by middle, not absolutely 
 the middle of the church, but the middle of the 
 apse, for the description is -given in a very in¬ 
 exact and rhetorical style. At St. Sophia’s, when 
 rebuilt by Justinian, thei'e was an enclosure 
 (fpKos) formed by a stylobate, on which were 
 twelve columns surrounded by an architrave, 
 which divided the bema from the solea. This 
 enclosure had three gates, and was entirely of 
 silver, very richly ornamented (Pauli Silentiarii 
 Desc^ip. S. Sophiae). Such an enclosure is called 
 by Sozomen hpixpaKva, and by Constantine Por- 
 phyrogenitus, KijKKiSfs. Such was the nox'mal 
 arrangement, but it was not invariable; for the 
 Lib. Doatif., in the life of Pope Hadrian I. (a.d. 
 772-795), narrates how at S. Maria ad Praesepe 
 
 (now S. Mai'ia Maggiore) the women who 
 j attended the service intervened between him 
 and his attendant clergy, and in the life of Pop>e 
 Gregory IV. (a.d. 827-844) that the altar at S. 
 Maria in Trastevere stood in a low place, almost 
 in the middle of the nave, so that the crowd 
 surrounding it were mixed up with the clergy. 
 The Pope therefore made for the clergy a hand¬ 
 some “ tribunal ” in the circuit of the apse, rais¬ 
 ing it considerably. This arrangement remained 
 in use until perhaps the 11th or 12th century; 
 it is clearly shown in the plan for the church of 
 St. Gall drawn up in the beginning of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury (^Arch. Journal, vol. v., see Church), both 
 apses being shut oft’ and raised above the rest of 
 the church. Probably no example now exists 
 of a period as early as that treated of in this 
 work, in which a “ bema ” remains in its ori¬ 
 ginal state; but the raised tribunal may be seen 
 in many Italian churches in Rome, Ravenna, and 
 elsewhere. In S. Apollinare in Classe, in the 
 latter city, a part of the marble enclosure seems 
 to remain. The bench of marble, with the ca¬ 
 thedra in the middle, may also be seen in that 
 and many other churches, a good example is af¬ 
 forded by those at Parenzo in Istria which would 
 seem to be of the same date as the church—the 
 6th century. In the church of S. Clemente at 
 Rome marble screens of an early date (7th cent- 
 ury?) part off the bema in the ancient fashion, 
 but the church is not earlier than the 12th cent¬ 
 ury. The word is little used by Latin writers, 
 being in fact the Greek equivalent for what in 
 the Lib. Pontif. is called “ tribunal; ” ‘‘ presby- 
 te ‘lum ” in the same work is perhaps sometimes 
 us?.d with the same meaning, though by this 
 word the “ choi’us ” or place for the singers and 
 inferior clergy is generally meant [v. Chorus, 
 Presbyterium]. The word “ bema ” is also 
 found in use for a pulpit or ambo, as by Sozomen 
 (1. ix. c. 2); but it is distinguished from the 
 bema, or sanctuary, by being called )8r)^a rwv 
 avayvcaaTwv, the readers’ bema. The same ex¬ 
 pression is, however, applied by Symeon of Thes- 
 salonica to the soleas, a platform in front of the 
 bema (Neale, East. Church, v. i. p. 201). [A. N.] 
 
 BENEDICAMUS DOMINO. This is a 
 liturgical form of words, said by the priest at 
 the end of all the canonical hours, with the 
 exception of matins. The response to it is always 
 Deo gratias. It is also said at the end of the 
 mass in those masses in which Gloria in excelsis 
 is not said, and which are not masses for the 
 dead, in which the corresponding form is Requies- 
 cat in pace. The custom of substituting Bene- 
 dicatnus for Ite missa est in these masses is 
 derived from the old practice of the Church, 
 accoi’ding to which after masses for the dead, 
 or those for penitential days, the people were not 
 dismissed as at other times, but remained for 
 the recitation of the psalms, which were said 
 after the mass. Benedicamus Domino is sung on 
 the same tone as Lte missa est, which varies accord¬ 
 ing to the character of the day. [H. J. H.] 
 
 BENEDICITE. This canticle, called also 
 Canticum trium / tierorrim, is part [v. 35 to the 
 middle of v. 66] of the prayer of Azarias in the 
 furnace, which occurs between the 23rd and 
 24th verses of Daniel iii. in the LXX., but is not 
 in the Hebrew. It is used in the lauds ot the 
 Western Church, both in the Gregorian, iaclu- 
 
BENEDICTINE RULE AND ORDER 
 
 187 
 
 ding the old English, and Monastic uses, among 
 the psalms of lauds, on Sundays and festivals, 
 immediately before P^s. cxlviii., cxlix., cl. It 
 usually has an antiphon of its own, though in 
 some uses the psalnis at lauds are all said under 
 one antiphon. The autiphonal clause, “ Laudate 
 et superexaltate eum in saecula,” is only said 
 after the first and last verses. Glorici Patri is 
 not said after it, as after other canticles, but 
 in its place the verses— 
 
 Benedicamus Patrem et Filium cum Spiritu Sancto : 
 laudemus et superexaltemus eum in saecuia. 
 
 Benedictus es, Domine, in firmamento coeli: et lauda- 
 oilis et gloriosus et superexaltatus in saecuia. 
 
 In the Ambrosian lauds for Sundays and festi¬ 
 vals, Benedicite occurs with an antiphon varying 
 with the day, and preceded by a collect [Oratio 
 secreta] which varies only on Christmas Day 
 and the Epiphany. During the octave of Easter 
 Hallelujah^ is said after each verse. 
 
 Benedicite also occurs in the private thanks¬ 
 giving of the priest after mass; in the Roman 
 office in full; in the Sarum the last few verses 
 only. 
 
 In the Mozarabic breviary this canticle is 
 found in the lauds for Sundays and festivals in 
 a somewhat ditlerent form, with a special anti¬ 
 phon, and is called Benedictus. It begins at v. 
 29 ; the antiphonal clause is omitted altogether 
 till the end ; and the opening words of the Bene¬ 
 dicite proper, “ Benedicite omnia opera Domini 
 Domino,” are never repeated after their first 
 occurrence. 
 
 In the offices of the Greek Church this canticle 
 is the eighth of the nine Odes ” appointed at 
 lauds. The antiphonal clause is said after every 
 verse, and a supplementary verse is added at 
 the end, “ euAoyeiTe ’AttocttoAoj, IlpocpriTai, 
 Kai Maprvpe? Kupiov, rbr Kvpioy K.r.\. This 
 canticle is sometimes called (e.g. by St. Benedict 
 and by St. Fructuosus Archb. of Bragas,f 665) 
 from the nature of its contents the Benedictio, 
 in the same way as the last three psalms of the 
 Psalter are known as the Laudes. [H. J. H.] 
 
 BENEDICTA, religious woman, martyr at 
 Rome under Julian, commemorated January 4 
 (^Mart. Bom. Vet.). [C.] 
 
 BENEDICTINE RULE AND ORDER, 
 founded by St. Benedictus of Nursia, born A.D. 
 480, and died probably 542. [See Diet, of Chr. 
 Biogr. s. r.] Even before the institution of the, 
 Benedictine Rule, monasticism was widely esta¬ 
 blished in Southern and Western Europe, and 
 was instrumental in spreading Christianity among 
 the hordes which overran the prostrate Roman 
 Empire. But there was as yet neither uni¬ 
 formity nor permanency of rule (Mab. Act. 
 0. S. B. Praef.).. In the words of Cassian, which 
 seem to ajiply to Occidental as well as Oriental 
 monachism, there were as many rules as there 
 were monasteries (^Tnstit. ii. 2). In Italy, always 
 easily accessible to Greek influences, the Rule of 
 Basil, which had been translated into Latin by 
 Ruffians (Pi-aef. Reg. Bas.), was the favourite; 
 in Southern Gaul, and in Spain, that of Cassian, 
 or rather of Macarius; and as the Rule of Bene¬ 
 dict worked its way into the North-west of 
 Europe, it was confronted by the rival system of 
 Columbanus (Pellic. Polit. Ecc. Chr. 1. iii. 1, § 4; 
 
 Mab. Ann. Praef.). Like Aaron’s rod, in the 
 quaint language of the Middle Ages, it soon swal¬ 
 lowed up the other rules. But, in fact, there 
 was often a great diversity of practice, even 
 among those professing to follow the same Rule, 
 often a medley of different rules within the same 
 walls (Mab. Ann. Praef.), and a succession of new 
 rules in successive years (Mab. Ann. i. 29). The 
 Columbanists, for instance, were not, strictly 
 tspeaking, a se})arate order (Mab. Ann. Praef.). 
 The Benedictines may fairly be regarded as the 
 first in order of time, as well as in importance, 
 of the monastic orders. 
 
 The Benedictine Rule gave stahilitg to what 
 had hitherto been fliictuating and incoherent 
 (Mab. Ann. Praef.). The hermit-life had been 
 essentially individualistic, and the monastic com¬ 
 munities of Egypt and the East had been an aggre¬ 
 gation, on however large a scale, of units, rather 
 than a compact and living organization, as of 
 “many members in one body.” Benedict seems 
 to have felt keenly the need of a firm hand to 
 control and regulate the manifold impulses, of one 
 sort and another, which moved men to retire 
 from the world. Apparently there was a good 
 deal of laxity and disorder among the monks of 
 his day. He is very severe against the petty 
 fraternities of the Sarabaitae, monks- dwelling 
 two or three together in a “ cell,” or small 
 monastei-y, without any one at their head, and 
 still more against the “ Gyrovagi ” monks, who 
 led a desultory and unruly life, roving from one 
 monastery to another. Unlike his Eastern pre¬ 
 decessors, who looked up to utter solitude as the 
 summit of eai-thly excellence, Benedict, as if in 
 later life regretting the excessive austerities of 
 his youth, makes no mention at all of either 
 hermits or anchorites (Prol. Beg. S. B.). Any¬ 
 thing like anarchy offended his sense of order 
 and congruity ; and, with his love of organizing, 
 he was the man to supply what he felt to be 
 wanting. 
 
 Accordingly, in Benedict’s system the vow of 
 self-addiction to the monastery became more 
 stringent, and its obligation more lasting. 
 Hitherto, it had been rather the expression of a 
 resolution or of a purpose, than a solemn vow of 
 perpetual perseverance (Aug. Ep. ad Mon. 109, 
 p. 587 ; Aug. Bett. c. Jovinian. ii. 22; Hieron. 
 Ep. 48; Cass. Inst. x. 23). But by the Rule 
 (c. 58) the vow was to be made with all possible 
 solemnity, in the chapel, before the relics in the 
 shrine, with the abbat and all the brethren stand¬ 
 ing by ; and once made it was to be irrevocable— 
 “ Vestigia nulla retrorsum.” The postulant for 
 admission into the monastery had to deposit the 
 memorial of his compact on the altar: and from 
 that day to retrace his steps was morally impos¬ 
 sible. The Rule contemplates indeed the possi¬ 
 bility of a monk retrograding from his promise, 
 and re-entering the world which he had re¬ 
 nounced, but only as an act of apostasy, 
 committed at the instigation of the devil (c. 58). 
 Previously, if a monk married, he was censured 
 and sentenced to a penance (Basil. Besjmvs. 36; 
 Leo, Ep. 90, ad Rustic, c. 12; Epiphan. Ilier. 
 Ixi. 7; Hieron. Ep. ad Dem. 97 (8); Aug. de 
 Bon. Vid. c. 10; Gelas. Ep. 5, ad Ej>isc. lAC -an. 
 ap. Grat. Cans, xxvii.; Quaest. i. c. 14; Cone. 
 Aurcl. I. c. 23); but the marriage was net 
 annulled as invalid. After the promulgation of 
 the Rule, far heavier penalties were enacted. 
 
 » So spelt in the Ambrosian books. 
 
188 
 
 BENEDICTINE RULE AND ORDER 
 
 The monk, who had broken his vow by mariying, 
 was to be excommunicated, was to be compelled 
 to separate from his wife, and might be forcibly 
 reclaimed by his monastery : if a priest, he was 
 to be degraded (Greg. M. Ep. i. 33, 40, vii. 9, 
 xii. 20, ap. Grat. xxvii.; Qu. i. c. 15; Cone, 
 Tnron. II. c, 15). These severities were no part 
 of Benedict’s comparatively mild and lenient 
 code; but they testify to his having intro¬ 
 duced a much stricter estimation of the monastic 
 vow. 
 
 At the same time, as with a view to guard 
 against this danger of relapse, Benedict wisely 
 surrounded admission into his order with diffi¬ 
 culties. He provided a year’s noviciate, which 
 was prolonged to two years in the next cen¬ 
 tury (Greg. M. Ep. x. 24); and thrice, at 
 certain intervals, during this year of probation, 
 the novice, was to have the Rule read over to 
 him, that he might weigh well what he was 
 undertaking, and that his assent might be deli¬ 
 berate and unwavering (c. 58). The w'ritten 
 petition for admission was required invariably 
 (c. 58). None were to be received from other 
 m masteries, without letters commendatory from 
 their abbat (c. 61); nor :nildren without the 
 consent of parents or guardians, nor unless for¬ 
 mally disinherited (c. 59). Eighteen years of 
 age was subsequently fixed as the earliest age 
 for self-dedication. The gates of the monastery 
 moved as slowly on their hinges at the knock of 
 postulants for admission, as they were inexorably 
 closed upon him when once within the walls 
 (cf. Fleury, Hist. Ecc. xxxv. 19— note by Bened. 
 Editor ; Aug. Vindel. 1768). 
 
 Benedict had evidently the same object before 
 his eves, the consolidation of the fabric which he 
 was erecting, in the form of government which 
 he devised for his order. This was a monarchy, 
 and one nearer to despotism than to what is 
 called a “constitutional monarchy.” Poverty, 
 humility, chastity, temperance, all these had been 
 essential elements in the monastic life from the 
 first. Benedict, although he did not introduce 
 the principle of obedience, made it more precise 
 and more implicit (cc. 2, 3, 27, 64; cf. Mab. Ann. 
 iii. 8); stereotyped it by regulations extending 
 even to the demeanour and deportment due from 
 the younger to the elder (cc. 7, 63) ; and crowned 
 the edifice with an abbat, iiTesponsible to his 
 subjects. Strict obedience was exacted from the 
 younger monks, towards all their superiors in 
 the monastery (cc. 68-71); but the abbat was 
 to be absolute over all (c. 3). He alone is called 
 Dominus in the Rule; though the word in its 
 later form, Domuus, became common to all Bene¬ 
 dictines (c. 63). The monks had the right of 
 electing him, without regard to seniority. Sup- 
 po.sing a flagrantly scandalous election to be 
 made, the bishop of the diocese, or the neigh¬ 
 bouring abbats, or even the “Christians of the 
 neighbourhood,” might interfere to have it can¬ 
 celled ; but once duly elected his will was 
 to be supreme (c. 64). He was indeed to 
 convoke a council of the brethren, when neces¬ 
 sary : on any important occasions, of them all; 
 otherwise, only of the seniors : but in everv case 
 the final and irrevocable decision, from which 
 there was no appeal, rested with him (c. 3). He 
 was to have the appointment of the prior, or 
 provost (c. 65; cf. Greg. M. Ep. vii. 10), and of 
 the decani or deans, as well as the power of 
 
 deposing them (c. 21),“ the prior after four, the 
 deans after three warnings (c. 65). Benedict 
 was evidently distrustful of any collision of 
 authority, or want of perfect harmony, between 
 the abbat and his pidor; and preferred deans, as 
 more completely subordinate (c. 65); for, while 
 the abbat held his office for life, the deans as 
 well as all the other officei’s of the monasterv, 
 except the prior, held theirs for only a certain 
 time (cc. 21, 31, 32). Even the cellerarius, or 
 cellarius, the steward, who ranked next to the 
 abbat in secular things, as the prior in things 
 spiritual, was to be appointed for one, four, or 
 ten years; the tool-keepers, robe-keepers, &c., 
 only for one. The abbat was armed with power 
 to enforce his authority on the recalcitrant, after 
 two admonitions in private and one in public, 
 by the “ lesser excommunication,” or banishmwnt 
 from the common table and from officiating in 
 the chapel ; by the “greater excommunication.” 
 or deprivation of the rites of the Church ; by flog¬ 
 ging, by imprisonment, and other bodily penances 
 (cc. 2, 23-29 ; cf. Mart, de Ant. Mon. Hit. ii. 11) 
 in case of hardened offenders; and, as an extreme 
 penalty, by expulsion from the society. Bene¬ 
 dict, however, with characteristic clemency, 
 exjjressly cautions the abbat to deal tenderly 
 with offenders (c. 27); allowing readmission for 
 penitents into the monastery, even after relapses ; 
 and, as though aware how much he is entrusting 
 to the abbat’s discretion, begins, and almost ends, 
 his Rule with grave and earnest cautions against 
 abusing his authority. 
 
 Benedict’s constitution was no mere democracy, 
 under the abbat. All ranks and conditions of men 
 were indeed freely admitted, from the highest 
 to the lowest,'* and on equal terms (c. 51; cf. Aug. 
 de Op. Mon. 22): within the monastery all the 
 distinctions of their previous life vanished ; the 
 serf and the noble stood there side by side (c. 2). 
 Thus even a jiriest, whose claims to precedence, 
 being of a spiritual nature, might have been 
 supposed to stand on a different footing, had to 
 take his place simply by order of seniority among 
 the brethren (c. 60), though he might be allowed 
 by the abbat to take a higher place in the chapel 
 (c. 62), and might, as the lay-brothers, be pro¬ 
 moted by him above seniors in standing (c. 63: 
 cf. Fleury, Hist. Ecc. xxxii. 15). Similarly, a 
 monk from another monastery was to have no 
 especial privileges (c. 61). But, with all this 
 levelling of distinctions belonging to the world 
 without, the gradations of rank for the monks 
 as monks were clearly defined. Every brother 
 had his place assigned him in the monastic 
 hierarchy. Such offices as those of the hebdo- 
 madarius or weekly cook, of the lector or read^r- 
 aloud in the refectory, were to be held by each 
 in turn, unless by special exemption (cc. 35, 38), 
 and the younger monks were enjoined to address 
 the elder as “nonni,” or fathers, in token of 
 affectionate reverence (c. 63). Benedict seems 
 to have had an equal dread of tyranny and 
 of insubordination. 
 
 Indeed, the strict obedience exacted by the 
 Rule is tempered throughout by an elasticity, 
 and considerateness, which contrast strongly 
 with the inflexible rigour of similar institutions. 
 
 » r. IMartcne, note in }\eu. Vonim. ad loc.; cf. Cone. 
 
 Mngiint. c. 11. 
 
 The restrictions and limitations in Martene’s Reg. 
 
 1 Comm, are not m the Kale, 
 
BENEDICTINE EULE AND OEDER 
 
 189 
 
 Like the Evangelic Sermon on the Mount, which 
 he makes his model (^Prol. Beg.; cf. c. 4), Benedict 
 often lays down a principle, without shaping it 
 into details. Thus he en joins silence, as a whole¬ 
 some dis(;i])line, without prescribing the times and 
 places for it, beyond specifying the refectory and 
 the dormitory (c. 6). Like Lycurgus, he wishes 
 to bequeath to his followers a law which shall 
 never be broken (c. 64); and yet, in the closing 
 words of his Rule, he reminds them that the 
 Rule, after all, is imperfect in itself (c. 73). 
 More than once he seems to anticipate the day 
 when his order shall have assumed larger dimen¬ 
 sions, and provides for monasteries on a grander 
 scale than existed when he was writing his Rule 
 (cc. 31, 32, 53). Thus, about dress, as if fore¬ 
 seeing the vaiying requirements of various climes, 
 he leaA^es a discretionary power to the abbat, 
 affirming merely the unvarying principle that 
 it is to be cheap and homely (c. 55); and that 
 there are to be two dresses, the “ scapulare,” or 
 sort of cape, for field-work, and the “ cucullus,” 
 or hood, for study and prayer (cf. Fleury, Hist. 
 Ecc. xxxii. 16). The colour of the tunic or toga, 
 being left undetermined by the founder, has 
 varied at different times: till the 8th century 
 it was usually white (Mab. Ann. iii.). Nor is 
 there any Procrustean stiffness in the directions 
 about diet. Temperance, in the strictest sense, 
 is laid down as the principle : but the abbat 
 may relax the ordinary rules of quantity and 
 quality (c. 40); more food is ordered whenever 
 there is moi*e work to be done (c. 39); baths 
 and meat are not allowed mei-ely, but enjoined 
 for the sick (c. 36), for the young or aged 
 (c. 37), as well as for guests who may chance to 
 be lodging in the monastery (c. 42); and even 
 wine, forbidden by Eastern Asiatics, is allowed, 
 sparingly, by Benedict, as if in concession to the 
 national propensities imported into Italy by the 
 barbarians, and to»the colder climate of Northern 
 Europe (c.'40). Even those minuter rules, in 
 which Benedict evinces his love of order, pro¬ 
 portion, and clocklike regularity, and which 
 show that Benedict, like Wesley, wished to 
 direct everything, originate almost always in 
 a wise and tender consideration for human 
 weaknesses. The day is mapped out in its round 
 of duties, so that no unoccupied moments may 
 invite temptation (c. 48), but the hours allotted 
 for work, prayer, or rest, vary with the seasons. 
 Benedict seems to take especial delight in 
 arranging how the Psalter is to be read through, 
 ordering certain Psalms on certain holy days; 
 but he leaves it open to his followers to make a 
 better distribution if they can (cc. 15, 18). The 
 fii’st Psalm is to be recited slowly; but this is to 
 give the brethren time to assemble in their 
 oratoiy. The monk who serves as cook is, 
 during his week of office, to take his meals before 
 the rest (c. 35); the cellarer, or steward, is to 
 have fixed hours for attending to the wants of 
 the brethren, that there may be no vexation or 
 disappointment (c. 31); a list is to be kept by 
 the abbat of all the tools and dresses belonging: 
 to the monastery, lest there may be any con¬ 
 fusion (c. 32); the monks are to sleep only ten 
 or twelve in the same dormitory, with curtains 
 between the beds, and under the charge of a 
 dean, for the sake of order and propriety (c. 22); 
 the Historical Books of the Old Testament were 
 not to be read the last thing before going to bed, 
 
 as unedifying to weak brethren (c. 42); and, la<t 
 and least, no monk is to take the knife, which 
 was part of his monastic equipment, with him to 
 bed, lest he should hurt himself in his sleep 
 (c. 22). But it is, above all, in its treatment 
 of weaker brethren (the “ infirmi ” or “ pusil- 
 lanimi ”), that the Rule breathes a mildness, and 
 what Aristotle would call “ eVtej/ceia,” rare 
 indeed in those days. The abbat is to “ love 
 the offender, even while hating the offence 
 he is to “ beware lest he break the vessel in 
 scouring it;” he is to let “ mercy prevail over 
 justice ” (c. 64), A whole chapter (c. 43) is 
 devoted to meting out the degrees of correction 
 for monks coming late to chapel or refectory; 
 and, in this unlike Wesley, Benedict expressly 
 discourages the public confession of secret faults, 
 a practice inevitably tending to unreality and 
 irreverence (c. 46), as well as loud and demon¬ 
 strative private prayer in the chapel (c. 52). 
 There is something peculiarly characteristic of 
 Benedict’s gentle and courteous spirit in his oft- 
 repeated cautions against murmuring on the one 
 hand (cc. 31, 40, 41, 53), and, on the other, 
 against anything like scurrility (cc. 43, 49, &c.). 
 
 Compared with Eastern Rules, the Benedic¬ 
 tine Rule is an easy yoke (Sev, Sulp, Vit. S. 
 Martini, i. 7; Cass. Instit. i. 11); and this 
 may be attributed partly to the more prac¬ 
 tical temperament of the West, partly to the 
 exigencies of European climates, partly, tod, to 
 the personal character of the lawgiver (cc. 39, 
 40, 46, &c.). Taking the passage in the Psalms. 
 “ Seven times a day will I praise Thee,” and 
 another, “ At midnight I will rise to give 
 thanks unto Thee,” as his mottoes, he portioned 
 out day and night into an almost unceasing 
 round of prayer and praise (c. 16). But whereas 
 his predecessors had ordered the whole of the 
 Psalter to be recited daily, Benedict, thougn 
 with a sigh of regret for the degeneracy of his 
 age, was content that it should be gone through 
 in the week (c. 18). There is a curious direc¬ 
 tion, too (c. 20), against lengthy private devo¬ 
 tions, especially in chapel after service. In 
 harvest time, or if they were far from home, the 
 monks were to say their devotions in the field, to 
 save the time and trouble of returning to the 
 monastery (c. 50; cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 8). What¬ 
 ever ascetic austerities were introduced at a 
 later date into some of the reformed Benedic<^ine 
 orders, we find no trace at all in the original 
 Rule of those ingenious varieties of self-torture 
 which had been so common in Egypt and Syria. 
 Benedict shows no love of self-mortification tor 
 its own sake; and, while prizing it in moderation 
 as a discipline, makes it subservient to other 
 practical purposes. Thus he orders some more 
 suitable occupation to be allotted to such of the 
 brethren as may be incapacitated in any way 
 from hard work out of doors (c. 48). The diet 
 allowed by the Benedictine Rule would have 
 seemed luxurious to the monks of the East 
 (c. 39, &c.). 
 
 But the great distinction of Benedict’s Rule 
 was the substitution of study for the compara¬ 
 tive uselessness of mere manual labour. Not that 
 his monks were to be less laborious; rather they 
 were to spend more time in work ; but their work 
 was to be less servile, of the head as well as of 
 the hand, beneficial to future ages, not merely 
 furnishing sustenance for the bodily wants of the 
 
190 
 
 BENEDICTINE RULE AND ORDER 
 
 community, or for almsgiving (cc. 38, 48 : cf. 
 Cass. Instit. X. 23 ; Hier. Ep. ad Eustoch. 18, 22). 
 As if conscious of his innovation Benedict seems 
 to restrict the word “ labor,” as heretofore, to 
 manual occupations; to these he still devoted 
 the larger part of the day: and his range of 
 literature is a nan’ow one, specifying by name 
 only the Holy Scriptures and the writings 
 of the Fathers (cc. 9, 48). But, by reserving 
 some portion for study, he implanted the princi¬ 
 ple, which afterwards bore so glorious fruits in 
 the history of his order, .that liberal arts and 
 sciences were to be for them not permitted 
 merely, but sanctioned and encouraged (c. 48). 
 It is a question how far Benedict is indebted for 
 this to Cassiodorus, his contemporary, wrong¬ 
 fully claimed by some zealous Benedictines as 
 one of their order (Mign. Patrol. Ixix. 483). 
 But the “ Vivarium ” which Cassiodorus founded 
 in Calabria seems to have been more like an 
 university, or even the intellectual and artistic 
 Court over which Frederick II. presided in that 
 part of Italy during the 13th century, more 
 genial in its tone and wider in its range of 
 studies (Cassiod. de Instit. Div. Litt. cc. 28, 
 30, 31). Probably Benedict and his more secular 
 contemporary were both alike affected by the 
 same impulses, inherited trom the dying litera¬ 
 ture of Imperial Rome. 
 
 A monk’s day, according to the Rule, was an 
 alternation of work, manual or mental, and 
 prayer, in the words of the Rule of the “opus Dei 
 or divinum officium ” and “labor etTectio,” with 
 the short intervals necessai'y for food and rest 
 (cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 8; Fleury, Hist. Ecc. xxxii. 15 
 et seq.). In winter the middle of the day, and 
 in summer the morning and evening, were for 
 manual labour; for study the heat of the day in 
 summer, and the dusk and darkness of morning 
 and evening in the short days of winter (cc. 
 8, 48). After the midday meal in summer, the 
 monk might take his siesta, or a book (c. 48). 
 The seven hours for divine service were those 
 called “ canonicaland the services were—ma¬ 
 tins (afterwai'ds called lauds) at sunrise (in 
 summer), prime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, 
 compline, separated each from each by three 
 hours, as well as a midnight service, which was 
 to be held a little before the matins, called in 
 the Rule “ nocturnae vigiliae” (c. 16). On Sun¬ 
 days the monk was to rise earlier and have 
 longer “vigiliae” (c. 11), and was to substitute 
 reading for manual work (c. 48). Each ser¬ 
 vice was to include a certain number of Psalms, 
 often selected with especial X'efei’ence to the 
 time of day, as the third for nocturns, of Can¬ 
 ticles, and- of lections, or readings from Holy 
 Scripture or the Fathers (c. 8, &c.). On Sun¬ 
 days and holy days all the brethren were to 
 receive the Holy Communion (c. 25). The pre¬ 
 cise times for the several avocations of the 
 monastic day were to vary with the four seasons, 
 both of the natural and of the Christian year 
 (c. 8, &c.). The work or the book for the time 
 was to be assigned to each at the discretion of 
 the abbat (c. 48). The evening meal was to be 
 taken all the year I'ound before dark (c. 41). 
 As the monk had to rise betimes, so his thought- 
 ful legislator would have him retire early to 
 rest. 
 
 Chapters 1-7 in the Rule are on the monastic 
 character generally—obedience, humility, &c.; 
 
 8-20 on divine service; 21-30 on deans and the 
 correction of offenders; 31—41 on the cellarer 
 and his department, especially the refectory; 42- 
 52 are chiefly on points relating either to the 
 oratory or to labour: the I’einaining twenty- 
 one rules hardly admit of classification, being 
 miscellaneous and supplementary to those pre¬ 
 ceding. 
 
 On the whole, the Benedictine Rule, as a Rule 
 for Monks, must be pronounced, by all who view 
 it dispassionately, well worthy of the high praise 
 which it has received, not from monks only, but 
 from statesmen and others. “ First and fore¬ 
 most in discretion, and clear in style,” is the 
 appropriate comment on it of Gregory the Great 
 (^Dial. ii. 36). In the 7th century the observance 
 of it was enjoined on all monks, by the Council 
 of Augustodunum (c. 15), and by Lewis the Pious 
 (Exh. ad Eigil. Ahh. Fuld. ap. Migue, Praef. Regi). 
 It is commonly entitled in councils “the holy 
 Rule” (Migne, Praef. Peg.)\ and by one held in 
 the 9th century it is directly attributed to the 
 inspiration of the Holy Spirit {Gone. Duziac. ii.). 
 By one writer it is contrasted with previous 
 rules as the teaching of Christ with that of 
 Moses (Gaufr.-Abb. Vindocin. Sermo de S. B. ap. 
 Migne, Praef. Peg.). It was a favourite alike 
 with Thomas Aquinas, as a manual of morality, 
 and with the politic Cosmo de’ Medici, as a 
 manual for rulers (Alb. Butler, Lives of the Saints^ 
 s. voce; cf. Gueranger, Enchirid. Bened. Praef.). 
 Granted the very questionable position, that the 
 life of a monk, with its abdication of social and 
 domestic duties, is laudable, Benedict’s conception 
 of thr-t life, in principle and in detail, is almost 
 unexceptionable. His monks are indeed treated 
 throughout as simply children of an older growth : 
 they may not even walk abroad (c. 67); nor, if 
 sent outside the precincts, may they stop any¬ 
 where to eat, without the abbat’s leave (c. 51); 
 nor may they even receive letters from home (c. 
 51). The prescribed washing of strangers’ feet 
 (c. 53), and the very strict prohibition against a 
 monk having anything, however trifling, of any 
 sort to call his own, are all part of this extension 
 into maturer yeai's of a discipline proper for chil¬ 
 dren. But, if treated as children, the followers 
 of Benedict were at any rate under a wise and 
 sympathising Master; and the school where they 
 wei’e to be ti-ained in humility and obedience was 
 not one of needless and vexatious mortifications. 
 Order, proportion, i-egularity, these are the 
 characteristics of the Rule; with an especial 
 tenderness for the “ weaker brethren.” As in 
 all monastic institutions, self-love seems to 
 force its way through all the barriers heaped 
 around it; tinging even the holiest actions with 
 a mercenariness of intention {Prol. &c. &c.). 
 Thus the motive proposed for waiting sedulously 
 on the sick is the reward which may be won by 
 so doing (c. 37). But the Rule appeals also, 
 though less expressly, to higher motives than the 
 fear of punishment or the hope of recompense— 
 to the love of God and of man (e. g. Pi oL). It 
 cannot be said of Benedict’s Rule, as of solitary 
 asceticism, that self is the circumference as well 
 as the centre of the circle. The relations of the 
 brethren to their father, and to one another, 
 tend, in the Rule, to check that isolation ot the 
 heart from human sympathies which is the bane 
 of monasticism. If there is a disregard of the 
 claims of the outer world, at all events some- 
 
BENEDICTINE RULE AND ORDER ' 
 
 191 
 
 thing like the ties of family is duly recognised 
 within the order, hallowing even the trivial de¬ 
 tails of daily life. The monastery is the “ House 
 of Godand even its commonest utensils are 
 “holy things ”(c. 31). Benedict disclaims for 
 man either any merit in keeping the divine law, 
 or any power to do so without help from heaven 
 (^ProL). 
 
 In style the Rule is clear and concise; largely 
 interspersed with apposite quotations from the 
 Scriptures, especially the Psalms. But its La- 
 tiuity is very unclassical, not only in syntax, but 
 in single words (e. g. odire for odisse, c. 4 ; solatium^ 
 for “helper,” cc. 31, 35; t^pus for “arrogance ” 
 or “ circumlocution,” c. 31). In this respect the 
 Rule contrasts unfavourably with Cassian's com¬ 
 paratively accurate and polished style. The 
 text may haA'e been corrupted; but there seems 
 to have been a serious deterioration in Latin 
 literature during the 5th century. 
 
 With the lapse of time, the right meaning of 
 many passages in the Rule gave rise to violent 
 controversies. Its very brevity and conciseness 
 were themselves the occasion of an uncertainty, 
 frequently enhanced by the changes of meaning 
 which the same word often undergoes in succes¬ 
 sive periods. Whether such phrases as “ Com- 
 muuio ” and “ Missa ” are to be taken in their 
 more technical and ritualistic sense, or merely 
 for “ charity ” and the “ termination of divine 
 service ;” whether “ excommunicatio ” means the 
 greater or the lesser sentence of deprivation (cc. 
 24, 25); whether “ clerici ” (c. 62) means dea¬ 
 cons only, or priests as well; all these have been 
 questions with commentators and reformers. 
 
 Matutini ” in the Rule is said to correspond 
 with the service afterwards known as “ Laudes ;” 
 and “Laudes” in the Rule to mean the three 
 last Psalms, all commencing “ Laudate ” (Fleury, 
 Hist. Ecc. xxxii. 15). “Prior” seems in one 
 place (c. 63), where the younger brethren are 
 ordered to salute the “ priores,” to mean merely 
 older, at least in precedence; while in another 
 place (c. 68), w'hich treats of obedience, it seems 
 to mean those in office. There is some ambi¬ 
 guity about the several articles of dress pre¬ 
 scribed (c. 55); and still more about the diet. 
 “ ilixtum ” (c. 38) is supposed by some to mean 
 “ wine and water,” by others “ wine and bi’ead ;” 
 and it is a vexed question, whether eggs and fish, 
 birds and fowls, as well as “pulse,” are included 
 in the word “ pulmentum ” (Mart. Comm, in Peg. 
 cc. 38, 55; Mab. Ann. i. 53, xiii. 2, xiv. 46). The 
 enactment that “even a small part” of the bre¬ 
 thren may elect the abbat is variously explained, 
 as meaning either a minority, in certain cir¬ 
 cumstances, or, more probably, “a majority how¬ 
 ever small ’\(^Comm. in Peg. c. 64) ; and another 
 provision in the next chapter, that “a council 
 of the brethren ” is to take part in electing the 
 prior, is vague both as to the size of the council 
 and the extent of its powers (c. 65). A distinction 
 familiar to Roman Catholic ca.suists has been 
 drawn by some commentators between the “ pre¬ 
 cepts ” and “ counsels ” in the opening words of 
 the Prologue to the Rule; and, however that 
 may be, the opinion has prevailed that the spirit 
 rather than the letter of the Rule is to be ob¬ 
 served, and that it is not strictly obligatory in its 
 les.ser details (note by Ed. on Fleury, Hist. Ecc. 
 xxxii. 12, Aug. Vindel. 1768: cf. Bern, de Praec. 
 et Dispens., Patrol, clxxii.; Petr. Clun. Epp. i. 28, 
 
 iv. 17, Patrol, clxxxix.; Hospin. de Monachatu, pp 
 132-134). But the hottest dispute has been on 
 the permissibility of secular studies for the bre 
 thren. In the 17th century Mabillon and other.® 
 argued against their Tra])pist opponents, that 
 though not mentioned expressly, these studies' 
 are implied and involved in the Rule; that as 
 the order in time came to consist more and 
 more largely of students, and as Latin became to 
 them a dead language, instead of being one with 
 which they were habitually familiar, such pur 
 suits became for them an absolute necessitv 
 (Mab. Breve Script, de Mm. Stud. Pat.; cf. Mait 
 land’s Ea)'k Ages, 158-171). 
 
 The Rule of Benedict soon reigned alone in 
 Europe, absorbing into itself the Rule of Colum- 
 banus, w'hich had been dominant in Western 
 Europe (Mab. Ann. Praef. i. 13, v. 11). In Italy 
 it was accepted generally, before the close of the 
 century in which Benedict died (Joan. Diac. 
 Vita Greg. M. iv. 80). It was probably intro¬ 
 duced into Gaul during his lifetime by his 
 disciple Maurus, from whom the famous monas¬ 
 tery of St. Maur claims its name ; and there it soon 
 made its way, its comparative elasticity pre¬ 
 vailing over the rigidity of the rival system. 
 Thus Faremoutier transferred itself from the 
 Columban Rule to that of Benedict (A. Butler, 
 Lives of the Saints s. S. Fara). The Council of 
 Aachen in 788 a.d. ordered the Benedictine to 
 be observed, and no other, in the Empire of 
 Karl and his son (Cone. Aquisgran.; cf Cone. 
 Augustod. c. 15). It won Germany early in the 
 9th century (Cone. Mogunt. c. 11 ; cf Pertz 
 Legg. 1. 166, c. 11), and Spain in the next cen¬ 
 tury (Mab. Ann. Praef iv. saec.). It is a question 
 at what date it was introduced into England; 
 whether by Benedict Biscop, by Wilfrid (Ling. 
 Ang.-Sax. Church, ch. 5), or, as Mabillon and 
 other learned writers have asserted (see in A. 
 Butler’s Lives of the Saints, under Benedict), bv 
 Augustine, importing it from the monastery of 
 S. Andrea on the Caelian hill, under the auspices 
 of Gregory. A lax Rule probably prevailed till 
 the time of Dunstan (see Marsham’s Praef 
 to Dugd. Monastic. Anglic.; cf Cone. Clovesh. 
 747 A.D.). [v. Benedictus, in Diet. Chr. Biog.'] 
 
 In the 10th century the Benedictine Rule held 
 almost universal sway in Europe (Pellic. Polit, 
 Ecc. Chr. 1. iii. 1, § 4), and wherever it pene¬ 
 trated, it was the pioneer not of Christianity 
 only, but of civilization and of all humanizing 
 influences. For their labours in clearing forests 
 and draining swamps, in setting an example of 
 good husbandry generally, as well as for having 
 fostered what little there was of learning and 
 refinement in that troublous and dreary period, 
 a debt of gratitude is due to them, which cannot 
 easily be overrated. 
 
 For more than three centuries after its insti¬ 
 tution one Rule sufficed for the Benedictine 
 order generally. Between the 9th and 15th 
 centuries, as the order extended itself more 
 widely, and as reformers, ardent against abuse.s, 
 arose here and there in its ranks, various “ con¬ 
 stitutions” were engrafted on the original Rule. 
 For so early as in the 8th century there were 
 symptoms of decay. The rich endowments 
 granted by kings and nobles had brought with 
 them, as was inevitable, the seeds of luxury and 
 self-indulgence, and the very popularity of the 
 “ religious ” life often gave occasion to unreality 
 
192 
 
 BENEDICTINE BULE AND ORDEB 
 
 m professing it. Thus, as for instance in England, 
 when it had become the foshion for kings and 
 queens to quit their palaces for a monastery, 
 and to lavish their treasures on it (Bed. Ecc. 
 Hist. iii. 19, 23, 24; Ling. A.-FI. C. i. 211, 214), 
 this fatal munificence served to attract, in the 
 course of years, oppressive taxes, or spoliation of 
 
 more downright sort (Bonif. Ep. ad Cudbert. 
 c. 11, ap. Bed. Hist. Ecc. p. 353, Hussey). Often 
 too the iiumunity (Pertz, Le<jg. i. 223) and com- 
 jiarative security of the monastic life tempted a 
 noble to assume the name, without the reality, 
 of abbat; in order to escape legal obligations 
 he would get his “ folkland ” converted into 
 “bocland” on pretence of conveying it to the 
 service of God, and there would live with his 
 family and dependants, an abVjat in name and in 
 tonsure, but in nothing more (Bede, Ep. ad 
 Egb. ap. Hist. Ecc.; Ling. A.-*?. C. i. 226-7, 230, 
 407, 413). The need of reformation soon called 
 into existence reformers. Clugni, in the 10th 
 century, was the first .separate congregation, with 
 a separate Rule of its own (Mab. Praef. Ann.; 
 Thomass. Vet. et Nova Discipl. 1. iii. 21, 25). The 
 four centuries which followed witnessed the birth 
 of more than twenty “ Reformed Orders,” all pro¬ 
 fessing to hold the original Rule of Benedict in 
 its pristine purity and integrity, but each super¬ 
 adding its own special exposition of the Rule as 
 binding on its members (Hospin. de Mon. p. 132). 
 Monte Casino, the head-quarters at first, if not the 
 birthplace, of the order, retained its supremacy, 
 which, according to some authorities, the founder 
 intended for it (v. note on Fleury, Hist. Ecc. 
 xxxiii. 12), for some three centuries; its primacy 
 has never been denied. It was sacked by the 
 Lombards in 591 A.D. (Clint. Fast. Rom.\ or 
 580 A.o. (Fleury, Hist. Ecc. xxxiii. 10), and the 
 fugitives who escaped founded the Lateran 
 Monastery at Rome (Paul. D. Hist. Lomh. iv. 18 ; 
 cf. Mab. Ann. vii.). In the beginning of the 8th 
 century it rose again from its ruins, and received 
 within its walls Carloman, weary of the cares of 
 empire. But Odo, the founder of Clugni, became 
 “ General ” of his own “ congregation,” and his 
 example has been followed by others (Mab. Ann. 
 i. 19). 
 
 Among the most fomous Benedictine abbeys 
 (the term is a specialty of the order) were, 
 besides those already mentioned, Bamberg, Font- 
 evraud, Fulda, Sta. Giustina at Padua, including 
 in its jurisdiction Sta. Scholastica (A. Butler, 
 Lives of Saints ; see St. Bened.), Grotta Ferrata, 
 Marmoutier, S. Paolo fuori near Rome, S. Seve- 
 rino at Naples, &c., and in England, St. Albans, 
 Glastonbury, Malmesbury, &c., with many of our 
 Cathedrals. The preference of the old Benedic¬ 
 tines for mountainous sites is proverbial: 
 
 “ Bernardus valles, colies Benedictus amal at.” 
 
 It would be endless to enumerate the dis¬ 
 tinguished members of the order. The list of 
 those belonging to Monte Casino alone, during 
 its first six centuries, fills 25 folio pages of 
 Fabricius’ Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, with a brief 
 notice of each (Petr. Diac. Ee Vir. III. Casin.). 
 Trithemius, the learned abbat of Spanheim, 
 counts on the roll of the order, in the beginning 
 of the 16th century, 18 popes (Gueranger, a.d. 
 1862, says “ 30,” Enchirid. Bened. Praef.), more 
 than 200 cardinals, 1600 archbishops, about 
 4000 bishops, and, almost incredible as it sounds 
 
 15,700 famous abbats, with an equal number of 
 canonized saints! (v. Fabric. Bibl. Ecc. s. v.; cf. 
 Mab. AA. Praef. vi.; Ziegelbauer u. Legipout; 
 Hist. Lit. 0. S. B.). St. Paul is the Patron 
 Saint of the Order. 
 
 The original copy of the Rule is said to have 
 been burnt at Teano, near Monte Casino, towards 
 the close of the 9th century (Leo Marsic. ap 
 Mab. Ann. iii. 263). Sigebertus Gemblacensis, in 
 the 12th century, states that it was first made 
 public by Simplicius, third abbat of Monte Casino 
 (Fabric. Bibl. Ecc. s. v. Bened.). Ilospinian gives 
 no authority for his counter-statement, that 
 many attribute it to Gregory the Great (De 
 Monach. p. 116). Mabillon assumes it to have 
 been made by Benedict himself at Monte Casino 
 about 528 A.D. (Ann. iii. 8; A. Butler, TAves of 
 Saints, see St. Bened.). VVion speaks of more 
 than a hundred editions of the Rule in 1554 a.d. 
 (Lign. Vit. i. 7). It is said to have been trans¬ 
 lated into English by Dunstan (Mign. Braef. Beg. 
 S. Bened.'). 
 
 The best commentaries on it are those of 
 Martene and Calmet. That of Me'ge is con¬ 
 sidered lax by stricter Benedictines. The com¬ 
 mentaries of Smaragdus, probably abbat of St. 
 Michael’s, not Smaragdus Ardo, and of Ililde- 
 marus, a E'rench Benedictine in the 8th cen¬ 
 tury, are commended by Martene, in his pre¬ 
 face to the Rule (Mign. Patrol. Ixvi.); also that 
 of Bernardus, a monk of Lerins, afterwards 
 abbat of Monte Casino in the 13th century, and 
 one, incomplete, by Trithemius lately mentioned. 
 But especially he praises those of Menard, a 
 monk of St. Denys, who afterwards placed him¬ 
 self under the stricter rule of St. Maur; and 
 of Haeften, a Benedictine prior, the author of the 
 prolix Disquisitiones Monasticae, in twelve books, 
 epitomized by Stengel or Stengelius. Mabillon 
 seems to have contemplated a Commentary on 
 the Rule, but from want of time to have resigned 
 the task to Martene (Praef. Peg. S. B. ap. l\Iign. 
 Patrol. Ixvi.; cf. Not. cc. 2, 9). The Rule was 
 harmonized with other monastic rules by Bene- 
 dictus Anianensis. [See Diet, of Chr. Biogr. s. c.] 
 
 The following are important works on the 
 Benedictine Rule and Order: 
 
 Petr. Diac. Casin. de Vir. Plustr. Casin. in 
 Fabric. Bibl. Ecc. and de Ortu ct Obit. .Just. 
 Casin. in Maii Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll, and Prolog. 
 in Vit. S. Placidi, in Martene et Durand, Ampliss. 
 Coll.; Leonis Marsic. et Petr. Diac. Chronic. Casin. 
 
 “ ed. W. Wattenbach in Monum. German.” (l\Iign. 
 Patrol, s. V.); Reg. S. Bened. C. Comment. Joan, 
 de Turre Cremata et Smaragdi Abb.; item 
 IV. Libri de Vir. III. 0. S. B. Joan. Trithemii, 
 Col. Agr. 1575, fol.; Arnold. Wion, Lignum Vitae, 
 Venet. 1595; Me'ge, Coinmentaire sur la Regie de 
 St. Benoit, Jos. !Mege (de St. Maur) Paris, 1687, and 
 Vie de St. Benoit avec une Histoire de son (Jrdre, 
 Paris, 1690; Bulteau, Histoire de COrdre de .St. 
 Benoit, Paris, 1691; IMenard, Martgrclog. 0. S. B. 
 Par. 1629. La Regie de St. Benoit expliquce par ?.!. 
 de Ranee, Abbe de la Trappe, Paris, 1690; Martene, 
 de Ant. Monach. Bit. Lugd. 1690, and Comment, in 
 Reg. S. B. Paris, 1690 ; Mabillonii Annates 0. S. B. 
 Paris, 1703 -39; Dacherii et Mabillonii AA. SS. 
 0. S. B. Paris, 1668-1701; l\Iabillouii Breve 
 Scriptum de Mmiast. Stud. Ratione in Bibl. Ascet. 
 Pezii; Berthelet, Traite historique et morale sur 
 rAbstinence, 1726, Paris, 1731; Calmet, Comment. 
 Hist, et Morale sur la Regie de S. B. Par. 1734* 
 
BENEDICTION 
 
 BENEDICTION 
 
 103 
 
 Holstemi Codex Regular. Monast. et Canonic, a 
 R. P. Mariano Brockie illustratiis, &c., Aug. 
 Vindei. 17r)9; Hist. Lit. 0. S. R., Aug. Vind. 
 1754; Ziegellauer u. Legipont. Martyrologium 
 des Benedict. Orrfens, Augsburg, 1855; St. Benoit 
 et ses Ordres religieux.^ Lille, 1855; Gueranger, 
 Enchiridion Benedictinum, Andegav. 1862. [1. G. S.] 
 
 BENEDICTION, the spousal or nuptial. 
 Among the Jews special benedictions were in use 
 both for betrothal and actual marriage, the latter 
 constituted, as with the Romans, by a deductio or 
 procession accompanying the bride; which how- 
 e^'er with the Romans had for its goal the house 
 of the husband, with the Jews the nuptial bed 
 Uself. A passage in Tobit (vii. 13, 14) indicates 
 the close connexion of the blessing with what we 
 should term the marriage settlement. Forms ot 
 both benedictions will be found in Selden’s Cxor 
 Hehraica, bk. ii., cc. vii., xii. But Maimonides 
 expressly observes (^Uxor. FJhr. bk. ii. c. 13) that 
 not the blessing of the betrothed makes mar¬ 
 riage, but the leading of the bride to the nup¬ 
 tial bed. 
 
 Certain heathen marriages, e. g. the Roman 
 confarreatio, being also accompanied with a 
 benediction, it was but natural that the same 
 custom should prevail in reference to Christian 
 ones. A good deal, however, of confusion seems 
 to have arisen on the subject, especially through 
 not distinguishing the legal and spiritual aspects 
 of the benediction. It cannot be too often re¬ 
 peated that for many centuries both betrothal 
 and marriage were in the eyes of the Church 
 primarily civil contracts, valid although cele¬ 
 brated according to heathen rites, if in conformity 
 with the civil laAV, subject only to certain peculiar 
 Christian restrictions. It is not meant, however, 
 by these expres-sions that such contracts were 
 looked on as merely “ secular,” as many would 
 term them now, or “ profane,” as the middle 
 ages termed them. For Our Lord and His Apos¬ 
 tles, human society itself was a sacred thing : 
 the State, which embodied it for all purposes of 
 civil life, was sacred (Rom. xiii., 1, 4, 6) ; mar¬ 
 riage above all, the very keystone of all hivman 
 society, had a primordial sacredness (Matt. xiv. 4), 
 entirely transcending all enactments of municipal 
 or ceremonial law. 
 
 But this view in nowise prex^ented the Church 
 from claiming spiritual control over such con¬ 
 tracts as between the faithful, from recognizing 
 and sealing their unions by its benediction, or 
 ex'en from looking upon such unions with dis¬ 
 favour when this was not solicited. Thus the 
 5th chapter of the Epistle of Ignatius to Poly¬ 
 carp (admitted by Dr. Cureton as genuine into 
 his ‘ Corpus Ignatianum ’) says : “ It is meet 
 that men and women who are marrying should 
 unite with the approval of the bishop, that the 
 marriage be according to the law and not ac¬ 
 cording to lust.” So Tertullian (writing about 
 A.D. 200), in his work De Fudicitid, speaks of 
 “secret unions, that is, not first declared before 
 the church ” (non prius apud ecclesiam professae) 
 as running the risk of being deemed nigh to adul- 
 tery and fornication. Another passage of his, 
 (^Ad Uxor. c. 8), is generally quoted as one of the 
 first distinct authorities in favour of the eccle¬ 
 siastical benediction on marriage. According to 
 the ordinary reading, it runs thus : “ How should 
 we be sufficient to set forth the bliss of that 
 marriage which the Church brings about (conci- 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 liat), and the oblation confirms, and the benedic¬ 
 tion seals, angels proclaim, the Father ratifies ? ” 
 It must, however, be observed that, if the above 
 reading be correct, the substitution of the bene¬ 
 diction for the execution of the tabulae nuptiales, 
 which the words “ et obsignat beuodictio ” im¬ 
 ply, antedates by many centuries the rule of the 
 Church in the matter. It is remarkable, too, 
 as pointed out by Augusti, that one text, instead 
 of the words “et obsignat benedictio, angeli re- 
 nuntiant,” has simply “ et obsignatum angeli 
 renuntiant,” ‘ the angels proclaim when sealed,’ 
 —a reading which brings back the passage into 
 accordance with the law and practice of the time, 
 but at the expense of the decisive word “ bene¬ 
 dictio ” itself." That such benedictions were 
 pronounced, however, there can be no reason to 
 doubt. Thus Ambrose, writing against mixed 
 marriages, says : “ For since marriage itself 
 should be sanctified by the priestly veil (volamine 
 sacerdotali) and by benediction, how can that be 
 called a marriage where there is no agreement 
 of faith ? ” (Bk. ix. Ep. 70). But, as Sdden has 
 observed, the like benedictions were often claimed 
 on behalf of many other kinds of contract besides 
 that of marriage,—a sale for instance. The total 
 absence from the Apostolical Constitutions of any 
 liturgical formulae relating to marriage, and of 
 any notice of church usages in respect to it, 
 seems a conclusive proof that nothing of the kind 
 formed part of the ritual of the early church 
 during the 3 or 4 centuries (or even more) over 
 which the collection of the materials for the 
 compilation in question probably extended. 
 
 There is however extant, under dates ranging 
 as far back as the former half of the 2nd cen¬ 
 tury, a whole series of authorities enfoi-cing the 
 necessity of the ecclesiastical benediction, upon 
 which the Church of Rome has unhesitatingly 
 built its practice as to the ceremonial validity of 
 the rite, and which have been quoted without 
 comment by Bingham and other Protestant 
 writers. But as these are, for the most part, 
 spurious documents of the forged Decretal class, 
 and are only so far important as they shew the 
 points for wfoich it was sought to claim the sanc¬ 
 tion of an earlier period, and thus to establish 
 the jurisdiction of the clergy in matters con¬ 
 nected with marriage, they may be passed over. 
 
 Turning to the Eastern Church, we find that 
 Chrysostom in his voluminous w'orks never indi¬ 
 cates the existence of a marriage liturgy, or the 
 indispensableness of sacerdotal benediction. Two 
 letters of Gregory Nazianzen show clearly that 
 such benediction w’as looked upon rather as a 
 seemly accompaniment to Christian marriage than 
 as a condition of it, since the writei’, in that grace¬ 
 ful tender style of which he is a master, professes 
 to give his by letter. One is to Procopius (A/). 57, 
 otherwise 44), on the marriage of “ his golden 
 Olympias.” “ I join to each other,” he writes, 
 “ the right hands of the young people, and both 
 to that of God. For it is fitting that like many 
 other good things, so should marriage take jdace 
 in the best way in all respects, and according to 
 our common prayers.” However visible may be 
 
 » It should not be overlooked that the same Tertullian, 
 In his treatise on Idolatry (c. 16), expressly admits the 
 purity of betrothal and marriage in themselves, even 
 when celebrated amongst heathens, and therefore the 
 lawfulness of a Christian’s presence at botb. See post, 
 art. BKi'KOihAL. 
 
104 
 
 BENEDICTION 
 
 BENEDICTION 
 
 here the habitual form of Christian marriage, 
 nothing can be more obvious than that the inter¬ 
 ference of the Church is not treatefl as indispens¬ 
 able, Another letterto EUsebius(171) is still more 
 conclusive, as shewing that whilst Gregory made 
 it a rule, whenever present at a wedding, to inter¬ 
 pose the prayers of the church, the actual rites 
 of marriage he left to be performed by others, 
 and considered that a sufficient consecration of 
 them could be given from afar, since prayers 
 “ are not bounded by space.” 
 
 We must now however notice a singular docu¬ 
 ment, which is included by Labbe' and Mansi 
 among those of the 4th century, and appended 
 by them to the Acts of the Nicene Council, as 
 being attributed to the Nicene Fathers by a 
 Vatican codex. It is termed “ Sanctiones et 
 decreta alia ex quatuor I’egum ”— quaere, regu- 
 lorum ?—“ad Constantinum libris decerpta ” 
 (L. and M., Councils, vol. ii. p. 1029 and foil.), 
 and is written in Latin, though CA'idently repre¬ 
 senting the practice of the Greek Church. The 
 2nd chapter of these ‘ Sanctions and Decrees ’ 
 forbids marriage with a person’s nuptial para- 
 nymphs, with whom “ the benediction of the 
 crowns ” is received. Benedictions are mentioned 
 in like manner in c. 6 and 7, but it is clear that 
 the ceremony of the Greek ritual known as the 
 benediction of the crowns, and not the Latin bene¬ 
 diction of the marriage itself, is what the above 
 passages refer to. But when we attempt to fix a 
 date for the work which contains them, we shall 
 be compelled to carry this to the second half of 
 the 6th century at earliest. For it is a re 
 markable fact that Justinian’s legislation, mi¬ 
 nutely occupied as it is with Church matters, 
 never once refers to the ecclesiastical benedic¬ 
 tion of marriage : it requires a will to see it, 
 as some have done, in the mere expression 
 “ vota nuptialia;” and this although it will 
 be seen (Contract of maiTiage) that a kind 
 of church-registration of marriages was pro¬ 
 vided for. 
 
 It is however by no means improbable that 
 between the 6th and 7th centuries the regular 
 practice of an ecclesiastical benediction upon 
 marriage, and the Greek ritual of marriage itself, 
 became established. And it is a well-known 
 Greek name which now carries us back to the 
 next Western authority on the subject,—that of 
 the canons of a Council, held in England towards 
 the end of the 7th century, under Archbishop 
 Theodore, which enact that “in a first marriage 
 the priest should perform the mass and bless 
 both ” parties (c. 59) ; implying, it would seem, 
 the practice set foi'th by the ‘ Sanctions and 
 Decrees,’ of confining the blessing to the as yet 
 unmarried party only, where the other has been 
 married already. 
 
 In the Carlovingian era, finally—to which be¬ 
 long the head springs of the great stream of church 
 forgeries,— forgeries which, amongst other au¬ 
 thorities, have so dealt with the Capitularies 
 themselves that it is frequently impossible to 
 determine the precise age of a given text—the 
 priestly benediction entered into the civil law as 
 an essential requisite of marriage; and the various 
 spurious authorities from the annals of the 
 Western Church above commented on were 
 apparently invented for the purpose of carrying 
 back to a remote period the ecclesiastical re¬ 
 cognition of its necessity. And it may be ob- | 
 
 served that the mention of it almost invariably 
 occurs in connexion with the subject of consan¬ 
 guinity,—another great source of clerical in¬ 
 fluence and income in its relation to marriage, 
 which has been even more prolific in suggestions 
 of pious fraud. By the 35th article of tlie first 
 Capitulary of 802, none are to be married before 
 inquiry be made as to whether they are related ; 
 “and then let them be united with a benedic¬ 
 tion.” (Comp, also vi. 130, vii. 179, viii. 408.) 
 The 473rd article (vii. 473), “ on lawful mar¬ 
 riage ” is almost exactly identical in its wording 
 with the supposed letter of Pope Ev’aristus, and 
 may, it is submitted, be fairly deemed its ori¬ 
 ginal. 
 
 We may briefly refer to certain canons of the 
 patriarch Nicephorus, recorded by Cotelerius, and 
 perhaps enacted at the Council of Constantinople- 
 in A.D. 814, which indicate that at this period at 
 least the benediction was by the Church decreed 
 to constitute the marriage. If any having a 
 concubine would neither leave her nor allow her 
 to receive the benediction, and have her with the 
 sacramental rite, his ofterings were not to be 
 received (can. xxxiv.). And lastly, the well- 
 known document known as the reply of Po{)e 
 Nicolas to the Bulgarians, though belonging 
 only to the latter half of the 9th centurv, pre¬ 
 serves to us probably the practice of the Roman 
 Church on this subject from an earlier period. 
 It indicates evidently a different ceremonial from 
 that of the Greek Church, and although dwelling 
 on the formalities of betrothal, .speaks of no bless¬ 
 ing but the nuptial one. 
 
 To sum up the conclusions of this inquiry ; 
 1st. There never was a period when the Christian 
 Church did not rejoice to sanction the nuptial 
 rite by its benedictions, and did not exhort the 
 faithful to obtain them for their unions. 2nd. 
 But having a profound faith in the primordial 
 sanctity of marriage in itself, many centuries 
 elapsed before the pronouncing of such a benedic¬ 
 tion was held essential to the validity of marriage, 
 when duly contracted according to the municipal 
 law, and not contrary to the .special ethical rules 
 of the Church in reference to marriage. 3rd. 
 Hence the total absence of marriage liturgies 
 from the early Christian rituals, extending to 
 about the beginning of the 7th century; the 
 genuineness of the one in the Gelasian Missal 
 (end of the 5th century) being confessedly im¬ 
 pugned by the absence of any in the Gregorian, 
 a century later. 4th. It may however be ad¬ 
 mitted that by the end of the 7th century the 
 priestly benediction of marriage had probably 
 become the rule in both great branches (divisions 
 not yet) of the Church ; and in the course of the 
 8th and 9th centuries it hardened into a legal 
 institution within the domains of the great 
 usurpers of the West, the Carlovingians, being 
 now largely supported by supposititious church 
 authorities, carried back as far as the beginning 
 of the 2nd century. 5th. It is also possible 
 that about this period a practice of sacerdotally 
 blessing betrothals likewise grew up, and promis¬ 
 ing to open a new source of income to the clergy 
 and above all to the Roman pontifts, was in like 
 manner sought to be maintained by spurious 
 authorities ; but the date of this cannot be fixed 
 earlier than a.d. 860, since Pope Nicol.is, in his 
 reply to the Bulgarians, clearly, speaks only of 
 the nuptial benediction. [J. M. L.J 
 
BENEDICTIONS 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 195 
 
 BENEDICTIONS. (^Benedictio, euAoyla.) 
 
 1. Definition, ^-c .—Like many other points of 
 ritual, the practice of benediction passed from 
 the Jewish to the Christian Church. In the in¬ 
 fancy of the former, under Aaron, we discover 
 the existence of the blessing of the congregation 
 by the priest after the morning and the evening 
 sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22); and later notices may be 
 seen in 1 Chron. xxiii. 13, Ecclus. xxxvi. 17, xlv. 
 15,1. 20. The actual form is prescribed in Num. 
 vi. 22 sqq.; cf. Ps. Ixvii. 1. 
 
 The benediction, ordinarily pronounced by 
 priests (as e.g. in the case of Zacharias, for 
 whose blessing the people waited, Luke i. 21), 
 would on occasions of special solemnity be re¬ 
 served for the high priest. Even the king, as 
 the viceroy of the Most High, might give the 
 blessing (cf. 2 Sam. vi. 18, 1 Kings viii. 55, 
 1 Chron. xvi. 2). It would appear that Levites 
 had ordinarily, though not invariably, the power 
 of giving the blessing. Cf. perh. 2 Chron. xxx. 27. 
 
 The actual formula referred to above does not 
 occur in the New Testament, though our Lord 
 is spoken of as blessing little children and His 
 disciples (Mark x. 16, Luke xxiv. 50), besides 
 the blessing on the occasion of the institution of 
 the Eucharist (Matt. xxvi. 26). Still, the gene¬ 
 ral tenor and form of the blessing, must have 
 been similar, and the familiar “ peace ” of the 
 benediction is probably a relic of the old Aaron- 
 itic form. 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the various oc¬ 
 casions of benediction in the Christian Church, 
 attention may be called to the strict definition 
 of the term, in contradistinction from the allied 
 expressions, consecration, dedication, although the 
 distinction is not unfrequently lost sight of. 
 Benediction, then, may be defined to be a certain 
 holy action which, combined with prayer, seeks 
 for God's grace for persons, and, in a lower de- 
 gi’ee, a blessing upon things, with a view whether 
 to their efficiency or safety. We may add St. 
 Ambrose’s definition (^De Benedictionibus Patri- 
 archarum, c. 2), “ Benedictio est sanctificationis 
 et gratiarum votiva collatio.” On this point the 
 following extracts may be cited from Gillebert 
 (bishop of Limerick in the 12th century), De 
 Usu Ecclesiastico, in Du Cange’s Glossary, s. vv. 
 “ Consecrare,” “ Benedictio.” “ Dedicat pontifex 
 atrium, templum, altare, tabulam altaris. De- 
 dicare enim est locum Deo offerre, benedicere et 
 sanctificare. Consecrat autem episcopus uten- 
 silia ecclesiae, quae fere omnibus sacerdotibus 
 sunt communia, vestimenta videlicet sacerdotalia 
 et pontificalia, altaris velamina, calicem, patenam 
 et corporalia et vasculum Eucharistiae, chrisma, 
 oleum, vas chrismale, thus et thuribulum, baptis- 
 terium, arcam vel scrinium reliquiarum, cibo- 
 riuin, id est altaris umbraculum, crucem, tin- 
 tinnabulum et ferruin judiciale. Ea enim tantum 
 consecrat quae a communi usu in cultum divinum 
 separantur.” . . . “ Benedicere autem dico prae- 
 sulem ea quae non sunt utensilia ecclesiae, con¬ 
 secrare vero ipsa utensilia. Benedicit ergo pon¬ 
 tifex reginam, et virginem cum velatur, et quem- 
 libet fidelem benedici postulantem et totum 
 populum ante pacem.” These benedictions may 
 not be conferred by a priest in the presence of a 
 bishop. Gillebert had previously said, “Bene¬ 
 dicere potest praesente episcof o aquam et sal in 
 Dominicis sacerdos et prandium et sponsum et 
 aquam judicii vei panem et caetera. In absentia 
 
 vero episcojd potest benedicere coronam clerici 
 et velum viduae, novos fructus, candelas in Puri- 
 ficatione S. Mariae, cineres in capite jejuuii, 
 ramos in Dominica Palinarum, et peregrinaturos 
 et lecturum Evangelium, et populum cum dimit- 
 titur, aquam benedictam aspergit ad benediceudas 
 novas domos et caetera nova.” 
 
 II. Minister of Benediction .—It will be obvious 
 from the nature of the case, that a benediction 
 is imparted by a superior to an inferior (cf. Heb. 
 vii. 7, where this is explicitly stated). Hence 
 it is laid down in the Apostolic Constitutions (viii. 
 28) that a bishop may bestow the blessing, and 
 receive it from other bishops, but not from 
 priests; .so too a priest may bless his fellow- 
 priests and receive the blessing from them or 
 from a bishop; the deacon merely receives and 
 cannot impart the blessing. Thus if a bishop be 
 present, to him does the Benedictio super pi bem 
 appertain, and only in the absence of a bishop, 
 unless special authority be given, is it permitted 
 to the priest, whose blessing, however, is not 
 held as of the same .solemn import as that of the 
 bishop. 
 
 The ancient Sacramentaries do not distinguish 
 between Episcopal and Sacerdotal blessings; 
 while in later times a minutely developed system 
 has been formed, as may be seen, for example, 
 from the extracts from Gillebert gix'en above. 
 To enter, however, at any length into the.se ac¬ 
 cretions is foreign to our present scope. It will 
 suffice to allude to one or two general points. 
 Here will appertain the division of Benedictions 
 into solemnes and communes, magnae and parvae, 
 and the like, although these distinctions are by 
 ‘no means uniformly explained. The benedictio 
 solemnis appears to belong strictly to the bishop, 
 ■ind, in his absence, to the pznest acting as his 
 representative : other benedictions, it has been 
 seen, the priest may confer in the presence of 
 the bishop. In no case, however, can they be 
 imparted by a deacon or layman (cf. Apostolic 
 Constitutions, viii. 48, iii. 10). 
 
 The distinction between the b. parva and the 
 b. magna is variously explained : by some they 
 are held to be the blessings conferred by priest 
 and bishop respectively; by others, that the 
 former implies a private benediction, the latter 
 a public and solemn one (cf. Cotelier’s note, Pa- 
 ■ tres Apost. i. 284. ed. 1698). 
 
 Here may be added a remark as to special 
 powers of blessing possessed by abbots. Their 
 pre-eminence above priests in general consists in 
 a superioidty of jurisdiction, not in a higher 
 order of consecration. From the 8th century, 
 however, abbots who were priests have j)ossessed 
 sundry episcopal rights both of benediction within 
 the limits of their own cloisters and even of 
 several lower forms of consecration, the latter 
 of which indeed was specially allowed by the 
 second General Council of Nicea, a.d. 787, can. 
 14 (Labbe' and Cossai*t, Concilia vii. 909). Tliis 
 example seems to have been further acted on, for 
 in the time of Charlemagne we find abbesses 
 assuming to themselves the right of conferring 
 benedictions even upon men, with laying on of 
 hands and the sign of the cross, although this 
 was distinctly prohibited. (Baluzius, Capitularia 
 Beg. Fram:. [anno 789] i. 238, ed. Paris, 1677.) 
 
 III. Objects of Benediction .— It will be readily 
 seen that Benedictions may be divided into Litur¬ 
 gical and non-Liturgical, that is, into such as 
 
 O 
 
196 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 are in immediate eonnection with various holy 
 offices, and those which may be viewed as inde¬ 
 pendent offices. Those of the former class 
 specially regard persons, those of the latter 
 may regard either persons or things. We 
 shall touch briefly on each class of objects 
 separately. 
 
 (A.) Benedictions of Persons. —Here may be 
 reckoned in the first place all Liturgical bless¬ 
 ings, whether (a) general, the blessing communi¬ 
 cated to the whole congregation in the dismis¬ 
 sion-formula (JnrdKvais), as Dorninus vobiscum, 
 pax vobiscum, &c., in the ordinary services of the 
 Church, as those of the Canonical Hours, of which 
 the Benediction is an essential element in both 
 Eastern and Western ritual, varying however in 
 the former according to the day of the week : or 
 — (B) special, as those at the Eucharist, Baptism, 
 Ordination, Marriage, Penance, Extreme Unction, 
 Burial. We shall briefly comment here on the 
 E<’nedictions entering with the first of these 
 offices, for the others reference may be made to 
 the several articles on these rites. 
 
 The old Latin Sacrameutaries agree in placing 
 a Benediction in the Mass after the Lord’s 
 Prayer and before the Communion, a custom 
 which, in the Romish ritual, appears to have 
 been introduced from the Gallicau and Moza- 
 rabic Liturgies (Daniel, Cod. Liturg. i. 141). 
 Up to this point the congregation was pro¬ 
 hibited from leaving, as e.g. by the Council of 
 Agde (506 A.D.) and the First and Third Councils 
 of Orleans (511 and 538 a.d.). “ Missas die Do- 
 
 miuico a saecularibus totas teneri speciali ordi- 
 natione praecipimus, ita ut ante benedictionem 
 sacerdotis populus egredi non praesumat.” {Cone. 
 Agath. can. 47 ; Labb^ iv. 1391.) Menard {Greg. 
 Sacram. p. ‘297; but cf. Mabillon, De Liturgia Galli- 
 cana, i. 4, § 13,14) refers this to the benediction at 
 the end of the Mass. “Populus non ante discedat 
 quam Missae solennitas compleatur, et ubi epis- 
 copus merit, benedictionem accipiat sacerdotis.” 
 {Cone. Aurel. 1. can. 26; Labbe, iv. 1408. Sirmond 
 remarks that the edd. have no MS. authority for 
 prefixing a negative to fuerit, and that the error 
 is appai'ently due to its not being perceived that 
 episcopus and sacerd >s are used synonymously.) 
 “ De Missis nullus laicorum ante discedat quam 
 Dominica dicatur oratio ; et si episcopus praesens 
 fuerit ejus benedictio expectetur.” {Cone. Aur. 
 HI. can. 29; Labbe', v. 302.) The Mass in one 
 sense was now over, and thus those who did not 
 communicate might leave. (Cf. Greg. Tur., 
 De Jliraculis S. Martini, ii. 47: “ Cumque ex- 
 plctis Missis populus coepisset sacrosanctum 
 corpus Redemptoris accipere.”) We may further 
 cite the injunction laid down by the Fourth 
 Council of Toledo (633 A.D.)^ which, after finding 
 fault with those priests who “ post dictam ora- 
 tionem Dominicam statim communicant et postea 
 benedictionem in populo dant,” proceeds “ post 
 or. Dom. et conjunctiouem panis et calicis bene¬ 
 dictio in populum sequatur, et turn demum cor¬ 
 poris et sanguinis Domini sacramentum sumatur ” 
 (can. 18 ; Labbe", v. 1711). This may be further 
 illustrated by a remark of Caesarius of Arles, to 
 the effect that he who wishes “ Missas ad inte¬ 
 grum cum luci’o animae suae celebrare ” must 
 remain in the church “ usquequo or. Dom. di¬ 
 catur et benedictio populo detur.” {Serm. 281, 
 § 2; Migne, xxxix. 2277.) This benediction, 
 which is properly the prerogative of the bishop, 
 
 is uttered generally in three, sometimes however 
 in four and even five or more divisions, at the 
 end of each of which is responded. Amen. 
 
 The following is the manner in which this 
 Benediction is ordinarilv introduced. The deacon, 
 if one be present, having called with a loud 
 voice. Humiliate vos benedictioni (cf. Caesarius, 
 Serm. 286, § 7), the imparter of the blessing fol¬ 
 lows with Dorninus sit semper vobiscum, to which 
 is responded Et cum spiritu tm; then follows 
 the benediction. As showing the nature of this, 
 we subjoin the benediction for the festival of 
 St. Stephen, from three old Latin Liturgies, the 
 Gallican, the Gregorian, and the Mozarabic re¬ 
 spectively (Migne, Ixxii. 232 ; Ixxviii. 33 ; Ixxxv. 
 199). “ Deus, qui tuos martyres ita vinxisti 
 
 caritate ut pro te etiam mori cuperent, ne peri- 
 rent, Amen; et beatum Stephanum in confes- 
 sione ita succendisti fide, ut inibrem lapidum non 
 timeret. Amen, Exaudi precem familiae tuae 
 amatoris inter festa plaudentem. Amen. Acce- 
 dat ad te vox ilia intercedens pro populo, pro 
 inimicis quae orabat in ipso martyrio, Arnen. 
 Ut se obtinente et te remunerante, perveriat 
 illuc plebs adquaesita per gratiam, ubi te, caelis 
 apertis, ipse A^idit in gloriam. Amen. Quod Ipse 
 praestare digneris, qui cum Patre et Spiritu 
 Sancto vivis et reguas in saecula saeculorum.” 
 “ Deus qui beatum Stephanum Protomartyrem 
 coronavit, et confessione fidei et agone martvrii 
 mentes vestras circumdet, et in praesenti saeculo 
 corona justitiae, et in futuro perducat vos ad 
 coronam gloriae. Amen. Illius obteutu tribuat 
 vobis Dei et proximi charitate semper exuberare, 
 qui hanc studuit etiam inter lapidantium im¬ 
 petus obtinere. Amen, Quo ejus exemplo robo- 
 rati, et intercessione muniti, ab eo quern ille a 
 dextris Dei vidit stantem, mereamiui benedici. 
 Amen. Quod Ipse . . . .” “ Ghristus Dei Filius, 
 
 pro cujus nomine Stephanus martyr lapidatus 
 est innocens, contra incursantium daemonum 
 ictus vos efficiat fortioi'es, Amen. Quique eum 
 pro inimicis orantem consummate martyrio pro- 
 vexit ad caelum, conferat in vobis ut sine con- 
 fusione ad eum A'eniatis post trausitum. Amen. 
 Ut illic laetatura post istud saeculum aocedat 
 anima A’estra, quo praedictus martyr spiritum 
 suum suscipi exorabat. Amen.” 
 
 Besides tfie above, there was here also a short 
 benediction at the end of the service, such as 
 “ Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,” or the two 
 following taken from Saxon offices, “ Benedictio 
 Dei Patris Omnipotentis et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 
 maneat semper vobiscum.” “ B. Dei Patris et 
 Fil. et S. S. et pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.” 
 (Palmer, Grig. Lit. iv. § 24.) 
 
 By way of illustration of this last we may 
 cite Amalarius {De Eccl. Off. iii. 36), “ Hunc 
 morem tenet sacerdos, ut post omnia Sacramenta 
 consummata benedicat populo; ” and Rabanus 
 Maurus {De Inst. Cleric, i. 33), “ Post commu- 
 nionem ergo, et post ejusdem nominis cantieum, 
 data Benedictione a sacerdote ad plebem, diaconus 
 praedicat Missae officium esse peractum, dans 
 licentiam abeundi.” 
 
 In the Apostolic Constitutions (lib. viii.), it is 
 ordained that before the Missa Fidelium a solemn 
 dismission-blessing should be pronounced OA’er 
 catechumens, energumens, and penitents (cc. 
 6-8). The solemn blessing OA'er the congrega¬ 
 tion is to be found later (c. 15) after the com¬ 
 munion, the deacon haA’ing first uttered the 
 
BENEDICTIONS 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 197 
 
 usual form, ©€a? 8iot rou Kptartov avrov 
 Kkii'aTe /cat evKoysTaOe. 
 
 The blessings entering into Eastern liturgies 
 are frequent; and we find them at various points 
 of the service introduced by the formula ev\6y.i- 
 (Tov Secnrora. It has been remarked as in some 
 degree significant of the characters of the two 
 great divisions of Christendom that when such 
 a request as the above has been made by the 
 deacon to the priest, in the Western Church the 
 latter proceeds to invoke God’s blessing on the 
 congregation and himself, in the Eastern Church 
 he answers it as a rule by an ascription of praise 
 to God. Thus at the beginning of the Prothesis 
 (or introductory part of the Eucharistic Service) 
 in the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the deacon’s 
 request to bless is answered by ev\oyr}rhs 6 
 0el)s Tjfiwv 7rdvTOT€ yvu Kal del /cal els robs 
 alccvas ruv alwvuv. 'KfXT]v. (Daniel, iv. 329, 
 and often.) Or again, we may cite the form as 
 used at the beginning of the proanaphoi*al part 
 of the Liturgy (i.e., the continuation of the 
 service ap to the Sursum cordd) evKoyii)p.evi) ^ 
 fiaciKela Tov Tlarphs /col toD T, koI rov 'A. 
 Uv. vvv Kal del, (ih. 340). 
 
 The long benediction we have spoken of as 
 occurring in Latin liturgies after the Lord’s 
 Prayer, is not found in the Eastern ritual, at 
 the corresponding part of which occurs what is 
 known as the ‘‘ Prayer of Inclination,” answei*- 
 ing in character to the “prayer of humble 
 access” of our own church. (Neale, Holy 
 Eastern Churchy Introd. p. 515.) 
 
 A further enumeration of the benedictions of 
 Greek liturgies appertains rather to a description 
 of the Eastern Eucharistic offices; it may, how¬ 
 ever, be mentioned that in addition to the final 
 dismission-blessing, universal here as in the 
 Latin ritual, some of the Eastern liturgies (as 
 those of St. jiark and the Coptic so-called liturgy 
 of St. Basil) give a long benediction after the 
 post-communion prayers of thanksgiving (see 
 e.g. Neale, ih. pp. G88, 694); also the Nestoi’ian 
 liturgy of Theodore the interpreter closes with 
 a similar benediction (Daniel, iv. 193). The 
 above are too long for quotation here, but we 
 may cite as an example of a Greek benediction 
 the final blessing from the liturgy of St. Mark 
 (Daniel, iv. 170): evKoyelro) 6 &ehs 6 eh\oy<ru 
 Kal ayii^cvv Kal (TKeiruv Kal StaTrjpaju iravras 
 vyas 8ia ttjs /xede^ews Toip aylaiu avrov pva- 
 rripiwv, 6 S>u evKoyrirhs els robs o. ruy a. 
 It may be mentioned as a curious peculiarity 
 that in the Constantinopolitan rite the priest 
 does not give the final blessing till he has dis¬ 
 robed (Daniel, iv. 372). 
 
 At the cud of the Ethiopic liturgy is a prayer 
 of the people, of the nature of a benediction, 
 spoken after the blessing of the bishop or priest 
 has been pronounced, preluded too by the call 
 of the deacon to kneel: “ May the Lord bless us 
 His servants . . . 
 
 Besides the above, there was another solemn 
 benediction, the special prerogative of the 
 bishop, the b, matutinalis et vesyerthialis, said, 
 as its name implies, at the end of matins and 
 vespers. For this we may again refer to the 
 Council of Agde (can. 30), “ Plebs collecta ora- 
 tione ad vesperam ab episcopo cum benedictione 
 dimittatur.” (Labbe", iv. 1388 ; cf. also Cone. 
 Barcell. [540 a.d.] can. 2 ; ib. v. 378.) 
 
 Oi non-liturgical blessings appertaining to per¬ 
 
 sons, we may briefly speak here of the general 
 blessing, properly though not exclusively the 
 episcopal prerogative, as may be seen from e.g. 
 Basil, Ep. 199, § 27 [iv. 724, ed. Migne], and 
 Athanasius, Vita S. Anton, c. 67. It would 
 seem that, especially on the enti’ance of a bishop 
 into a place, his blessing was reverently be¬ 
 sought by the people. Cf. Chrys. Horn. Encorn. 
 in Mel. § 2; Aug. Ep. 33, § 5 [ii. 131, ed. 
 Migne]; and Greg. Nyss. Vita Macrinae [iii. 976, 
 Migne]. This blessing was eagerly sought for 
 even by princes, as by Clodoveus from Remigius, 
 or by the Empress Eudoxia from the Bishop 
 Porphyrins (^Acta Sanctorum, i. 154 Oct.; iii. 
 653 Feb.). This may be further illustrated by 
 a statement of Philostorgius (see Yalesius’ note 
 on Theodoret iv. 5) to the effect that when all 
 the other bishops went to pay homage to Eu- 
 sebia, wife of the Emperor Constans, Leontius, 
 Bishop of Tripoli, refused to do so save on the 
 condition that the empress should rise at his 
 approach, and with bowed head ask his blessing. 
 It was allowed by the Council of Epao [517 a.d.] 
 for people of rank (cives superiorum natalium) 
 to invite the bishop to themselves to receive his 
 blessing at Christmas and Easter. 
 
 (P.) Benedictions of things. Before proceed¬ 
 ing to enumerate some of the more striking 
 cases of benedictions of things, we may once 
 more call attention to the distinction already 
 dwelt on between benediction and the stronger 
 term consecration, in that in the one regard is 
 had but to the bestowal of certain grace or 
 efficacy, whereas in the other, a thing is not 
 only destined for a holy use, but is viewed as 
 changed into a holy thing. Augusti (^Denkwur- 
 digk. X. 192) brings out this distinction by a 
 comparison of the phrases panis benedictus and 
 panis consecratus ; and so the Greek Church re¬ 
 cognizes the difference between evXoyla on the 
 one hand and ayiaa’fj.Ss or Kadiepwais on the 
 other. Similar is the distinction between bene- 
 dictiones invocativae and b. constituUvae, sacra- 
 tivae, destinativae, the names of Avhich show that 
 the one invoke God’s grace, the other dedicate 
 permanently to His service. 
 
 We shall now enumerate some of the more 
 frequent instances of special benedictions of 
 thing.s, for detailed information respecting whic’n 
 reference may be made to the separate articles. 
 
 (I) B. fontis, the blessing of the baptismal 
 
 water, &c. [Baptism]. (2) b. aquae lustralit 
 [Holy Water]. (3) b. panis et vini, whicl 
 substances when blessed bore the name of the 
 saint on whose festival the benediction took 
 place, as St. John’s wine, St. Mark’s bread, &c. 
 (4) b. salis [Salt], whether for admixture with 
 holy water or otherwise. (5) b. lactis et mellis 
 [Milk and Honey]. (6) b. olei, whether for the 
 catechumens at baptism or confirmation, or for 
 the Chrisma, or for the sick (^evxf^aiov) 
 [Chrism ; Oil]. (7) b. incensi. (8) b. cereorum, 
 as for the special feast of Candlemas Day, Feb. 
 2. (9) b. cinerum, of Ash Wednesday [Lent]. 
 
 (10) 6. palmarum, of Palm Sunday processions. 
 
 (II) b. paschales, whether of Easter eggs or the 
 paschal lamb or the Easter candles; and to these 
 may be added an immense number of varieties 
 of benedictions for almost every imaginable occa¬ 
 sion, wherein the pious of past ages deemed that 
 the church could draw forth'on their behalf 
 from a rich store of blessing. Thus we may 
 
198 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 mention, in addition to those already cited, the ' 
 following benedictions of things, occurring, un- j 
 less the contrary be specified, in the Gregorian j 
 Sacramentary. (1) b. domus. (2) uvae vel favae ' 
 ( =: fabae). (3) ad fructus novos. (4) ad omnia 
 quae volueris. (5) . carnis. ( 6 ) putei (Gall.). 
 (7) casei et ovonxm (Euch. Graec.). ( 8 ) ignis 
 (Pontif. Egb.). (9) librorum (ib.). 
 
 IV. Mode of imparting Benediction. However 
 various the objects for which blessings are sought, 
 and however different therefore the formulae in 
 which they are conferred, still there are certain 
 accompaniments which are as a rule always 
 present, and as to which the directions, simple 
 enough in the earliest Church, have been in pro¬ 
 cess of time rendered more and more definite, to 
 leave as little as possible to individual will, 
 (a) As showing how the Christum Ritual on 
 these points is foreshadowed in the .Jewish, we 
 have thought it well to prefix a brief note as to 
 the laws of blessing in the latter. The priests, 
 to whom the power of imparting blessings was 
 committed, were to do so standing (cf. Deut. x. 
 
 8 ; xxvii. 12 ), with outstretched hands. We 
 cite here a passage from the Mishna, the earliest 
 authority to which we can appeal next to the 
 Bible. “ In what way is the sacerdotal blessing 
 performed ? In the provinces [7. e. away from 
 the temple] they say it in three blessings [i. e. 
 the formula of Kumbers vi. 24—26 is divided 
 into three clauses, and Amen responded at the 
 end of each], but in the temple in one. In the 
 temple they say the Name as it is written [f. e. 
 the rerpaypdfx/xaTov], in the provinces with the 
 substituted name [i.e. Adonai]. In the provinces 
 the priests raise their hands on a level with their 
 shoulders, but in the temple above their heads, 
 except the high-priest, who does not raise up his 
 hands above the diadem.” [Or perhaps rather a 
 ptate of gold worn upon the forehead of the high- 
 priest. The reason of the prohibition in his case 
 was because of the presence of the Sacred Name 
 upon the plate.] Mishn. Sota, vii. 6 . In a some¬ 
 what later authority, the commentary on Num- 
 bei's and Deuteronomy known as Sifree, we have 
 further directions given : ( 1 ) the blessing is to 
 be pronounced in the Hebrew language; (2) the 
 imparter of the blessing is to stand, and (3) with 
 outstretched hands. (4) The sacred name mn' 
 is to be used; (5) the priest must face the 
 people, and ( 6 ) speak in a loud voice. {Sifree on 
 Numb. vi. 22-27.) Reference may also be made 
 to a still later authority, the Babylonian Talmud 
 itself {Sota, fol. 38 a). 
 
 During the conferring of the blessing the 
 people must not look at the priest, for for the time 
 the glory of God is supposed to rest upon him 
 (vide infra). Also, his hands are disposed so 
 that the fingers go in pairs, forefingers with 
 middle fingers, ring fingers with little fingers, 
 with the tips of the two thumbs and of the two 
 forefingers respectively touching each other, thus 
 arranging the whole ten fingers in six divisions. 
 We shall quote in illustration of this from the 
 Lekach Tob of R. Eleazar b. Tobiah (the so- 
 called Pesikta Zotarta) on Numbers, 1. c. “ It 
 is forbidden to look at the priests at the moment 
 that they lift up their hands,—and he divides his 
 hands into six parts, as it is said, ‘ Every one had 
 six wings.’ Isa. vi. 2.” 
 
 One more extract will suffice, which we take 
 lirom the ancient commentary on Numbers (m 
 
 ioc.), the Bammidiyar Rahba (c. 11). “There¬ 
 fore it is said (Cant. ii. 9), ‘ Behold he stands 
 behind our wall,’ that is, synagogues and col 
 leges. ‘ He looks from the windows ’:—At the 
 time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to 
 Aaron and his sons ‘ Thus shall ye bless ’ &c., 
 Israel said to the Holy One, ‘ Lord of the Uni¬ 
 verse, thou tellest the priests to bless us, we 
 want only Thg blessing and to be blessed from 
 Thy mouth; according as it is said. Look from 
 the abode of Thy holiness, from heaven ’ (Deut. 
 xxxi. 15). The Holy One said, ‘ Although I com¬ 
 manded the priests to bless you, / am standing 
 with them and blessing you.’ Therefore the 
 priests stretch forth their hands to indicate that 
 the Holy One stands behind us, and therefore it 
 says, ‘ He looks from the windows ’ [i.e. from 
 between the shoulders of the priests], ‘ He peeps 
 from the lattice work ’ [i.e. from between the 
 fingers of the priests].” 
 
 () 8 ) The foregoing points afford a very close 
 parallel to the usages of the Christian church'. 
 That the imparter of the blessing should stand 
 is but in accordance with the natural order of 
 things, and thus is a point universally observed, 
 so that the Latin church does but stereotyj)e 
 usage, when in the ritual of Paul V. it is laid 
 down as a Rubric stando semper benedicat. As to 
 the kneeling of the recipients of the blessing, we 
 may find ancient evidence in the Apostolic Con¬ 
 stitutions (viii. 6 ), where the injunction is pre¬ 
 fixed to the Benediction, “. . . and let the deacon 
 say, KXivarc koX evXoyeiade.” 
 
 The order of the Jewish ritual that the priest 
 should face the people is paralleled (to say 
 nothing of unvarying custom) by the Rubric 
 before the benediction in the mass in ancient 
 Sacramentaries, (thus e. g. “ Postea dicat episco- 
 pus convertens ad populum,” in an ancient mass 
 for Easter. Greg. Sacram. p. 248); and that to 
 pronounce the blessing in a loud voice by the 
 equivalent command constantly met with in 
 Greek service books {e.g. eTreux^Tat 6 Upevs 
 fieyaXocpciovos, Goar, Euchol. p. 42). 
 
 The lifting up of hands {t-rrapais tS>v 
 is an inseparable adjunct of benedictions. It is 
 constantly associated in the Bible with actions of 
 a more solemn character, as oaths {e.g. Gen. xiv. 
 22 ; Rev. x. 5), or prayer {e.g. Psalm xxviii. 2 ; 
 xliv. 21 [20, E.V.]; Ixiii. 5 [4, E.V.]; 1 Tim. ii. 
 8 ), or benediction {e.g. Lev. ix. 22 ; Luke xxiv. 
 50). An occasional addition is that of the laying 
 on of hands : of this we find traces in Gen. xlviii. 
 14, 18; Matt. xix. 13, 15 ; Mark x. 16 : and we 
 may again refer to the Apostolic Constitutions 
 (viii. 9), w'here the benediction upon penitents is 
 associated with the laying on of hands (xetpo- 
 Oftria). The feeling of the greater worth and 
 power of the right hand is shown in patriarchal 
 times (Gen. 1. c.); and in later times it is either 
 taken for granted or is expressly commanded that 
 the right hand should be used: 
 
 ( 7 ) With this natural and almost universal 
 gesture, the act of benediction is constantly re¬ 
 presented in ancient art. Thus, the Lord extends 
 His open hand over the demoniac, in the bas- 
 reliefs of a sarcophagus at Verona (Maffei, 
 Verona Illustrata, pars iii. p. 54); and also over 
 a kneeling figure in an Akcosolium of the 
 cemetery cf St. Hermes (Bottari, Pitture e Sculr 
 ture, clxxxvii. No. 2). 
 
 In process of time, as in the Jewish so in the 
 
BENEDICTIONS 
 
 BENEDICTIONS 
 
 199 
 
 Christian ritual, a particular disposition of the 
 fingers in the act of blessing became usual. In 
 the Greek church, and in Greek paintings for the 
 most part, the hand outstretched in blessing has 
 the thumb touching the tip of the 
 ring-fingei’, while the forefinger, 
 C\ middle, and the little finger 
 
 f are erected. According to a view 
 mentioned by Ciampini {De Sacris 
 Y Aedif. Const, p. 42, from Theoph. 
 
 I Raynaud, De Attrihutis Christi, 4. 
 / 9. 733, who cites it from some 
 
 ^ fragments of a Greek writer of 
 uncertain date, Nicolaus Malaxus), 
 xj the erect forefinger with the curved 
 middle finger make IC, i.e. ’iTjtroCs, 
 while the crossing of the thumb and ring-finger 
 and the curving of the little finger make XC, i.e. 
 XpicTTSs. One cannot but agree here with the 
 remark in the Aota Sanctorum (June, vol. vii. 
 p. 135) that this is rather an ingenious specula¬ 
 tion of Malaxus than a received doctrine of the 
 Greek church. According to Goar (^Euchologion, 
 p. 923) the thumb and ring-finger crossed made 
 a X, the other fingers erect with the fore and 
 middle fingers slightly separated were supposed 
 to represent v, I, the whole standing for Arjcrovs 
 Xpiarhs viKa. He also gives (pp. 114, 115) 
 pictures of St. Methodius and St. Germanus, 
 with the fingers disposed as above, save that the 
 fore and middle fingers are united. Evidence, 
 however, is not forthcoming as to the date of 
 these representations. (Cf. Leo Allatius, De 
 Cons. Eccl. Occid. et Orient, pp. 1358 sqq., who 
 describes as used by the Greeks a disposition of 
 the fingers akin to that spoken of by Malaxus, 
 and considers it as indicating the doctrines of the 
 Trinity and of the twofold nature of our Lord.) 
 Neale (ih. 352, n.) thus describes the eastern 
 method, “The priest joins his thumb and third 
 finger, and erects and joins the other three; and 
 is thus supposed to symbolize the procession of 
 the Holy Ghost from the Father alone; and, 
 according to others, to form the sacred name 
 IHC by the position of his fingers.” 
 
 In the Latin manner of benediction the erected 
 fingers are the thumb, the forefinger and the 
 middle finger, while the other 
 two are doubled down on the 
 palm of the hand. The hand 
 of the Lord is thus represented 
 in some monuments, when He 
 works a miracle, not holding 
 a rod in the hand: for in¬ 
 stance, in the healing of the 
 man born blind (Bottari, tav. 
 xix.), that of the woman with 
 an issue of blood (xxi.), and 
 in the representation of Christ’s entry into Jeru¬ 
 salem (cxxxiii.): see also the illustrations of 
 Blind, Healing of, and Bethesda. The same 
 arrangement of the fingers is observed in the bas- 
 belief of an ancient sarcophagus, representing 
 the Good Shepherd blessing His sheep. In some 
 cases tlie representation of the natural gesture of 
 an orator or teacher resembles the act of blessing ; 
 as, for instance, in the repi’esentation of Christ in 
 the midst of the doctors, given by Bottari (liv.). 
 
 This arrangement of the fingers is said to be 
 found in the most ancient pictorial representa¬ 
 tions of the Popes (Molanus, Hist. SS. Irnnginum, 
 p. 468 n.; ed. Louvain, 1771). Pope Leo IV. 
 
 (^Hom. de Cura Fastorali, Migne’s Patrol, axv. 
 678) seems to enjoin a somewhat different ar¬ 
 rangement, still for the purpose of symbolizing 
 the Trinity ; “ districtis duobus digitis et pollice 
 intus recluso, per quod Trinitas annuitur.” 
 These words, however, though given by Labbe", 
 are wanting in many authorities. 
 
 But it seems certain, that it is only in com¬ 
 paratively modern times that the rite of benedic¬ 
 tion has constituted a distinction between the 
 Greek and Latin Churches. For instance, in the 
 most Roman of monuments, the Vatican con- 
 fessio (or crypt) of St. Peter (see the frontis¬ 
 piece to Borgia’s Vaticana Confessio B. Petri), the 
 Lord gives the blessing in the Greek manner; in 
 the triumphal arch of St. Mark’s Church, in the 
 Latin manner ; in the tribune of the same church, 
 after the Greek manner ; so also in a mosaic of the 
 ancient Vatican (Ciampini, De Sacr. Aedif. p. 43), 
 executed under the direction of Innocent HI. 
 (1198-1216), who, treating expressly of this 
 matter (Z>e Sacro Altaris Myst. ii. 44), pre¬ 
 scribes the elevation of three fingers, without 
 indicating which. On the other hand, the bas- 
 relief of a Greek diptych given by Foggini {De 
 Pom. Itin. Petri, p. 471), represents St. Peter 
 giving the blessing in the Latin manner, while 
 St. Andrew, the reputed founder of the Church 
 of Constantinople, blesses in the Greek manner ; 
 a circumstance which may perhaps indicate that 
 different gestures of blessing were regarded as 
 characteristic of East and West respectively 
 (see Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret. p. 84). 
 
 (S) The SIGN OF THE Cross (see the article) 
 constantly accompanies benedictions both in the 
 Eastern and the Western rites, and was thought 
 to impart validity to the act; “ quod signum 
 nisi adhibeatur . . nihil horum rite perficitur,” 
 says St. Augustine {Tract, in Joannem, 118, § 5). 
 
 (e) Incense is a frequent accompaniment of 
 Benedictions ; and the employment of Holy Water 
 to be sprinkled on persons or things may be 
 regarded as a form of Benediction [Holy Water]. 
 The modern Romish Ritual makes a special vest¬ 
 ment incumbent on the priest who gives a blessing. 
 This, however, is beside our present purpose. 
 
 V. Benedictionals. —It has been already shown 
 that various early forms of benedictions are 
 found interspersed in ancient Sacramentaries. 
 In that attributed to Pope Leo are found forms 
 of blessing “ascendentibus a fonte,” and “ lactis et 
 mellis,” as well as a “benedictio fontis,” which 
 is possibly a later addition. It is, however, in 
 the somewhat later Sacramentary of Gregory the 
 Great that we meet with specimens of benedic¬ 
 tions on a more extended scale, in some MSS. 
 variously interspersed through the book, and in 
 some given separately, forming the so-called 
 Benedictionale. This is the case with the very 
 ancient MS. of the Caesarean Library, edited by 
 Lambecius, not knowing that the greater part of 
 it had, under a different arrangement, already 
 been edited by Menard. Another of somewhat 
 different form has been edited by Pamelius 
 {Liturgg. vol. ii.) from two MSS. of the time 
 of Charlemagne now in the Vatican. The Li'>er 
 Sacramentorum of Ratoldus, of the tenth century, 
 also contains numerous benedictions, but the 
 fullest Benedictional is that found in two MSS. 
 of the Monastery of St. Theodoric, near Rheims, 
 wi’itten about the year 900. Meuard has also 
 edited a Benedictional from a MS. in the abbey 
 
200 
 
 BENEDICTU8 
 
 BERGHFORDEXSE COXCILIUM 
 
 of St. Eligius, and Angelas Rocca another from 
 a MS. in the Vatican. A large collection of 
 benedictions is also to be found in the Pontifical 
 of Egbert (Archbishop of York, A.D. 732-766), 
 published by the Surtees Society in 1853. It 
 will be observed that all the above are merely 
 recensions, more or less added to, of the bene¬ 
 dictions in the Gregorian Sacramentary; it 
 will suffice to mention, in addition to those, 
 the benedictions of the Gothic Missal, first 
 edited by Joseph Thomasius and then by Ma- 
 billon (Jiluseuni Italicum, vol. ii.), which are 
 numerous, but of very different form. 
 
 VI. Literature .—For the matter of the present 
 article we have to express considerable obliga¬ 
 tions to the essay Segen und Fluch in Binterim’s 
 Penkwurdigkeiten (vol. vii. part 2), and to 
 Augusti’s Penkwurdigkeiten aus der Christlichen 
 ArcMologie, vol. x. pp. 165 seqq. We have also 
 consulted the articles Benedictionen and Seg- 
 nungen in Herzog’s Pealencyklopddie^ and in 
 Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchen-Lexicon. See also 
 Gerhard, De Benedictione Ecclesiastica, and Hae- 
 ner, De Ritu Benedictionis Sacerdotalis. A vast 
 mine of information is to be found in Martene, 
 De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, and in Gretser, 
 De Benedictionibus. [R. S.] 
 
 BENEDICTUS, of Nursia, abbot of Monte 
 Cassiuo, born A.D. 480, and died probably 542. 
 [See Diet, of Chr. Biogr. s. v.] His festivals are 
 as follows :— 
 
 , Under March 21, the Mart. Rom. Vet. has 
 “ In Cassino Castro, Benedict! Abbatis ; ” Mart. 
 Hieron., “ Depositio Benedict! Abbatis Mart. 
 Bedae, “ Natale Benedict! Abbatis.” 
 
 Under July 11, Mart. Bedae has, “ Floriaco adven- 
 tus S. B. A. Mart. Adonis, “ Translatio S. B. A. 
 while M. Hieron. has again “ Depositio S. B. A.” 
 
 Under Dec. 4, the M. Hieron. has “Floriaco 
 adventus Corporis S. B. A.” 
 
 The Cal. Byzant. celebrates “ Benedict of 
 Nursia, Holy Father,” on March 14. 
 
 We see that the festival of March 21 commemo¬ 
 rates the death (or burial) of the saint; that of 
 July 11, the translation of his relics to Fleury 
 (St. Benoit sur Loire), in 653. The Mart. Hieron., 
 here as in some other places, is inexplicable. 
 
 The name of St. Benedict is recited in the 
 prayer Communicantes of the Gregorian canon, 
 and in the ancient canon of Milan (Menard’s 
 Greg. Sacram., p. 546). The Corbey MS. of the 
 Sacram. Greg, has on vi. Idus Julii (July 10) 
 “ Vigilia S. Benedict! Abbatis,” with proper col¬ 
 lect, &c., and on v. Id. Jul. (July 11) “Natale 
 S. B. A.,” with proper collect, &c., for the mass. 
 The MSS. of Reims and of Ratold have also the 
 Fatale on this day, but the office is simply de 
 communi unius abbatis (Menard, u. s. p. 407). 
 Antiphon in Lib. Antiph. p. 703. Compare Liber 
 Rcsponsalis, p. 810. 
 
 Stephen of Tournai (Epist. 105) tells us that 
 the ancient church of St. Benedict at Paris was 
 built so that the sanctuary was towards the 
 west, an arrangement which was afterwards 
 altered (in Menard, u. s. p. 329). [C.] ♦ 
 
 BENEDICTUS. The song of Zacharias con¬ 
 tained in S. Luke i. 68-79, so called from its 
 first word. This canticle has been said at lauds 
 in the Western Church from early times every 
 day throughout the year, whatever be the ser¬ 
 vice. The introduction of the custom is attri¬ 
 buted to S. Benedict. It is said with a varying 
 
 antiphon which is doubled, i.e., said entire both 
 before and after the canticle, on double feasts; 
 in the Roman, Monastic, and other offices derived 
 from a Gregorian or Benedictine origin, at the 
 end of lauds, immediately before the oratio or 
 collect, and occupies the same position at lauds 
 which the Magnificat occupies at vespers. In 
 the Ambrosian office it occui-s on the contrary 
 at the very beginning of the office, after the 
 opening versicles. The Ambrosian rules too for 
 the duplication of antiphons are different from 
 the Roman. The Benedictus is also found else¬ 
 where, e.g., in the Mozarabic lauds for the 
 nativity of S. John Baptist. In the Greek rite, 
 the Benedictus called irpocrevxh Zaxapiov, tov 
 TTarphs TOV npoSpSpov, forms together with and 
 following the Magnificat the last of the nine 
 odes [Ode] appointed for lauds. 
 
 The introductory part of the Song of the Three 
 Children, which precedes the Benedictiones, or 
 Benedicite proper, is also known as the Bene¬ 
 dictus from its opening, “ Benedictus es Domine 
 Deus patrum nostrorum, &c. . . .” This is said 
 daily in the Ambi’osian rite at matins before the 
 psalms, in the place the Venite occurs in other 
 western rites. The whole of the Song of the 
 Three Children is also called the Benedictus in 
 the Mozarabic breviary, and said daily at lauds, 
 as has been already stated. [H. J. H.] 
 
 BENEFICE. This subject occupies a larger 
 space in the writings of Canonists than almost 
 any other question within the cognisance of eccle¬ 
 siastical law; but its history prior to the year 
 814 may be compressed into a small compass. 
 
 The term benefice is thus defined—the per¬ 
 petual right of receiving profits from real pro¬ 
 perty established, by authority of the Church in 
 favour of a spiritual person in I’espect of the 
 performance of a spiritual office. 
 
 The expression seems to haA-'e originated in the 
 practice of granting the right of occupation in 
 Church lands to laymen in exchange for pro¬ 
 tection afforded to the Church. These were 
 called benefices, and the property, when restored 
 to the Church, retained the name. 
 
 The custom of assigninor to ecclesiastics a life 
 interest in Church property appears to have 
 commenced about the beginning of the 6th 
 century, and is referred to in the 22nd canon 
 of the Council of Agde (a.d. 506) and in the 
 23rd canon of the first Council of Orleans (a.d. 
 511), also in a letter of Pope Symmachus to 
 Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (a.d. 513). 
 
 But the grant was not larger than a life 
 interest to the beneficiary; and it therefore 
 lacked the condition of perpetuity, which was 
 an essential characteristic of a benefice in later 
 ecclesiastical law (Ducange, Glossarium, sub 
 voce; Ferraris, Bibliotheca Canonica, sub voce; 
 Thomassinus, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, 
 ii. 3, 13,5; Boahmer, Jus Ecclesiasticum, iii. 
 5, 492). [1. B.] 
 
 BENIGNUS. (1) Martyr at Torn! in Scythia; 
 commemorated April 3 (^Mart. Rotn. Vet.). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, martyr at Dijon under M. Au¬ 
 relius ; commemorated Nov. 1 (J/arL Hieron., 
 Adonis). 
 
 BERGHAMSTEDENSE CONCILIUM. 
 
 [Bersted, Council of.] [C.] 
 
 BEEGHFOEDENSE CONCILIUM. [Bus- 
 
 FORD Council of.] 
 
BERONICUS 
 
 BETHLEHEM 
 
 201 
 
 BERONICUS, martyr at Antioch in Syria; 
 commemorated Oct. 19 (^Mart. Rom. Vet.^ 
 Adonis). [C.] 
 
 BERSTED, COUNCIL OF (Bergham- 
 
 STEDENSE CONCILIUM), or rather WiTENAGEMOT, 
 of Kent, at Bersted near Maidstone, a.d. 69G, at 
 which the ecclesiastical laws of Wihtred, king 
 of Kent, were passed. The date is uncertain, 
 Gebmund, bishop of Rochester (who was pre¬ 
 sent), living until 696 according to the Textus 
 Roffensis (whence the laws are taken), but 
 dying as early as at least 694 according to the 
 Saxon Chronicle. “ To the Church, freedom 
 from imposts,” or, more probably, “ freedom in 
 jurisdiction and revenue,” is the beginning 
 of the first law (Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. 
 iii. 233-238 ; Thorpe, Anc. Laws and Institutes, 
 ii. 16-19). [A. W. IL] 
 
 BERYTUS, COUNCIL OF, a.d. 448, as 
 Mansi thinks (vi. 501-2), in September, to hear 
 a charge preferred against Ibas, bishop of Edessa, 
 by nine of his clergy, which was twofold : first, 
 that he had said, “ 1 envy not Christ being made 
 God, having been made so myself as much as 
 He,” which he denied indignantly; and next, 
 that he had called St. Cyril a heretic, which he 
 averred he never had after the reconciliation 
 between John of Antioch, his own superior, and 
 St. Cyril. To refute this, his celebrated letter 
 to Maris, of subsequent date, was adduced in 
 evidence, containing a narrative of the whole 
 controversy between Nestorius and St. Cyril. 
 He rejoined by producing a testimonial in his 
 favour addressed to Eustathius, bishop of Bery- 
 tus, and Photius, bishop of Tyre, two of his 
 Judges, and signed by upwards of sixty presby¬ 
 ters, deacons, and subdeacons of his diocese. His 
 acquittal followed: which, having been reversed 
 at Ephesus by Dioscorus of Alexandria the year 
 following, was confirmed in the tenth session of 
 the Council of Chalcedon, where the acts of this 
 Council ai-e preserved (Mansi vii. 211-72). His 
 epistle to Maris, indeed, was afterwards con¬ 
 demned at the fifth General Council. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 BETHESDA, Miracle of (in Art). Of 
 this miracle there is an ancient representa¬ 
 tion on a sarcophagus from the Vatican ceme¬ 
 tery, engraved in Bottari (^Sculture e Pitture, 
 tav. xxxix.: see woodcut). The subject oc¬ 
 cupies the centre of the tomb. A wavy line, 
 representing water, divides the composition 
 horizontally into two compartments: on the 
 lower, the impotent man is seen lying on his 
 couch, which is covered by a strajulum or 
 coverlet; on the upper, he is seen healed and 
 carrying his couch, while the Lord stretches 
 forth His hand towards him; another figure 
 raises his hand, the fingers arranged as in the 
 Latin form of benediction. The background is 
 
 formed by an arcade of three arches supported by 
 columns, intended, no doubt, to represent one of 
 the “ five porches ” (St. John v. 2) in which the 
 impotent folk were laid (Martigny, Diet, des 
 Antiq. Chre't. p. 542). The same miracle is i-epre- 
 sented, in a very different style, in the great 
 Laurentian MS. See Assemanni, Bibliothecae 
 Mediceae Catal. tab. xix., and Westwood’s Palaeo- 
 graphia Sacra. [C.j 
 
 Miracle of Betbesda, from an ancient Sarcophagus. 
 
 BETHLEHEM (architectural). In the 
 I Ethiopia churches, a small building is thrown 
 I out from the ea.st end of the sanctuary, where 
 ! the bread for use in the eucharist is prepared by 
 i the Deacon alone, and baked in the oven with 
 j which the place is furnished. This building is 
 i called the Bethlehem, or “ house of bread ” (Neale, 
 I Eastern Church, Introd. 190). [C.j 
 
 I BETHLEHEM (Svmhol). In an ancient 
 j mosaic of the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian, 
 
 ! in the Via Sacra at Rome (Ciampini, Vetera 
 I Monumenta, ii. tab. xvi.; see woodcut) two 
 flocks, each of six sheep, pass from cities labelled 
 ' re.spectively Hierusalem and Bethlehem 
 towards the figure of a lamb, representing the 
 I Lord, which stands on a mound in the centre. 
 
 I Similar representations are found in Buonarotti 
 (^Franwienti di Vasi, tav. vi. 1) and I’erret 
 (i'atacomhes de Rome, v. pi. iii.). Tlie Abbe 
 Martigny (DicL des Antiq. ChrH. p. 225) sup¬ 
 poses Jerusalem and Bethlehem to symbolize 
 respectively the Jewish and Gentile Churches; 
 but this scarcely seems a probable ojiinion. It 
 
 UotUleheiu aud Juru^ultiu tu S/mbuls, 
 
202 
 
 BETHPHANIA 
 
 betrothal 
 
 is difficult to see how Bethlehem could represent 
 the Gentile church, and the twelve sheep are 
 generally supposed to represent the Apostles, 
 none of whom came forth from the Gentiles. 
 On the whole, it seems more ])robable that the 
 issuing forth of the flock of Christ from Jeru¬ 
 salem and Bethlehem symbolizes the fact that 
 the church is founded on the Nativity, the 
 Passion and the Resurrection of the Lord. Beth¬ 
 lehem was the scene of the former, Jerusalem 
 of the two latter. See Ciampini ( Vet. Man. i. 
 189). [C] 
 
 BETHPHANIA. [Epiphany.] 
 
 BETHURIUS, martyr at Carthage under 
 Saturninus; commemorated July 17 {Mart, 
 llotn. V, t.). [C.] 
 
 BETROTHAL. Under this head we shall 
 consider only the ordinary contract of that 
 name, reserving for the head of Espousals the 
 specially religious applications of the idea. 
 
 The two influences which must have chiefly 
 built up the earliest practice of the Church 
 must have been the Jewish and the Roman, as 
 embodied in the civil law of the Empire. But 
 as respects marriage, these influences were dif¬ 
 ferent in character. The Jewish law of mar¬ 
 riage embodied much of the old and to this 
 day widely prevalent custom among uncivilized 
 races, of treating it as the purchase of a wife; 
 with this remarkable feature indeed, that the 
 woman was at a very early age («. e. within her 
 12th year, see Selden’s Uxor Ifebraica, bk. ii. c. 
 iii.) held fit to dispose of herself. Under this sys¬ 
 tem, betrothal, if not the actual marriage, which 
 was held to consist in the leading of the bride to 
 the nuptial bed, was yet really, for most pur¬ 
 poses, the marriage contract, the violation of 
 Avhich by connexion with another was deemed 
 adultery, and punishable as such, the dissolution 
 of which could only take place by a “ writing of 
 divorcement ” (Selden, quoting Maimonides, u. s., 
 c. i.). The contract was made by persons held 
 to be of full age {i. e. speaking generally, and 
 neglecting some exceptional minutiae, males in 
 the last day of their 13th year, w’omen in the 
 second half of their 12th) at their own will ; 
 but girls under age might be betrothed by their 
 fathers or guardians (though only by money or 
 wanting), with power, however, at 10 to repu¬ 
 diate the engagement; it could also be entered 
 into through go-betweens,—those pro.ienetici of 
 the Greeks and Romans,—whose name has, in 
 ordinary parlance, been shortened in form and 
 widened in meaning into that of our “ proxies,” 
 but who represent a still recognised function and 
 calling in the Jewish communities of our day. 
 Where the contract was in writing, with or 
 without the giving of earnest money, it was to 
 be. written out by the man in the presence of 
 witnesses, and handed over to the woman, who 
 must know its purport, otherwise there was 
 no contract. Selden gives the form of such a 
 writing, specifying the man’s pronouncing of the 
 words of betrothal, the assent of the girl, and his 
 promise of a jointure. 
 
 The Roman looked upon the marriage contract 
 with different eyes from the Jew. At the time 
 when the Christian Church grew up, the idea of 
 it as the purchase of a wife had quite died out 
 from men’s minds. Marriage, and still more 
 betrothal, was (with one execution) a purely 
 
 ' civil contract, verbally concluded. Under the 
 later Roman law (we need not here go in detail 
 into the enactments of the Lex Julia, or Papia- 
 Poppaea), which forms the second and main 
 basis of church practice on the subject, betrothal 
 is viewed simply as a contract for future mar¬ 
 riage. It was of more weight indeed than our 
 “ engagement,” since it was held as much a note 
 of infamy to enter into two contracts of betrothal 
 as of marriage {Dig. 3, tit. 2, s. 1, 13), so 
 that Tacitus says of the younger Agrippina, when 
 thinking of marrying her son Domitius to Octavia, 
 daughter of Claudius, that it could not be done 
 “ without crime,” since Octavia was already be¬ 
 trothed to Silanus {Ann. bk. xii. c. 3), but it was a 
 compact for which mere consent without writing, 
 even of absent parties, was sufficient (Z)i^. 23, tit. 
 1, s. 4), although for its full validity the consent 
 of all parties was required whose consent would 
 be necessary to marriage (s. 7). The consent of a 
 daughter, however, to her father’s betrothal of her 
 was implied, in default of proof to the contrary 
 (s. 12); and Julianus held that the like consent 
 of a father was to be implied, in default of proof of 
 his dissent, to his daughter’s betrothal of herself. 
 
 No forms were requisite for the early Roman 
 betrothal, and there seems no reason for suppos¬ 
 ing that the stage betrothals which are so fre¬ 
 quent in Plautus would not have been .strictly 
 legal. {Aulul. ii. 2, vv. 77-9 : Poenul. v. 3, vv. 
 37, 8; I'rinumn. ii. 4, vv. 98-103.) In these 
 the essence of the contract lies evidentlv in 
 the question and reply (the interrogatory form 
 being a characteristic of the early Roman law): 
 “ Spondesne ? ”—“ Spondeo.”^ At the same time, 
 the early Roman betrothal was generally accom¬ 
 panied with the sending to the woman of the 
 iron Bridal Ring (see this head). 
 
 We may infer from the much larger space 
 assigned to betrothal and its incidents in the 
 Code (5, tit. 1-3.) than in the Digest that with 
 the growth of the empire the contract both 
 assumed greater importance, and was at the 
 same time more frequently broken. The prac¬ 
 tice of giving earnest-money [Arrhae] becomes 
 now prominent; whilst gifts on betrothal are 
 also largely dwelt upon: Under Constantine we 
 see that the passing of a ki.ss between the be¬ 
 trothed had come to have a legal value. (Code 5, 
 tit. 3, s. 16.) 
 
 A glimpse at the forms usual in the later 
 Roman betrothals, towards the beginning of the 
 3rd century, is given to us by Tertullian. In 
 his treatise de Velund. Virgin, c. ii., he ob¬ 
 serves that even among the Gentiles girls are 
 brought veiled to betrothal, “ because they are 
 united both in body and spirit to the man 
 by the kiss and the joining of right hands.” 
 This passage evidently shows that in his time 
 Gentile betrothal had grown to be a ceremony, 
 of which the veil, the kiss and the clasped 
 hands were among the elements; his mention of 
 the kiss illustrating the before quoted constitu¬ 
 tion by Constantine, later indeed by nearly a 
 century and a half. He does not indeed name the 
 ring ; but the use of it [Bridal Ring] is testified 
 to by himself in another passage, and by several 
 other authorities. 
 
 The greater prominence of the betrothal con¬ 
 tract under the later emperors—say from the 3rd 
 century inclusively—is be.st explained through 
 the gradual permeation of the Roman empire 
 
BETROTHAL 
 
 BETROTHAL 
 
 203 
 
 by the barbarian races, the main source from 
 which all the most energetic elements of its 
 population were recruited, long before any col¬ 
 lective invasion. For when we turn to the 
 barbaric Codes, we generally find betrothal in 
 a position of prominence quite unlike anything 
 in the earlier Roman law—the ruling idea being 
 almost invariably that of wife-buying. The 
 Salic law deals with the subject, after its wont, 
 only through money-payments. If any one 
 caiTies off a betrothed girl and marries her, he 
 is to pay 62^ solidi, and 15 to her betrothed. 
 
 actus antujuior, t. xiv. arts. 8, 9.) If any, ' 
 whilst the bi .desman is conducting the betrothed 
 to her husband, falls on her in wrath and with 
 violence commits adulteiy with her, he shall pay 
 200 solidi (art. 10). Amongst our forefathers of 
 the Anglo-Saxon period, we find the laws of 
 Ethelbert (597-616) decreeing that “if a man 
 carry off a maiden betrothed to another man in 
 money,” he is to “ make bot with 20 shillings” 
 (83). The laws of Ina (688-725), though a 
 century later, do not any more than those of 
 Ethelbert seem to distinguish betrothal from 
 purchase: “ If a man buy a wife and the mar¬ 
 riage take not place, let him give the money,” 
 &c. (31). 
 
 But it is in the Wisigothic and Lombardic 
 laws that we find most matter under this head. 
 The former attribute almost absolute authority 
 in the betrothals of women to the father or his 
 representative. One of the more ancient enact¬ 
 ments bears that “ if any have had a girl be¬ 
 trothed to him with the will of her father or of 
 the other near relations to whom by law this 
 , power is given,” the girl may not marry another 
 against her parents’ (or relatives’) will; but if 
 she do, both parties shall be handed over to the 
 power of him who had had her betrothed to 
 him with her parents’ will, and any relatives 
 abetting the marriage shall pay 1 pound of gold. 
 
 The betrothal contract is by the Wisigothic 
 law treated as so far equivalent to marriage, 
 that the term adultery is freely used of its 
 violation by the parties. A husband or betrothed 
 are moreover declared not to be responsible for 
 killing those who commit adultery with their 
 wives or betrothed (1. 4). Again, the same title 
 of the law embraces the rupture of both contracts 
 (De divortiis A’uptiarum et discidio Sponsorum, 
 t. ^i.). 
 
 The Wisigothic Code has been always held to 
 have been drawn up under priestly influence. 
 The Lombards were never looked on with favour 
 by the Church. Yet between the two systems 
 of legislation there is less difference on the head 
 which occupies us than might be expected. The 
 Lombard law, like the Wisigothic, adopts from 
 Rome the two years’ maximum for delay in 
 carrying out a betrothal contract. (Laws of 
 Notharis, a.d. 638 or 643, c. 178.) 
 
 The laws of Luitprand (a.d. 717) are very 
 severe against too early marriages of girls. If 
 any betroth to himself or carry away [as his wife] 
 a girl under 12, he is to compound as for rape. 
 
 The forms of betrothal among the barbarian 
 conquerors of the Roman Empire must have been 
 infinitely varied. The Salic betrothal was by 
 the otl'er of a solidus and deuarius, and the con¬ 
 tract could be made between absent parties; as 
 when Chlolowig (Clovis) espoused Chlotildi 
 through his envoys (Xedegari\is, Epit. c, IS). 
 
 Canciaui, from the Euphemian Codex of Verona, 
 has published two formulae^ one apparently of a 
 Lombard, the other of a Salic betrothal (vol. ii. 
 pp. 467, 476), which, although the text of them 
 may be somewhat later than the period to which 
 this work relates, no doubt, like most written 
 formulae., exhibit with some faithfulness the 
 usages of an earlier period. In both of them 
 the betrothal has palpably become a judicial act. 
 A sword and a glove are the main features of the 
 former: “For this cometh M., for that he 
 willeth to espouse D., daughter of P. Camest 
 thou because of this ? ” “I came,” “ Give 
 pledge, that thou wilt make unto her a fourth 
 part of whatever thou hast; and by this sword 
 and this glove I betroth to thee Hd., my daughter, 
 and thou, receive her by title of betrothal.” 
 “ Thou, father of the woman, give pledges to him 
 that thou givest her to him to wife, and sendest 
 her under his mundium. And thou, give [pledge] 
 that thou receivest her ; and whoever shall with¬ 
 draw, let him compound in a thousand solidi.” 
 The Salic formula is confined to the case of tiie 
 second marriage of a “ Salic wddow ; ” it belongs 
 self-evidently to the Carlovingian era, and in it 
 the ideas of betrothal and of marriage seem to 
 run into each other. 
 
 We come now to the legislation of the Church 
 itself on the subject of betrothal. Tertullian 
 in his treatise on Idolatry (c. 16), seeking to 
 determine what actions and matters a Chris¬ 
 tian is not to meddle with on account of their 
 idolatrous character, says: “ But as concern¬ 
 ing the offices of private and common solemni¬ 
 ties, as these ... of betrothal or marriage, I 
 think no danger is to be apprehended fi’om any 
 breath of idolatry which may intervene. For 
 the objects must be considered for which the 
 office is performed. I deem those pure in them¬ 
 selves, for neither . . . the ring nor the mar¬ 
 riage bond flows from the worship of any idol.” 
 It may be fairly concluded from this passage 
 that towards the end of the 2 nd or beginning of 
 the 3rd century, betrothal was considered by the 
 Church as being in itself a perfectly valid and 
 lawful contract, and even when celebrated be¬ 
 tween heathens, involving no contamination for 
 the Christian who should take part in the pro¬ 
 ceedings connected with it. 
 
 It is unnecessary to notice the forgeries which 
 support sacerdotal claims. The first unim¬ 
 peachable authority on the subject is found in 
 Basil’s Canonical Epistle to Amphilochus, bishop 
 of Iconium. It will be seen that he treats of 
 betrothal in a quite incidental manner. In one 
 passage (c. xxii.) he takes the case of men who 
 have violently carried away the betrothed of 
 another; these are not to be received to commu¬ 
 nion until they jmt their wives away, and sub¬ 
 mit to the will of those to whom these were at 
 first betrothed. Yet he views betrothal as so far 
 approximating to marriage that he allows (c. 69) 
 a reader or subdeacon seducing his betrothed be¬ 
 fore marriage to be admitted to communion after 
 a year’s penance, without loss of office, but so 
 that he cannot be promoted ; but in case of his 
 misconducting himself without betrothal with a 
 woman he is to be dei)rived of his olfice itself. 
 
 Of more interest, both in itself, and as being, 
 probably, the first genuine utterance of a I’ope 
 which sullices to dispose of a whole mis«; of 
 antedated forgeries, is a letter of Rope Bene- 
 
204 
 
 BETKOTHAL 
 
 BIGAMY 
 
 diet I. (a.d. 57rv--7) to the Patriarch of Gran. 
 The Pope had been asked whether, where a girl 
 had been betrothed by word of mouth only, and 
 died before marriage, her sister could marry the 
 .same man. The Pope replied that it was connu¬ 
 bial intercourse that made two one ; “ how by 
 bare words of betrothal they can be made one 
 we can in nowise see. Do not therefore deny that 
 which you can show no reason for denying.” 
 
 It is indeed evident, from the application itself, 
 that the (luestion whether the contract of be¬ 
 trothal did not of itself create a consanguinity 
 between the parties, sufficient to render the 
 subsequent marriage of either with a kinsman 
 or kinswoman of the other unlawful, was already 
 a moot one. We might not be surprised if 
 Gregory the Great (a.d. 590-603), in whose 
 powerful mind a strong vein of ascetic feeling 
 IS discoverable—should have taken the opposite 
 side to Benedict. He remains indeed quite 
 within the law in allowing a betrothed woman 
 to dissolve her engagement in order to enter 
 a convent ; writing (bk. vi. Ep. 20) to the 
 bishop and defensor of Naples, where one 
 Stephen, betrothed to a girl who had been 
 “ converted ” in one of the monasteries of the 
 city, was alleged to detain her and her property, 
 that after due e.xamination he was to be exhorted 
 to restore the girl herself and her things, and if 
 he did not, then to be compelled to do so. 
 
 The Council (3) of Constantinople in Trullo 
 (a.d. 680-1) is the first oecumenical ai:thority 
 for assimilating betrothal to marriage, so far as 
 to make it adultei'y to marry a betrothed woman 
 in the life-time of her first betrothed. Now 
 about this period indeed betrothal becomes a 
 very frequent subject of church legislation or 
 church jurisprudence. One of the canons (105) 
 of a Council held in England, under Archbishop 
 Theodore, towards the end of the 7th century, 
 provides that if a man after betrothing to him¬ 
 self a wife, wdll not live with her, he shall restore 
 the money given to him and add a third to it. 
 Another (129) forbids parents to give a betrothed 
 girl to another “ if she resist altogether,” but 
 they may send her to a convent (for this seems the 
 cruel sense of the enactment). A collection of 
 canons of the Irish Church, supposed to be also 
 of the end of this century, enacts, somewhat 
 singularly, that when betrothed girls have been 
 dishonoured by other men, they are to be bought 
 and given back to their first betrothed (bk. xli. 
 c. 37). The “Excerpt” of Pope Gregory III. 
 (a.d. 731-41) mentions five years, “ or more 
 humanely three,” as the penance for attempting 
 to seduce another’s betrothed. In the case (which 
 is that mentioned in the 25th canon of the Council 
 of Ancyra) of a man seducing the sister of his 
 betrothed, and of his victim killing herself, all 
 who are implicated in the deed must do ten years’ 
 penance, or some say seven (c. 18). The first 
 Council of Rome under Pope Zacharias, A.D. 743, 
 anathematizes those who rashly presume to steal 
 a maid or widow for their wife, unless betrothed 
 to them (can. 7). The Carlovingian Capitularies 
 enact that a betrothed girl ravished by another 
 man is to be given back to her former betrothed, 
 but that in case of his refusing to take her she 
 may marry a stranger, but not her ravisher, 
 under pain of anathema (c. 124), and follow 
 generally in the tracts of the spurious lettei’s of 
 Evaristus and Siricius. 
 
 Finally, the reply of Pope Nicolas to the 
 Bulgarians in 860, shows that at the eml of the 
 9th century the form of betrothal had become 
 confined to the placing of the ring, by way of 
 earnest, on the woman’s finger, and her endow¬ 
 ment by the man in the presence of invited 
 witnesses, a greater or less interval separating 
 betrothal from marriage. 
 
 If we are not mistaken, the history of the 8 or 
 9 first centuries shows in the Church a gradual 
 recession from the freedom both of the Jewish 
 and of the Roman law upon the subject of be¬ 
 trothal. Two causes seem to have operated to 
 produce this result,—on the one hand, the in¬ 
 fluence of the barbarian codes, which generally 
 look upon the w'oman more or less as the property 
 of her father, if not of her family generally,—on 
 the other, that of the growing spirit of asceticism 
 in reference to the relations between the sexes, 
 leading to the encroachment of the Church upon 
 the domain of the civil power as respects the 
 whole subject of marriage, and thereby again 
 fostering restrictive church legislation with all 
 its attendant covetousnesses and corruptions. 
 The Carlovingian era, with which we break 
 off, is that of the first establishment of this 
 system. [J. M. L.] 
 
 BEZIEKS, COUNCIL OF (Biterrexse 
 Concilium), provincial, a.d. 356, summoned by 
 command of the Emperor Constantins, under 
 Saturninus, Bishop of Arles; one of those minor 
 Councils of the West, at which an attempt was 
 made to condemn St. Athanasius. St. Hilary of 
 Poitiers, who defended the orthodox cause, was 
 shortly afterwards banished to Phrygia by the 
 emperor through the false dealing of Saturninus 
 (S. Hilar. Pictav., De Synod. § 2, Ad Constant. § 2, 
 0pp. ii. 460, 563 ; Hieron. Ee Scriptt. Eccl.c .; 
 Sulp. Sever. H. E. ii.; Labb. v. 783). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BIBIANA, martyr at Rome; commemorated 
 Dec. 2 (Jia/’f. Rom. Vet.') ; as Viviana (J/«;-f. 
 Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 BIBLE, USE OF IN SERVICES. [Ca¬ 
 nonical Books; Epistle; Gospel; Lectionarv ; 
 Prophecy.] 
 
 BIBLIOTHECA. [Library.] 
 
 BIDDING-PRAYER. This term is used by 
 Bingham to designate a prayer of a particular 
 form uttered by the Deacon in the Liturgy. As, 
 however, the modern English Bidding-Prayer 
 appears to be of mediaeval origin, it seems best 
 to treat of the ancient prayer under its proper 
 designation [Prosphonesis]. [C.] 
 
 BIGAMY. Under this head we shall desig- 
 nate only, according to modern usage, the case 
 of matrimonial union to two persons at the same 
 time; premising that until the beginning of the 
 17th century, at least, the term was applied to 
 all cases of second marriage, whether during 
 the existence of a prior union or after its dis¬ 
 solution ; the word “ polygamj'^ ” being applied 
 to the former case. Thus Sir E. Coke in his 3rd 
 Institute (p. 88) writes: “The difference be¬ 
 tween bigamy or trigamy and polygamy, is quia 
 bigamus scu trigaynus, etc., est qui diversis tem- 
 poribus et successive duas seu t?'es, etc., uxorcs 
 habuit : polygamus qui duas vel plures shnul 
 duxit uxores the distinction being thus made 
 entirely to turn on the simultaneous or successive 
 nature of the marriage relations. [Digamy.] 
 
BIGAMY 
 
 BIGAMY 
 
 205 
 
 It is of course not from Jewish precedent that 
 Chrstendom has borrowed its condemnation ot 
 bigamy. The foundation of the Church’s law 
 in this matter lies in the teaching of our Lord, 
 Matt. xix. 4 and foil.; Mark x. 5 and foil., and 
 in the developments of that teaching by St. Paul. 
 (Compare also, as an early and quite consonant 
 authority, Hermas, Bk. ii. Mand. 4; likewise 
 Almost. Const. Bk. vi. c. 14.) In church practice 
 indeed it has been always contested whether the 
 expressions in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; Tit. i. 6, which 
 our version renders “ husband ” or “ husbands 
 of one wife,” apply to simultaneous marriages 
 only, or to successive marriages as well. The 
 ordinary Protestant interpretation assigns to 
 'them the more restricted meaning; but this 
 conclusion will probably appear the more doubt¬ 
 ful, the more Christian antiquity and the usages 
 of the time are studied. Whatever might be 
 Jewish theory on the subject, there is no hint 
 whateA’er in the New Testament at either bigamy 
 or polygamy as a Jewish practice, and neither 
 was certainly legal in either Ephesus or in Crete, 
 when the Epistles above referred to were written 
 to the respective bishops of those churches. Mo¬ 
 nogamy w'as the law both of Greece and of Rome. 
 So long therefore as the Roman power subsisted, 
 the monogamy inculcated by the Church was also 
 enforced by the law. The influence upon this 
 state of things of the barbarian invasions must 
 have been very various. Tacitus notes of the 
 ancient Germans that “ almost alone among the 
 barbarians they content themselves with one 
 wife, except a very few, who not through lust 
 but for honour’s sake enter into several mar¬ 
 riages ” (^Gcrm. 18). His words, however, appear 
 to have applied more or less to all the Teutonic 
 races. On the other hand, among the Celtic 
 races, or those mixed with them, e.g. the Britons, 
 Scots, and Hibernians of our own islands,—a com¬ 
 munity of wives or something closely equivalent 
 to it is testifled to by Caesar, Jerome, and Strabo. 
 Subjection to Rome, the preaching of Christianity, 
 did not suffice to introduce monogamic habits, 
 and we find Gildas lamenting that his countrv- 
 men were not restrained by polygamy from fre¬ 
 quenting harlots (quam plurimas uxores haben- 
 tes, sed scortantes). Monogamy seems to have 
 been equally unknown to the Slavonic races, as 
 well as to the Tartar; Attila’s harem is well 
 known. It is also to be presumed that the 
 weakening of the Roman power in Asia allowed 
 old polygamic practices, familiar to Orientals, 
 to revive. With these preliminary observations 
 we shall endeavour to trace briefly the course of 
 Church legislation on the subject. 
 
 The first authority we find is a doubtful one— 
 that of those Canons attributed to the Council of 
 Nicaea (a.d. 325), which are only to be found in 
 the Arabic version. The 24th of these (2(ith in 
 the version of the Maronite Abraham Echellensis) 
 bears that “ none ought to marry two wives at 
 once, nor to bring in to his wife another woman 
 for pleasure and fleshly desire.” If a priest, such 
 person is to be forbidden to officiate and excluded 
 from communion, until such time as he cast out 
 the second, whilst he ought to retain the first; 
 and so of a layman. The 66th Canon (71st of 
 the Echellensian version) enters in still more 
 detail into the case of a priest or deacon taking 
 another wife, whether free or slave, without 
 having dismissed the first, the penalty being 
 
 deposition; or for a layman in the same sin, 
 excommunication. The 67th Canon again (22nd 
 Echellensian) enacts that whosoever shall have 
 accepted two women at once in marriage shall 
 himself be excommunicated with his second wife. 
 It is difficult to attribute Nicene authority to 
 these Canons, which show so vividly tlie corrup¬ 
 tions that grew up in the more distant Oriental 
 churches. But whether illustrative of the dege¬ 
 neracy of Arabian Christendom before the rise of 
 Mohammedanism in the 7th century, or of the 
 influence of Mohammedan polygamy itself upon 
 it at a later period, they are not the less valuable. 
 The tradition of a condemnation of bigamy by 
 the Nicene fathers appears also from the sin¬ 
 gular collection attributed to them, from a Vati¬ 
 can Codex, intitled by Labbe and Mansi (see vol. 
 ii. p. 1029 and foil.), “ Sanctiones et decreta alia 
 ex quatuor regum ad Constantinum libris de- 
 cerpta.” The 5th chapter of the 1st book bears 
 that “to no Christian is it lawful to have two 
 or more wives at once, after the manner of the 
 Gentiles, who marry three or four at once; but 
 one is to be married after the other, that is, the 
 contract is to be made with a second after the 
 death of the first.” If any dares to go counter 
 to this prohibition, he is to be excommunicated. 
 Reference is made to the holy fathers assem¬ 
 bled in the Council, and the enactment is declared 
 to be binding on all Christians, whether laymen 
 or clerics, priests, deacons, princes, kings and 
 emperors. 
 
 'rhe “ Sanctions and Decrees,” whatever be 
 their authority, belong evidently to the Eastern 
 Church. But from the canonical epistle of Basil 
 to Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, the spurious¬ 
 ness both of the above quoted canons from the 
 Arabic, and of the “Sanctions and Decrees,” so 
 far as they claim Nicene authority, may be in¬ 
 ferred, since he says that the subject of polygamy 
 has been pretermitted by the fathers, assigning 
 a four years’ penance for it before the ofi'ender 
 can be admitted to communion (C. Ixxx.). 
 
 The practice of the West, except in far out- 
 lying provinces, seems to have been generally 
 more strict than in the East, and we have thus to 
 infer the spirit of the Western Church towards 
 bigamy chiefly from enactments against concu¬ 
 binage. The first Council of 'foledo (a.d. 400) 
 excludes from communion a man having a faith¬ 
 ful wife and a concubine, but not one who has 
 a concubine and no wife, so long as he contents 
 himself with one woman (c. 17). Passing over 
 an alleged decree of Pope Celestin (a.d. 423—32), 
 which declares that a second wife married against 
 church forbiddance is not a wife, although the 
 first should not have been betrothed (c. 4, 
 Gratian); we should notice a letter (12) of Leo 
 the Great (a.d. 440-61), addressed to the African 
 bishops of the province of Mauritania Caesariensis, 
 which speaks of an actual case of bigamy in the 
 priesthood of that province. Neither apostolic 
 nor legal authority, it says, allow the husband 
 of a second wife to be raised to the pastoral 
 office, much less him who, “ as it has been re¬ 
 lated to us, is the husband of two wives at once ” 
 (c. 5). Another letter of Leo’s (dated 458 or 9), 
 to Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne, is probably the 
 first authority for the lower modern view of the 
 coQCubinate. Not every woman united to a 
 man is the man’s wife, for neither is every son 
 his father’s heir. . . . Therefore a wife is one 
 
206 
 
 BIGAMY 
 
 BIGAMY 
 
 thing, a concubine another; as a han«lmaid is 
 one thing, a freewoman another. . . Wherefore 
 if a clerk of any place give his daughter in 
 marriage to a man having a concubine, it is 
 not to be taken as if he gave her to a married 
 man; unless haply the woman appear to have 
 been made free, and lawfully jointured and 
 restored to honour by a public marriage (c. 4). 
 Those who by their father’s will are married 
 to men are not in fault if the women which 
 such men had were not had in marriage (c. 5). 
 Since a wife is one thing, a concubine another, 
 to cast from one’s bed the bondmaid and to 
 receive a wife of ascertained free birth is not a 
 doubling of marriage, but a progress in honour¬ 
 able conduct (c. 6).—The Council of Angers in 
 4o.i enacts excommunication against those who 
 abuse the name of marriage with other men’s 
 wives in the lifetime of their husbands (c. 6). 
 That of Vannes (a.d. 465) deals in the same way 
 with those who having wives, except by reason of 
 fornication, and without proof of adultery, marry 
 others,—both enactments, however, pointing per¬ 
 haps rather to marriage after separation. 
 
 Towards the same period, however (latter 
 half of the 5th century), we must notice a Nes- 
 torian Synod held in Persia, under the presidency 
 of Barsumas Archbishop of Isisibis, as affording 
 probably the first instance of what may be called 
 the modern Protestant interpretation of the 
 Pauline yuidy yvvaiKhs avr]p. A priest, its canons 
 declare, “ should be one who has one wife, as 
 it is said in the Apostle’s Epistle to Timothy, 
 • Whoever marries, let him have one wife;’ if 
 he transgresses, he is to be separated from the 
 Church and the priestly order. But if a priest 
 not knowing marriage, or whose wife is dead, 
 should w'ish for lawful marriage, let him not be 
 forbidden by the bishop, whether he have wished 
 to marry before or after his priesthood.” Any 
 one w'ho contravenes these canons is anathe¬ 
 matized, and if a priest, to be deposed (see Labbe 
 and Mansi, Cone., vol. viii. pp. 143—4). It is 
 clear that the Nestorians in this case interpreted 
 St. Paul as speaking not of successive but of 
 simultaneous mandage. That this was not how¬ 
 ever the view of the Greek Church generally is 
 evident from many authorities ; see, for instance, 
 the Canons of the Council of Constantinople in 
 Trullo, A.D. 691 and following years. 
 
 If Burchard’s collection is to be credited, a 
 canon (16) was adopted by the 4th or 5th Council 
 of Arles (a.d. 524 or 554) forbidding any man to 
 have two wives at once, or a concubine at any 
 time (sed neque unquam concubinam). A col¬ 
 lection of Irish Canons, supposed, to belong to 
 the close of the 7th century, shows that the 
 Celtic kings of Ireland must, as in Britain in the 
 days of Gildas, have had regular harems. The 
 barbarous Latin title of one of its chapters 
 (bk. xxiv., c. vii.) is, “ De rege non habente 
 uxores plurimas,” and the Synod is represented 
 as enacting (if the term can be used) as follows: 
 
 According as is the dignity which the king 
 receives, so great should be his fear; for many 
 women deprave his soul, and his mind, divided 
 by the multitude of his wives, falls greatly into 
 sin.” 
 
 To the 8th century belongs one of the most 
 curious incidents in the treatment of this question 
 by the Church. In a letter of Pope Gregory II. 
 (a.d. 714—30) to Boniface, the Apostle of Ger¬ 
 
 many, written in answer to a series of questions 
 put to him by the latter, w'e find the Pope treat¬ 
 ing the case of a wife, who through boduy infir¬ 
 mity becomes incapable of fulfilling the conjugal 
 duty. Can the husband in such an event take 
 a second wife ? The Pope replies, that it is good 
 for him to remain united to her. “ But he who 
 cannot contain ” (referring evidently to 1 Cor. 
 vii. 9), “ let him marry ratherbut without 
 withdrawing maintenance “ from her whom in¬ 
 firmity hinders, but no detestable fault excludes” 
 from his bed—a decision closely akin to that of 
 Luther and the Protestant theologians in the 
 case of the Landgrave of Hesse. Further on (c. 
 6) the Pope condemns bigamy generally, “ since 
 that is not rightly to be deemed marriage which 
 exceeds the number of two, for the yoke is not 
 borne except by two” (quia nisi in duobus non 
 geritur jugum)—not a very complimentary argu¬ 
 ment in favour of monogamy (6'. Bonif. Epistt. 
 ed. Wurdtwein, No. 24). 
 
 We find the question of the lawfulness of a 
 second marriage in case of a wife’s bodily in¬ 
 firmity recurring in a work not of much later 
 date than Pope Gregory’s letter to Boniface, 
 Archbishop Egbert of York’s Dialogue on Church 
 Government (^Dialogus per interrogationes et 
 responsiones de institutione ecclesiasticd). The 
 archbishop is however more cautious than the 
 Pope. He puts the case (c. 13) only in the shape 
 of a dissolution of the marriage tie by agree¬ 
 ment of both parties (ex convenientia ambo- 
 rum), because of the infirmity of one of them ; 
 can the healthy one marry again, the infirm one 
 consenting, and promising continence ? The 
 archbishop implies that he may : “ By change of 
 times necessity breaks the law ... in doubtful 
 cases one should not judge (in ambiguis non est 
 ferenda sententia).” 
 
 Another example in the 8th century, though 
 bearins: rather on concubinage than on bigamv, 
 is to be found in certain replies reported to have 
 been given by Pope Stephen HI., whilst he was 
 in France, in the town of Kierzy, at the Breton 
 monastery (in Carisiaco villa Brittannico monas- 
 terio), to various questions addressed to him a.d. 
 754. He expressed his approval of Pope Leo’s 
 view as to the propriety of dismissing a bond¬ 
 maid concubine and marrying a freewoman, and 
 (c. 3) in further reply to a case put to him of a 
 man marrying a bondmaid in a foreign country, 
 then returning to his own and marrying a free¬ 
 woman, then again going back to the former 
 country and finding his bondmaid wife manned 
 to another, gave it as his opinion that “ such a 
 one may take another bondmaid (is potest aliam 
 accipere),” but not in the lifetime of the free 
 wife. 
 
 The relaxation of the sanctity of the marriage 
 tie in the Carolingian era seems indeed to have 
 become extreme. This mav be inferred, for in- 
 stance, from the frequency of enactments for¬ 
 bidding manned men to have concubines, for 
 which see Ansegis, bk. vi. cc. 230, 433, and again 
 bk. vii. c. 338, the last garnished with the some¬ 
 what naif alignment, “lest love of the concubine 
 detach the man from his wife.” A contemporary 
 capitulary (a.d. 774) by Arechis Prince of Benc- 
 vento, forbids a man having a lawful wife to give 
 aught by any device to his sons or daughters 
 born during her life of another unlawful wife 
 (c. 8), an enactment which seemingly points at 
 
BIOTHANATOS 
 
 BIRD 
 
 207 
 
 practices aA’^owedly bigamous. The dismissal of 
 wives by the Carolingian sovereigns, in order to 
 marry others, becomes likewise so common that 
 it is almost impossible to distinguish between 
 patent bigamy and bigahiy veiled under the name 
 of divorce. At the summit of the Carolingian 
 world the great emperor, besides actual and 
 divorced wives, sets the law at defiance by keep¬ 
 ing concubines. The East was even below the 
 West in servility towards the vices of the sove¬ 
 reign. In the year 809 a Council of Constan¬ 
 tinople pronounced a second marriage of the 
 reigning emperor Constantine, after sending his 
 first wife to a convent, lawful, on the ground 
 that “ the Divine law can do nothing against 
 kings.” 
 
 The reader is referred to the head Digamy for 
 the further consideration of this subject; in the 
 meanwhile we may conclude that, whilst the 
 church of the eight or nine first centuries never 
 formally sanctioned simultaneous marriage rela¬ 
 tions with two persons, it yet sometimes indi¬ 
 rectly permitted them in outlying provinces in 
 the case of a ivife’s infirmity, and certainly was 
 not powerful enough to check them among the 
 great of the ruder races, nor probably generally 
 in the Carolingian era. [J. M. L.] 
 
 BIOTHANATOS (fiioeduaros), “ Qui morte 
 violenta peril,” says Suicer, siih v. : as if it had 
 been contracted from “ biaiothanatos,” which 
 is the definition of “ ol PioOauarovvTes” given by 
 St. Chrysostom in disputing against the opinion 
 that the souls of such after death become 
 demons (De Lazaro Serm. ii. § 1; Op. vol. i. 
 
 р. 727 ; Ed. Montf. Comp. Tertull. De Animd, 
 
 с. 57). According to Baronius, a.d. 138, n. 4-5, 
 it was one of the terms applied to Christians 
 generally by way of reproach for preferring to 
 lose their lives sooner than deny Christ: an 
 application that would have been unmeaning 
 had not the prominent notion attached to the 
 word all along been that of people laying violent 
 hands upon themselves; and hence, according to 
 the story told by Cassein (Collat. iii. 6 ; comp. 
 Ins. viii. 14), a monk who had thrown himself 
 into a well under temptation of the devil, and 
 been drowned, was all but reckoned by his abbot 
 among such, as being unworthy to be commemo¬ 
 rated among those who had gone to their rest 
 in peace. Pagan moralists, we are told by 
 Mr. Lecky (Europ. Mor. ii. 46, et seq.), con¬ 
 demned suicide upon four grounds. “ Christian 
 theologians,” he adds, “ were the first to main¬ 
 tain dogmatically that a man who destroys his 
 own life has committed a crime similar both in 
 kind and in magnitude to that of an ordinary 
 
 murderer.On the other hand, the high 
 
 position assigned to resignation in the moral 
 scale, . . . and, above all, the Christian doctrine 
 of the remedial and providential character of 
 suffering, have proved sufficient protection 
 against despair. Enthusiasm, in eaidy times, 
 indeed, animated many to court martyrdom; 
 and Christian women were honoured, or at least 
 excused, for committing suicide to guard their 
 ehastity. But this feeling died away with the 
 occasions which evoked it, and even asceticism 
 was gradually subjected to rule, when experience 
 had shown the extreme limits to which it could 
 be carried without injury to the constitution.” 
 The “ Gircumcelhones” a wild sect of the Dona- 
 tists, ai‘e frequently rej>roached for looking upon 
 
 suicide in the light of a virtue by St. Augustine 
 (Cont. Ep. Farm. iii. 6 ; Brev. Coll, cum Don. 
 Die iii. c. 8, § 13, &c.). By the 16th canon of 
 the first Council of Braga, A.D. 560 (Mansi ix. 
 774^84, and Pagi, ibid.), those who committed 
 it in any way “ were neither to be comme¬ 
 morated at the oblation, nor to be carried to the 
 gi'ave with psalm-singing.” Comp. Gratian, 
 Decret. Part ii. cause 23, 9. 5: where this canon 
 and other passages in point are cited. [E. S. Ff.] 
 BIRD (as symbol). The birds re})resented in 
 the earliest Christian art are generally dis¬ 
 tinguished by their species [see Dove, Eagle, 
 Phoenix, &c.]. This is not only the case in the 
 early sarcophaguses and frescoes of the catacombs, 
 but it is specially remarkable in the first gothic 
 works of the Lombard churches in the North of 
 Italy. See Ruskin (^Stones of Venice, Appendix, 
 vol. i., Byzantine and Lombard Carvings) where 
 early Lombard work is contrasted with Byzan¬ 
 tine. But in the very earliest tombs (see Aringhi, 
 ii. 324, and De Rossi almost passim, Bottari 
 t. 178 viii. tav. 174, &c.) birds assignable to no 
 particular species are introduced, apparently with 
 symbolic purpose. In De Rossi they occur so 
 often on tombs, with or without the palm bi'anch, 
 that they may clearh'’ be taken as images of the 
 released soul seeking its home in heaven. Aringhi 
 recognizes this in a passage of some beauty 
 (ii. 324); he takes the lightness and aerial nature 
 of the Bird as a symbol of the aspiration of 
 faithful spirits “ quorum jugis potissimum con- 
 versatio, ut Apostolus ait, in coelis est ” (see also 
 Ps. cxxiii. 6 of the released soul). He refers to 
 Bede who says “ Volucres sunt qui sursum cor 
 habent, et coelestia concupiscunt; ” and who 
 looks on the bird also as a sign of the resurrec¬ 
 tion. The faithful, like birds “ obviam Xti in 
 acre ex mortuis sunt ituri.” [Note the curious 
 analogy of the Psyche-butterfly, and comj)are 
 with it Hadrian’s “ Animula vagula, blandula,” 
 &c., as if addressed to a thing of uncertain flight.] 
 Caged birds are occasionally found in paintings or 
 other representations (Bokletti, p. 154, tav. vi.). 
 They are supposed to represent the human soul 
 in the prison of the flesh, or they may be emblems 
 of the imprisonment of a martyr. Martigny 
 describes a mosaic in the tribune of Sta. Maria in 
 Transtevere, in Rome, where one of these cages is 
 placed near the prophet Jeremiah, with inscrip¬ 
 tion “Christus Dominus captus est in peccatis 
 nostris ; ” and another by Isaiah, with the words 
 “Ecce virgoconcipiet et pariet filium”—referring 
 thus to the Passion and the Incarnation of our 
 Lord. 
 
 The symbolism of the cross by a bird’s out¬ 
 spread ivings is Tertullian’s (^De Oratione, c. 29 
 [al. 24]): Herzog conjectures that the pictures 
 or carvings of birds with flowers and fruits 
 combined are symbolic of Paradise. In the 
 illustrations to Le Plant’s 31SS. Ckre'tiennes de 
 la Gaule nondescript birds are found almost 
 passim, generally in pairs on each side of the 
 monogram of Christ, and almost ahvays with 
 the letters A u, which appear more frequently 
 in the ancient documents of Christian France. 
 
 Pail’S of drinking birds, peacocks (see s. v.), 
 and also of conventional shape, are still to be 
 seen among the most ancient fragments of By¬ 
 zantine domestic sculpture in Venice (Stones of 
 Venice, ii. 138, plate xi.). They may be carried 
 back to the 11th or 12th century, perhap.s : at 
 
208 
 
 BIRRUS 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 till events they are clearly decorative repetitions 
 of the bird-symbols in the catacombs and earlier 
 monuments. [K. St. J. T.] 
 
 BIRRUS, al. BYRRHUS. (Bripos, Briplov.') 
 Tiie word Birrus or Burrus was an old Latin 
 word (Festus in voc.) equivalent to “ rufus ” or 
 red, and identical probably with the Greek irv^ftos. 
 So St. Isidore seems to have thought, though 
 late copyists, ignorant as most of them were of 
 Greek, have made nonsense of his text. “Birrus 
 a Graeco vocabulum trahit: illi enim birrum 
 bibrium (? iruppSu or B-ppiou) dicunt.” {Orig. lib. 
 XX. cap. 24.) No traces of the word, as the name 
 of a garment, are to be found before the Christian 
 era. The earliest known instance of such an use 
 is in Artemidorus (early in 2nd century). Speak¬ 
 ing of the significance of various articles of 
 dress, when seen in dreams, he says that the 
 Chlamys (a short military cloak), “ which some 
 call Mandyas, others Ephestris, others ^Tjp'iou, 
 portends trouble and ditficulty, and to prisoners 
 under trial portends condemnation, by reason 
 that it compasses about and confines the body ” 
 (Oneirocritica, lib. ii. cap. 3). Other writers 
 identify it with the “ amphibalus ” (q. v.). 
 “Birrus: amphibalus villosus,” says Papias. 
 And the author of the life of St. Deicolus (^Acta 
 SS. Ord. Bened. saec. 2, p. 105), “ Birrum .... 
 quern Graeci amphibalum vocant.” A fresco 
 in the cemetery of Pontianus (Aringhi, Roma 
 Sotterranea, tom. i. p. 383), in which are repre¬ 
 sented three laymen, SS. Milix, Abdon, and 
 Sennes, and one ecclesiastic, St. Vicentius, Avill 
 probably give a good idea of the dilference be¬ 
 tween the Chlamys, the Birrus, and the Casula 
 (or Planeta). St. Milix is represented wearing 
 a Chlamys; Abdon and Sennes a heavy cloak 
 reaching from the shoulders to the back of the 
 knee, and in form dift'ering but little from the 
 Chlamys (see woodcut, p. 8). But the Birrus 
 (if such be the garment intended) is provided 
 with a hood, or cowl, for wearing over the 
 head, as were most such outer garments when 
 intended, as was the Birrus, for out-door use. 
 And this hood is here represented as worn 
 on the head. Such a rough Birrus as this 
 was allowed to be worn by slaves under the 
 provisions of the Theodosian Code (Lex 1, de 
 Habitu, speaking of them as viles birri). And 
 hence some have inferred, though wronglv, that 
 the Birrus was at that time regarded as a gar¬ 
 ment suitable only for persons of the lowest 
 class. This was not so. There were “ viles 
 birri,” cheap cloaks, such as those here allowed 
 as a privilege to slaves; there were “ pretiosi 
 birri,” costly cloaks, such as those of which St. 
 Augustine says that they might perhaps be fitting 
 for a bishop, but not fitting for Augustine, “ a 
 poor man, as his parents had been poor before 
 him ” (Sermo de Biversis, 356, tom. v. p. 1579). 
 From the 4th century onward the mention of the 
 Birrus is not unfrequent, as of an out-door dress 
 used alike by laymen (St. Augustin. De Verbis 
 Apost. Serm. xviii. cap. 10) and by ecclesiastics.® 
 And in these later notices it is almost always 
 
 “ More particularly we hear of bishops wearing them 
 (as an out-door dress), St. Augustine, above cited, and De 
 vita C'ltricaruvi, Serna, ii.; Palladius, Hist. Lausaic. c. 136; 
 Gregor. Turon. Hi&t. Franc, lib. ii. 1. Many centuries 
 later we read of St. Thomas of Canterbury wearing a 
 Birrus (Anonymus de Miracalis S. Thomae Cantuarensis, 
 apud Ducange). 
 
 referred to as being either a somewhat expensive 
 dress, or as having a certain secular character 
 attaching to it as compared with the dress worn 
 by monks. Thus Cassianus (circ. 418 A.D.) 
 describing the dress of monks, says {De Habitu 
 Monach. lib. i. cap. 7) that they avoid the costli¬ 
 ness and the pretence to dignity implied in the 
 Planeta and the Birrus (Planeticarum simul 
 atque birrorum pretia simul et ambitionem de- 
 clinant). And St. Isidore in like manner couples 
 together the Planeta and the Birrus as garments 
 which are not allowable to monks (Linteo non 
 licet Monachum indui. Orarium, biiTos, planetas, 
 non est fas uti, Regula, cap. 13). And this will 
 account for the peculiar language of the 12th 
 Canon of the Council of Gangra (a. 319), warn¬ 
 ing men against attributing too much importance 
 to the monastic dress for its own sake, and 
 despising those ivho wore “ birri ” (rovs ^rjpous 
 (popovvras). Towards the close of the 6th cen¬ 
 tury we find St. Gregory the Great using the 
 term “ Birrus albus ” in speaking of the white 
 “ Christening-Cloak ” worn by the newly bap¬ 
 tized (Lib. vii. Indict, i. Epist. 5). And the 
 word has many descendants in mediaeval Latin, 
 such as Birettum, Birreta, Birrati (the Car¬ 
 melite Monks, “ Les Freres Barrez,” were so 
 called); and in old French, as “Bure” coarse 
 cloth. Bureau (Fr. and Eng.), a table covered 
 with coarse cloth, such as was used for official 
 business (Menage). [W. B. M.] 
 
 BIRTHDAYS OF SAIXTS. [Festivai^s.] 
 
 BISHOP. Names and titles. Origin of the 
 office. 
 
 I. Appointment. 
 
 1. Election. 
 
 a. Who elected. Who were eligible, y. Time, 
 mode, and place of election. 
 
 2. Confirmation. 
 
 3. Ordination. 
 
 o. Matter and form. /3. Ordainers. y. Place 
 and time of ordination. 6. Register of ordi* 
 nations. 
 
 4. Enthronization. 
 
 6. Oatiis. 
 
 a. Piofession of obedience to metropolitan. )3. 
 Oath of allegiance to the emperor or king, 
 y. Oath against simony. 
 
 II. Removal. 
 
 1. By translation. 
 
 2. By resignation. 
 
 a. Simply. /3. In favour of a successor, y. So 
 far as to obtain a coadjutor. 
 
 3. By deposition, absolute or temporary. 
 
 A. For what cause. 
 
 a. Of irregularities which vitiated the con¬ 
 secration ab initio. /3. Of such as en¬ 
 tailed deposition from the office already 
 conferred, y. Of such as also entailed 
 excommunication. 8. Of such as entailed 
 only suspension. 
 
 B. By what authority. 
 
 III. Offices and Functions, in relation to the 
 
 Church. 
 
 1. Spiritual, arising from his office as bishop. 
 
 a. Singly, in respect to his own diocese. 
 
 i. Ordination, ii. Confinnation. iii. Admi¬ 
 nistration of sacraments, iv. Preaching. 
 V. Discipline, vi. Creeds, liturgy, church 
 worship, &c., and church affairs gene¬ 
 rally. vii. Visitation of Diocese. viiL 
 Was the representative of the diocese: 
 1. in issuing litterae formatae; 2. in 
 communicating with other dioceses, ix. 
 Alms and church property, x. Patron¬ 
 age of benefices in the diocese, xi. Ar¬ 
 bitration of lawsuits, xii. How far 
 allowed to act out of his own diocese, 
 xiii. A Biugle bishop to each diocese« 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 209 
 
 (See under the 
 several articles.) 
 
 and a single diocese to each bishop, 
 xiv. Size oi dioceses, their union, subdi¬ 
 vision, &c. XV. Residence. 
 
 /3. Jointly, in synod, in respect to his province. 
 
 ■y. Collectively, in general council, in respect to 
 the Church at large. 
 
 2. Temporal, conferred by the state. 
 
 1. Judicial authority in secular causes, ii. Be¬ 
 came a member of state councils vvitena- 
 gemots, &c. iil. Authority over subordinate 
 civil magistrates, iv. Protection of minors, 
 widows, prisoners, &c. v, Oflice of crowning 
 emperor or king. vi. Not sworn in a court 
 of justice, vii. Intercession for criminals, 
 vlii. Special legal protection of his life and 
 property, ix. Exemption from jurisdiction 
 of civil courts, x. Legal force of synodical 
 di cisions and canons, xi. But restricted also 
 by law or canon in various ways: as, 1. in 
 the disposing of his property by will; 2. in 
 the reading of heathen or of heretical books; 
 
 3. in ways of living; 4. in the matter of | 
 fiscal burdens, military service, &c. xii. Of 
 the education given in the bishop’s b'luse, 
 
 3. Social and honorary iirivileges. 
 
 i. Of bowing the head, kissing the hands and the 
 feet, &c. ii. Mitre, ring, pastoral staff, and 
 other vestments and insignia, iii Of sing¬ 
 ing Hosannas before him. iv. Of the phrase 
 “ Corona tua.” v. Of the bishop’s throne, &c. 
 vi. Bishops attended by two presbyters, &c, 
 
 IV. / osition, in relation to other bishops. 
 
 1. All in their inherent oflice equal —litterae commu- 
 
 nicatoriae —order of precedence. 
 
 2. Archbishop, primate, metropolitan, exarch, pa¬ 
 
 triarch, pope. (See under the several articles.) 
 
 3. Special cases, as In Africa and at Alexandria. 
 
 4. AuTOKec/joAoi. 
 
 6. Chorepiscopi. 
 
 6. Suffragans. 
 
 7. Coadjutors. 
 
 8. Intercessores and inter- 
 
 ven tores. 
 
 9. Comtnendatarli. 
 
 V. Anomalous cases. 
 
 1. Episcopi vagantes, <rxoAafi)i/Tes, ambulantes, &c. 
 
 2. Monastic bishops. 
 
 3. Antistes palatii. 
 
 4. Episcopus cardinalis. 
 
 6. Epi.scopus regionarius. 
 
 6. Titular bishops, and inpartibus infidelium. 
 
 7. Episcopus ordinum. 
 
 8. Libra, as the collective name of the suffragans of 
 
 the see of Rome. 
 
 9. Lay holders of bishoprics. 
 
 10. Episcopi Fatuorum—Innocentium—Puerorum. 
 
 (Authoriiies.) 
 
 Bishop (’ETrltr/coTros, a term adopted by the 
 Christian Church through the LXX. usage of it, 
 and first by the Hellenic portion of the Church, 
 iTTKTKOTrT] [Acts i. 20] being formed from it to 
 express the office) = in the Acts, in St. Paul's 
 Epistles, and in the contemporary St. Clement of 
 Rome (but wrongly so interpreted in the spurious 
 Epist. of St. Ignatius to Hero, cc. iii. viii.), first 
 an appellative (Acts xx. 28), and then an inter¬ 
 changeable title, of the irpeafivrepoi, who minis¬ 
 tered to the several Churches under the Apostles : 
 but from the earliest years of the 2ud century, 
 and from St. Ignatius onwards, the distinctive 
 name, adopted as such in evei*y language used 
 
 ? ^ ■» 
 
 by Christians, Eastern (Syidac, | • 
 
 X ? 
 
 Arabic, Ethiopic, I Coptic, 
 
 ItlCniCKOnOC) as well as Western (Scan¬ 
 dinavian and Teutonic, as well as Latinized), of 
 the single president of a diocese (irapoiKia, Sioi- 
 XTjo-xs), who came in the room of the Apostles, 
 having presbyters, deacons, and laity under him, 
 and possessing exclusive power of ordination, and 
 primarily of confirmation, with primary authority 
 in the administration of the sacraments and of 
 
 CHRlSr. ANT. 
 
 di.scipline (St. Ignat, ad Folycarp. init. and v. vi. 
 viii.; ad Ephes. i. ii. ; Martyr. S. Ignat. § iii.; 
 Martyr. S. Folycarp. § xvi.; Polycrates ap. Euseb. 
 H. E. V. 24; Hadrian. Imper. Epist. ap. Vopisc. 
 in V. Saturnin. ; Hennas Pastor, 17.9. iii. 5; 
 Murator. Canon, p. 20, ed. Tregelles [of Pius, 
 bishop of Rome]; Hegesipp. ap. Euseb. II. E. ii. 
 23 [of St. James of Jerusalem], and iv. 22 [of 
 Symeon of Jerusalem, A.D. 69]; Dion. Cor. ap. 
 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23 [of Dionysius (appointed by 
 St. Paul), Publius, Quadratus, of Athen.s]; St. 
 Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. 13, and ap. Euseb. II. E. 
 
 ii. 1; &c.&c.&c.):—“Episcopi ” being thenceforth 
 occasionally still called “ presbyteri,” but not 
 vice versa [see, however, St. Clem. Alex. Quis 
 Dives Salvetur, xlii. and Tertull. de Fraescript. 
 
 iii. ]; see Pearson,• Ffnxfxc. Ignat, ii. 13, pp. 547, 
 sq. ed. Churton:—TJre •yap recos iKoivwvovv 
 ovSfjLan" \onrhr 8e rh lS'ia(^ov ^udaTcp a-Kovivi- 
 IX'grai ovofia, ^ETTiaKSTrov’ETncrKOTra}, irpecr^vTipov 
 TTpea^vTfpcp (St. Chrys. in Fhil. 1, Horn. i.). 
 
 Called also Apostolus at first, but for so short a 
 time as to leave little more than a tradition of the 
 fact (Theodor. Mopsuest. in 1 Tim. iii. 1, ap. Rab. 
 Maur. vi. 604; Theodoret in 1 Tim. iii. 1, in Fhil. 
 i. 1, ii. 25; Ambrosiast. in Ephes. iv. 12, and 
 ap. Amalar. de Off. Eccl. ii. 13—N. T. usage, 
 as in Rom. xvi. 7, 2 Cor. viii. 23, Phil. ii. 25, 
 is indecisive). 
 
 Called likewise, but rarely after the fourth 
 century, by names applied also to presbyters 
 (cf. TTpoXardix^voi, 1 Thess. v. 12 and see Herm. 
 Past. T7s. ii. 4; ^yovy^voi, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, and 
 see Herm. Past. Vis. ii. 2, iii. 9, St. Clem. Rom, 
 ad Cor. i. 21); as, e.g. npoeerTws or npoefTTws 
 rr,s 'EKKXiqaias (of bishops, in Euseb. H. E. iv. 
 23, vi. 3, 8, vii. 13, viii. 18, &c.; and probably 
 in St. Greg. Nyss. de Scopo Christian. Opp, iii. 
 306; of presbyters, in St. Greg. Naz. Orat. i,; 
 St. Basil. M. Feg. Moral. Ixx. 36; of bishops and 
 presbyters together, in Cone. Antioch, a.d. 341, 
 can. 1; the word is ambiguous in St. Justin IMart, 
 Apol. i. 67) ; Ylpoia’To.p.^vos (of bishops, in 
 Eusebius; or again, TTpoards, Euseb. vi. 10, 
 and so 6 TTpoaraTar "'AyyeXos, Oecum. et Areth. 
 in Apoc. ii. 1 ; and TTpoaracria of a bishopric, 
 Euseb. H. E. iv. 4, vi. 35; and of the presbyteratc 
 in St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 1; and St. Chrys. Horn. xi. 
 in 1 Tim. iii.); Tlpdedpos (of bishops, in Euseb. 
 a. E. viii. 2, &c.; Cone. Trull, cap. xxxvii.; and 
 TooeSp'ia a.TTQ(rro\iKy = a bishopric, Theodoret, 
 iii, 14 ; of presbyters in Euseb. H. E. x. 4, Synes. 
 Epist. xii.); Fraesidens (Tertull. de Cor. Mil. iii., 
 and Senior of both, id. Apol. 39); Fraepositus 
 (of bishops in St. Cypr. Epist. iii. ix. xiii., &c.; 
 St. Aug. de Trin. xv. 26, Epist. xiii.; of pres¬ 
 byters, in St. Cypr. Epist. 3, 21); Antistes (of 
 bishops repeatedly, as in Justinian’s Code, St. Gre¬ 
 gory the Great, &c. &c.; and so expressly Isidor. 
 Hispal. Etymol. VII. xii. § 16 ; of presbyters, as in 
 Ambrosiast. in 1 Tim. v.; of both bishop and pres¬ 
 byter, in St. Aug. Senn. 251 de Foenit.; but “ an- 
 tistes ordine in secundo” of a presbyter, by the 
 time ofSidon,Apollin. Epist.iv. 11); and sometimes 
 at first by the name itselfof np6cr/3uT6pos(St. Iren. 
 adv. Ilacr. III. ii, 2, IV. xxvi. 2, and ap. Euseb. 
 II. E. V. 24; St. Clem. Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, 
 xiii., who calls the same person both iiriaKoivos 
 and irpea’fivTfpos ); while St. Cyprian and St. Au¬ 
 gustin, after 1 Pet. v. 1, call presbyters “ com- 
 presbyteri nostri;” and 4th century writers, as 
 Ambrosiast. in 1 Tim. iii. 10, and the Qu. Vet. 
 
210 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 ct Kov. Test. ci. in Append, to St. Aug. III. ii. 93, 
 describe the bishop as “ primus presbyter ” or 
 “ inter presbyteros,” and speak of “ compres- 
 byteri ” and “ consaceixlotes ” (the use of “ prae- 
 latus” for bishop exclusively is altogether mo¬ 
 dern; but “ De Praelatorum Simplicitate ” was a 
 title of St. Cypr. de Unit. Ted.; and the word 
 is used bishops and presbyters together in 
 St. Greg. M. Reg. Pastoral.; it is used also of 
 an abbat, as in Cone. Suess. ii. A.D. 853). 
 
 Called also, and from an early date, by names 
 exclusively belonging to bishops specifically such, 
 as *'Apx^^*'> 01’ Princeps, Eeclesiae, or PojmU 
 (Origen, cont. Cels. iii.; Euseb. H. E. vi. 28, 
 viii. 1; St. Chrys. de Sacerd. iii. 14; St. Jerome 
 repeatedly; Paulinus, Epist. ad Alyp. xlv.; 
 Optat. i. p. 15, ed. 1679; and so apx^ for 
 bishopric, as e. g. in Eusebius, //. E. vi. 29); 
 or Princeps simply (St. Jerome in Ps. xlv. and 
 in Esai. lx. 17, &c.; and so in the 5th century 
 [or more prob. the 6th or 7th] St. Patrick’s 
 canons so styled, in D’Achery, and in Haddan 
 and Stubbs, Goiinc. ii.) ; Rector, as in Hilary the 
 Deacon, in Ephes. iv., and Greg. M. Reg. Pastor. ; 
 I^raesul (Pope Julius, Epist. ad Euseb. ap. Cou- 
 .stant, i. 382 [see Du Cange], and so Praesulatus 
 =. Episcopate in e. g. Cassiodor.) ; Upoyyov- 
 pevos and UpwTOKaOeSp'iTrjs (Herm. Past. Vis. iii. 
 9) ; netTras or Papa (especially, at first, in Africa, 
 Dion. Alex, ad Philem. in Euseb. H. E. vii. 7 ; 
 Tertull. de Pudic. xiii.; Letters of St. Cyprian, 
 St. Augustin, Sidon. Apollin. &c., and in St. Jerome, 
 Prudentius, Sulp. Severus, &c.—compare also 
 Abuna, in the Church of Abyssinia), used down to 
 a period later than Charlemagne (e. g. in Walafr. 
 Strab. de Reb. Eccl. vii., about A.D. 840, and 
 Eulog. Cordd). about a.d. 850) of all bishops 
 (Bingh. II. ii. 7 ; Casaubon, Exercit. xiv. § 4; 
 Thomassin, I. i. 4, 50; Suicer; Du Cange) ; and 
 in the East (as still in the Greek and Russian 
 Churches) of presbyters also, and especially of 
 abbats (but Goar’s distinction, Trairas = a bishop, 
 and TraTras = one of the loAver orders of clergy, 
 seems a refinement), but gradually restricted by 
 usage in the West to the bi.shop of Rome (see 
 Cone. Tolet. a.d. 400, Labbe, ii. 1227 ; Cone. Rom. 
 Palm. A.D. 503; and Ennodius, Lib. Apologet., 
 of the same date; Cone. Constantin, a.d. 681, 
 Act. 1 and 2 ; Gieseler refers to Jo. Diecmann, 
 de Vocis Papae Aetatibus, Viteberg. 1671), and 
 finally and absolutely so limited by Greg. VII. in 
 a Council of Rome, a.d. 1073 (Baron. Martyrol. 
 .Tan. 10); and in the East to the bi.shop of 
 Alexandria (Thomassin, I. i. 50, § 14, Du Cange; 
 but that it Avas granted formally to St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria by Pope Celestine [Niceph. xiv. 34] 
 is a manifest and confessed [Baron, as above] 
 fiction);—sometimes, again, in the 5th century, 
 *'A 77 €Aos (St. Aug. Epist. 142; St. Ambrose in 
 1 Cor. xi.; St. Jerome in 1 Cor. xi.; Socrat. iv. 23; 
 from Rev. i. ii., and compare Gal. i. 8, iv. 14, and 
 possibly 1 Cor. xi. 10); and so, in Saxon England, 
 God’s “ Bydels,” or messengei's (“ B}*delas,” Laws 
 of Ethelred, vii. 19, and of Canute, 26);—and 
 ''Eepopos, and the office ’E^opeta (Philostorg. iii. 
 4, 15); and, .a the 8th and Later centuries, 
 Latinized into Speculator (in Cone. Suess. iii. 
 A.D. 862); and varied by Anglo-Saxon “ pom- 
 positas,” in episcopal signatures to charters, into 
 Inspector, Superspector, Visitator, Inspector Plebis 
 Dei, Katascopus Legis Dei, &c. &c. (Kemble, 
 Cod. Dipl, passim):—called also Patriarcha (so 
 
 Dupin, Dissert, i. § 5, and Suicer; the name bein 
 first confined to the nigher bishops, acc. t 
 Suicer, by Socrates v. 8, c. a.d. 440), yet only rhe¬ 
 torically so called in St. Greg. Naz. (Orat. 20, 30, 
 41) and St. Greg. Nyss. (Orat. Funebr. in Mdet.; 
 and see Bingh. II. ii. 9), but as an ordinary name 
 under the Gothic kings of Italy (Athalaric, Epist. 
 ad .loan. Pap. in Cassiodor. ix. 15). 
 
 Called also by names indicative of their func¬ 
 tions ; as, 'Updpxvs (Pseudo-Dion. Areop. Eccl. 
 Hierarch, c. v.; &c.);— Sacerdos or Pontifex, 
 often of bishops exclusively (Taylor, Episc. 
 Assert. § 27); and so Aeirovpyia for bishopric, 
 e. g. in Euseb. vi. 29 :— Sumrnus or Maximus 
 Pontifex, or Sumrnus Sacerdos (ironically in 
 Tertull. de Pudicit. i., but seriously, de Rapt., 
 xAui.; and of all bishops as such, in St. 
 Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, Sidon. 
 Apollin, Qu. in Vet. et Nov. Test. ci. &c.; Cone. 
 Agath. A.D. 506, can. 35, and down to the 11th 
 century [see Du Cange], the analogy of the Jewish 
 ^Apxtepcvs occurring as early as St. Clem. Rom. 
 ad Cor. i.);— Pater Patrum and Episcopus Epi- 
 scoporum, but rhetorically only (Sidon. Apollin. 
 Epist. vi. 1, after Pseudo-Clem, ad Jacob. Epist. 
 1); while in Africa, where the power of the 
 metropolitan dex^eloped more slowly, St. Cyprian 
 (p. 158, Fell) in Cone. Carth. declares that no one 
 in Africa “Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit;” 
 and Cone. Carth. a.d. 256 (in St. Cyprian), and 
 Cone. Nippon. Reg. a.d. 393, can. 39, in Cod. Can. 
 Eccl. Afric., forbid expressly the assumption of 
 such titles as “Princeps Sacerdotum, aut Sumrnus 
 Sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi,” and command 
 even the Primate of Africa to be called by no 
 other title than that of “ primae sedis Episcopus ;” 
 —or again from the 4th century (but the terms 
 are in substance in St. Ignatius, ad Ephes. vi. 
 ’ETTiO'/fOTTOJ' us avThv rhu Kvpiou, ad Trail, i. 
 
 ’Eirto'/fJirqp us XpKTTu ; and St. Cypr. Epist. 
 55, 63; and cf. 2 Cor. v. 20), Vicarius Christi — 
 Domini — Dei (St. Basil. M. Constit. Monast. 22; 
 0pp. ii. 792 [6 rod 'Xurripos vTr4x<»>v ’npdauirov}’, 
 St. Ambrose in 1 Cor. xi. 10; Pseudo-Dion. Ai^eop. 
 Eccl. Ilier. ii. 2; Qu. Vet. et Nov. Test. 127, in 
 App. ad 0pp. St. Aug. iii.);—and from a consi¬ 
 derably earlier date, Vicarius or Successor Apo~ 
 stolorwm (Hippolyt. Haer. Proem, p. 3 ; St. Iren. 
 adv. Haer. iii. 3; St. Cypr. Epist. 62, 69; Fix’* 
 milian in St. Cypr. Epist. 55, 75; Cone. Carth. 
 iii. in St. Cyprian, a.d. 256, can. Ixxix.; St. 
 Jerome, Epist. liv. al. Ivii.; Pseud. Dion. Areop. 
 Eccl. Hier. ii. 2; and in substance St. Aug. in 
 Ps. xlv. 16, De Rapt. c. Donat, vii. 43, Serm. cii. 
 c. 1, De Util. Credendi, § 35, Epist. 42, &c.);— 
 also M.eo’irrfs (Origen, St. Basil M., St. Chrys., 
 Apost. Constit. iv. 26, &c., in Cotel. ad Constit. 
 Ajpost. vol. i. p. 237 ; and /lerirfiav Qeov ua) av- 
 OpuTTuv, rovTo yap X(Xus S Aepevs, St. Greg. Naz. 
 Orat. i.); but by St. Augustin’s time it had be¬ 
 come expedient to condemn the calling a bishop 
 by the name of “ Mediator ” (Cont. Parmen. ii. 8, 
 0pp. ix. 35);— Tloiy^v, Pastor (Euseb. H. E. iii. 36, 
 St. Greg. Naz. and St. Hilar, passim ; Cone. Sar- 
 die. A.D. 347, can. vi.; Theodoret, iv. 8, &c. &c.; 
 so in the English Prayer-book, “The bishops and 
 pastors of Thy flock ;” “ pastores ovium,” in 
 St. Cypr. of presbyters, but not pastor simply : 
 so Taylor, Episcop. Asserted, § 25 : see, however, 
 the use of iroifiati'eiv, in Acts xx. 28):—extra¬ 
 vagantly denominated ©ebs 'Enlyaos luLera &(hv, 
 and by other extreme designations, in Apost. 
 
 bO ® 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 211 
 
 Constit. ii. 26; and at a later date, Thronus Dei 
 (^Conc. Tolet. xi. a.d. 675, can. 5, and Carloving. 
 Capitul.^ quoted by Du Cange). 
 
 Designated also by the titles of,—1. Apostohcus^ 
 applied to all bishops (and their sees called “ sedes 
 Apostolicae ”) as late as Charlemagne (St. Aug. 
 Epist. 42; Greg. Tur. H. F. ix. 42; Venant. 
 J'ortun. Poem. iii. ; Formulae in Marculfus ; 
 Gunthi'am in Cone. Matisc. ii. a.d. 585 ; and see 
 Casaubon, Exercit. xiv. § 4; and Thomassin, I. i. 
 4); restricted at one time to metropolitans 
 (Siricius, A.D. 384-398, Epist. iv. c. 1; Alcuin, 
 dc Div. Off. xxxvii.); but gradually turned into 
 a substantive appellation of the bishop of Rome 
 (as in Rup. Tuit. de Div. Off. i. 27, a.d. 1111); 
 while a council of the 11th century is said to 
 have excommunicated an archbishop of Gallicia 
 for so styling himself [Apostolicus] ; and used in 
 the 12th and following centuries as the Pope’s ordi¬ 
 nary designation (e. g. in the English Year-books, 
 “ L’Apostoile,” or “ L’Apostole ;” Si)elmau’s 
 further statement — that he was called also 
 Apostolus —seems a mistake);—2. Beatissimus 
 — Sanctissimus — Beverendissirnus—Deo Amahilis 
 —&fo<pi\4<TTaTos —' Ay iwTaTos — MaKafUuiTaTos 
 —'OaidjTaros —AtSectficoTaTos (in the Councils, 
 Justinian’s Laws, superscriptions to lettei's, as St. 
 Cyprian’s, St. Augustin’s, &c. &c.; and Socrates 
 [H. E. vi. Prooem.'] apologizes for not calling the 
 bishops, his contemporaries, GeotpiAea-raTous 1) 
 ayicoTUTOvs fj ra roiavra) ;—3. Dominus —Aftr- 
 ttJttjs — Sanctitas Tua —'H St? Xpr?(rTOTT?s. Ma- 
 KapiSTrjs, ‘AyioTTfs (like authorities);—4. “ Dei 
 gratia Archiepiscopus ” first occurs in England 
 of Archbishop Theodore (Counc. of Hatfield, a.d. 
 680, in Baed. E. E. iv. 17), and so on in pneral 
 of his successors (e. g. of Nothelm, in Kemble, 
 Cod. Dipl. 65), &c.;—5. Lastly, “Servus Ser- 
 vorum Dei ” is found as early as Desiderius, 
 bishop of Cahors, a.d. 650, who so styles himself 
 (Thomassin, I. i. 4, § 4). 
 
 For the nature and institution of the Christian 
 ministry as such—in so far as it is common to 
 bishops and presbyters—see Clergv, Presby¬ 
 ters. The special episcopal office as above de¬ 
 scribed,—consisting in a presidency over the 
 clergy and laity of a particular diocese, with a 
 veto, and with a sole power of oi'dination,—and 
 whether regarded (with later schoolmen) as one 
 order with the presbyterate, on the ground of 
 the powers of the ministry common to both, 
 differenced only by peculiar and additional powers 
 belonging to bishops, or (according to the earlier 
 and more common view) as a distinct order, on 
 the ground of those additional powers,—finds its 
 actual institution implied and recorded in the 
 N. T.: 1. in the position of St. James of Jeru¬ 
 salem (Acts xii. 17, XV. 13, xxi. 18, Gal. ii. 9), 
 affirmed also by all antiquity to have been bishop 
 of Jerusalem ;—2. in the appointment by St. Paul, 
 when his “ measure” (1 Cor. x. 16) grew too 
 large for his own personal supervision, of single 
 officers, with powers of ordination (1 Tim. iii. 13, 
 Tit. i. 5) and jurisdiction (both in church wor¬ 
 ship, 1 Tim. ii. 1-12, and over all church mem¬ 
 bers, including presbyters, 1 Tim. v. 1-22, Tit. i. 
 5, ii.), and probably of confirmation (1 Tim. v. 
 22), in the Apostle’s stead (1 Tim. i. 3, Tit. i. 5), 
 *. e. of bishops in the later sense of the term 
 (removeable, like later bishops, and, as it seems, 
 actually removed, when the needs of the Church 
 in i,ne particular cases required it), — viz. Timothy 
 
 at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, certainly (and .so 
 the Fathers with one accord); and, hot improb¬ 
 ably, Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil. ii. 25, and 
 so Theodoret in 1 Tim. vi. 1), and Archippus at 
 Colossae (Col. iv. 17, Philem. 2; and so Ambrose 
 in Col. iv. 17); to whom the Fathers add a great 
 many more (see a list in Apost. Constit. vii. 47, 
 and among moderns in Andrewes, Epist. i. ad Pet. 
 Molin.., 0pp. Posth. pp. 185,186) ;—3. in the’'A 7 - 
 yeXoi of Rev. i.-iii. [Angels OF Churches], who 
 were real individual persons, although symbol¬ 
 ized as stars (Rev. i. 20), just as the Churches 
 j they governed* were real Churches, which are 
 I symbolized likewise as candlesticks; and who 
 I are proved to have been bishops, (i.) by the 
 j analogy of Gal. i. 8, iv. 14; (ii.) by their stand- 
 I ing for and representing their several Churches; 
 
 I (iii.) by the fact (see further on) that St. John 
 is expressly and specially stated to haA'e ap- 
 I pointed bishops from city to city in these very 
 regions ; (iv.) by the current interpretation of 
 the term from early times, as in St. Jerome, 
 St. Ambrose, St. Aug., Oecumen. and Arethas in 
 Apocalgps. &c.; to which may be added the 
 probable mention (the reading of Rev. ii. 20 being 
 not altogether certain) of the wife of one of them. 
 And these intimations find their counterpart and 
 confirmation, (1) in express statements of earl}' 
 Fathers, as (i.) St. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. 44, 
 that the Apostles, having appointed presbyter- 
 bishops and deacons in the several Churches 
 in the first instance, proceeded, as a further and 
 distinct step, in order to provide for the con¬ 
 tinuance of the ministry without schisms or 
 quarrels, to appoint some further institution, 
 whereby the succession of such presbyters and 
 deacons might be kept up, as first by the Apostles 
 themselves, so after them by other chosen men ; 
 i. e. in other words, instituted the order of bishops ; 
 KaTe(rTT?(rai' [oi *Att6(ttoXoC\ tovs Trpofiprjpevovs 
 [^i-TrarKSirovs Kal StafcJvous], Ka\ peTa^v iiriyop^v 
 SiStvKaaiv, ’Sirws iav KoippQuKTiv, diabi^ooprai 
 €Tepoi SedoKtpacrpfyot drSpes XnTovpyiav 
 
 avTuv' Tohs oSv KaraaradevTas utt’ tKeivoov [/. e. 
 the Apostles themselves] ^ pera^v vff eripwu 
 iXXoyipwu avSpeay, k.t.X. (ii.) The Muraiorian 
 Canon (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), “ Quarti Evange- 
 liorum Johannis ex decipolis ” [John the Apostle 
 as distinguished from John Baptist], “ cohor- 
 tantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis;”—Ter- 
 tullian {adv. Marc. iv. 5), “ Ordo episcoporum 
 ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auc- 
 torem ;”—St. Clement Alex. (G«/s Dives Palvetur, 
 xlii. 0pp. p. 959, and in Euseb. H. E. iii. 23), 
 ’ATrpet [sc. St. John when returned from Patmos 
 to Ephesus] irapaKaXoupfvos Kal eirl ra irXij- 
 (TiSxu'pa Twp edvoov, oirov pev '’EiriaKSirovs Kura- 
 (TTijacau, oirov Se oAas 'Y,KKXr}cr'ias appS(ra)v, Sirov 
 de KXijptp era ye Tiva KXnpdxrusv ruy virh tov 
 T lyevparos o’ljpaipopeywp — St. Jerome (Catal. 
 Scriptt. Eccl. ix.), “ Novissimus omnium scripsit 
 [Joannes] Evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae Epi¬ 
 scopis;”— testifying to the appointment by St. 
 John of bishops from city to city, and to their 
 existence as a settled and established order from 
 his time. (2) In the fact, that bisho])s in the 
 later sense ar^; actually found in every Church 
 whatsoever, from the moment that any evidence 
 exists at all ; and that such evidence exists, 
 either simply to an actual bishop at the time, 
 or more commonly to such a bishoj) as in suc- 
 j cession to a line of 2 )reJecessci's- tJ'aced up tc 
 
212 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 
 Apostles, and with no intimation of such epi¬ 
 scopate being anything else but the original, 
 appointed, and unbroken order: and this, in the 
 case of Antioch, and of Asia Minor generally, as 
 early as the first decade of the 2nd century, in 
 other cases within the first forty years of that 
 century; in others, as e. g. Ephesus, Alexandria, 
 Jerusalem, Athens, within the last quarter of the 
 first— i. e. either close upon the death of the last 
 Apostle, or within about a quarter of a century 
 of it, or long before it happened—a space of time 
 within which*, taken at the longest, it is histo¬ 
 rically impossible that so great a revolution (if 
 it had been one) should have been not only accom¬ 
 plished but forgotten. A detailed list of these 
 cases may be found in an Excursus by Professor 
 Lightfoot On the Philippians. The only discover¬ 
 able exceptions,—that of the Church of Corinth 
 when St. Clement wrote to it, and that of Phi¬ 
 lippi when St. Polycarp wrote to it,—are so few 
 and so temporary, as to prove merely that the 
 whole of the needs of a rapidly growing Church 
 could not be supplied at once, and that circum¬ 
 stances (as e. q. the martyrdom perhaps, or the 
 deportation, of an Apostle) might leave this or 
 that Church temporarily unprovided with a 
 bishop. In the words of Ambrosiaster (i. e. 
 Hilary the Deacon), it so happened, “ quia adhuc 
 rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis fuerant con- 
 stituti” (J.n 1 Cor. xi. 2). And there certainly 
 were bishops in both the places named imme¬ 
 diately afterwards. Xor, further, (3) was there 
 any substantial difference in the office itself from 
 that subsequently so styled. St. Clement of Rome, 
 for instance, so absolutely represented his Church 
 as to write in the name of that Church; and is 
 described by Hermas Pastor ( F/s. ii. 4) as offici¬ 
 ally communicating in its name with foreign 
 Churches; and is placed by St. Irenaeus and 
 others as one in a series of bishops, all so called 
 in the same sense. And although the succession 
 of the heads of the school at Alexandria (for 
 which see Bing. III. x. 5) may well have been 
 more important in point of influence than that 
 of the bishops of that see, it did not interfere 
 with the office and succession of those bishops, 
 which is carefully recorded (as is that of all the 
 principal sees) by Eusebius. Nor again does St. 
 Irenaeus, who speaks of a “ succession ” also of 
 “ presbyters,” and indeed calls bishops themselves 
 occasionally “ presbyter.-^,” know of any difference 
 between the bishop of Rome of his own time 
 (assuredly a bishop in the later sense) and the 
 succession of single heads of the Church of Rome, 
 'Whorn he names in order from Apostolic times 
 down to that same bishop. 
 
 The Episcopate then is historically the con¬ 
 tinuation, in its permanent elements, of the 
 Apostolatft 4.nd, accordingly, the reasons as¬ 
 signed for the actual appointment of the epi- 
 .scopate are : (1) as given by St. Paul himself, 
 to take the place of the Apostles (Tim. i.-3; 
 Tit. i. 5), and for the better maintenance of the 
 faith (t6.), and in order to a due ordination of 
 the ministry (Tit. i. 5). To these the Fathers 
 add, (2) other reasons, drawn apparently from 
 their own experience of the benefits of the epi¬ 
 scopate : as St. Clem. Rom. and St. Jero’ .e, who 
 allege it to have been instituted as a preventive 
 of schisms; and St. Irenaeus and Tortullian, a 
 little later than the first named, who regard it 
 as a safeguard of the faith (and see 1 Tim. 
 
 i. 3; Tit. ii. 1); and St. Cyprian, a little later 
 still, who chiefly dwells upon it as a bond of 
 unity; in which point of view St. Ignatius al.=:o 
 had regarded it at the beginning. The further 
 suggestion hazarded by St. Jerome—that it was 
 an afterthought of the Apostles, suggested to 
 them by the schisms at Corinth—is inconsistent 
 with the fact that bishops existed before those 
 schisms. And the gradual spread of the institu¬ 
 tion is best explained by the sensible and natural 
 remark of Epiphanius, that Ou iravra evOvs 
 ri5vvi)dr}(Tau ol ’Att^cttoAoi KaTao’rria'ai, and that 
 presbyters and deacons could administer a church 
 for a while, until yeyove (^Haer. Ixxv. § 5; 
 
 0pp. i. 908). Bishops, who came in place of 
 Apostles, could not, indeed, have existed both 
 coincidently and contemporaneously with those 
 in whose place they came, but only as the 
 growth of the Church, and the removal of the 
 Apostles, required and made room for them. A 
 theory started recently (by Rothe, Anfdnge dcr 
 Christlichen Kirche, 354—392, quoted by Light- 
 foot) of a special and formalCouncilof the Apostles, 
 which among other things instituted episcopacy, 
 a.s one among a series of “ second ordinances,” 
 seems to rest upon insufficient grounds (see Light- 
 foot’s Excursus to the Philippians, before quoted), 
 and to transform a really apostolic origin into a 
 single definite and formal apostolic act: like the 
 parallel but ancient tradition respecting the com¬ 
 position of the Creed. On the other hand, space 
 of time literally shuts out the much older theory, 
 viz. that there was a period at the beginning 
 when each Church was governed by a college of 
 presbyters, until “ ecclesiastical authority ” esta¬ 
 blished a bishop over each college, in order to 
 put an end to schisms, and notably to those at 
 Coi'inth; unless, with St. Jerome, the originator 
 of it, we take the “ ecclesiastical authority ” to 
 mean the Apostles themselves, and the period In 
 question to be reduced therefore so as to fall 
 within the lifetime of the Apostles, and so refer 
 it simply to the colleges of presbyters, who during 
 such lifetime did undoubtedly govern the several 
 Churches under the Apostles : thus rendering the 
 hypothesis at once very true and equally innocent, 
 and in effect identifying it with the contempo¬ 
 rary statement of St. Clem. Rom. before quoted. 
 Later I’epetitious of St. Jerome’s theory, and 
 often of his words, may be found in writers of 
 the Western Church (see quotations in Morinus, 
 de Sac. Ord. III. ii. 11 sq.) down to the 10th or 
 11th century. But the.se are of course sirnpl}* 
 St. Jerome over again. Contemporaneously how¬ 
 ever with him,—yet (as it should seem) chiefly 
 with the view of repressing the presumption (not 
 of bishops but) of deacons, or (as in Augustin’s 
 case) in order to turn a courteous compliment 
 to a presbyter (viz. St. Jerome),—the original 
 identity both of the names, and of the offices, of 
 bishop and presbyter, became a current topic ; 
 e. g. in St. Aug. Epist. 19 ad S. Hieron.; Am- 
 brosiast. in 1 Tim. iii., and in Ephes. iv.; Qu. 
 Vet. et Nov. 2'est. ci.; Anon, in 1 Tim. iii. 17, in 
 App. ad 0pp. S. Hieron.; Lib. ad Bustic. de 1 //. 
 Grad. Eccl. in the same Append.; Sedul. Scot, in 
 Epist. ad 2'it. i.; Isid. Hispal. de Offic. Eccl. vii.; 
 and of course St. Jerome himself. And while 
 St. Augustin assigns the “ usiis Ecclesiae ” as the 
 ground for the subsequent appropriation of the 
 names (“ honornm vocabula”), St. Jerome (as 
 already said) aflirms of the office itself, as dis- 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 213 
 
 tinct from that of presbyter, that it arose “ ex 
 Kcclesiae consuetudine magis qu:im dispositionis 
 Doniinicae veritate ” (which means, apparently, 
 that it rests upon no written words of our Lord 
 Himself); asserting, at the same time, that it was 
 the one absolutely necessary preventive of schism, 
 and in eifect that the Apostles had established it 
 as such*; and also (in common with all the others 
 above quoted) that presbyters, whatever else they 
 could do, could not ordain. Another view, of a 
 like date with St. Jerome’s, probably represents 
 the general facts of the case with very fair ac¬ 
 curacy, viz. that contained in Hilary the Deacon, 
 in El hes. iv.: “ Ut cresceret plebs et multipli- 
 caretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et 
 evangelizare et baptizare et Scripturas in ecclesia 
 explanare : ubi autem omnia loca circumamplexa 
 est Ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt et rec- 
 tores et cetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata, 
 ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordinatus non 
 csset, praesumere officium quod sciret non sibi 
 creditum vel concessum.” In other words, under 
 pressure of necessity, before the Church could 
 be fully organized, and before a longer duration 
 had stiffened it into orderly system and regular 
 law, acts were allowed and held good to any one, 
 which were properly and primarily the office of 
 particular officers, viz. of “ Rectores,” i. e. bishops, 
 and of an ordained clergy; those acts being done 
 of course not against—but owing to circum¬ 
 stances, not by—the clergy. And those which 
 are here specified, moreover, are such only as 
 the Church has ever held to be capable of being 
 discharged by any Christian man, so that they 
 are done in unity with the Church. Even Ter- 
 tullian’s well-known words do not make it plain, 
 whether he meant to affirm that, in case of 
 absolute necessity, laymen might formally ad¬ 
 minister the Eucharist, or whether not rather 
 that in such a case the will w'ould be accepted 
 for the deed. For this, however, and like ques¬ 
 tions, see Prip:st, Baptism. 
 
 1. The first step towards making a bishop 
 was his 
 
 1 . Election. 
 
 a. Who elected. —^The election of bishops [yet- 
 poTovia sometimes, commonly (Kkoy^'] pertained 
 from the beginning to the neighbouring bishops, 
 and (except in the obviously special cases of a 
 bishop sent to the heathen £as e. g. Frurnentius 
 by St. Athanasius to the Abyssinians,—Socrat. 
 i. 19, Theodoret, i. 23,— or St. Augustine to the 
 Saxons by St. Gregory], or of one sent to a 
 diocese overrun with heresy or schism), to the 
 clergy and laity of the particular Church. But 
 the relative rights of each class of electors were 
 apparently determined, not by express enactment, 
 but by Apostolic practice, defended in the first 
 instance by Jewish precedent—“ Traditione Di- 
 vina [Num. xx. 25, 26] et Apostolica observa- 
 tione ” [Acts i. 15, vi. 2] (St. Cypr. Epist. Ixvii. 
 Fell),—and subsequently upon grounds of com¬ 
 mon sense and equity,—as that, “ Deligatur epi- 
 scopus praesente plebe, quae singulorum vitam 
 plenissimc novit ” {id. ib.) ; or that, “ Nullus 
 invitis detur episcopus ” (Caelestin. Epist. ii. 5); 
 or that, “ Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omni¬ 
 bus eligatur” (Leo M. Epist. Ixxxix); or again, 
 Tlapa irauTwv tu>v fX(.w6vT(av itoijjia'iveaQai \pr](pi- 
 C6fj.(uos (Cone. CEdc. a.d. 451 ; Act. xi. Labbe, 
 iv. 698). The judgment [^Kpiais judicium'] i. e. 
 commonly the choice, and the ratification [/ffpos]. 
 
 naturally inclined to the bishops, so that for the 
 first 500 years such elections were ordinarily 
 ruled by them. The approval [(ruj/ei/Sj/crjo-is, 
 consensus] and the testimony to character [/uap- 
 rvpiov testimoniurn] were the more proper office 
 of the clergy and laity of the diocese itself. 
 While the formal appointment [Karaaraais, 
 which included the ordination] belonged exclu¬ 
 sively, as to the Apostles at first, so to the 
 iwSyifjLoi &v5pes (St. Clem. Rom. ad Corinth. 
 I. xliv.) who succeeded them, i. e. the bishops. 
 But both classes of electors are found (so soon as 
 we have any evidence to the point, i. e. from the 
 middle of the 3rd century) taking the initiative 
 in different cases. And the clergy, and the people, 
 alike, possessed the right of giving a “ suff'ragium 
 de persona,” as well as a “ testimonium de vita ” 
 (Andrewes, Resp. ad Bellarm. xiii.); a right, how¬ 
 ever, alternating in point of fact between a choice 
 and a veto, and fluctuating with circumstances. 
 
 The germ of such a mode of election is found 
 in the N. T. The /caraerToa'is (Acts vi. 3, Tit. 
 i. 5, and compare Heb. v. 1, viii. 3, and St. Matt, 
 xxiv. 45, &c.) was throughout reserved to the 
 Apostles or their successors ; but the “ choice ” 
 of the persons and the “ testimony ” to their 
 character pertained to the people in the case of 
 the seven deacons (Acts vi. 2, 3); the former to 
 St. Paul and the latter to “ the brethren,” in that 
 of Timothy (Acts xvi. 2, 3); St. Paul alone (un¬ 
 less so far as the “ presbytery ” joined in the act) 
 both chose and sent Timothy and Titus respec¬ 
 tively to Ephesus and to Crete (1 Tim. i. 3, 18; 
 Tit. i. 5); the whole of the disciples appear to 
 have chosen the two between w'hom lots w^ere to 
 be cast in the case of St. Matthias (Acts i. 23), 
 which is however an exceptional case ; while the 
 word x€'poToi/€Ct> (Acts xiv. 23) leaves it unde¬ 
 termined whether St. Paul and Barnabas only 
 ordained, or did not also choose, the Pisidian 
 presbyters. The earliest non-Scriptural witness, 
 writing however before the N. T. canon was 
 closed, St. Clement of Rome (as above), agrees 
 precisely with the N. T., in terms as well as 
 substance. He reserves the Karaaracris, as by 
 express Apostolic appointment, to the Apostles 
 and their successors, but (rvvev5oKri<Td(rr]s tt/s 
 'EKK kgarlas irdags : speaking, it is true, of the 
 case of eViV/fOTTot who were presbyters, but in 
 language which must almost certainly apply also 
 to that of bishops properly so called. In con¬ 
 formity also with this, we find, after A.D. 69, 
 and upon the martyrdom of St. James, the re¬ 
 maining Apostles and personal disciples of Christ 
 and His surviving relatives, meeting together and 
 joining in the appointment of Symeon the son of 
 Clopas to the bishopric of Jerusalem (Euseb. //. E. 
 iii. 11). The theory, that at first the “senior 
 presbyter” succeeded as of right to the epi¬ 
 scopate, and that at some early time a change 
 was effected, “ prospiciente ccncilio,” such that 
 thenceforth “ meritum, non ordo,” should select 
 the bishop, seems to be only a 4th century hypo¬ 
 thesis, based upon what no doubt was a frequent 
 practice, of Ambrosiaster, i.e. Hilary the Deacon, 
 j in Eph. iv. 12; who however is thinking of the 
 election, not of the consecration, of a bishop, 
 whose specific office also he distinctly recognizes 
 in the passage itself. 
 
 The natural course of things, and the in¬ 
 creasingly fixed and detailed organization of the 
 , Church, gradually defined and modified the on- 
 
214 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 ginal practice thus inaugurated: 1. by intro¬ 
 ducing the metropolitan (and, further on, the 
 patriarch), as a power more and more prepon¬ 
 derant in such elections, and 2. by regulating 
 the rights of the comprovincial bishops; both 
 points formalized into canons by the great Nicene 
 Council; 3. by substituting for the unavoidable 
 disorder and evil of a strictly popular suffrage 
 (^ox^-ois), an election by the chief only of the 
 laity (a change begun by the Councils of Sardica, 
 A.D. 347, and Laodicea, a.d. 365, and finally esta¬ 
 blished by Justinian); still further restricted in 
 practice in important cases to a nomination by 
 the emperor alone; and changed from the middle 
 of the 6th century into a general right of royal 
 consent, converted commonly, and as circum¬ 
 stances allowed, in the case of the European king¬ 
 doms, and partially in that of the Eastern em¬ 
 perors also, into a right of royal nomination, 
 concurrent with, but gradually and in ordinary 
 cases reducing to a mere form, the old canonical 
 mode of election. The substitution, further, in 
 the West, of the clergy of the cathedral as the 
 electoral body, and in the East of the compro- 
 Adncial bishops solely, in place of the old “ plebs 
 et clerus ” of the diocese, or at the least of the 
 cathedral town, hardly dates before the 9th and 
 10th centuries. 
 
 The classical passages for ante-Nicene times 
 are principally from St. Cyprian, and belong to 
 Africa, A.D. 252-254.—“ Diligenter de traditione 
 Divina et Apostolica observatione servandum est 
 et tenendum (quod apud nos quoque et fere per 
 provincias totas tenetur), ut ad ordinationes rite 
 celebrandas, ad earn plebem cui praepositus ordi- 
 natur, episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique 
 conveniant, et episcopus deligatur plebe prae- 
 sente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, 
 et uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione 
 prospexit ” (^Epist. Ixvii. addressed to the Spa¬ 
 nish Churches).—“ Instruit et ostendit (Deus) 
 ordinationes sacerdotales nonnisi sub populi as- 
 sistentis conscientia fieri oportere ” [scil. Num. 
 XV. 25, 26; Acts i. 15, vi. 2); “ ut plebe prae- 
 sente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bo- 
 norum merita praedicentur; et sit ordinatio 
 justa et legitima, quae omnium suffragio et 
 judicio fuerit examinata ” {id. ib.'). —“ De uni- 
 versae fraternitatis suffragio, de episcoporum 
 qui in praesentia convenerant judicio {id. ib .).— 
 “ Episcopo semel facto, et collegarum et plebis 
 testimonio et judicio comprobato ” (id. Epist. 
 xTiv.).—“ Cornelius factus est episcopus [Romae] 
 de Dei et Christi Ejus judicio, de clericorum pene 
 omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tunc affuit 
 suffragio, et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bo- 
 norum vii’orum collegio” (id. Epist. Iv.).—“ Post 
 Divinum judicium, post populi suffragium, post 
 co-episcoporum consensum ” (id. Epist. lix.).— 
 “ Episcopo Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia de Dei 
 judicio, de cleri ac plebis suffragio, ordinato ” 
 (id. Epist. Ixviii.).—In which passages, suffra¬ 
 gium, judicium, testimonium, consensus, appear to 
 be used without precise discrimination, either in 
 regard to meaning, or to the several classes of 
 eiectoi’s and their respective functions, and to 
 express little more than St. Clement of Rome’s 
 vaguer term, awevdoKT^cris. 
 
 The same rule is testified in the East by the 
 joint evidence of Origen,—“ Requiritur in ordi- 
 nando sacerdote praesentia populi, ut sciant omnes 
 et certi sint, quia qui praestantior est ex omni 
 
 populo, qui doctior, qui sanctior, qui in omni vir- 
 tute eminentior, ille eligatur ad sacerdotium; et 
 hoc, adstante populo, ne qua postmodum retrac- 
 tatio cuipiam, ne quis scrupulus resideret” {Horn. 
 vi. in Levit., 0pp. ii. 216, ed. Delarue);—and of 
 the cases mentioned by Eiisebius; as, e. g., A6^av 
 to7s tuv 6ju,6pci}v ’EKKKi]tTiu)j' TTpof(rTa}(Tiv, to elect 
 Dius bishop of Jerusalem, c. a.d. 190 (//. E. vi. 
 10);—Alexander, ordained bishop of Jerusalem, 
 A.D. 214, jnera KOiuris rwu ’ETTKrKSirwv ot ras 7repi| 
 SifTirov 'EKKKrjffias yucopgs {ib. 11):—T^j/ Travra 
 \ahu . . .\^iov iiTi^oriaai [cried out that Fabian 
 was worthy to be bishop of Rome], rwv abf\<put/ 
 avdvTcav ;^eipoTOVias eveKCv t?)S tov ptWovroi 
 StaSe'xeirSat iTriCKOir^v ini Trjs *EKK\r]alas 
 
 (TvyKeKpoT'pixivcov {ib. vi. 29, A.D. 236) :—and, 
 similarly, the neighbouring “ bishops, presbyters, 
 deacons, and the Churches,” assembled at Antioch 
 A.D. 269 or 270, deposed Paul of Samosata, and 
 appointed Domnus bishop of Antioch in his place. 
 The Apostolic Canons (can. i.), and Apostolic Con¬ 
 stitutions, viii. 27, require three or at least two 
 bishops to the x^'-po'^ovia, which at least in¬ 
 volves the election, of a bishop. The former 
 (can. xxxiv.) take also the further step of re¬ 
 quiring reciprocally the yviapt] tov npcvTOu (the 
 metropolitan), and the yvcopp ndvruv, to all 
 church acts. And the latter (viii. 4) enjoin that 
 the people shall be thrice asked if the candidate 
 is worthy. Apostolic Canon Ixxvi. further en¬ 
 joins, that no bishop, in order to gratify a brother 
 or any other relative, shall eis rb d|i'a)/xa ttjs 
 iniTKon^s, hr fiovK^rai, And the 
 
 Council of Ancyra (a.d. 314, can. xviii.) proves 
 the power of the people, as the last quoted canon 
 does that of the bishops, by providing for the 
 Cc^se of one “ constituted ” {KaraoraOeis) a bishop, 
 but rejected by the diocese {napoiuia) to which 
 he had been consecrated, such rejeption being 
 apparently assumed to be conclusive as regarded 
 the particular diocese; although in Apost. Can. 
 xxxvi. it is ordered, on the contrary, that the 
 bishop in such a case shall “ remain.” The case 
 of Alexandria in early times was confessedly ex¬ 
 ceptional, and arose from the seditious character 
 of the Alexandrians (Epiphan. Haer. Ixix. 11). 
 The pi’esbyters of that city by themselves chose 
 one of their own number (acc. to the well-known 
 words of St. Jerome), and that immediately, i. e., 
 as it should seem, without waiting for the voice 
 of the people, or for that of the bishops of the 
 patriarchate (see also the strange story in Liber- 
 atus, Breviar. xx.). The Christian (and Jewish) 
 practice, “ in praedicandis sacerdotibus qui ordi¬ 
 nandi sunt,” was also recognized, and copied, in 
 the case of provincial governors, by the emperor 
 Alexander Severus (Lamprid. in V. Alex. Severi). 
 
 The Council of Nice (a.d. 325) recognized and 
 established the power of the comprovincial 
 bishops, and the authority of the metropolitan, 
 by requiring (can. iv.), if it can be had [npoo-^Kei 
 /udAttTTo], the personal presence of “ all the 
 bishops of the province {inapx^a),” in order to 
 the appointment {KaOiaraffdai) of a bishop ; but 
 if this cannot be had, then of at least three, 
 o’vp.yl/Tjipuiv yivofiivuv /col twv andvTiav kuI (tvv- 
 Tidcpfvav Bid ypa/xfiaTa, the ratification {Kvpos) 
 being reserved to the metropolitan; and-(can. vi.) 
 by voiding elections made x^P^^ yvwpT^s p-qrpo- 
 noX'iTov. The Council of Antioch, a.d. 341, 
 recognizes also both people, provincial bishops, 
 and metropolitan, by voiding (can. xvi.) an elec- 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 215 
 
 tion made crvv6Sov (defined to be 
 
 one “at which the metropolitan is present’), 
 Kal el Tras 6 Kahs eKoiro. It repeats also in 
 substance (can. xix.) the 4th Nicene canon ; while 
 (in can. xviii.), providing for the case of a bishop 
 refused by his diocese, it refers the final decision to 
 the synod. And it voids (can. xxiii.) an appoint¬ 
 ment by a single bishop of his own successor, 
 referring such election, according to rhu e/c/fXrj- 
 (TiaariKhv Qe(TfjLov, to the synod and judgment of 
 the bishops, whose right it was. The Council of 
 Sardica, A.D. 347 (can. ii.), cancels an election 
 made by the “ clamour ” of the people, with 
 suspicion of bribery or undue influence; and 
 (can. vi.) also requires the consent of the metro¬ 
 politan [toG e^dpxov T7JS eTrapx^^l* That of 
 Laodicea, A.D. 365, assigns the choice (/cptVis) to 
 the metropolitan and ot irepi^ 'EttIo-kottoi (can. 
 xii.) ; and, on the other side, takes the fii'st step 
 against popular elections by forbidding (can. xix.) 
 TOiS ox^ois eirirpeireiv tcls eK\oyds Trote?(r0ot 
 ra>v fieWSvTwv KadiaTaaQai els rT)v iepare^av. 
 The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, informs 
 Pope Damasus of the validity of the election of 
 Nectarius to the see of Constantinople, as having 
 been made “ by the common consent of all, in 
 the presence of the emperor, with the applause 
 of clergy and people—of the like validity of 
 that of Flavian to Antioch, because “ canonically 
 elected by the assembled bishops ” ttjs eirapxlas 
 Kal Trjs dvaroKiKT^s SioiKi](rews, Trda-qs (Tv/j.^ijcpov 
 rrjs ’EKK\T}crlas :— and of that of Cyril to Jeru¬ 
 salem, because, similarly, -irapd tS>u rris ewapx'ias 
 X^iporovr]6evTa {Epist. Synod, ap. Theodoret. v. 
 9). Of the Councils of Carthage, the Second (so 
 called), A.D. 390 (can. xii.), requires the consent 
 of the primate ; the Third, A.D. 397 (can. xxxix.), 
 three bishops at least, appointed by the primate ; 
 the Fourth, A.D. 398 (can. i.), the “ consensus 
 clericorura et laicorum,” and the “ conventus 
 totius provinciae episcoporum, maximeque metro- 
 politani auctoritas vel praesentia.” The Council 
 of Ephesus, A.D. 431 (can. xix.), secures their 
 right to the bishops of Cyprus as against the 
 patriarch of Antioch, but as not being within his 
 patriarchate. And that of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 
 (Act. xvi. Labbe, iv. 817), requires the consent of 
 all or the major part of the bishops of the pi‘o- 
 vince, rh Kvpos exovros tov prirpoTToKlrov •, and 
 affirms the authority of the metropolitan also in 
 Act. xiii. (ib. 713'), and in can. xxv. (i6. 768). 
 Similar testimony to the necessity of the metro¬ 
 politan’s consent is borne by Pope Innocent I., 
 “ Extra conscientiam metropolitani episcopi nul- 
 lus audeat ordinare episcopum ” (R'pist. i. c. 2, 
 A.D. 402x417); by Boniface I. (^Epist. iii. A.D. 
 418x422); by Leo the Great (^Epistt. Ixxxix. 
 xcii.); by Pope Hilary (^Epist. ii. A.D. 461 x 468) ; 
 by Cone. Taurin. can. i. a.d. 401; and by Cone. 
 Arelat. ii. can. v. A.D. 452. 
 
 On the other hand, these enactments respect¬ 
 ing the comprovincial bishops, and the growing 
 power of the metropolitans, did not extinguish 
 the rights of the clergy and people; who re¬ 
 mained a real power for many centuries still, 
 and continued so in name (in the West) down to 
 the 12th century. The Council of Nice itself, in 
 dealing with the Meletian schism, required the 
 choice of the people (el 6 \ahs atpo7ro\ as well 
 as the sanction of the Alexandrian metropolitan 
 (<TvyeTri\\>r)<pl^ouTos Kal iTnatppayi^ovTos tov Trjs 
 AAe^oj/Spetas 'EiricKOTrov), in case a reconciled 
 
 Meletian bishop was appointed to a see (Epist. 
 Synod, ap. Theodoret. i. 9, Socrat. i. 9). St. Atha¬ 
 nasius, immediately after the council, was elected 
 bishop of Alexandria, \p‘fi<p(p tov \aod irdvros 
 (St. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi.), and by the acclama¬ 
 tion and demand of irdv rh irKriOos Kal Tray 6 Kahs 
 TTjy KadoXiKys ’EKKkrjcr'ias (^Epist. Synod. Alex. 
 ap. Athanas. Apol. ii.); and Peter, who suc¬ 
 ceeded him, was chosen first by the priests and 
 magistrates, and then accepted by the people 
 (<5 Kahs diras Ta7s ev(pr)p.tais eSyKovu r^v •^So- 
 Theodoret, iv. 20); statements which indi¬ 
 cate that Alexandrian elections did not then at 
 any rate- possess any exceptional character. So 
 also Pope Julius (in S. Athan. Apol.') condemns 
 the intru.sion of (Gregory into the see of Alex¬ 
 andria, as being, 1. A stranger; 2. Not baptized 
 there ; 3. Unknown to most; 4. Not asked for by 
 either presbyters, bishops, or people. Later still, 
 the rights of the “ clerus ” and “ plebs ” are tes¬ 
 tified by a continuous chain of witnesses : as, e. g. 
 by the Councils of Antioch, A.D. 341, can, xviii., 
 and the 4th Council of Carthage, A.D. 398, can. i. 
 (both above quoted), and Cod. Eecl. Afriean. can. 
 xiii., v-wh ttJaAo)!/ — a multis — x^^P^'^ove7(r0aL’. 
 and again, (1) in the West, by Pope Siricius (a.d. 
 394 X 398, Epist. i. c. 10, “ Si eum cleri ac plebis 
 evocaverit electio,” and this either to presby- 
 terate or episcopate); Pope Zosimus (a.d. 417, 
 Epist. iii.) ; Pope Caelestinus (a.d. 422 x 432, 
 Epist. ii. c. 5, “ Cleri, plebis, et ordinis ”); Leo 
 the Gi'eat (a.d. 440x461, Epist. Ixxxiv. “Cleri 
 plebisque,” and the metropolitan to decide a 
 disputed election;— Epist. Ixxxix. “"Vota civium, 
 testimonia populorum, honoratorum arbitrium, 
 electio clericorura ;”— Epist. xcii. “ A clericis 
 electi, a plebibus expetiti, a provincialibus epi- 
 scopis cum metropolitani judicio consecrati ”) : 
 Pope Symmachus (a.d. 498 x 514, Epist. v. c. 6) : 
 Gregory the Great (^passim, see quotations in Tho- 
 massin, II. ii. 10); by the form itself of election 
 in the Ordo Botnanus (^Bihl. PP. x. 104); by the 
 system of Episeopi Fnterventores or Intereessores, 
 or, later, Visitatores, sent down to the vacant see 
 to superintend the election, and not only existing 
 in Africa, but repeatedly mentioned in the letters 
 of Gregory the Great, of Hincmar, &c. &c. [IxTKii- 
 VKNTORES; 'Visitatores] ; by St. Jerome (“ Spe¬ 
 culator Ecclesiae vel epi.scopus vel presbyter, qui 
 a populo electus est,” m Ezeeh. lib. x. c. 33 ; Opy. 
 iii. 935); Optatus (“ Suffragio totius populi.” 
 lib. i.); Sulpic. Severus (de V. B. Martini., c. vii. 
 of the election of St. Martin of Tours, A.D. 371); 
 Sidonius Apollinaris (^Epist. lib. viii. Ep. 5, 8, 9, 
 of the election of the metropolitan of Bourge.-;, 
 A.D. 472); St. Augustin (^Epist. cx. 0pp. ii. 601, 
 of the election of nis own successor); by Conm-. 
 of Orleans II. A.D. 533, can. vii.,—of Clermont in 
 AuA^ergne, a.d. 535, can. ii.,—of Orleans HI. a.d. 
 538, can. iii.;—and (2) in the East, by the case of 
 Eustathius, compelled to accept the see of Antioch, 
 A.D. 325, by ol dpxi^p^7s re Kal tepe7s Kal ctTras 
 6 \ahs 6 (piKdxpiCTTos, ^r)((>cp Koiyfj (Theodoret, 
 i. 7); by that of Eusebius to the see of Caesarea 
 in Pontus, A.D. 362, d dyg-os d-iras . . . 6,Kovra 
 (rvyapirdcTavTes . . . to7s 'EiricrKdKois ivpoffiiyayou, 
 Te\ecr6T}val re rj^lovu Kal KTjpux^Vvai, Trei6o7 
 ^lav avap.l^avTes (St. Greg. Naz. Orat. xix., 
 condemning also the carrying such elections 
 Kara (pparpeias Kal (Tvyyeveias) ; by that of Nec- 
 tarius to the see of Constantinople, a.d. 381, 
 Koivrj xj/rfepep ttjs avvddov (Sozom. vii. 8), but also 
 
216 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 apira(r6€)s vwh rod \aov (Socrat. v. 8); by that 
 of St. Chrysostom, a.d. 397, to Constantinople, 
 whom d *ApKd5ios fxeTaTr4p.TreTai, to 
 
 make him archbishop, if/7j<f>l<rp.aTi Kotv^ d/xov 
 TrdvTOJVf KXripov re (prjpLi Ka\ Kaov (Socrat. vi, 2) ; 
 to which may be. added the recognition by Leo 
 the emperor (a.d. 457 x 474) of the Khrjpos Ka\ 
 ih KOLvhv (Evagr. iii. 12); and abundant other 
 evidence, of which some will occur further on. 
 
 The Laodicene Council, however, a.d. 365 (as 
 above quoted), took the first step towards the 
 ultimate practical extinction of really popular 
 elections ; although elections by acclamation, 
 held to be not irregular as springing from a kind 
 of supposed Divine inspiration, or again by cries 
 of Dignus or "Altos, still occurred: as, e.g. in 
 the cases mentioned by St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, 
 Philostorgius, Photius, cited by Bingham, IV. ii. 
 
 6 ; in the case of St. Ambrose himself (Paulin, in 
 V. S. Ambros. ; Theodoret, iv. 7 ; Sozom. vi. 24); 
 in that of Sisinnius at Constantinople, A.D. 426 
 (Socrat. vii. 26). But a general suffrage was 
 from that time gradually superseded as the ordi¬ 
 nary rule by the votes of the rich or high in 
 station. And successive councils recognized the 
 practice, up to the time when Justinian enacted 
 it by express law. In the Council of Ephesus, 
 A.D, 431, Meinuon, bishop of Ephesus, complains 
 that his opponent sought to be elected by the 
 votes of rb cr4p.vov fiovAiVT-fipiov Kal tovs Xau.- 
 TTpordrovs (^Epist. Cathol. in Cone. Ephes. Labbe 
 iii. 764). Leo the Great and the Roman Council, 
 on occasion of Flavian’s condemnation by the 
 Latrocinium Epliesinum, A.D. 442, write in his 
 favour, “ Clero, honoratis, et plebi, consistenti 
 apud Constantinopolira” (Cone. Chalced. a.d. 451, 
 p. i. c. 22 ; Labbe, iv. 47). And the same Leo also 
 mentions the “ honorati ” expressly, although 
 not exclusively, Epist. Ixxxix. cvi. Stephen of 
 Ephesus (Cone. Chaleed. Act. xi.; Labbe, iv. 687) ! 
 claims to have been appointed by forty bishops j 
 of Asia, yp7]<(>cp Ka\ twu Xapirpordruv Kal tu>v 
 X oydScop Kal tov ^vKa^eardrov nduros KXvpov 
 Kal rwu XoiTTuv irdpTwv rrjs ivoXtus irdaris. And 
 in Act. xvi. of the same council (Labbe, ib. 618), 
 the right of election is said to belong to the 
 clergy, the KXiiropes Kal XapirpoTaroi di’bpes, 
 and the bishops, “ all or most,” of the province. 
 Again (ib. p. iii. c. 21, Labbe, ib. 890), the people 
 of Alexandria and its honorati et curiales et 
 naucleri,” are said to have demanded Timothy as 
 their bishop ; while Liberatus (Breviar. xiv. xv.) 
 affirms that Proterius, on the other hand, the 
 bishop upon whom Timothy was intruded, was 
 elected by the “ nobiles civitatis,” which he also 
 expresses as “ decreto populi.” Finally, Justinian 
 established by direct law that the KXripiKol Kal 
 TrpuToi T7JS irSXews should choose three persons, 
 whenever a vacancy occurred, of whom the or- 
 dainer \i. e. the metropolitan] should ordain the 
 one who in his judgment was the best qualified 
 (Novell, cxxiii. c. 1, cxxxvii. c. 2, and Cod. lib. i. 
 tit. iii. Be Episeopis, 1. 42). The 2nd Council of 
 Arles, A.D. 452, had previously adopted a dif¬ 
 ferent plan for attaining the same end; viz, that 
 the bishops should choose the three candidates, 
 out of whom the “ clerici vel cives ” were to 
 select one (can. liv.). And the Spanish Council 
 of Barcelona subsequently, a.d. 599, so far varied 
 the rule of Justinian as to enact (after the pat¬ 
 tern of St. Matthias’ election) that the decision 
 should be made by lot, between two or three. 
 
 elected by the “ clerus et plebs,” .and presented 
 to the metropolitan and bishops (can. iii.). Th# 
 common phrase in St. Gregory the Great’s Letters 
 is “ cleru.s, ordo, et plebs or, “ clerus et nobiles, 
 ordo et plebs.” 
 
 From the time of Justinian onwards, both in 
 East and West, the chief power in the election 
 of bishops, on the Church side, inclined to the 
 metropolitan, but as choosing with the compro¬ 
 vincial bishops from three candidates elected by 
 the principal people, clergy and laity, of the see ; 
 j the whole process, however, being summarily 
 I overruled upon occasion by the emperors ; as also 
 in course of time, and much more continuously 
 and absolutely, by the Frankish, Spanish, and 
 Gothic kings. Before this time, indeed, both Theo¬ 
 dosius the Great, and Theodosius the Younger, 
 had interfered by an absolute nomination in three 
 several appointments to the see of Constantinople 
 (Socrat. vii. 8, 29, 40), for obvious political 
 reasons. And Valentinian had interfered in a 
 like manner to enforce the popular demand for 
 the conseci’ation of St. Ambrose to Milan (Theo¬ 
 doret, iv. 6). But such interference was con¬ 
 fessedly irregular, had been expressly condemned 
 by Can. Apostol. xxx., and was in earlier times pro¬ 
 tested against, as, e. g. by St. Athanasius (Epist. 
 ad Solit. V. Agentes^ § 51, 0pp. i. 375, demanding, 
 no?os Kapwp dirh iraXaTiov irdpwtardai rhp ’Etti- 
 (Tkottop). But from the 6th century onwards, in 
 the case of at least important sees, the emperors, 
 although leaving the old forms of election intact, 
 appear to have commonly interfered to make (or 
 at the very lea.st to sanction) nominations them¬ 
 selves. St. Gregory the Great treats the sole 
 imperatorial nomination in such cases as a mat¬ 
 ter of cour.se. Instances will also be found, both 
 from him and from later time.s, down to Heraclius, 
 Justinian II., Philippicus, Constantine Coprony- 
 mus, A.D. 754, in Thomassin, II. ii. 17 ; while 
 the 2nd Council of Nice, a.d. 787, protests against 
 such lay interference uncompromisingly (can. iii. 
 ndaap ipTj<pop TTapd dpxdpTWP, 'ETriaKdirov, 
 'rp( 0 '$uTepov, ^ biaKdpov, 6.KvpoP pepeip'). Saracen 
 conquerors, as might be expected, interfered in 
 a like manner: as, e.g. in Syria, a.d. 736, in the 
 case of the patriarch of Antioch (Thomassin, II. 
 ii. 17, § 7). But it remained for Nicephorus II., 
 A.D. 963 X 969, to enact as an universal law, 
 that no bishop whatever should be elected or 
 consecrated dpev rrjs avrov ypwfiris (Cedren. 
 p. 658, and so also Zonaras); a law however 
 which did not last long. Finally, in the East, the 
 custom settled down into an election by the 
 clergy, and ultimately only by the comprovincial 
 bishops, of three, of whom in such cases as the 
 see of Constantinople the emperor, but ordinarily 
 the metropolitan, selected one (Morinus, ii. 
 193). The ancient form of election however, 
 as modified bv Justinian, still held its ground for 
 a considerable time. In the case, e.g., of Epi- 
 phanius of Constantinople, a.d. 528, “ the emperor 
 (Justin) and empress, the magnates, the bishops, 
 priests, monks, and the most faithful people,” 
 concurred (Epist. Epiphan. inter Epistt. Honnisd. 
 J^apae post Epist. Ixxi., Labbe iv. 1534). In that 
 of Sophronius of Jerusalem, a.d. 634, “the 
 clergy, monks, faithful laics, in a word all the 
 citizens ” (Sophron. Epist. ad Sei'gium Constan- 
 tinop. up. Cone. Constantin. A.D. 680, Act. xi.; 
 Labbe, vi. 854). In that of Stephen of Laris.sa, who 
 was chosen out of three, elected by the “clerus* 
 
BISHOP 
 
 PISH OP 
 
 217 
 
 and “popnlus;” and by those “quorum adsensus j 
 erat actui necessarius,” a.d. 531, the “ sancta ^ 
 provinciae synodus et totius civitatis possessores 
 omneque corpus Ecclesiae”; and (he adds), “com- 
 muui omnium testimonio ordinatus sum (Hoi- j 
 sten. Collect. Rom. pp. 6 , 7). While the council | 
 in Trullo, A.D. 691, speaks of an election by all 
 the bishops of the province as the “ ancient cus¬ 
 tom ” (can. xxxix.) : and Joh. Antioch. {Nomocan. 
 tit. vii. in Bibl. Jur. Can. p. 610) rules that a 
 bishop must be elected by the metropolitan, 
 and by all the bishops of the province, either 
 present or sending a written consent 5 and that 
 such elections (€/cAo 7 as) must not be entrusted 
 to the multitude : and, lastly, Zonaras and Bal- 
 samon, glossing the older canons by the custom 
 of their own time, exclude the “ clerus et plebs ” I 
 altogether, and refer the whole matter to the , 
 metropolitan and bishops, the former choosing 
 the “ dignissimus ” out of three, elected by the 
 bishops without the presence of the metropolitan 
 (according to Symeon of Thessalonica), and pre¬ 
 sented by them to him (see the form at length 
 in Sym. Thessai. ap. Morin, ii. 149, sq.). Pro¬ 
 bably the emperor really determined the choice, 
 wherever his power enabled, and his policy in¬ 
 clined, him to do so ; while as a rule he left 
 ordinary cases to the ordinary methods. See, 
 however, Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 136, 169. 
 
 In the West, a like retention of the old form of 
 election ran parallel with a gradual increase (less, 
 ajq'tarently, through circumstances, in France 
 than elsewhere) of the power of the metro¬ 
 politan, and with the practical assumption of a 
 sole nomination, especially in France, by the 
 king. In France, the Councils of Orleans II., 
 A.D. 533, canons i. viii., of Clermont, A.D. 535, 
 can. ii., of Orleans III., a.d. 538, can. iii., specify 
 the “ clerici, cives,” bishops of the province, and 
 metropolitan, but require the consent of all the 
 comprovincial bishops only in the election of the 
 metropolitan himself. But in the Council of Or¬ 
 leans V., A.D. 549, canons x. and xi., occurs first 
 the significant phrase, “ cum voluntate regis 
 although still “ juxta electionem cleri ac plebis,” 
 and with consecration by the metropolitan and 
 comprovincial bishops, and with a special enact¬ 
 ment that “ nullus invitis detur episcopus, sed 
 nec per oppressionem potentium personarum . . . 
 cives aut clerici inclinenturand although also 
 checked almost immediately by the Council of 
 Paris III., A.D. 557, can. ii., which voids the 
 “ principis imperium,” if against the will of 
 metropolitan and bishops. Absolute nominations 
 by the kings, however, occur earlier: e. g. under 
 Theodoric of Austrasia, A.D. 511 x 534 (Greg. Tur. 
 de SS. Patrum W. c. iii.). And compare also 
 the appointment to the see of Leon, of Paulus 
 Leonensis, by Childebert (F. S. Paul. Leon.'), 
 A.D. 512. The issue between royal, and metro¬ 
 politan or ecclesiastical, nominations was directly 
 raised A.D. 563, in the case of Emerius, bishop of 
 Saintes; whom the king (Charibert) forced upon 
 the see in defiance of the metropolitan, as being 
 his predecessor Lothaire’s nominee (Greg. Tur. 
 H. E. iv. 26). And Lothaire II.,—in confirming 
 a re-enactment of can. ii. of the second Council of 
 Paris, made by the Council of Paris V. a.d. 615 
 (can. i.), and again re-enacted at the Council of 
 Rheims, a.d. 625, can. xxv., and at the Council 
 of Chalons, a.d. 649, can. x., — requires to such 
 elections, made “ a clei’o et populo,” the sub¬ 
 
 sequent “ ordinatio jirincijns,” with no other 
 qualification than that “ certe si de palatio eli- 
 gitur [episcopus], per meritum, &c., ordinetur” 
 (IMansi, x. 543). Thenceforward, the action of 
 the people of the diocese, under the Frankish 
 kings, is commonly termed, not “ electio,” but 
 “fiagitatio” or “ petitio,” or is expressed aa . 
 “ .suppliciter postulamus,” addressed to the king. 
 Regular forms for the donation of a bishopric by 
 the king, nominally “ cum consilio episcoporum 
 et procerum ”—in Marculphus, and in Sirmond 
 {Cone. Gallie. ii. Append.; see also the “ electio 
 quo modo a clero et a populo oligitur episcopus 
 in propria sede cum consensu regis archiprae- 
 sulisque omniumque populo ” [sic], in Morinus, 
 de Ordin. ii. 304)—exhibit the choice, even when 
 made by the clergy and people, and sanctioned 
 by the metropolitan, as ultimately and in efi’ect 
 made by the king. And in point of fact, the 
 bishops were *50 nominated. Carioman, however, 
 and Pipin {Com. lAptin. A.D. 743, and Cone. Suess. 
 A.D. 744), professed to restore liberty of election 
 to the Church. And a new set of “formulae” 
 occurs accordingly (in Baluz. ii. 591, and in Sir¬ 
 mond), as “usurpatae post restitutam clectionum 
 libertatem.” And Charlemagne, upon the advice 
 of Pope Adrian, that he should leave episcopal 
 elections to the “ clerus et plebs ” according to 
 the canons {Cone. Gallic, ii. 96), issued a capitu¬ 
 lary, A.D. 803 {Cone. Aquisgran. c. ii., repeated by 
 Louis, A.D. 816, Capit. Aqtiisgran. c. ii.), consent¬ 
 ing “ ut episcopi per electionem cleri et populi 
 secundum statuta canonum de propria dioecesi 
 eligantur;” but he did so as granting a grace, 
 not as admitting a right. And as the bishops in 
 point of fact continued to be appointed by the 
 emperors (see e. g. Baluz. ad Cone. Gall. Eat'hon. 
 
 р. 34, and ad Capit. ii. 1141), and no choice 
 could be made save by the empei*or’s special per¬ 
 mission (so Gieseler, and this as late as Cone. Va¬ 
 lentin. A.D. 855, can. vii.), and special privileges 
 of free election were given to particular churches 
 (Baluz. ib.), which imply the universality of the 
 opposite practice,—not to add also the much 
 disputed but after all possibly genuine grant by 
 Adrian to Charlemagne (in Gratian, Dist. 63, 
 
 с. 22 ) of an absolute right to the appoint¬ 
 ment and investiture of all bishops and arch¬ 
 bishops in all provinces of his empire,—it is 
 obvious that the change was more in name than 
 in reality (as indeed the “ formulae ” themselves, 
 as above in Sirmond, &;c., shew), until at least the 
 renewal of the contest after the middle of the 
 9th century in the time of Hincmar. On the 
 other hand, the power of the metropolitan and 
 the right of free election were continually re¬ 
 asserted, although with little efi'ect (see the 
 councils above quoted, from that of Orleans in 
 5.33 to that of Rheims in 649); until under 
 Charlem igne’s immediate successors, whose right 
 to nominate is actually recognized at the Council 
 of Paris VI. a.d. 829 (can. xxii.), and that of 
 Thionville in 815 {Cipit. C(r. Culv. tit. ii. c. 2 ), 
 &c.; and this, although Carioman and Pipin had 
 both of them professedly restored the rights of 
 the metropolitan as well as freedom of election 
 (a.d. 742, Capit. c. i., and a.d. 755, can. ii.). See 
 the whole subject carefully treated in Henry C. 
 Lea’s Studies in Church History, })p. 81-9U 
 (^Philad. U. S. 1869). 
 
 In Saxon England, king, witan, and metro¬ 
 politan appear to have predominated, although 
 
218 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 the first gr.adually became as a rule the real 
 nominator. At the same time, the canonical 
 form of election was kept up ; and when the king 
 was weak and the Church strong, it occasionally 
 became a reality. The Kentish and Northumbrian 
 kings agreed in choosing Wighard, but accepted 
 Theodore, a.d. 668, as Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 at the hands of the pope, upon Wighard’s unex¬ 
 pected death at Rome (Baed. H. E. iii. 29, iv. 1). 
 Northumbrian kings and witenagemots adjudi¬ 
 cated the various disputes about Wilfrid’s sees. 
 And Theodore and a synod of bishops chose and 
 consecrated Cuthbert to the see of Lindisfarne, 
 A.D. 684, but “ sub praesentia Regis Ecgfridi ” 
 (id. iv. 28). Wihtred’s privilege, a.d. 696 x 716, 
 in its genuine form refers to Kent and to abbats 
 and presbyters, not to England at large, or to 
 bishops (Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. iii. 238-247). 
 And Agatho’s privilegium to the “ congregatio ” 
 of the monastery of St. Paul’s, a.d. 673x 681, to 
 elect their own bishop, is a forgery (ib. 161). 
 On the other hand (although no doubt contem¬ 
 porary both with the Carlovingian nominal re¬ 
 storation of liberty of election in France, and with 
 the breaking up of the Northumbrian kingdom), 
 Alcuin’s letter.s, “ad Fratres Eboi-acen.ses,” of 
 Aug. 796, before the election of Eanbald to York, 
 distinctly affirm, that “ hucusque sancta Ebo- 
 racensis Ecclesia in electione sua inviolata per- 
 mansit,” adding, “ videte ne in diebus vestris 
 maculetur—imply that Alcuin him.self had a 
 voice in the election;—and urgently exhort the 
 York clergy to elect a proper person, if he him¬ 
 self cannot come in time for the election {Epistt. 
 .54, 55, Migne; 48, 49, Froben.). “ Profes- 
 siones,” also, of a little later date, distinctly 
 as.sert an election by the diocese : e. g. that of 
 Beornmod of Rochester, A.D. 805, or a year or 
 two earlier,—“ electus ab Ethelardo archiepi- 
 scopo et a servis Domini in Cantia constitutis ” 
 (in Wharton, A. S'.),—and that of a bishop of 
 Lichfield (probably Kynferth, A.D. 833 x 836), 
 “ quoniam me tota Ecclesia provinoiae nostrae 
 sibi in episcopatus officium elegerunt ” (^Cotton 
 MSS. Cleop. E. 1),—and that of Helmstan of Win¬ 
 chester, A.D. 838, “ a sancte et Apostolice sedis 
 dignitate et ab congregatione civitatis Wentanae 
 necnon Ethel[wulfi] regis et totius gentis occi- 
 dentalium Saxonum ad episcopalis officii gradum 
 electus ” (ibS), —and that of Deorlaf of Hereford, 
 A.D. 857 X 866, “quoniam me tota congregatio 
 Herefordensis Ecclesiae sibi in officium episcopale 
 elegerunt ” {App. ad Text. Hoff.). In a little 
 later times, we find Odo made archbishop, a.d. 
 942, by the “ regia voluntas,” followed by the 
 “ assen.sus episcoporum ” (Will. Malm. G. P. A. 
 i.); Dunstan, A.D. 960, made so by Edgar (ffd. ib.), 
 but with an election also by acclamation accord¬ 
 ing to his Life; and Living, a.d. 1013, “ suffragio 
 Regis Ethelredi ” (W. Malm. ib.). And in the 
 time of Eadward the Confessor, Aelfric is elected 
 by the monks of Canterbuiy, but set aside by the 
 king in favour of Robert, made archbishop 
 “ regis munere ” ( V. Eadw. ed. Luard, pp. 399, 
 400). By that time the election by the “ clerus 
 et plebs ” of the diocese, so far as it still sur¬ 
 vived at all, had gradually shrivelled up into an 
 election by the clergy, and by the clergy of the 
 cathedral,—a process materially accelerated by 
 the monastic character of the chapters, coupled 
 with the monastic privilege of choosing their own 
 abbats,—but which was also perpetually set aside 
 
 by the necessity of the royal consent, running 
 naturally into a right of royal nomination. See 
 also the evidence collected by Freeman, /list, of 
 Norm. Conq. ii. 61, 117, and 571-577. The case 
 of the see of Rochester was exceptional, the 
 archbishop of Canterbury claiming, and fre¬ 
 quently obtaining, the right of nomination to 
 that see, as against the crown, until the days of 
 King .John. 
 
 In Spain, the power of the bishops in the 
 election of the kings preserved and extended 
 also their own power, and among other things, in 
 episcopal elections. The Council of Toledo X., 
 A.D. 656, for instance, elected a metropolitan of 
 Braga (the former bishop being deposed for in¬ 
 continence) without consulting the diocese. See 
 however Dunbar, Ilist.of Spain and Portwgal, bk. 
 ii. c. ii., who rather leans towards the royal power 
 in such elections. Ultimately the king and the 
 metropolitan of Toledo seem to have acquired 
 practically a joint power of nomination. Cone. 
 Tolet. XII., A.D. 681, empowers the archbishop 
 of Toledo, as primate, to consecrate at Toledo, 
 “ quoscunque regalis potestas elegerit et jam 
 dicti Toletani episcopi judicium dignos esse pro- 
 baverit ” (can. vi.). And see also the history of 
 King Witiza, A.D. 701-710. Martin of Braga 
 too, distinctly says that the people are not to 
 elect bishops. 
 
 In Italy, also, the royal power gradually 
 overruled without superseding the older canoni¬ 
 cal form of election. But that the latter con¬ 
 tinued in all ordinary cases, save that the metro¬ 
 politan’s influence and veto had grown moi’e 
 powerful, is palpable by St. Gregory the Great’s 
 letters. On the other hand, Odoacer, A.D. 476- 
 483, with the “ advice ” of Pope Simplicius, for¬ 
 bade the election of a bishop of Rome without 
 his (the king’s) consent. And the interference 
 of (the Arian) Theodoric in the disputed election 
 of Pope Symmachu.s, a.d. 501, was both asked for 
 and submitted to; although it called forth En- 
 nodius’ Apologetic Letter, and also a protest from 
 the Cone. Palm. a.d. 502, which declared Odoacer’s 
 law invalid. Yet the Gothic kings continued to 
 exercise such a power. Theodoric appointed suc¬ 
 cessive popes during his reign, down to Felix III. 
 A.D. 526 (Greenwood, Cathed. Pet. iii. c. 4). And 
 Athalaric issued regulations about papal elec¬ 
 tions on occasion of the outrageous simony that 
 attended the accession of John II. a.d. 533 
 (Cassiod. ix, 15). And not only so, but the 
 Greek emperoi’s, when they recovered Italy, 
 exercised it likewise; so that, e. g. Gregory the 
 Great, a.d. 590, after due election by the “ clerus, 
 senatores, populusque Romauus,” still required 
 the “ praeceptio ” of the emperor Maurice to 
 complete his election (Jo. Diac. in T'. Greg. M. 
 lib. i. ep. 39, 40). And Pipin and Charlemagne 
 fell heirs to the like “ jus et potestatem eli- 
 gendi pontiricem:” for all which see details 
 under Pope. The election of the pope in¬ 
 deed remained like other elections of the kind, 
 until the decree of the Cone. Pom. of a.d. 1059 
 under Nicholas II. (for which .see Gieseler, ii. 369, 
 Eng. transL); which itself was a change ana¬ 
 logous to the contemporary changes elsewhere. 
 
 In brief, then, during this period, the old 
 canonical diocesan election continued thro’. ghout 
 the Western Church as the right and pro}>er mode 
 of election; but (1) wjis in itself graduallv ab¬ 
 sorbed into a vote of the cathedral clergy C* olcctic 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 219 
 
 clericonim est, petitio plebis,” is the utmost 
 allowed iu Gratian, Deer. i. dtst. 62), and (2) was 
 oveiTuled perpetually by the royal nomination, 
 which itself was concurrent with but commonly 
 superseded the consent ot metropolitan and com¬ 
 provincial bishops. 
 
 For special conditions attending the election 
 of metropolitans, and for the relation ot the 
 metropolitans to the patriarchs in the matter, 
 see Metropolitan, Patriarch. 
 
 At what times special questions arose respect¬ 
 ing the qualifications which gave a right to vote 
 in the election of a bishop—how such questions 
 were determined—in what way votes were ac¬ 
 tually taken—and other questions of like detail 
 —there remains no evidence to shew : except 
 that we may infer from siich accounts as e. g. 
 that in Synesius, Epist. 67, that where there was 
 a popular assembly ordinarily acting in other and 
 civil matters, such assembly acted also, at first, 
 in the choice of a bishop. Synesius’ description 
 also illustrates forcibly the ox^ot of the Laodiceue 
 Council, the women being preeminently noisy on 
 the occasion, and even the children. 
 
 Who were eligible. —Such being the electors, 
 it follows next to consider the qualifications of 
 those who were to be elected. The general dis¬ 
 qualifications for the clerical office—such as, e.g. 
 digamy, clinic baptism, heretical baptism, the 
 having been a demoniac, or done public penance, 
 or lapsed, the occupations of pleader, soldier, play¬ 
 actor, usurer, the being a slave, or illegitimate, 
 the having any of his own immediate family still 
 unconverted heathens, &c. &c. — will be best 
 treated under Presbyters, Clergy, or the se¬ 
 veral subjects themselves. The special conditions 
 of eligibility for a bishopric w'cre, ( 1 ) that the 
 candidate should be, acc. to Apost. Const it. ii. 1, 
 fifty years of age; but acc. to Cone. Neocaes. 
 A.D. 314 (requiring 30 for a presbyter, on the 
 ground of St. Luke iii. 23—a canon adopted by 
 the Church universal), and acc. to similar later 
 canons (^Arclut. IV. A.D. 475, can. i., Agath. 
 A.D. 506, can. xvii., Aurelian. III. A.D. 533, 
 can. vi., Tolet. IV. a.d. 581, can. xx. ; and again, 
 Justin. Novell, cxxxiii. 1 ; and again, Charlemagne 
 at Aix, A.D. 789, Capit. i. 49, and at Frankfort, 
 A.D. 794, can. xlix.), the age of 30 only was in¬ 
 sisted on. And so also Balsamon. Photius in 
 one place (ap. Suicer) says 35, which is likewise 
 Justinian’s rule in another Novel (cxxvii. 1). And 
 Siricius and apparently Zosimus (Sir. ad Himer. 
 Epist. 1 § 9, Zos. ad Hesych. Epist. 1, § 3, a de¬ 
 tailed lex annalis in both cases) place the mini¬ 
 mum at 45. Special merits, however (St. Chrys. 
 Horn, in 1 Tim. x. xi.), and the precedent of 
 Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 12 ; and see St. Ignat. 
 ad M ignes. 3, speaking of vfdjTfpiK^ rd^is = a 
 youthful appointment), repeatedly set aside the 
 rule in practice (see instances in Bingh. II. x. 1) : 
 as, e.g. in the well-known case of St. Athanasius, 
 apparently not much more than 23 when conse¬ 
 crated bishop. ( 2 ) That he should be of the 
 clergy of the church to which he was to be con¬ 
 secrated,— onr’ auTov rov Upareiov —“de proprio 
 clero” (so Pope Julius, Epist. ad Orient, ap. S. 
 Athanas. Apol. ii.; Pope Caelestinus, Epist. ii. c. 4; 
 Pope Hilary, Epist. i. c. 3 ; Leo M., Epist. Ixxxiv.; 
 Gregory the Great repeatedly; and as part of 
 the Old canonical rule, the Capit. of Charle¬ 
 magne above quoted, “de propria dioecesi)”:—a 
 rule likewise repeatedly broken under pressure 
 
 of circumstances, special merit in the candidate, 
 the condition of the diocese itself, &c., and by 
 translations, so far as translations were allowed; 
 but one also enforced by the nature of the case 
 so long as the voice and testimony of the people 
 of the diocese was an important element in the 
 election, and on like grounds disregarded in pro¬ 
 portion as metropolitan, or still more royal, 
 nominations became predominant. St. Jerome’s 
 well-known statement about Alexandria seems 
 to speak of it as almost a special privilege of that 
 see from early times: which it plainly was not. 
 If the presbyter chosen was not of the diocese 
 itself, the consent of his own bishop was requisite 
 (Cone. Nicaen. can. xvi. &c. &c.; and see below, 
 III. 1, a, X.). (3) That he should be a presbyter, 
 or a deacon at the least, and not become a bishop 
 per saltuin, but go through all the interstitia or 
 several stages;—also at first an ecclesiastical 
 custom, grounded on the fitness of the thirrg 
 (e.g. Pope Cornelius “non ad episcopatum.subit© 
 pervenit sed per omnia ecclesiastica ofiicia,” &c. 
 and again, “ cunctis religionis gradibus asceudit,’^ 
 St. Cypr. Epist. 52 al. 55; and similarly Greg. 
 Naz. Orat. xx. of St. Basil ; and so repeatedly 
 St. Gregory the Great, objecting to a layman 
 being made bishop), but turned into a canon by 
 Cone. Sardic. A.D. 347, can. x. (/ca0’ eKaorou 
 Padfxhr, K.T.\., and naftiing reader, deacon, priest; 
 the object being to exclude neophytes), and by 
 some later provincial councils (Cone. Aurelian. 
 III. A.D. 538, can. vi.; Bracar. I. a.d. 563, can. 
 xxxix.; Barcinon. II. A.D. 599, can, iii.): and so 
 Leo the Great (admitting deacons however on 
 the same level with priests), “ Ex presbytefis 
 ejusdem Ecclesiae vel ex diaconibus optimus eli- 
 gaiuv” (Epist. Ixxxiv. c. 6 ):—broken likewise 
 perpetually under special circumstances (see 
 Morin, de Sacr. Ordin. III. xi. 2 ). Instances of 
 deacons, indeed, advanced at once to the epi¬ 
 scopate, are numerous, and scarcely regarded as 
 irregular, beginning with St. Athanasius (see a 
 list in Bingh. II. x. 5; but St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 
 
 xxi. speaks of St. Athanasius as irdoau tt)v tuv 
 ^ aQfxwv aKoKovQlav die^eXdchu'). But the case 
 of a reader also is mentioned in St. Aug. (Epist. 
 cxlii.), and of a subdeacon in Liberatus (Breviar. 
 
 xxii. ). And although expressly forbidden by Jus¬ 
 tinian (Novell, vi. 1, cxxiii. 1, cxxxvii. 1) and by 
 Cone. Arelat. IV. a.d. 455, can. ii., yet the well- 
 known cases of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, .St. Mar¬ 
 tin of Tours, St. Germanus of Auxerre, and 
 others, prove the admissibility of even a layman, 
 if under the circumstances—as, e. g. by reason 
 of the sudden acclamation of the people—such a 
 choice was held to be “voluntate” or “judicio 
 Dei ” (Hieron. iniii, 0pp. iii. 1489 ; Pon¬ 
 tius, in V. S. Cypr. ; Paulin, in V. S. Ambros. iii.; 
 &c.). Instances may also be found in the Alex¬ 
 andrian church (Keiiaudot, ap. Denzinger, Bit. 
 Orient. 145, 146). And the rubric in the Nes- 
 torian Pontifical expressly admits the possibility 
 of a bishop elect being a deacon as well as a 
 presbyter (Denzinger, ib. 146). At the same time 
 there is the well-known case of the patriarch 
 Photius, deposed, because ordained on five suc¬ 
 cessive days respectively monk, reader, subdea¬ 
 con, deacon, priest, and on the sixth day bishep 
 (Cone. Nicaen. II. a.d. 787, can. iv.). See also 
 under Advocate of the Church. But then (4) 
 such candidate was not to be a neophyte (1 Tim. 
 iii. 6 ), or a heathen recently baptized, who had not 
 
220 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 yet beeu tried (^Apost. Can. Ixxx.; Cone. Nicaen. 
 can. ii.; Cone. Laodic. A.n. 365, can. iii.) : but one 
 converted at least a year before {Cone. Aurelian. 
 III. A.D. 538, can. vi.); or who had been a reader, 
 or a subdeacoH, or (acc. to one copy) a deacon for 
 a year {Cone. Braear. II. A.D. 563, can. xx.); or 
 acc. to yet another provincial council {Epaon. 
 A.D. 517, can. xxxvii.), at the least “ praemissa 
 religione.” Yet here too special circumstance.^ 
 were held to justify exceptions; as in the case of 
 St. Cyprian himself, “ adhuc neophytus ” (Pont. 
 ib.) ; of St. Ambrose and of Eusebius of Caesarea 
 in Pontus, not yet baptized (Theodoret, iv. 7 , 
 Socrat. iv. 30, Sozom. vi. 24, St. Greg. Naz. Of-at. 
 xix.); of Nectarius, r^u pvarLK^v iaQrira Iti 
 ^a<pi^o’ii^vos, &c. (Sozom. vii. 8 ). And all these 
 are cases of immediate consecration ; the later 
 practice of ordaining to each step on successive 
 days, in order to keep the letter while breaking 
 the spirit of the rule, dating no earlier than 
 the case of Photius above mentioned (Bingh. II. 
 X. 7). (5) Apost. Can. xxi. permits the consecra¬ 
 tion of one made a eunuch by cruelty, or born 
 so ; and {ib. Ixxvii.) of one maimed or diseased 
 in eye or leg: but {ib. Ixxviii.) forbids it in the 
 case of a deaf or dumb person. ( 6 ) Lastly, the 
 bishop who was appointed Interventor to a see 
 during the vacancy was pro hae viee ineligible 
 to that see. [Interventores.] It remains to 
 add (7) that the candidate’s own consent was 
 not at first held to be requisite, but that in many 
 cases consecration was forced upon him &Kovra ; 
 as in the instances in Bingh. IV. vii. 2 : to which 
 may be added others, as, e. g. that of Eusebius of 
 Caesarea in Pontus, A.D. 362 (Greg. Naz. Oral. 
 xix.). And Apost. Can. xxxvi. orders the excom¬ 
 munication of a bishop who refuses the charge of 
 the people assigned to him. But first St. Basil 
 ( d Amphiloeh. x.) exempts those who in such a 
 case had‘‘sworn ”—hixvvoims /caraSexfO^^®* 
 tV afterwards the emperors 
 
 Leo and Majorian forbade forced ordinations alto¬ 
 gether {Novel, ii. in Append, ad Cod. Theodos. vi. 
 34). And similarly Pope Simplicius {Epist. ii.), 
 and Cone. Aurelian. III. A.D. 538 (can. vii.). At 
 the same time the law of Leo and Anthemius 
 {Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. iii. De Episeopis, 1. 31) 
 describes the “ nolo episcopari ” temper proper to 
 one to whom a bishopric is ottered—“ ut quaeratur 
 cogendus, rogatus recedat, invitatus refugiat, sola 
 illi sutfragetur necessitas obsequendi;” and that 
 “ profecto indignus est sacerdotio, nisi fuerit or- 
 dinatus invitus.” And so the Fathers generally 
 (Thomassin, II. ii. 65). 
 
 y. Time, mode, and plaee of eleetion. —Further, 
 (1) the election was ordered to be made, and the 
 new bishop consecrated, iurhs rpiwv (xi)p(av, un¬ 
 less delay was unavoidable, by Cone. Chaleed. 
 A.D. 431, can. xxv. And the alleged practice at 
 Alexandria (doubtless from the special character 
 of the place already mentioned) was to elect im¬ 
 mediately after the death of the last bishop, and 
 before he was interred (Epiphan. Haer. Ixix. § 11, 
 Liberal. Breviar. xx., and see Socrat. vii. 7); a 
 practice followed in one instance, that of Pi'oclus, 
 A.D. 434—447, at Constantinople also (Socrat. vii. 
 40). The time allowed in Africa, however, was 
 much longer, the episeopus interventor being only 
 superseded if he allowed the election to be de¬ 
 layed beyond a year {Cone. Carthag. V. a.d. 398, 
 can. iii.; Cod. Can. Eeel. Afrie. Ixxiv.). On 
 the other hand, Cone. Bom. a.d. 606, to prcA^ent 
 
 bishops nominating their own .successors, for¬ 
 bids election until the third day after the last 
 bishop’s death. (2) Such election was not to 
 take place 4irl ‘rrapoveria aKpoaip.€vwv —“ in the 
 presence of the hearers,” i. e. the class of cate¬ 
 chumens so called {Cone. Laodie. a.d. 365, can. 
 V.) ; probably because accu-sations might on such 
 occasions be brought forward against clergy. 
 (3) Later canon law {Greg. IX. Deeretal. 1. vi. 
 De TAeet. et Eleeti Potest, c. 42) specifies three 
 modes of electing; scil. by “ compromissarii ” 
 (delegates by whose act the body of electors 
 bound themselves to abide), by scrutiny of votes, 
 by “ inspiration ” (if the electors agree in an 
 unanimous and unpremeditated choice). Of these 
 three, compromissarii are mentioned by Gregory 
 the Great, although not under that name {Epist. 
 iii. 35). And election by acclamation was (as we 
 have seen) not unknown. The other was of course 
 the ordinary way, viz. by some kind or other of 
 scrutiny of votes. (4) The election was properly 
 to take place in the diocese itself (whereas “ com¬ 
 promissarii ” might be sent elsewhere to perform 
 it), that the people might be able to give their 
 testimony (St. Cypr. Epist. Ixvii.). Cone. Aure¬ 
 lian. IV. A.D. 541, can. v., &c. &c., refer to the place 
 of ordination, for which see below. So long as that 
 also took place in the diocesan cathedral (see e. g. 
 St. Aug. Epist. 261, and below), so long no doubt 
 the election took place there likewise. But even 
 when the ordination came to be transferred to 
 the metropolitan see, the election still remained 
 commonly as to be done on the spot itself. 
 [IXTERVENTORES; ViSITATORES.] 
 
 2 . Confirmation .— The bishop elect was next 
 to be confirmed, viz. by the metropolitan. And 
 so far as such confirmation merely referred to the 
 metropolitan’s share in the election, it would 
 certainly seem to follow from Cone. Nieaen. can. 
 vi. {KpaTe'iTCt} rj rwv TrXfiSvwv \l/?i(pos'), from Cone, 
 Antioeh. A.D. 341, can. xix. (repeating the Nicene 
 canon), and even from so late a witness as Cone, 
 Arelat. II. A.D. 452, can. v., that in the first in¬ 
 stance and canonically the voice of the majority 
 of bishops was final. At the same time, a cer¬ 
 tain right of ratification is assigned to the me¬ 
 tropolitan, even from the time of the Coiincil of 
 Nice itself. And it certainly seems that the 
 metropolitan in course of time, practically, if 
 not expressly, came to have a veto. So, e. g. 
 Pope Hilary, a.d. 465, Epist. ii. c. 1. In the 
 form of election, however, in Sym. of Thessal., 
 the bishoj>s alone vote at all, the metropoli¬ 
 tan not being even present. [Metropolitak.] 
 So likewise with the patriarch, later still ^^.see, 
 however, for both. Cone. Chaleed. a.d. 451, Act. 
 xvi., Labbe, iv. 818, and Patriarch). But from 
 no doubt the earliest times, and corresponding 
 to the proof {boKiixaaia) required in 1 Tim. iii. 
 7, 10, something must have existed like the 
 enactment of Cone. Carth. IV. so called: “ Qui 
 episeopus ordinandus est, antea examiuetur, si 
 nature sit prudens, si docibilis, si moribus tern 
 peratus, &c., si litteratus, si in lege Domini in- 
 structus, si in Scripturarum sensibus cautus, s. 
 in dogmatibus ecclesiasticis exercitatus; et ante 
 omnia, si fidei documenta verbis simplicibus 
 asserat, id est, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
 Sanctum unum Deum esse confirmans,” «S:c. &c. 
 So also Theodoret (m 1 I'im. v. 22),— 'E^erdC^iy 
 ycLp TrpoTfpov XP^ ytipoTovovpevov tOv j8to»^ 
 el 0 ’ Q'jTois Ka\eiy ctt’ avrhy T^y X®P**' Ilveu- 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 221 
 
 uaros. See also the Apost. Constit., and the de¬ 
 scription in the Greek Pontificals of the bishop 
 to be consecrated, as already inroxl/ricpios Kal 
 c(rT€peci}/u€i'os = elect and confirmed. Certainly, 
 from the 4th century onward, the confirmation 
 was a distinct technical act, following upon the 
 election; so far distinct, indeed, that in time 
 (from the 4th century itself according to De 
 Marca, de Cone. Sacerd. ct Imp. VIII. ii. 1; but 
 Van Espen, Jur. Eccl. Univ. I. xiv. 1, § 7, 
 more probably refers it to the 11th or 12th) 
 confirmation was held to confer upon the 
 bishop not yet consecrated the power of juris¬ 
 diction, but not that of order. Justinian enacts 
 that a bishop elect shall carefully peruse the 
 “ rules laid down by the Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church,” and shall then be interrogated by his 
 ordainer (*. e. the metropolitan) whether he is 
 competent to keep them ; and upon his solemn 
 profession accordingly, and after a solemn admo¬ 
 nition, shall then be ordained. And so we find 
 Gregory the Great, A.D. 596 (^Epist. vii. 19), de¬ 
 siring the archbishop of Ravenna to summon 
 into his presence the bishop elect of Ariminum 
 (elected by “ clerus et plebs ”), and to examine 
 him ; and if “ ea in eo quae in textu Heptatici 
 morte mulctata sunt, minime fuerint reperta, 
 atque fidelium personarum relatione ejus vobis 
 quidem vita placuerit, ad nos eum cum decreti 
 pagina, vestrae quoque addita testificationis epi- 
 stola, destinate, quatenus a nobis . . . consecretur 
 antistes.” So again in Carlovingian times, two 
 centuries and a half later, upon the election 
 of Gillebert to the see of Chalons sur Marne, 
 Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, with the other 
 bishops of the province, or their vicars, the 
 abbats, canons, monks, presbyters, deacons, and 
 subdeacons, being assembled at Chiersi (near 
 Laon)—the archbishops of Rouen, Tours, and 
 Sens, being also present—the “ clerus, ordo, et 
 plebs” of Chalons presented the decree of election 
 to Hincmar and his fellow-bishops, and (after an 
 explanation respecting a previous election that 
 had been set aside) declared the unanimous con¬ 
 sent to it of the “ canonici, monachi, parochi, et 
 nobiles ” of the diocese. Thereupon Hincmar 
 interi’ogated the bishop elect respecting his 
 country, condition, literary proficiency, and past 
 ordinations; and ascertained that he had not 
 been “ conductor alienarum rerum, nec turpia 
 lucra vel exactiones sive tormenta in hominibus 
 exercens;” and further, as he had held some 
 court office, that his accounts with the king were 
 settled; to the former of which points certain 
 clerici and noble laymen bore testimony, while 
 for the latter he produced a royal letter, duly 
 sealed, and containing also an intimation of the 
 royal wish for his consecration. Testimonies of a 
 bishop and certain monks to his good behaviour 
 were then produced ; and the consent of the 
 archbishop of Toui’s was given to the transfer 
 into another province of one born and ordained 
 at Tours. Hincmar, then, with the archbishop 
 ot Tours as his assessor, desired the candidate to 
 read, or listen to, and promise to keep, the Pas¬ 
 toral of Gregory the Gi*eat, the Canons, and the 
 rules usually given by the ordainer to the or¬ 
 dained, and which were subsequently given to 
 him in writing; and to write out and subscribe 
 the Creed, and hand it so subscribed to the me¬ 
 tropolitan. The written consents of the absent 
 bishops wei’e then produced and read, and the 
 
 day and place of consecration fixed (Cone. Gallic. 
 Sirmond, ii. 651). See also the Ordinals in 
 Martene (ii. 386) and Morinus (de Sac. Urd. ii.). 
 A professio, i. e. at first both of his faith and of 
 canonical obedience to his archbishop, came also 
 to be part of the formal proceedings of the con¬ 
 firmation of a bishop. The English “ Professions” 
 begin early in the 9th century; and the early 
 ones commonly contain a kind of creed, as well 
 as a promise of obedience. So likewise in the 
 East, the 2nd Counc. of Nice, A.D. 787 (can. ii.) 
 requires a careful enquiry to be made whether 
 the candidate is well acquainted with the Canons, 
 with the Gospels, Epistles, and the whole Scrip¬ 
 tures, and is prepared himself to walk, and to 
 teach the people committed to him, according to 
 God’s commandments. And the bishop elect was 
 required to profess that he “ receives the Seven 
 Synods, and promises to keep the canons enacted 
 by them, and the constitutions promulged by 
 the Fathers.” A solemn recitation and subscrip¬ 
 tion of the Creed, and a disclaimer of simony, 
 were required also of the bishop elect before bis 
 consecration (Sym. Thessal. ap. Morin, ii. 156). 
 In the Western Church, even at this date, no 
 further confirmation was usual or necessary. 
 The pope only intervened in a few extraordinary 
 cases (Thomassin, II. ii. 30, § 1: and see Patri¬ 
 arch, Pope). 
 
 3. Ordination (xaporouia most commonly, as 
 probably in Acts xiv. 23, although the word is 
 also used of election, as 2 Cor. viii. 19 ; x^‘po- 
 dfcr'ia, which also means sometimes benediction 
 only, as 6 TrpftrjSoTepos xe/po^erei, ou 
 Apost. Constit. viii. 28 [and so and 
 
 X^ipoOerelv are distinguished in the spurious 
 Epist. of St. Ignat, to Hero, c. iii.]; Kadiepuxris j 
 r€\e(Tiovpy'ia] a(popi(r/j.6s ] and in Pseudo-Dion. 
 Areop., rhetoricized into nXCiwcris UpariK^,, 
 aTTovK^pcocis, diaK6(Tjj.Tq(ris, k.t .\.)^— followed 
 upon the completion of the confirmation. 
 
 And (a) first, the matter and form (as it 
 was afterwards called) of ordination w'as, from 
 the beginning, laying on of hands (iirid^cns 
 Tuv Acts vi. 6, 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22, 
 
 2 Tim. i. 6; Euseb.), accompanied 
 
 necessarily by words expressive of the purpose 
 of the act, but by no invariable and universal 
 formula claiming apostolic authority. Other 
 rites, added as time went on, cannot claim to 
 be either apostolical or universal, and pertain 
 therefore, at best, “ to the solemnity, not to the 
 essence,” of the rite, (i.) The only other rite 
 indeed in episcopal ordination, that has any ap¬ 
 pearance of a claim to the “ ubique et ab omnibus,” 
 but which is not traceable (although it very pro¬ 
 bably existed) before the 3rd century, is the lay¬ 
 ing of the Gospels, open in the ancient and in the 
 Greek church, shut acc. to the Ordo Eornanus, 
 upon the head (in some rites, upon the neck and 
 shoulders) of the bishop to be ordained.— Const. 
 Apostol. viii. 4 : Kal (riarir^s •yeropieVr;?, (Is twv 
 TrpWTWV ’ETTJO'fcjTTOJJ' 2/XO KUt SvO’lu iT€pOlS TTAtJ- 
 ciou rov dvaiao’Trjplov ecTws, rwu Konriau 'Eni- 
 <TK6ir(av Kal Trpf(rSvT(pct)u aiw-irf} Trpo(T€vxofMiVcov, 
 
 • The si)ecial appropriation of the term contecratimi to 
 episcoi)al ordination is purely modern ; Leo M., e.g., uses 
 the term indifferently of bishops, priests, or deacons; and 
 Gillebert, quoted by Du Cange, opposes it to “ dcdicare,”, 
 the latter meaning to ilovote to God, the former to set 
 apart for holy uses. 
 
222 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 vup Se ZiaKovwv ra 6e7a EvayyeXia iw't rris rov 
 ■)(eipoTovovfx4vov KupaXrjs av€TTTvyiJ.4pa KaT€X<iv- 
 Twp, Keyerco, — And with unimportant va¬ 
 
 riations, Cone. Garth. IV. A.D. 398, can. ii. : 
 “ Ejnscopus cum ordiuatui*, duo episcopi ponant 
 et teneant Evarigeliorum codicem super caput et 
 cervicem ejus, et uno super eum fuudente bene- 
 • ictionem, reliqui omnes episcopi qui adsunt, 
 manibus suis caput ejus tangant.”—And so also 
 Constit. Apostol. viii. 3 (assigning the act to 
 deacons), Pseudo-Chrys. (Ifom. de Uno Legis¬ 
 lator. 0pp. VI. 410, Montfauc.), Pseudo-Dion. 
 Areop. (de Eccl. Hier. V. i. 7, iii. 7), and almost 
 every ritual, Eastern and Western, including (so 
 Denzinger) Nestorian, Maronite, and Jacobite 
 (assigning it either to the patriarch or to the 
 assisting bishops). And although it came to be 
 used in Egypt in the consecration of the patri¬ 
 arch only, yet there too, if the Pseudo-Dionysius 
 represents the Alexandrian rite, it mast have 
 been used at first for all bishops (Denzinger, 
 Bit. Orient. 135). Alcuin however (de Div. Off.), 
 Amalarius (de Offic. Eccl. ii. 14), and Isidor. 
 Hispal. (de Div. Offic. ii. 5), quoted by Morinus, 
 seem (rather unaccountably) to imply its absence 
 in Gaul, Germany, and Spain, in the 8 th and 9th 
 centuries. And it is certainly wanting in two 
 pontificals in Mabillon (Mus. Italic, tom. ii. 
 namm. viii. ix.). The actual delivery of the 
 Gospels to the consecrated bishop occurs among 
 the Maroniles, but not among the Jacobite Sy¬ 
 rians or the Nestorians (Denzinger); and in the 
 West, it is in the present Roman Pontifical, but 
 was unknown until the 11th century (Morinus, 
 iii. 23).—(ii.) Anointing of the head in episcopal 
 ordination is a much less ancient or general rite 
 than the imposition of the Gospels. Among the 
 Easterns it never existed at all (Morinus, Den¬ 
 zinger, &c.); the fev/ ambiguous expressions in 
 Eastern rituals (cited by, e. g., J. A. Assemani) 
 referring to spiritual anointing, while the tes¬ 
 timony to the absolute non-occurrence of the 
 material rite is express. It is found in Gaul in 
 the 6 th century (Bit. ap. Morin, de Ordin. ii. 261, 
 sq.) ; in Africa not at all; doubtfully in Spain 
 (Morinus); but in Italy, also in the 6 th cen¬ 
 tury (S. Leo M., Serm. viii. de Passion. Dcnnini; 
 Greg. M. in I^eg. I. x.; ap. Morin, ib. III. vi. 2, 
 § 2); and in Saxon England it was extended to 
 hands as well as head in the 8 th century (Egbert’s 
 Pontiff ed. Greenwell; and so also in the Roman 
 ordinal in Morinus, ii. 288).—(iii.) The sign of 
 the cross, accompanying the imposition of hands 
 (which is therefore called a<ppayls), is mentioned 
 by St. Chrys. (Horn. Iv. in Matth.), and by the 
 Pseudo-Dionysius as above. In the later Greek 
 ritual it occurred thrice (see Morinus, iii. 254). 
 —(iv.) Deliv'ery of pastoral staff and ring be¬ 
 came also a part of the Western rite from about 
 the latter part of the 6 th century (Maskell, 
 Jtlon. Bit. vol. iii. 273). It occurs in the Ponti¬ 
 ficals of Gregory the Great and Egbert, but not 
 in those of Gelasius or Leo. The staff indeed 
 dates from the 4th century, as one of the insignia 
 of a bishop, both in East and West. And the ring, 
 which is unused in the East (except by the Ma¬ 
 ronite Syrians, and by the Armenians, the latter 
 of whom borrowed it from Rome—so Denzinger— 
 and the aippayls, or sign of the cross, is avrl 5a- 
 KTv\lov, acc. to Sym. Thessalon.), occurs in the 
 West as early as Isid. Hispal. de Div. Off. ii. 5 ; 
 but “ is not in either Amalarius, Alcuin, or Rab. 
 
 Maurus ” (Maskell). Both staff and ring aie 
 in Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, can. xxviii. (men¬ 
 tioning “ orarium, annulum, baculum ”) ; and, 
 seemingly, in Cone. Franco/, a.d. 794, can. x. 
 (mentioning, however, only in general, “ejdsco- 
 palia”). [Ring ; Crosikr Staff.] But as part 
 of the rite of ordination, they belong to the Wesh, 
 and to the latter part of the 6 th century, 
 [Investituri:.] The staff, however, occurs in 
 a late Greek Pontifical in Morinus (de Sac. 
 Ord. ii. 124).—(v.) The wp.o(p6piop, or pallium 
 (a linen vestment marked with crosses), also 
 came to be given at epi.scopal ordination in the 
 East. It is mentioned as an (Eastern) epi¬ 
 scopal vestment as early as Isidor. Pelus. in the 
 beginning of the 5th century (lib. i. Ep. 136; 
 and see Morinus, p. ii. pp. 220 sq., and Den¬ 
 zinger) ; and occurs in the Eastern rituals. In the 
 West, the delivery of a vestment also called by 
 the name of pallium followed ordination, not of all 
 bishops, but of archbishop.s, as a totally distinct 
 ceremony, and with an entirely different meaning 
 and purpose. And this began about A.D. 500 : see 
 Gieseler, ii. 133, Eng. ed., and under Pall.— 
 (vi.) The delivery of the mitre at ordination in 
 the West dates only after the close of the period 
 to which this article refers ; occurring first about 
 the 10th century (see Maskell’s Mon. Bit. iii. 275). 
 It is in the Sarum, as in all later Pontificals. 
 As part of the episcopal dress during Divine 
 service, in some shape or other, and under 
 various names, it occurs both in East and West 
 from apparently the 4th century. [Mitre.]— 
 (vi.) The delivery of the paten “ cum oblatis,” 
 and of the chalice “ cum vino,” which forms a 
 principal part of the later additions to the ordi¬ 
 nation of a presbyter [Presbyter], is found 
 for the first time in the Sacram. of Gregory the 
 Great (Morinus, ii. 277, iii. 134), and in the con¬ 
 secration of a bishop (in which however it does 
 not occur again). Among the Syrians, however, 
 the conseci’ating bishop touched the consecrated 
 elements with his hands before laying hands upon 
 the head of the bishop to be consecrated (Den¬ 
 zinger) ; and in the Apost. Constit. viii. 5, one of 
 the consecrating bishops is ordered avacpepeiv 
 T7?F Ovffiav iirl tup 
 
 —(vii.) The apappgcris or proclamation (prae- 
 dicatio, promulgatio, apauipa^LS, iTriK^pv^is, or 
 Kripv^is e’l op6piaros\ and (viii.) the kiss of peace, 
 are mentioned by Pseudo-Dion. Areop. as follow¬ 
 ing upon the consecration. The latter is men¬ 
 tioned also in Apost. Constit. viii. 5, but as oc¬ 
 curring at the subsequent enthronization. And 
 it was I’epeated four times during the service in 
 the East in the time of Sym. of Thessal. (ap. 
 Morin, ii. 171). The former occurs in the time 
 of Symeon before the consecration, and was in 
 that position a public proclamation by name of 
 the appointment (^ 0 ffa X“P*s irfoxeipfC^Tat) 
 of the elect bishop, made by the consecrating 
 archbishop (among the Jacobites and Copts, 
 however, by the archdeacon—Denzinger). There 
 were indeed two such p.rjpvp.aTa: one, the de¬ 
 claration made to the bishops, intimating the 
 choice made by emperor, or by metropol tan, 
 among the three presentees; the other, the pio- 
 clamation of the uame to the people (Morinus, 
 iii. 254). In the older Latin Ordinals the same 
 form occurs in substance in like place (id. ib. 
 27) ; viz. as a declaration by the consecrator, 
 that “ cives nostri elegerunt sibi ilium pastorem, 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 223 
 
 oreinus itaque pro hoc viro,” &c. It is also in 
 use among the Syrians (id. ib. 31). The Apost. 
 Constit. do not mention it. But St. Greg. Naz. 
 seems to allude to it under the term inKp-n/xi- 
 (Mor. tb. 30). ’At/dppria-is is also used in 
 Syuesius (Epist. 67) as equivalent to consecra¬ 
 tion ; and see also Suicer in voce. 
 
 All these, however, are later additions to the 
 rite; arising (as was not unnatural) out of the 
 gradual extension of the “ traditio instrumen- 
 torum,” which had constituted the ordination of 
 the minor orders from the beginning (see Cone. 
 Carth. IV.), to the higher orders also; and accom¬ 
 panied in the case of some of them by an equally 
 natural conversion of accessories in course of time 
 into essentials. It is waste of words to prove that 
 the one and only essential act from the beginning 
 was imposition of hands. This also, however, 
 in process of time, became varied, 1. by repe¬ 
 tition, 2. by the use of one or both hands, and 
 the like : for which details see Imposition of 
 Hands. 
 
 The form of ordination was not similarly fixed. 
 Pope Innocent III., speaking as a canonist, and 
 Hubert, writing of the Greeks as a theologian, 
 expressly declare that the Apostles appointed no 
 foriTi of words; that it rests therefore with the 
 Church to appoint such a form; and that, apart 
 from Church authority, any words whatever, 
 adequate to the purpose, would suffice. And the 
 facts of the case are in themselves enough to 
 estc’blish this. In the Greek Church, the form 
 in Sym. Thessal. runs thus : ‘H Oeia irpo- 
 
 Xetp'i^iTai rhu Seiva els ’EttiVkottov, k.t.\. ; 
 these words, which are used at the avdpp7]<xis^ 
 
 metropolitan in person or by letter, and three 
 suffragans), with the consent of the remaindex', 
 or of at least the major part of the wdiole num¬ 
 ber, in case of division ; or yet again (C’o;ic. 
 Arausic. I. A.D. 441, can. xxi.), by actually de¬ 
 posing the ordainex*, and (if a willing participator 
 in the irregularity) the oi'dained bishop also, if 
 “ tw'o bishops px-esumed ” to ox'dain ; while yet a 
 fourth like council {Regions, a.d. 439, can. ii.) 
 not only censux'es but voids a consecx'ation, which 
 ; shall lack any of the thx’ee conditions, of consent 
 ^ of compi'ovincial bishops, px’esence of three of 
 them, and assent of metropolitan. The rule re¬ 
 quiring thx'ee is also matter of constant reference 
 (as, e. g., in Cone. Epaon. a.d. 517, can. i.; or 
 j again by popes fx’om Damasus onw'ax’d to Leo Ill., 
 in discussing the jxosition of chorepiscopi; see 
 Morin, iii. 58). Spanish councils simply x'epeat the 
 Nicene canon on the subject (e. g. Cone. Tolct. IV. 
 
 . A.D. 581, can. xviii.; and so Isidox*. Hispal. de 
 Offic. Eccl. ii. 5). And in Africa, at an earlier 
 date. Cone. Carth. III. a.d. 397, can. xxxix., con¬ 
 demns consecx’ation by two bishops, px’onounces 
 the x’equix’ement of t\velve (which had been sug- 
 ! gested) impx'acticable, and X’epeats accox-dingly 
 j the old rule of three : can. xl. of the same council 
 prohibiting the thx’ee from px-oceeding to conse- 
 I ci'ate, in case objections ax'e taken to the bishop- 
 elect, until themselves wdth “ one or two ” mox’e 
 have enquii’ed into those objections on the spot, 
 and found them gx'oundless. Ihe rule in the 
 East was the same (Denzingei*, p. 142), ‘‘ soil, 
 j ut non minuatur numerus ternarius.” And Cone. 
 
 ! Seleuc. et Ctesiph. a.d. 410 (ed. Lamy, 1869), 
 deposes (if the x’ecox’d is genuine) both conse- 
 
 being X’ejieated at the actual consecration. Den- 
 zinger, how'ever (pp. 140, 141), considers the 
 essential words in the Easteim rites which he 
 xnentions to be found in the px’ayex's which ac- 
 comj)anied the laying on of hands, and to be of a 
 precatoiT form. In the Latin Chux'ch, since the 
 11 th centuiy, it has been simply, “Accipe Spi¬ 
 rit um Sanctum,” without expi’ess xnention in the 
 form itself of the ejnscopal office either by name 
 or by descx'iption, the context sufficiently limit¬ 
 ing the purpose of the woi’ds (Vazquez, &c.). 
 Prior to that date, the “ consecx’atio ” of a bishop 
 W'as not an imperative declai*ation, but w'as in 
 the form of a prayer. [Ordination.] 
 
 The ox-dainei’s wex’e necessarily bishops (see 
 below. III. 1, a. i). “ Tw’O or three at the least,” 
 was the rule of the Apostolic Canon (1), and of 
 the Apost. Constit. (viii. 4, 27): the latter also 
 deposing both ordained and oi’dainer, if any were 
 ox’dained (of coui'se, without sufficient cause), by 
 one bishop(viii. 27), yet expi’essly not voiding such 
 ox'dination if the case wex’e one of necessity. But 
 while St. Cypxian {Epist. 67) implies the ox'di- 
 nary pi’esence of all or most of the compx’ovincial 
 bishops, the Nicene Council (can. iv.) requires 
 the actual participation in the consecx’ation, of 
 three absolutely, as a minimum—of all, if pos¬ 
 sible—but in any case with the consent at least 
 of the i-est of the compx*ovincial bishops, or (can. 
 vi.) of the major pai’t of them. And so also 
 Cone. Chalccd. Act. xvi. Sevex*al Gallican pro¬ 
 vincial councils go further, by X'equiidng in one 
 case {Cone. Arelut. I. a.d. 314, can. xx.) seven as a 
 rule, but if that is impossible, at least “ infra tx’es 
 non audea[n]t ox’dinai-eor again (Cone. Arelat. 
 II. A.D. 353, can. v.), the meti-opolitan with three 
 suflfx-aganf (ox-, accox*ding to another reading, the 
 
 crated and consecx’ators, if any be ox'dained bishop 
 by one bishop or by two. But then the principle 
 wdiich undexday this x’ule, was not the inability 
 of one bishop by himself to conseci’ate, but the 
 desii-ableness that many, and if possible all, 
 should co-operate in, and testify to, the act of 
 consecration. So expx’essly the Apost. Constit. 
 viii. 27; adding with like clearness a proviso, 
 that “ one ” xnay conseci-ate in case of necessity, 
 if only a gx’eater number signify their sanction 
 of the act. So Gx’egoxy the Great, in the well- 
 known Ansivers to Augustine, x'equix'es “ thx'ee or 
 four ” if possible, but speaks of the px’esence of 
 more than one only as “valde utilis,” as of those 
 “ qui testes assistantand distinctly authorizes 
 consecx’ation by one on the gx’ound of necessity. 
 So Synesius {Epist. 67) censux-es the consecration 
 of Siderius, bishop of Palaebisca, as (not invalid 
 but) iKdeafxws, 1. because not in Alexandria or 
 wdth the consent of the patx’iarch ; but also, 2. be¬ 
 cause performed by “ not thx-ee,” but a single 
 bishop; and Theodoret (v. 23) that of Evagrius 
 of Antioch, as also Trapd rhv iKK\7]<ria(rTiKhu 
 de<rix6v, “because (among other things) Pauiinus 
 alone consecrated him. But Synesius adds, that 
 necessity justified the foi'iner of these conseex’a- 
 tions, and had led St. Athanasius to allow the like; 
 and in that of the lattex*, both the bishop of Alex¬ 
 andria and the Western bishops recognized it none 
 the less (Theodox-et, ib.; Innocent 1. Epist. 14). 
 So again the bishops of Pontus {Ejnst. ad fin. Cone. 
 Chalced.) speak of Dioscorus of Alexandria as actu¬ 
 ally bishop, although consecrated by only two 
 bishops (and those under censux’e), “ cum x’egulae 
 patrum . . . tx*es episcopos corpox-aliter adesse . . . 
 pi'ospiciant.” Of the vexy councils themselves 
 of Arles II. and of Riez, above quoted, the former 
 
224 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 recognizes tlie reality of the censured consecra¬ 
 tion by a))pointing the bishop consecrated by two 
 to one of the sees vacated by the deposition of 
 his consecrators, if the irregularity had been 
 without his consent; and 'the latter,—although 
 its canon can scarcely be explained away (as by 
 Thomassin) by referring it to election and not 
 consecration,— yet both permits the deposed 
 bishop to confirm, and allows the orders he may 
 have already conferred, subject only to the 
 favour of the metroj)olitan ; or in other words, 
 does not venture to quash the consecration out¬ 
 right. The Welsh and early Irish and Scotch 
 practice—of only one consecrator—was no doubt 
 at first a matter of necessity ; although continued 
 after it had ceased to be so. The Saxon Church 
 resumed the canonical rule of three, on the other 
 hand, as soon as possible. And even in 664 a 
 Wessex bishop called in two British bishops, albeit 
 he must have thought them schismatical, to com¬ 
 plete that number (Baed. H. E. iii. 28). The cases 
 of Pope Pelagius I. A.D. .555, ordained by two 
 bishops and a presbyter {Lib. Pontif. in V. Pelag.\ 
 and of Novatian long before, calling in three 
 bishops, aypo'iKovs koX a-nKovcrrarovs, from some 
 corner of Italy, to ordain him to the see of Horne 
 (Euseb. II. E. vi. 43), and long afterwards, the 
 permission given by the popes (see Bellarm. 
 de Eccl. iv. 8) to make up the number of three 
 by two or more mitred abbats, so that there was 
 one bishop (Labbe, i. 53),—prove at once the 
 existence of the rule while they violate its spirit. 
 Pope Siricius also {Epist. iv. c. 2, A.D. 384 x 398) i 
 forbids “ ne unus episcopus episcopum ordinare j 
 praesumat;” but it is “propter arrogantiam,” and i 
 “ ne furtivum beneficium praestitum videatur.” 
 Michael Oxita (patriarch of Constantinople, 
 A.D. 1145-6) also rejected two bishops who had 
 been ordained by a single bishop (Bever. Pandect. 
 ii. Annot. p. 10). Among the Nestorians, again, 
 the patriarch Timotheus, about A.D. 900, assert¬ 
 ing the “ need ” of three bishops, allows in a 
 case of necessity the sufficiency of two, so long 
 as the necessity lasted; but enjoins that the 
 Gospels shall be placed on the right hand upon 
 a throne in lieu of a third bishop (Assemani, 
 Bihl. Orient. III. i. 163). Compare finally the 
 distinction drawn in the Pontificals between the 
 consecrator and the “ assisting bishops ”—“ socii 
 ordinationis ” (Coptic i? 2 A) : or again the words 
 of the bishops of Pontus mentioned above, “ per 
 suffragium consensumque duorum episcoporum 
 cum ipso (patriarcha) praesentium.” Whether 
 chorepiscopi, consecrated by one bishop, were 
 bishops themselves, see Chorepiscopi. 
 
 y. The place of oi’dination was properly and 
 originally the actual see itself to which the 
 bishop was to be ordained. So St. Cy[(rian 
 {Epist. 67), Possid. (in V. S. Aug. viii.), St. Au¬ 
 gustin himself {Epist. 261), Pope Julius {Epist. ad 
 Orient, ap. St. Athan. Apol. ii.). Cone. Chedeed. Act. 
 xi. (Labbe, iv. 700), Cone. Pom. a.d. 531 (in Hol¬ 
 stein. Collect. Rom. p. 7), and Synesius {Epist. 67, 
 as above). The practice however came in time 
 to be that the metropolitan appointed the place 
 (Synes. ib.; Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 581, can. xviii.), 
 although it was commonly the metropolitan see, 
 and the metropolitan himself was always to be 
 consecrated there {Cone. Tolet. ib.). If, however, 
 not there, then, by Cone. Tarracon. a d. 516, 
 can. X., the bishop consecrated elsewhere was to 
 present himself to the metropolitan within two 
 
 months. And Cone. Aurelian. IV. a.d. 541, can. v., 
 restricts it to the metropolitan see, unless un¬ 
 avoidably removed elsewhere; and even in that 
 case commands the presence of the metropolitan, 
 and that it shall be within the province. In 
 whatsoever town it was, the rite was always 
 celebrated at the altar of the church, the can¬ 
 didate kneeling (Pseudo-Dion, as above, and re¬ 
 peatedly 5 Iheodoret, iv. 15, Trapa ttjp t(paj/ rpa- 
 TT^(au). A natural custom also in course of time 
 marked out the Lord’s Day, or at any rate some 
 great festival, as the “ legitimus dies” for a 
 bishop’s consecration (Pope Zosimus, Epist. vi. ; 
 Cone. Tolet. IV. can. xviii.); while Leo the Great 
 {Epist. ix.) insists upon the Lord’s Day, but as 
 beginning from the Saturday evening; and Pope 
 Gelasius actually limits the ordinations of }>res- 
 byters and deacons to the Saturday evening ex¬ 
 clusively. But there was certainly no restric¬ 
 tion of days at all until the 4th century (Pagi, 
 ap. Bingh. IV. vi. 7). In the East the same rule 
 of Sunday came to prevail universally (Denzin- 
 ger); but the Nestorian rubric (as does also 
 common Western practice) admits festivals like¬ 
 wise {id.). Ember-days, when they came to exist, 
 belonged to presbyterial and diaconal ordinations. 
 The hour also came to be limited as well as the 
 day, viz. to the time of* the celebration of the 
 Eucharist, i.e. the morning (t^s /xvariKps Upovp- 
 y'las TTpoKei/xemfs, says Theodoret, Hist. Relig. 
 xiii., speaking however of presbyterial ordina¬ 
 tion) : and this at an early period, inasmuch 
 as Novatus is censured (Euseb. II. E. vi. 43), as' 
 haAung been (among other things) consecrated 
 (Ipa SejfctTp, i. e. somewhere about 4 P.M. In the 
 East the rule became equally fixed, and on like 
 grounds; and this as regards bishops universally: 
 save (as before) the one exception of the Mes- 
 torians, who leave it optional, and provide rubrics 
 for ordinations made “ extra missam ” (Den- 
 zinger). Theodore in England enacts (/’oc?i?A II. 
 iii. 1 ), that in the ordination of a bishop “ debet 
 missa cantari ab episcopo ordinante.” The parti¬ 
 cular part of the liturgy, however, at which the 
 ordination was to be (so to say) interpolated, 
 differed in East and West. The “dies anniver- 
 sarius ” of the ordination, i. e. the “dies natalis ” 
 or the “ natalitia ” of the bishop, was also com¬ 
 monly kept as a kind of festival (St. Aug. Cont. 
 Lit. Petil. ii. 23, Horn, xxxii. de Verb. Lom.y 
 Horn. xxiv. et xxv. e.v Quinquaginta, Horn, cccxl. 
 ed. Bened.; Leo M., Horn. i. ii. iii. ; Paulin. 
 Epist. xvi.; St. Ambros. Epist. v. ; Pope Hilary, 
 Epist. ii.; Sixtus, Epist. ad Joh. Antioch. Labbe, 
 iii. 1261; Pagi, ap. Bingh. IV. vi. 15). 
 
 S. The ordainers were also, according to African 
 rule {Cod. Can. Afric. 89), to give letters under 
 their own hand to the bishop ordained, “ con- 
 tinentes consulem et diem,” in order to prevent 
 future disputes about precedence. And a register 
 of ordinations {archivus, matricxda, apxfTUTros, 
 paTpiKiov) was to be kept both in the primate’s 
 church and in the metropolis of the province for 
 the like purpose {ib. 86 ; and see Bingh. II. 
 xvi. 8 ). 
 
 4. Enthronization {ivdpovidC^iu, incathedrare), 
 which is mentioned in the Apost. Coxistit., and 
 in Greek Pontificals, as the concluding act of 
 ordination, followed upon ordination, either (as 
 at fir.st) immediately or (in course of time) after 
 an interval; a regular service being then <>ro- 
 vided for it, which is described by Sym. Thess. c. 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 225 
 
 viii. A sermon was thereupon preached, at least 
 in the East, by the newly consecrated bishop, 
 styled “sermo enthronisticus,” of which instances 
 are given in Bingh. 11. xi. 10. And litterae 
 communicatoriae, or s;inodicae, or enfhromsttcae, 
 ypa/jL/jiaTa KoivcaviKO,, cri»\A,o/3al ivQ^'ovKTTiKoX, 
 were written to other bishops, to give account 
 of the sender’s ftiith, and to receive letters of 
 communion in return (Bingh. ib.'). Ta ivdpov- 
 KTTiKO., also, were payments which came to be 
 made by bishops on occasion of their enthroniza- 
 tiou. The Arabic version of the Nicene canons 
 has a rule about enthronization (can. Ixxi.), viz. 
 that the bishop be enthroned at once by a delegate 
 of the archbishop, and that the archbishop visit 
 him personally after three months, and confirm 
 him in the see. In 664 or 5, when Wilfrid was 
 conseci-ated at Compicgne by twelve French 
 bishops, they carried him, with hymns and chants, 
 “ in sella aurea sedentem, more eorum ” (Edd. in 
 V. Wilf. xii.). 
 
 5. A Profession of Obedience to the metro¬ 
 politan, and (in the Carlovingiau empire) an 
 oath of allegiance to the emperor or king, began 
 to be required, prior to confirmation, the former 
 from the 6 th -century onwards, the latter from 
 the time either of Charlemagne or of his imme¬ 
 diate successors ; but far earlier in Spain, a. The 
 earliest written profession of obedience to the 
 metropolitan produced by Thomassin—“ cartula 
 de obedientiae sponsione ”—is one made by the 
 meti’opolitan of Epirus to the archbishop of 
 Thessalonica, and is condemned by Pope Leo I. A.D. 
 450 (Epist. Ixxxiv. c. 1). And some kind of 
 written pi'omise—“ tempore ordinationis nostrae 
 unusquisque sacerdos cautionem scriptis emit- 
 timus, studiose de fide ordinatoris nostri ”—was 
 made to the patriarch of Aquileia, c. A.D. 590, 
 by his suffragans (Baron, in an. 590, num. xxviii.). 
 But Spanish councils of a little later date are (as 
 might be expected) most express on the point. Cone. 
 Emerit., indeed, A.D. 666 , can. iv.,—extending to 
 bishops, &c., an enactment of Cone. Tolet. IV. 
 A.D. 581, can. xvii., respecting presbyters and 
 deacons,—only enjoins the metropolitan at the 
 time of his oi'dination, and the bishops at the 
 time of theirs, respectively to promise “ vivere 
 caste, recte, et sobrie.” But Cone. Tolet. XI. 
 A.D. 675, can. x., requires every one of all grades 
 of clergy, before “ consecration,” to bind himself, 
 not only to keep the faith, live piously, and obey 
 the canons, but also “ ut debitum per omnia 
 honorem atque obsequii reverentiam praeemi- 
 nenti sibi unusquisque dependat.” St. Boniface 
 shortly after, in Germany, A.D. 723, when 
 consecrated bishop by Pope Gregory II., goes a 
 long step further, by giving a written promise 
 (addressed to St. Peter), “ vobis, beato Petro, vica- 
 rioque tuo B. Papae Gregorio, successoribusque 
 ejus;” that he will keep the faith in its purity, 
 &c., and that he will “ fidem et puritatem,” &c., 
 “ praedicto vicario tuo atque successoribus ejus 
 per omnia exhibere,” &c. (S. Bonif. E^nst. xvii., 
 ed. Jaffe) ; an innovation which Thomassin tells us 
 was not repeated by any one, not even by St. 
 Boniface’s own successors at Mentz. Further 
 on, in Gaul, Cone. Cabillon. A.D. 813, can. xiii., 
 expressly forbids the oath which some then exacted 
 at ordination, “quod digni sint, et contra canones 
 non sint facturi, et obedientes sint episcopo qui 
 oos ordinat,” &c.; “ quod juramentum quia peri- 
 culosum est, omnes una inhibendum statuimus.” 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 And a Capitulary of Ludov. Pius, A.D. 816 
 (Capit. i. c. 97), noticing the “ sacramenta,” as 
 well as “ munera,” which Lombard bishops then 
 exacted “ ab his quos ordinabant,” forbids “ om¬ 
 nibus modis, ne ulterius fiat.” But this prohi¬ 
 bition applied to the exaction of an oath of fealty 
 (Canciani, Leg. Barbar. v. 121 ). Professions to 
 the metropolitan by the bishop to be consecrated 
 were, certainly, from that time forward the regu* 
 lar practice. The form of that of the bishop oi 
 Terouenne to Hincmar of Rheims is in Cone. Gallic. 
 ii. 655. And English professions likewise run on 
 from the like date. A special oath to the pope, 
 and the meaning attaclied to the reception of the 
 pall, belong to later centuries, the instance of 
 St. Boniface’s oath alone excepted. In the East, 
 a form of written promise of canonical obedience, 
 made by the bishop to the patriarch, is in Jur. 
 Orient, i. 441; and is expressly sanctioned by the 
 8 th can. of Cone. Constantin, a.d. 869, while 
 condemning certain unauthorized additions to it. 
 It may also be mentioned here that St. Augustin 
 procured an enactment, at a Council of Car¬ 
 thage, that all canons relating to the subject, 
 “ ab ordinatoribus ordinaudis vel ordiuatis in 
 notitiam esse deferenda ” (Possid. V. S. Aug. 
 viii). ) 8 . A general oath of allegiance to the 
 king, from all subjects, occurs repeatedly in 
 the Spanish councils (e. g. Cone. Tolet. XVI. a.d. 
 693). And a promise of fidelity from bishops is 
 mentioned in Gaul as early as the time of Leode- 
 garius of Autun and St. Eligius, c. A.D. 640. But 
 special mention of an oath of fidelity taken by a 
 bishop at his ordination seems to occur first at 
 the Council of Toul, a.d. 850, where it is de¬ 
 clared that the archbishop of Sens had thrice 
 sworn allegiance to Charles the Bald, the first 
 time being when the king gave him his bishopric. 
 Such an oath of allegiance seems also to be 
 meant by Cone. Tur. III. a.d. 813, can. i.; and 
 by Cone. Aquisgr. II. a.d. 836, cap. ii. can. xii. : 
 although spoken of with no reference to ordi¬ 
 nation. But the absence of all formulae for it in 
 earlier times is conclusive against throwing back 
 the date before Charlemagne. Homage in the 
 feudal sense belongs to a later period still. At 
 the same time Charlemagne introduced an oath 
 of fealty in the case of bi.shops, and inx^ested a 
 bishop with the temporalities of his see by ring 
 and crosier (De Marca, de Cone. Eccl. et Imp. 
 pp. 402, 426). As regards the East, there is no 
 mention whatever in Symeon Thessalon. of any 
 oath to the emperor taken by a bishop at ordi¬ 
 nation. 7 . The oath against simony may also be 
 mentioned here, enacted by Justinian (^Novell. 
 cxxxvii. c. 2 ) as to be taken by a bishop at ordi¬ 
 nation ; an enactment repeated by Pope Adrian 1. 
 (Epist. ad Car. M. in Cone. Gallic, ii. 97). (See 
 also above, 1. 2 ; and Simony.) 
 
 II. We have next to consider how a bishop 
 ceased to be so, either of a particular see, or 
 altogether. And, 
 
 1 . Of Translation, which, as a rule, was for¬ 
 bidden, but only as likely to proceed from selfish 
 motives, and therefore with the exception, ex¬ 
 pressed sometimes, but seemingly always under¬ 
 stood, of cases where there was sutlicient and 
 good cause. Before the period of the Apostolic 
 Canons this prohibition would have been hardly 
 needed. Apost. Can. xiv. forbids it, unless there 
 be a ftjKoyos alrla, scil. a prosjiect of more spi¬ 
 ritual “gain” in saving souls; and guards the 
 
226 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 right practical application of the rule by the 
 proviso, that neither the bishop hiinself, nor the 
 napoiKLO. desiring him, but “ many bishops,” shall 
 decide the point, and that TrapaK\T](Tei fxey'aTr). 
 The Council of Nice (can. -w.). Cone. Antioch. 
 A.D. 34:1 (can. xxi.). Cone. Sardic. a.d. 347 (can. 
 i.), Cone. Garth. III. a.d. 397 (can. xxxvii.), and 
 Cone. Garth. IV. a.d. 398 (can. xxvii.), forbid it 
 likewise: the first two without qualification; 
 and the second, whether the suggestion proceed 
 from the bishop, the people, or other bishops; 
 but the third, if anh Tr6Ke(as /xiKpas €?s irepav ; 
 and the fourth, also in case it be “ de loco ignobili 
 ad uobilem,” while allowing it if it be for the 
 good of the Church, so that it be done “ by the 
 sentence of a synod,” and at the request of the 
 clergy and laity. And the Council of Nice itself 
 both shewed that exceptional cases were not ex¬ 
 cluded, by actually itself translating a bishop 
 (Sozom. i. 2, quoted by Pagi), and is explained 
 b}' St. Jerome as prohibiting it, only “ ne virgin- 
 alis pauperculae societate contempta,ditioris adul- 
 terae quaerat amplexus ” (Epist. Ixxxiii. ad 
 Ocean.). St. Athanasius indeed gives us the 
 obiter dictum of an Egyptian council, condemning 
 translation as parallel with diA'orce, and therefore 
 with the sin of adultery (Athan. Apol. ii.). And 
 similarly St. Jerome {Epist. Ixxxiii. ad Ocean.). 
 But Pope Julius condemns it on the assumption 
 throughout that its motive is self-aggrandize¬ 
 ment. Pope Damasus also condemns it, but it is 
 when done “ per ambitionem ; ” and Pope Gela- 
 sius, but only “ nullis existentibus causis.” Leo 
 the Great, c. A.D. 450 (Epist. Ixxxiv. c. 8 ) de¬ 
 poses a bishop who seeks to be translated, but 
 it is “ ad majorem plebem,” and “ despecta civi- 
 tatis suae mediocritate.” And Pope Hilary, in 
 Cone. Rom. a.d. 465, condemns a proposed 
 Spanish translation, among other things, as con¬ 
 trary to the Nicene canon (Hilar. Epist. 1-3). 
 While Com. Chalced. A.D. 451, can. v., re-enacts 
 the canons against ‘‘ transmigration.” At the 
 same time, both translations, as a matter of fact, 
 were repeatedly sanctioned, beginning with the 
 noted case of Alexander and Narcissus of Jeru¬ 
 salem (Hieron. de Scriptt. Eccl. 62); as may 
 be seen in Socrat. vii. 35, &c., and in the autho¬ 
 rities quoted by Bingh. VI. iv. 6 . St. Greg. Naz., 
 indeed, a.d. 382, speaks of the Antiochene canon 
 on the subject as a v6p.os 'rrdXai redi'riKws : and 
 Socrates actually tells us in terms, that transla¬ 
 tions were only forbidden Avhen persecutions 
 ceased, but had previouslj' been perfectly free to 
 all; and asserts that they were a thing abia.<popov, 
 whenever circumstances made them expedient 
 (v. 8 , vii. 35): and the author of the tract 
 De Translationi’ms in the Jus Orient, (i. 293) 
 sums up the matter tersely in the statement 
 that 1 ) fxeTd$a(Tis KeKwXvrai, ov /x^u rj fjL€Tdd((ris : 
 t. e. the thing prohibited is “ transmigration ” 
 (which arises from the bishop himself, from self¬ 
 ish motiA’^es), not “ translation ” (Avherein the Avill 
 of God and the good of the Church is the ruling 
 cause); the “going,” not the “being taken,” to 
 another see. The same rule and practice preA'ailed 
 both in East and West doAvu to the 9th century, 
 complicated hoAveA’er in the West by frequent 
 cases of sees destroyed in Avar, or removed “ ad 
 alia loca quae securiora putamus ” (St. Greg. M. 
 Epist. ii. 14). Many cases occur in Gregory’s 
 letters, of bishops of Italy, Corsica, &c., translated 
 by him for these or like causes, but always under 
 
 pressure of necessity (see Thomassin, II. ii. 62); 
 and Joan. Diac. (iii. 18) asserts expressly, that 
 Gregory “ nunquam episcopum ab integritate 
 suae Ecclesiae A'el ijise in aliam commutavit A^el 
 sub quacunque occasione migrare consensit.” 
 Gregory of Tours supplies instances of like trans¬ 
 lations in Gaul, all made “ consensu regum et 
 episcoporum,” but “ ioconsulta .sede apostolica” 
 (Thomassin, ib. § 5). So in Spain {Cone. Tolet. X. 
 j .\.D. 656, and XVI. a.d. 693, can. xii.). In Saxon 
 England, after the first .shifting of .sees conse- 
 I quent u])on the settlement of the Church doAvn 
 to Abp. Theodore AA'as passed, no translations 
 occurred at all, except the simoniacal instance of 
 Wine in 666, until that of Dunstan from Wor¬ 
 cester to London, a.d. 959, except in the cases of 
 (1) the CA'er-shifting sees of Hexham and Whit- 
 herne, and there once, in 789, and (2) the arch¬ 
 bishoprics of Canterbury and York ; and even in 
 the case of the archbishoprics, Cuthbert’s AA-as the 
 only instance (A.D. 740) until the 10th century. 
 In the East. AV'hile the case of Anthimus, con¬ 
 demned bv Cone. Constantin, a.d. 536, Act. i., for 
 rrjv fjLOixiKTjv apiray^v rrjs fiaaiXiSos ’EKKXrja'ias, 
 viz. Constantinople, and for leaving his own 
 (smaller) see of Trajiezus “ Avidowed and Avithout 
 a husband, against the canons,”—condemned also 
 by Pope Agapetus 1. (“ Impossibile translatitium 
 hominem in ilia sede permanere,” Liberat. Bre^ 
 viar. 21),—sheAA's the existence of the old feeling 
 on the subject; the counter case of Germanus of 
 Cyzicum, translated a.d. 714 to Constantinople, 
 “ suffragio atque consensu religiosorum, presby- 
 terorum,,diaconorum, et totius sanctioris cleri 
 sacrique senatus et populi imperatricis hujus 
 ciA'itatis ” (Thomassin, from Theophanes in «n. 
 and Anastasius), shcAA^s equally that translations, 
 if circumstances were thought to justifv them, 
 Avere not prohibited. In the Alexandrian Church 
 the rule appears to have been exceptionally strict, 
 so that originallv it was forbidden to translate a 
 bishop, already such, to the patriarchate, although 
 in later and Mohammedan times this rule after 
 great contentions became relaxed (Denzinger); 
 and among the Nestorians, as one result of such 
 relaxation of a like rule, it camp to pass that 
 patriarchs Avere often actually re-consecrated 
 (Assemani and Renaudot, ap. Denzinger). 
 
 2. OH Resigmtion, and (a) of resignation simply; 
 respecting Avhich there is no express canon, abso¬ 
 lutely speaking; hut Can. Apostol. can. xxxvi.Co^c. 
 Ancgr. can. xviii.,C'onc.An^iocA a.d. 341, cans. xAui.. 
 XA'iii., assume or enact that a bishop once conse¬ 
 crated cannot refuse to go to a see, even if the 
 people Avin not receiA^e him ; and the tAA'o latter 
 refer the decision to the synod, Avhich may alloAv 
 him to AvithdraAvor not as it judges best. Instances 
 accordingly occur of resignations alloAved because 
 circumstances rendered it expedient for the good 
 of the Church, as Avhere the people obstinately 
 refused to submit to the bishop: e. g. St. Greg. 
 Naz., Avhen archbishop of Constantinople, Avith 
 the consent of the Council of Constantinople 
 (Theodoi'et, v. 8; Socr^it. v. 7; Sozom. vii. 7 ; 
 St. Greg. Naz. Epist. xlii. al. xxxvi., Ixa". al. lix., 
 Orat. xxxii., and Carmen de Vita Sva); Meletius 
 Avhen bishop of Sebaste in Armenia (Theodoret, 
 ii. 31); Martyrius, bishop of Antioch (Theod. _ 
 Lector i.): all cases in point to the canons aboA’e 
 mentioned, the people in each case being factious 
 and peiwerse; but the second and third (although 
 the latter was at Antioch itself), apparently in 
 
BTSHOF 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 227 
 
 direct contradiction to the Antiochene rule, no 
 synodical decision being mentioned, but only 
 the will of the bishops themselves: e.g. of Mar- 
 tyrius, auworaKTCfi, Kal Aaw aneiBel, /cat 
 
 ’E/c/cArjcrta (ppvnwix^vr) airoTaTTogai. Instances 
 occur also of resignations ofiered (and ap{)roved 
 though not acce])ted) for peace’ sake : as St. Chrys. 
 (Horn. xi. in Kphcs.\ liavian of Antioch under 
 Theodosius (Theodoret, v. 23), the Catholic 
 African bishops under Aurelius and St. Augustin 
 at the time of the Donatist schism (Collat. 
 Carthag. a.d. 411, die i. c. xvi.). And Eustathius 
 of Perga, again, was permitted to resign by the 
 Cone. Eplies. a.d. 431 (Act. vii. in Ejyist. ad Synod. 
 Earnphyliae), on account of old age, retaining 
 t6 t6 rys e-mcrKonris ovo/xa Kal tV rip^v Kal 
 TT)v Koivwulav, but without authority to act as 
 bishop unless at a fellow-bishop’s request. And 
 a pension out of the revenues of the see was 
 granted to Domnus, who had resigned the see of 
 Antioch, by the Cone. Chalced. a.d. 457 (Act. vii. 
 al. Act. X., Labbe, iv. 681), at the request of 
 Maximus, who had succeeded him. These and 
 like instances testify to the gradual establish¬ 
 ment of a rule, permitting resignations under 
 oircumstAiices of obvious expediency for the 
 Church, so that they were sanctioned by at least 
 the provincial synod. And forms of A'oluntary 
 resignation both for patriarchs and bishops in 
 the East occur in Leunclav. Jus Orient. At the 
 same time the feeling of the Church ran strongly 
 against resignations, as being a giving up of work 
 for Christ. So Leo M., Ejyist. xcii. And Cyril 
 Alex, puts the dilemma: “If worthy, let them 
 continue; if unworthy, let them not resign but 
 be deposed ” (Epist. ad Domnum ap. Balsam., 
 quoted by Thomassin). Although St. Chrys. in 
 like Ciise bids a bishop, conscious of serious guilt, 
 resign rather than be deposed (de Sacerd. lib. iii. 
 c. 10) From the 5th century onward, resigna¬ 
 tions occur not unfrequently in the West (see a 
 list in Thomassin, II. ii. 52), with the consent of 
 the clergy, or at least the metropolitan and 
 council, and of the laity, or at least the king. 
 In the East, the consent of the emperor and of 
 the patriarch of Constantinople became necessary; 
 as in the case of Paulus of Antioch in the time of 
 Justin (inter EjAst. Hormisd. Papao, post Epist. 
 Ixxx.). The conception of a matrimonial tie, 
 such that no authority could sever it unless (in 
 the West) that of the bishop of Rome, developed 
 itself prominently at a considerably later period, 
 after at lea.st the 8th century. The canonical 
 grounds for a resignation, as summed up, later 
 still, in the Corp. Juris (Decret. Greg. IX. lib. i. 
 tit. ix. de Renunc. c. 10), are in substance those 
 already intimated : — i. Guilt, limited however 
 from earlier severity to such only as impedes the 
 discharge of the episcopal office: ii. Sickness (in 
 which case Gregory the Great would have per¬ 
 mitted a coadjutor only) : iii. Ignorance : iv. I\r- 
 ver.se rebelliousness of the people : v. The healing 
 of a schism : vi. Irregularity, such as, e.g. bigamy. 
 A desire to take monastic vows, although a not 
 unfrequent case, and in some instances at least 
 tolerated, was not a canonical ground of resigna¬ 
 tion. (3.) Resignation in favour of a successoi*, 
 however, was distinctly prohibited, by Cone. An¬ 
 tioch. A.D. 341, can. xxiii.: ’E7rt(r/co7roi/ /ar; e^drai 
 auT aiiTov KaOicTT^i/ erepov iavTov diddoxoy, kEv 
 TTphs TT) T(\eVTf} TOV fitOV TVyX<i>rT)‘ €t Sc Tt 
 ToiovToir yiyvoiTO, &Kvpov^ ilyai KararTTacriP. 
 
 But it was so, as the rest of the canon shews, 
 only in order to secure canonical and free election 
 when the see became actually vacant ,—/utra rrjy 
 Koifxr}(Tiy tov dvaiTavaaix^vov. And the object 
 was, not to prohibit, but to prevent the abuse of, 
 the recommendations very commonly made by 
 aged bishops of their successors; a practice 
 strongly praised by Origen (in Num. Horn, xxii.), 
 comparing Moses and Joshua (so also Theodoret, 
 in Burn. c. xlvii.), but which naturally had ol'ten 
 a decisive influence in the actual election: as, 
 e. g. in the case of St. Athanasius recommended 
 by Bishop Alexander, and Peter recommended by 
 St. Athanasius, both of whom were duly elected, 
 &c., but after the bishopric was actually vacant; 
 the story being apparently without grounds, of 
 an intervening and rival episcoj/ate before St. 
 Athanasi'xs, of Achilla.s, and of Theonas (Epiphau. 
 Haer. Ixviii. 6 , 12; Theodoret, iv. 18). So also 
 St. Augustin recommended his own successor, 
 Eraclius. But such recommendations slipj/ed na¬ 
 turally into a pi’actice of consecrating the suc¬ 
 cessor, sometimes elected solely by the bishop him¬ 
 self, before the recommending bishop’s death, thus 
 interfering with the canonical rights of the com- 
 pi’ovincial bishops and of the diocese itself. Limit¬ 
 ing then the prohibition to the actual election 
 by a single bishop of a sxiccessor to take his own 
 place during his own lifetime, the Antiochene 
 canon is repeated by, e. g. Cone. Paris. V. a.d. 615, 
 can. ii. (“ ut nullus episcoponim se vivente alium 
 in loco suo eligeret ”), and became the rule; al¬ 
 though one often broken in the West in the 7 th 
 and 8 th centuries, as e.g. in the noted case of St. 
 Boniface, who was permitted by Pope Zacharias, 
 although after strong remonstrances, and with 
 great reluctance, to nominate and ordain his own 
 succe.ssor. But then we must distinguish ( 7 ) 
 that qualified resignation, which extended only to 
 the appointment of a coadjutor—not a coadjutor 
 with right of succession, which was distinctly 
 uncanonical, but simply an assistant during the 
 actual bishop’s life, and no further. The earliest 
 instance indeed -of a simple coadjutor, that of 
 Alexander, coadjutor to Narcissus of Jerusalem 
 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11), w’as supposed to require a 
 vision to justify it. But examples occur re¬ 
 peatedly thenceforward, both in East and West 
 (e. g. in Sozom. ii. 20; Theodoret, v. 4: St, Am- 
 bros. Epist. Ixxix.; St. Greg. Naz. Orat. xii. 
 ad Patr. 0pp. i. 248. c, quoted by Bingham) ; 
 including St. Augustin himself, who did not 
 “ succeed,” but “ accede,” to the see of Hippo, 
 being coadjutor therein first of all to his j/re- 
 decessor Valerius, by the consent of “ primate, 
 metropolitan, and the whole clergy and people 
 of Hippo,” yet this “ contra morem Ecclesiae ” 
 (Possid. V.S.Aug. viii.); the canon of the Nicene 
 Council, which prohibits two. bishops in one city, 
 being held to prohibit only two independent and 
 distinct bishops, and not where one was (as 
 English people might now call it) curate to the 
 other, although Augustin afterwards thought 
 that canon condemned himself. But a coadjutor 
 with right of succession was distinctly unca¬ 
 nonical ; although instances occur of this al.so : 
 as of Theoteenus of Caesarea in Palestine (Euseb. 
 //. E. vii. 32), before the Antiochene canon, and of 
 Orion, bishop of Palaebisca (Synes. EjAst. Ixvii.); 
 and of Augustin himself, but with this diflerence, 
 that he was formally and canonically elected, so 
 that the one point in his case was his being con- 
 
228 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 eecrated before his predecessor’s death. So also 
 Paulinus of Antioch, whose act was condemned 
 as uncanonical by St. Ambrose (Epist. Ixxviii.), 
 and by Theodoret (v. 23) and by Socrates (ii. 15). 
 And a like case in Spain, where a bishop of Bar¬ 
 celona, with consent of the metropolitan and 
 comprovincial IjishojiS and the whole of his own 
 diocese, sought to make a neighbouring bishop 
 (who was also his heir) his coadjutor and suc¬ 
 cessor, but was condemned for so doing by Pope 
 Hilary and a Roman Council, a.d. 465, protest¬ 
 ing against making bishoprics hereditary (Hilar. 
 Epistt. ii. iii.). So also Pope Boniface JI. A.D. 
 531, was com])elled to desist from his attempt to 
 appoint V^igilius his own successor. And Pope 
 Boniface III. in a Roman Council, a.d. 606, forbade 
 any formal discussion about a successor to a de¬ 
 ceased bishop until “ tertio die depositionis ejus, 
 adunato clero et filiis Ecclesiae ; tunc electio fiat.” 
 Thomassin sums up the case by laying down, 
 
 (1) that coadjutors or successors were up to the 
 9th century never asked for from the Pope; 
 
 (2) that the consent of metropolitan and pro¬ 
 vincial synod was necessary; and (3) after the 
 5th century that of the king; but that, lastly, 
 with these last-named sanctions, coadjutors wei-e 
 permitted whenever it was for the good of the 
 Church, although coadjutors with right of suc¬ 
 cession were forbidden. The hereditary benefices 
 of the Welsh Church of the 11th and 12th cen¬ 
 turies, and of the contemporary Breton Church, 
 and, indeed (in some degree or other), of other 
 churches also, are too late to come into this 
 article. So far of the removal of bishops merely 
 from a particular see. But, next, of 
 
 3. The Deposition of bishops. And here only 
 of the case of bishops as such, referring to 
 Clkrgv, Degradation, for the general “ irre¬ 
 gularities,” which affected all clergy, and there¬ 
 fore inclusively bishops also. 
 
 (A.) The grounds upon which bishops as such 
 were deposed were as follows, (a.) First, there 
 were certain irregularities which vitiated an epi¬ 
 scopal consecration ah initio; and these were for 
 the most part, although not wholly, irregularities 
 such as disqualified for consecration at all, as 
 those already referred to above, (i.) If prior to 
 ordination to a bishopric the candidate had not 
 been examined in the faith, or had failed to meet 
 such examination, Justinian (^Novell, cxxxvii. c. 2) 
 deposed both the ordainer and the recently or¬ 
 dained. (ii.) Although the Cone. Neocaes. (can. 
 ix. A.D. 314) speaks of a belief that ordination 
 remitted sins, except fornication, yet Cone. Nicaen. 
 (canons ix. x.) rules that those who are ordained 
 through ignorance or laxity, being guilty of sins 
 (without any exception) that would rightly dis¬ 
 qualify them, yuwo'OevTcs KaQaipovvrai. (iii.) 
 The canons that .'equire the consent of metropoli¬ 
 tan and synod, &c., to the consecration of a bishop, 
 sometimes proceed to void a consecration made 
 in violation of them, jur/Sev lo’x'o^iv (^Conc. Antioch. 
 A.D. 341, can. xix.), and similarly Cone. Ee^iiens. 
 can. ii., Cone. Aurelian. V. canons x. xi.. Cone. Ca- 
 billm. I. can. x. &c. Yet it does not appear that 
 in such a case the consecrated bishop suffered 
 commonly more than the forfeiture of the see, 
 &Ki^poi' elvui T^v KardcTTaariu. (iv.) Consecration 
 cf a bishop into a see already lawfully filled 
 was reckoned as no consecration (Bingh. XVII. 
 ^v. 3, quoting St. Cypr. Epist. Iv.; Cone. Sardic.. 
 acc. to Hilary, de Sijn. p. 128; Cone. Chalced. 
 
 P. iii. Epist. 51, 54, 56, 57, &c., about Timothy 
 the Cat; Liberat. Breviar. xv.). (v.) The ordi¬ 
 
 nation of one under sentence of deposition was 
 ahso void (^Conc. Chalced. Act. xi.). But then 
 (/ 8 ) bishops already validly consecrated were 
 liable to deposition, as well for the general 
 causes affecting all clergy, as also in parti¬ 
 cular for causes relating to their own especial 
 office; as, e. g. (i.) if they ordained, or if 
 they preached {Cone. Trull, can. xx.), without 
 permission, outside their own dioce.ses (^Apostol. 
 Can. XXXV.; Cone. Antioch, a.d. 341, c. xii.); or 
 (ii.) if they received a clergyman who had dis¬ 
 obediently quitted his own diocese (C'onc. Antioch. 
 A.D. 341, can. iii.; Cone. Chalced. A.D. 457, can. 
 XX. excommunicated them in this case); or (iii.) 
 if they ordained for money (Apostol. Can. xxix. ; 
 Cone. Chalced. a.d. 451, can. ii.) ; or (iv.) accord¬ 
 ing to a late Galilean council (Cone. Arausic. 
 A.D. 441, can. xxi.), if two bishops presumed to 
 consecrate by themselves, whereupon both of 
 them wei’e to be deposed ; or (v.) according to 
 Pope Innocent I. {Epist. xxiii. c. 4, a.d. 402 
 X 417), bishops who ordained soldiers were 
 themselves to be deposed ; or (vi.) if they 
 ordained a bishop into a see already full 
 {Cone. Chalced. a.d. 451, as above); or (vii.) if 
 they ordained any that had been baptized or 
 rebaptized or ordained by heretics {Apost. 
 Can. Ixviii.); or (viii.) if they ordained any of 
 their own unworthy kindi'ed (A^josC Can. Ixxvi.) ; 
 or (ix.) if they absented themselves from their 
 diocese for longer than a year {Cone. Constantin. 
 
 IV. A.D. 870, can. xvi., says six months), and 
 
 persisted in disobedience when duly summoned 
 to return (Justinian, Novell. A’i. c. 2 ; see also 
 below under III. 1, a. xv.). (x.) For simony, 
 
 see Simony ; or (xi.) if they did not duly enforce 
 discipline [Disgidline] ; or (xii.) if they sought 
 to create a bishopric for themselves out of ambi¬ 
 tion, either in a place where there had been none 
 {Cone. Tolet. XII. a.d. 681, can. iv.: see however 
 below), or by getting royal authority to divide a 
 province, so as to erect a new metropolis in it 
 {Cone. Chalced. a.d. 451, can. xii.). And yet 
 further ( 7 ), bishops were liable to excommuni¬ 
 cation as well as deposition, if (i.) they received 
 as clergy such as were suspended for leaving 
 their own diocese {Apost. Can. xvi.; Cone. Carthag. 
 
 V. A.D. 398, can. xiii. &c. &c.); or (ii.) if they 
 “ made use of worldly rulers to obtain j>refer- 
 ment ” {Apost. Can. xxx., often repeated) ; or (iii.) 
 if, being rejected by a diocese to which they have 
 been appointed, they move sedition in another 
 diocese {Cone. Ancyr. a.d. 314, can. xviii.); &c. &c. 
 (5.) Lastly, bishops were liable to suspension or 
 other less censure, (i.) if they refused to attend 
 the synod when summoned {Cone. Carthag. V. 
 A.D. 398, can. x.; Arelat. II. A.D. 452, can. xix.; 
 Tarracon. a.d. 536, can. vi. &c. &c.); and if when 
 summoned to meet an accusation, they failed to 
 appear even to a third summons, they were de¬ 
 posed {Cone. Chalc. a.d. 451, Act. xiv.) ; or (ii.) 
 if they unjustly oppressed any part of their 
 diocese, in which case the African Church de¬ 
 prived them of the part so oppressed (St. Aug. 
 Epist. cclxi.) ; &c. &c. 
 
 (B.) The authority to inflict deptosition w'as 
 the provincial synod : and for the gradual growth 
 and the differing rules of appeal from that tri¬ 
 bunal, see Appeal. 
 
 Cone. Chalced. can. xxix. a.d. 451, forbids 
 
BISHOP 
 
 degradation of a bishop to the rank of a priest: 
 he must be degraded altogether or not at all. 
 And Cone. Antioch, canons xi. xii. a.d. 341, forbids 
 recourse to the emperor to reverse a sentence of 
 deposition passed by a synod. [Degradation ; 
 Orders.] 
 
 III. From the appointment and the removal 
 of a bishop, we come next to his office, as bishop. 
 And here, in general, the conception of that qffice 
 —consisting in, 1 . rh and, 2 . rh Upa- 
 
 T€U€ti/ (so St. Ignat, interpol. Ep. ad Smyrn. 
 c. 9 )—was plainly, at the first, that of a ruler, 
 not autocratic, but (so to say) constitutional, 
 and acting always in concert with his clergy 
 and ])eople, as he had in the first instance been 
 elected by them ; and of a chief minister, in sub¬ 
 ordination to whom, for the sake of the essential 
 unify of the Church, all Christian sacraments 
 and discipline were to be administered, yet not 
 as by mere delegates, but as by the due co¬ 
 operation of subordinate officers, each having his 
 own place and function : for the former of which 
 points St. Cyprian is the primary and explicit 
 witness- and no less so St. Ignatius for the latter. 
 The legal powers and the wealth gradually ac¬ 
 quired by the bishop, the weight derived from 
 his place in synods, and the natural increase of 
 the power of a single ruler holding office for life, 
 and habitually administering the discipline and 
 the property of his diocese, naturally rendered 
 the essential “monarchy” of the episcopate more 
 and more absolute, from Constantine onwards, 
 and especially under Justinian; while, on the 
 other hand, the bishops, pari passu, became also 
 more and more under State control, especially in 
 the East. In the West, and from the break up 
 of the Roman empire, the monopoly in the hands 
 of churchmen of knowledge and of civilization, 
 the political powers thrown (and necessarily 
 thrown) into the hands of the bishop, the unity 
 of the Church of all the separate kingdoms, and 
 its relations to the still respected imperatorial, 
 as well as to the pontifical, influence of Rome, 
 —to which no doubt might be added at the first 
 the reverence for the priesthood as such felt 
 by barbarians, and especially by Germanic peoples, 
 met and strengthened by the Christian view of 
 the priestly office,—gave to the bishops special 
 weight, as the leaders of the Church : a weight 
 exceptionally increased in Spain by the elective 
 position of the VTsigoth kings; but qualified both 
 there, and much more elsewhere, especially in 
 France, by the right of nomination of bishops 
 assumed by the kings, and by their simoniacal 
 and corrupt use of it, and by the assumption on 
 the part of the State of a full right of making 
 laws for the Church. But to proceed to details. 
 And here— 
 
 (1.) Of the SPIRITUAL OFFICE of a bishop, as 
 pertaining to him essentially and distinctively. 
 And of this, first (a), in respect to his own 
 diocese. 
 
 (a.) i. The power of ordin/ation belonged to 
 bishops exclusively. They were the organ by 
 which the Church was enabled to perpetuate the 
 ministry. Starting with the fact, that no one is 
 spoken of in the N. T. as ordained except either 
 by an Apostle, or by one delegated by an Apostle 
 to this special office, the earliest intimation we 
 meet with is the statement of St. Clem. Rom., 
 ah-eady quoted, which draws a plain distinction 
 between the original appointment of presbyter- 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 229- 
 
 bishops and deacons, and the subsequent pro¬ 
 vision made by the Apostles of an order of men 
 who should be able to perpetuate those offices. 
 When next the subject happens to be mentioned, 
 the ordainers are assumed, as of course, to be 
 bishops, and the question is only of their requisite 
 number and acts, or the like ; as in Can. Apost. i., 
 ’ETrltr/foiros itnaKSirwu dvo fj 
 
 rptwv, and can. ii. irpcafitWfpos vnh ^vhs 4 ttl- 
 (rK6-n-ov x^^poTovdado) ] and in Cone. Carthag. Ill, 
 A.D. 397, can. xlv. “ Episcopus unus . .. per quern , 
 presbyteri multi constitui possuntand IV. 
 A.D. 398, canons ii. iii. &c., which is the classical 
 passage (so to call it) respecting the rites of or¬ 
 dination, and which allows presbyters no part 
 at air in episcopal consecration; and in presby- 
 terial, only to hold their hands “ juxta manum 
 episcopi super caput illius ” (qui ordinatur), but 
 “ episcopo eum benedicente et manum super 
 caput ejus tenente.” And this latter practice 
 (which however does not exist in the Eastern 
 church [Denzinger], although supposed to be 
 based upon 1 Tim. iv. 14) appears to be alluded 
 to by Firmilian (in St. Cypr. Epist. Ixxv.), 
 
 “ majores natu . . . ordinandi habent potesta- 
 tem.” Similar assumptions occur in Cone. Nic. 
 can. xix., Antioch. A.D. 341, can. ix., Chalced. 
 A.D. 451, can. ii. &c. &c.; and in Cone. Sardic. 
 A.D. 347, can. vi., 'T.tv'ktkottoi Kadiffrav h<pd~ 
 Xovffiv '"ETTKTKSirovs ; and also Pseudo - Dion. 
 Areop. Eccl. Hier. v. So also, not affirming 
 simply but assuming the fact, St. Jerome 
 {Epist. ad Evangel^, “ Quid tacit, excepta or- 
 dinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non fa- 
 ciat.^” and St. Chrys. {Horn. xiii. in 1 Tim.'), 
 Ou yap St] irpeo'^vrepoi rhv iTr'icrKoirov ex^tpo- 
 Toyovu (and similarly, Hmn. i. in Philipp.), and 
 {Horn. xi. in 1 Tim. iii. 8), Tp yap x^‘^po'rou'ia 
 p.6vri {ot eViV/coTTOt) vir^p^efi-pKacTi, Kol Tovrep 
 jjLOVov SoKovcri TrXcovfKTeiu robs irpea^uTcpovs ; 
 while Epiphanius {Haer. Ixxv.), expressly affirm¬ 
 ing what at length Aerius had denied, lays down 
 that riarepas yap y^vv^ (p twv imerKSTTurv 
 rd^is) t ?7 'EKKXrjO'ia, r) 8e {tuu rrpfcrfivTfpuu) 
 iraTfpas pA] Svvapevr} yeuvav, 5id rpy rod Aou- 
 rpov TraXiyyeveo'ias reuva y€vv^. So again, in 
 actual practice, the cases of Ischyras, declared to 
 be only a “ layman ” by an Alexandrian synod, 
 A.D. 324 or 325 (Neale, Hist, of East. Ch., 
 Alexandria, vol. i. p. 135), because ordained 
 presbyter vrrb KoKKovOov rov irpea^vrepov <pav- 
 rao’dei'Tos iTn(rKoiri]p (St. Athanas. Apol. ii. 0pp. 
 i. p. 193, ed. 1698), and of certain presbyters 
 declared to be laymen for the like reason by 
 Coyic. Sardic. A.D. 347, can. xix.; while the much 
 later Council of Seville {Cone. Hispal. II. a.d. 619, 
 can. V.) pronounced certain presbyterial and dia- 
 conal ordinations void, because, although the 
 bishop had laid his hands upon the candidates, 
 a presbyter, the bishop being blind, “illis contra 
 ecclesiastic-urn ordinem benedictionem dedisse 
 fertur.” The one and only distinct assertion of 
 a contrary practice upon this point, and this too 
 (even had it been trustworthy) of a single and 
 exceptional case, is that of Eutychius, patriarch 
 of Alexandria, A.D. 933-940, born A.D. 876, who 
 affirms in his Origines, that in Alexandria, from 
 the beginning, the twelve city presbytei-s not 
 only chose the Alexandrian patriarch, upon a 
 vacancy, out of their own number, but also by 
 imposition of hands and benediction created him 
 patriarch; and that this lasted down to the 
 
230 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 patriarchate of Alexander, who was at the 
 Nicene Council, i.e. down to about a.d. 308 or 
 313 : or, in other words, that the bishop, in 
 whose time an Alexandrian synod deposed one 
 who had received presbyterial oi’dination, and 
 on that very ground, viz. Ischyras, was himself 
 ordained by presbyters, and that all his prede- 
 cessoi's had been so likewise. Both date, and the 
 internal evidence of ' this and of many other 
 equally gross blunders (see Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. 
 c. XI. ii. 2, pp. 270, 282 sq., ed. Churton), make 
 Eutychius’ statement unworthy of the notice it 
 once attracted. And it is, besides, an obvious 
 perversion of the fact alleged by St. Jerome, that 
 up to the time (not of the patriarch Alexander, 
 but) of the patriarchs Heraclas and Dionysius, viz. 
 A.D. 232 or A.D. 264, “ Alexandrine presbyteri 
 semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori loco 
 collocatum, episcopum nominahant and of the 
 stranger practice still, mentioned by Liberatus 
 (as above in I. 1, 7). That there were bishops 
 enough in Egypt to consecrate legitimately 
 (Eutychius also affirming that there were no 
 others except the bishop of Alexandria until 
 A.D. 190), is evident by the testimonies collected 
 in Pearson (as above, pp. 296, sq. : there were 
 above a hundred at one of Bishop Alexander’s 
 councils). The further assertion of both Am- 
 brosiaster (in Ephes. iv. 11) and of the author 
 of the Quaest. in Vet. et Nov. Test, ci., that in 
 Egypt “ presbyteri ronsignant si praesens non 
 sit episcopus,” and tnat “ in Alexandi-ia et per 
 totam Aegyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat 
 presbyter,” is ruled to mean either the con¬ 
 secration of the Eucharist or the rite of con¬ 
 firmation, not that of ordination, whether to 
 the episcopate or the presbyterate, 1. by the 
 date of the statements, viz. long after the period 
 fixed even by Eutychius, and much more that 
 named in St. Jerome; 2. by the meaning of the 
 word consignare ; 3. by the case of Ischyras, 
 above mentioned, which is conclusive. Other 
 instances of alleged presbyterial ordination are 
 either “ mere mistakes ” (see a list with expla¬ 
 nations in Bingh. II. iii. 7), or depend upon the 
 assumption that chorepiscopi were not bishops, 
 or upon a misinterpretation of an obscure canon 
 of the Council of Ancyra, can. xiii. [Chorepi¬ 
 scopi.] The early Scotch and Irish Churches, in 
 which the presbyter-abbats of certain monas¬ 
 teries exercised an anomalous jurisdiction, never 
 allowed presbyterial ordination (see Adamnan 
 in V. S. Columbae, and other authorities, in Grub’s 
 Hist, of Ch. of Scotl. c. xi. vol. i. 152-160). That 
 a bishop however was not at liberty to ordain 
 clerks “ sine consilio clericorum suorum, ita ut 
 civium conniventiam et testimonium quaerat ” 
 (Cone. Garth. IV. can. xxii.), but did so “ com- 
 muni consilio” (St. Cypr. Epist. xxxviii.), see 
 below in (a.) x. Moreover, he was strictly for¬ 
 bidden to ordain in the diocese of another bishop 
 (see below, (a.) xii.), or indeed in any way 
 
 aWoTpioeTTiaKorreit'. 
 
 (a.) ii. Confirmation, in accordance Avith the 
 intimations in the N. T. (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6), 
 appears also, when first mentioned, as the office 
 of the bishop (Constit. Apost. iii. 16; Pseudo- 
 Dionys. Hierarch. Eccl. ii. p. 254 ; Cone. Carthag. 
 II. A • D. 390, can. iii., “ ut chrisma, &c., a pres- 
 byteris non fiant ”). But (through the difficulty 
 of always securing the bishop’s presence) the 
 practice gradually issued in a severance between 
 
 the two acts, of imposition of hands, which was 
 restricted to the bishop (St. Cypr. Epist. Ixxiii.; 
 Firmilian, ap. St. Cypr. Epist. Ixxv.; Anon, de 
 Bapt. Haer. in Append, ad S. Cgpr. 0pp. ; Cone. 
 Eliberit. A.D. 205, canons xxxviii. Ixxvii.; Euseb. 
 //. E. vi. 43 ; St. Chrys. Horn, xviii. in Act. Apost. 
 § 3 ; St. Jerome, eont. Lucif. iv.; St. Ambros. 
 de Sacram. iii. 2 ; St. Aug. de Trin. xv. 26 ; 
 Pope Innoc. I. ad Decent, iii.; Gelasius, Epist. ix.; 
 Leo M. Epist. Ixxxviii.; Greg. M. Epist. iii. 9; 
 Siricius, E'pist. i. ad Himer. ; Cone. Hispal II. 
 A.D. 619, can. vii.; Cone. Meld. a.d. 845, can. 
 xlv.); and of anointing with the consecrated 
 chrism, the consecration of which was also re¬ 
 stricted to the bishop (Cone. Carthag. III. A.D. 
 397, can. xxxvi.; Tolet. I. A.D. 400, can. xx.; 
 Bracar. II. A.D. 563, can. xix., and III. a.d. 572, 
 can. iv.; Autissiod. A.D. 576, can. vi.; Barcinon. 
 II. A.D. 599, can. ii.; Pope Innocent I. Epist. i. 
 ad Decent, c. iii.; Leo M. Epist. Ixxxviii.; Gelas. 
 Epist. ix.), and to the bishop of the diocese 
 (Cone. Carth. IV. a.d. 398, can. xxxvi.; Vasens. 
 I. A.D. 442, can. iii. &c. &c.); but the actual 
 application of it, with some qualifications and in 
 certain cases, allowed to presbyters : as e. g. in 
 the Church of Rome, there being a double anoint" 
 ing, that of the forehead was restricted to the 
 bishop, the rest not so; in Gaul, a single anoint¬ 
 ing was ordinarily the presbyter’s office; in the 
 East, a single anointing also, but ordinarily the 
 bishop’s office, and only in his absence, as at 
 Alexandria and in Egypt, allowed to presbyters; 
 but in West and East alike, allowed to presbyters 
 in cases of urgency, as of energumens or of those 
 at the point of death, or again by commission 
 from their bishop (see Bingh. XII. ii. 1-6). The 
 Constit. Apostol. vii. 43, 44, describe the practice 
 of the 3rd or 4th century. [Confirmation.] 
 
 (a.) iii. In the administration of sacraments, 
 the bishop’s authority was primary, that of pres¬ 
 byters, and a fortiori of deacons, subordinate. 
 St. Ignat, ad Smgm. viii.: Ovk e^ov iarri 
 rod 4TriarK6irov oijre ^airr'i^eiu o{jt€ aydirr)!/ 
 TtoiViv. Tertull. de Bapt. 17: “ Dandi (bap- 
 tismum) jus quidem habet summus sacerdos, qui 
 est episcopus : dehinc presbyteri et diaconi; non 
 tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesiae 
 honorem; quo salvo, salva pax est.” Hieron. 
 cont. Lucif. IV.: “ Inde venit ut sine jussione 
 episcopi neque presbyter neque diaconus jus ha- 
 beat baptizandi.” St. Ambros. de Sacram. iii. 1: 
 “ Licet presbyteri fecerint, tamen exordium mi- 
 nisterii a summo est sacerdote.” Similar state¬ 
 ments are numerous (Bingh. Lay Bapt. i. § 2, sq.). 
 So e. g. Cone. Eliberit. a.d. 305, can. Ixxvii—If any 
 are baptized by a deacon, “ episcopus eos per 
 benedictionem perficere debebit.” So also Cone. 
 Vern. I. A.D. 755, can. viii., forbids presbyters 
 baptizing, or celebrating mass, “ sine jussione 
 episcopi.” Although no doubt the statement of 
 Ambrosiaster in Ephes. iv. is true also, — as it is 
 indeed perfectly consistent with the principle 
 above laid down, and both would be and is iq 
 like case the Church’s rule now,—that, before 
 the Chui'ch was settled, laymen were allowed 
 “ evangelizare et baptizare et Scripturas in 
 ecclesia explanare.” See also Van Espen, Jur. 
 Eccl. Univ., De Bapt. c. iii. § 1; and Bingham 
 on Lay Baptism. 
 
 (a.) iv. The office of formal preaching, as dis¬ 
 tinct from exposition of Scripture, belonged also 
 properly to bishops. So e.g. in the African 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 231 
 
 Church, if the bishop were present, until the 
 time of St. Augustin; who was the first African 
 presbyter that preached “ coram episcopo,” but 
 this, “ accepta ab episcopis potestate” (Possid. 
 V. S. Aug. V.). So also in Spain, Cone. Hispal. II. 
 A.D. 619, can. vii. In the East the practice was 
 otherwise, since there it was only “ in quibusdam 
 Ecclesiis, tacere presbyteros et praesentibus epi¬ 
 scopis non loqui ” (Hieron. ad Nefot. Epist. ii.). 
 Yet thei'e also the privilege depended on the 
 consent of the bishop, and was taken away in 
 Alexandria by an absolute prohibition : 
 
 Tepos eV 'AXi^avSpeia oh ■KpoaofJLiXei (Socrat. v. 
 22; Sozom. v. 17, vii. 19), from the time of 
 Aldus. In Rome, on the other hand, it is asserted 
 that no bishop (ohre 6 eiriaKOTros ovre &\\os ns, 
 acc. to Sozom. vii. 19, repeated by Cassiodorus, 
 Hist. Tripart.) preached at all until Leo the Great 
 (Thomassin, II. iii. 83, § 5). To preach, however, 
 every Sunday, was reckoned ordinarily the duty, 
 as well as the privilege, of the bishop ; on the 
 ground that he is to be SihaKnuhs = apt to teach 
 (so dpSuos 5iSa(TKa\iKhs = the bishop’s throne, in 
 St. Chr 3 ’’s. Horn. ii. in Tit., and a^'iwfjia hihatTKa- 
 \iKhv = the bishop’s office, in St. Cyril Alex. 
 Epist. ad Monach. in Cone. Ephes. Labbe, iii. 423 ; 
 —and Sozom. vii. 19, M6vos d rrjs WAccos eVt- 
 aKOTTos 5i5d(TK€i ,— and St. Ambros. de Offic. i. 1, 
 “ Episcopi proprium munus docere populum ”). 
 And see also Origen, Horn. vi. in Levit. Gone. Lao- 
 dic. c. A.D. 366, can. xlx., and Cone. Valent. A.D. 855, 
 can. i., take the practice for granted. King Gun- 
 tram, A.D. 585 (^Edict. eonfirm. Cone. Matise. II.), 
 exhorts bishops to frequent preaching ; Charle¬ 
 magne enjoins their having suitable homilies 
 {Capit. i. A.D. 813. c. xiv., and Cone. Arelat. can. x., 
 Mogunt. can. xxv., and Rhem. canons xiv. xv., 
 all of the same year), and deprives bishops of 
 their sees who should not have preached before 
 a fixed day (^Monaeh. S. Gall. i. 20); Ludov. Pius 
 enjoins bishops to preach either in person or by 
 their vicars (Capit. i. 109); and Cone. Ticin. 
 A.D. 850, can. v., threatens deposition to all 
 bishops who did not preach at least on Sundays 
 and holidays. Ethelred also in England enjoins 
 bishops to preach (Laws, vii. 19; repeated by 
 Cnut, Law xxvi). And similarly in Spain, Cone. 
 Tolet. XI. A.D. 675, can. ii. Bishops are also en¬ 
 joined by Cone. Turon. III. A.D. 613, can. xvii., 
 to have homilies about the Catholic faith and a 
 holy life, and to cause them to be translated 
 “ in rusticam Romanam linguam aut Theodiscam, 
 quo facilius cuncti possint intelligere,” &c. In 
 the East, the Council in Trullo (a.d. 691, canons 
 xix. XX.), while deposing bishops who preached 
 outside their own dioceses without permission, 
 enjoins all bishops to preach at least every Sun¬ 
 day, and if possible every day. And Balsamon, 
 on can. Ixiv. of the same council, lays down the 
 principle, that “ to teach and expound belongs by 
 divine grace to bishops only, and so to those to 
 whom bishops delegate the office.” It is assumed 
 to be the bishop’s duty, also, in Cod. Theodos. 
 lib. xvi. tit. ii., de Epise. 1. 25 ; and also lib. ix. 
 tit. xl. de Foenis 1. 16; and in Cod. Justin, lib. 
 ix. tit. xxix. de Grim. Saerilegii, 1. 1. 
 
 (a.) v. As in the points hitherto mentioned, 
 so also in the administration of diseipline, the 
 bishop took the lead ; the presbyters (and appa¬ 
 rently in some cases the deacons) held their 
 proper subordinate place under him, and formed 
 his council. Bishop and presbytery occur to- 
 
 ' gether passim in St. Ignatius. The condemna¬ 
 tions of Origen (Famphil. Apol. ad Thot. Cod. 
 
 ' cxviii.), of Novatian (Euseb. //. E. vi. 43), of 
 j Paul of Samosata (id. vii. 28, 30), of Noetus 
 (Epiphan. Haer. Ivii. 1), of Arius at Alexandria 
 (id. Ixix. 3; and see Coteler. ad Constit. Apost. 
 viii. 28), proceeded from the bishop, or bishops, 
 
 ! but with presbyters, the irpea&vT^piov alone in- 
 ' deed being mentioned in the case of Noetus, and 
 deacons as well as presbyters in that of Arius. 
 So also Pope Siricius in the case of Jovinian, 
 j “ facto presbyterio ” (Siric. Epist. ii., the deacons 
 ’ also it appears concurring); and Synesius, bishon 
 of Ptolemais, in that of Andronicus, a layman 
 (Synes. Epist. Ivii. Iviii.). At the same tiitie, 
 the bishop was the chief, and ordinarily the sole, 
 
 ' judge in the first instance in cases of excommu¬ 
 nication (“ mucro episcopalis ”), following the 
 1 authority of 1 Tim. v. 1, 19 (but see also 1 Cor. 
 
 ' V. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 10 :—so St. Cypr. Epist. xxxviii. 
 xxxix. Ixv. &c.; Cone. Nieaen. can. v.; Cone. Garth. 
 II. A.D. 390, can. viii.; Cone. Carthag. IV. a.d. 
 j 398, can. Iv.; Can. Apost. xxxi.; Gone. Ephes. 
 
 can. V.; Cone. Agath. a.d. 506, can. ii. ; and 
 ' countless other evidence — see Excommuni¬ 
 cation); subject however to an appeal to the 
 synod [Appeal] : although his power came to be 
 i limited in Africa by a Carthag. Council (II. A.D. 
 i 390, can. x.), by the requirement of twelve 
 bishops to judge a bishop (which came to be the 
 traditional canonical number), of six to judge a 
 presbyter, and of three, in addition to the ac¬ 
 cused s own diocesan, to try a deacon. The power 
 of formal absolution from formal sentence is 
 throughout assumed by the canons to be in such 
 sense in the bishop, that presbyters could only 
 exercise it (apart from him) in cases of imminent 
 danger of death, unless by leave of the bishop; 
 and deacons only in very extreme cases indeed 
 (Dion. Alex, in Euseb. H. E. vi. 44; Cone. Garth. 
 II.canons ii. iv.,and III. can. xxxii.; Cone. Arausie. 
 I. A.D. 441, can. i.; Cone. Epaon. a.d. 517, can. 
 xvi.; &c. &c.). St. Cypr. (Epist. xiii.) allows a 
 deacon to absolve, only if neither bishop nor 
 presbyter can be had, and in a case of extreme 
 urgency. But he also speaks of ‘‘ episcopus et 
 clerus ” as both uniting in the solemn act of 
 absolution by imposition of hands. And the rule 
 is laid down fully in Cone. Eliberit. a.d. 305, 
 can. xxxii.: “ Apud presbyterum ... placuit agere 
 poenitentiam non debere sed potius apud episco- 
 pum: cogente tamen infirmitate, necesse est 
 presbyterum communionem praestare debere, et 
 diaconum si ei jusserit episcopus.” See also IMar- 
 shedVs Fenit. Hiseipl. pp. 91, sq.; and Taylor’s 
 Episcop. Asserted, § 36. [Discipline ; Penance.] 
 See also under Penitentiary, Presdyter, for 
 the Trpea^vnpos ^ttI rr\s peravoias (Socrat. v. 
 19), and the like delegates of this part of the 
 bishop’s office. 
 
 This authority extended over the whole diocese 
 and all its members. Exemptions, as of monas¬ 
 teries, fi’om episcopal jurisdiction, are directly in 
 the teeth of the Counc. of Chalced. canons vii. viii., 
 of Justinian’s law (Cbc?. i. tit. iii. de E/nsc. 1.40), 
 of the provincial councils of Orleans, I. a.d. 511, 
 can. XIX. ; Cone. Agath. a.d. 506, can. xxxviii.; 
 Cone. Ilerdens. a.d. 546, can. iii.; &c. The well- 
 known case of Faustus of Lerins and his bishop 
 at the Council of Arles in A.D. 455, was an 
 adjustment of rights as between abbat and 
 bishop, but not an exemption in the proper 
 
232 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 sense of the word (as Hallam superficially I 
 states). The earliest real case of the kind appears j 
 to belong to the 8 th century, when Zachary, i 
 A.D. 750, granted a privilege to Monte Casino, ' 
 “ ut nullius juri subjaceat nisi solius Romani 
 pontificis” (Mabill. Act. S. Ord. Bened., Saec. iii. 
 p. 64-3). Precedents for such exemptions, as 
 granted by royal authority, occur in the Formulae 
 of Iilarculfus. [EXEMPTION ; Monks.] 
 
 (a.) vi. As in the special subject of discijiline, 
 so generally in the affairs of the diocese, the 
 bishop had the primary administration of them, 
 with the power of veto, but (as throughout) with 
 the counsel and consent of his presbyters, and 
 of the diocese at large. So e. g. St. Cyprian, 
 repeating the statement over and over again in 
 equivalent terms,—“ Nihil sine consilio vestro 
 (presbyterorum) et sine consensu plebis mea pri- 
 vata sententia gerere.” The same rule, as regards 
 the presbyters, and in their place the deacons, is 
 prominent in the language of St. Ignatius in the 
 earliest time. And the “ consessus presby¬ 
 terorum ” is likened by St. Jerome to the 
 bishop’s “ senate,” and by Origen and others to 
 the $ov\^ ’EKKX-nfflas, and by St. Chrysostom and 
 Synesius to the Sanhedrim (avyedpior). That 
 presbyters also shared in diocesan synods, “ ad- 
 stantibus diaconis,” see Council, Synod. On the 
 other hand, /xTjSev drev yrwjurjs tov eTricrKdTrov 
 (Cone. Laodic. can. Ivii.) is repeated so endlessly 
 by councils, and asserted by church writers, as 
 to make it needless to multiply quotations. Im- 
 peratorial legislation, in conferring special powers 
 upon bishops, tended largely to increase episcopal 
 authority. Yet provincial synods of presbyters 
 (and of abbats) still continued, throughout, down 
 to Carlovingian times. [Council ; Synod.] And 
 Guizot (H. de la Civ. en France., Le^on 15) joins 
 priests with bishops as the really governing body 
 of the Church in the earlier Frankish period. 
 In the particular matters of creeds, liturgies, 
 and church worship generally, the bishop is also 
 inferred to have had authority to regulate and 
 determine all questions, partly as being a natural 
 portion of his office, partly from the fact, that in 
 unessentials, even the creeds, much more litur¬ 
 gical points, varied in various dioceses, within 
 undefined but obvious limits. And so Basil 
 of Caesarea, we learn, composed certain 
 Siara^eis Kai evKoafiias tov /STy/xaros for his 
 own Church while still a presbyter, of which 
 Eusebius his bishop sanctioned the use. St. 
 Augustin (Epist. 86 , ad Casulan.') assumes a 
 like power in the bishop to appoint fasting days 
 for his own diocese. And the like is implied in 
 the tradition, that St. Ignatius introduced anti¬ 
 phons and doxologies into his own church 
 (Cassiod. Hist. Tripartit. x. 9). So Proclus of 
 Constantinople, A.D. 43 1 - 4 47, is said to have 
 introduced the Trisagion into that Church. It 
 was the bishop’s office also to consecrate churches 
 and cemeteries [Church, Cemetery] : mentioned 
 as early as Euseb. H. E. x. 3, 'EyKaiy'iwv eoprai 
 . . . /col Twj/ &pTi veovaywy Trpo<r€VKTr)pioov acpi- 
 cpdcreis, iTriCKOiriov re iir] raurh (rvveXevo'fis. 
 
 (a.) vii. Visitation of his diocese was, at first, 
 rather a duty following as a matter of course from 
 a bishop’s office, than a legal and canonical obliga¬ 
 tion : see St. Athanas. Apol. ii. § 74; St. Chrys. 
 Horn. i. in Epist. ad Titum (eVt/r/ccif'e/s); Sulp. 
 Sever. Dial. ii. (of St. Martin); St. Aug. Epist. vi. 
 0pp. ii. 144; Greg. Tur. H. E. v. 5, and De Glor. 
 
 Confess, lix. cvi.; St. Greg. M. Dial. iii. 38, &c.: 
 and see also under Chorepiscopi, and Flepio- 
 hevriis or VisiTATOR. Accordingly, no canons at 
 first defined or enforced the duty. But in course 
 of time, so soon as canons came to be made upon 
 the subject, the bishop became bound to visit his 
 diocese once a year, both to confirm and to ad¬ 
 minister discipline, and generally to oversee the 
 diocese : St. Bonif. Epist. Ixx. ed. Jaffe'; Cone. 
 Tarracon. A.D. 516, can. viii.; Cone. Bracar. III. 
 A.D. 572, can. i.; Cone. Tolet. IV. A.D. 633, can. 
 xxxvi.; Cone. Tolet. VII. a.d. 646, can. iv.; 
 Cone. Liptin. a.d. 743 (i. e. St. Boniface, as above); 
 Cone. Suess. a.d. 744, can. iv.; Cone. Arelat. a.d, 
 813, can. xvii; Capit. Car. M. lib. vii. cc. 94, 95, 
 109, 365, A.D. 769, 813, &c. 
 
 (o.) viii. Further (1), it was the bishop’s office 
 to issue letters of credence to any members of his 
 diocese, which alone enabled them to commu¬ 
 nicate in other churches : sc. litterae formatae, or 
 canonicae^ &c. So, Can. Apost. xxxii., no stranger 
 bishop or clergy were to be received 6.vev avara- 
 tikS)v ; Cone. Laodic. a.d. 366, can. xli., Ou Set 
 tepariKhv ^ K\r]piKhv &vev KavoviKwv ypafip-druv 
 odeveiy ; Cone. Antioch. A.D. 341, can. vii., Mij- 
 Sej/a &V€V elprjviKuv dex^crOai rwv ^ivwv : Cone. 
 Carthag. I. A.D. 348, can. vii., “ Clericus vel laicus 
 non communicet in aliena plebe sine litteris epi- 
 scopi sui.” So also Cone. Milevit. A.D. 402, can. xx. 
 (“ formatam ab episcopo accipiat”); Cone. Agath. 
 A.D. 506, can. Iii., and repeated Cone. Epaon. 
 A.D. 517, can. vi. (“ sine antistitis sui epistolis ”); 
 but, in each case, of the clergy, who should travel 
 from home. And the Councils of Arles (A.D. 314, 
 can. ix.) and of Eliberis (a.d. 305, can. xxv.) 
 forbid “ confessors ” to give such letters, and 
 order those who have them to procure fresh 
 “ communicatoriae” from the bishop. The Coun¬ 
 cil of Antioch, A.D. 341, can. viii., permits chor¬ 
 episcopi di56vai FipnviKOLS, but forbids presbyters 
 doing so; and the Council of Eliberis (a.d. 305, 
 can. Ixxxi.) prohibits the worse abuse of the 
 wives (apparently of bishops) giving and receiv¬ 
 ing such “ pacificae.” These letters, according 
 to their purpose, were called “ commendatitiae ” 
 (of credence, or recommendation), “ pacificae ” 
 (also “ ecclesiasticae ” or “ canonicae,” of com¬ 
 munion), or “ dimissoriae ” (awoXvTiKoi, avara- 
 riKal, or again elpiqyiKai, or “ concessoriae ”) ; see 
 e. g. Co7ic. Trull, can. xvii. (not necessary or 
 granted, like modern letters dimissory, to any 
 one who desired to be ordained in another dio¬ 
 cese than his own—who, however, had of course 
 to obtain leave to do so—but only when a 
 clergyman desired to change his diocese); and 
 they are to be distinguished from the unauthori- 
 tative “ libelli ” given by martyrs or confest-ors 
 during a persecution to those who had lapsed. 
 Cone. Chalced. a.d. 451, can. xi., orders (XvaraTL- 
 Ka\ to be given only to such as were “ suspectae ;” 
 but to those who were poor and in want, only 
 FiprjviKal, and not aviTTariKal — pacificae., and not 
 commendatitiae. (2.) The bishop also represented 
 his diocese collectively, besides answering for 
 its individual members; as in communicating 
 with other dioceses. So, e. g. St. Clement ot 
 Rome writes to the Corinthian Church, as speak¬ 
 ing for the Church of Rome, of which he was 
 bishop; and is spoken of by Hermas Pastor 
 (Tas. ii. 4) as officially communicating with 
 Christians of other dioceses. It is needless to 
 give evidence from later times. 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 233 
 
 (a.) ix. The income and offerings of the 
 Church, and its alms, were likewise, in the first 
 instance, under the disposition of the bishop, to 
 be dispensed either by himself or by his proper 
 officers (see Alienation of Church Pko- 
 PERTT, Alms, Archdeacon, Deacon, Oeco- 
 NOMUS); and this upon the ground of Acts iv. 
 35, 37, V. 2, 1 Cor, xvi. 3, 4; but with the 
 general consent of his presbyters, as Acts xi. 30, 
 Ta rris ’E/c/cArjo-tas . . . htoiKe^adai 'Kpoa'f}K(i fMera 
 Kpicews Ka\ e^ovcrtas too e7ri(r/f(i7roi» {Cone. An¬ 
 tioch. A.D. 341, can. xxiv., and see can. xxv.). 
 And Cone. Gangr. (a.d. 325, canons vii. and viii.) 
 puts an anathema on those who intermeddle with 
 church property, irapa yi'WjX7]v (or irapeKThs) 
 Tov iiricntSTTov ^ rov ra Toiavra. 
 
 So Can. Apost. xxxvii. : UduTuv twv iKKAgaiaa- 
 Ti/fiSr irpaypLaTcov 6 eTTicrKUTros ex^Tco ttjj/ (ppov- 
 T(5a Kal StoiKefrco avra. ws Qeov ecpopci'VTOS. And 
 so also ib. can. xl.; and at length, Constit. Apostol. 
 ii. 25. And St. Cypr. (Epist. xxxviii. al. xli.), 
 “ Episcopo dispensante.” And St. Hieron. ad 
 Nepot. Epist. xxxiv., “Sciat episcopus, cui coni- 
 inissa est Ecclesia, quern dispensation! pauperum 
 curaeque praeficiat.” And Possid. in V. S. Aug. 
 But Cone. Antioeh. (as above, can. xxv.) forbids 
 the bishop from dealing with church revenues, 
 pfTct, yuwpgs twv -npecrliuTepwu ^ roSu 8ia- 
 kSvwu, and orders him evOvuas vapex^^^ '^V 
 v68(p rrjs -A-ud Can. Apost. xxxix. al. xl. 
 
 bids him keep his own goods and those of the 
 church distinct, so that earw (pauepd rd t5ia rov 
 iTTiaKdiTOV Trpdypara (el ye Kail tSia exez) Kal 
 (pavepd TCt KvpiaKd, k.t.\. And Cone. Carth. IV. 
 A.t). 398, can. xxxii., “ Irrita erit donatio episcc- 
 porum vel venditio vel commutatio rei eccle- 
 siasticae, absque conniventia et subscriptione 
 clericorum.” Compare also the established ex¬ 
 ceptional cases Avherein chui’ch plate, &c., might 
 be sold, viz. for redeeming captives (as St. Am¬ 
 brose, de Offie. ii. 28 ; Acacius of Amida, in So- 
 crat, vii. 21 ; Deogratias of Carthage, in Victor 
 Utic. c?e Fersee. Vandal, i.; St. Augustin [Possid. 
 in V. S. Aug. 24] ), or feeding people in case of 
 famine (as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in Theodoret. 
 ii. 27, and Sozom. iv. 25); in which, as in other 
 cases of real necessity, the bishop allowably 
 disposed of the property, but with the consent 
 of the primate “ cum statute numero episco- 
 porum ” {Cone. Carth. V. a.d. 398, can. iv.), or 
 “ apud duos vel tres comprovinciales vel vicinos 
 episcopos” {Cone. Agath. a.d. 506, can. vii.); 
 which last canon, however, permits the bishop by 
 himself to dispose of “ terrulae aut vineolae exiguae 
 aut ecclesiae minus utiles,” &c. (can. xlv.): and 
 Cone. Epaon. a.d. 517, can. xii., I’equires the “con- 
 scientia metropolitan! ” to a like sale. Councils of 
 Orleans, III. and IV. a.d. 538, 541, repeat like 
 rules. And in Spain, Cone. Ilispal. II. a.d. 619, 
 canons ix. and xlix., and Tolet.lV. A.D. 633, can. 
 xlviii., and the Capit. of Martin of Braga ; in 
 Italy, the letters of Gregory the Great, and Cone. 
 Fom. VI. under Symmachus, A.D. 504; and in 
 the East, Justinian {Novell. 123, c. 23, 131, c. 11), 
 shew a like system. This general rule, however, 
 held good only so long as the church good:^ of 
 each diocese formed a common fund. After the 
 appropriation of special incomes to special officers 
 and to particular parishes, the bishop of course 
 ceased to have control over more than his own 
 share, except over alms and general contri¬ 
 butions, and in like cases (see Tithes) : un¬ 
 
 less so far as he still retained the power of 
 appointing clergy and ordaining them to parti¬ 
 cular benefices. The era of such limitation may 
 be taken to be the Cone. Troslcian. (Troli, 
 near Soissons), A.D. 909, can. vi. ; the old 
 rule lineering still during the time of Charle¬ 
 magne (see Thomassin, III. i. 8 ). About 600f. 
 a year is Gibbon’s estimate of an average episcopal 
 revenue in the time of Justinian; the valuation 
 fluctuating at the time from 2 pounds of gold 
 to 30 (Justin. Novell. 123, c. 3). 
 
 (a.) X. The bishop also appears, in the first 
 instance, to have so taken charge of his whole 
 diocese, as that, the diocesan city being served 
 by clergy of his own ordaining, the countrv 
 districts were served from the city by clergy 
 at his a 2 )pointment, although with counsel and 
 consent of both presbyters and laity. The dio¬ 
 cese was in fact one parish, there being no such 
 thing as a parish in the modern sense. And this 
 original condition of things gradually settled into 
 rule, as follows :—1. That no clergyman could 
 migrate to, or be ordained to a higlier order in, 
 another diocese than that in which he had been 
 born and ordained, or (if this involved two di(j- 
 ceses) in which he had been ordained, without 
 the express leave of the bishop who had ordaine 1 
 him : the presbyters being bound to the bisho[> 
 who had ordained them, as he in turn was bound 
 to support them if in need. See Clergy, Lit- 
 TERAE Dimissoriae, Presijyter. An excej)tion 
 however came to exist in favour of the bishoji of 
 Carthage, in relation to Africa, “ ut soli ecclesiae 
 Carthaginis liceat alienum clericum ordinare ” 
 (Ferrand. J5reuiar. c. 230). That no clergyman, 
 when benefices came to exist, could resign hi> 
 benefice, or remove to another, within the parti¬ 
 cular diocese, without his bishop’s consent. Cone. 
 Carth. IV. A.D. 398, can. xxvii., probably refers to 
 different dioceses,—“Inferioris gradus sacerdotes 
 vel alii clerici concessione suorum e])isco]:)oruni 
 possunt ad alias ecclesias transmigrare.” But in 
 later times, Cone. Remens. a.d. 813, can. xx.. Cone. 
 Turon. A.D. 813, can. xiv., and Cone. Namnet. can. 
 xvi., are express, “ De titulo minor! ad majorem 
 migrare null! presbytero licitum est ;” and are 
 confirmed by Charlemagne, Capit. lib. vi. c. 197,— 
 “Nullus presbyter creditam sibi ecclesiam sine 
 consensu sui episcopi derelinquat et laicorum 
 suasione ad aliam transeat;” and see also lib. vi. 
 c. 85, lib. vii. c. 73. But, at the same time, the 
 bishop could not remove or eject a clergyman 
 against his will or at his own pleasure, the rule 
 coming to be that three bishops were required 
 to judge a deacon, and six a presbyter, including 
 their own diocesan, with an appeal to the pro¬ 
 vincial synod : see Appeal, Deacon, Presryti;r, 
 Synod. 3. That the bishop as a rule collated 
 to all benefices within his diocese, conferring,* by 
 ordination to a particular “title,” the spiritu:tl 
 jurisdiction, which drew with it the temporal 
 endowments (see Bingh. IX. viii. 5, 6 ; Thomassin, 
 II. i. 33-35). But, 4. that the right of nomi¬ 
 nating to a church in another’s diocese was 
 granted, as time went on, to a bishop who had 
 founded that church (and apparently to his suc¬ 
 cessors, on the assumption that he founded it out 
 of church property), in the West {Cone. Anxusie. I. 
 A.D. 441, can. x.) ; and in the East from Justinian, 
 and ultimately in the West likewise (e. g. Cone. 
 Tolet. IX. A.D. 655, can. ii.; Cone. Francof. a.d. 
 794, can. liv.), to laymen also in like position; 
 
234 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 and in both East and West, by the time of Jus¬ 
 tinian and of Charlemagne respectively, to kings, 
 nobles, and other laymen, without any such 
 ground : although the right of the bishop to 
 determine whether the presentee was fit, and 
 if unfit, to reject him, remained still, even 
 in the case of noblemen’s chaplains. Further, 
 1. in the East, a limit also was put to the 
 “ requests ” (dv(rw7rri<Te(ri) of the nobles, and to 
 the “ command ” (/ceAeufTts) of the emperor, in 
 making such presentations (^Novell. 3, in Fraef. 
 and c. 2) : and, 2. in the West, the Council of Arles, 
 VI. A.D. 813, can. iv., commands, “ ut laid pres- 
 byteros absque judicio proprii ej)iscopi non eji- 
 ciant de ecclesiis nec alios immittere prae- 
 sumantand the Council of Tours, III. a.d. 813, 
 can. XV., “ Interdicendum videtur clericis sive 
 laicis ne quis cuilibet presbytero praesumat dare 
 ecclesiam sine licentia et consensu episcopi sui 
 while, on the other hand, both Charlemagne and 
 Louis the Pious guard the lay side of the ((ues- 
 tion by enacting, “Si laici clericos probabilis 
 vitae et doctrinae episcopis consecrandos suisque 
 in ecclesiis constituendos obtulerint, nulla qua- 
 libet occasione eos rejiciantor if they do re¬ 
 ject them, then, “ diligens examinatio et evidens 
 ratio, ne scandalum generetur, manifestum faciat ” 
 {Capit. lib. V. c. 178, and Lud. Pii Cupit. in 
 Cone. Gall. ii. 430): an enactment repeated by 
 Cone. Paris. A.D. 829, can. xxii. See also Cone. 
 Rom. A.D. 826 and 853, can. xxi. The right of 
 presentation to such a benefice by lapse, as de¬ 
 volving upon the bishop, is not traced by Tho- 
 massin (II. i. 31, § 5) higher than the time of 
 Hincmar. The consent of the C-hurch, necessary 
 in the time of St. Cyprian to the ordination of a 
 ])resbyter, does not appear to have been required 
 in that of a deacon—“ diaconi ab episcopis hunt ” 
 (St. Cypr. Ej ist. Ixv.)—and a fortiori not in 
 the case of minor orders. 
 
 (a.) xi. The bishop became also a judge or 
 arbitrator in secular causes between Christians, 
 on the ground of 1 Cor. vi. 4: necessarily, how¬ 
 ever, by consent only of both parties, and by an 
 authority voluntarily conceded to him : an office 
 which continued so late as the time of St. Au¬ 
 gustin; sitting on Monda)^s for the purpose : for 
 which, and for other details, see Apost. Constit. 
 ii. 45-53. See also undei' Appeal. As.an office 
 conferred bv the State, and endowed with legal 
 power, see also below under (2). 
 
 (a.) xii. All these powei's belonged to a bishop 
 solely in relation to his own diocese. Beyond 
 that diocese—not to discuss hei’e, 1. the authority 
 of synods, or, 2. the gradual growth of the 
 offices of archbishop, primate, metropolitan, 
 exarch, patriarch (for which see the several 
 articles)—each bishop had no right to interfere, 
 except under circumstances (such as the pre¬ 
 valence of schism or heresy, or of persecution, 
 or the like) which would obviously constitute a 
 necessity superseding law. So, e. y. St. Atha¬ 
 nasius Ka\ %eipoTov£a? iiroiei in cities out of his 
 diocese, as he returned from exile (Socrat. ii. 24). 
 And similarly Eusebius of vSamosata, in the Arian 
 persecution under Valens (Theodoret, iv. 13, v. 4). 
 And Epiphanius likewise in Palestine; defending 
 his act on tlie ground that, although each bishop 
 had his own diocese, “ et nemo super alienam 
 mensuram extenditur, tanien praeponitur om¬ 
 nibus earitas Christi ” (^Epist. ad Joan. Hieros. 
 Opf. ii. 312). Compare also the letters of Cle¬ 
 
 ment of Rome to the Cojunthians, and of Dionysius 
 of Corinth (KadoAiKal (TTKTToAal) to the Lace¬ 
 daemonians, and to the Athenians, and many 
 others (Euseb. //. E. iv. 23) ; and St. Cyprian’s 
 interference in Spain in the cases of Martial and 
 Basilides, and in Gaul in that of Marcian. And 
 see Du Pin, de Antiq. Eccl. Discipjl. pp. 141, sq. 
 Still, the rule was— 
 
 (a.) xiii. A single bishop to each diocese, and 
 a single diocese to each bishop. “ Cnus in 
 Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos,” is St. Cyprian’s 
 dictum {Epist. lii. al. Iv.). And St. Jerome, 
 “ Singuli Ecclesiarum episcopi, singuli archi- 
 presbyteri, &c., in naA'i unus gubernator, in 
 domo unus dominus” {E/Ast. ad Rustic., and re¬ 
 peatedly). And similarly St. Hilar. Diac. {in 
 Phil. i. 1, in 1 Cor. xii. 28, &c.). And .Socrat. vi. 
 
 ! 22 ; Sozom. iv. 15 ; Theodoret, ii. 17 (efs 0e^s, ds 
 I Xpiarhs, efs iTr'iCKoiros), and iii. 4; and, above 
 j all. Cone. Nicaen. a.d. 325, can. viii. &c. &c. &c. 
 
 ■ And to the same effect the numerous canons for¬ 
 bidding the intrusion of any one into a diocese as 
 bishop during the lifetime of the bishop of that 
 ^ diocese, unless the latter had either freely re¬ 
 signed or been lawfully deposed. The seeming 
 exceptions to this, indeed, proA^e the rule. Merely 
 I as a temporary expedient, in order to heal a 
 schism, the Catholic bishojxs in Africa offered to 
 share their .sees with the Donatist bishops {Collat. 
 
 ! Carthag. 1 die c. xau. in Labbe, ii. 1352); as Me- 
 letius long before had propo.sed to Paulinus at 
 Antioch to put the Gospels on the episcopal 
 throne Avhile they two should sit on either side 
 as joint bishops (Theodoret, au 3) : the propo.sal 
 dropping to the ground in both cases. See also 
 AAffiat is said aboA'e of coadjutors ; and the conjec¬ 
 ture, not hoAvever solidly grounded, of Hammond 
 and others, respecting tAvo joint bishops, respec- 
 ti\"ely for Jews and Gentiles, in .some cities in 
 Apostolic times (see Bingh. II. xiii. 3). It must be 
 added, hoAveA'er, that Epiphanius {Haer. Ixviii. 6) 
 does say that Alexandria never had tAvo bishops, 
 a>s al Tr6\€is. On the other side, two sees 
 
 to one bishop was equally against all rule. The 
 text, “ Unius uxoris virum,” says the Ee Diyn. 
 Sacerd. (c. iv. inter Opjp. S’. Am'mos.), “ si ad 
 altiorem sensum comscendimus, inhibet episcopum 
 duas usurpare Ecclesias.” And later Avriters, 
 e. g. Hincmar, work the same thought Avith still 
 greater A'ehemence, and loudly inveigh against 
 spiritual adultery. And apart from this exalted 
 Auew, the canon of Chalcedon, which forbids a 
 clergyman being inscribed upon the roll of tAA’o 
 dioceses, was (very reasonably) held to include 
 bishops. The exceptional cases indeed of Inter- 
 ventores, and of the temporary “commendation” 
 of a diocese to a neighbouring bishop [Ixter- 
 VENTORES, Commenda], occur, the fo mer in the 
 early African Church, the latter as early as St. 
 Ambros.e himself {Epist. xBa'.). And a case occurs 
 in St. Basil the Great’s letters (290 and 292), 
 where a provincial synod, under urgent necessity, 
 and not without A'ehement opposition, by a dis¬ 
 pensation (t5 rrjs otKopofxlas ava-yfioiov), allowed 
 a bishop, promoted to the metropolitan see of 
 Armenia, to retain his previous see of Colonia. 
 And Gregory the Great in several cases joined 
 together in Italy ruined or impoveri.shed or de¬ 
 populated sees. St. Medard also, in 532, united 
 the sees of Noyon and Tournay, upon the urgency 
 of his metropolitan and comprovincial bishops, 
 and of the king, nobles, and people (Sui ius, in 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 235 
 
 V. S. Med. Jun. 8). But pluralities, in the sense 
 of two or more previously independent bishoprics 
 held together for merely personal reasons, do not 
 seem to have crept in until early Carlovingian 
 times; when, e. g., Hugh, son of Drogo, became 
 archbishop of Rouen, a.d. 722, and added thereto 
 subsequently the sees of Paris and Bayeux, besides 
 the abbeys of Jumieges and Fontanelles (^Chron. 
 Gemmetic.^ for no other apparent reason than that 
 he was nephew of Pipin the Elder. In England, 
 the first case was that of St. Dunstan, who held 
 Worcester and Loudon together, in order no doubt 
 to further his monastic schemes, A.D. 957-960. 
 And this is followed by the well-known series of 
 archbishops of York who were also bishops of 
 Worcester, from 972 to 1023; and this, again, 
 by the union of the same unfortunate see of Wor¬ 
 cester to that of Creditou in the episcopate of 
 Living, 1027-1046. The union of other prefer¬ 
 ment, as of deaneries or abbeys, to bishoprics, 
 began much about the like period, when circum¬ 
 stances tempted to it. And for two abbeys held 
 together, see Aubat. The apparent exception of 
 the province of Europa in Thrace in earlier times, 
 in which two bishops wei’e allowed upon their 
 own petition by the Council of Ephesus (a.d. 431, 
 Act. vii. sub finem) to hold each two, and in one 
 case more, bishoprics together, on the ground that 
 those bishoprics had always been held together, 
 brings us rather to the previous enquiry respect¬ 
 ing the size of dioceses, and whether necessarily 
 limited to one city and its dependent country, 
 and if so, of what size the city must be. 
 
 (a.) xiv. And here, there being no principle 
 involved beyond that of suitableness in each case 
 to the particular locality, and the original diocese 
 in each case being the great city of the neigh¬ 
 bourhood with so much of its dependent country 
 and towns as was converted to the faith, questions 
 necessarily arose, as the district became com¬ 
 pletely Christianized, and were determined in 
 dirterent ways in different places, as to the sub¬ 
 division of the original v^aguely limited diocese. 
 In some countries that subdivision was carried 
 so far as to call forth prohibitions against placing 
 bishops eV Kdo/xrj rivi ^ iv TrdAet (^Conc. 
 
 i'ardic. A.D. 347, can. vi.); or again, eV rals K(i- 
 /lais Kai eV raTs (^Conc. Laodic. about A.D. 
 
 366, can. Ivii.), which latter canon perhaps only 
 prohibits chorepiscopi. Leo the Great also vehe¬ 
 mently condemns the erecting sees “ in castellis,” 
 &c., in Africa (^Epist. Ixxxvii. c. 2). And it was 
 made an objection to the Donatists that (to multi¬ 
 ply tlieir numbers) they consecrated bishops “ in 
 villis et in fundis, non in aliquibus civitatibus ” 
 {Collat. Garth, c. 181; Labbe, ii. 1399). The 
 prohibition is repeated in later times, as by Pope 
 Gregory III. A.D. 738, and Pope Zacharias, A.D. 
 743. The pi'actice however had continued never¬ 
 theless ; as is obvious by St. Greg. Naz., St. Chry¬ 
 sostom, Synesius, and others, quoted in Bingh. II. 
 xii. 2, 3; and by Sozomen (vii. 19), stating, but 
 as an exceptional case, that iarXv (i-mj kuI iv 
 Kcoixais iiriaKOiroL Upovvrai, ws Trapo 'Apafilois 
 Kal Kvirplois eyvwv. On the other hand, the 
 conversion of the German and other European 
 nations, as it were, wholesale, upon the conver¬ 
 sion of their kings, led in a large part of northern 
 Europe to sees of nations I'ather than cities, and 
 to sees therefore of often unwieldy extent. E. g., 
 in Scythia, TroAXat ir6\fis ovres 'S.Kvdai eva irdvres 
 iirioKUToy (^^^om. vii. 19 ; and see also vi. 
 
 21); viz. the Bishop of lomi. In the older coun¬ 
 tries it might obviously happen, very naturallv, 
 that (as in the province of Europa) two or more 
 towns or “ civitates ” of small but nearly equal 
 size might come to be united in one diocese, of 
 which yet neither of them could claim to be pre¬ 
 eminently the city. Just as, on the other hand, Soz¬ 
 omen tells us, that Gaza and I\Iajuma, being two 
 “ civitates ” (although very small ones) and also 
 two bishoprics, were united by the emperors 
 into one “ civitas,” yet remained two bishoprics 
 still (v. 4). The actual number of bishops in the 
 time of Constantine is reckoned by Gibbon as 
 1800, of whom 1000 were Eastern, 800 Western. 
 The authority for subdivision was “ voluntas 
 episcopi ad quern ipsa dioecesis pertinet, ex con- 
 silio tamen plenario et primatis authoritate ” 
 (Ferrand. Breviar. xiii. in Justell. Bibl. Jur. Can. 
 i. 448). See also Cone. Carthag. II. A.D. 397, can. 
 V., and III. A.D. 397, can. xlii. (Labbe, ii. 1160, 
 1173), and St. Aug. Epist. cclxi., respecting his 
 erecting the see of Fussala with the consent of 
 the primate of Numidia. The consent of the 
 bishop of Rome was not asked or thought of, 
 until in the West in the time of St. Boniface, and 
 even then it was chiefly in respect to newly con¬ 
 verted countries. Com2)are the well-known his¬ 
 tory of Wilfrid in England in the end of the 7th 
 century, the action of Pojoe Formosus a century 
 later in respect to the same country, and the 
 history of Nominoii and the Breton sees in 845. 
 The Pope’s consent became needful about the 
 time of Gregory V. The consent of the king 
 became also necessary from the commencement 
 of the Frank kingdom, and in Saxon England. 
 While in the East the absolute power of erecting 
 new sees accrued to the emperors solely, without 
 respect to diocesan bishop, metropolitan, council, 
 or any one else (Thomassin, De Marca, &c.). An 
 exceptional African canon {Cod. Can. Afric. cxvi.), 
 in order to reconcile Donatists, allowed any one 
 reclaiming a place, not a bishop’s see, to retain it 
 tor himselt as a new and separate bishopric upon 
 a prescription of three years. And so again in 
 Sixiin, according to Cone. Tolet. A.D. 633, can. 
 xxxiv., and Cone. Emerit. A.D. 666 , can. viii., thirty 
 years’ undisturbed possession by one bishoji, of 
 what had previously been a part of another’s 
 bishopric, constituted a prescriptive right on be¬ 
 half of the possessor. The Cone. Chaleed. A.D. 451, 
 can. xi., had fixed the same period. Tiie union of 
 sees was subject to the same rules with the sub¬ 
 division of them. There were in England no in¬ 
 stances of such union within our period, except in 
 the cases of the temjwrary sees of Hexham and 
 of Whitherne, and of the })ossible brief-lived see 
 of Rij)on ; the union of Cornwall and Devonshire 
 being of considerably later date. The transference 
 of tlie episcojjal see from one place to another with¬ 
 in the same bishopric, as distinct from any change 
 of the limits or indejxmdency of the bishopric 
 itself, seems to have followed a like rule with 
 the larger measures of union or division. The 
 bishop, with sanction of his comprovincials, and 
 with the acquiescence of the State, was sufficient 
 authority at first in European kingdoms or in the 
 East; as, e.g. in the shiftings of the see of East 
 Anglia, or of that of Wessex, &c. The consent 
 of the Po2)e came to be asked afterwards; as in 
 the time of Edward the Confessor, in the case 
 of the removal of Crediton to Exeter, or in 
 that of the great mowment of sees from smaller 
 
236 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 to larger towns in the time of William the Con¬ 
 queror in England generally ; which however 
 were both of them done, and the latter of the 
 two expressly, “ by leave of the king.” 
 
 (a.) XV. Finally, bishops were required to 
 reside upon their dioceses. The Council of Nice 
 (can. xvi.), enjoining residence on the other orders 
 of clergy, plainly takes that of bishops for granted, 
 and as needing no canon. The Council of Sardica, 
 A.D. 347, can. xv., in the case of bishops who 
 have private property elsewhere, peimits only 
 three weeks’ absence in order to look after that 
 property, and even then the bishop so absent had 
 better reside, not on his estate itself, but in some 
 neighbouring town where there is a church and 
 presbyter. And Cone. Trull. A.D. 691, can. Ixxx., 
 deposes a bishop (or other clerk) who without 
 stroncT cause is absent from his church three 
 Sundays running. A year’s absence from his 
 diocese forfeited the see altogether, acc. to Jus¬ 
 tinian’s law (at first it had forfeited only the 
 pay, Novell. Ixvii. *c. 2), or six months acc. to 
 Cone. Constant. A.D. 870 (see above). Presence at 
 a synod (which was compulsory) was of course a 
 valid reason for absence. Bishops however were 
 not to cross the sea, acc. to an African rule (^Cod. 
 Can. Afrie. xxiii.; and so also in Italy, Greg. M. 
 Epist. vii. 8), without the permission and the 
 letter (aTroAoTi/flj, TeruTreo/^eVTj, formata') of the 
 primate; nor to go to the emperor without 
 letters of both primate and comprovincial bishops 
 (Gone. Antioch, a.d. 341, can. xi.). Nor were 
 they to go into another province unless invited 
 {Cone. Sardic. can. ii.); nor indeed to go to court 
 at all unless invited or summoned by the emperor; 
 nor to go too much “ in canali ” or “ canalio ” 
 (along the public road) “ ad comitatum ” (to the 
 court) to j)resent petitions, but rather to send 
 their deacon if necessary (*6. can. ix.-xii). Yet, 
 A.D. 794, by Cone. Franco/, can. Iv., some four and 
 a half centuries later, Charlemagne is permitted 
 to have at court with him, by licence of the Pope 
 and consent of the synod, and for the utility of 
 the Church, Archbishop Angelram and Bishop 
 Hildebald. Bishops, again, were not to leave 
 their dioceses “ negotiandi causa,” or to frequent 
 markets for gain (Cone. Eliberit. a.d. 305, can. 
 xviii.). How far persecution was an excuse or 
 reason for absence, see Persecution, Martyrdom. 
 St. Augustin excuses an absence of his own on 
 the ground that he never had been absent “ licen- 
 tiosa libertate sed necessaria servitute ” 
 cxxxviii.). And Gregory the Great repeatedly 
 insists upon residence. And to come later still, 
 Cone. Franco/, a.d. 794, canons xli. xlv., renews 
 the prohibition of above three weeks’ absence 
 upon private affairs. And Charlemagne at Aix 
 (Capit. Aquisgr. a.d. 789, c. xli.) restrains the 
 bishop’s residence, not simply to his see, but to 
 his cathedral town : just as previous Frank 
 canons repeatedly enjoin his presence there at 
 the three great feasts of Easter, Whitsunday, 
 and Christmas. The bishop, too, by a canon of 
 Cone. Carthag. IV. a.d. 398, can. xiv., was bound 
 to have his “ hospitiolum ” close to his cathedral 
 church. The sole causes, in a word, that were held 
 to justify absence, were such as arose from ser¬ 
 vice to the Church ; as when at synod, or employed 
 on church duties elsewhere, or summoned to 
 court on church business or for Christian pur¬ 
 poses (but this was an absence jealously watched : 
 see Cone. Sardic. &c. &c. • as above). Absence 
 
 also on pilgrimage was seemingly, yet hardly 
 formally, acquie.sced in. And a journey to Pome 
 (by permission of the pidnce) would ct»me under 
 the same class of exemption as the attending a 
 synod. By the time of Charlemagne, moreover, 
 the office of Missi Dominici, and other State 
 duties, were held to justify at least temj)oraj-y 
 non-residence. 
 
 )8. From the spiritual office of the bishop 
 we pass to his joint authority when 
 assembled in provincial synod; and this, i. as 
 respects the consecration of bishops, for which 
 see above; and, ii. as a court of ajtpeal and judi¬ 
 cature over individual bishops, for which see 
 Appeal, Council, Svnod ; and, iii. as exercising a 
 general juri.sdiction over the province ; for which, 
 and for the relative rights of bishops and presby’- 
 ters, &c. in synod assembled, see Council, Synod. 
 
 y. Thirdly, for the collective authority of 
 bishops assembled in general council, i. as re¬ 
 spects doctrine, ii. as respects discipline, see 
 Council, Oecumenical. 
 
 III. (2.) Over and above the spiritual powers 
 inherent in the episcopate as such, certain tem¬ 
 poral POWERS AND privileges were conferred 
 upon the bishop from time to time by the State; 
 and these, partly, in his general capacity as of 
 the clergy (for which see Clergy), partly upon 
 him as bishop. 
 
 (i.) 'T\\q judicial authority in secular causes be¬ 
 tween Christians, winch attached to the bishop 
 as a matter of Christian feeling, became gra¬ 
 dually an authority recognized and enlarged by 
 state law. See details under Appeal. He was 
 limited in the Roman empire to civil causes, and 
 to criminal cases that were not capital, and almost 
 certainly to cases wffiere both parties agreed to 
 refer themselves to the bishop. In England, 
 however, the bishop sat w'ith the alderman in 
 the Shire Gemot, twice a y'ear, “ in order to ex¬ 
 pound the law of God as well as the secular law” 
 (Eadgar’s Laws, ii. 5, &c. &c.); an arrangement 
 to which (as is well known) William the Con¬ 
 queror put an end. In Carlovingian France, the 
 bishop and the comes were to supj^ort one another, 
 and the two as Missi Dominici made circuits to 
 oversee things ecclesiastical as well as civil {Capnt. 
 of A.D. 789, 802, 806, &c.; see Gieseler, ii. 240, 
 Eng. tr.). Questions relating to marriages, and 
 to wills, were also referred to the bishops by the 
 Roman laws, and by the Carlovingian (see under 
 Marriage, Testament). The bishop also vv'as 
 authorized by Cod. Justin. I. iv. 25, to prohibit 
 gaming; as he had been by Cod. Theod. IX. iii. 7, 
 XVI. X. 19, to put down idolatry; and IX. xvi. 12, 
 sorcerers; and XV. viii. 2, pimps. He had also 
 special jurisdiction, in causes both civil and (sub¬ 
 sequently) criminal, over clergy, monks, and nuns 
 — “ episcopalis audieutia” — from Valeutinian, 
 A.D. 452 (^Novell, iii. de Episc. J^idicio), and from 
 Justinian, A.D. 539 (^Novell. Ixxix. and Ixxxiii., and 
 so also cxxiii. c. 21) ; and from Heraclius, a.d. 628 
 (for the inclusion of criminal cases, see Gieseler, 
 ii. 119, n. 14, Eng. tr.). And this exemption 
 of the clergy from civil courts was continued by 
 Charlemagne (Gieseler, ib. 256). 
 
 (ii.) Bishops also became members of the great 
 council of the kingdom in all the European 
 states; the result of such amalgamation being 
 to mersre ecclesiastical councils to some extent 
 in civil ones. Their political position had also 
 the effect of rendering them more despotic, while 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 237 
 
 it made them at the same time more worldly. ' and King Aidan) only from about CarloA'ingian 
 They were in effect nobles, with the additional times; in the East, however, from the emperor 
 powers of a monopoly of education and of the Theodosius, A.D. 408 (see Maskell’s Dissert, ia 
 sanctity of their office. See for this Guizot, 2Ion. Eit. iii., and a list in Moriuus, de Sac, 
 Hist, de la Civ. en France, Lecon 13. Ordin. ii. 243; and Coronation, Unction). 
 
 (iii.) Under the Roman emperors it would seem 
 also that civil magistrates were placed in a cer¬ 
 tain sense under the jurisdiction of the bishop in ^ 
 respect to their civil office. Cone. Arel. a.d. 314, j 
 can. vii., de Praesidibus, “ placuit ut cum pro- | 
 moti fuerint, literas accipiant ecclesiasticas com- j 
 municatorias: ita tamen ut in quibuscunque 
 locis gesserint, ab episcopo ejusdem loci cura de 
 illis agatur : ut cum caeperint contra disciplinam 
 publicam agere, turn demum a communione ex- j 
 cludautur : similiter et de his qui rempublicam 
 agere volunt ” (Labbe, i. 1427). And so Socrates 
 (vii. 13), writing of St. Cyril of Alexandria and 
 Orestes the Fraefectus Augustalis of Egypt. The 
 episcopal power of excommunication seemed to 
 afford a ground for this authority. And so St. 
 Gresrorv of Nazianzum declares to the Avpdarai 
 Kol ''Apxopres, that 6 too Xpiarov vopios viroTi- 
 Briffiv v/xds Tj7 ififj Sopaerreia Kul e/xcp ^rj/uari, 
 k.t.A. {Orat. xvii.). In Spain, at a later period. 
 Cone. Tolet. III. a.d. 589, can. xviii., describes 
 the bishops as “ prospectores qualiter judices 
 cum populo agant,” an enactment repeated by 
 Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, can. xxxii. And a con¬ 
 stitution of Lothaire*’s in Fi-ance, about a.d. 559, 
 enacts, in case of an unjust decision by the civil 
 judge, that, in the absence of the king, “ ab epi- 
 scopis castigetur” (Labbe, v. 828). And this 
 seems to have been based upon Justinian’s Code 
 (I. iv. 26), and upon Novell, viii. 9, Ixx.xvi. 1 
 and 4, cxxviii. 23 (see Gieseler, ii. 118, 119, 
 Eng. tr.) 
 
 (iv.) The more special office of protecting mi¬ 
 nors, widows, orphans, prisoners, insane people, 
 foundlings, in a word all that were distressed 
 and helpless, was also assigned to bishops ; at 
 first, as a natural adjunct to their office (see, 
 e. g. Cone. Sardic. a.d. 347, can. vii.; St. Jerome, 
 ad Ge^'unt. [of a widow protected “ Ecclesiae 
 praesidio”] ; St. Ambros. de Offic. ii. 29 ; St. Aug. 
 Epist. 252 al. 217, and Serin. 176, § 2); after¬ 
 wards by express law {Cod. tit. i. c. iv. de Episc. 
 Audientia, ii. 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 38); repeated 
 further on by Gallic councils {Aurelian. Y. A.D. 
 549, can. xx.; Turon. II. A.D. 567, can. xxix. ; 
 Matisc. II. A.D. 585, can. xiv.; Franco/. A.D. 794, 
 can. xl.; Arelat. VI. a.d. 813, can. xvii.); and by 
 Spanish ones {Tolet. III. A.D. 589, can. xviii.); 
 and referred to in Italy in the letters of Gregory 
 the Great frequently. The manumission of slaves 
 belonging to the Church (e. g. Cone. Agath. A.D. 
 506, can. vii.), and the protection of freedmen(f6. 
 oan. xxix., and Cone. Aurelian. V. A.D. 549, can. 
 vii. &c.), were also permitted and assigned to 
 bishops ; and this not only in Gaul but else- 
 W'here (see Thomassin, II. iii. 87, sq.). And 
 the manumission of slaves generally was often 
 made in their presence (e. g. in Wales and 
 England, Counc. I. 206, 676, 686, Haddan and 
 Stubbs), and was furthered by their influence. 
 
 (v.) The practice of anointing kings at their 
 coronation, and the belief which grew up that 
 the right to the crown depended upon, or was 
 conveyed by, the episcopal unction, added further 
 power to the bishops. But this began in the West 
 (if we except the allusion in Gildas to the prac¬ 
 tice, and the well-known case of St. Columba 
 
 (vi.) Bishops were further exempted from being 
 sworn in a court of justice, from Cone. Chaleed. 
 (a.d. 451, Act. xi.); confirmed by Marcian and 
 by Justinian {Cod. i. tit. iii. de Episc. et Cler. 
 
 1. 7, and Novell, cxxiii. 7); the privilege, however, 
 being mixed up in the first instance with the 
 general question of the legality of oaths at all to 
 any Christian. And this privilege was repeated 
 by the Lombard laws (L. ii. tit. 51, and L. iii. tit. 
 1), and is traceable in the Capit. of Charlemagne 
 (ii. 38, iii. 42, v. 197). But oaths of fidelity 
 to the king were imposed upon bishops by Char¬ 
 lemagne (see aboA’e). It was extended to presby¬ 
 ters also in so-called Egbert’s Excerpts, xix. (9th 
 century), and by the provincial Council of Tribur 
 (near Mayence, A.D. 895, can. xxi.) ; as it was 
 always, by both law and canon, in the East, acc. 
 to Photius in Nomocan. tit. ix. c. 27, and Bal- 
 samon, ib. Bishops indeed had the privilege of 
 not being summoned to a court to give evidence 
 at all, from at least Justinian’s time (as above); 
 possibly from that of Theodosius {Cod. lib. xi. tit. 
 xxxix. de Fide Testium, 1. 8); but the latter law 
 is taken to mean only that a clergyman chosen 
 to act as arbiter could not be compelled to give 
 account of his decision to a civil tribunal (see 
 Bingh. V. ii. 1). The value of a bishop’s evidence, 
 and that not on oath, was also estimated, accord¬ 
 ing to a very suspicious law assigned to Theodosius 
 {Cod. xvi. tit. xii. de Episc. Audient. 1. 1), as to 
 be taken against all other evidence whatever; 
 and certainly was ranked by Anglo-Saxon laws 
 (Wihtred’s Dooms xvi.') with the king’s, as 
 “ incontrovertible.” See also Egbert’s Dialogus, 
 Besp. i.; and a fair account of “ compurgation,” 
 as required or not required of the clergy, in 
 H. C. Lea’s Superstition and Force, pp. 30, sq. 
 Philadelphia, 1870. Gregory of Tours, when 
 accused, condescended, “ regis causa ” and “ licet 
 canonibus contraria,” to exculpate himself by 
 three solemn denials at three several altars; 
 although it was held superfluous for him to do 
 this, because “ non potest persona inferior ” 
 [which was the case here] “ super sacerdotem 
 credi.” Cone. Meld. a.d. 845, can. xxxvii. forbids 
 bishops to swear. And the Capit. of Carolus 
 Calvus, A.D. 858 {Cone. Carisiac. c. xv.) is ex¬ 
 press in forbidding episcopal oaths upon secular 
 matters, or in anything but a case of “scan- 
 dalum Ecclesiae suae.” The office of Advoentus 
 Ecclesiae, among other things, w'as connected 
 with this inability to be swmrn. See also II. C. 
 Lea, as above. 
 
 (vii.) Bishops had also a privilege of intercession 
 for criminals in capital or serious criminal cases; 
 which the Council of Sardica regards as a dutv 
 on their part calling for frequent exerci>e : 
 ‘'ETret TToWaKls <To/j.fiaiP€i Tipas . . . Ka-ra^uyiip 
 iirl TT]P 'EKKXrjO'lap . . . to7s toiqvtois /xt; app-q- 
 Ttap elpai ryp ^ondeiap, dwd /tif AAtj'T/xoO, 
 
 K.T.X. (can. vii., transportation and banishment 
 to an island being the penalties named). As 
 an office naturally as well as legally attached to 
 the episcopate, such intercession is mentioned by 
 St. Ambrose, by St. Augustin (interceding for 
 the Circumcellions, Epist. clviii. and (dx.), by 
 St. Jerome {ad Nepot., Epist. xxxiv.), by Socratea 
 
238 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 (v. 14, vii. 17). It did not extend to pecuniary 
 causes, on the ground that in these to help the 
 one side would be to injure tlie other (St. Ainbros. 
 de Offic.. iii. 9). It is mentioned later still by 
 Snip. Severus, Dial. iii. of St. Martin, by Eu- 
 nodius of St. Epiphanius of Ticinum, &c. Restric¬ 
 tions, however, are placed upon the (admitted) 
 right by Cod. Theod. (IX. tit. xl. cc. 16, 17), 
 renewed by Justinian (I. tit. iv. De Episc. Audient. 
 1. 6), and again by Theodoric in Italy (^Edict. c. 
 114): free access being given nevertheless to 
 bishops to enter prisons with a view to such 
 “ interventiones ” (Append. Cod. Theod. c. xiii.). 
 And Charlemagne gives authority to bishops to 
 obtain pardon for criminals from the secular 
 judges at the three great festivals (Capit. vi. 106). 
 A series of councils, mostly in Gaul, had put 
 limits, before Charlemagne, to the Church’s right 
 of protecting criminals. See Church, Sanc¬ 
 tuary. 
 
 (viii.) A bishop’s character, life, and property, 
 were also placed under special legal protection : 
 (1.) By the canons, rejecting the evidence of a 
 heretic altogether, and requiring more than one 
 Christian lay witness, against a bishop (Apost. 
 Can. Ixxiv.); or again, rejecting in such case the 
 
 heretics or heathens, but were bound to leave 
 them by will to the Church in such case (Can. 
 Eccl. Afric. 48). Justinian also allows bishops 
 to leave nothing by will except what they pos¬ 
 sessed before being ordained bishops, or what 
 might have accrued to them since that time by 
 inheritance from kinsmen up to the 4th degree 
 and no further; all else to go to the Church, or 
 to works of piety (Cod. I. de Episc. et Cler. 
 1. 33): the goods of a bishop dying intestate to 
 go wholly to the Church (i6.). And Gregory the 
 Great acts upon a like rule. And in Gaul, Cone, 
 Agath. a.d. 506, can. vi., Epaon. a.d. 517, can. 
 xvii., Paris. III. a.d. 557, can. ii., Lugdun. II. 
 A.D. 567, can. ii., contain various enactments 
 founded on like principles, although not quite so 
 rigoi’ous. So likewise Spanish councils from 
 Cone. Tarracon. a.d. 516, can. xii.. Cone. Valent. 
 A.D. 524, can. ii. iii., onwards ; carefully guard¬ 
 ing the right of the Church to all church goods 
 (especially, it must be owned, in the matter of 
 limiting the manumission of slaves belonging to 
 the Church), while leaving the bishop’s propertv, 
 otherwise acquired, to his heirs. And all these 
 enactments were backed by a strong feeling in 
 I favour of the principle, that a clergyman, and 
 evidence of one known to be guilty of crime | especially a bishop, should have no private wealth, 
 (Cone. Carth. II. A.D. 390, can. vi.); or of one 
 
 but should give up all to the Church and the 
 poor : see e. g. Possidius’ Life of St. Augustin. He 
 was to have “ vilem supellectilem et mensam 
 ac victum pauperem,” acc. to Cone. Carthag. IV. 
 A.D. 398, can. xv. Nor was he to become exe¬ 
 cutor under a will (ib. xviii.), or to go to law 
 “ pro rebus transitoriis ” (ib. xix.). But see for 
 this under Clergy, Poverty. The requirement 
 of the royal consent to a bishop’s will in England 
 in Norman times arose from a totally different 
 source, viz. the king’s right to the temporalties 
 during vacancy, and the regarding the bishopric 
 as a fee in the feudal sense. See also the parallel 
 case of abbats, under Abbat. (2.) Acc. to Cone. 
 Carthag. a.d. 398, can. xvi., a bishop Avas not to 
 read “ gentilium libros, haereticorum autem pro 
 necessitate et temjiore.” But see, for the fluc- 
 , and Capit. Ludov. Add. \ tuations of the dispute respecting classical study 
 
 and the reading of Pagan writers, Thomassin, II. 
 i. 92. (3.) For prohibitions about hunting and 
 
 hawking, and social matters generally, see 
 Clergy. (4.) Under the Frank kings also, and 
 notably under Charlemagne and his successoi*s, 
 bishops, who with the other clergy enjojed large 
 exemptions under the Roman empire (see Clergy), 
 became liable to certain duties, arising from their 
 wealth and position, and gradually assuming large 
 proportions as the feudal system grew up : as, 
 e.g. annual gifts to the crown, the entertainment 
 of the king and his officers on progress (jusgisti, 
 jus metatus, &c., see Du Cange sub vocibus, and 
 Thomassin, III. i. 38, sq.), the finding soldiers for 
 the emperor’s service, &:c. &c. But feudal dues 
 belong to a later date. Clergy had been espe¬ 
 cially exempted from the “jus metatus” under 
 the Roman emperors. 
 
 (xi.) We may also mention here the 
 of educating boys in the bishop’s house 
 ministry (see Possid. in V. S. Aug., and 
 vi. 31, speaking respectively of Africa 
 Egypt); and Cone. Tolet. II. a.d. 531, 
 
 cleric or lay, without previous enquiry into the 
 character of the witness himself (Cone. Chale. 
 A.D. 451, can. xxi.); which provisions occur also 
 in Cone. Constantin, (a.d. 381, can. vi.), with the 
 qualification that they do not apply to suits 
 against a bishop touching pecuniary matters, 
 but only to ecclesiastical cases. (2.) By the canons 
 which excommunicate any one proved to have 
 falsely accused a bishop (Apost. Can. xlvii.); 
 extended also to priests and deacons by Cone. 
 Eliherit. A.D. 305, can. Ixxv. Under the Ger¬ 
 manic states this protection was carried still 
 further (see, e. g. for Anglo-Saxon laws, Thorpe’s 
 index, vol. i.'; and across the Channel, Leg. Ala- 
 mann. cc. x. xii.; Leg. Ljongob. I. ix. 27 ; Leg. 
 Baivvar. i. 11; and Capit. Carol, et Ludov. lib. vi. 
 cc. 98, 127 ; vii. c. 362 
 iv. c. 3): provisions suggested by Justinian’s 
 legislation of a like kind. 
 
 How far bishops were exempt, with other 
 clergy, from civil jurisdiction, see under Clergy. 
 Justinian gave to bishops the special privilege, 
 that they could not be brought before the civil 
 magistrate for any cause, pecuniary or crimiiKil, 
 without the emperor’s special order (Novell. 
 cxxiii. 1. 8). 
 
 (ix.) For the legal force attached to the decrees 
 of (episcopal) synods, see under Council, Synod. 
 
 (x.) In addition however to privileges thus 
 accorded to bishops by the State, their office as 
 bishops entailed upon them also certain restric¬ 
 tions and burdens, partly in common with clergy 
 generally (for which see Clergy, Presbyters, 
 &c.), partly peculiar to themselves, or belonging 
 to them more especially than to the clergy of 
 lower rank. As (1) in the disposal of their pro¬ 
 perty by will : wherein, in the case of any lands 
 acquired by them after ordination, they were re¬ 
 quired to leave such lands to the Church (Cone. 
 Carth. III. A.D. 397, can. xlix.), and could only 
 dispose of such as had come to them by inheritance 
 or by gift, or such as they had possessed before 
 ordination. And even those they could not leave 
 save to their kinsfolk, nor to them if they were 
 
 custom 
 for the 
 Sozom. 
 and of 
 can. i. 
 
 and ii., and IV. a.d. 633, can. xxiv. (regulating 
 the pi'actice in Spain); and Cone. Turm. V. a.d. 
 567, can. xii. for Gaul). See Thomassin, III. i. 
 92-97. 
 
BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 239 
 
 III. (3.) From the office, we pass to the hono¬ 
 rary PRIVILEGES and rank of a bishop ; of whom 
 in general the Apost. Constit, (ii. 34) declare, 
 that men ought rhv fTr'KTKO-rrov (rrepyeiv ws ira- 
 r4pa, <l)o$e7(TBai ws ^aai\4a, rtpau cbs Kvpiov. 
 but no doubt many of such privileges belong 
 to Byzantine times, and date no earlier than the 
 3rd or 4th centuries at the earliest. And here— 
 
 (i.) Of the modes of salutation practised to¬ 
 wards him from the 4th century onwards. As, 
 
 1. bowing the head to receive his blessing— wtto- 
 KXiveiv K^cpaXriv —inclinare caput: see Bingh. 
 
 ll. ix. 1, and Vales, in Theodoret. iv. 6, from 
 St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, &c. 
 speaking of bishops only ; and a law of Honorius 
 and Valentinian, speaking of bishops as those 
 “ quibus omnis terra caput inclinat.” 2. Kiss¬ 
 ing his hand — manus osculari (Bingh. ib. 2, 
 quoting Sav^aro on Sidon. Apollin. Epist. viii. 11). 
 
 3. Kissing the feet also — pedes deosculari — ap¬ 
 pears by St. Jerome, Epist. Ixi. (speaking of a 
 bishop of Constantina in Cyprus ; and see Casau- 
 bon, Exercit. xiv. § 4), to have been at one time a 
 mark of respect common to all bishops; being 
 borrowed indeed from a like custom practised 
 towards the Eastern emperors. The deacon is to 
 kiss the bishop’s feet before reading the Gospel, 
 
 acc. to the Ordo Romanus. It was restricted 
 to the Pope as regards kings, by Gregory VII. 
 
 4. The forms of address, and the titles and epithets, 
 applied to bishops, have been mentioned already. 
 
 (ii.) The insignia of a bishop were,—1. the 
 mitre; seemingly alluded to by Eusebius, x. 4, 
 as rhu ovpdviov rr\s (rT(<pavov, and cer¬ 
 
 tainly mentioned by Greg. Naz. Orat. v. under 
 the name of Kibapis, and by Ammian. Marcell, 
 lib. xxix. under that of “ corona sacerdotalis,” 
 yet not occurring in Pontificals in the West until 
 after the lOth century (Menardus, in Du Cange), 
 and not reckoned among the “ episcopalia ” even 
 in A.D. 633 (see above); while in the East, 
 Symeon of Thessalonica tells us that all bishops 
 officiated with bare heads except the bishop of 
 Alexandria, who did then wear a KiSapis] and 
 the homily attributed to St. Chrysostom, de Uno 
 Legislat. (0pp. vi. 410, Montf.), implies that there 
 was then no ridpa or Kopv^dvriov appropriated 
 to bishops at their consecration. The “ aurea 
 lamina,” however, attributed to St. John by 
 St. Jerome (de Scriptt. Eccl.), and by Eusebius 
 (irtraXoi', iii. 31, v. 24) on the authority of Poly¬ 
 crates,—and again by Epiphanius (Haer. xxix.), 
 on that of Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria, 
 to St. James of Jerusalem,—seem to favour the 
 supposition that some kind of mitre soon became 
 usual. See Maskell, Mon. Rit. iii. 274. [Mitre.] 
 
 2. The ring, peculiar to the West, and alluded 
 to by Optatus (lib. i.): see above, and under 
 Ring. 3. The staff, belonging apparently to 
 patriarchs in the East (so Balsamon), and of a 
 shape to supply the ordinary uses of a start', 
 viz. to leali upon; in the West, growing by Car- 
 lovingian times into a sceptre of some seven 
 feet long, occasionally of gold (see the Monach. 
 
 5. Gall. i. 19, quoted by Thomassin, I. ii. 58); so 
 that instead of golden bishops carrying wooden 
 staves, there had conie to be (acc. to a saying 
 quoted by Thomassin) wooden bishops carrying 
 golden ones. See Staff. The two last named, 
 the ring and the staff, were so far the charac¬ 
 teristic insignia of a bishop before the time 
 of Charlemagne as to become the symbols by 
 
 which bishoprics were given (see above). And 
 they are recognized as such a.d. 633 in Spain, 
 in conjunction with yet another, viz., 4. the 
 orarium: for which see Orarium. 5. A cross 
 borne before him was peculiar in the East to a 
 patriarch; in the West it does not occur until 
 the 10th century, unless in such exceptional 
 cases as that of the first entry of St. Augustin 
 into Canterbury, a.d. 596 : the cross of gold men¬ 
 tioned by Alcuin as carried about with him by 
 Willibrord being apparently only a i)ectoral cross. 
 See Cross. 6. The tonsure, when general rules 
 about modestly cut hair, &c., settled into formal 
 rule about the 6th century, was not peculiar in 
 any special form to bishops: see Tonsure. Nor 
 yet, 7. was there apparently any sj)eeial dress 
 for bishops apart from solemn occasions and in 
 ordinary life, during the period with which this 
 article is concerned : as appears, among other 
 evidence, by the rebukes addressed by popes to 
 the Gallic bishops of the 5th century onwards, 
 who, being monks before they were bishops, 
 I’etained their monastic habit as bishops (see at 
 length Thomassin, I. ii. 43, sq.). For the vest¬ 
 ments used during divine service, see Vestments. 
 
 (iii.) Singing hosannas before a bishop on his 
 arrival anywhere, is mentioned only to be con¬ 
 demned by St. Jerome (in Matt. xxi. 0pp. vii. 
 174 b). But see Vales, ad Euseb. H. E. ii. 23; 
 and Augusti, Denkwiird. aus der Christl. Archaeol. 
 V. 218. 
 
 (iv.) The form of addressing a bishop by tht 
 phrase corona tua or vestra, and of adjuring him 
 per coronam, frequent in St. Jerome, St. Augus¬ 
 tin, Sidon. Apollin., Ennodius, has been explained 
 as referring to the mitre, to the tonsure, or to 
 the corona or consessus of the bishop’s presbyters. 
 The personal natui’e of the appellation appears to 
 exclude the last of these. Its being peculiar to 
 bishops is against the second. While the objec¬ 
 tion taken by Bingham against the fix’st, viz. 
 that bishops did not wear mitres at the period 
 when the phrase came into use, seems scarcely 
 founded on fact. And the bishop’s head-covering 
 was also certainly called “ corona,” as by Am- 
 raianus Marcellinus. At the same time, the 
 phrase after all possibly means nothing more 
 definite than “your beatitude,” or “your high¬ 
 ness.” 
 
 '(v.) The bishop’s throne— 6p6vos, 6p6vos dwo- 
 (TToXiKds —or (after the name of the founder of 
 the see) 6 MdpKov 6p6uos, for Alexandria, &c.— 
 0rifj.a — 9p6uos vif/rjXds, in contradistinction to the 
 “ second throne ” of the presbyters—“ linteata 
 sedes” (Pacian. ad Sempron. ii.)—“ cathedra ve- 
 lata ” (St. Aug. cciii).— 6p6vos i(rToKi(T(x4vos 
 
 iirKTKOTnKws (St. Athan. Apolog.) —was alsoamark 
 of his dignity. The Council of Antioch, a.d. 364, 
 condemns Paul of Samosata for erecting a very 
 splendid throne, like a magistrate’s tribunal 
 (Euseb. II. E. vii. 30). See also above in this ar¬ 
 ticle under Enthronization. By C(mc. Carthag. IV. 
 A.D. 398, canons xxxiv. xxxv., a bishop is enjoined 
 that, as a rule of courtesy, “ quolibet loco sedens, 
 stare presbyterum non patiatur;” and that al¬ 
 though “in Ecclesia et in consessu presbyterorum 
 sublimior sedeat, intra domum . . . collegam se 
 presbyterorum esse cognoscat.” During prayers, 
 according to the Arabic version of the Nicene 
 canons (Ixii.), the bishop’s place in church was 
 “in fronte templi ad medium altaris ” (Labbe, 
 li. 334). 
 
240 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 BISHOP 
 
 (vi.) If' we are to take the pretended letter 
 of Pope Lucias (Labbe, i. 7‘21) to be worth any¬ 
 thing as evidence in relation to later times, the 
 bishoj) of Rome was habitually attended by two 
 presbyters or three deacon;, in order to avoid 
 scandal. 
 
 IV. (1.) The relation of bishops to each other 
 was as of an essentially equal office, however dif¬ 
 ferenced individuals might be in point of in¬ 
 fluence, &c., by personal qualifications or by the 
 relative importance of their sees. St. Cyprian’s 
 view of the “ unus episcopatus ”—the one cor¬ 
 poration of whicli all bishops are equal mem¬ 
 bers—is much the same with St. Jerome’s well- 
 known declaration (^Ad Evungel. Epist. ci.), that 
 “ ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romae sive 
 Eugubii, .... ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et 
 sacerdotii.” And a like principle is implied in 
 the litterae communicatorixc or synodicae, — avy- 
 •ypdufLo.Ta koivuvikol, sometimes called litterae en- 
 thronisticae, crvWa0u\ ivQpovKTTiKaX, —by which 
 each bishop communicated his own consecration 
 to his see to foreign bishops as to his equals 
 (Bingh. II. xi. 10). The order of precedence 
 among them was determined by the date of con¬ 
 secration (see, e. g. the Cod. Can. Evcl. Afric. 
 Ixxxvi., Cone. Bracar. II. A.D. 563, can. vi., and 
 Tolet. IV. A.D. 633, can. iv., and Bracar. IV. 
 A.D. 675, can. iv.; and the English Council of 
 Hertford, A.D. 673, can. viii. ; and Justinian’s 
 Cod. I. tit. iv. 1. 29; and above under I. 3. S). 
 But— 
 
 (2.) This equality Avas gradually undermined 
 by the institution of meti’opoiitans, archbishops, 
 primates, exarchs, patriarchs, pope: for each of 
 whom .see the seA’eral articles. 
 
 (3.) HoweA'er, apart from this, there came to be 
 special distinctions in particular Churches : as, 
 e. g. in Mauritania and Numidia the senior 
 bishop was “ primus but in Africa proper, the 
 bishop of Carthage (Bingh. II. xvi. 6, 7); and in 
 Alexandria the bishop had special powers in the 
 ordinations of the suffragan sees: for Avhich 
 see Alexandria, (Patriarchate of), p. 48; Me¬ 
 tropolitan. 
 
 (4.) The successiA'e setting up of metropolitans 
 and of patriarchs gaA'e rise to exceptional cases 
 [AuTo/ce<^aAoi] : all bishops whateA’-er having been 
 really auro/cet^aAot, i. e. independent (save sub¬ 
 jection to the synod), before the setting up of 
 metropolitans, and all metropolitans before the 
 establishment of patriarchs: see Bingh. II. xvdii. 
 [autocephali. Metropolitans, Patriarchs.] 
 Whether there continued to be any Idshop any- 
 Avhere, avroK^epahos in such sense as to haA'e 
 neither patriarch nor metropolitan nor compro- 
 A'incial bishops, appears doubtful: and such a 
 case could only occur, either in a country Avhere 
 there Avas but one bishop (as in Scythia in 
 t’ne 5th century), or as a temporary state of 
 things in a newly conA'erted country : see Bingh. 
 ih. 4. 
 
 (5.) For Chorepiscopi, in contradistinction from 
 Avhom we find in Frank times Episcopi Cathe- 
 drales (Du Cange), 6. for Suffragans, 7. for Co¬ 
 adjutors, 8. for Intercessores and Intertentores, 
 and, 9. for Commendatarii, see under the several 
 titles. 
 
 V. There remain some anomalous cases; as, 
 (1.) Episcopi vacantes, crxo^aioi, 
 
 viz. bishops who by no fault were without a 
 see, but who degenerated sometimes into cpi- 
 
 ' scopi vagi or atnhulantes, avdXiSes, or ^OLKavr'i^oi 
 (BatTKavTi^oi, in Synes. Epist. 67), vacantivi, 
 and among whom in Cariovingian times, and 
 in northern P'rance, “ Scoti ” enjoyed a bad 
 pre-eminence. Bishops indeed without sees, 
 either for missionary purposes to the heathen, or 
 merely Ti/xrjs eVe/cev (Sozom. A'i. 34, ov TrjAfcDS 
 Tivds}, existed from the time of the Council of 
 Antioch, A.D. 341, can. xix. ; and see Apost. Can. 
 xxxvi.. But “Episcopi A'agi, A'agantes, ambulantes, 
 qui parochiam non habent,” are condemned by 
 Cone. Vermer. a.d. 752 or 753, can. xiv., and 
 Cone. Vernens. or Vernovens. a.d. 755, can. xiii.. 
 Cone. Calch. A.D. 816, can. a'., and Cone. Meld. 
 A.D. 845, can. x.; and the “ Scoti, qui se dicunt 
 episcopos esse,” by Cone. Cabillon. II. A.D. 813, 
 can. xliii. Compare the case of the early Welsh 
 and Irish (Scotch) churches for honorary bishops, 
 j and again for the custom of dioceseless bi.shops. 
 j “ Episcopi portatiles ” is a very late name fox 
 ) them {Cone. Lugd. A.D. 1449). 
 
 I (2.) For the bishop-abhats or bishop>-monhs, prin¬ 
 cipally of Celtic monasteries, but also in some 
 I Continental ones, the former having no see except 
 j their monastery (see Arbat), the latter being 
 j simply members of the fraternity in episcopal 
 I orders, but (anomalously) under the jurisdiction of 
 j their abbat, and performing episcopal offices for the 
 j monastery and its dependent district: see Todd’s 
 I St. Patrick; Reeves’edition of Adamnan’s Life of 
 St. Columba; Mabillon, Annal. Bened.; Martene 
 and Durand, 27ies. Eov. Anecd. \'ol. i. Pref. Five 
 bishops of this clas.s—“ episcopus de monasterio 
 S. Mauricii, &c. &c.— Avere at Cone. Attiniac. 
 A.D. 765. 
 
 (3.) Episcopus or A.ntistes Palatii, was an epi¬ 
 scopal counsellor residing in the palace in the time 
 of the Carlovingians, by special leave (see aboA-e, 
 III. 1, a. xal). For the court clergy, whether 
 under the Roman emperors from Constantine, or 
 under the Franks, see Thomassin, II. iii. 589, 
 and Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. v. pp. 144, sq. Eng. 
 transl. 
 
 (4.) For Episcopus Cardinalis, which in St. Gre¬ 
 gory the Great means simply “ proprius,” i. e. the 
 duly installed (and “ incardinated”) bishop of the 
 place, see Du Cange, and under Cardinalis. 
 
 (5.) Episcopus Begionarius, i. e. without a spe¬ 
 cial diocesan city: see Regionarius. 
 
 (6.) Titular bishops, and bishops in partibus in- 
 fdelium, belong under these names to later times. 
 
 (7.) Episcopus Ordinum, in Frank times, Avas an 
 occasional name for a coadjutor bishop to assist 
 in conferring orders (Du Cange). 
 
 (8.) For the special and singular name of Libra, 
 applied to the suffragans of the see of Rome, see 
 Libra. 
 
 (9.) For lay holders of bishoprics, see Commen- 
 DATORS. 
 
 (10.) And, lastly, it almost needs an apology 
 to mention such mockeries as Episcopi Fahiorum 
 — Innocentium — Puerotnim ; all too of later 
 date : for Avhich see Du Cange. 
 
 (Bingham ; Thomassin, Yet. et Nov. Eccl. Dis- 
 cipl.; Du Pin, de Antigua Eccles. Disciplina 
 Dissert. ; Morinus, de Ordinibns; Van Espen, 
 Jus Eccl. Univ.; De Marca, de Cone. Eccl. et Imp., 
 and de Primatu Dissert, ed. Baluz.; Martene, 
 de Sacris Ordinationibus; CaA*e, Dissert. 07i Anc. 
 Ch. Government; BrereAvood, Patriarch. Gov. oj 
 the Church; Bishop Potter, Disc, cm Ch. Govern^ 
 ment; Greenwood, Cathedra Petri.') [A. W. Tl.] 
 
13IS0MUS 
 
 BODY 
 
 BISOMIT8, a sepulchre capable of containing 
 two hollies ((Tw/iara). The word is found in 
 inscriptions in Christian cemeteries at Rome and 
 elsewhere, as in one found in the cemetery of 
 Callixtus, near Rome : “ Bonifacius, qui vixit annis 
 xxiii. et ii. (mens)es, posilus in bisomum in pace, 
 sibi et patr. suo.” [A. N.J 
 
 BISSEXTILE. [Chronology.] 
 
 BITEKRENSE CONCILIUM. [Beziers, 
 Council of.] 
 
 BITURICENSE CONCILIUM. [Bourges, 
 Council of.] 
 
 BLANDINA, martyr at Lyons under M. 
 Aarelius; commemorated June 2 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Yet.). [C.] 
 
 BLASIUS, or BLAVIUS (St. Blaise), 
 bishop, martyr at Sebaste (circ. 320); comme¬ 
 morated Feb. 15 (^Mart. Ro))i. Vet.)\ Feb. 11 
 (6'u/. Byzcint.)] Jan, 15 ((7a/. Armen.). [C.] 
 
 BLASPHEMY: lit. “ defamation,’’ and to 
 blaspheme^ B^dirreip rr]y “ to hurt the 
 
 rej)utation : to reproach or speak injuriously of 
 another;” which is the meaning of both words 
 in Plato, Demosthenes, Isocrates, and other sub¬ 
 sequent writers, where they occur: particularly 
 the LXX. translators of the Old Testament. 
 Accordingly, when the Proconsul bade St. Poly- 
 carp revile Christ, the answer was, “ How can I 
 blaspheme ”—that is, speak evil of—“ the King 
 who has saved me ? ” (Euseb. E. IF. iv. 15). By 
 the writers of the New Testament this word 
 would seem appropriated to any wickedness said 
 or done against God, especially where used with¬ 
 out adjuncts, as the Jews said of our Lord, 
 “This man blasphemeth ” (Matt. ix. 3), and 
 St. Paul of his own doings at one time, “ I com¬ 
 pelled them to blaspheme” (Acts xxvi. 11); and 
 it is the wilful and persistent commission of this 
 act against the Third Person in the Godhead, or 
 the Holy Ghost, which is denounced by our Lord 
 Himself as the one sin or blasphemy which is 
 never forgiven (Mark iii. 29 : cf. Heb. vi. 4-7 
 and 1 John v. 16), on which see Bingham at 
 great length (xvi. 7, 3 ; cf. Bloomfield on Matt, 
 xii. 31). He had previously shewn that “ blas¬ 
 phemy ” was by the primitive Church placed 
 first of the sins against, the third Command¬ 
 ment ; for which reason it was, doubtless, that 
 all Christians are forbidden by the 15th African 
 canon to frequent places where blasphemy was 
 used. Very rarely the word occurs in a good 
 sense for s.alutary chiding or remonstrance ; see 
 Liddell and Scott’s Xe.ncon for its classical, and 
 Schleusner’s Lexicon and Suicer’s Tkes. for its 
 Scriptural and ecclesiastical senses. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 BLESSIN(t. [Benediction.] 
 
 BLIND, HEALING OF (in Art). The 
 healing of the blind is frequently represented 
 on ancient monuments, perhaps as a symbolical 
 re])iesentation of the opening of the eye of 
 the soul wrought by the power of the Saviour 
 (1 Pet. ii. 9). See Bottari, Sculture e Pittu7'e^ 
 tav. xix. xxxii. xxxix. xlix. Ixviii. cxxxvi.; Millin, 
 Friuli de In France^ Ixv. 5. 
 
 In most cases only one blind man, probably 
 the “ man blind from his birth ” of St. John ix. 1, 
 13 oeing healed. He is generally represented 
 little or stature, to mark his inferiority to the 
 Saviour and the Apostles (when any of the latter 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 2dl 
 
 are intioduced), is shod with .sandals and bears 
 a long staff tc guide liis steps. The Saviour, 
 young and beardless, touches his eyes with the 
 fore-finger of the right hand. This representation 
 is found on an antique vase given by Mamachi 
 (^Origines, v. 520), on an ivory casket of the 
 fourth or fifth century, engraved by D’Agincourt 
 {Sculpture, pi. xxii. No. 4); in a bas-relief of a 
 tomb of the Sextian family, in the miuseum of 
 Aix in Provence, of about the same epoch {FYance 
 FHttoresque, pi. cxxxvii.) ; and elsewhere. 
 
 In a few cases (e.g. Bottari, tav. cxxxvi.),the 
 blind man healed appears to be Bartimaeii.s, from 
 the circumstance that he has “ cast away his 
 garment” (Igdriop, Mark x. 50) before throwing 
 himself at the feet of Jesus. 
 
 On a sarcophagus in the Vatican (Bottari, 
 xxxix. see woodcut) is a rejiresentation of the 
 healing of two blind men ; probably the two who 
 
 Healing of Two Blind Men. From an ancient Sarcophagns. 
 
 were healed by the Lord as Ho left the house of 
 Jairus (]\latt. ix. 27-31). Here, too, the figures 
 of those upon whom the miracle is wrought are 
 of small size; the blind appears to lead the blind, 
 for one only has a staff, while the other places 
 his hand upon his, shoulder. The Lord lays His 
 hand upon the head of the figure with the staff, 
 while another, probably one of the Apostles, 
 raises his hand, the fingers arranged after the 
 Latin manner [Benediction], in blessing. (Mar- 
 tiguy, Ekt. des Antiq. Ch'et.) [C.] 
 
 BODY, in the sense contemplated by St. Paul 
 when he said of the Church, “ Which is Hit 
 body ” (Eph. i. 23), meaning Christ’s, which is 
 expressed further on, “ For the edifying of the 
 body of Christ ” (iv. 12), and of Christians gene¬ 
 rally, “Ye are the body of Christ, and members 
 in particular” (1 Cor. xii. 27). The Apostle, we 
 know, spoke (Acts xxi. 37), as well as wrote, 
 Greek ; but being a Roman citizen (ib. xxii. 27) 
 he probably had some knowledge of Latin as 
 well: and it is to this circumstance, therefore, 
 that we must ascribe his affixing a sense to the 
 Greek word erw^ua, long before aj)propriated by 
 its Latin equivalent “corpus,” but which it had 
 never itself shared hitherto. What Greek ears 
 had always understood hitherto by awga was a 
 physical or material body, organic or inorganic, 
 as the case might be; and occasionally the latter 
 in a confused mass, as “ body of water ” or “ of 
 
 f 
 
242 
 
 BODY 
 
 the universe/' But “ corpus,” besides these 
 senses, had for some time been familiar to Latin 
 ears as denoting a combination of living agents in 
 various relations: a troop of soldiers, a guild 
 of artisans, or the whole body politic; of these 
 the second acceptation was beginning to be 
 stereotyped in law, where “ corpora ” (corpo¬ 
 rations) quickly became synonymous with what, 
 in classical literature, had been known as “col¬ 
 legia ” (colleges). There must have been many 
 such in existence at Rome when the Apostle 
 wrote ; and they were extended, in process of 
 time, to most trades and professions. The gene¬ 
 ral notion attaching to them was that of “ a 
 numbei of persons ”—the law said, not fewer 
 than three—“ and the union which bound them 
 together ” (Smith’s Diet, of Roman and Greek 
 Antiq. p. 255). Tit. 1 of B. xiv. of the Theodo- 
 sian Code is headed “ De Privilegiis Corporato- 
 rum urbis Romae,” and Tit. 14 of B. xi. of that 
 of Justinian is on the same subject. Writing 
 from Rome, therefore, where such “ bodies ” 
 abounded—his own craft possibly, that of tent- 
 makers, among the number—what could be 
 more natural than for the Apostle to apply this 
 designation to the new brotherhood that was 
 forming, and then paint it in glowing colours to 
 his Ephesian converts as a corporation,, whose 
 head, centre, and inspiring principle was Christ ? 
 He was the union that bound it together 
 and supplied it with life. So far, indeed, it 
 stood on a ditferent footing, and required to be 
 placed in a ditferent category from all other 
 corporations; still, as outwardly it resembled 
 them, might it not also be described in terms 
 which they had been beforehand with it in ap¬ 
 propriating, and invested with a new idea ? 
 The Apostle authorised this for all languages in 
 communicating the adopted sense of the Latin 
 W'ord to its Gj-eek equivalent. Accordingly with 
 us too the Church of Christ is both spoken of 
 and exists as a corporation. But though it has 
 many features in common with all such bodies, 
 it has essential characteristics of its own, evi¬ 
 denced in its history throughout, which are not 
 shared by any other. Their agreement, there¬ 
 fore, must have been one, not of identity, but of 
 analogy, to which the Apostle called attention. 
 And this is clear from his having recourse to 
 other kindred analogies elsewhere, to develop his 
 meaning. “ The husband,” he says, “ is the 
 head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of 
 the Church ; and He is the Saviour of the body.” 
 As if he had said, “ Do not misunderstand me: 
 the relation of the church to Christ is not merely 
 that of corporations in general to the principle 
 which binds them together: itMs closer still. It 
 may be compared to the marriage tie, described 
 w’hen first instituted in these solemn wmrds: 
 *7hey two shall be one flesh’ (Eph. v. 23-32). 
 Even this falls short of my full meaning. I 
 would have you ‘grow up into Him in all 
 things, which is the Head, even Christ, from 
 whom the whole body fitly joined together and 
 compacted by that which every joint supplieth, 
 according to the eflectual working in the mea- 
 sure of every part, maketh increase of the body 
 unto the edifying of itself in love’ (Eph. iv. 
 15, 16). Realise the vital connexion that sub¬ 
 sists between the head and members of each 
 individual man ; realise the depth of communion 
 that there should or may be between husband | 
 
 BODY, MUTILATION OF THE 
 
 and wife ; realise the full force of the bond 
 determining the character and cohesion of every 
 society, or corporate body : then from all these 
 collectively, form your estimate of the church of 
 Christ. Each of them illustrates some feature 
 belonging to it which is not so clearly traced in 
 the others; therefore none of them sino^lv wull 
 bear overstraining, and all together must not 
 be supposed to exhaust the subject.” Unseen 
 realities cannot be measured or determined by 
 what can be seen or felt. “It is the description 
 of a man and not a state,” said Aristotle of the 
 Republic of Plato, in which every body could say 
 of every thing, “it is my property ” \Pol. ii. 1). 
 Spiritual union is neitiier political, nor conjugal, 
 nor physical, nor anything earthly. It may be 
 illustrated from such earthly relations, but it 
 transcends them all; nor is it explained really, 
 when called “ sacramental,” further than that 
 it is then asserted to have been assured to us 
 by what are called in theological— not Scriptural 
 —language, the Sacraments of the Church. As 
 Hooker says : “Christ and His holy Spirit with all 
 their blessed effects, though entering into the soul of 
 man we are not able to apprehend or express how, 
 do notwithstanding give notice of the times when 
 they use to make their access, because it pleaseth 
 Almighty God to communicate by sensible means 
 those blessings which are incomprehensible ” 
 {Eccl. Pol. V. 57, 3). That is to say, when such 
 blessings are communicated throusfh the Sacra- 
 ments. Another writer adds : “ We are told in 
 plain and indubitable terms that Baptism and 
 the Lord’s Supper are the means by which men 
 are joined to the Body of Christ, and therefore 
 by which Christ our Lord joins Himself to that 
 renewed race of which He has become the Head. 
 
 . . . These facts we learn from the express state¬ 
 ments of St. Paul: ‘For by one Spirit we are 
 all baptized into one body;’ and again, ‘We 
 being many are one bread and one body : for we 
 are all partakers of that one bread.’ Herein it 
 is expressly declared that the one and the other 
 of these Sacraments are the peculiar moans by 
 which union with the Body of Christ is bestowed 
 upon men. They are the ‘joints’ and ‘bands’ 
 whereby the whole body in its dependence on its 
 Head has nouidshment ministered ” (Wilber- 
 force’s Incarn. p. 415). . . . Body, then, in 
 the sense predicated by St. Paul of the Church, 
 stands for a multitude of singulars, and not an 
 abstraction. It means the collection or aggre¬ 
 gate of Christian souls who, cleansed, quickened, 
 and inhabited by Christ, form one brotherhood 
 in Him. What each of them is separately, that 
 all of them are collectively, neither more nor 
 less. Numbers cannot affect its integrity. To 
 say that a body so composed is one is to say 
 no more of it than mu.st, from the nature of 
 the case, be said of every body corporate with¬ 
 out exception. The fact of its unity resulting 
 from a personal union of each of its members 
 with one and the same Person, viz. Him who 
 redeemed them, is its distinguishing feature. 
 “ From the oneness of His Body which was 
 slain, results the oneness of His body which is 
 sanctified.” [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 BODY, MUTILATION OF THE. This 
 subject may be considered under three aspects in 
 I'eference to Church history; 1st, in respect to 
 its bearing upon clerical orders ; 2nd, as a crime 
 I to be repressed ; Brd^ as a form of punishment. 
 
BODY, MUTILATION OF THE 
 
 I, The Pentateuch forbade the exercise of the 
 priest’s office to any of the Aaronites who should 
 haA’-e a “ blemish,” a term extending even to the 
 case of a “flat nose” (Lev. xxi. 17-23); whilst 
 iniuries to the organs of generation excluded even 
 from the congregation (Dcut. xxiii. 1). The 
 Prophets announce a mitigation of this severity 
 (Is. Ivi. 3-5), which finds no place in the teach¬ 
 ing of our Saviour (Matt. xix. 12), nor does any 
 trace of it remain in the I’ules as to the selection 
 of bishops and deacons in the Pastoral Epistles 
 (1 Tim. iii.. Tit. i.). Nevertheless, the Jewish 
 rule seems to have crept back into the discipline 
 of the Christian Church,—witness the story of 
 the monk Ammonius haAdng avoided promotion 
 to the episcopate by cutting off his right ear,—for 
 which see Soci'at. H. E. iv. 23 (Baronius indeed 
 holds him to have been eventually ordained). And 
 one of the so-called Apostolical Canons (deemed 
 probably antecedent to the Nicene Council of a.d. 
 325), which provides that one-eyed or lame men, 
 who may be worthy of the episcopate, may become 
 bishops, “ since not the bodily defect ” (AwjStj, 
 translated in the later Latin version of Haloander 
 mutUatio), “ but the defilement of the soul, 
 pollutes” the man (c. 69, otherwise numbered 
 76 or 77), leaves at least open the question 
 whether such defects are a bar to the first recep¬ 
 tion of clerical orders. No general rule however 
 as to mutilation is to be found in the records of 
 any of the early General Councils, but only in 
 those of the non-oecumenical ones of the West, or 
 in the letters, &c., of the Popes, always of sus¬ 
 picious authority. Thus, a letter of Innocent I. 
 (402-17) to Felix, bishop of Nocera, says that no 
 one who has voluntarily cut off a part of any of 
 his fingers is to be ordained (^Ep. 4, c. 1). A 
 Council of Rome in 465 forbade from admission to 
 'orders those who had lost any of their members, 
 requiring even the ordaining bishop to undo his 
 act (c. 3). So Pope Gelasius (492-6) in a letter 
 to the bishops of Lucania, complains that persons 
 with bodily mutilations are admitted to the ser¬ 
 vices of the Church ; an abuse not allowed by 
 ancient tradition or the forms of the Apostolic 
 see {Ep. 9. c. 16). A fragment of a letter 
 of the same Pope to the clergy and people of 
 Brindisi condemns in like manner the ordina¬ 
 tion of a man “ weak and blemished in any part 
 of his body.” But a letter to Bishop Palladius 
 lays down—in accordance with the Apostolical 
 Canon above quoted — that a dignity received 
 whilst the body was yet whole was not to be 
 lost by subsequent enfeeblement; Avith which 
 letter may be connected, for Avhat it is Avorth, 
 a canon or alleged canon of the Council of Ilerda 
 in 524, quoted by Ivo, to the effect that a cleric 
 made lame by a medical operation is capable of 
 jtromotion. Not to speak of an alleged canon of 
 Gregory the Great, 590-603, against the oi'di- 
 nation of persons self-mutilated in any member, 
 to be found in Gratian; two centuries later, in a 
 capitulary of Pope Gregory 11. (714-30) addressed 
 to his ablegates for Bavaria, we find in like 
 manner any bodily defect treated as a bar to 
 ordination. On the other hand, we may quote a 
 testimony later indeed than the period embraced 
 in this Avork, but as occurring after the schism 
 of East and West, above the suspicion of all 
 Romanizing partiality, that of Balsamon (ad 
 Marci Alex, interrog. 23, quoted by Cotelerius, 
 Patres Apost. i. pp. 478-9), who says that 
 
 BODY, MUTILATION OF THE 243 
 
 bodily injuries or infirmities supervening after 
 ordination, even if they rendered the priest 
 unable physically to fulfil his office, did not 
 depriA'e him of his dignity, as “ none Avas to 
 be hindered from officiating through bodily de¬ 
 fect ” also rendered by Beveridge as 
 
 mutilation). 
 
 We may take it therefore that the rule of the 
 Church as to mutilations and bodily defects 
 generally Avas this : such mutilations or defects 
 were a bar to ordination, especially if self-in¬ 
 flicted ; but supervening inAmluntarily after 
 ordination, they Avere not a bar to the fulfilment 
 of clerical, duties, or to promotion in the hier¬ 
 archy. There is, however, one particular form 
 of mutilation—that of the generative organs— 
 Avhich occurs with peculiar prominence in early 
 Church history, and is dealt Avith by special en¬ 
 actments. 
 
 One sect of heretics, the Valesians (whose ex¬ 
 ample is strangely recalled by the practices of a 
 Avell-knoAvn body of dissenter’s from the Russian 
 Church at the present day), enforced the duty of 
 emasculation both on themselves and others 
 (Epiph. cont. Haer. 58 ; Aug. de Ilaeres. c. 37). 
 Their catechumens, Avhilst unmutilated, Avere not 
 alloAved to eat flesh, but no restrictions as to food 
 Avere imposed on the mutilated. They Avere said 
 to use not only persuasion but force in making 
 converts, and to practise violence for the purpose 
 on travellers, and even on persons received as 
 guests. 
 
 The most notorious instance of self-mutilation 
 in Church history is that of Origen, Avho, Avhen 
 a young catechist at Alexandria, inflicted this on 
 himself in order to quench the violence of his pas¬ 
 sions (Euseb. H. E. au. 8). He was nevertheless 
 ordained by the bisho[)S of Caesai'ea and Jerusa¬ 
 lem, men of the highest authority among the pre¬ 
 lates of Palestine. But Demetrius of Alexandria, 
 Avho had formerly spoken of him in terms of high 
 praise, began attacking the validity of his ordina¬ 
 tion, and the conduct of his ordaining bishops. 
 It is indeed remarkable that Epiphanius mentions 
 three separate traditions as to the mode which 
 Origen adopted to maintain his continence—two 
 of them not implying actual mutilation, but only 
 extinction of the generatiA’e poAver—and seems 
 to consider that a good many idle tales had been 
 told on the subject (^Contra Haer. 64). It is well 
 knoAvn, at any rate, that Origen was condemned 
 and sentenced to be deprived of his orders for 
 self-mutilation by the Council of Alexandria, a.d. 
 230. This is not the place, of course, for dAvelling 
 on the unworthy motiA^es mixed up in Origen’s 
 condemnation ; but if Avhat is recorded of the 
 Valesians be true—Avhose heresy appears to have 
 been contemporaneous with Origen—it was 
 absolutely necessary that the Church should 
 firmly resist not only the return to the emascu¬ 
 late priesthoods of the heathen, but the utterly 
 ' anti-social tendencies Avhich such practices por¬ 
 tended or expressed. The Council of Achaia, by 
 which the Valesians were condemned, is usually 
 set doAvn to the year 250. 
 
 I If the Apostolical Canons are as a whole 
 anterior to the Council of Nicaea, they constitute 
 the next authority on the subject. According to 
 these, whilst a man made a eunuch against his 
 will was not excluded from being admitted into 
 the clergy, yet self-mutilation was .assimilated to 
 suicide, and the culprit could not be admitted, or 
 
 K 
 
244 BODY, MUTILATION OF THE 
 
 was to be “ altogether condemned ” (expelled ?) 
 if the act were committed after his admission 
 (c. 17, otherwise numbered 20-22, or 21-23). 
 A layman mutilating himself was to be excluded 
 for 3 years from communion (c. 17, otherwise 
 23 or 2-1-). It may however be suspected that 
 on this head at least these canons must have been 
 interpolated after the Nicene Council (325), or 
 they would have been referred to in that well- 
 known one which stands first of all in the list of 
 its enactments,—that if any one has been emascu¬ 
 lated either by a medical man in illness, or by 
 the barbarians, he is to remain in the clergy ; but 
 if anv has mutilated himself he is, if a cleric 
 already, on proof of the fact by examination, to 
 cease from clerical functions, and if not already 
 ordained not to be presented for ordination; this 
 however, not to apply to those who have been 
 made eunuchs by the barbarians or by their 
 masters, who, if they are found worthy, may be 
 admitted into the clergy. Contemporaneously, or 
 nearly so, with the Council we find a constitu¬ 
 tion of the emperor Constantine rendering the 
 making of eunuchs within the “ orbis Romaniis,” 
 a capital crime {Code, bk. iv. t. xcii. 1. 1). 
 
 It is, however, at this period that we find the 
 next most prominent instance of self-mutilation 
 in Church history after that of Origen,—that of 
 Leontius, Arian bishop of Antioch in the time of 
 Athanasius, who, when a presbytei’, had been 
 deposed on this account, but was nevertheless 
 promoted to the episcopate by the emperor 
 Constantins, against the decrees of the Niccue 
 Council, observes Theodoret (ii. 23; cf. Euseb. 
 vi. 8). This Leontius figures by no means favour¬ 
 ably in the Church histories. Athanasius was 
 very hostile to him, and he was accused of cun¬ 
 ning and double-dealing, of promoting the un¬ 
 worthy and neglecting the worthy in his diocese. 
 
 A canon on bodily mutilation similar to the 
 Nicene one was enacted by the Synod of Seleucia 
 in Persia, A.D. 410 (c. 4), and by a Syrian synod 
 in 465, and the interdiction against the admission 
 to orders of the self-mutilated was also renewed 
 by the Council of Arles, A.D. 452 (c. 7). Pope 
 Gelasius, in his before quoted letter to the 
 Lucanian bishops, recalls as to the self-emasculate 
 ‘that the canons of the Fathers require them to 
 be separated from all clerical functions, as soon 
 as the fact is recognized (^Ejjist. 9, c. 17). It 
 thus appears that this most serious form of 
 miutilation, so long as it was not self-inflicted, 
 was no bar either to clerical ordination or promo¬ 
 tion, but that if self-inflicted, it was a bar to the 
 exercise of all clerical functions. 
 
 II. Mutilation as a Grime. —An alleged decretal 
 of Pope Eutychianus (275-6), to be found in 
 Gratian, enacts that persons guilty of cutting 
 off limbs were to be separated from the Church 
 until they had made friendly composition (the 
 very idea of composition for such an act was 
 entirely foreign to the Italy of the 3rd century) 
 before the bishop and the other citizens, or, if 
 refusing to do so after two or three warnings, 
 were to be treated as heathen men and publi¬ 
 cans. The document may probably safely be 
 set dowm to the 9th century, but in the mean¬ 
 while we find in the records of the 11th Council 
 of Toledo, A.D. 675 (from which it is perhaps 
 borrowed), evidence that similar crimes were 
 committed by the clergy themselves. The Gth 
 canon enacts amongst other things that clerics 
 
 o o 
 
 BODY, MUTILATION OF THE 
 
 shall not inflict or order to be ipflicted mutilation 
 of a limb on any persons whomsoever. If any do 
 so, either to the servants of their church or to 
 any persons, they shall lose the honour of their 
 order, and be subject to perpetual impri.sonment 
 with hard labour. The Excerpt from the Fathei’s 
 and the Canons attributed to Gregory III. bears 
 that, for the wilful maiming another of a limb, 
 the penance is to be three years, or more hu¬ 
 manely, one year (c. 30). The Capitulary of 
 Aix-la-Chapelle, in 789, c. 16, and the Council of 
 Frankfort, 794, forbid abbats for any cause to 
 blind or mutilate their monks (c. 18)—enactments 
 which sufficiently shew tne ferocity of the 
 Carolingian era, and with which may be noticed 
 the 2nd Capitulary of Theodulf, bishop of Orleans, 
 to his clei’gy, a.d. 797, treating amongst minor 
 sins the maiming of a man so that he shall not 
 die, the reference being at least mainly to clerical 
 maimers. 
 
 In the early barbarian codes no difference W’as 
 made in principle between the various shapes of 
 bodily mutilation, and all cases were punished 
 by pecuniary compensation. But in the later 
 Roman law we find absolute distinction made 
 betw'een emasculation and every other form of 
 mutilation, the former being the only one which 
 it is deemed necessary to legislate against. We 
 have already seen that Constantine had made the 
 former a capital crime, wffien committed within 
 the Roman wmrld. The 142nd Novel goes fur- 
 ther still. Speaking of the crime as having be¬ 
 come rife again, it enacts the lex talionis against 
 male offenders, with confiscation of goods and 
 life-long labour in the quarries if they survive 
 the operation; or as respects females, flogging, 
 confiscation and exile. We may pi’obably ascribe 
 the character of the imperial law on this subject 
 to the influence of the Christian Church, which, 
 at the risk of whatever incongruities in its prac¬ 
 tice, has always treated emasculation as a crime 
 S'd generis^ analogous only to murder and suicide, . 
 according as it is endured or self-inflicted. 
 
 III. Mutilation as a Punishment. —Mutilation 
 is no unfrequont punishment under the Christian 
 empei'ors of the West: Constantine punished 
 slaves escaping to the barbarians with the loss 
 of a foot (Cod. 6. tit. 1. s. 3). The cutting off 
 of the hand was enacted by several Novels; by 
 the 17th (c. viii.) against exactors of tribute 
 who should fail to make proper entries of the 
 quantities of lands; by the 43rd (c. 1) against 
 those who should copy the works of the heretic 
 Severus. It is nevertheless remarkable that the 
 134th Novel finally restricted all penal mutila¬ 
 tion to the cutting off of one hand only (c. xiii.). 
 In the barbaric codes, mutilation is a frequent 
 punishment. The Salic law frequently enacts 
 castration of the slave, but only as an alternative 
 for composition (for thefts above 40 denarii in 
 value, t. xiii., and see t. xlii. ; for adultery 
 with the slave-woman who dies from the effects 
 of it, t. xxix. c. 6). The Bui'gundian law, by a 
 late enactment {Additam. i. t. xv., supposed to 
 be by Sigismund), extends the mode of dealing 
 to Jews. 
 
 Even in the legislation of the Church itself 
 mutilation as a punishment occurs ; but only in 
 its rudest outlying branches, or as an offence to 
 be repressed. Thus, to quote instances of the 
 former case, in the collection of Irish Canous, 
 supposed to belong to the end of the 7th cen- 
 
BONIFACIUS 
 
 tury, Patrick is represented as assigning the 
 cutting off of a hand or foot as one of several 
 alternative punishments for the stealing of 
 money either in a church or a city within 
 which sleep martyrs and bodies of saints (bk. 
 xxviii. c. 6). Another fragment from an Irish 
 svnod, appended by Labbe and Mansi to the 
 above, enacts the loss of a hand as an alternative 
 punishment for shedding the blood of a bishop, 
 where it does not reach the ground, and no salve 
 (collyrium) is needed ; or the blood of a priest 
 when it does reach the ground, and salve is 
 required. Instances of the latter case have been 
 alreadv given in the enactments against abbats 
 maiming their monks, which was no doubt done 
 at least under pretext of enforcing discipline. 
 In the ‘ Excei'ptions ’ ascribed to Egbert, arch¬ 
 bishop of York (but of at least two centuries later 
 date), we find a canon that a man stealing money 
 from the church-box shall have his hand cut off 
 or be put into prison (c. Ixxiii.). [J. M. L.] 
 
 BONIFACIUS. (1) Martyr at Tarsus under 
 Diocletian, is commemorated Dec. 19 (^Cal. By- 
 zant.). He was formerly commemorated in the 
 Roman chui-ch on June 5, the supposed day of 
 his burial at Rome {Jrlart. Rom. Vet.')'., but in 
 more recent martyrologies this Boniface is com¬ 
 memorated on May 14, the supposed day of his 
 death ; and, 
 
 (2) The Apostle of Germany, archbishop of 
 Mentz, martyred in Friesland, is commemorated 
 on June 5 {Mart. Bedae., Adoni^. This saint is 
 figured in his episcopal vestments (9th cent.) in 
 the ..lo^a SaJictorum, June, tom. i. p. 458. See 
 also Brower’s ITiesawus Antiq. Fuldensium, pp. 
 163-165. 
 
 (3) Deacon, martyr in Africa under Hunneric ; 
 commemorated Aug. 17 {Mart. Rom. Vet.). 
 
 (4) “ Natale Bonefacii episcopi,” Sept. 4 {M. 
 Bedae). 
 
 (5) Confessor in Africa ; commemorated Dec. 8 
 {Mart. Hieron.); Dec. 6 {M. Adonis). [C.] 
 
 BONOS A, sister of Zosima, martyr in Porto 
 under Severus; commemorated July 15 {3fart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 BOOKS, CENSURE OF. A studious life 
 was strongly enforced upon the clergy by the 
 ancient Fathers, and enjoined by various canons 
 of the earlier Councils. St. Chrysostom in par¬ 
 ticular insists strongly and very fully on the duty 
 in the clergy of qualifying themselves by patient 
 and laborious study for the office of preaching, and 
 for the defence of the fixith against heretics and 
 unbelievei’s; resting his argument on the exhorta¬ 
 tion of St. Paul to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 13)— 
 “Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to 
 doctrine: meditate upon these things : give thyself 
 wholly to them ; that thy profiting may appear 
 to all men.” Exhortations to the like efiect 
 occur also in the writings of St. Jerome, Cyprian, 
 Lactantius, Hilary, Minucius Felix, and others. 
 In all these writers the study of the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures is urged upon the clergy as being of pri¬ 
 mary obligation, and the foundation on which 
 all the superstructure of a more general and 
 extensive learning was to be raised. Certain 
 canons also required, e.g. Cone. Tolet. iii. c. 7, 
 that in their most vacant hours, the times of 
 eating and drinking, some portion of Scripture 
 should be read to them — partly to exclude 
 trifling and unnecessary discourse, and partly to 
 
 BOOKS, CPIURCII 245 
 
 afford them proper themes and subjects for edi¬ 
 fying discourse and meditation. 
 
 Next to the Scriptures the study of the best 
 ecclesiastical writers was recommended as most 
 profitable and appropriate to the clerical office: 
 the first place in such writings, however, being 
 assigned to the Canons of the Church. These 
 were always reckoned of the greatest use and 
 importance, as containing a summary account, 
 not only of the Church’s discipline and doctrine 
 and government, but also rules of life and moral 
 pi’actice—on which account it was ordered that 
 the Canons should be read over at a man’s ordi¬ 
 nation ; and again, the Council of Toledo (iv. c. 
 25) required the clergy to make them a part of 
 their constant study, together with the Holy 
 Scriptures. The Canons, it should be remem¬ 
 bered, were then a sort of directory for the pas¬ 
 toral care, and they had this advantage of any 
 private directory, that they were the public 
 voice and authorised rule of the Church, and 
 therefore so much the more entitled to respectful 
 attention. In later ages, in the time of Charle¬ 
 magne, we find laws which obliged the clergy to 
 read, together with the Canons, Gregory’s treatise 
 Be Curd Pastorali. 
 
 With regard to other books and v/ritings there 
 was considerable restriction. Some of the canons 
 forbade a bishop to read heathen authors: nor 
 would they allow him to read heretical books, 
 otherwise than as a matter of duty, i. e. unless 
 there was occasion to refute them, or to caution 
 others against the poison of them; e.g. Cone. 
 Carth. iv. c. 16: “ Ut episcopus Gentilium libros 
 non legat: haereticorum autem pro necessitate 
 et tempore.” 
 
 In some cases, however, the study of heathen 
 literature might be advantageous to the cause 
 of Christian truth ; and the Church’s prohibition 
 did not extend to these. Thus St. Jerome ob- 
 sei’ves that both the Greek and Latin historians 
 are of great use as well to explain as confirm the 
 truth of the prophecies of Daniel. St. Augustine 
 says of the writings of heathen philosophers, that 
 as they said many things that were true, both 
 concerning God and the Son of God, they were in 
 that respect very serviceable in refuting the 
 vanities of the Gentiles. And in fact all -who 
 are acquainted with the Fathers and ancient 
 writers of the Church know them to have been 
 for*the most paiff well versed in the classical or 
 heathen literature. 
 
 On the whole it appears that the clergy were 
 obliged in the first place to be diligent in study¬ 
 ing the Scriptui’es, and next to them, as they had 
 ability and opportunity, the canons and approved 
 writers of the Church. Beyond this, as there 
 was no obligation on them to read human learn¬ 
 ing, so there was no absolute prohibition of it; 
 but where it could be made to minister as a 
 handmaid to divinity, there it was not only 
 allowed, but encouraged and commended; and 
 there can be no doubt that in many instances 
 the cause of Christian religion was advanced by 
 the right application of secular learning in the 
 primitive ages of the Church. The principles on 
 which such studies were maintained are summed 
 up by St. Ambrose, Prooem. in Luc. Evang.: 
 “ Legimus aliqua, ne legantur ; legimus ne igno- 
 remus; legimus non ut teueamus, sed ut repu- 
 diemus ” (Bingham). • [D. B.j 
 
 BOOKS, CHURCH. [Liturgical Books.] 
 
BRAXDEOI 
 
 246 BORDEAUX, COUNCIL OF 
 
 BORDEAUX, COUNCIL OF (Burdiga- 
 LENSE Concilium), in-ovincial, at Bordeaux. 
 (1) A.D. 385, coudeniued and deposed Priscillian, 
 Instantius, and their followers, for complicity 
 with Manicheeism. Priscillian appealed to the 
 emperor Maxentius, who, however, put him to 
 death the same year at Trfeves (Sulp. Sever., 
 H. E. ii. 46, who affirms the appeal to have 
 been permitted only “ nostrorum inconstantia,” 
 whereas it ought to have been made to other 
 bishops; Labbe, ii. 1034). — (2) A.D. 670, under 
 Count Lupus and the archbishops of Bourges, 
 Bordeaux, and Eauze in Armagnac, by order of 
 King Chilpe'ric, upon points of discipline {VArt 
 de Verifier les Dates, i. 291). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BOSCI (BockoI), Syrian monks in the 4th 
 century, so called because they lived on herbs 
 only. Sozomen speaks of them as very numer¬ 
 ous near Nisibis, and names a bishop among the 
 most famous of them. They had no buildings 
 but lived on the mountains, continually praying 
 and singing hymns. Each carried a knife, with 
 which to cut herbs and grasses (Soz. E. E. vi. 
 33). A connexion has been traced between them 
 and the sect of Adamiani or Adamitae, who went 
 about naked. The principle is the same—of re¬ 
 turning to a state of nature—but the Bosci are 
 not accused, as the Adamitae, of licentiousness; 
 and with them the motive was apparently austere 
 self-mortification. Frequent instances of similar 
 abstinence are recorded of Eastern hermits in 
 Moschus (^Frat. Spirit.), Theodoret (^Philoth.), 
 and Evagrius (//. E. i. 21). (Tillemont, II. E. 
 viii. 292.) [I. G. S.] 
 
 BOSTRA, COUNCIL OF, a.d. 243 or 244; 
 indeed, there probably were two such : one at 
 which Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, was reclaimed 
 from his strange views respecting the Person of 
 our Lord by Origen; and another at which 
 Origen refuted some Arabians, who said that the 
 souls of men died with their bodies, and came 
 to life with their bodies again at the resur¬ 
 rection (Euseb. vi. 33 and 7; Mansi, i. 787 
 -90). [£. S. Ff.] 
 
 BOURGES, COUNCIL OF (Bituricense 
 Concilium), at Bourges, but (1) a.d. 454, only 
 conjecturally in that city. That there was a 
 council in that year in that neighbourhood 
 appears by a synodical epistle signed by the 
 bishops of Bourges, Tours, and another (Sir- 
 mond. Com. Gall. iii. App. 1507 ; Labbe, iv. 
 1819). Hincmar wrongly calls it a Council of 
 Rome, under the mistaken impression that the 
 Leo who signs it was the Pope.— (2) a.d. 473, 
 to elect Simplicius to the see of Bourges (Sidon. 
 Apoll. Epistt. vii. 5, 8, 9, &c.; and his ora¬ 
 tion to the people for Simplicius, Labbe, iv. 
 1820-1827). Sidouius requests the interven¬ 
 tion of Agroecius, archbishop of Sens (although 
 out of his province), and of Euphronius of 
 Autun, the provincial bishops being too few 
 in number. And the “ plebs Biturigum ” appear 
 to have referred the nomination to Sidonius him¬ 
 self.— (3) A.D. 767, under Pipin, mentioned by 
 Regino and Fredegarius, but with no record of 
 its purpose or acts (Labbe, vi. 1836). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BOWING, [Genuflexion.] 
 
 BRACARENSE CONCILIUM. [Braga, 
 Council of.] 
 
 BRAGA, COUNCIL OF (Bracarense 
 Concilium), provincial, at Braga, in Spain, 
 
 between the Minho and Douro. (1) a.d. 411 
 (if genuine), of ten bishops, to defend the faith 
 against Alans, Suevi, and Vandals, who were 
 either Arians or heathens, under Pancratianus 
 of Braga (Labbe, ii. 1507-1510).— (2) a.d. 
 561 or 563, of eight bishop.s, “ ex praccepto 
 Ariamiri (or probably Theodomiri) Regis,” to 
 condemn the Priscillianists. It passed also 
 twenty-two canons, about uniformity of ritual, 
 church reA’enues, precedence, burial without and 
 not within a church, and other points of disci¬ 
 pline (Labbe, v. 836-845).— (3) A.D. 572, June 1, 
 of twelve bishops, under Archbishops Martin of 
 Braga and Nitigisius of Luca, under Miro, king 
 of the Suevi, passed ten canons, about bishops 
 exacting undue fees, appointment of metropolitan 
 to proclaim annually the date of Easter, and 
 other points of discipline. It was also the first 
 to use the formula, “ regnante Chidsto ” (Labbe, 
 V. 894-902). Mailoc, bishop of Britona, was one 
 of the bishops present.— (4) A.D. 675, under 
 Archbishop Leocidisius, with seven suffragans 
 (including a bishop of Britona), passed nine 
 canons ; prohibiting the giifing of milk, or of the 
 bread dipped in the wine, or of grapes instead of 
 wine, at the Eucharist; allowing a priest to have 
 dwelling with him no other woman than his 
 mother, not even his sister; and on other points 
 of discipline (Labbe, \*i. 561-570). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BRAINE, COUNCIL OF (Brennacense 
 Concilium), at Braine near Soissons (Berni near 
 Compiegne, acc. to L'Art de Ve'rifier les Dates, 
 but wrongly), rather a State than a Church 
 Council, held, A.D. 580, under King Chilpe'ric, 
 excommunicated Leudastes (who had been Count 
 of Tours) for falsely accusing Gregory of Tours 
 of having calumniated Queen Fredegunda. Wit¬ 
 nesses were not produced, “ cunctis dicentibus, 
 non potest persona inferior super sacerdotem 
 credi.” And Gregory exculpated himself by 
 solemn oath at three several altars after saying 
 mass, the accusers in the end confessing their 
 guilt (Greg. Tur., Hist. Franc, v. 50; Labbe, v. 
 965, 966). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BRANDEUM. The word Brandeum proba¬ 
 bly designated originally some particular kind of 
 rich cloth. Thus, Joannes Diaconus (Fjfa S. 
 Greg. lib. iv., in Du Cange, s. v.) speaks of a 
 lady wearing a head-dress “ candentis brandei.” 
 
 But the usages with which we are immedi¬ 
 ately concerned are the following :— 
 
 1. The rich cloth or shroud inwffiich the body 
 of a distinguished saint was wrapped. Thus 
 Hincmar ( Vita S. Remigii, c. 73) describing the 
 translation of St. Romigius, says the body was 
 found by the bishops who translated it wrapped 
 in a red brandeum. Compare Fiodoard, Hist. 
 Femensis, i. 20, 21. 
 
 2. Portions of such shrouds were used as 
 relics; for instance, a portion of the brandeum 
 wffiich enveloped St. Remigius, enshrined in ivory, 
 w'as venerated with due honour (Hincmar, /. c.). 
 
 3. When relics of some saint came to be regarded 
 as absolutely essential to the consecration of a 
 church [Consecration], pieces of cloth w'hich 
 had been placed near them were held to be 
 themselves equivalent to relics. St. Gregory 
 the Great sets forth his view of this practice in 
 a letter to Constantia (^Epist. iii. 30). It is not, 
 he says, the Roman custom, in giving relics of 
 saints, to presume to touch any portion of the 
 
BREAKING OF BREAD 
 
 BREVIARY 
 
 247 
 
 Dodv but only a bmncleum is put in a casket, and ' signify the book containing those offices in dis- 
 set near the most holy bodies. This is again tinction to the missal: a tew short offices, not 
 taken up and enshrined with due solemnity in ; directly connected with canonical hours, and in 
 
 ihe church to be dedicated, and the same miracles 
 are wrought by it as would have been by the 
 very bodies themselves. Tradition relates, that 
 when some Greeks doubted the efficacy of such 
 relics, St. Leo cut a brandeum with scissors, and 
 blood flowed from the wound. St. Leo smiiacle 
 is related by St. Germanus to Pope Hormisdas 
 (Epistt. Pontiff, p. 524) and by Sigebert (C/iro- 
 ntcon, A.D. 441). Joannes Diaconus (Vita 
 S. Greg. ii. 42) relates a similar wonder of 
 St. Gregory himself, which is said to be also 
 attested by an inscription in one of the crypts of 
 the Vatican (Torrigius de Crgptis Vaticanis, pt. 
 2, c. 4, ed. 2). (Du Cange’s Glossary, s. v. 
 Brandeum). 
 
 BREAKING OF BREAD. [Fraction.] 
 
 BREGENTFORD, or BREGUNTFORD, 
 COUNCIL OF (Brentfordense Concilium), 
 provincial, at Bregentforda, Breguntford, or 
 Brentford. (1) A.D. 705, an informal political 
 conference, mentioned by Waldhere, bishop of 
 London, as to be held by the kings, bishops, and 
 abbats, of Wessfex and of the East Saxons, about 
 certain unnamed grounds of quarrel (Haddan and 
 Stubbs, Counc. iii. 274).— (2) a.d. 781, held by 
 Ofia, king of Mereia, and Archbishop Jaenberht, 
 freed the monastery of Bath from the jurisdic¬ 
 tion of the see of Worcester (charter in Kemble, 
 Cod. Dipl. 14b). Other (questionable) charters 
 apparently profess to emanate from the same 
 Council (ib. 139, 140). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BRENNACENSE CONCILIUM. [Braine, 
 Council of.] 
 
 BRENTFORDENSE CONCILIUM. [Bre- 
 GENTFORD, Council of.] 
 
 BREVIARY (^Breviarium). This word, in 
 its ecclesiastical sense, denotes an office book of 
 the Church, containing the offices for the canoni¬ 
 cal hours, as distinguished from the missal, 
 which contains those of the mass. The name, 
 which Meratus derives from breve horarium, ex¬ 
 plaining it as compendium precum, indicates that 
 the book is an abbreviation or compilation; and 
 it is so called, according to some, because the 
 e.xistins form is an abbreviation of the ancient 
 office ; according to others, because it is a short 
 summary of the principal portions of Holy Scrip¬ 
 ture, of the lives of the greatest saints, and of 
 the choicest prayers of the Church ; or, again, 
 because in its arrangement the various parts of 
 the office, such as prayers, hymns, lessons, &c., 
 are only once given in full; and afterwards only 
 indiciited by the first words, or by references.® 
 Some, again, have thought that the breviary 
 
 was originally an abbreviation of the missale 
 plenarium; and mainly distinguished from it 
 by the partial omission or abbreviation of the 
 rubrics, and by the first words alone of the 
 psalms, sections, &c., being given. It is sup¬ 
 posed that this abbreviated book was originally 
 compiled as a directory for the choir, and that 
 on its general adoption in convents, in which 
 the canonical hours took their rise, these wei’e 
 inserted, and hence the name breviary came to 
 
 • There is great variety of practice in this respect be¬ 
 tween different breviaries, and even different editions of 
 the same breviary. 
 
 some breviaries the ordinary and canon of the 
 mass, with a few special masses, still remaining 
 in it. 
 
 The contents of the breviary, in their essential 
 parts, are derived from the early ages of Christi¬ 
 anity. They consist of psalms, lessons taken 
 from the Scriptures, and from the writings of 
 the Fathers, versicles and pious sentences thrown 
 into the shape of antiphons, responses, or other 
 analogous forms, hymns, and prayers. Tho 
 jresent form of the book is the result of a long 
 and gradual development. During a long time 
 a great diversity existed in the manner in which 
 ;he psalms and their accompanying prayers were 
 recited in different dioceses and convents ; but 
 roni the 5th century onwards a marked ten¬ 
 dency to uniformity in this part of divine wor¬ 
 ship may be observed, till in later days the only 
 very striking difference which remains, with the 
 exception of the Mozarabic breviary, which has 
 special character of its own, is between the 
 office books of the East and the West. The name 
 breviary is confined to those of the West. 
 
 The books used in the daily office which con¬ 
 tained the materials that were afterwards 
 consolidated into the breviary, were—(1) the 
 Psalter, containing the psalms and canticles 
 arranged in their appointed order; (2) the 
 Scriptures, from which lessons for the nocturns 
 were taken; (3) the Homiliary, containing the 
 homilies of the Fathers appointed to be read on 
 Sundays and other days indicated; (4) the Pas¬ 
 sionary, or Passiomd, containing the history of 
 the sufferings of the saints, martyrs, and con¬ 
 fessors ; (5) the Antiphonary, containing the an¬ 
 tiphons and responsories; (6) the Hymnal; (7) 
 the Collectaneum, or Collectarium, or Liber CoU 
 lectarius, or Orationale, containing the prayers, 
 and also the Short Chapters read at the several 
 hours; (8) the Martyrology. There were also 
 Rubrics giving the directions for leciting the 
 various offices. 
 
 Various digests of offices from these and similar 
 sources have been attributed with more or less 
 probability to Leo the Great, Gelasius, and 
 Gregory the Great. Gregory VII. [tl085] com¬ 
 piled the book which is the basis of the present 
 Roman breviary. A MS. copy of this book was 
 preserved in the monastery of Casini, from about 
 the year 1100 a.d. This was inscribed “Incipit 
 Breviarium s. Ordo officiorum, &c. ; ” and hence 
 Benedict XIV. derives the probable origin of the 
 name. An abbreviation of this book made in 
 1244 by Michael Haymon, general of the Mi¬ 
 norites, obtained the approbation of Pope Gre¬ 
 gory X., and was introduced by Pope Nicholas III. 
 in 1278 or 1279 into all the churches of Rome. 
 
 Originally different dioceses and monastic 
 orders had their own special breviaries, varying 
 one from the other. There is a marked differ¬ 
 ence between the secular and the monastic bre¬ 
 viaries, but the individual members of these two 
 families, while they vary much in detail, agree 
 closely in their arrangement and general features. 
 After the edition by Pius V., the Roman breviary 
 thus revised was imposed on the whole Roman 
 obedience to the exclusion of those hitherto in 
 use, with an exception in favour of those which 
 had then been in use for 200 years. 
 
248 
 
 BRIBERY 
 
 BRIDAL RING 
 
 The breviary is usually divided into four ’ 
 parts, called after the four seasons of the year, ' 
 “ Pars hiemalis, vernalis, aestivalis [v. aestivaj, 
 autumnalis.” When this fourfold division was | 
 first adopted is doubtful. Traces of it have 
 been found in the 11th century. Each of these 
 parts, in addition to the introductory rubrics, 
 calendar, and other tables, has four subdivisions : 
 (1) the Psalter [Psalterium], comprising the 
 psalms and canticles aiTanged according to the 
 order of their weekly recitation, and also other 
 subordinate parts of the office which do not vary 
 from day to day; (2) the Proper of the Season 
 [Proprium de tempore], containing those por¬ 
 tions of the offices which vary with the season; 
 (3) the Proper of the Saints [Proprium Sane- ; 
 torum]; i. e., the corresponding portions for the 
 festivals of saints; and (4) the Common of the 
 Saints. [See Hours of Prayer ; Office, The ^ 
 Divine ; Psalmody.] [H. J. H.] I 
 
 BRIBERY. The Old Testament is so full of 
 warnings against “ the gift ” that “ blindeth the 
 wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous” ; 
 (Ex. xxiii. 8), of denunciations of those that 
 “judge for reward” (Micah iii. 11), that we 
 could not expect otherwise than to find the like 
 teachings embodied in the more spiritual morality 
 of the New Testament. It may indeed be a ques¬ 
 tion whether the qualification required of bishops’ 
 and deacons by the Pastoral Epistles, that they 
 should not be “ giA^en to filthy lucre ” (^alaxpo- 
 KepSe^sf 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8; Tit. i. 7, implies prone¬ 
 ness to bribery, properly so called, or covetous- ' 
 ness generally. If, howeA'er, we reckon the 
 Apostolical Constitutions as repi’esenting gene¬ 
 rally the Church life of the 2nd century, we 
 see that the ofience was then beginning to take 
 shape. The bishop is directed not to be open to re¬ 
 ceive gifts, since unconscientious men “ becoming 
 acceptors of persons, and haA'ing receiA^ed shame¬ 
 ful gifts” Avillspare the sinner, letting him remain 
 in the Church (bk. ii. c. 9). Another passage 
 speaks of either the bishops or the deacons sinning 
 by the acceptance of persons or of gifts, Avith the 
 addition of the remarkable Avords: “ For when 
 the ruler asks, and the judge receiA’^es, judgment 
 is not brought to an end ” (i6. c. 17). A third 
 deals Avith the still more heinous offence of con¬ 
 demning the innocent for rcAA^ard, threatening 
 Avith God’s judgment the “pastors” and deacons 
 AA'ho, either through acceptance of persons or in 
 return for gifts, expel from the Church those 
 Avho are falsely accused (t6. c. 42). 
 
 Thei’e Avas of course nothing exceptional in this 
 morality. In the Roman law there were nu¬ 
 merous enactments against bribery. Theodosius 
 enacted the penalty of death against all judges 
 who took bribes (Cod. Theod. 9, tit. 27, s. 5). 
 In Justinian’s time, although the penalty of 
 death seems to have been abrogated, the offence 
 is subjected to degrading punishments (Nov. viii., 
 exxiv.). 
 
 The laAv of the Church on the subject of 
 bribery Avas substantially that of the State. The 
 spirit’jal sin Avas looked upon as equiA'alent to 
 the civil offence, and the Church needed no 
 special discipline to punish the former. One 
 form of bribery indeed, that relating to the 
 attainment of the orders or dignities of the 
 Church, is considered separately under the head 
 of Simony. [J. M. L.] i 
 
 BRICCTUS, or BRICTIUS. (1) Bishop, 
 
 confessor at Martula in Umbria; is commemo¬ 
 rated July 8 (3fart. Pom. Fe<.); July 9 (Jf. 
 Adonis). 
 
 (2) St. Brice; succeeded St. Martin as bishop 
 of Tours; commemorated as confessor, Nov. 13 
 (Mart. Bedae, Hieron., Adonis). Proper office in 
 the Gregorian Liber Responsalis, p. 835. [C.] 
 
 BRIDAL RING. That the present use of 
 the ring in marriage has grown out of its use in 
 betrothal, is historically clear. The origin of 
 the latter is, however, obscure, though proba¬ 
 bly it is the meeting-point of seA'eral different 
 ideas and practices. If marriage was originally 
 wife-catching, as seems probable, the ring may 
 be considered as the symbol of the wife’s cap- 
 tiA’ity. Again, before money Avas invented, or 
 before its use became common, a ring would be 
 one of the aptest representatiA'es of wealth, and 
 as such would easily constitute either the actual 
 price of betrothal, or the earnest of it; whilst 
 we knoAV that in some countries the ring has 
 actually taken the place of money, e. g. the 
 “ ring-money ” of our Teutonic forefathers. 
 Again, as signet-rings came into use, the ring 
 itself would easily groAv to be looked upon as 
 a pledge of contracts, a symbol of faith between 
 man and man. Lastly, as men’s feelings became 
 more refined, the idea of the ring, (1st) as a 
 symbol of the wife’s subjection, (2nd) as the 
 price, or the symbol of the price, of her purchase, 
 (3rd) as the pledge of the contract for her per¬ 
 son, would lose itself in that of its spiritual 
 significance as a symbol of endless indissoluble 
 union. 
 
 It is certain, at any rate, that the bridal ring 
 of early Christian custom was not derived from 
 JeAvish practice, since it appears clearly that its 
 use by way of earnest on betrothal among the 
 JcAvs Avas of late introduction, derived from the 
 Gentiles, and depended for its validity on the ring 
 being AA'orth money [Arrhae]. But the early 
 Christians, as aboA^e indicated, found it in use 
 among the Romans, unconnected (as was ordinary 
 marriage itself) with any superstitious practices, 
 and naturally adopted it. Tertullian uses the 
 term annulus metonymically for betrothal itself, 
 in that passage of his treatise on Idolatry, in 
 Avhich, examining AA'hat transactions among the 
 Gentiles a Christian man may laAA'fully take part 
 in, he decides that betrothals are among the 
 number, since “ the ring ” is not derived from 
 the honour paid to any idol (c. 16). The same 
 author sheAvs in his Apology that by his time the 
 I use of gold for the betrothal ring must haA'e long 
 I replaced that of iron, since he speaks of the 
 Avoman of old knowing “ no gold, saA’e on one 
 finger,” Avhich her betrothed “ oppignorasset 
 pronubo annulo ” (c. 6), with which may be 
 compared Juvenal’s “ digito pignus fortasse 
 dedisti ” (Sat. vi. 17). 
 
 It Avill be obvious from the last tAA^o passages 
 that the main significance of the betrothal ring 
 in the early centuries of the Christian era was 
 that of a pledge. Hence its abiding significance 
 as representing the arrhae. Its A’alue in this 
 respect Avas by no means confined to the betrothal 
 contract; thus in the Digest, Ulpian, in refei'ence 
 to the arrhae on an ordinary contract of sale, puts 
 the case of a ring being given by Avay of earnest 
 and not returned after the payment of the price 
 and deliA^ery of the thing sold (Dig. 19, tit. 1, 
 s. 11, § 6 ; Avith Avhich compare 14, tit. 3, s. 16). 
 
BRIDAL RING 
 
 BRIEFS AND BFI LS 
 
 249 
 
 There is therefore nothing special in the ex¬ 
 pression “ Subarrare annulo,” which occurs in 
 a well-known passage of the 34th letter of St. 
 Ambrose, where he represeilts St. Agnes saying 
 to the gov'ernor of Rome, when he pressed her to 
 marry liis son, that “ another lover ” had already 
 “given her earnest by the ring of his faith” 
 (annulo fidei suae subarravit me). 
 
 Historically, the bridal ring figures somewhat 
 prominently in the record of the 5th century. 
 In M. Augustin Thierry’s ‘ Histoire d’Athila,’ 
 2nd ed. vol. i. c. 5, or again in his ‘ Placidie, 
 reine des Gothes,’ appended to the 2nd volume 
 of his ‘Saint Jerome,’ c. 4 (Gibbon c. xxxv. 
 relates the story somewhat differently), it is told 
 how in A.D. 434, Honoria, the graceless grand¬ 
 daughter of the great Theodosius, in a fit o-f 
 rebellion against parental authority, sent her ring 
 by a eunuch to the Hunnish king Attila (then 
 recently come to the throne) by way of betrothal 
 earnest, requesting him to make war on her 
 brother Valentinian. The barbarian sovereign 
 (who had a whole harem of his own) took no 
 notice of the ring at the time, but had it put 
 away; and fifteen years after, when about to 
 inrade Italy, sent a letter to the Western Emperor, 
 complaining that the princess, his betrothed, had 
 been ignominiously treated on his account, and 
 was kept in prison, and requiring her to be set 
 free and restored to him with her dowry, which 
 he reckoned at hnlf the personalty of the late 
 emperor Constantins, and half the Western Em¬ 
 pire ; and he forwarded by his envoys at the same 
 time her ring, to avouch the justice of his claim, 
 —which however he afterwards did not care, and 
 probably never intended to press,—indeed Honoria 
 was married at the time, as was stated to him in 
 reply, and as no doubt he knew already. 
 
 The received position of the ring on the fourth 
 finger is explained by Isidore of Seville, on the 
 ground that “ there is in it, so they say, a vein of 
 blood which reaches to the heart ” {de Offic. bk. ii. 
 c. 19). The quaint reason assigned for the choice 
 of the finger will be observed, as well as the 
 indication that the ring was only given in first 
 marriages. A simpler origin for the use of the 
 fourth finger is that the Greeks and Romans wore 
 of old their rings on that finger (Maci'obius, 
 Saturn. 7, 1. 13, quoted by Selden in his Uxor 
 llehraica'). 
 
 The bridal ring is referred to both in the 
 Wisio;othic and the Lombard Codes. The former 
 s]>eaks of it as constituting by delivery an en¬ 
 forceable marriage contract without writing: 
 “ where a ring has been given or accepted in the 
 name of earnest, though no writings should pass 
 between the parties, that promise should be in 
 nowise broken with which a ring has been given 
 and terms (definitio) fixed before witnesses ” 
 (bk. iii. t. i. c. 3). The Lombard law is to the 
 same effect; when a man betroths to himself 
 a woman, “ with a ring only, he gives earnest 
 for her and makes her his ” (cum solo annulo 
 earn subarrat et suam tacit), “ and if afterwards 
 he marry another, he is found guilty to the 
 amount of 500 solid! ” (bk. v. c. i.; law of Luit- 
 prand, A.D. 717). 
 
 As late as the 9th. century, it is clear that the 
 ring was constitutive of betrothal, not of mar¬ 
 riage. This is shown by Pope Nicolas’s answer 
 to the Bulgarians, where he says that “ after the 
 future bridegroom has betrothed to himself the 
 
 future bride by earnest, placing on her finger tlie 
 ring of affiance . . . either soon or at a fitting 
 time . . . both are led to the marriage (nuptialia 
 foedera) . . . and thus at last receive the bene¬ 
 diction and the heavenly veil.” From this it 
 follows that all Western Church formulae of 
 blessing rings must belong to a still later period ; 
 and indeed the use of the ring in marriage is 
 sujjposed to have come in during the 10th century. 
 
 On the other hand, since, as observed under 
 the head Arrhae, Pope Nicolas’s reply exju’essly 
 distinguishes Latin from Greek usage, it is per¬ 
 fectly j^ossible that the blessing of rings, which 
 occurs in the betrothal liturgy of the Eucho- 
 logium may be of earlier date: “By a ring 
 was given authority to Joseph in Egypt. By a 
 ring was Daniel glorified in the land of Babylon. 
 By a ring was shewn the truthfulness of Tamar. 
 By a ring our heavenly Father shewed mercy 
 towards his son, for ‘ having slain the fatted calf 
 and eaten let us rejoice ’ [he said] . . . Thou 
 therefore, 0 Lord, bless this placing of rings with 
 a heavenly blessing,” &c. The Greek ceremony, 
 it may be observed, requires two rings, one of 
 gold and one of silver. [J. M. L.] 
 
 BRIDGET, or BRIGIDA, virgin, of Ireland, 
 martyr in Scotland, A.D. 523, wonder-worker, 
 is commemorated Feb. 1 (Jdart. Hicron.., Adonis., 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 BRIEFS and BULI.S (JBreve, Bulla). Both 
 these names are applied to the Letters Apostolic 
 of the Pope : the distinction between thon being 
 chiefly one of form, and relating to the nature 
 of the instrument in which the letters are con¬ 
 tained. 
 
 A Papal Brief is ordinarily written in the 
 Latin character, and is sealed, not with lead, but 
 with wax; the seal bearing the impression of the 
 so-called “ fisherman’s I'ing,” a figure of St. Peter 
 fishing fi’om a boat. It is signed by the Secre¬ 
 tary of Briefs, and commonly commences thus: 
 “ Pius Papa IX.,” &c. 
 
 A Bull, on the other hand, is written in the 
 Gothic character, and is sealed with a leaden seal 
 of a globular form (from which, viz. bulla, as 
 most suppose, it derives its name, though some 
 deduce it from $ovKt]), which is attached to the 
 document by a string of silk, if the Bull be one 
 of Grace, or by a hempen cori, if it be one of 
 Justice. The seal bears on one side a representa¬ 
 tion of the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and 
 on the other the name of the reigning Pope. 
 Bulls are issued from the Papal Chancery, and 
 commence in this form : “Pius Episcopus, servus 
 sei'vorum Dei,” &c. 
 
 Some Bulls have not only the Papal seal, but 
 also a second one in the form of a cross. These 
 are Consistorial Bulls, and are issued with the 
 assent and advice of the Cardinals in Consistory, 
 by whom they are subscribed. 
 
 Briefs and Bulls are of equal force, but the 
 former are supposed to have greater brevity of 
 expression (whence perhaps the name), and as 
 a general, though not invariable, rule, to be 
 employed in mattei’s of lesser moment. Before 
 his coronation, a Pope ought not to issue Bulls, 
 but only Briefs. Or if he issues a Bull, it does 
 not bear his name on the seal. 
 
 A Brief, on the whole, may be said to corre¬ 
 spond in some respects to a Writ of Privy Seal 
 in England, as distinguished from Letters Patent 
 
BEOTHERHOOD 
 
 250 BRITAIN, COUNCILS IN 
 
 of the Crown, which would answer to a Bull. 
 It may be added that a Brief may be suppressed, 
 as it is not issued in the same open form as a 
 Bull; and there are, it is said, instances of Briefs 
 being suppi-essed altogether. It may also be 
 cancelled or superseded by a subsequent Brief, 
 whereas a Bull can be cancelled only by a Bull. 
 For the most part also a Brief is of less extensive 
 application than a Bull, the latter being some¬ 
 times binding on the entire Christian world in 
 communion with Rome. 
 
 It must be stated, however, that some of the 
 particulars just specified, though characteristic 
 of Bulls and Briefs at this day and for a long 
 period, are not observed in very early documents. 
 Thus, for instance, in the Li'ter Diurnus lloma- 
 norum Fontificum, a work probably of the 8th 
 centuiy (printed in Migne’s Patrologiae Cursus 
 Complehis, vol. cv.) forms of commencements of 
 Papal letters are given, in which the name of 
 the Pope follows instead of preceding that of the 
 gi’eat person to whom the letter is addressed. 
 
 Thus to a Patrician the letter begins Do¬ 
 mino excellentissimo, atque praecellentissimo filio 
 [name] patricio, [name of Pope] Episcopus servus 
 servorum Dei.” And to the archbishop of Ra¬ 
 venna— “ Reverendissimo et Sanctissimo fratri 
 [name of archbishop] Coepiscopo, [name of Pope] 
 servus servorum Dei.” And even to a Pres¬ 
 byter we have — “ Dilectissimo filio [name of 
 presbyter], [name of Pope] servus servorum Dei.” 
 In a Dissertation annexed to the edition of the 
 Liber Diurnus of 1860, the Jesuit Gesner states 
 that the custom of putting the Pope’s name first 
 does not seem to have come in until about the 
 9th century. It will thus probably be nearly 
 contemporaneous with the appearance of the 
 Forged Decretals, and will appropriately mark 
 the era when the Popes first put forward regal 
 and ultra-regal pretensions. 
 
 Authorities, — Ferraris, Bibliotheca Canonica 
 vol. i. edit. 1844, sub vocibus “Breve, Bulla;” 
 XyWiXo’s, Parergon Juris canonici, tit. “of Bulls 
 Papal;” Burn’s A'cc/cs. Zaie, tit. “Bull;” Twiss 
 On the letters Apostolic of Pope Pius IX. Lon¬ 
 don, 1851, p. 2. [B. S.] 
 
 BRITAIN, COUNCILS IN. [Britannicum 
 Concilium.] 
 
 BRITANNICUM CONCILIUM; f.e. Coun¬ 
 cils of the Welsh Church. See Calrlkonense ; 
 Llandewi-Brefi ; Lucus Victoriae; Augus¬ 
 tine’s Oak; Verulamium. 
 
 2. Breton Councils [Brittany]. 
 
 The Councils called “ Britannica,” in Cave, 
 Wilkins, Labbe, &c., are either those above named 
 (mostly misdated and incorrectly described), or 
 are pure fables; while Cave has chosen to add 
 to them the Northumbrian Synod of Onestre- 
 feld of A.D. 702, which see under its proper 
 title. [A. W. II.] 
 
 BROTHERHOOD. The origin of brother- 
 hoods or fraternities in the Christian Church and 
 world, whether clerical, lay, or mixed, is far from 
 being satisfactorily ascertained. The history of 
 monastic fraternities will be found under their 
 appropriate headings, though we may here re¬ 
 mark that the formation of such tratornitios 
 was in direct opposition to the very impulse 
 which produced monachism itself, and sent the 
 fiQuaxhs, or solitary, as a “hermit” into the 
 wilderness (eprj/ioi/). Yet such fraternities were 
 
 practically in existence in the Egyptian laurae, 
 when Serajnon could rule over a thousand monks ; 
 they received their fii’st written constitution 
 from St. Basil (326-379), and both Basil and 
 Jerome (who had himself been a hermit) having 
 declared their disapproval of solitary monachism, 
 the social or fraternal type must be considered to 
 have become fully impressed on the monastic 
 system during the course of the 4th and 5th 
 centuries. 
 
 Dr. Brentano, in his work On the History and 
 Development of Gilds (London, Triibner, 1870), 
 expresses indeed the opinion “ that the religious 
 brotherhoods of the middle ages, and as they 
 still exist in Catholic countries, have their origin 
 in a connexion with monasticism, and in an 
 imitation of it . . . and that this origin is to 
 be sought in Southern lands, in which Chris¬ 
 tianity and monasticism were first propagated ” 
 (p. 9). If this be so, it must be admitted that 
 the imitation was almost coeval with its model, 
 for he himself ascribes to the 3rd century— the 
 age of the Egyptian hermits — the “Christian 
 brotherhood for nursing the sick ” of the Para- 
 bolani, —which Muratori was the first to point 
 out as a sort of religious fraternity, in ojipo- 
 sition to various writers quoted by him (in the 
 75th Dissertation of his Antiquitates Medii 
 Aevi, vol. vi.), who had held that such frater¬ 
 nities date only from the 9th or even the 13th 
 centuries. [Parabolani.] Muratori also sug¬ 
 gests that the lecticarii or decani,, who are 
 mentioned in the Code (1 tit. 2, s. 4), and m 
 Justinian’s 43rd and 59th Novels, by the latter 
 as fulfillino; certain functions at funerals, must 
 have been a kind of religious fraternity. On 
 the other hand, the old sodalitas, or its equiva¬ 
 lent the Greek (pparpia (henceforth Latinized as 
 “ phratria ” or “fratria”), appears to have be¬ 
 come more and more discredited, since the 18th 
 canon of the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) 
 requires the cutting off of all clerics or monks 
 forming “ conjurationes vel sodalitates ” (Isidore 
 Mercator translates “ phratrias vel factiones ”) ; 
 for if “ the crime of conspiracy or of sodalitas is 
 wholly forbidden even by external laws, much 
 more should it be so in God’s Church.” A 
 decree of the Vandal king Gundemar (to be 
 found in the 10th vol. of Labbe and Mansi’s 
 Councils, p. 510), about A.D. 610, directed to 
 the priests of the city of Carthage, speaks in 
 like manner of fratrias et conjurattones ixgAnst the 
 Metropolitan Church. So again the 6th Oecu¬ 
 menical Council, that of Constantinople in Trullo, 
 A.D. 680-1, has a canon (34) against clerics or 
 monks (TUFOyUi/u/iej/ot fj </)paTpid^ovT6S (translated 
 in the Latin conjurantes vel sodalitates ineuntesf 
 who are to lose their rank ; and other similar 
 enactments could be adduced. 
 
 In the 8th century we find a disposition on the 
 part of the Church to confine the idea of frater¬ 
 nity to clerical and monastic use. We may take 
 as an instance of this in our own country the 
 ‘Dialogue by question and answer on Church 
 government ’ of Archbishop Egbert of f ork (mid¬ 
 dle of the century), in which the terms frafer 
 and soror will be found applied both to clerics 
 and monks or nuns, but never apparently to lay¬ 
 men. But there is at the same time ground for 
 surmising that the term “ fraternity,” which in 
 the 12th and 13th centuries is used ordinarily as 
 a synonym for “ gild,” was already current in 
 
BROTHERHOOD 
 
 BURIAL OF THE DEAD 251 
 
 the 8th or 9th to designate these bodies, the 
 organization of which Dr. Brentano holds to have 
 been complete among the Anglo-Saxons in the 
 8th century (Brentano on Gilds, pp. 11—12), and 
 the bulk of which were of lay constitution, though 
 usually of a more or less religious character. 
 The connexion between the two words is esta¬ 
 blished in a somewhat singular manner. A 
 Council of Nantes of very uncertain date, which 
 has been placed by some as early as 658, by 
 others as late as 800, has a canon (9) which is 
 repeated almost in the same terms in a capitulary 
 of Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, of the year 
 852 or 858 (c. 16). But where the canon speaks 
 of “ those gatherings or confraternities which are 
 termed consortia (de collectis vel confratriis quas 
 consortia vocant),” the archbishop has “ de 
 collectis quas geldonias vel confratrias vulgo 
 vocant,” — “ gatherings which are commonly 
 called gilds or confraternities.” Whilst the faith¬ 
 ful are authorized to unite “ in oblations, in 
 lights, in mutual prayers, in the burial of the 
 dead, in alms and other offices of piety,” those 
 feasts and banquets are forbidden, where “ undue 
 exactions, shameful and vain merriment and 
 quarrels, often even hatred and dissensions are 
 wont to arise ; ” the penalty assigned being for 
 clerics deprivation, for laymen or women exclu¬ 
 sion from communion till they have given due 
 satisfaction. 
 
 But the term “ gild ” itself was already in 
 use to designate fraternities for mutual help be¬ 
 fore the days of Hincmar. We meet with it in 
 a capitulary of Charlemagne’s of the year 779, 
 treated by Canciani and Muratori as enacted for 
 Lombardy, but by Pertz on the contrary (in his 
 Monumenta Gerinaniae Historica') as enacted for 
 France, which bears “As touching the oaths mu¬ 
 tually sworn by a gild (per gildoniam. Cane.; 
 gildoiiia, Pertz), that no one presume to do so. 
 Otherwise as touching their maintenance ‘ (ali- 
 moniis; or “alms,” elemosynis, Pertz),’ or fire, 
 or shipwreck, though they may make covenant 
 (quamvis convenientias faciant) let none presume 
 to swear thereto” (see also bk. v. of the general 
 collection, c. 200, “ de sacramentis pro gildoma 
 ( gildonia ) invicem conjurantibus ” ; and the 
 4th “Addition,” c. 134, “ ne aliquis pro gildomia 
 sacramentum facere audeat.”) It is thus clear 
 that the gilds of the latter half of the 8th cen¬ 
 tury existed for purposes exactly the same as 
 those which they fulfilled several centuries later. 
 So far indeed as they were usually sanctioned by 
 oath, they were obviously forbidden by the capi¬ 
 tulary above quoted, as well as by several others 
 against “ conjurations ” and conspiracies which 
 Dr. Brentano refers to from Pertz, the last (the 
 Thionville Capitulary of 805) of a peculiarly 
 ferocious character. 
 
 It may be suspected that the subject of reli¬ 
 gious or quasi-religious brotherhoods or fraterni¬ 
 ties in the early Church (apart from monastic 
 ones) has been but imperfectly investigated as 
 yet. It may at least be said that specific bodies 
 are found apparently answering to the character, 
 attached to particular churches, during the 3rd, 
 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. In the West, how¬ 
 ever, we seem first to discern them under the 
 Teutonic shape of the gild, which in its freer 
 forms was palpably the object of great jealousy 
 to the political and spiritual despots of the Car- 
 lovingian era. [J. M. L.] 
 
 BUCOLUS, Bishop of Smyrna, consecrated 
 by St. John ; commemorated as “ Holy Father,” 
 Feb. 6 {Cal. Byzant.') [C.] 
 
 BULLS. [Briefs and Bulls.] 
 
 BURDIGALENSE CONCILIUM. [Bor¬ 
 deaux, Council of.] 
 
 BURFORD, COUNCIL OF (Berghfcrd- 
 ENSE Concilium), provincial, “ juxta vadura 
 Berghford,” at Burford in Oxfordshire, a.d. 685, 
 witnesses a grant by King Berhtwald, an under¬ 
 king of Ethelred of Mercia, to Aldhelm and the 
 abbey of Malmesbury (charter in Will. Malm. 
 G. P. A. V., and Kemble, Cod. Dipl. 26; the 
 latter correcting the impossible date DCXXXV 
 into DCLXXXV, and thus removing the main 
 objection to the genuineness of the document, 
 w'hich however he still marks as spurious; 
 Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. iii. 169). [A. W. H.] 
 
 BURIAL OF THE DEAD. Among the many 
 points of contrast between the Christian Church 
 and the systems which it supplanted, the treat¬ 
 ment of the departed furnished one of the most 
 conspicuous. Side by side with their unexampled 
 hospitality and their austere purity of life, Julian 
 enumerates their care for the burial of the dead 
 as one of the means by which the Christians 
 against whom he strove, had succeeded in con¬ 
 verting the Empire {Epist. ad Arsac. xlix., 0pp. 
 ed. Spanheim). That which was characteristic 
 of the new faith was not only its belief in the 
 resurrection of the body, but its reverence for 
 that body as sharing in the redemption, and this 
 showed itself in almost ev'ery incident connected 
 with the funeral rites. 
 
 1. Mode of Burial. In Egypt and in Palestine 
 the Christian Church inherited the practice of 
 embalming. It had prevailed from the earliest 
 period of which we have any record. It had 
 originated in a belief which Christians recognised 
 as analogous to their own (August. Set'm. de Div. 
 cxx. 12). So the patriai’chs and kings of the Old 
 Testament had been intei red, so had been their 
 Lord himself. It was natural that those who 
 found the practice in existence should not discard 
 it, even though they no longer looked on it as 
 essential. The language of Tertullian implies 
 that it was in general use in Western Africa 
 {Apol. c. 42); that of Augustine {1. c.) shows 
 that it was adopted in Egypt. In Greece, on the 
 other hand, the dead had been consigned to the 
 funeral pyre, and the ashes collected in an urn 
 of bronze or clay, from the heroic age downward. 
 Rome, which in the earlier days of the Republic 
 had interred its dead, had adopted the Greek 
 usage in the time of Sulla (the dictator is said 
 to have been the first Roman whose body was 
 so disposed of) and had transmitted it to the 
 Empire (Plin. Hist. Nat. vii. 54; Cic. de Lcyg. 
 ii. 25). Against this usage Christian feeling 
 naturally revolted. Even while contending that 
 no variation in the mode of burial could afl'ect 
 the resurrection of the body, Christian writers 
 protested against cremation as wanting in re¬ 
 verencing, and suggesting a denial of the truth 
 which they held so precious. We, they said, 
 “ veterem et melioi’em consuetudinem humandi 
 frequentamus” (Minuc. Felix, Octav. c. 39; 
 August, de Civ. Dei, i. 12, 13). And accord¬ 
 ingly, when their persecutors sought to Inflict 
 the most cruel outrage on their feelings, they 
 added to the tortures by which they inflicted 
 
252 BURIAI, OF THE DEAD 
 
 BURIAL OF THE DEAD 
 
 death, that of burniug the bodies of the dead, 
 lu this way, they thought, they should rob the 
 Christians of that resuiTcction which they hoped 
 for, or at least trample on that which they held 
 sacred (Euseb. H. E. v. 1, ad fin.'). As a rule, 
 accordingly, it may be held, that interment, with 
 or without embalming, according to local custom 
 or the rank of the deceased, obtained from the 
 first in all Christian Churches. 
 
 2. Place of Burial. At first, in the nature 
 of things, it was not in the power of Christians 
 to transgress the laws of the Empire which for¬ 
 bade interment within the walls of cities (Cic. de 
 Lci](j. ii. 58). The Jewish custom had in this 
 respect agreed with that which prevailed 
 throughout the heathen world, strengthened by 
 the feeling that contact with the graves where 
 the dead reposed brought with it a ceremonial 
 defilement. The tomb of Christ, e.g., was in a 
 garden nigh unto the city, but outside the gates 
 (Matt, xxvii. 60), and the same holds good of 
 the burial at Nain (Luke vii. 12), and of that of 
 Lazarus (John xi. 30). The demoniac of Gadara 
 had “ his dwelling in the tombs,” because they 
 were remote from human habitations (Mark v. 
 5). Commonl)', as on the Appian way, and the 
 road from Athens to the Piraeus, the strip of 
 ground on each side of the most frequented 
 highway, beginning at the city gate, became 
 the burial-place of citizens. Slaves and foreign¬ 
 ers were laid in some less honourable position. 
 The Jews at Rome and in other cities had burial- 
 places of their own. 
 
 The wish to avoid contact with idolatrous 
 rites, and to escape interruption and insult in 
 their own funeral ceremonies, would naturally 
 lead Christians to follow the example of the 
 Jews, and to secure, as soon as possible, a place 
 where they could bury their dead in peace. The 
 earliest trace of this feeling is found in an 
 inscription, which records the purchase by 
 Faustus, a slave of Antonia, the wife of Drusus, 
 from Jucundus, a Christian, of the “jus olla- 
 rum,” the right, i.e. of burying the remains of 
 the dead in a columbarium. The Christian, i. e. 
 will no longer burn the bodies of those for 
 whom he cares, nor have his own body to be 
 burnt, but sells his interest in the pagan sepul¬ 
 chre, and provides another for himself (Muratori 
 MDCLXViii. 6). So in like manner Cyprian 
 i^Ep. 68) makes it a special charge against Mar- 
 tialis, bishop of Astura, that he had allow'ed his 
 sons to be “apud profana sepulcra depositos.” 
 During the long periods in which they were 
 exempt from persecution, they were allowed in 
 many cities to possess their burial-grounds in 
 peace. At Carthage, e.g., they had their areae, 
 and it was only in a time of popular fury that 
 their right to them was disputed (Tertull. ad 
 Scap. c. 3). At Alexandria they had what they 
 had been the first to call KoifjLrjTrjpia, and it was 
 not till the persecution under Valerian and Gal- 
 lienus that they were forbidden to have access 
 to them (Euseb. B. E. vii. 11). [Cemetery.] 
 Soon afterwards, however, they must have been 
 restored, as we find Diocletian and Maximian 
 again closing them. Special edicts of this nature 
 are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule. 
 Where, as at Rome, Naples, and Milan, the na¬ 
 ture of the soil lent itself readily to subterrane¬ 
 ous interment, this was caught at as givino^ at 
 once the privacy and security which the Chris¬ 
 
 tians needed. As Christianity spread, it was not 
 difficult, by payment or by favour—often, perhaps, 
 through a secret sympathy—to obtain from the 
 owners of the land which was thus excavated a 
 prescriptive right to its use; and, as a matter of 
 fact, the sanctity of the catacombs never seems 
 to have been violated. [Catacombs.] Whatever 
 other purposes they might serve, as meeting- 
 places or refuges, this was, beyond question, 
 their primary and most lasting use. 
 
 During persecution, especially in localities 
 where there was not the facility for concealment 
 presented by the catacombs, the Christians had, 
 of course, to bury their dead as they could. 
 When the conversion of Constantine restored free 
 liberty of choice, the places which had been 
 made sacred by the bodies of saints and martyrs 
 were naturally sought after. The tomb became 
 the nucleus of a basilica. The devout Christian 
 wished to be helped by the presence and protec¬ 
 tion of the martyr (August, de Cura ger. pro 
 Mort. c. 1 and 7). The phrases POSlTOS AD 
 SAXCTOS, AD MARTYRES, are found frequently on 
 monumental inscriptions in Italy and Gaul (Le 
 Bbiiit, BaseripAions Chretiennes, i. 83). Gra¬ 
 dually, through the influence of this feeling, the 
 old Roman practice of extramural interment 
 fell into disuse. Burial within the basilica was 
 reserved for persons of the highest rank. Con¬ 
 stantine was the first to. set the example, and 
 was followed by Theodosius and Honorius (Chry- 
 sost. Horn. 26 in 2 Cor.). The distinction was 
 eagerly sought after, and the desire to obtain 
 it had to be placed under restrictions both by 
 imperial laws, as by those of Valentinian and 
 Gratian, and by the canons of councils (Cone. 
 Bracar. A.D. 563, c. 18). During the transition 
 period many cities seem to have adhered to the 
 old plan, and to have refused their sanction to 
 any intramui-al interment (ibid.). Where that 
 sanction was given, the precincts of the church, 
 sometimes its atrium or courtyard, where it was 
 constructed after the type of a basilica, became 
 the favourite spot. In the 9th century Gregory 
 of Tours supplies the first instance of a formal 
 consecration of a churchyard for such a purpose 
 (De Glor. Confess, c. 6). A special prohibition 
 against the use of the baptistery for interments 
 is found in Gaul about the same period (Cone, 
 Antissiod. c. 14). 
 
 Funeral Rites. The details of Christian 
 burial present, as might be expected, points both 
 of resemblance and contrast to heathen practices. 
 Wherever the usage was the expression of na¬ 
 tural reverence or love, there it was adopted. 
 Where it was connected with any pagan super¬ 
 stition it was carefully avoided. 
 
 (1.) Starting from the moment of death, the 
 first act of the by-standers, of the nearest of kin 
 who might be present, was to close the eyes and 
 mouth of the corpse (Euseb. H. E. vii. 22). 
 Among the Romans this had been followed by 
 reopening the eves when the body was placed 
 upon the pyre (Plin. Eat. Hist. xi. 37), probably 
 as symbolizing the thought that though they 
 had ceased to look upon the world which they 
 were leaving, they were yet on the point ot 
 passing to another state of being where they 
 would see and be seen again. Of this latter 
 custom we have no trace in Christian history. 
 Then followed the washing, the anointing, some¬ 
 times the embalming. In the society around 
 
BURIAL OF TPIE DEAD 
 
 BURIAL OF THE DEAD 253 
 
 them this had been left to the pollinctores, who 
 made it their business. With Christians it was 
 a work of love, done for friends and kindred, or 
 even for straneers and the poor (Euseb. //. E. 
 vii. 22). 
 
 (2.) In Palestine and throughout the East 
 generally interment followed upon death after 
 an interval of a few hours, during which the 
 hired mourners made their lamentations (Matt, 
 ix. 23; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Jerem. xxii. 18). 
 This was due in part, of course, to the rapidity 
 with which decomposition sets in under such a 
 climate, but still more to the feeling common to 
 both Jew and heathen, that the ])resence of the 
 dead body bi'ought defilement to the house and 
 its inmates. Here also Christian thought shewed 
 itself in contrast, and the interval between death 
 and burial was gradually prolonged to three or 
 four days. The body was swathed in white 
 linen, sometimes with the insignia of office, or 
 with ornaments of gold and gems, placed in the 
 coffin or sarcophagus, and laid out, sometimes in 
 the chamber of death, sometimes in the church, 
 that friends might come and weep and take their 
 last look (Euseb. Vit. Const, iv. 66, 67; Ambros. 
 Omt. in obit. Theodos.; August. Conff. ix. 12). 
 V^igils were held over it, accompanied by pi’ayers 
 and hymns. Hired mourners, like those of the 
 East or the pt'aeficae of the Romans, were not 
 allowed. 
 
 (3.) The feeling that a funeral was a thing of evil 
 omen for the eye to fall on led the Romans to choose 
 night as the time for interment.^ The Christian 
 Church, on the contrary, as soon as it was able 
 to develop itself freely, and was free from the 
 risk of outrage, chose the day, and gave to the 
 funeral procession somewhat of the character of 
 a triumph. The coffin was borne on the shoulders 
 of the nearest fiiends and kinsmen. Whei’e, as 
 in the case of Paula (Hieron. 27 ad Eustoch.), 
 honour was to be shewn to some conspicuous 
 benefactor of the Church, it was carried by the 
 bishops and the clergy. The leading clergy of 
 a diocese took their place as bearers at the funeral 
 of a bishop, as, e. g. in that of St. Basil (Greg. 
 Naz. Orat. xx. p. 371). They and the others 
 who took part in the ceremonial carried in their 
 hands branches, not of the funereal cypress, as 
 among Greeks and Romans, but of palm and olive, 
 as those who celebrate a victory. Leaves of the 
 evergreen,laurel and ivy were placed in the coffin 
 in token of the hope of immortality (Durand. 
 Eat. div. off. vii. 35). Others, Jigain, in like token 
 of Christian joy, carried lighted lamps or torches 
 (Chrysost. Horn. IV. in Hehr.; Greg. Nyss. Vit. 
 Macrin. ii. p. 201). The practice of crowning 
 the head with a wreath of flowers was rejected,** 
 partly as tainted with idolatry, partly as asso¬ 
 ciated with riotous revels or shameless effeminacy 
 (Clem. Alex. Paedag. ii. 8; Tertull. de Cor. Milit. 
 c. 10), but flowers were scattered freely over the 
 body. Others, again, carried thuribles, and fra¬ 
 grant clouds of incense rose as in a Roman 
 
 a Julian, in his edict against the practice of funeral 
 processions, occasioned by those which had been held at 
 Antioch in honour of the martyr Baby las, falls back 
 upon the old superstition: “ (Ju* enim dies est bene aus- 
 picatus a funere? Aut quomodo ad Decs et templa 
 venletur."— Cod. Theod. lx. tit. 17, L 5. 
 
 •> The denial of what had come to be a recognized 
 mark of honour was turned in the earlier ages of the 
 Church into a ground of attack. " Coronas etiam sepulchris 
 
 triumph (Baron. Annal. a.d. 310, n. 10; Chrysost. 
 Bom. cxvi. 1. 6). Nor did they march in silence, 
 but chanted as they went hymns of hope and 
 joy. “ Right dear in the sight of the Lord is the 
 death of His saints“ Turn again unto thy 
 rest, 0 my soul, for the Lord hath rewarded 
 thee;” “ The souls of the righteous are in the 
 hand of God ”—were among the favourite an¬ 
 thems {Constt. Apost. vi. 30; Chrysost. Born. 
 30, de Do)'ni.'). Bells were not tolled till the 
 eighth or ninth century, nor can the practice of 
 carrying the cross in the procession be traced 
 beyond the sixth (Greg. Turon. Vit. Patr. c. 14). 
 When they reached the grave, hymns and prayers 
 were renewed, and were followed by an address 
 from the bishop or priest.® 
 
 (4.) Either in the church or at the grave it 
 was customary, as early as the fourth century, 
 to have a celebration of the eucharist in token 
 of the communion that still existed between the 
 living and the dead. (123 C. Carth. iii. c. 29). 
 With this were united special prayers for the soul 
 of the departed. The priest first, and afterwards 
 the other friends, gave the corpse the last kiss of 
 peace (Dionys. Aroop. Hierarch. Eccles. c. 7). For 
 some centuries, in spite of repeated prohibitions by 
 councils of the Church, the practice prevailed, in 
 Western Africa, in Gaul, in the East, of placing 
 the consecrated bread itself, steeped in the wine, 
 within the lips of the dead (C. Carth. iii. c. 6; 
 vi. c. 83 ; C. Antissiod. c. 12 ; C. Trullan. c. 133). 
 Another practice, that of burying the Eucharistic 
 bread with the dead, though not between the 
 lips, had a higher sanction. St. Basil is reported, 
 on one occasion, after consecration, to have divided 
 the Eucharist into three parts, and to have re¬ 
 served one to be buried with him (Amphilochius 
 in Spicileg. vii. p. 81) ; and St. Benedict, in like 
 manner, ordered it to be laid upon the breast of 
 a young monk, as he was placed in the grave. 
 (Greg. Dialog, ii. 24 ; cf. Martene de Ant. 
 Eccles. Bit. i. 162, ed. 1.) The old union of the 
 Agape and the Supper of the Lord left traces 
 of itself here also, and the Eucharist was fol¬ 
 lowed by a meal, ostensibly of brotherhood, or 
 as an act of bounty to the poor, but often passing* 
 into riotous excess (August, de Mor. Eccl. c. 34). 
 
 When the body was lowered into the grave it 
 was with the face turned upwards, and with the 
 feet towards the east, in token of the sure and 
 certain hope of the coming of the Sun of 
 Righteousness and the resurrection of the dead 
 (Chrysost. Bom, cxvi. t. vi.). Other positions, 
 such as sitting or standing, were exceptions to 
 the general rule (Arringhi, Roma subt. c. 16, 
 p. 33). The insignia of office, if the deceased 
 had held any such position — gold and silver 
 ornaments, in the case of private persons—were 
 often flung into the open grave, and the waste 
 and ostentation to which this led had to be 
 checked by an imperial edict (^Cod. Theodos. xi. 
 tit. 7, 1. 14), which does not appear, however, to 
 have been very rigidly enforced. The practice 
 
 denegatls” is the language of the heathen in the Octavius 
 of Minucius Felix; and the Christian in his reply ac¬ 
 knowledges “uec mortuos coronamus” (c. xii. x.\xviii.). 
 Flowers were however scattered over the grave (Pru¬ 
 dent. Caihetnerinon, x. 177.) 
 
 ® The tuneral orations of Eusehius at the death of Con¬ 
 stantine, of Ambrose on that of Theodosius, are the most 
 memorable instances; but we have also those of Grr'gory 
 of Nazianzum on his father brother, and slater. 
 
?54 BUKIAL OF THE LORD 
 
 retained in our English service, of a solemn 
 prayer while the first handfuls of earth are 
 thrown upon the coffin, is not traceable to any 
 early period. In the Greek Euchologion the 
 earth is cast in by the bishop or priest himself. 
 When the grave was closed the service ended 
 with the Lord’s Prayer and Benediction. 
 
 There were, however, subsequent rites con¬ 
 nected more or less normally with the burial. 
 On the third day, on the ninth, and on the for¬ 
 tieth, the friends of the deceased met and joined 
 in paslms or hymns and prayers (^Constt. Apost. 
 viii. c. 42). 
 
 The feeling that death in the case of those 
 who fell asleep in Christ was a cause not for 
 lamentation but for thanksgiving, shewed itself 
 lastly in the disuse of the mourning apparel 
 which was common among the Romans, of the 
 ashes and rent garments, which were signs of 
 sorrow with the Jews. Instead of black clothes, 
 men were to wear the dress which they wore at 
 feasts. The common practice was denounced as 
 foreign to the traditions and the principles of 
 the Christian Church (Cyprian, de Mortal, p. 115 ; 
 August. Serm. 2, de Consol. Mort.). Here, how¬ 
 ever, the natural feeling was too strong to be 
 thrust out, and gradually the old signs of a 
 sorrow, which could not but be felt, even though 
 it were blended with hope, made their way into 
 use again. 
 
 It was characteristic of the religious care 
 with which the Church regarded every work 
 connected with the burial of the dead, that even 
 those whose tasks were of the lowest kind, the 
 grave-diggers (Koirtarot, fossarii), the sanda- 
 pilarii. and others, whose functions corresponded 
 to those of the undertaker’s men in our own 
 time, were not merely a class doing their work 
 as a trade, but were reckoned as servants of the 
 Church, and as such took their place as the lowest 
 order of the clergy. 
 
 The more developed and formal ritual of in¬ 
 terment in the Eastern Church is given at some 
 length by the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, 
 and contained, as its chief elements, the fbllow- 
 'ing :—(1) The body was brought to the bisherp 
 or priest by the next of kin, that he might offer 
 thanksgiving as for one who had fought the 
 good fight, and the relations sang triumphant 
 and rejoicing hymns. (2) The deacons recited 
 the chief Scriptural promises of the resurrection 
 and of eternal life, and sang creeds and hymns of 
 like tenor. (3) The catechumens were then dis¬ 
 missed, and the archdeacon spoke to the faithful 
 who remained, of the bliss of the departed, and 
 exhorted them to follow their example. (4) The 
 priest then prayed that the deceased might find 
 a resting-place with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
 in the land wffiere sorrow and sighing should flee 
 away. (5) The bishop, followed by the kindred 
 or friends, then gave the corpse the kiss of peace. 
 (6) When this was over, the bishop poured oil 
 upon the dead body, and it was then placed in 
 the grave. The anointing of baptism was to 
 prepare the athlete for his conflict: that of 
 burial was a token that the conflict was over, 
 and the combatant at rest. (^Eccles. Hierarch. 
 vii. p. 359.) [E. H. P.] 
 
 BURIAL OF THE LORD. Easter-Eve in 
 the Armenian Calendar is called the Burial 
 of the Lord (Neale, Eastern Ch. Introd. p. 
 798). [C.] 
 
 BYZATIUIVI, COUNCIL OP 
 
 BUTTA, BUTTO or BUTRO. (Several kin¬ 
 dred forms are given by Du Cange, s. v. Butta.) In 
 some MSS. of the Liber Bontijicalis we read that 
 Leo III. (79.5-816) 
 caused to be made 
 for the venerable 
 monastery of St. 
 
 Sabas, “ butronem 
 [al. buttonem] ar- 
 genteum cum canis- 
 tro SuO pensantem 
 libr. xii.” Leo IV. 
 
 (847-855) is also re¬ 
 ported by the same 
 authority to have 
 placed in the church 
 of St. Peter, “ bu¬ 
 tronem ex argentO Single Butu., as Liimp. 
 
 purissimo, qui pen- 
 
 det in presbyterio ante altare, pensantem libr. 
 cxlix ”; and another, also of pure silver, “ cum ga- 
 batis argenteis pendentibus in catenulis septem.” 
 
 These buttones seem to have been suspended 
 cups used for lamps. [Compai-e Canistrcm, 
 Gabatha.] The illustrations are from the Hie- 
 rolexicon; the first represents a single sus¬ 
 pended hutto, from an ancient representation; 
 the second, a corona with three hanging hat- 
 tones, from an ancient painting once existing in 
 St. Peter’s at Rome. 
 
 Buttones used as Lamps. 
 
 The form butrista is used, apparently in the 
 same sense, by Alcuin, Poem. 165. (Du Cange’s 
 Glossary ; Maori Hierolexicon, s. v. Butto.) 
 
 Martene (de Ant. Eccl. Bit. iii. 96) describes 
 a buta as used for fetching and preserving the 
 Chrism, according to an ancient custom, in the 
 church of St. Martin at Tours. lC.J 
 
 BYBLINUS, in Caesarea ; commemorated 
 Nov. 5 (Mart. Hieron.'). [C.] 
 
 BYZACENUM CONCILIUM. [Byza- 
 TiuM, Council of.] 
 
 BYZATIUM, COUNCIL OF (Byzacentjm 
 Concilium), provincial, at Byzatium in Africa. 
 (1) A.D. 397, to confirm the canons of the 
 Council of Hippo of A.D. 39.3 : its Synodical 
 Letter is in the Acts of the Third Council of 
 
CALCULATORES 
 
 255 
 
 BYZATIUM, OOUNCIT. OF 
 
 Carthage of the same year, 397 (Mansi, iii. 875). 
 —( 2 ) A.ii. 507, a jQumerous Council, wliich in¬ 
 sisted on filling up vacant bishoprics. King Thrasa- 
 mund having forbidden this in order to extinguish 
 the orthodox Church (Ferrand. Diac., V. Fulgent. 
 xvi.; Labb. iv. 1378-1380).—( 3 ) A.D. 541, sent 
 a deputation to the emperor Justinian, who in 
 reply confirms all the canonical privileges of the 
 metro 2 )olitan of Carthage (Dacianus), and of the 
 African jorimates (^Rescripts of Justinian to the 
 Council and to Dacianus, in Baron, ad an. 541; 
 Labbe, v. 380).—( 4 ) a.d. 602, in the cause of 
 Crementius, or Clementius, or Clementinus, 
 primate of the province, held at the instigation 
 of Gregory the Great (Epistt. xii. 32), who ex¬ 
 horts the comprovincial bishops to inquire into, 
 and adjudicate upon, certain accusations that 
 were current against their metropolitan (Labbe, 
 v. 1612).—( 5 ) a.d. 646, under Stephen the me¬ 
 tropolitan, against the Monothelites (Labbe, v. 
 1835, vi. 133). [A. W. H.] 
 
 C 
 
 CABERSUSSA, COUNCIL OF. [African 
 
 Councils.] 
 
 CABILLONENSE CONCILIUM. [Cha- 
 
 loxs-sur-Sa6ne.] 
 
 CAECILIA, virgin-mai'tyr at Home, is com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 22 (^Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CAECTLIANUS, martyr at Saragossa, com¬ 
 memorated April 16 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CAECILIUS, with others “ qui Romae ab 
 apostolis ordinati sunt,” is commemorated May 15 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet.'). [0.] 
 
 CAESAR - A UGUSTANUM CONCI¬ 
 LIUM. [Saragossa.] 
 
 CAESAREA, COUNCILS OF. (1) In 
 Palestine, a.d. 196, according to CaA^e {Hist. Lit. 
 i. 97) on the Easter controversy that had arisen 
 between Pope Victor and the churches of Asia 
 Minor,—Narcissus of Jerusalem, Theophilus of 
 Cae.sarea, Cassius of Tyre, and Clarus of Ptole- 
 mais being jiresent, as Ave learn from Eusebius 
 (A^ 25). They beg, in Avhat he has preserved of 
 their letter, to be understood as keeping Ea.ster 
 on the same day as the Church of Alexandria. 
 But, curiously enough, seA'eral Aversions of the 
 acts of this Council haA'e been discoA’ered in the 
 West, beginning Avith that ascribed to Bede 
 (i^ligne’s Patrol, xc. 607 ; comp. Mansi i. 711- 
 716) at much greater length : the only question 
 is, are they in keeping with the aboA'e letter ? 
 
 ( 2 ) In Palestine (Mansi ii. 1122), summoned 
 a.d. 331, to inquire into the truth of some 
 charges brought against St. Athanasius by his 
 euemie.s, but not held till 334, when he Avas fur¬ 
 ther accused of having kept the Council ap¬ 
 pointed to try them, Avaiting thirty months. He 
 knew too well to Avhat party the bishop of the 
 diocese, and father of ecclesiastical history, 
 belonged, to appear even then; and on his non- 
 appearance, proceedings had to be adjourned to 
 the Council of Tyre the year folloAving. 
 
 (3) In Palestine, a.d. 357 or 358 apparently, 
 under Acacius its Metropolitan, when St. Cyril 
 
 of Jerusalem was deposed (Soz. iv. 25). So¬ 
 crates (ii. 40) adds that he appealed from its 
 sentence to a higher tribunal, a course hitherto 
 without precedent in canonical u.sage; and that 
 his appeal Avas allowed by the emperor. 
 
 ( 4 ) In Pontus, or Neocaesarea, A.D. 358, ac¬ 
 cording to Pagi (Mansi iii. 291), at which Eusta¬ 
 thius, bishop of Sebaste, was deposed; and 
 Melatius, afteiAvards bishop of Antioch, set in 
 his place. 
 
 (5) In Cappadocia, A.D. 370 or 371, when 
 St. Basil was constituted bishop in the room of 
 Eusebius, its former Metropolitan, Avhom he had 
 been assisting some years, though he had been 
 oi-dained deacon by St. Meletius. The Lihellus 
 Synodicus, a work of the ninth century (Mansi 
 i. 25, note) makes St. Basil anathematise 
 Dianius, the iiredecessor of his OAvn prede¬ 
 cessor at this synod; but St. Basil himself 
 (Ep. li. al. Ixxxvi.) denies eA’er having done so. 
 Further on in his epistles (xcviii. al. cclix.) 
 he seems to speak of another synod about to be 
 held in his diocese, to settle the question of 
 jurisdiction betAveen him and the Metropolitan 
 of Tyana, consequent on the dii'ision of Cappa¬ 
 docia by the civil jiOAver into two provinces. 
 St. Basil stood upon his ancient rights: but 
 eA^entually the matter Avas compromised, as Ave 
 learn from his friend St. Gregory {Oral, xliii. 
 
 § 59 al. XX.), by the erection of more sees in each, 
 the carrying out of Avhich, hoAveA^er beneficial to 
 their country, proved so nearly fatal to their 
 friendship. The date assigned to this Council 
 by Mansi (iii. 453) is A.D. 372. [E. S. Ff.] • 
 
 CAESARIUS. ( 1 ) Bishop of Arles, comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 27 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Deacon and martyr, is commemorated 
 Nov. 1 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 3 ) Martyr under Decius, is commemorated 
 
 Nov. 3 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CAINICHUS, abbat in Scotland, comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 11 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CAIUS. (1) Gains of Corinth is comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 4 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 ( 2 ) Martyr at Bologna, Jan. 4 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 3 ) Palatinus, martyr, March 4 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 4 ) Martyr at Apamea under Antoninus Verus, 
 March 10 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Militana in Armenia, April 19 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Pope, martyr at Rome under Diocletian, 
 April 22 {Kal. BucJter., Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 ( 7 ) Martyr at Nicomedia, Oct. 21 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Usuai-di). 
 
 (8) Martyr at Messina, Nov. 20 {Mart. Rom. 
 
 Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CALCHUTHENSE CONCILIUM. [Ceal- 
 
 CHVTHE.] 
 
 CALCUTiATORES, or according to Pertz, 
 CAUCULATORES, casters of horoscopes. This 
 term does not appear to figure in church history 
 till the time of Charlemagne. An ecclesiastical 
 capitulary of 789, dated from Aix-la-Chapelle, 
 referring to the precepts of the Pentateuch 
 against Avdtchci’aft and sorcery, enacts that 
 “there shall be no calculators, nor enchanters, 
 nor storm-raisers (tempestarii), or obligatores {1) ; 
 and Avherever they are, let them amend or be 
 condemned ”—the punishment being apparently 
 
256 
 
 CAlENDAR 
 
 CALENDAR 
 
 left to the discretion of the jhidge (c. 64). The 
 term figures again, and in much the same com¬ 
 pany, in a similar enactment contained in certain 
 “ Capitula Excerpta ” of the year 802, also dated 
 from Aix-la-Chapelle (c. 40). [J. M. L.] 
 
 CALENDAR {Kakndariuin^ Com,putus^ Dis- 
 trihutio Ojficiorum per circulum totius anni, firjya?- 
 ov €opra(rTLK6u, r)iJL€po\6'Yiov, e(priiJ.€p'is : later, 
 KaK^vrdpLov.') It does not belong to this article 
 to treat of the calendar except in its ecclesiastical 
 form as used for liturgical purposes during the 
 first eight centuries of the Christian era. The 
 early Christian communities continued to use 
 the mode of reckoning and naming days and 
 years which existed in the countries in which 
 they had their origin. The distinctive church 
 calendar exists for the purpose of denoting the 
 days, either of a given year, or of any year, 
 which are marked for religious celebration. 
 
 First among these liturgical requirements is 
 the specification of the Lord’s Day. This was 
 facilitated by a contrivance borrowed from the 
 heathen Roman calendar. [Sunday Letter.] 
 
 But together with the week of seven davs, 
 of which the first day or Sunday was assigned to 
 the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection, there 
 existed from the earliest times a yearly com¬ 
 memoration which, eventually, by general con¬ 
 sent of the churches, at first divided on this 
 point (Easter), was assigned to the Sunday 
 next after the day on which, according to cer¬ 
 tain calculations, the Jews were, or should 
 have been, celebrating their Passover, that is, 
 the day of the full moon nearest to the vernal 
 equinox. Hence the year of the Christian 
 calendar is partly solar of the Julian form, 
 partly lunar. All the Sundays which are related 
 to Easter, i.e. all from our Septuagesima Sun¬ 
 day to the last Sunday after Trinity, change 
 their places year by year: the rest, i.e. from 
 1 Advent to the Sunday before Septuagesima 
 shifting only to a place one day later; in leap- 
 years, two. About the middle of the 4th cen¬ 
 tury, the Nativity of Christ, until then com¬ 
 memorated, if at all. on the 6th January, was 
 fixed to the 25th December [Christmas]. And 
 as other days, commemorative of bishops, mar¬ 
 tyrs, and apostles came to be celebrated, these 
 also were noted in the fixed calendar. 
 
 The calendar existed in two forms : one, in 
 which all the days of the year were noted, with 
 specification of months and w’eeks: the other, 
 a list of the holy days, with or without specifi¬ 
 cation of the month date. Of the full calendar, 
 what seems to be the earliest extant specimen 
 is furnished by a fragment of a Gothic calendar, 
 composed, probably, in Thrace in the 4th cen¬ 
 tury, edited by l\Iai, Script, vet. nova collectio, 
 V. i. 66-68. Comp, de Gabelentz, Ulphilas, ii. i, 
 p. xvii. Krafft, Kirch. Gesch. der germanischen 
 Vglker, i. 1, 371, 385-387. This fragment gives 
 only the thirty-eight days from 23 October to 
 30 November. It assigns the festivals of seven 
 saints, two of the New Testament, three of the 
 Universal Church, two local, namely Gothic. 
 Not less ancient, perhaps, is a Roman calendar, 
 of the time of Constantins IL, forming part of a 
 collection of chronographical pieces written by 
 the calligrapher, Furius Dionysius Filocalus, in 
 the year 354; edited, after others, by Kollar, 
 Analect. Vindobon. i. 961, sqq. This, while re¬ 
 taining the astronomical and astrological notes 
 
 of the old Roman calendars, with some of the 
 heathen festivals, is so far Christian that, side 
 by side with the old nundinal letters A—H, it 
 gives also the dominical letters, A—G, of the 
 ecclesiastical year; but it does not specify any 
 of the Christian holy days. (Comp. Ideler, Hdb. 
 2, 140.) Next in point of antiquity is the 
 calendar composed by Polemeus Silvius, in the 
 year 448, edited by the Bollandists, Acta Sanc¬ 
 torum Januar. vii. 176 ff. This is a full Roman 
 calendar adapted to Christian use, not only as 
 that of A.D. 354, just noticed, by specification of 
 the Lord’s Days, but with some few holy days 
 added, namely, four in connexion with Christ, 
 and six for commemoration of martyrs. 
 
 Of the short calendar, the most ancient speci¬ 
 men is that which was first edited by Bucherius, 
 de Doctrina Temporum., c. xv. 266 sqq. (Antwerp, 
 1634)—a work of Roman origin dating from 
 about the middle of the 4th century, as appears 
 from the contents, as also from the fact that it 
 is included in the collection of Filocalus, thence 
 edited by Kollar, u. s.; also with a learned com¬ 
 mentary by Lambecius, Catal. Codd. MSS. in 
 Biblioth. Caesar. Vinddton. iv. 277 ff., and by 
 Graevius Thes. viii. It consists of two por¬ 
 tions, of which the first is a list of twelve 
 popes from Lucius to Julius (predecessor of 
 Liberius), A.D. 253-352; not complete, how¬ 
 ever, for Sixtus (Xystus) has his place among 
 the martyi’s, and Marcellus is omitted. The 
 other part gives names and days of twenty-t^yo 
 martyrs, all Roman, including besides Xystus, 
 those of earlier popes, Fabianus, Calli.stus, and 
 Pontianus. Together with these, the Feast of 
 the Nativity is noted on 25th December, and that 
 of the Cathedra Petri assigned to 22nd February. 
 
 A similar list of Roman festivals with a 
 lectionary (^Capitulare Evangeliorum totius aymi') 
 was edited by Fronto (Paris, 1652, and in his 
 Epistolae ct Dissertat. ecclesiasticae., p. 107-233, 
 Veron. 1733), from a manuscript written in 
 letters of gold, belonging to the convent of St. 
 Gonevi&ve at Paris. This seems to have been 
 composed in the first half of the 8th century. 
 Another, also Roman, edited by Martene, Thes. 
 Analect. v. 65, is perhaps of later date. 
 
 A calendar of the church of Carthage, of the like 
 form, discovered by Mabillon,by Ruinart appended 
 to his Acta Martyrum., is by them assigned to 
 the 5th century. It contains only festivals of 
 bishops and martyrs, mostly local. It opens with 
 the title, “ Ilic contiuentur dies natalitiorum 
 martyrum et depositiones cpiscoporum quos 
 ecclesiae Carthaginis anniversaria celebrant.” 
 
 As each church had its own bishops and 
 martyrs, each needed in this regard {i.e. for the 
 days marked for the Depositiones Episcoponan 
 and Natalitia Martyinim') its separate calendar. 
 It belonged to the bishop to see that these lists 
 were properly drawn up for the use of the 
 church. And to this effect we find St. Cyprian 
 in his 36th epistle exhorting his clergy to make 
 known to him the days on which the confessors 
 suffered. “Dies eorum, quibus excedunt, nun- 
 ciate ut commemorationes eorum inter memorias 
 martyrum celebrare possimus. Quamquam 
 Tertullus ...... scripserit et scribat et sig- 
 
 nificet mihi dies, quibus in carcere beati fratres 
 nostri ad immortalitatem gloriosae mortis exitu 
 transeunt, et celebrentur hie a nobis oblationes 
 et sacrificia ob commemorationes eorum.” Out 
 
CALENDAK 
 
 CALENDAR 
 
 257 
 
 of these calendar notices grew the MartyrO- ! 
 LOGIKS which, however, they greatly surpass | 
 in autnority and importance. For the calen¬ 
 dar, being essential as a liturgical directory, 
 was therefore composed only by the bishop or 
 by some high officer of the church appointed by 
 him. Nothing could be added to, or altered in, 
 the calendar but by his authority. It was 
 accordingly prefixed or appended to the Sacra- 
 mentaries and other liturgical books. As an 
 example of an early form of this liturgical 
 calendar, the following is here given from the 
 Resp insoriale and Antiphonarium ascribed to St. 
 Gregory the Great (ed. Thomasius):— 
 
 Specimen distributionis officiorum per circulum 
 anni. 
 
 Donilnica I. Adventus Do 
 
 mini. 
 
 Dominica II. ante Nativ. 
 Domini. 
 
 Natale S. Luciae Virginis. 
 Dom. III. ante Nativ. Do¬ 
 mini. 
 
 Dom. V. 
 
 Responsoria do Psalmis. 
 Diebus Dominicis Anti- 
 phonae. 
 
 Vigilla S. Sebastiani. 
 
 Natale S. Agnetis. 
 Furificatio S. Mariae. 
 
 Dom. proxima ante Nat. Vigilla et Natale S. Agnae. 
 
 [)oni. Adunatio S. Mariae. 
 
 Vigilia Nat. Dom. Dominica in LX.Kma. 
 
 Naiivitas Domini. Dom. in L.Xma. 
 
 Natale S Stcphaiii. Dom. in Lma. (sen Carnis- 
 
 „ S Joaniiis. privii et excarnaliorum). 
 
 „ SS. Innocentium. Dom. I. in XLa. 
 
 Dom. I. post Nat. Dom. Dom. II. 
 
 Vigilia Octavae Nat. Dom. Dom. III. 
 
 Kpiphania (sen Thco- Dom. in medio XLmae (seu 
 pliania). de Jerusalem) 
 
 Octava lipiphaniae. Lactare (vc I de Rosa). 
 
 Dominica I. post Tbeo- Dom. de Passlone Domini 
 phaiiiam. (seu Mediana). 
 
 Dom. II. Dom. in Palmis (seu In- 
 
 Dom. III. dulgentiae). 
 
 Dom. IV. Vigilia Coenae Domini. 
 
 Parasceve. Dominica post Ascensum 
 
 Saiibatnm sanctum. Domini (seu Item de 
 
 Vigiliae S. Paschae. Rosa). 
 
 Dominica S. Pascliae. Pentecoste. 
 
 Dom. octava Paschae (seu, Octava Pentecostes. 
 
 post albas pascbales). Vigilia Nativltatis S. 
 
 Dom. 1. post Pascha. Joannae Baptistae. 
 
 Dom. 11. (Sic sequuntur offlcia pro- 
 
 Dom. 111. pria de S metis usque ad 
 
 Dom. IV. Adventum). 
 
 Litanla major. Commnnia Oiticia. 
 
 Vigilia Apostol. Philippi et Responsoria de libro Re- 
 
 Jacobi. gum, Sapientiae, Job, 
 
 Dom. 111. etIV. in Pascha Tobia, Judith, Esther, de 
 
 R. R. de Auctoritate. historia Machubaeorum 
 
 Dom. V. et VI. in ,Pa.scba de Projihetis. 
 
 R. R. de p.salmis. Antiphonae ad hymnum 
 
 In Natalitiis Ss. infra trium puerorum. 
 
 Pascha. De Can-ico Zachariae. S. 
 
 In Natalitiis unius Mar- .Mariae. 
 
 tyris sive Confessoris. Antiphonae dominicis die- 
 
 In S. Crucis Inventione. bus post Pentecosten a 
 
 in exaltatione S. Crucis. L. usque ad XXIV. 
 
 Ascensio Domini. 
 
 A knowledge of the calendar, being indispen¬ 
 sable for the due performance of the liturgy, was 
 one of the essential qualifications for the priestly 
 office. It is a frequent injunction in the capi- 
 tula of bishops, “ presbyteri coinputum discant.” 
 A canon of the council of Aix-la-Chapelle, a.d. 
 789, c. 70, and the Capitulare rnterrogationis, 
 A.D. 811, of Charlemagne, i. 68, enjoin (with a 
 view to the supply of qualified persons) “ ut 
 scholae legentium puerorum fiant, psalmos, 
 
 notas, cantum, computurn, grammaticam. 
 
 discant.” For instruction in this department of 
 clerical education and ecclesiastical learning, 
 treatises more or less copious were provided. 
 An elaborate work of this kind is the de Cwnputo 
 of Rabanus Maurus, archbishop of Mayence 
 (a.d. 847), edited by Baluxius, Miscellan. t. i. 
 p. 1, sqq. Yearly, on the feast of Epiphany, the 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 bishop announced the date of Easter for that 
 year, as enjoined e.g. by the 4th Council of 
 Orleans, A.D. 541, can. 1 (Bruns, ii. 201): and from 
 him the clergy, together with this announcement, 
 received notice of any new festival appointed, in 
 order that the same might be eutei-ed in their 
 calendar, and made known to the people. 
 
 It results, partly fi’om these subsequent addi¬ 
 tions made to the original texts of the calendars, 
 which cannot always be discriminated in the 
 MSS. by difference of handwriting, colour of the 
 ink, and other palaeographical criteria, that it is 
 not always easy to say to what age, or to what 
 province of the Church, a given calendar belongs. 
 It is doubtful whether any of them contains the 
 genuine materials of such lists existing in times 
 earlier than the beginning of the 4th century. 
 For of these lists, scarcely any can be supposed 
 to have escaped, in the Diocletian persecufion, 
 from the rigorous search then decreed for the 
 general destruction not only of the copies of 
 the Scriptures, but of all liturgical and ecclesi¬ 
 astical documents, among which the calendars, 
 lists of bishops and martyrs, and acts of martyrs, 
 held an important place (Euseb. H. E. viii. 2; 
 Arnob. adv. Gentes, iv. 36). Some rules, how¬ 
 ever, which may help to determine the relative 
 antiquity of extant calendars, may be thus sum¬ 
 marized, chiefly fi’om Binterim, Denkwilrdig- 
 kerten^ v. i. 20, sqq.:— 
 
 1. Brevity and simplicity in the statement 
 concerning the holy-day are characteristic of the 
 earlier times. Only the name of the martyr 
 was given, without title or eulogy; even the 
 prefix S. or B. (sancius, beat us) is sparingly 
 used. Sometimes the martyrs of a whole pro¬ 
 vince are included under a single entry. Thus 
 the Calendar of Carthage, in which eighty-one 
 days are marked, has, at 2 Kal. Jan. Sanctorum 
 Temidemium; 15 Kal. Aug. SS. Soilitanorum. 
 In several other calendars, one name is given, with 
 the addition, et sociorum (or comitum), ejiis. 
 
 2. To one day only one celebration is assigned 
 in the oldest calendars. “ Commemorationes ” 
 were unknown or very rai’e in the earlier times. 
 These seem to have come into use in the 9th 
 century, by reason of the increasing number of 
 saints’ days. 
 
 3. The relative antiquity of a calendar is 
 especially indicated by the paucity, or entire 
 absence, of days assigned to the B. Virgin Mary. 
 Writers of the Church of Rome satisfy them¬ 
 selves in respect of this fact with the explana¬ 
 tion, that the days assigned to the Lord in¬ 
 clude the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin 
 Mother. Thus, for example, Morcelli (A/V. 
 Christiana, cited by Binterim, u. s. p. 14) ac¬ 
 counts for the entire silence of the Calend. 
 Carthag. concerning the days of the V. Mary; 
 and the like explanation is given of the fact tha^- 
 of St. Augustine we have no sermon preached for 
 a festiv’al of the Virgin. 
 
 4. Another note of antiquity is the absence of 
 
 all saints’ days and other celebrations from the 
 period during which Lent falls. Thus March 
 and April in the Carthaginian Calendar exhibit 
 no such days; and the like blank appears in the 
 calendars of Bucherius aod Fronto. For the 
 51st canon of the Council of Laodicea (cir. a.d. 
 352) enjoins: '6ti ov Se? ir TfcraapaKorTg 
 papTvpwv yevfdKiov itriTeXelv aWa ruu ayicvv 
 papTupwv fjLViiav noieir iy aaBf^arois Kal 
 
258 
 
 CA1.EP0DIUS 
 
 GAT>L TO THE MINISTRY 
 
 KvpiaKa7s' “a martyr’s day must not be kept 
 during the quadragesima, but must (at that 
 time) be reserved for sabbaths and Lord’s-days ” 
 (Bruns, i. 78). And with this agreed the rule 
 of the Latin Chui-ch, as expressed in the 1st 
 canon of the 10th Council of Toledo, A.D. 656 
 (Bruns, i. 298), where, with especial reference 
 to the falling of Lady-day (F. of Annunciation, 
 25 Mar.) in Lent, or on Easter-day itself, it is 
 said: “ eadem festivitas non potest celebrari 
 condigne, cum interdum quadragesimae dies vel 
 paschale festum videtur incumbere, in quibus 
 nihil de sanctorum soleranitatibus, sicut ex anti- 
 quitate regulari cautum est, convenit celebrari.” 
 
 5. Before the 5th century, no day of canonised 
 bishop or other .saint is marked to be kept as 
 festival, unless he was also a martyr. The oc¬ 
 currence of any such day is a sure indication 
 that the calendar is of later date than A.D. 400; 
 or, that the entry is of later insertion. To the 
 bishops is assigned the term Deposition to the 
 martyrs, Natalis or Natalitium. 
 
 6. Vigils are of rare occurrence in the olde.st 
 calendars. Not one vigil is noted in the Kal. 
 Bucherianum and Kal. Carthaginense. The 
 Kal. Frontonianum (supra') has four. A Gallican 
 Calendar of A.D. 826, edited by d’Achery (Spi- 
 cileg. X. 130), has five ; and another, by Martene, 
 for which he claims an earlier date ( Thes. Anecd. 
 V. 65), has nine. 
 
 For the determination of the Province or 
 Church to which a Calendar belongs, the only 
 criterion to be relied on is the preponderance in 
 it of names of martyrs and saints known to be 
 of that diocese or province. Naturally, each 
 Church would honour most its own confessors 
 and champions of the faith. Especially does 
 this rule hold in respect of the bishops, whose 
 names, unless they were also martyrs or other¬ 
 wise men of highest note in the Church, would 
 not be likely to obtain a place in the calendars 
 of other than their own Churches. 
 
 The Greek Church had its calendars, under the 
 title i(pr)ij.epis (eopTaariKT]), fnjvaTov (eopr.)’, 
 later, KaXeyrdpiou, which, as containing the 
 offices for each celebration, grew into enormous 
 dimensions. One such, with the designation, 
 Mrfvo\6yiov twv ei/ayyeKiuu eopracrriKhu sive 
 K ilendarimn Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, 
 edited from a manuscript in the Albani Library 
 by Morcelli, fills two quarto volumes, Rome, 
 1788. But the title privo\6yiov corresponds 
 not with the Latin Kalendarium, but with the 
 Martyrologium. Cave, in a dissertation ap¬ 
 pended to his Ilistoria Literaria, part ii. (de 
 Libris et officiis ecclesiasticis Graecorum, p. 43) 
 describes the uaXeurdpiov or Ephemeris ecclesi.ts- 
 tica in usum totius anni, as a digest of all church 
 festivals and fasts for tbe twelve months, day by 
 day, beginning with September. “ That calen¬ 
 dars of this kind wei’e composed for the use of 
 the churches is plain from Biblioth. Vindobon. 
 Cod. Hist. Eccl. xcvii. num. xiii., which gives a 
 letter written by the head of some monastery in 
 reply to questions concerning monastic observ¬ 
 ances of holydays; to which is appended a com¬ 
 plete Church Calendar.” [H. B.] 
 
 CALEPODIUS, aged presbyter, martyr , at 
 Rome under the emperor Alexander Severus, 
 commemorated May 10 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CALF. Irrespectively of its moaning as 
 symbol of an Evangelist, the image of the 
 calf or ox is held by Aringhi (lib. vi. ch. 
 xxxii. vol. ii. p. 320) to represent the Christian 
 soul, standing to Christ in the same relation as 
 the sheep to the shepherd. He also takes the 
 calf or ox to represent Apostles labouring in their 
 ministry, quoting various Fathers, and finally 
 St. Chrysostom’s idea, that the oxen and fatlings 
 spoken of as killed for the Master’s feast are 
 meant to represent prophets and martyrs. The 
 calf or ox, as a sacrificial victim, has been taken to 
 represent the Lord’s sacrifice; for which Aringhi 
 quotes a comment on Num. xviii. These simili¬ 
 tudes seem fanciful, and pictorial or other repre¬ 
 sentations hardly exist to bear them out. A calf 
 is represented near the Good Shepherd in Buona- 
 rotti (Vetri, tav. v. fig. 2); and Martigny refers 
 to Allegranza (Mon. antichi de Milano, p. 125) 
 for an initial letter at Milan, where the animal 
 is represented playing on a lyre : typifying, he 
 thinks, the subjugation of the human nature to 
 the life of faith. He also refers to St. Clement 
 of Alexandria (Paedag. lib. i. c. 5) for a com¬ 
 parison of young Christians to sucking calves 
 (/xuaxo-pia ya\aBr\vd), connected perhaps in the 
 Father’s mind in the same way as in his own; 
 though, as Bishop Potter remarks in his note (ad 
 loc.), no such comparison exists in Scrijdure. 
 The plate in Allegranza is of considerable interest, 
 being from a “marmo” belonging to the ancient 
 pulpit of S. Ambrogio. The calf is lying down, 
 and turning up its forefoot to hold the lyre, or 
 “ antica cetra.” It is engraved in the loop of an 
 initial D. The preceding “ marmo ” is a repre¬ 
 sentation of an Agape, from the posterior parapet 
 of the pulpit; and Allegranza considers the c<xlf 
 to be a symbol connected with the Agape. See 
 above, Clem. Alex. Paedag. i. 5. See also s. v. 
 Lyre, that instrument being held typical of the 
 human body in its right state of harmony with, 
 and subjection to, the divinely-guided soul. For 
 oxen with Dolia see Bottari, iii. 155, 184. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CALIGAE. These were stockings, made of 
 various matei’ial, serving for a defence against 
 cold, and as such worn at times by soldiers 
 (Casaubon on Suetonius); by monks, if infirm 
 or exposed to cold (Cassianus, lib. i. c. 10 ; S. 
 Benedictus, Rcgula, c. 62 ; Gregor. ^Magnus, Dial, 
 cc. 2, 4); and by bishops in out-door dress 
 (Gregor. Turon. Eist. Franc, lib. A'i. c. 31). 
 The Rule of St. Ferreolus (quoted by Ducange, 
 s. V.), c. 32, has an amusing passage forbidding 
 the elaborate cross-gartering of these caligae, 
 out of mere coxcombry. The earliest writer 
 who mentions the caligae as among the “sacred 
 V’estments ” to be worn by bishops and cardi¬ 
 nals is Ivo Carnotensis (tlll5). “ Antequam 
 induantur sandaliis vestiantur caligis byssinis 
 vel lineis, usque ad genua proten.sis et ibi bene 
 constrictis” (Sermo de signijicationibus indumen- 
 tomm sacerdotalium, apud Hittorpium de Div. 
 Off.). [W. B. M.] 
 
 CALIXTUS [Callistus]. 
 
 CALL TO THE MINISTRY is more a 
 matter of Chri.stian ethics than of Church canons; 
 and in that point of view it became mixed up, in 
 the Church of the 4th century and onwards, w'ith 
 the parallel cases of the adoption of the monastic 
 or the celibate life. The temper that ought to 
 
CALOYERS 
 
 25G 
 
 CALL TO THE MINISTRY 
 
 'iniin&te those who are to be ordained was held 
 to be, on the one hand, a sincere and pure desire 
 to serve God in some special way, but on the 
 other, also, a shrinking from the fearful responsi¬ 
 bility of the ministry ; on the one hand, obedience 
 to the call of superiors, and faith to undertake 
 duties which came by no self-seeking, on the other, 
 humility, 'that was really the more worthy the 
 more it felt its own unworthiness. In a word, 
 the true no/o episcopari spirit was held to extend, 
 in measure, to the lower orders also. Com¬ 
 pare Rom. X. 15, and Heb. v. 4, 5. Under this 
 view of the case, it was not indeed the absolute 
 law, but it naturally came to pass, and so was 
 the common rule, that the bishops, or the right¬ 
 ful electors (which included, of course, the bishop 
 or the bishops, and even in the case of the pres- 
 byterate, up to at any rate the 3rd centuiw, the 
 clergy and people also) should choose at least to 
 the higher orders, and in such case the canons 
 enacted that any one already in orders in any 
 degree could not refuse to accept. A like rule 
 would apply in a less degree to the first entry 
 into the ministry; the supply in both cases being 
 supplemented by voluntary candidates, from the 
 necessity of the case, but it being held the best 
 that the call should come from others, who had 
 authority. A Carthaginian canon among the 
 Cod. Can. Afric. (Grace, c. 31) rules that “ qui- 
 cumque clerici vel diaconi pro necessitatibus 
 ecclesiarum non obtemperaverint episcopis suis 
 volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua 
 ecclesia promovere, nec illic ministrent in gradu 
 suo, unde recedere noluerunt.” And for the case 
 of the episcopate, in particular, see under Bishop. 
 On the other hand, the call certainly needed not 
 of necessity to originate with the bishop. It was 
 open, and it was held a pious act, for parents to 
 devote their children to the ministry, not com¬ 
 pelling, but exhorting and encouraging them so 
 to devote themselves. See, e.g. Gaudent. Brix. 
 (Serm. 2), and St. Augustin (Epist. 199); the 
 former speaking also of virgins and the latter 
 of monks, but both likewise of the ministry. 
 Cone. Tolet. II. a.d. 531, regulates the education 
 of those, “ quos voluntas parentum a primis in- 
 fantiae annis in clericabus officio manciparit.” 
 Pope Siricius (Epist. I. cc. 9, 10) had, before 
 that (a.d. 385-398), regulated the several periods 
 of years during which such should remain suc¬ 
 cessively in each order of clergy. And Cone. 
 Emerit. a.d. 666, can. 18, bids the “ parochiani 
 presbyteri ” choose promising young people, and 
 “ de ecclesiae suae fhmilia clericos sibi fheiant.” 
 Nor was this restricted to young people with 
 their parents’ consent. Setting aside special 
 occupations, &c., which constituted a disqualifi¬ 
 cation for holy orders altogether, it was open to 
 older men also to offer themselves for the mi¬ 
 nistry ; but under certain conditions, in order to 
 ensure purity of motive. Pope Siricius (as above) 
 permits the “ aetate jam grandaevus ” to hasten 
 “ ex laico ad sacram militiam pervenirebut 
 he is only to obtain the presbyterate or epis- 
 c-opate “ accessu temporum, ... si eum cleri ac 
 plebis vocarit electio.” A couple of centuries 
 later, Gregory the Great required in like case a 
 probation in a monastery (Jo. Diac. lib. ii. c. 16). 
 The Council of Constantinople, a.d. 869 (can. 5), 
 prohibited only those (of senatorial rank or other 
 worldly occupation) who sought to be tonsured 
 from ambitious or worldly motives, expressly 
 
 excepting others of a different temper. And 
 Ciinons like those of the Council of Rouen in 1072 
 must be understood with a like excej)tion, which 
 sentence those “ clerici ” to be deposed “ qui non 
 electi nec vocati aut nesciente episcopo sacris 
 ordinibus se intromittunt.” In short, the words 
 of Hincmar express the Church’s view of the 
 subject, who praises certain clergy, who “ non 
 importune ad ordinationem ... se ingesserunt... 
 sed electi et vocati obediei'unt” (Hincm. 
 ad Nieolaum Papam, 0pp. ii. 308); and these of 
 St. Augustin, “ Honor te quaerere debet, non 
 ipsum tu ” (Horn. 13, in Quinquaginta), proceed¬ 
 ing to quote the parable about taking the lowest 
 room. See also St. Chrys. He Saeerd. i. 3, and 
 in 1 Tim., Horn. 1. The call to the ministry, then, 
 in the earlier Church, meant, in the case of the 
 ministry in general, the invitation, approaching 
 to a command, of the bishop; but this might be 
 anticipated, under certain conditions, by the vo¬ 
 luntary offering of himself by the candidate ; 
 if possible, in his youth, but allowably at any 
 age. In the case of the higher orders, it was or 
 ought to have been the outward call of the 
 rightful patrons (so to call them) of the parish 
 or diocese. Who occupied this position in respect 
 to presbyters or to bishops at successive periods, 
 will be found under Bishop, Priest ; but the 
 bishop did so primarily and properly, and of 
 course had in every case and ahvays the right 
 of examination and (if he thought good) rejection, 
 when it came to the question of ordination. The 
 inward call of later days— i. e. the self-devotion 
 of the candidate himself in real sincerity and 
 earnestness—was assumed throughout. And all 
 regulations on the subject tended to sift and test 
 the reality of that inward call. (Thomassin, 
 De Benef. p. ii. lih. i. cc. 23, sq.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 CALLICULAE. Ornaments for the alb or 
 white tunic, made either of some richly-coloured 
 stuff or of metal. Examples of these may he seen 
 in Ferret, Cataeombes de Rome, ii. pi. 7 ; and in 
 Garrucci, Vetri ornati,\\. 5, xxv. 4. For further 
 particulars see Martiguy, Diet, des Ant.Chret., and 
 Ducange, Glossarium in voc. [W. B. M.] 
 
 CALLINICUS. (1) Martyr at Apollonia 
 under Decius, is commemorated Jan. 28 (Mart. 
 Usuardi) ; July 29 (Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 2. Commemorated Dec. 14 (Cal. Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 CALLISTE, with her brothers, martyr, is 
 commemorated Sept. 1 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CALLISTRATUS and the forty-nine martyrs 
 (a.d. 288) are commemorated July 1 (Cal. Ar¬ 
 men.) ; Sept. 27 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CALLISTUS. (1) With Carisius and seven 
 others, martyrs at Corinth, commemorated April 
 16 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2), or CALIXTUS, pope, martyr at Rome, 
 an. 223, commemorated Oct. 14 (Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Bedae, Usuardi). [C.j 
 
 CALLOCERUS, or CALOCERUS, eunuch, 
 martyr, commemorated May 19 (Kal. Bueher., 
 Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi); Feb. 11 (Mart. 
 Bedae). [C.] 
 
 CALOYERS. The monks of the Eastern 
 Church. The word is derived either from KaXos 
 and yrjpas, or, more probably from KciXos and 
 yepuv, signifying a good old age. Applied at 
 ' first to the elder monks exclusively, it soon 
 
260 
 
 CALUMNIES AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS 
 
 became the common designation of all. (Suicer. 
 Thesaur. s. v., cf. Pallad. Hist. Laus. ciii. Kd\os, 
 where Innocentius is called 6 k<x\qs yffjwi/). 
 These Eastern monks have preserved from the 
 first, with characteristic tenacity, the Rule of 
 St. Basil. Thus their fastings are more frequent 
 and more idgorous than those in V/estern Chris¬ 
 tendom. Their offices too are more lengthy; 
 but partly from this very circumstance, and 
 partly from the office-books being very costly, 
 some are not infrequently omitted (Helyot. 
 Hist, des Ordres Belig. I. xix. 6). They are 
 divided, like their Western brethren, into three 
 kinds, Caenobitae, dwelling together under one 
 roof; Anachoretae, scattered round the several 
 monasteries and resorting thither for solemn ser¬ 
 vices on festivals, &c.; and Eremitae, or solitary 
 recluses. The Caenobitae, or monks proper, are 
 again subdivided into Archarii, novices; Micro- 
 schemi; and Megalosoliemi, the highest grade 
 (Helyot. I. xix.). 
 
 The “ Hours ” observed by the Caloyers are 
 much the same as those in the West, being, in 
 fact, derived from a common source. After a 
 prolonged service at midnight they sleep from 
 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. Then a service corresponding 
 to matins, lauds, and prime, the last portion of 
 which is simultaneous with sunrise. After an 
 interval spent in their cells, they meet again at 
 9 a.m. for tierce, sext, and mass. At mid-day 
 dinner, with the usual lections, in the I’efectory. 
 At 4 p.m. vespers; at 6 p.m. supper, followed by 
 the dird^iiivvov, a sort of compline ; at 8 p.m. to 
 bod (Helyot. I. xix.). 
 
 They have four especial seasons of fasting in 
 the year, and their abstinence, as has been said 
 already, is more severe than in Western climes. 
 Besides Lent, as in the West, there are the “Fast 
 of the Apostles,” commencing on the 8th day 
 after Whitsunday, and lasting about 3 weeks; 
 the “Fast of the Assumption,” lasting 14 days; 
 and “ Advent ” (Helyot. I. xix.). 
 
 Their robes, more flowing and voluminous than 
 those of Western Orders, are marked on the cape 
 with the Cross, and with the letters IC. XC. NC. 
 (Jesus Christus Vincit). The tonsure extends 
 all over the head; but they wear beards (cf. 
 Mab. Ann. I. xv. 32). (Helyot. I. xix.). Nu¬ 
 merous lay brothers are attached to each monas¬ 
 tery, for the field work; and considerable taxes 
 are collected from each by the “ exarchs ” or 
 visitors, for the Patriarch (Helyot. I. xix.). 
 
 The greatest of the Asiatic monasteries is on 
 Mt. Sinai, founded, it is said, by Justinian, and 
 renowned as the residence of SL Athanasius of 
 Mt. Sinai, and of St. John Climacus, whose name 
 figures in Western Hagiologies also. Here, as at 
 Mt. Casino, the abbat exercises a large ecclesias¬ 
 tical jurisdiction; he is archbishop ex officio. As 
 a precaution against Arabs there are no doors, 
 and*the only gateway is blocked up. Provisions 
 and pilgrims, &c., are all drawn up in a basket 
 to the window. In Europe there are several 
 monasteries; among which that of St. Sabas, in 
 the wilderness near Bethlehem, and those on the 
 isles in the Levant are famous. But the greatest 
 are those on Mt. Athos, where the peninsula is 
 entirely and exclusively occupied by the “Ca¬ 
 loyers ” (Helyot. L). [1. G. S.] 
 
 CALUMNIES AGAINST THE CHRIS- 
 ,TIANS. It was hai’dly possible that a new 
 
 society like the Christian Church should escape 
 misrepresentations. It had enemies on all sides. 
 It ofl'ended men by presenting a higher standard 
 of purity than their own, and they revenged 
 themselves by imputing to it their own impurity. 
 The secrecy that attended some portions of its 
 life or worship gave rise to suspicions. Other 
 societies, heretical or fantastic, which were popu¬ 
 larly identified with it, brought upon it the dis¬ 
 credit to which their defects made them liable. 
 Popular credulity was ready to accept any sensa¬ 
 tional tale of horror which malice or ignoi'ance 
 might suggest. The result was that the popular 
 feeling of dislike took definite shape, and that 
 the persecutions of the Christians in the first 
 three centuries were stimulated by the general 
 belief that they were guilty' of crimes which 
 made them enemies of the human race. But 
 over and above these influences, there was also, 
 if we may trust the statements of many early 
 Christian writers, a system of calumny, organised 
 and deliberate, of which the Jews were the chief 
 propagators. Envoys (airdcXToXoi) were sent front 
 Jerusalem with circular letters to the synagogues 
 throughout the empire, and these became centres 
 from which the false reports were disseminated 
 among the heathen (Just. M. Dial. c. Trijph. 
 c. 17, p. 234 ; Euseb. in Esaiam, xviii. 1, p. 424). 
 They spread the charge of Atheism, which was 
 so large an element in the accusations to which 
 Christians were exposed, and were active, as in 
 the case of Polycarp, in stirring up the multi¬ 
 tude (Epist. Smgrn. 9; Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 
 1). The calumnies in question are, of course, 
 the chief subject-matter of the Apologetic trea¬ 
 tises of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Of these, 
 the treatise of Tertullian, ad Nationes, as berntr 
 addressed, not, like his Apologies, to emperors 
 and proconsuls, but to the Gentiles at large, is 
 perhaps, the most exhaustive. It will be con¬ 
 venient to deal with the chief charges singly. 
 
 (1.) The Agapae and the more sacred Supper 
 which was at first connected with them, fur¬ 
 nished material for some of the more horrible 
 charges. “Thyesteian banquets and Oedipodean 
 incest ” became bye-words of reproach (Athenag. 
 Apol. c. 4) side by side with that of Atheism. 
 When they met, it was said, an infant was 
 brought in, covered with flour, and then stabbed 
 to death by a new convert, who was thus initi¬ 
 ated in the mysteries. The others then ate the 
 flesh and licked up the blood. This was the 
 sacrifice by which they' were bound together 
 (Tertull. ad Nat. i. 15; Apol. c. 8 ; Minuc. 
 Felix, Octav. c. 9). Two sources of this mon¬ 
 strous statement may' be assigned with some pro¬ 
 bability. (a) To drink of human blood had actually 
 been made, as in the conspiracy' of Catilina, a 
 bond of union in a common crime (Sallust, Catd. 
 c. 22), and the blood, it was said, was that of a 
 slaughtered child (Dio. Cass, xxxvii. 30). It 
 had entered into the popular imagination as one 
 of the horrors of a secret conspiracy'. Christians 
 were regarded as members of a secret society, 
 conspiring together for the downfal of the re¬ 
 ligion and polity of the empire. It was natural 
 to think that they had like rites of initiation. 
 (6) The language of devout Christians as to the 
 Supper of which they partook would tend to con¬ 
 firm, even if it did not originate, the belief. It 
 was not common bi’ead or common wine which 
 they ate and drank but Flesh and Blood. By 
 
201 
 
 CALUMNIES AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS 
 
 participation in that flesh and blood they be¬ 
 came members of one body. It is singular, how¬ 
 ever, that the Apologists do not meet the charge 
 with this explanation, but confine themselves 
 (J. c.) to dwelling on the incredibility of such 
 charges, on the absence of any evidence to sup¬ 
 port them. Their unwillingness to expose the 
 mysteries of their faith to the scorn ot 
 the heathen was, it can hardly be questioned, the 
 cause of this reticence. 
 
 (2.) Next in order came the charge of im¬ 
 purity. When the members of a Christian 
 Church met, men and women, it was at night. 
 A lamp gave light to the room, and to its stand 
 a dog was fastened. After they had supped 
 and were hot with wine, meat was thrown 
 to the dog so as to make him overthrow the 
 lamp-stand in his struggles to get at it, and 
 then the darkness witnessed a scene of shameless 
 and unbridled lust, in which all laws of nature 
 were set at nought (Tertull. Apol. c. 8 ; ad 
 Nat. c. 16; Euseb. df. E. iv. 7-15; Origen, c. 
 Cels. vi. 27; Minuc. Felix c. 9). Here, too, we 
 may trace the calumny to two main sources, 
 (a) In the Bacchanalia and other secret mys¬ 
 teries, revelations of which had from time to 
 time startled the Roman world (comp. Livy, 
 xxxix. 13 for those of B.C. 185), turpitude of 
 this kind had been but too common. Men of 
 prui'ient imaginations imputed it even where the 
 lives of the accused were in flagrant contradic¬ 
 tion to it. (b) The name of the Agapae, inter¬ 
 preted as such men would interpret it, was sure 
 to strengthen the suspicion. They could form 
 no other notion of a “ love-feast ” held at night. 
 It may be that the “ holy kiss,” the “ kiss of 
 peace,” which entered into the early ritual of 
 the Eucharist, was distorted in the same way; 
 and that the names of “ brother ” and “ sister ” 
 by which Christians spoke of each other were 
 associated with the thought that the intercourse 
 
 which was assumed to take place was incestuous 
 in its nature (Minuc. Felix, 1. c.). (c) It seems 
 
 probable that in some cases abuses of this kind 
 did actually exist in the Agapae. [Agapae.] 
 They became conspicuous for licence and revehy. 
 The language of the later Apostolical Epistles 
 (2 Pet. ii. 13, Jude v. 12) shows that excesses 
 had occurred even then. The followers of Car- 
 pocrates followed in the same line, and are said 
 by Clement of Alexandria (^Strom. iii. 2-4, p. 185), 
 and Eusebius (//. E. iv. 7, § 5) to have been 
 guilty in their Agapae of practices identical with 
 those which were popularly imputed to the 
 Christians at large. 
 
 (3.) The charge of Atheism was natural enough 
 as against those who held aloof from all temples 
 and altars, and, though it was a formidable 
 weapon in the hands of their persecutors, can 
 hardly be classed as a distinct calumny. Still 
 less can we group under that head the accusa¬ 
 tion that they worshipped one who had died a 
 malefactor’s death, though this too from the 
 time of the Apostles downward was a frequent 
 topic of reproach (Tacit. Annnl. xv. 63 ; Justin 
 M. ilta/. c. Tryph. c. 93; Minuc. Fel. p. 86). 
 It was not strange either that the reverential 
 use which the Christians of the 2nd centurv 
 made ot the sign of the cross should lead to the 
 notion that they worshipped the cross itself. 
 We may wonder rather that the Apologist who 
 speaks of the accusation should be content almost 
 
 to admit the fact without any explanation, and 
 to retort with the argument that the framework 
 scaffolding of most of the idols before which the 
 Gentiles bowed down exhibited the same form 
 (Tertull. Apol. c. 16). We enter upon the region 
 of distinct slander, however, when we come 
 across statements of another kind, as to the 
 objects of Christian adoration. Of these the 
 most astounding is that they worshipped their 
 God under the mysterious form of a man with 
 an ass’s head. It seems strange that such a 
 charge should have been thought even to need 
 denial, and yet it is clear that it was at one 
 time widely received. Tertullian (Ajoo/. c. 16 ad 
 Nat. c. 11) speaks of a caricature exhibiting such 
 a form, with the inscription “ The God of the 
 Christians” —ONOKOITES.* And a picture an¬ 
 swering to this description has actually been 
 found on a wall of the palace of the Caesars on 
 the Palatine Hill. A man is represented as 
 offering homage to a figure with an ass’s head, 
 and underneath is the inscription AAEXAMEN02 
 2EBETE (for 2EBETAI) ©EON. The fragment 
 is now in the Kircher Museum, and exhibits the 
 lowest style of art, such as might be found in 
 a boy-artisan bent on holding up some fellow- 
 workman to ridicule.*’ It has to be noted that 
 this was but the transfer to the Christians of an 
 old charge against the Jews, and that there it 
 was connected with the tradition that it was 
 through the wild asses of the desert that the 
 Jews had been led to find water at the time of 
 the Exodus (Tacit. Hist. v. 3). 
 
 (4.) The belief that Christians were worship¬ 
 pers of the sun obtained even a wider currency, 
 and had more plausibility (Tertull. Apol. c. 16, 
 Just. M. Apol. i. 68). They met together on 
 the day which ^vas more and more generally 
 known as the Dies Solis. They began at an 
 early period to manifest a symbolic reverence 
 for the East; and these acts, together with 
 the language in which they spoke of Christ as 
 the true light, and of themselves as “children 
 of light,” would naturally be interpreted as acts 
 of adoration to the luminary itself. With this 
 we may perhaps connect the singular statement 
 ascribed to Hadrian that they were also worship¬ 
 pers of Serapis (Vopiscus, Hist. Aug. p. 719). 
 This, however, never rose to the rank of a popu¬ 
 lar calumny, and seems to have had its beginning 
 and end in the fantastic eclecticism of that em¬ 
 peror, who identified Serapis with the sun, and 
 so reproduced the current belief under this form. 
 
 (5.) It was also reported that the members of 
 the new sect worshipped their priests with an 
 adoration which had in it something of a phallic 
 character (“ Alii eos ferunt ipsius anstititis ac 
 sacerdotis colere genitalia,” Minuc. Felix, Octav. 
 c. 9). In this case, as in the charge of immoral 
 excesses, we have probably the interpretation 
 given by impure minds to acts in themselves 
 blameless. Penitents came to the presbytery of 
 the church to confess their sins, and knelt before 
 them as they sat, and this attitude may have 
 suggested the revolting calumny to those who 
 could see in it nothing but an act of adoration. 
 
 (6.) Over and above all specific charges there 
 
 » The word was probably meant to signify “ Ass-born.” 
 Another reading is OstKaiOKETES, as if parodying 
 ’Ai/axwprjrJ}?, and conveying the notion of Ass-hermit, 
 b See the woodcut under Cuccii ix. 
 
262 
 
 CALUMNY 
 
 CANA, MIRACLE OF 
 
 was the dislike which men felt to a society so 
 uttei’ly unlike their own. These men who lived 
 apart from the world were a lucifurja natio. They 
 were infractmsi in negotiis. They were guilty 
 of treason because they would not offer sacrifice 
 for the emperors, and looked for the advent of 
 another kingdom. They were ignorant, rude, 
 uncultivated, and yet they set themselves up 
 above the wisest sages. They led men to a dark 
 fatalism bv ascribing to God all their power to 
 act (Tertull. Apol. 35-42). They showed a de¬ 
 fiant obstinacy in their resistance, even to death, 
 to the commands of civil magistrates (Marc. 
 Aurel. xi. 3). [E. H. P.] 
 
 CALUMNY. [Detraction ; Slander.] 
 
 CAMBRICUM CONCILIUM, a d. 465, is 
 a fiction, taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth, 
 &c. [A. W. H.] 
 
 CAMELAUCIUM. A covering for the head, 
 in use chiefly in the East, of very unsettled 
 orthography. We find camelaucum, cainelaucus, 
 calamaucum, and in Greek Ka^r)KavKiov and 
 
 Ka/neXavKiov. It appears to have been a round 
 
 cap with ear-flaps of fur, 
 originally camel’s hair if 
 the ordinary etymology is 
 to be accepted, or wot>l, and 
 sometimes adorned with 
 
 gems. The form and name 
 being preserved, it some¬ 
 times became a helmet and 
 was worn in battle. We 
 
 find it adopted both by 
 
 royal personages and by 
 
 ecclesiastics. The head-covering taken from 
 
 Totila when killed, a.d. 552, and presented to 
 
 Justinian, is called by Theophanes (^Chron. p. 193) 
 KafxgXavKiov hiahiQov. Constantine the Great 
 appears on his triurhphal arch at Rome similarly 
 attired. [See Crown.] Ferrario (^Costumi, 
 
 Europa (Rs) vol. iii. part i. pi. 30), and Constan¬ 
 tine Porphyr. (^de Ad7n. Imp. c. 13) describe by 
 the same name the sacred caps, preserved at 
 the high-altar of St. Sophia’s, traditionally be¬ 
 lieved to haA'e been sent by an angel’s hands 
 to Constantine the Great, and used in the coro¬ 
 nation of the emperors of the East. 
 
 Its ecclesiastical use in the East seems to have 
 been chiefly confined to the monastic orders. 
 Goar ( Eucholog. p. 156) tells us that the mitre 
 of the metropolitan of Constantinople had this 
 name only when he was taken from the monastic 
 ranifs. It is defined by Allatius {de utrins- 
 que Eccl. Consens. lib. iii. c. viii. no. 12, apud 
 Ducange), as a round woollen cap worn by 
 monks. It was worn b}' Armenian bishops when 
 officiating at the altar (i6., Isaac Invectio secunda 
 in Armen, p. 414). [Mitre.] 
 
 Fuller particulars and authorities may be 
 found in the Greek and Latin Glossarg of 
 Ducange. For its form, Ferrario w.s., Goar, 
 Eucholog. p. 156, and the plates prefixed to 
 Ducange’s Gloss. Med. et Inf. Graec. may be con¬ 
 sulted. [E. V.] 
 
 CAMERA PARAMENTI. [Sacristy.] 
 
 C AMISIA. (Hence the Ital. ‘ Camicia * a 
 shirt, and ‘ Camice ’ an alb ; Sp. ‘ Camisa; ’ and 
 the Fr. ‘ Chemise,’ in Languedoc ‘ Camise.’) St. 
 Jerome (^Ep. ad Fabiolam'), in describing the 
 vestments of the Jewish priesthood (“ Volo pro 
 
 legentis facilitate abuti sermone vulgato. Solent 
 militantes habere lineas quas camisias vocant 
 sic aptas membris et astrictas corponbus ut 
 expediti sint vel ad cursum ve! ad praclia,” &c.), 
 and a scholiast on Lucan (suttarum est genus ve.s- 
 timentiquod vulgo camisia dicitur,id est interula) 
 si)eak of this word as belonging to the lingua 
 vulgaris. St. Jerome’s description shews it to 
 have been a shirt fitted to the body so as to 
 admit of active exertion of the limbs, which was 
 not the case with the flowing garments worn by 
 the more wealthy in ordinary life. St. Isidore 
 iOrig. xix. 22, 29) derives the word “a camis” 
 (“quod in his dormimus in camis, id est in stratis 
 nostris ”). With him it is a night-shirt or bed¬ 
 gown. The word ‘ cama ’ still retains the 
 meaning of a ‘ bed ’ in the Spanish language, to 
 which St. Isidore, himself a Spaniard, seems to 
 refer. The Arabic ‘ kamis ’ is no doubt con¬ 
 nected with the Spanish ‘camisa.’ See further 
 references in Menage, iJict. Etym. ‘Chemise,’ and 
 in Ducange, Glossarium, ‘ camisia.’ [W. B. M.] 
 
 CAMPAGAE. (Other forms of the same word 
 are Campacus, Gainbacus, Campobus.) A kind of 
 ornamented shoe worn by emperors and kings 
 (Trebellius, in Gallieno; Capitolinus, tn Maxi- 
 min. Jun.) and by various officers of state (“ pr-’.e 
 toribus Palatinis et quibusvis aliis:” cf. Ducange, 
 in voc.'). At a later period they were worn by 
 the higher ecclesiastics at Rome, and by others 
 elsewhere, but in disregard of the special privi¬ 
 leges claimed in regard of these by Roman autho¬ 
 rities. Gregor. Magnus, Ep. vii. indict, i. ep. 28. 
 “ Pervenit ad nos,” &c. [W. B. M.] 
 
 CAMPANA. [Bell.] 
 
 CAMPANARIUS. The special office of 
 Campanarius, or bell-ringer, in a church is per¬ 
 haps not mentioned in the literature of the first 
 eight centuries. See, however, the so-called 
 Excerpta Egberli, c. 2, and the Leges Presbyt. 
 Northumbr. c. 36. 
 
 In more ancient times the duty of ringing the 
 bells at the proper seasons seems to have been 
 laid upon the priests themselves {Capitulare 
 Episcop. c. 8; Cajoit. Caroli Magni, lib. vi. c. 
 168). To the same effect Amalarius (de Eiv. 
 Off. iii. 1) says, speaking of the ringing of bells, 
 “ne despiciat presbyter hoc opus agere.” (Du¬ 
 cange s. vv. Campanum, Campanarius.) In later 
 times the Ostiarius was the bell-ringer (Martene 
 de Pit. Eccl. ii. 18, ed. 1783). [C.] 
 
 CAMPANILE. [Belfry : Tower.] 
 
 CAMPIO, “ champion ” : one whose profes¬ 
 sion it was to fight for another in cases where 
 single combat was permitted by law to decide 
 the right “ in campo duellum exercens.” People 
 were allowed their advocate in court, and their 
 champion in the field. But the latter was a 
 mediaeval institution, and therefore beyond our 
 limits. He was a superior personage to the 
 gladiator of old Rome, so far in that he fought, 
 not for a mere display of brute force, but for 
 the triumph of justice. See Du Cange, Holf- 
 mann, Spelman, and Blount, s. v. [B. S.] 
 
 CANA, MIRACLE OF. Representations 
 of this miracle frequently present themselves 
 in Christian art. It was early supposed to be 
 typical of the Eucharist; indeed, Theophilus of 
 Antioch, so far back as the 2nd century, looks 
 on the change of the water as figurative of the 
 
CANCELLI 
 
 CANCLLLI 
 
 263 
 
 grace communicated in baptism (Comment, in 
 Evang. lib. iv.). Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 
 xxii. 11) says it represents the chanp of the 
 wine into the blood ot the Lord in the Euchai'ist j 
 and this idea has been applied with eager incon¬ 
 sequence to the support of the full dogma ot 
 transubstantiation. The miracle is represented 
 on an ivory, published by Mamachi, Bottari, and 
 Gori, which is supposed to have formed part ot 
 the covering of a thi’one belonging to the exarchs 
 of Ravenna, and is referred to the 7th century. 
 BanJini (fn Tabularn eburneam Observationes, 4to. 
 Florentine, 1746) gives a plate of it: and the 
 present writer saw it in the Duomo of Ravenna 
 in 1871. See woodcut. 
 
 In Bottari, taw. xix. and xxxii., our Saviour, 
 wearing the ordinary tunic, and toga over it, 
 touches or points respectively to three and 
 two vessels with a rod. In tav. li. five jars are 
 given, as also in Ixxxviii.; four in tav. Ixxxix. 
 The vessels or hydriae are of different, and gene¬ 
 rally humble forms, on these sarcophagi. Bottari 
 remarks that the sculptors may have been ham¬ 
 pered by knowing the water-vessels to have 
 been large, containing a “ metretes.” But those 
 on Bandini’s ivory are gracefully-shaped am¬ 
 phorae. Here the Lord bears a Gi-eek cross on a 
 staff, and motions with the other hand to the 
 bridegroom, or a servant, tvho is carrying a cup 
 to the master of the feast, gazing steadily .at it, 
 and extending his left hand towards the Saviour. 
 The first-quoted of these plates (xix. and xxxii.) 
 of Bottari’s are from sarcophagi found in the 
 Vatican, and of high merit in an artistic point 
 of view. The later ones, not much inferior, are 
 from the cemetery of Lucina, in the Callixtine 
 catacomb, or from a sarcophagus dug up in 1607, 
 in preparing foundations for the Capella Borghese 
 at Sta. Maria Maggiore. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CANCELLI (Podiumj Pectoralia, Meniana ; 
 
 Apo<paKTo, Kd77€A.ot, KdyKtWoi, 
 Kd 7 >cf a\o). These words are applied to a par¬ 
 tition formed of open work in wood or iron, or 
 
 even of stone (Papias, in Ducange, s. v. Cancell'is\ 
 especially to the open-work screen or grating 
 which separates the choir from the nave of a 
 church, or the sanctuary from the choir. Euse¬ 
 bius (Hist. Eccl. x. 4, s. 44), after describing the 
 thrones of the vpde^poi in the upper part of 
 the great church at Tyre, the benches (seem¬ 
 ingly) for the rest of the clerks, and the altar 
 or sanctuary, says, “ These again, that they might 
 be inaccessible to the laity, he enclosed with 
 wooden gratings, wrought with so delicate an 
 art as to be a wonder to behold.” These cancelli 
 seem to have enclosed the whole of the space 
 occupied by the clergy. Compare Church. 
 
 St. Ambrose is said (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. vii. 
 25, 317) to have excluded the emperors from 
 the sanctuary, and to have assigned them a place 
 just outside the rails which enclosed it (irph ru3V 
 dpv(pd.KT(oi/ rod leparelou). Here the Upareiou 
 seems to correspond with what we call the 
 chancel, including the whole of the space aS' 
 signed to the clergy, and not merely the sanc¬ 
 tuary ; for the emperor’s position is said to 
 indicate his precedence ajnong the people, and his 
 inferiority to the clergy. The rail seems to have 
 been, in short, a chancel-screen rather than an 
 altar-rail. 
 
 Cyprian, in the Life of Caesarius of Arles 
 (Acta SS. Bened. saec. i. App.) says that the 
 saint did not hesitate to give for the redemption 
 of captives things belonging to the administra¬ 
 tion of the sacrament, as chalices and censers, 
 and even took down the silver ornaments from 
 the cancelli. In this case, the context .suggests 
 that the cancelli were near the altar. Paul 
 Warnefrid (De Episcop. Metens. in Pertz, 
 Monum. German, ii. 266) says that Chrodegang 
 caused to be made a church in honour of St. 
 Stej'hen, and his altar, and cancelli., and a pres¬ 
 bytery, where again the rail or grating seems to 
 have been the enclosure of the altar. 
 
 Athanasius (Epistola ad Orthodoxos, 0pp. i. 
 646) speaks of the KayKeXoi of a church as 
 among the things destroyed by Arian fury. 
 
 Cyril of Scythopolis, in the Life of Euthymius 
 (t673; in Acta iSS. Jan. ii. 302 ff.), tells how a 
 Saracen, leaning on the screen of the sanctuaiy 
 (t^ /cayyeArp rod Upare'iov) while the offering 
 was being made, saw rire descend from heaven 
 and spread itself over the altar. Here the sci'een 
 clearly enclosed the bema, or sanctuary, and ad¬ 
 mitted of the altar being .seen from without. 
 And again, in the Life of St. Sabas (in Cotelerius, 
 Monum. Eccl. Graecae, tom. iii.), he speaks of the 
 rails of the sanctuary (k. rod dva'iacrrrjpiov'). 
 
 Some have thought that the Rugak frequently 
 mentioned in the Liber Pontif calls among the 
 presents of various popes to Roman churches were 
 cancellated doors. But see the article. 
 
 Germanus of Constantinople* (Hist. Eccl. p. 
 148, ed. Paris, 1560) says that the I'ails (KciyKeWa) 
 mark out the space to the outside of which the 
 people may appro.ach, while inside is the Holy of 
 Holies, accessible only to the priests. Here we 
 mu.st conclude, either that the phrase rd ciyia 
 ru)P ayiujv includes choir as well as .sanctuary, 
 which is highly imj>robable, or that the people 
 entered the choir at any rate for the purpose ot 
 communicating. Compare Choir. 
 
 * It is doul'tful whether this work is to be atrrit'ufed 
 to the Uernianus of the 8lb century, or to his uainesake 
 of the 12ih. 
 
264 
 
 CANDELABRUM 
 
 CANON 
 
 Durandus (Ratiomle, i. 3, 35) observes that in 
 ancient times the enclosure of the choir was not 
 so high as to prevent the people from seeing the 
 clerks; but that in his own time a curtain or 
 partition was generally interposed between the 
 clerks and the people, so that they could not see 
 each other. 
 
 Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. Cancellus; Suicer’s 
 Tliesuurus, s. vv. SpvcpaKToyf KiyK\is, KciyycXa ; 
 INIabillon, Comment. Praev. in Ordinem Rom. 
 c. 20, p. cxxxvii. [C.] 
 
 (2) In addition to the use of this word for the 
 lattice-work protecting the altar of a church 
 and the raised area on which it stood, Cun- 
 celli was also employed to designate a railing 
 round a tomb. We find it used in this sense by 
 Augustine (e.g. Senn. de Divers, xxxi., de Civit. 
 Dei xxii. 7, &c.; Gregory of Tours, de Mirac. i. 
 69 ; ii. 20, 46, 47 ; id. Hist. vi. 10, where thieves 
 are described as breaking into St. Martin’s 
 Church at Tours by raising against the window 
 of the apse “ cancellum qui super tumulum 
 cujusdam defuucti erat”). 
 
 Another word used in the same sense from the 
 similarity of its form w’as Cataracta, Karap- 
 pd/fTTjy, “ a portcullis.” The letters of the 
 legates to Pope Hormisdas relative to the re¬ 
 quest of Justinian for some relics of the apostles 
 speaks of the “ secunda cataracta.” Labbe' 
 Cone. iv. 1515; and the encyclic of Vigilius, 
 Hp. XV. mentions the “ cataracta Beati Petri,” 
 i.e. the iron railing surrounding his “confessio” 
 Cb. V. 330). [E. V.] 
 
 CANDELABRUM. [Corona Lucis.] 
 
 CANDIDA. (1) Wife of Artemius, martyr 
 at Rome, is commemorated June 6 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin, of Rome, is commemorated Aug. 29 
 (^Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CANDIDUS. (1) Martyr at Rome, is com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 2 (^Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Sebaste in Armenia, March 9 
 (^Mart. Bedae); March 11 (Hart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr, one of the Theban Legion, com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 22 (Mart. Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Rome, Oct. 3 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 CANDLE. [Lights: Taper.] [C.] 
 
 CANDLEMAS. [Mary, Festivals of.] 
 CANISTER, or CANISTRUM. (1) A 
 
 basket used for holding consecrated bread, or 
 perhaps Eulogiae. Compare Arca. St. Jerome 
 (Hp. ad h'ustic. c. 20), speaking of the practice 
 among Christians in his day of carrying home 
 the consecrated elements both of bread and 
 Avine, uses the expression, “ Qui corpus Domini 
 in canistro A'imineo et sanguinem portat in 
 A'itro;” from which it appears that a wicker 
 basket was used for holding the consecrated 
 bread. 
 
 This passage is remarkably illustrated by a 
 fresco discoA'ered in the crypt of St. Cornelius by 
 Cavaliere de’ Rossi. This represents a fish swim¬ 
 ming in the water, bearing on its back a basket 
 having on the top several small loaves, and in.side 
 a red object, clearly visible through the wicker¬ 
 work, which seems to be a small glass flask of 
 wine. This is marked in the engraving by a 
 somewhat darker tint. We haA'e thus the Fish, 
 the well-known symbol of the Redeemer, com¬ 
 bined with the representation of the sacred 
 bread and wine. 
 
 I In another painting of the same cemetery is 
 I represented a tripod table, on which are laid 
 I three loaves and a fish, and round which are 
 I placed seven baskets full of loaves. Here, also, 
 
 I it cannot be doubted that the loaA'es are eucha- 
 ristic, either as being the Foaves actually con¬ 
 secrated, or those blessed for distribution [Eu¬ 
 logiae] (Martigny, Diet, des Ant. Chrdt. 
 p. 246). 
 
 Epiphanius the Pre.sbyter (in Indiculo ad 
 Ilormisd an, quoted b}^ Ducange, s. v. Canist/nim) 
 says that certain persons proved themselves to 
 be heretics by the very fact that on the approach 
 of what they called persecution, i.e. the pre¬ 
 dominance of the orthodox Church, they con-* 
 secrated great quantities of sacramental bread, 
 and distributed full baskets (canistra plena) to 
 all, that they might not be deprived of com¬ 
 munion. Ducange refers this to the eulogiae ; 
 but the eulogiae would scarcely haA’e been"^ 
 regarded as a substitute for communion, and the 
 passage may probably be referred, like that of 
 St. Jerome, to the distribution of bread actually 
 consecrated. 
 
 (2) The disk or tazza placed under a lamp. 
 This sense is frequent in the Liber Pontifcalis. 
 For instance. Pope Adrian (772-795) is .said to 
 have given to a church twelve silver canistri, 
 weighing thirty-six pounds. Leo III., his suc¬ 
 cessor, gax’e a silver canister with its chains, 
 weighing fifteen pounds. Gregory IV. gave two 
 canistra of nine lights (canistra ennafodia = eVi/ea- 
 (pctiTta). In the latter case, the lights were 
 probably distributed round the circumference of 
 the tazza. (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 CANON. Kavwv, a rule; applied ecclesias¬ 
 tically to many very diverse things, but with the 
 one notion of fixity or regularity underlying all 
 of them: as— 
 
 1. The Holy Scriptures, as, i. themselves a 
 rule; ii. in re.spect to the rule by which to de¬ 
 termine what is Holy Scripture, the latter being 
 the sense in which the word was first applied to 
 them. [Canonical Books.] 
 
 2. The Creed. [Creed.] 
 
 3. The Roll of the clergy in a particular 
 church (o eV tiS Kau6vi = clergyman), from a 
 time prior to the Nicene Council (can. 16, 17, 
 19), = 6 ayios Kavwv (Cone. Antioch. A.D. 341, 
 can. 1), KaTd\o 70 s tepariKds (Can. Apx)st. 14, 
 50), Albus (Sidon. Apollin. lib. aT. ep. 8), Matri- 
 cula (Cone. Agath. a.d. 506, can. 2), Tabula 
 Clericorum (St. Aug. Horn. 50 de Div.'). Hence 
 Canonici, and Canonicae; and later still. Canons 
 Secular and Canons Regular. [Canonici.] 
 
 4. The rules, either invented or improA'ed by 
 Eusebius after the Monotessaron of Ammonius,' 
 for ascertaining the parallel passages of the four 
 Gospels. 
 
 5. Canon Paschalis = the rule for finding 
 Easter. [Easter.] 
 
 6. The fixed portion of the Eucharistic service. 
 [Canon of the Liturgy.] 
 
CANON LAW 
 
 CANON LAW 
 
 265 
 
 7. The hvmns which formed inv’ariable por- ] 
 tions of services in the Greek office books, e. g. 
 
 6 Meyas Kavwu, Kavi}v 6 'Tv|/w(rea)S, Kauuv 
 yeKpaxTifMOS, Kuyoues 'AvaffTaffifioi, &c. &c. (Du 
 Cange, Meursius, Suicer, Cave.) [Canon of 
 Odes.] 
 
 8. A Lectionary, according to Gothofred (see 
 Bingham XIII. v. 6); but this seems doubtful. 
 
 9? A synodical decree. [Canon-law.] 
 
 10. A monastic rule ,—Koviov Trji /uLoyaxiKrjs 
 iroKireias (Cave, Diss. in fin. Hist. Litt.fi So also 
 used by the Pseudo-Egbert. 
 
 11. A Penitential (Cave, f&.). “Inciderein | 
 canona ” came to mean “ to incur penance ” (Du 
 Cange). 
 
 12. The epithet canonicae was also applied 
 to,— 
 
 i. The Canonical Letters given by bishops to 
 the faithful who travelled to another diocese. 
 [Epistolae.] 
 
 ii. The Canonical Hours of prayer. [Hours.] 
 
 iii. “ Canonical Pensions,” granted to a retired 
 bishop out of the revenues of his former see. 
 [Bishop; Pension.] 
 
 The word is used also, politically, of an ordi¬ 
 nary as opposed to an extraordinary tax ; whence 
 St. Athanasius speaks of himself as accused of 
 getting a Kav^u imposed upon Egypt (Apol. ii. 
 0pp. i. 178), which Sozomen (vi. 21) calls (p6pos: 
 and also of a pension or fixed payment (Du Cange, 
 Suicer). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CANON LAW. The term Canon Law, as 
 commonly used at the present day, is generally 
 understood to relate to that complex system of 
 ecclesiastical jurisprudence which grew up in 
 the Church of Rome during the Middle Ages.® 
 Of this system, howeA’’er, it hardly falls within 
 our limits to speak. The Decretum of Gratian, 
 which is the first part of the Corpus Juris 
 Cauonici, was not drawn up until the 12th 
 century, and even the Decretals of the Pseudo- 
 Isidore, which form to so large an extent the 
 basis of the canon law of Rome, did not appear 
 till some time after the year 800. We have, 
 therefore, to confine ourselves to the earlier 
 collections of church law 
 
 “ It is not to be supposed (says Ayliffe, in 
 his Introduction to his Parergon Juris Canonici) 
 that the communion of the Church could long 
 subsist after the death of the Apostles, without 
 some other laws and obligations, holding men to' 
 peace and concord among themselves, than those 
 contained in holy writ; considering the pride 
 and passions of men, and an overweening conceit 
 of their own particular ways m point of Divine 
 worship, and the ceremonies of it.” 
 
 The earliest approach to a lex scripta other 
 than and beyond the Scriptures, probably con¬ 
 sisted partly of letters of eminent bishops in 
 reply to questions put to them on disputed 
 topics (a kind of “ responsa prudentum ”)— 
 j)artly of ti'aditional maxims, “ coutumes,” as 
 Bunsen calls them (^Christianity and Mankind. 
 vol. ii. 421), reduced to widting, and generally 
 accepted, with or without synodical sanction— 
 
 • It is sometimes also applied to the provincial canons 
 and constiiutions passed by domestic synods in this coun¬ 
 try. It is to these that the act 25 Hen. 8, c. 19, relates. 
 But these also belong to a time subsequent to the year 
 80u, and do not therefore fall to be noticed here. 
 
 partly of decisions of local councils, in which 
 certain neighbouring dioceses met together and 
 agreed upon rules for their observance in com¬ 
 mon. 
 
 The so-called apostolical canons, and aposto¬ 
 lical constitutions [see Apost. Canons and 
 Apost. Constitutions] probably contain frag¬ 
 ments derived from this early period. The 
 ancient pieces edited in Lagarde’s lieliquiae Juris 
 Ecclesiastici Antiquissimae, and in Bickell’s 
 Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, also perhaps reflect 
 to some extent the state of things at a primitive 
 stage, with more or less of subsequent accretion 
 and interpolation. 
 
 Eusebius mentions synods or meetings of the 
 orthodox on the subject of the Easter contro¬ 
 versy as early as the close of the 2nd cen¬ 
 tury (//. E. V. 23; see Bickell, i. 38). In the 
 3rd century like assemblies were held on the 
 question of baptism by heretics, and on the con¬ 
 dition of the lapsi. Of letters of bishops received 
 as having weight in ecclesiastical questions, few 
 or none remain of a very early date. The epistle 
 of Clement of Rome, and the epistles of Ignatius, 
 hardly fulfil this character, and the pretended 
 letters of early popes in the Pseudo-Isidorian De¬ 
 cretals are forgeries. But in the 3rd century we 
 have a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria, and one 
 of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which were written in 
 reply to questions put to them, and which find a 
 place in the Codex Canonum of the Greek Church, 
 it is therefore possible that similar epistles of 
 other bishops may have exercised more or less 
 influence in regulating the affairs of infant 
 churches during the previous period. 
 
 At the beginning of the 4th century, pro¬ 
 vincial councils became numerous. Before the 
 year 325 we have, for instance, councils at Elvira, 
 Arles, Ancyra, and Neocaesarea. Then begins the 
 series of general councils, that of Nice being the 
 first, followed, in 381, by the first Council of 
 Constantinople, minor councils having been held 
 in the interim. [Council.] It is not surprising, 
 therefore, that some effort was now made to 
 collect the laws of the Church. We begin with 
 the Eastern Church. 
 
 The first collection of which we hear has not 
 come down to us in its original form. It ap¬ 
 pears to have contained at first only the canons of 
 Nice, and those of the provincial councils of An¬ 
 cyra, Neocaesarea, and Gangra. As the three 
 last mentioned councils were connected with 
 the diocese of Pontus, it has been conjectured, 
 from the prominence given to them, that the 
 collection originated there. 
 
 By degrees other councils were added, and this 
 Codex Ecclesiae Orientalis, thus enlarged, became 
 a work of recognized authority, and was quoted 
 at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Jus¬ 
 te 11 us edited in 1319 a Codex Canonum Ecclesiae 
 Universae, which he professed to be the collec¬ 
 tion quoted at Chalcedon, and to have been the 
 work of Stephen, bishop of Ephesus, at the end 
 of the 4th ceutui'y. In point of fact, however, 
 the work published by Justellus contains much 
 additional matter, and cannot be considered as an 
 exact representation of the early form of the 
 collections in question. Subsequently to 
 
 b •' Notus est error JukUlli, qui codiceni suum ca¬ 
 nonum ecclesiae universae pro lubitu composuit et pro 
 coUectione a concilio Chalo.'doncnsi coutiraiaUi, nunc 
 
266 
 
 CANON LAW 
 
 CANON LAW 
 
 the Council of ChalceJon, divers collections ap¬ 
 pear to hare been made, varying from one 
 another more or less in the order and character 
 of their contents. Meanwhile, another element 
 had been added to church law by the decrees of 
 the Christian emperors, collected in the Codes 
 of Theodosius and Justinian (Biener, p. 14). 
 
 In the middle of the 6th centuiy, John, sur- 
 named Scholasticus, a priest of Antioch, and 
 subsequently Patriai’ch of Constantinople, made 
 a more systematic and complete collection, in¬ 
 troducing into it sixty-eight passages from the 
 works of Basil, which the Oriental Church re¬ 
 ceives as authoritative ® At the same time he also 
 extracted and put together, from the legislation 
 of Justinian, a number of laws bearing on ec¬ 
 clesiastical matters. These two collections, 
 when afterwards combined (probably by another 
 hand), obtained the name of Nomocanon. 
 
 We now come to the council in Trullo, held 
 A.D. 692, the decree of which furnishes a list 
 of what was then received. The council acknow¬ 
 ledges 85 apostolic canons, and those of Nice, 
 Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, 
 Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Sardica, and 
 Carthage,*^ also of the Synod of Constantinople 
 under Nectarius.® It further recognizes the so- | 
 called canons taken from the works of Dionysius j 
 and Peter, archbishops of Alexandria, Gregory i 
 Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nys- 
 sen, Gregory Theologus, Amphilochius, Timo- 
 theus, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople. Lastly, 
 it confirms the Canon of Cyprian as to the 
 baptism of heretics, which it states to have been 
 recognized by the usage of the Church. 
 
 Not quite two centuries later appeared the 
 great Nomocanon of Photius, patriarch of Con¬ 
 stantinople. This comprehended a digest of the 
 canons according to their subject matter, and of 
 the laws of Justinian on the same subjects. A 
 close connexion was thereby practically estab¬ 
 lished between the decrees of councils and those 
 cf emperors (Biener, p. 22). It seems to be the 
 aim of this work to embrace the same canons 
 in the main as were recognized by the Trullan 
 Council, and to add them to the Trullan deci’ees, 
 and those of the following councils :— 
 
 The so-called 7th Council, or 2nd Nicene; 
 the so-called Primo secunda, held A.D. 861; that 
 of St. Sophia, called by the Greeks the 8th 
 Council, A.D. 879.^ 
 
 The council styled by the Latins the 8th, 
 viz., that held against Photius A.D. 869, not 
 being acknowledged by the Gi’eeks, did not ap¬ 
 pear in this collection. 
 
 In the 11th century the work of Psellus, in 
 
 demum restituta, vcnditavit.” Biener, p. 10; comp. 
 Phillips, p. 15. 
 
 It contained the Aj>ostolic Canons, and those of Nice, 
 Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Sardica, Gangra, Antioch. Laodicea, 
 Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the so-called 
 Canons of Basil. 
 
 d I. e. probably the same excerpta from the Council, 
 A.D. 419, which Dionysius, Exiguus received into his 
 collection. 
 
 « /. e. that held in 394 in relation to Agnpius and 
 Bagadius. 
 
 f For an account, however, of certain varieties and 
 omissions, not easily to be accounted for, and possibly 
 due in part to subsequent copyists and editors, see 
 Biener, $ 4. 
 
 the 12th, the commentaries of Zonaras and Bal- 
 samon, and of Aristenus, and later still, the 
 labours of Blastai’es, would require special men¬ 
 tion, as forming marked eras in the growth of 
 canon law in the East, as distinguished from the 
 mere collection and publication of existing ca¬ 
 nons. 
 
 But we have already passed our chronological 
 limit, and we therefore turn to the churches of 
 the West. 
 
 The canons of Nice appear to have been speedily 
 translated into Latin, and to have been circulated 
 in the West, together with those of Sardica. 
 Soon after the Council of Chalcedon, a further 
 collection called the “ Prisca translatio ” ap¬ 
 peared, which began with the Council of Ancyra, 
 and comprehended those of Chalcedon and Con¬ 
 stantinople. We hear also of a Gallic collection. 
 The African church, too, as it had numerous 
 councils, appeal's to have collected their decrees 
 [see Codex Canonum Ncclesiae Africanae~\. In or 
 about A.D. 547 Ferrandus, a deacon of Carthage, 
 published his Breviatio Canr/num, which was not 
 merely a compilation, but a systematic digest, 
 and comprehended also the Greek Councils to 
 which he appears to have had access through a 
 Spanish version. 
 
 Spain, indeed, had at an early period a collec¬ 
 tion of her own. The fact that a Spanish 
 bishop presided at the Council of Nice would 
 ensure a prompt entrance into that country for 
 the Nicene decrees. The canons of other councils 
 followed, some of which were held in Spain itself. 
 An old Codex Canonum appears to have existed, 
 though not now extant in its original form. It 
 is said to have been cited at the Council of Braga, 
 A.D. 591. 
 
 Martin, archbishop of Braga, also compiled 
 extracts from Greek councils, which became a 
 valuable contribution to the canon law of the 
 Spanish church. In the seventh century we 
 come to the collection which goes by the.name 
 of Isidore of Seville, and which seems to be of 
 his date, though perhaps not his work. This 
 was edited at Madrid in 1808 and 1821 from 
 a Spanish MS. This collection is a very full 
 one, and at once attained to a high position. It 
 contains not only canons of councils but de¬ 
 cretals of popes. In its composition use was no 
 doubt made of the Roman work of Dionysius of 
 which we are about to speak. 
 
 We must now go back a few years in order to 
 trace the state of things at Rome. The decrees 
 of Nice and Sardica were speedily accepted and 
 acted upon by the popes, but the history of any 
 regular collection of canons is obscure until the 
 end of the 5th century, when the Scythian monk 
 Dionysius Exiguus settled at Rome, and not long 
 afterwards undertook to edit a systematic com¬ 
 pilation. That his work is not entirely new is 
 clear, because he states that one of its objects 
 was to give a new and better translation of the 
 Greek canons. This seems to refer to the 
 defective nature of the “ Prisca translatio ” 
 above mentioned. The labours of Dionysius re¬ 
 sulted in a collection both more accurate and 
 more complete than any previously existing at 
 Rome. It comprised 50 of the apostolical canons, 
 27 canons of Chalcedon, 21 of Sardica, and 138 
 of various African councils. The work gave so 
 much satisfaction that its author proceeded to 
 make a second and further one, into which the 
 
CANON LAW 
 
 former was .nterwov’en. He now collected and 
 edited the aecretal letters of the popes down to 
 Auastasius II. k As the first systcun/itic editoi of 
 decretals, Dionysius gave a new prominence to 
 that branch of Canon Law (assimilating it to the 
 Rescripts of the Emperors), and thus contributed 
 much to sti’engthen the Papal pretensions.^ 
 That in a work which no doubt was much 
 valued and widely circulated, the epistles of 
 popes should be placed on a level with the canons 
 of councils, was no light matter. Accordingly 
 the Spanish collection of Isidore, of which we 
 have just spoken, borrowed and republished 
 these decretals from the work of Dionysius, thus 
 giving them standard authority in the code of 
 the church of Spain. The way was thus pre¬ 
 pared for the systematic interpolation of the 
 Isidorean collection with a host of forged de¬ 
 cretals purporting to be the genuine letters of 
 early popes, but being in reality fictitious docu¬ 
 ments framed to advance the extravagant papal 
 pretensions then rising into notice. This, indeed, 
 did not take place until the ninth century, and 
 the Pscwffo-Isidorean work must not be con¬ 
 founded with the earlier collection of Isidoi’e.* * 
 
 The work of Dionysius became extensively 
 known as the standard repertory of canon law. 
 Cresconius appears to have reproduced its con¬ 
 tents for the use of the church of Africa; Chil- 
 pe'ric in Gaul is said to have been acquainted 
 with it; and in England, Theodore is believed to 
 have quoted from it at the Synod of Hertford in 
 673. It is thought to have made its way even 
 into the East. Its most important recognition, 
 however, was that which was accorded to it by 
 Pope Adrian I. when he ^transmitted a copy 
 (augmented by certain additions) to Charle¬ 
 magne ; and by Charlemagne himself when he 
 caused the work to be solemnly received by the 
 synod held at Aix-la-Chapelle. From this period 
 it is frequently spoken of by the title of Cudex 
 Hadrianus, sometimes also by the name of Codex 
 Canonum. 
 
 At this point we pause.'* The next century 
 saw the Psewdo-Isidorian collection foisted upon 
 the church. 
 
 A new era then commenced; the era of ex¬ 
 travagant papal claims, and of canonical sub- 
 
 8 Last of all he published a revised and corrected 
 edition, which however has perished. 
 
 h In connexion with the word “ Decretal,” the following 
 explanation of terms, as used in the later canon law% may 
 not be out of place;—“ A canon is said to be that law 
 which is made and ordained in a general council or pro¬ 
 vincial synod of the Church. A decree is an ordinance 
 which is enacted by the pope himself, by and with the 
 advice of his cardinals assembled, without being consulted 
 by any one thereon. A decretal epistle is that which the 
 pope decrees either by himself or else by the advice of his 
 cardinals. And this must be on his being consulted by 
 some particular person or persons thereon. A dogma is 
 that determination w hicb consists in and has a relation to 
 some casuistical point of doctrine, or some doctrinal part 
 of the Chri.'tian faith.” AylifFe, xxxvli. 
 
 * The letter of Pope Siricius to Hiinerius, bishop of 
 Tarragona, a.d. 385, seems the first authentic Papal 
 Decretal. 
 
 It may be well to add a word as to Poenitentials. 
 These were designed to regulate the penances to be cano¬ 
 nically inflicted on penitents. They do not appear to 
 have had general sanction, but were locally adopted owing 
 to the posi.ion and influence of their authors. I'bus we 
 have the Poenitential of Giegory the Great, of Theodore, 
 of Bede, and others. See Aylltfe, xv. 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY *267 
 
 tletie.s engendered by ecclesiastics, whose pro¬ 
 fessional labours and commentaries developed 
 the law of the church into a system more 
 artificial and intricate than that of the state. 
 But these things lie beyond our present province, 
 and it is only necessary to draw attention to the 
 new phase which from this period \he whole 
 subject of canon law assumes. 
 
 From this time forward, the strident has to do 
 not merely with a collection of statutes but 
 with a fabric of jurisprudence—not merely with 
 a Codex Canonum, but with a Corpus Juris. 
 
 Authorities :— Parergon Juris Canonici, by 
 Ayliffe. London, 1726. Biener, De Collection- 
 ibus Canonum Ecclesiae Graecae. Berlin, 1827. 
 Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenredits. Giessen, 
 1845. Beveridge, Pandectae Canonum Sanctorum 
 Apostolorum et Conciliomm ah ecclesid Graeco, 
 receptorum. Oxon. 1672. Phillips, Du Droit 
 Ecclesiastique dans ses Sources, traduit par 
 Crouzet. Paris, 1852.—[A useful book but 
 ultramontane in tone.] In these works, parti¬ 
 cularly in the fii’st and last, references will be 
 found to the older authors for the benefit of 
 such students as desire to investigate the subject 
 more fully. [B. S.] 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY. That por¬ 
 tion of the Liturgy which contains the form of 
 consecration, and w'hich in the Roman and most 
 other rites is fixed and invariable, is called the 
 Canon. 
 
 I. Designations. The word Kav^v designates 
 either the standard by which anything is tried, 
 or that which is tried by such standard (see 
 Westcott on the Canon of the N. T., Ai)p. A). 
 It is used in the first sense by Clement of Rome 
 (1 Cor. 41), where he desii-es the brethren not 
 to transgress the set rule of their service (rhv 
 upiapevov Trjs \eiTovpy'ias Kav6vd) ; in the 
 second, when it is applied by liturgical writers 
 to the fixed series of Psalms or Troparia for a 
 particular day. It is in the second sense that 
 the word canon is applied to the fixed portion 
 of the Liturgy. As the names of certain 
 saints were recited in this canon, the word 
 KavovL^eiu came to designate the act of entering 
 a name in a liturgical list or diptych, and 
 saints whose names were so entered were said to 
 be canonized. 
 
 It is also called Actio (see the article), and 
 the title Infra Actionem {infra being used for 
 intra), is not uncommonly placed over the prayer 
 Communicantes in ancient MSS. See Le Brun, 
 Exposition de la Messe, tom. i, pt. iv, art. 4. 
 
 Pope Vigilius {Epist. ad Profuturum) and 
 Gregory the Great {Epist. vii. 64) call the 
 canon Precem, Precem Canonicam, as being the 
 prayer by pre-eminence. 
 
 It is also called Secreta and Secretum 3fissae, 
 from being said in a low voice. [Skcreta.] 
 
 Tertullian appears to use the word Benedictio 
 {= iv\oyia) to designate that portion of the 
 Eucharistic service, or Actio, which included 
 consecration. ^&^De Pudic. c. 14; Ad Uxorem, 
 ii. c. 6. 
 
 II. Early notices of this portion of the Liturgy. 
 On the scriptural notices it is not necessary here 
 to dwell. 
 
 In Justin Martyr’s account of the celebration 
 of the Eucharist for the newly-baptized {Apol. i. 
 c. 65), this })ortion of the service is described as 
 follows. “Then is presented (irpoaipepirai) to 
 
CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 268 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 tho brother who pi-esides, bread, and a cup of 
 water and mixed wine (Kpd/j.aTos), and he, re¬ 
 ceiving them, sends up praise and glory to the 
 Father of All, through the name of the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit, and offers a thanksgiving (eux®" 
 picrriap) at some length for that He has vouch¬ 
 safed to us these blessings. And when he has 
 finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, all 
 the people present respond by saying Amen . . . 
 And after the pi’esident has given thanks and 
 the people responded, those who are called among 
 us deacons give to each of those who are present 
 to partake of the bread and wine and water over 
 which thanks have been given, and carry them 
 to those not present. And this meal is called 
 with us eucharistia, of which none is permitted 
 to partake, except one who believes that the 
 things taught by us are true, and who has passed 
 through the washing for remission of sins and 
 new birth, and so lives as Christ commanded. 
 For we receive these not as common bread or 
 common drink, but as Jesus Christ our Saviour 
 being incarnate by the Word of God possessed 
 both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also 
 we were taught that the food over which thanks¬ 
 giving has been made by the utterance in prayer 
 of the word derived from Him (t^u cuxvs 
 ?<6yov TOv Trap' avrov f:Vxo.pto'rif]Q^'l<Tav Tpo<pi]v) 
 is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. 
 For the Apostles, in the memoirs which they 
 wrote which are called Gospels, transmitted to 
 us that Jesus Christ thus charged them ; that 
 after taking bread and giving thanks. He said, 
 ‘ Do this in remembrance of me ; this is my 
 Body and that, in like manner, after taking 
 the cup and giving thanks. He said, ‘ This is 
 my Blood ; ’ and that He gave to partake to 
 them alone.” 
 
 The same ceremony is more briefly described 
 in the following chapter, in the account of the 
 ordinary Sunday services, Avith the addition that 
 the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving, 
 “ haip Zvvajxis avrcp” according to his ability; 
 for, as F. Xavier Schmid observes (Liturgik, i. 
 44), “ even the prayers of the sacrifice of the 
 mass depended for their contents and length on 
 the pleasure of the several presidents, though 
 they might often be moulded on a type given by 
 some apostle or apostolic man.” 
 
 Justin connects the notion of sacrifice with 
 the Eucharist. In the Dialogue (c. 117, p. 386) 
 he speaks of the acceptableness of the sacrifices 
 (^Oua-ias) which Christ ordained, “ that is, over the 
 Eucharist or thanksofiering (eVl tt} evxapio'Tia^ 
 of the bread and the cup; ” and he regards the 
 oftering of fine flour (LeA\ xiv. 10) as a type of 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 In Irenaeus, Avith many passages interesting 
 in a dogmatic jAoint of view (Avith Avhich at pre¬ 
 sent we are not concerned) are several Avhich 
 contain liturgical indications. He dwells (^Haeres. 
 iv. 18, § 4, p. 251) on the difficulty Avhich they, 
 Avho do not belicA'c Christ to be the very Word 
 of God through Whom all things Avere made, 
 must experience in receiving the truth that the 
 bread oA’^er (or, by occasion of) which thanks 
 naA'e been given (“ panem in quo gratiae actae 
 sint ”) is the Lord’s Body. And again he says 
 (^Haeres. v. 22, § 3, p. 294) that natural bread 
 receiA'es over it the Avord of God, and the thank- 
 offering becomes the Body of Christ (<5 yeyovws 
 ipTO'S iviSex^^ui rhv \6yov toO &eov /col yiuf- 
 
 rat rj €vxo.pi(Tria (Xco/xa XpaTTOv). [Eucharist.] 
 Speaking of the heretic Marcus {[{acres, i. 13, 
 § 2), he says, that he pretended to perform 
 a eucharistic serA'ice, and that by uttering a 
 long form of inv'ocatijn (^ttI irhiov [KTeivuv 
 rhv \6yov TT/s e7rt/cX^<r<c«js) he caused the 
 liquid in the cups to appear red and purple. 
 This was no doubt in imitation of the Epi- 
 CLESIS of the orthodox. In Fragment 38, Ave 
 read: “The offering {TTpo(r<popd') of the Eucharist 
 is not fleshly, but spiritual, and therein pure. 
 For we offer {irpoaipdpo/xfv) unto God the bread 
 and the cup of blessing, giving thanks (ihxa.pi- 
 (TTovvTis) unto Him, for that He bade the earth 
 bring forth these fruits for our sustenance; and 
 at that point, after completing our offering, Ave 
 call forth (iKKaXovgev') the Holy Spirit, to de¬ 
 clare (oirccs a.iro(P'i)vrf) this sacrifice and the 
 bread the Body of Christ and the cup the Blood 
 of Christ, that they who partake of these figures 
 (dvriTurrcov) may obtain remission of their sins 
 and eA'erlasting life.” And again (Ilaeres. iv. 
 18, s. 5, p. 251) we read, that bread produced 
 from earth, receiving over and above its propei 
 nature the iuA^ocation or calling-forth of God 
 (TTpoaXa^S/iivos r^v iKK\.t](Tiv rov 0eoC) is no 
 longer common bread, but Eucharistia. 
 
 It is supposed by some that Clement of Alex¬ 
 andria describes the great eucharistic thanks¬ 
 giving of his time, Avhen he says that Christians; 
 thank God for the blessings of creation and for 
 the gifts of nature (CohoHatio ad Geides, pp. 7 
 and 92, ed. Potter) ; for His mercy in redeeming 
 us by His Word from the misery of the Fall ; 
 for Christ’s life and Avorks (ib. pp. 6 and 8 ; com¬ 
 pare p. 87). This is not quite evident; nor is it 
 clear that the allusions to the Cherubic hymn 
 of Isaiah (Strom, v. 6, p. 668; A'ii. 12, p. 880) 
 relate to the use of that hymn in the liturgy. 
 But Clement is clearly refei-ring to the Eucharist, 
 when he insists, against the Eucratites, on the 
 use of wine [Elements], and says (Paedag. ii. 2, 
 p. 186) that the Lord “ blessed (evXoygaev') the 
 wine, saying, ‘ Take, drink; this is My blood,’ 
 the blood of the A'ine; under the figure of the 
 holy stream of gladness He describes the Word 
 shed forth for many for the remission of sins 
 (rhv \6yov rhv Trepl ttoWwv iKX^d/juvov its 
 &(p€(Ttv afiapTidSy fvcppoavvrjs dyiov aWriyopei 
 vaga).” He giA^es no details of the form of con¬ 
 secration. 
 
 Tertullian’s Avorks contain many eucharistic 
 allusions. The intercessions Avhich, according to 
 his testimony, Christians made on behalf of em¬ 
 perors and the peace of the empire (Apol. cc. 
 30, 39), on behalf of enemies (Apol. c. 31), and 
 for fruitful seasons (ad Scapulam, c. 4); the 
 commemoration of and intercession foi' the dead 
 (De Exhort. Cast. c. 11 ; De Monogamii, c. 10) 
 probably all took place in connexion with the 
 sacrifice of the Eucharist (ad Scapulam, c. 2). Ac¬ 
 cording to the Marcionite theory, he says (adv. 
 Marcion. i. 23), the eucharistic giving of thanks 
 is performed oA'er alien bread to another than 
 the true God (“super alienum panem alii Deo 
 gratiarum actionibus fungitnr”), implying that 
 a giAung of thanks to the true God over the 
 eucharistic bread, took place in the service of 
 the Church. He describes (De AntniLi, c. 17) the 
 blessing of the Cup in the Last Supper as “ con¬ 
 secration ; ” and the consecration of the bread 
 to be a representation (“ figura ”) of the Lord’s 
 
CANON OF THE LITURGY 2G9 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 Body he held to have been accomplished by the 
 words, “ Hoc est corpus meum ” Marcion. 
 iv. 40; cf. de Orat. c. 6). Prayers which are 
 called “ orationes sacrificiorum ” tollowed com¬ 
 munion (de Orat. c. 14). 
 
 St. Cyprian says (Epist. 63, c. 17), that in the 
 eucharikic action, “ because we make mention of 
 His Passion in all our sacrifices (for the Passion 
 of the Lord is the sacrifice which we offer) we 
 ought to do no other thing than He did; for 
 scripture says that so often as we offer the cup 
 in commemoration of the Lord and His Passion, 
 we should do that which it is evident that the 
 Lord did.” He is arguing here especially for 
 the mixed chalice [Elements], but his words 
 clearly have an application to the eucharistic 
 office in genei'al. We find also from Cyprian that 
 in the eucharistic action (“in sacrificiis nostris”), 
 as well as in prayers (“ orationibus ”) intercession 
 was made for brethren suffering affliction (Epist. 
 61, c. 4), whose names were i-ecited(A/iisL 62, c. 5), 
 as were also the names of those who made oftei’- 
 ings (Epist. 16, c. 2) and of the dead who had 
 departed uncensured in communion with the 
 Church (Epist. 1, c. 2). The liturgical office of 
 a priest seems to be summed up (Epist. 65, c. 4) 
 in sanctifying the oblation, in prayers and suppli¬ 
 cations (“ orationes et preces”) ; and the brethren 
 are admonished, that when they come together 
 to celebrate the divine sacrifices with the priest 
 of God, they should not indulge in noLsy and 
 unseemly prayers (De Orat. Dom. c. 4); a pas¬ 
 sage which seems to imply that the congrega¬ 
 tion took a prominent part in the eucharistic 
 service. 
 
 Origen has more than one passage bearing 
 upon the hallowing of the elements in the Eu¬ 
 charist. We read (contra Celsum, lib. 8, p. 399, 
 ed. Spencer, 1658), “ Let Celsus, as one who knows 
 not God, pay his thank-ofi'erings (xapio'r'ftpia) to 
 demons; but we, doing that which is well¬ 
 pleasing to the Maker (Srjpiovpyif) of the uni¬ 
 verse, eat the loaves offered with thanksgiving 
 and prayer over the gifts (tovs per’ eiixapitrTios 
 K. evxvs Trjs eVi rois 8o6e7(ri irpoaayopevovs 
 &pTovs), loaves which are made, in consequence 
 of the prayer, a certain body, holy and hallowing 
 those who use it with sound purpose.” Again, 
 in the Comment on St, Matthew (c. 14), Origen 
 speaks of the bi’ead being hallowed by the word 
 of God and pra 3 'er. It is worthy of notice, that 
 in the Alexandrian Liturgy, the priest in ad¬ 
 ministering the bread says, awpa aytor, not 
 (Twpa Xpiarov (Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 168). 
 
 Firmilian (1269), bishop of Caesarea in Cap¬ 
 padocia (Cypriani Epist. lb, c. 10, p, 818, Hartel) 
 describes an ecstatic woman who performed a 
 mock eucharistic act and sanctified the bread 
 with an invocation of considerable power (“ invo- 
 catione non contemptibili ”), and offered the sacri¬ 
 fice to the Lord without® the mystic words of 
 the accu.stomed form (“ sine Sacramento solitae 
 praedicationis’’). In this passage invocatio pro¬ 
 bably corresponds to ^ttikAtjcis, and praedicatio 
 to KTjpvypa, a word used by St. Basil (Epist. 
 141) for a liturgical form. It seems to be here 
 implied that the form of the epiclesis used by 
 the ecstatica was her own effusion; while the 
 usual “ praedicationes ” of the sacred act were 
 
 ® The “ non " which is here inserted in some texts is a 
 oci\jecturc not supported by any MS. 
 
 “ mysteries,” and either unknown to her, or re¬ 
 jected as not satisfying her aspirations. 
 
 In the liturgical directions of the second book 
 of the Apostolical Constitutions (c. 57, §§ 13, 14) 
 no explicit account is given of the central por¬ 
 tion of the service. After describing the bidding- 
 prayer, or Prosphonesis of the deacon, and the 
 prayer, with benediction, of the priest, the writer 
 proceeds: “And after this let the sacrifice be 
 made (yivcadw dvaia), all the people standing 
 and praying in a low voice; and when the 
 offering has been made (orau averex^fl), let 
 each order partake severally of the Lord’s Body 
 and the precious Blood.” No details are given 
 of the sacrifice or anaphora, perhaps in conse¬ 
 quence of the silence imposed in that respect by 
 the “ Disciplina Arcani.” The eighth book con¬ 
 tains what is commonly called the Clementine 
 Liturgy, which is considered elsewhere. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem gives us a descrijition 
 (Catech. Mystag. V.) of the liturgy as it was 
 actually celebrated at Jerusalem in the early 
 part of the 4th century. After describing the 
 Sursuin Corda, Preface, and Sanctus, he proceeds 
 (§ 7) : “ Then, after hallowing ourselves by these 
 spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to 
 send forth His Holy Spirit upon the elements 
 displaj'ed on the table (ra -npoK^ipiva), to make 
 the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the 
 Blood of Christ. For most certainly, what¬ 
 soever the Holy Spirit may have touched, that 
 is hallowed and transformed (■^yiao'Tai Kal 
 pera^f^XrjTai). Then, after that the spiritual 
 sacrifice, the unbloodservice (Karpe'a') is com¬ 
 pleted, over that sacrifice of propitiation we be¬ 
 seech God for the common peace of the churches, 
 for the welfare of the world, for kings, for sol¬ 
 diers and allies, for those in infirmity, for 
 those in special trouble, and, generally, we all 
 pray for all who need help; and this sacrifice we 
 offer. Then we make mention also of those who 
 have gone to rest before us, first patriarchs, 
 prophets, apostles, martyi's; that God at their 
 prayers and intercessions would receive our sup¬ 
 plication (Sttcos b 0ebs Tats evxals avrcov Kal 
 npeafieiais irpoffbe^riTai tV,v ^pwv derjaiv)’, then 
 also on behalf of the holy fathers and bishops 
 who have gone to rest before us, and generally 
 all of our body who have gone to rest before us; 
 believing that the greatest benefit will accrue to 
 their souls for whom the supplication is offered 
 (r) S4r]cris avacpepfrai) while the holy and mo.st 
 awful sacrifice is displayed (-n-poKupivips').” Then 
 follows the Lord’s Prayer, the to ayia rois ayiois, 
 and communion. 
 
 St. Basil, in a remarkable passage (De Spirifu 
 Sancto, c. 27 [al. 661, p. 54) speaks of some of 
 the ceremonies of the Eucharist as having been 
 derived from unwritten tradition. “Tlie words 
 of the Invocation [Epiclesis] at the disjilaying 
 or dedicating (67rl rff bread of 
 
 thanksgiving and the cup of blessing, which of 
 the saints left behind for us in writing ? For, 
 you know, we are not content with the things 
 which the Apostle or the Gospel relate, but we 
 prefix and suffix other expressions (irpoKeyopev 
 Kal iiriKfyopiv (Tepa) which we regard as 
 highly important for the mystery, having them 
 handed down to us from unwritten tradition 
 (iK rris aypd(pov 8L8a(rKa\'ias irapaKa&ovrfs).” 
 This clearly indicates that the general form of 
 consecration in the time of St. Ba-sil corres]iouded 
 
270 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 to that in the existing Greek Liturgies, in that 
 the portion actually taken ft om Scri})ture was 
 preceded and succeeded by forms not sci-iptural, 
 reputed to be taken from apostolic tradition, 
 and that an Epiclesis was an essential part of 
 the form. 
 
 St. Chrysostom informs us (on 2 Cor. Horn. 
 18) that after the Kiss of Peace there followed 
 the blessing of the priest, to which the people 
 responded, “ And with thy spirit; ” then, it is 
 implied, came the “ Lift up your hearts,” &c., 
 with the response “It is meet and right ” and 
 the cherubic hymn. As to the petitions of the 
 great thanksgiving, he tells us (on St. Matt. 
 Horn. 25 [al. 26]) that the priest bids us make 
 the eucharistic ofi'ering (^ihxapLO’TUv) on behalf 
 of the world, of those who have gone before and 
 those who are to follow after us ; and again (on 
 2 Cor. Horn. 2) for bishops, for presbyters, for 
 kings and rulers, for land and sea, for wholesome 
 air, for all the world. It appears also that 
 founders of churches, and the village for which a 
 church was founded, were specially named in the 
 sacred service (/n Acta, Horn. 18, c. 5). It also 
 appears that the Agnus Dei was repeated in con¬ 
 nexion with the eucharistic intercession : (virep 
 uhrSrv irpotripLev, Sedfieiroi tov ap.vov tov Keigerrov 
 Tov Kafiovros rrjv agapTiav tov KO(rp.ov] on 1 Cor. 
 Horn. 41; compare on St. John, Horn. 24, and 
 on Acts, Horn. 21), and that the Lord’s Prayer 
 formed part of the canonical prayers (In Genes. 
 Horn. 27). The ra ayia tols ay'iois [Sancta 
 Sanctis] formed the transition to Communion 
 (Pseudo-Chrys. on Hebr. Horn. 17). 
 
 St. Augustine, at thg end of the 4th century, 
 testifies to the general order of the canon in his 
 time in the North-African churches, which pro¬ 
 bably differed little in this respect from the 
 Italian. Thus we find (ac? Infant, de Sacra¬ 
 ment is, p. 227) that the Sur'sum Corda formed 
 the introduction to the more solemn part of 
 the service, which is called “ sanctificatio sacri- 
 ficii Dei,” and that this was followed by the 
 Lord’s Prayer. Again, that the intercessions at 
 the altar included pi'ayer for unbelievers, that 
 God would convert them to the faith ; for cate¬ 
 chumens, that He would inspire them with a 
 longing for regeneration; for the faithful, that 
 they may persevere in that which they have 
 begun (^Epist. 217, Ad Vital.; De Bono Per'- 
 seve ant. c. 7); and for the dead (^De Cut'a 
 pro Mortuis, cc. 1 and 4). That the North- 
 African Church exercised special care in regard 
 to the prayers to be used at the altar, even while 
 strict uniformity was not insisted upon, is indi¬ 
 cated by the provision (III. Cone. Cat'th. c. 23, 
 circ. A.D. 397) that the altar-prayers should 
 always be addressed to the Father (“ cum altari 
 adsistitur semper ad Patrem dirigatur oratio ”), 
 and that the celebrant is not to adopt prayers 
 from extraneous authorities, “ nisi prius eas cum 
 instructioribus fratribus contulerit.” A nearer 
 approach to uniformity in indicated by the decree 
 of a somewhat later council (Rhein wald’s Archiiol. 
 p. 355), “ ut preces quae probatae fuerint in con- 
 cilio, sive praefationes sive commendationes seu 
 manus impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur.” 
 
 The pseudo-Ambi'osius de Sacrarnentis, writing 
 probably in the 4th century, discusses (iv. c. 4) 
 the question of consecration in the Eucharist. 
 “By what words,” he says, “and whose expres¬ 
 sions (sermonibus) is consecration effected ? By 
 
 those of the Lord Jesus. For in the rest of the 
 service praise is given to God, prayer is made for 
 the people, for kings, for the rest. When the 
 point of completing the venerable sacrament is 
 reached, the priest no longer uses his own ex¬ 
 pressions, but the expressions of Christ.” 
 
 Summary. —We find, then, that from the 
 middle of the 2nd century, the pre.sentation of 
 the elements was regarded as a thank-offering or 
 sacrifice [Eucharist], especially for the fruits 
 of the eSrth; that thanks were given to God 
 over the bread and mixed wine, with prayer, 
 which probably included the Lord’s Prayer; 
 that this was done in especial commemoration of 
 the Lord’s death, though it is not absolutely 
 certain that the words of Institution were in all 
 cases recited over the elements; and that there 
 was in many churches an Invocation of the Holy 
 Spirit. Moreover, it is clear that from the time 
 of Tertullian at least intercession was made in 
 the eucharistic service for the dead as well as 
 the living. In the 2nd century, the details of 
 the prayers and thanksgivings seem to have 
 depended upon the president of the assembly, 
 though a genei'al type was probably in all cases 
 followed; in the 4th century, the canon of the 
 liturgy was evidently fixed, both in East and 
 West, in forms not materially differing from 
 those found in extant liturgies. From this 
 point we proceed to consider these lattei*. For 
 the discussion of their respective dates and mu¬ 
 tual connexion, see Liturgy. 
 
 HI. Tiie Canon in existing Liturgies. In the 
 extant Liturgies we find the Canon (which cor¬ 
 responds nearly to the Anaphora of the Eastern 
 ritual) consisting in all cases of nearly the same 
 elements, variously arranged. We have in nearly 
 all canons, after the Sanctus, commemoration of 
 the Lord’s Life and of the Institution, Oblation, 
 prayer for living and dead, leading on to the 
 Lord’s Pra)^er, with Embolismus. In the Eastern 
 liturgies always, sometimes in the Gallican and 
 Mozarabic masses, but not in the Roman or 
 Ambrosian, we have an Epiclesis, or prayer for 
 the descent of the Holy Spirit on the elements. 
 The annexed analytical table shows the principal 
 differences of arrangement. The Canon is 
 generally understood to exclude the Sanctus, 
 while the Anaphora includes both the Sursurn 
 Corda and the S tnet'ts. 
 
 \See Table opposite."] 
 
 The portion between the Sursurn Corda and 
 the Sanctus will be described under Preface. In 
 the Alexandrian (St. Mark’s) Liturgy alone, the 
 prayers for the living and the dead, and for 
 acceptance of the sacrifice, are inserted in the 
 midst of it. The arrangement of St. James’s 
 liturgy is typical of that usual in the orthodox 
 Eastern Church, from which the Nestorian 
 arrangement differs mainly in having the inter¬ 
 cession for living and dead before the Epi(desis. 
 The Gregorian (which is nearly identical with 
 the modern Roman) and the Gallican (the ar¬ 
 rangement of which is nearly the same as that of 
 the Mozarabic) represent the principal Western 
 types. 
 
 The canon of the Roman or Gregorian liturgy 
 is divided into ten portions, which are usually 
 known by their first words. These are as fol¬ 
 lows : 1. Te igitur, for acceptance of the sacri¬ 
 fice to be offered. 2. Memento, commemorating 
 the living. 3. Cormnunicantes, commemorating 
 
CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 271 
 
 ST. JAMES 
 (Greek). 
 
 ST. MARK. 
 
 NESTORIUS. 
 
 AMBROSIAN AND 
 GREGORIAN. 
 
 GALLICAN. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oblation of Elements. 
 Prayer for Living and 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 )ead. 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 Collectio post Nomina. 
 Kiss of Peace. 
 
 Oratio ad Pacem. 
 
 Sursum Corda. 
 
 Sursum Corda. 
 
 Sursum Corda (pecu- 
 
 Sursum Corda. 
 
 Sursum Corda. 
 
 
 
 liar form). 
 
 
 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Preface. 
 
 Preface. 
 
 
 
 Prayer for Living 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 and Dead; and 
 for acceptance 
 of the Sacrifice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preface resumed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sanctus. 
 
 Sanctus. 
 
 &mctu8. 
 
 Sanctus. 
 
 Sanctus. 
 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 Prayer for the Liv- 
 
 Collectio post Sanctus 
 
 the Lord’s life. 
 
 
 the Lord’s life. 
 
 ing; and for ac¬ 
 ceptance of the 
 
 (short). 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sacrifice. 
 
 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 Commemoration of 
 
 Commemoration of In- 
 
 Institution. 
 
 Institution. 
 
 Institution. 
 
 Institution. 
 
 siitution. 
 
 Oblation. 
 
 Oblation. 
 
 Oblation. 
 
 Oblation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Prayer for Living 
 
 Prayer for the Dead. 
 
 
 
 
 
 and Dead. 
 
 
 
 
 Prayer for Descent of 
 
 Prayer for Descent 
 
 Prayer for Descent 
 
 
 “ Post Secreta " fsome- 
 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 of Holy Spirit. 
 
 of Holy Spirit. 
 
 
 times containing In- 
 
 
 
 
 
 vocation 
 
 Spirit). 
 
 of Holy 
 
 
 
 
 
 Priest. 
 Fraction 
 and com- 
 mixtion. 
 
 Choir. 
 Conlracto- 
 rium (an 
 Antiphon.) 
 
 Prayer for Living 
 
 
 Prayer for Peace. 
 
 
 
 and Dead. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Preface to Lord’s 
 
 Preface to Lord’s 
 
 
 Preface to Lord's 
 
 Preface to Lord’s 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 
 Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 Lord's Prayer. 
 
 Fraction. 
 
 Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 Embolismus. 
 
 Embolismus. 
 
 
 Embolismus. 
 
 Embolismus. 
 
 the Virgin Mary and other saints. 4. Hanc igi- 
 tur, for peace and salvation. 5. Quam oblatio- 
 nem, that the oblation may become to the wor¬ 
 shippers the Body and Blood of the Lord. 6. 
 Qui Pridie, commemoi'ating the Institution. 7. 
 Unde et memores, the Oblation. 8. Supra quae 
 propitio, for a blessing on reception. 9. Memento 
 etiam, commemorating the dead. 10. Nobis 
 quoque peccatoribus, for the priest and people 
 present. The most remarkable peculiarity of 
 the Roman rite is, that the commemoration of 
 the living is separated from that of the dead, and 
 precedes consecration, while in the Eastern litur¬ 
 gies the intercessions for living and dead form 
 one prayer, and follow the recitation of the 
 words of Institution. It seems probable that 
 originally the Memento etiam followed the Me¬ 
 mento immediately, just as in Greek liturgies 
 the /xv^(r0TjTt is followed by p.vi\<TQr\ri Koi ; and 
 in fact in Gerbert’s text of the Gelasian Sacra¬ 
 mentary a Memento etiam, in a form differing 
 considerably from the Gregorian, does follow 
 immediately upon the Memento, so that both 
 precede the Communicantes; while a Memento 
 etiam in the Gregorian form follows the supra 
 quae propitio (Daniel’s Codex Lit. i. 15, 19; 
 Gerbert, Vetus Liturgia Alcmannica, i. 365). 
 This arrangement may perhaps represent the 
 state of transition from one form to the other, 
 the earlier Memento etiam having been struck 
 out when another nearly identical was intro¬ 
 duced in another place. 
 
 The Gallican canon has peculiarities which 
 show that it belongs to a wholly different family 
 from the Roman. The prayers for living and 
 dead, with the kiss of peace, precede the sursum 
 corda and sanct^^s: the sanctus is immediately 
 
 followed by what is called the “collectio post 
 sanctus” (sometimes called the canon), which is 
 again immediately followed by the recitation of 
 the words of Institution. While the Roman canon 
 is invariable, the Gallican, which is very short, 
 changes with every mass. To give one by way of 
 example, the canon for the eve of the Nativity in 
 the Gallo-Gothic missal (Daniel, Cod. Lit. i. 83) is 
 
 “ Vere sanctus, vere benedictus Dominus Noster 
 Jesus Christus Filius tuus manens in coelis maui- 
 festatus in terris. Ipse enim pridie quam pate- 
 retur, etc.” 
 
 The same form, Vere sanctus, etc., follows the 
 sanctus also in the Mozarabic liturgy. This is 
 not, however, immediately followed by the words 
 of Institution, but by a prayer commencing 
 “ Adesto, adesto Jesu bone pontifex,” containing 
 a petition for the sanctification of the oblation, 
 which is followed by “ Dominus Noster Jesus 
 Christus, in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit pancm, 
 etc.,” reciting the Institution. 
 
 In Mabillon’s Sacramentarium Gallicanum the 
 Roman canon is given with the first mass, and 
 perhaps served, as Mabillon remarks (p. 453, 
 Migne) for all; he supposes, however, that at an 
 earlier period the Gallican had its own canon, 
 and that the introduction of the Roman canon 
 was the beginning of the supersession of the 
 Gallican rite by the Roman, which was after¬ 
 wards completely established {Praefat. § iv.). 
 
 The Commemoration of the Lord’s Life begins 
 in most cases, with taking up the ascx-iption of 
 holiness to the Almighty already set forth in the 
 sanctus. For instance, in the Greek St. Jame.:, 
 the &yios of the preceding hymn is repeated in 
 "Ayios (I, BaeiAev rwv alwvuv .... Hyios ual 
 6 fiovoyfi/ifs crov tihs . , , , &yioy 5c Kol to 
 
272 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 riy€v/xd <TOv to" Ayiov (Daniel, Cod. Lit. iv. 109) 
 which commences the commemoration ; and the 
 variable Lost Sovctus of the Gallican and Moza- 
 rabic liturgies begins very commonly with the 
 words “ Vere sanctus, v<?re benedict us Dominus 
 Noster Jesus Christus.” The “ commemorations ” 
 in St. James and St. Basil (Daniel iv. 427) recite 
 with great dignity and beauty the creation of 
 man, his state in Paradise, his fall, and redemp¬ 
 tion by God’s mercy; so leading on to the com¬ 
 memoration of the Lord’s death and the Institu¬ 
 tion of the supper. That of St. Chrysostom is 
 much shorter. St. Mark (Daniel iv. 158) has in 
 this place a mere allusion to the manifestation of 
 the Lord, and a prayer for the descent of the 
 Holy Spirit to bless the sacrifice. The 
 Sanctus of the Gallican and Mozarabic canon 
 contains, at least on the Lord’s festivals, a com¬ 
 memoration of some portion of His Life ; a fea¬ 
 ture entirely absent from the Roman. Some 
 liturgies contain in this portion allusions to 
 peculiar opinions Avith regard to the person of 
 Christ ; the Armenian, for instance, after reciting 
 (^Liturgy of the Armewan Church, tr. by Rev. 
 S. C. Malan, p. 39) God’s mercy in the prophets 
 and the law, speaks of the Sou as having taken a 
 body “ by union without confusion from the 
 Mother of God and Holy Virgin Mary.” 
 
 The Aethiopic liturgy agrees with the Coptic 
 St. Basil and St. Gregory (Renaudot, Lit. Orient. 
 i. 13, 29, 516) in breaking this portion of the 
 ofllce with responds. That of St. Gregory, for 
 e.vample, thrice inserts the Kyrie Eleison.” 
 
 The transition from the preceding prayer 
 or ascription to the Cotnmemoratioyi of Institution 
 is generally made in the Eastern liturgies by the 
 words “ os ry vvkti y TrapeSidoTo,” or some equi¬ 
 valent formula; those of St. James and St. 
 Chrysostom add “juaWov Se kavrhv TrapeSiSou;” 
 hut this addition is not found in the Syriac St. 
 James. The Coptic St. Basil (Renaudot, Lit. 
 Orient, i. 14) has a wholly different form : ‘'*He 
 instituted this great mysteiy of piety and worship, 
 when He had determined to deliver Himself to 
 death for the life of the world.” The usual 
 Western form is “ Qui pridie quam pateretur ; ” 
 but the Mozarabic has here “ Dominus Xoster 
 Jes IS Christus in qua nocte tradebatur,” approach¬ 
 ing in this, as in other respects, mere nearly to 
 the Eastern type. It has indeed been contended 
 that this form is a comparatively recent interpo¬ 
 lation, inasmuch as the prayer which follows is 
 called the “ Post Pridie ” as if the usual for¬ 
 mula had preceded (Krazer, De Liturgiis, 615; 
 Neale, Eastern Church, hit. 472). But in fact 
 the title “ Post Pridie ” is probably not so an¬ 
 cient as Isidore’s time, Avho calls the prayer 
 which follows consecration the “ Confirmatio 
 Sacramenti ”; and it is surely very much 
 more probable that the heading “ Post Pridie ” 
 should have been inserted by some revisor fami¬ 
 liar with Roman liturgical diction, than that the 
 form “ Qui pridie,” common to the whole of 
 Western Christendom, should have been displaced 
 by one entirely unheard of, and that in the most 
 solemn part of the Liturgy. 
 
 In no liturgy, in the narrative of institution, is 
 any one Gospel followed, and the form adopted 
 is such as to suggest rather an independent 
 tradition than an artificial arrangement from the 
 Gospels. Many of the forms add epithets expres¬ 
 sive of veneration for the Person of the Lord. 
 
 Very many liturgies contain a reference to the 
 Lord’s raising his eyes to Heaven before breaking 
 the bread. This is the case in those of St. 
 
 I James and St. Mark, but not in that of St. Chryso¬ 
 stom or in the kindred Nestorian forms ; it is 
 the case in all the Western forms,' except 
 the Mozarabic. St. Mark and St. James insert 
 the raising of the eyes to Heaven before the 
 blessing of the cup also. St. James and St. 
 Basil mention the displaying or dedicating 
 (avaSel^as) of the bread to God the Father. 
 
 The mingling of the wine with water is a well- 
 known and almost universal custom ; but in 
 none of the Western liturgies is any mention of 
 it made in the canon, while in the East it con¬ 
 stantly appears. The Basilian has simply min¬ 
 gling ” (/cepdfTos) (Daniel, iv. 429); St. James 
 the fuller form, “ mingling of wine and water.” 
 So also Coptic St. Gregory (Renaudot i. 30); 
 and many of the Syro-Jacobite liturgies, as for 
 instance that of St. John (/?>. ii. 164). St. 
 Chrysostom has no reference to the mixing; but 
 it is nevertheless found in the liturgy of Nesto- 
 rius, which is in a great measure derived from 
 that of Constantinople. 
 
 It is an ancient belief that the Lord Himself 
 partook of the bread and the cup in the Last 
 Supper. This, howeA'er, appears but rarelv in 
 the Liturgies. The Coptic forms of St. Basil 
 and St. Gregory refer to the Lord’s tasting the 
 Cup (Renaudot, i. 15, 31); and some of the 
 Syro-Jacobite liturgies refer to His partaking or 
 the Bread: for instance, St. James of Edessa 
 (/6. ii. 373). That of Nestorius (76. ii. 629) 
 makes the Lord partake both of the bread and 
 the wine. 
 
 Some of the Syix)-Jacobite liturgies, drawn up 
 at a time when the controversy was rife as to 
 the use of leaA'ened or unleavened bread in the 
 Eucharist, [Elements] introduce into the canon 
 such expressions as “ common ” or “ leavened ” 
 bread. For instance, those of James Baradai and 
 ^Matthew the Pastor (Renaudot, ii. 335, 348); 
 and some, as that of Dioscorus (76. 495) speak 
 of His accomplishing the IMosaic Passover ; as 
 does also Nestorius (/6. ii. 629). 
 
 With regard to the actual words said over 
 the bread, the usual Latin form is simply, ‘‘ Hoc 
 est Corpus Meum.” The Ambrosian, in one text 
 adds “ quod pro multis confringetur; ” in Pa- 
 melius’s text, “ quod pro vobis confringetur ” 
 (Daniel’s, Codex i. 86) ; the Mozarabic, quod 
 pro vobis tradetur.” 
 
 In the Greek, St. James has, “ This is my 
 Body, which is broken and given for you for the 
 remission of sins,” and with this the principal 
 liturgies agree, except that few give both the 
 words “ broken ” and “ given.” The words found 
 in St. Luke and St. Paul, to vtrep vgQp 5iS6fx(vov, 
 or K\a)fM(Pov, appear indeed in all Eastern litur¬ 
 gies with the exception of that of the Syrian 
 Eustathius (Ren. ii. 236). Many of the Syro- 
 Jacobite liturgies amplify the solemn words of 
 the Lord by the insertion of peculiar expressions. 
 
 Of the words said OA'er the wine, the Cle¬ 
 mentine Liturgy (^Const. Apost. viii. 12, § 16) 
 has the simplest, as probably the most ancient 
 form—“ This is My Blood, wh>rh is shed for 
 many for the remission of sins.” St. Chrysostom 
 has a form identical with that in the English 
 Prayer-Book; St. James and St. Mark have 
 “shed and distributed’* instead of the simple 
 
CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 CANON OF THE LITURGY 273 
 
 
 “shed.” The Roman, which in the case of the 
 Bread has the shortest form, m the case of the 
 Wine has the longest—“ For this is the Cup of 
 my Blood, of the new and eternal Testament, 
 
 . the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for 
 you and for many for the remission of sins ”— 
 where the woi’ds “ eternal ” and “ mysteiy of 
 faith” are peculiar to the Roman form. The 
 Mozarabic has, “ For this is the Cup of the New 
 Testament in my Blood, which shall be shed for 
 you and for many for the remission of sins.” 
 
 In the Intercession for the world and the Church 
 on earth, the petitions enumerated by St. Cyril are 
 always found, with more or less of expansion in 
 detail, and often with the addition of interesting 
 local peculiarities. Thus in the Liturgy of St. 
 James (i.e. of Jerusalem) we have special inter¬ 
 cession on behalf of the Holy City and other sacred 
 places visited by the Lord ; St. Mark (Alexan¬ 
 drian) has a special prayer for the due rise of 
 the Nile ; so also the Coptic St. Basil (Renaudot, 
 i. 17); and the Alexandrian St. Gregory (^Ib. i. 
 109). Both St. James and St. Mark have inter¬ 
 cessions for prisoners; the former enumerating 
 “ those in bonds, in prisons, in captivities (aixi^a- 
 Aojcr/ais), and banishments, in mines and tortures, 
 and bitter slaveries” (Daniel’s CodeXj iv. 118), 
 phrases which originated in a time of persecu¬ 
 tion. In the Roman liturgy this portion of the 
 intercession is treated much more briefly than is 
 usual in the Eastern Chui'ch; the intercessions 
 are for the Holy Catholic Church, for the pope 
 and the bishop of the diocese nominatim, and 
 for all faithful worshippers; the Ambrosian 
 adds, after the bishop, the king by name 
 (Daniel, i. 82). Most of the liturgies contain 
 a special intercession for those who have made 
 the offerings and those who are present at the 
 service ; thus in St. Basil (Daniel, iv. 433) is a 
 prayer for the people here present (rod irepie- 
 (TTwros \aov) and the priest who presents (irpocT- 
 KO/iiCovTos) the holy gifts; St. Chrysostom men¬ 
 tions the priest in the same terms, but not the 
 people; St. James (Dan. iv. 119) mentions not 
 only those who have made the offerings on that 
 day, but those on whose behalf they made 
 them (07r6p wv cKaaros irpoa-fiveyKep ); St. Mark 
 (Dan. iv. 156), in which this prayer 'precedes 
 consecration, prays that God will receive the 
 thank-offerings (^euxo-piffr-fipia) of those who 
 offer, as He received the gifts of Abel, the sacri¬ 
 fice of Abraham, the incense of Zacharias, the 
 alms of Cornelius, and the two mites of the 
 widow ; the Roman (Dan. i. 14, 15) has a peti¬ 
 tion for all God’s servants, and, in the Gelasian 
 form, “ omnium circumstantium quorum tibi 
 fides cognita est et nota devotio, qui tibi ofierunt 
 hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus, 
 pro redemptione anlmarum suarum, pro spe 
 salutis et iucolumitatis suae;” in the Gregorian 
 form, which is that at present in use, after the 
 word “ devotio,” we have “ pro quibus tibi offe- 
 rimus vel . . . probably an addition of St. 
 Gregory’s own age. 
 
 A more particular account of the I’emaining 
 portions of the canon will be given under Dip¬ 
 tych^, Lord’s Prayer, and Emholismus. 
 
 Ceremonies ichich accompanied the Anaphora or 
 
 Canon. 
 
 1. We may take the ritual of the liturgy of St. 
 Chrysostom as a type of the oriental ceremonies 
 
 CHRIST. ANT, 
 
 of the anaphora or canon, which are thore more 
 fully described than in other Eastern liturgies. 
 It is no doubt possible that some of the cere¬ 
 monies here described did not originate within 
 the first eight centuries; but on the whole it 
 may be said to represent fairly enough the. 
 highest ritual development attained in the East 
 within our period. 
 
 At the opening of the anaphora, the elements 
 have already been brought into the sanctuary, 
 and placed on the holy table, coA^ered with the 
 aer^ or veil. The deacon cries, “ The doors! the 
 doors!”—a phrase intended originally to exhort 
 the attendants carefully to exclude the unini¬ 
 tiated {Constt. Apast. viii. 10)—and then de.sires 
 the people to stand (Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 356 ff.). 
 The priest lifts the aer, or veil, from the elements, 
 and the deacon approaching guards them from pol¬ 
 lution with his feather-fan [Flabellum]. Then 
 follow the Sursum Corda, Preface and Sanctus. 
 After this the deacon takes the Asteriscus from 
 off* the Paten, and again uses the feather-fan. 
 The commemoration of Institution then proceed.s, 
 the deacon pointing oiit to the celebrant the 
 paten and chalice at the proper moment. At 
 the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, the deacon 
 la}rs aside his fan, draws nearer to the priest, 
 and both make three I’everences or prostrations 
 (TrposKvv'f}(T€is) before the Holy Table, praying 
 silently; then the deacon, with bowed head, 
 points to the holy bread, and the priest rising 
 signs it thrice with the cross; the chalice is 
 signed in like manner, and then both elements 
 together; after which the deacon, after bowing 
 his head to the priest, resumes his place and his 
 fan. At the i-ecitation of the Diptychs the 
 deacon censes round the holy table, and then 
 recites, standing by the door of the Sanctuary, 
 those portions of the prayer which were to be 
 heard by the choir without. At the prayer of 
 Inclination he bids the people to bow 
 their heads. After the prayer the priest elevates 
 the holy Bread, saying the Sancta Sanctis ; the 
 choir then sings the communion-anthem {koivu- 
 viKrl) of the day, and the Fraction, Commixtion, 
 and Communion follow. 
 
 The rubrical directions of the other Greek 
 liturgies correspond generally with these, so far 
 as they go, but contain very much less detail. 
 
 2. In the Roman rite, at the commencement 
 of the canon, the celebrant stood before the altar, 
 probably at first with hands expanded shoulder- 
 high in the ancient attitude of prayer (Gerbert, 
 Lit, Aleman, i. 342), while the attendant clergy 
 stood with bowed heads, as A^enerating the Divine 
 Majesty and the Incarnation of the Lord intro¬ 
 duced in the(Amalarius, Acc/. Off. 
 
 iii. 22; compare Ordo Horn. 1. c. 16; and IL. c. 
 8). At the Avords Te iyitur, Avith Avhich the 
 canon strictly commences, the priest made a pro¬ 
 found inclination and kissed the altar ; frequently 
 also he kissed the "J" at the commencement of the 
 canon, Avhich Avas made to represent a cross, or 
 in later times a crucifix. (Muratori, Antiq. Ital. 
 
 iv. p. 839; Gerbert, Lit. ALman. i. 341). 
 
 From very ancient times also at each of the 
 
 Avords dona., munera, sacrificia, the priest made 
 the sign of the cross, blessing the oblation, as 
 gifts, bounties, sacrifices. This is the first of the 
 six groups of crosses mentioned in the Ordo 
 Romanus II. c. 10; (compare Amalarius, n. s.). 
 The due u.se of the crosses in the canon was held 
 
274 CANON OF THE LITURGY 
 
 to be of so much importance that St. Boniface 
 (about 750) consulted Pope Zacharias on the 
 subject, who in answer sent him a copy of the 
 canon with the crosses inserted in the proper 
 places. This copy has unfortunately perished. 
 Innocent the Third (^De Myst. Missae, v. c. 11) 
 states the correct number of crosses in the canon 
 as twenty-five, the number still used in the 
 Roman rite. 
 
 The prayer Hanc igitur has long been recited 
 by the priest with hands extended over the Host 
 and Chalice, in imitation of the gesture of a 
 sacrificing priest under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 
 iv. 4, «Sjc.). But the more ancient practice was 
 for him to recite this prayer profoundly inclined 
 to the altar, as is clear from the testimony of 
 Amalarius {Eclogae, c. 30, p. 1331 A, Migne) : 
 and this practice continued as late as the end 
 of the 13th century (Durandus, Rationale^ iv. 
 c. 39). 
 
 In the prayer Qutm oblationem, at the words 
 benedictam, ascriptam, ratam^ ratiomhilem,^ accep- 
 tabilem^ occurs the second gi-oup of crosses of the 
 Ordo Rom. //., which however defines nothing 
 as to the number of crosses, or the manner of 
 signing the oblation. The Ordo published by 
 Hittorp at this point directs the priest to stand 
 upright, blessing (J,.e. signing with the cross) 
 the bread only ; then, at the words, Ut nobis 
 Corpus et Sanguis fiat, to bless both the Host 
 and the Chalice. The present custom, according 
 to which the priest at the words Benedictam, &g. 
 makes three crosses over the Host and Chalice 
 together, is at least as old as the 11th century 
 (Microl. Be Eccl. Ob^erv. c. 14). 
 
 At the words Qui Bridie, ^c. the priest takes 
 the Bread into his hands. In this prayer is 
 introduced the third group of crosses of the Ordo 
 R. IL, at the words accipiens panem .... bene- 
 dixit, and item gratias agens henedixit. 
 
 Amalarius {Eel. 31, p. 1331) expressly states 
 that in his time the whole of the Canon was said 
 secretd (see further under Secreta). Of the 
 Elevation of the Bread and Wine immediately 
 after Consecration no mention is found in the old 
 Sacramentaries, in the most ancient of the Roman 
 Ordines, or in the early commentators on the 
 rite, Amalarius, Walafrid Strabo, Florus, Remi- 
 gius of Auxerre, Pseudo-Alcuin, and the Micro- 
 logus. The only indication of elevation in those 
 of the Ordines Romani which are older than the 
 12th century, is that at the words Per quern haec 
 omnia, noticed later. 
 
 At the words Hostiam puram, says the Ordo 
 Rom. II. (c. 10), is introduced the fourth group 
 of crosses. Amalarius {Eclogae, c. 30, p. 1331) 
 says, “ Here the priest makes the sign of the 
 Cross four times over the Host, and a fifth over 
 the Chalice only;” a practice somewhat different 
 from that of modern times. 
 
 After the prayer Supra quae propitio, the 
 priest inclines himself with bowed head before 
 the altar, and I’ecites the Suppliciter Te rogamus, 
 in which he inserts a private prayer (Amalarius, 
 tt. s., c. 31) ; a dii-ection for which is also found 
 in some ancient MSS. of Sacramentaries. No 
 crosses are noted by the Ordo Rom. II. at the 
 words Sacrosanctum Fiiii Bui ^c., whence we 
 may conclude that the crosses now used there 
 are of later introduction than the 9th century. 
 That they were introduced into the Roman rite 
 not later than the 12th century is clear from the 
 
 CANON (IN MUSIC) 
 
 testimony of Innocent III. (J)e Myst. Missae. v, 
 c. 11). 
 
 The beginning of the prayer Nobis quoque 
 peccatoribus was anciently said with the voice 
 somewhat raised, that the congregation might • 
 be able to join in it {Ordo Rom. II. c. 10). The 
 priest beats his breast, as bewailing his sinful¬ 
 ness. 
 
 At the words sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, 
 4'C. comes the fifth group of crosses, according to 
 Ordo Rom. II. The Ordo Rorn. IV. (p. 61) is 
 more explicit, desiring the priest to sign Host 
 and Chalice three several times, making three 
 several crosses. Compare Amalarius, Eel. p. 
 1332. It is thought by some (as Bona, De Reb. 
 Lit. ii. 14, s. 5) that at the words of this prayer 
 which refer to God’s creating and vivifying 
 power, an offering of the fruits of the earth, H 
 any were to be blessed, was placed on the altar 
 by the attendant -deacon. There is no doubt 
 that a benediction of fruits of the earth is in 
 some few ancient Sacramentaries prescribed in 
 this place; but it is hard to say whether this is 
 a relic of what was once an universal custom, or 
 a peculiar observance of a few churches. 
 
 At the words. Per quern haec omnia, ^'C., the 
 archdeacon rose, the other deacons still standing 
 with bowed heads, drew near to the altar, re¬ 
 moved the fold of the corporal which covered 
 the chalice, wrapped the offertorium or veil 
 round the handles, and at the words Per ipsum, 
 4c. raised the chalice by the handles. The cele¬ 
 brant touched the chalice, still held by the 
 archdeacon, with the consecrated wafers, making 
 two crosses, and saying. Per ipsum et cum ipso 
 . . . per omnia saecula saeculorum. He then 
 restored the wafers to their place on the altar, 
 and the archdeacon placed the chalice by them 
 {Ordines Rom. i. c. 16; ii. c. 10; iii. c. 15: 
 compare Amalarius, Eel. p. 1332). These di¬ 
 rections respecting the crosses were changed in 
 later times. 
 
 For the manner of saying the Pater Noster, 
 see Lord’s Prayer. Here it may suffice to 
 say that, while in the Eastern, Gallican, and 
 Spanish Churches this prayer was said by the 
 whole people, in the Roman, from the time or 
 Gregory the Great at least (see Epist. vii. 64) it 
 was said by the priest alone, yet in an audible 
 voice, so that the people (or the choir) might 
 “ acclaim ” at the last petition. The Amen is 
 not commonly found in ancient Sacramentaries ; 
 nor does it seem in place here, as the Lord’s 
 Prayer is prolonged in the Libera nos [Embolis- 
 MUS] which follows. 
 
 When the celebrant (in a papal mass) reached 
 the words Ab omni perturbatione secun, the arch¬ 
 deacon {Ordo Rom. I. c. 18) took the paten 
 from the regionary sub-deacon, who was stand¬ 
 ing behind him, kissed it, and passed it to the 
 second deacon. So Ordo Rom. II. 11, and III 
 16. The fifth Ordo Rom., probably of consider¬ 
 ably later date, desires the deacon to present 
 the patens to the celebrating bishop to kiss. 
 
 For the remaining portion of the liturgy, see 
 Kiss, Fraction, Communion. [C.] 
 
 CANON (in Music). 1. The peculiar form 
 of musical composition called by this name was 
 
 *> It must be borne in mind that the Host was not cortr 
 secrated on the paten, but was, at the date of Ordo Bom. I. 
 broken upon it; a custom subsequently changed- 
 
CANON (IN MUSIC) 
 
 unknown to the ancients, the earliest example 
 extant being of the 13th century, we believe. 
 
 2. The accepted values of the several notes 
 constituting the musical scale expressed philo¬ 
 sophically. The reader is referred to Smith’s 
 Dictionary of Antiquities [Musica] for a general 
 description of the sounds assumed by the Greeks, 
 and the systems in which they were arranged. 
 The assumptions of the Greek writei's were of 
 course adopted by the Latins, and appeared 
 throughout the whole of the early and middle 
 ages as the basis on which all their music rested. 
 Considerable uncertainty is caused in this subject 
 by the fact that there were two somewhat con¬ 
 flicting schools, the Aristoxeneans and the Py¬ 
 thagoreans. Pythagoras having discovered the 
 
 simple ratios of for the Octave, the 
 
 Fifth, the Fourth, and the Tone (major), which 
 last is the difference between the Fourth and 
 Fifth, his disciples maintained that all sounds 
 should be defined by determinate ratios, while 
 Aristoxenus discarded this idea altogether, and 
 maintained that the Tetrachord or Fourth should 
 be divided into intervals, the values of which 
 were to be determined by the ear only. This is 
 probably the germ of the dispute which has 
 lasted to the present day respecting the tempera¬ 
 ment of instruments with fixed tones: and as 
 the true measure of an interval is a logarithm. 
 It was of course impossible to reconcile at all 
 completely these two opinions. Ptolemy ex¬ 
 amined the matter and established the truth of 
 the Pythagorean views: Euclid seems to have 
 endeavoured to combine them, that is, if the two 
 treatises attributed to him, the Introductio Har¬ 
 monica and the Sectio Canonis, are both genuine. 
 The latter of these is usually considered genuine, 
 and it is pui’ely Pythagorean and rigidly exact; 
 while the former, which is certainly Aidstoxenean, 
 and perhaps written ad populum, is considered 
 more doubtful. 
 
 CANON (IN MUSIC) 275 
 
 The canon of the scale then is the system 
 of ratios into which a resonant string is to be 
 divided so as to produce all the notes which arc 
 assumed; or, which is the same thing, the re¬ 
 lative lengths of strings for these notes which 
 are to be fixed in an instrument and stretched 
 with the same’tension. 
 
 The desci'iption of the intervals given in 
 Smith’s Diet, of Antiq., from the Introductio 
 Harmonica, is of course Aristoxenean : it sup¬ 
 poses a tone to be divided into twelve equal 
 parts, and the tetrachord therefore into thirty, 
 and the intervals in the tetrachord, taken in 
 
 ascending order, to be as follows ;— 
 
 In the Syntonous or ordinary Dia- Parts. 
 
 tonic, system. 6, 12, 12 
 
 ,, Soft Diatonic (;ua\o/f<fv) .. 9, 15 
 
 ,, Tonal or ordinary Chro¬ 
 matic (Tormioi/) .. .. 6, 6, 18 
 
 ,, Sesquialter Chromatic (y- 
 
 .4^, 4|, 21 
 
 ,, Soft Chromatic (^(xaXaKdv) 4, 4, 22 
 ,, Enharmonic . 3, 3, 24 
 
 This makes a Fourth equal to 2^ tones, a Fifth 
 3^, and an Octave 6 tones. But in the Sectio 
 Canonis Euclid has proved that the Fourth, 
 Fifth, and Octave^ are each of them less than 
 these magnitudes (Theor. 11, 14); and also that 
 the second sound in the Chromatic and Enhar¬ 
 monic Tetrachords is not equally removed from 
 the first and third (Theor. 18) : it would there¬ 
 fore appear most reasonable that he meant that 
 Aristoxenus’s hypothetical division of the tone and 
 tetrachord gave results which might be treated 
 as equal for practical purposes or by unphiloso- 
 phical men, but that this was not rigidly exact. 
 
 In Theorems 19 and 20 of the Sectio Canonis, 
 Euclid gives the divisions of the string (which 
 he calls also the canon, and assumes for the 
 Proslambanomenos) according to the Diatonic 
 system. The results are the following :— 
 
 A. Proslambanomenos. 
 
 B. Hypate hypaton . 
 
 C. Parhypate hypaton. 
 
 D. Lichanos hypaton . 
 
 E. Hypate meson. 
 
 F. Parhypate meson . 
 
 G. Lichanos meson. 
 
 a. Mese. 
 
 b. Paramese.. 
 
 c. Trite diezeugmenon, or Paranete 
 
 synemmenon . 
 
 d. Paranete diezeugmenon, or Nete 
 
 synemmenon . 
 
 Length = 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 27 
 
 &4 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 e. Nete diezeugmenon .. ,, 
 
 f. Trite hyperbolaeon .• 
 
 g. Paranete hyperbolaeon 
 •a. Nete hyperbolaeon .. 
 
 The Trite synemmenon (bb) does not appear; its 
 
 length will be It is worth noticing that 
 
 this differs from our modern canon in the values 
 
 of C, D, F, G, bb, c, d, f, g; these are at present 
 
 occiiTnpd tA hp ^ 1 5 5 1 0 
 
 assumea to oe g, gyj 8> 9> 32 ^ T2> 27> 
 
 2 ^ (taking A to be 1): all these notes 
 then are flatter by a comma than ours. 
 
 In Theor. 17 Euclid gives a method of deter¬ 
 mining the Lichani and the Paranetae of the 
 enhai'monic system ; and if the direction in 
 which he takes his Fifths be reversed, the Chi’o- 
 matic Lichani and Paranetae would seem to be 
 determined : but beyond that he has given us no 
 information further than the rough description 
 of Aristoxenus’s division. 
 
 It is not surprising then that various canons 
 of the scale have been assigned by diftereut 
 writers, just as in more modern times various 
 systems of temperament have been advocated. 
 
 Ptolemy gives the following canons for any 
 tetrachord : say, for example, that from the 
 Hypate hypaton (B) to the Hypate meson (E). 
 
 T 
 
bl> h 
 
 276 CANON (IN MUSIC) 
 
 Archytas’s Canons. 
 
 Diatonic: 1, f|, |; b, C, D, E.* 
 
 LL # 
 
 Chromatic : 1, |; j._ 
 
 Enharmonic: 1, ||, jf, f ; B, C, C, E. 
 
 CANON (IN MUSIC) 
 
 b 
 
 Eratosthenes’s Canons. 
 
 Diatonic* 1 243273. ^ 
 
 uiatonic . 2 54 ’ B, C, D, E. 
 
 Chromatic; I, Ig, ^ 5 , | ; 
 
 Enharmonic* lS9lR3. tfb 
 
 Entiaimomc. 1 , 4 j b, B, C, E. 
 
 Didymus’s Canons. 
 
 Diatonic: 1, 1|, §|, | ; g, c, D, E. 
 
 Chromatic: 1, | ; B, C, C|, E. 
 
 Enharmonic : 1, i 6> f 5 B, B, C, E. 
 
 Ptolemy’s own Canons. 
 
 Diatonic intense: 1 , 4 j 
 
 Diatonic syntonous : Ratios 
 
 Diatonic soft : 
 
 b b 
 
 Diatonic ditonal: 1, |||, ^; B, C, D, E. 
 
 bb b 
 
 Diatonic tonal: 
 Diatonic soft: 
 
 1 , 
 
 1 , 
 
 Enharmonic 
 
 1 , 
 
 27 
 
 2 8’ 
 
 27 
 
 32’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 4 ’ 
 
 20 
 
 2T’ 
 
 6 
 
 7’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 ■4 ’ 
 
 I 2 ’ 
 
 5 
 
 6’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 ?’ 
 
 21 
 
 22’ 
 
 7 
 
 E’’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 4 ’ 
 
 27 
 
 28’ 
 
 9 
 
 10’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 4 ’ 
 
 4 5 
 48^’ 
 
 15 
 
 1'6’ 
 
 3 . 
 
 4 ’ 
 
 b bb 
 
 C, D, 
 
 b 
 
 b fi 
 
 bb 
 
 C,' 
 
 # 
 
 
 The canons according to Euclid or Aristoxenus 
 can be reproduced with pretty considerable ac¬ 
 curacy by means of logarithms and converging 
 fractions : there will of course be a little dis¬ 
 crepancy according as the 30th part of a Fourth 
 or the 12th part of a Tone is taken for the ele¬ 
 ment, these not being exactly equal: the former 
 seems preferable; and it gives for the logarithm 
 of the element *004165; and the following re¬ 
 sults in the cases not as yet determined :— 
 
 1 243 2 7 3 . ^ ^ 
 
 ’ 256» 32» 4 > 
 
 Logarithms 0, *02499, *06247, *12494. 
 
 1 243 ^ Q]. J_3. ^ . 
 
 Jtatios 1, 256’ 7 15’ 4> 
 
 Chromatic tonal: 
 
 7 
 
 Logarithms 0, *02499, 
 
 Ratios 1, or LX or 
 
 •04998, -12494. 
 
 _ 24^ 8 3 . 
 
 18 256> 9> 4» 
 
 Chromatic sesquialter: Logarithms 0, *01874, *03758, *12494. 
 
 Ratios 1 or Ll S. • 
 
 Kauos 1 , 25 24’ 12’ 4 ’ 
 
 Logarithms 0, *01666, *03332, *12494. 
 
 Ratios 1, 2g 
 
 Logarithms 0, *01249, *02499, *12494 
 
 Chromatic soft: 
 
 Enharmonic: 
 
 B, C, D, E. 
 
 b bb 
 
 B, C, D, E. 
 
 ^ i 
 
 B, C. CjJ, E. 
 
 bb b 
 
 B, c, c|, E. 
 
 25 26 J2 or 13. or 23 3 • „ ^ 
 
 2 7’ 13 14 27’ 4 > B, C, CJ E. 
 
 Ratios 1 or L6 or L 7 or 2 43 3 . f b 
 
 itatios 1, 3g 01 3 9, 17 01 ^ g oi 256’ 4 ’ B, B, C, E. 
 
 The values of the Meson tetrachord (E,F,G,a) 
 will be obtained in any one of these systems by 
 multiplying the corresponding ratios by ^ ; 
 those of the Synemmenon tetrachord (a, bb, c, d) 
 by multiplying them by ; those of the 
 Diezeugmenon tetrachord (b, c, d, e) are half 
 those of the Hypaton tetrachord; and those of 
 the Hyperbolaeon (e, f, g, aa) are half those of 
 
 the Meson, or ^ of those of the Hypaton. All 
 
 these will be expressed in terms of the Proslam- 
 banomenos (A) by multiplying each of them 
 
 f • 
 
 The Greek Chromatic Scale then will be, ex¬ 
 pressed in modern musical notation as nearly as 
 possible, the following; Didymus’s canon being 
 taken for the sake of simplicity of notation : 
 
 jSl 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 ~.Z31 
 
 w 
 
 
 And the Enharmonic Scale will be, according to Didymus’s canon, this: 
 
 9 - - 1 -=— — - 9 - 1- 
 
 
 
 ■ Sr- 
 
 i 
 
 
 tier le- 
 
 * The notation C is adopted to mean a C slightly flat- 
 
 tened, C somewhat flatter still, and so for C: the actual 
 amount of flattening or sharpening is determinc-d by the 
 
 ratio given. At present we have no notation to express 
 these things; in the 16 th century the symbol X was 
 used to indicate the enharmonic diesis, but as it is now 
 used for a double sharp, it has been thought prudent to 
 avoid employing it here. 
 
CANON OF ODES 
 
 It will be observed from the above that, while 
 Pythagoras and Euclid allowed only the Fourth, 
 Fifth, and Octave, with their replicates, to be 
 consonances, the later writei’s had discovei’ed the 
 
 consonances of the Major Third and Minor 
 Third (1^), also the Minor Tone (^q), and 
 perhaps also the Harmonic Flat Seventh (^) 
 and Sharp Eleventh (^y), which are now heard 
 in instruments of the Hoi'n kind. . 
 
 There were no alterations made in this until 
 
 CANON OF ODES 277 
 
 the developments of Guido Aretinus in the 11th 
 century. 
 
 S. Ambrose decreed the use of the Diatonic 
 genus alone in church music; and it is probable 
 that the chromatic and enharmonic genera soon 
 fell into general desuetude, or only existed as 
 curiosities for the learned. 
 
 The Jews are believed to have used a canon 
 proceeding by thirds of tones, thus giving 18 
 notes in the octave. Appx-oximating to these in 
 the same manner as for Euclid’s chromatic and 
 enharmonic canons, we obtain the following :— 
 
 1, 
 
 2 5 
 
 25 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 2 7 13 
 
 15' 2 
 
 or f, JJ, 
 
 1 7 
 
 11 
 
 17 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 27 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 26> 
 
 27» 
 
 
 7’ 
 
 17’ 
 
 34’ 17’ 
 
 2S^’ 
 
 27) 
 
 28’ 
 
 12’ 
 
 1 6’ 
 
 5 0’ 
 
 2 5’ 
 
 2* 
 
 
 1 
 
 b 
 
 
 # 
 
 b 
 
 # b 
 
 i , 
 
 b 
 
 1 
 
 K 
 
 k 
 
 f 
 
 bb. 
 
 b 
 
 b 
 
 
 C, 
 
 C, 
 
 D, 
 
 D, 
 
 D, 
 
 E, 
 
 E, F, 
 
 G, 
 
 G, 
 
 G|, 
 
 ab. 
 
 a, 
 
 b, 
 
 C, 
 
 c. 
 
 Mr. A. J. Ellis, in a memoir read before the 
 Royal Society, 18G4, states that the Pythagorean 
 canon has been developed into an Arabic scale of 
 17 sounds. “No nation using it,” he adds, “has 
 shown any appreciation of harmony.” It is in 
 fact next to impossible to conceive any satis¬ 
 factory harmony existing with the non-diatonic 
 canons, a consideration which has scarcely enough 
 been dwelt on in discussing whether harmony 
 was known to the ancients. It must never be 
 forgrotten that what is now called the chromatic 
 scale is no representation of and has no con¬ 
 nexion with the ancient chromatic canon (a fact 
 noticed by Morley, annotations to his Plaine and 
 Easie Introduction) ; it is merely a combination 
 of various diatonic scales, whose canons are, if 
 necessary, accommodated to each other: the 
 only case then in practice in which chi’omatic 
 or enharmonic harmonies or melodies (in the 
 old sense) can now be heard is in the tuning of 
 an orchestra before a performance, unless indeed 
 
 in those ways, which, according to Dr. Holder, j 
 there seems some reason to believe. It may not I 
 be irrelevant to add that the modern canon, to 
 which reference has several times been made 
 above, is in some respects open to dispute, as it 
 scarcely explains the phenomena which are ac¬ 
 cepted as musical facts. 
 
 The writer has made use of the Introductio 
 Harmonica and Sectio Canonis of Euclid; Mor- 
 ley’s Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall 
 Musicke ; Sir John Hawkins’s History of Music ; 
 Holder’s Treatise on the Natural Grounds and 
 Principles of Harmony; and the Memoir of Mr. 
 Ellis mentioned above. Other authorities on the 
 subject are the Antiquae Musicae Auctores Sep- 
 tem, ed. Meibomius; Ptolem}’-, ed. Wallis; Boe¬ 
 thius, De Musied; Salinas; Zarlino; Kircher; 
 Mersennus; Colonna. [J. K. L.j 
 
 CANON OF Odes (Kdi/wv). This word is ap¬ 
 plied to a part of the ofBce of the Greek Church, 
 sung to a musical tone, for the most part at Lauds, 
 and which corresponds to the hymns of the West¬ 
 ern Church. A canon is usually divided into nine 
 Odes, each ode consisting of a variable number 
 of stanzas or troparia, in a rhythmical syllabic 
 measure, prosody being abandoned except in three 
 cases. The canon is headed by an iambic, or 
 iccasionally an hexameter line containing an 
 Jlusion to the festival or the contents of the 
 tiinon, or a play upon the saint’s name, which 
 forms an Acrostic to which the initial letters 
 
 of each troparion correspond. This acrostical 
 form is thought with pi’obability to be derived 
 from Jewish practice. The nine odes have gene¬ 
 rally some reference to the corresponding odes 
 at Lauds [v. Canticle], especially the seventh, 
 eighth, and ninth. In practice the second ode 
 of a canon is always omitted, except in Lent. 
 The reason given is, that the second of the odes 
 at Lauds (the song of Moses from Deut.), which 
 is assigned to Tuesday, is more a denunciation 
 against Israel than a direct act of praise to God, 
 and is on thM account omitted except in Lent. 
 Hence the second ode of a canon, which partakes 
 of the same chai'acter, is also omitted except on 
 week days in Lent. It is not said on Saturday 
 in Lent. (v. Goar*. Eit. Grae.; in San. Olei. Ofl'm. 
 not. 14). The tone to which the canon is sung 
 is given at the beginning, and each ode is fol¬ 
 lowed by one or more troparia under different 
 names. After the sixth ode the Synaxarion, or 
 the commemorations which belong to the day, 
 are read. 
 
 Among the principal composers of canons were 
 John of Damascus, Joseph of the Studium, 
 Cosmas, Theophanes, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, 
 &c.; and as examples of canons, may be 
 mentioned “ the Great Canon,” the composition 
 of St. Andrew, archbishop of Crete (born A.D. 
 660), which begins Tr6dev &p^cofiai dpyveiv 
 and is said on Monday of the first week in Lent. 
 This canon is not acrostical. Also that for 
 orthodoxy Sunday, i. e. the fir.st Sunday in Lent, 
 of which the acrostic is ai^fiepov deo- 
 
 (peyyfos ijKvdev aiy\r}, and that for Christmas- 
 day by Cosma.s, beginning xpunhs yivvaxai, 
 So|d(raT6, with the acrostic ^poTwOels 
 
 tv birep deos pfvy, and another for the same 
 day by St. John Damascene, in trimeter iambics, 
 beginning eawce \ahv QavparovpyrSv AemrbTps, 
 the acrostic of which consists of four elegiac 
 lines. This is one of the three canons which 
 retain the classical prosody. The two others are 
 by the same author, and said on the Epiphany 
 and on Whitsunday. The construction of a 
 canon much resembles that of a choral ode of 
 the Greek dramatists, the strophe, antistrophe, 
 &c., being represented by the odes and the 
 various kinds of troparia by which they are 
 sepai’ated. The name canon is probably applied 
 to these hymns from their being completed in 
 nine odes, nine being looked upon as a perfect 
 number (Zonaras in Hymn.: Exp.: quoted by 
 Goar). Others, however, derive the name from 
 
278 
 
 CANONICAL BOOKS 
 
 CANONICAL BOOKS 
 
 the fixed rhythmical system on which they are 
 constructed ; while mystical reasons for the name 
 have been assigned by some writers. 
 
 The w'ord canon is applied in the Armenian 
 rite to a section of the psalter, which in that rite 
 is divided into ^ight sections called canons. 
 
 [H. J. H.] 
 
 CANONICAL BOOKS (^Lihn Canonici, Ec- 
 clesiastici; Bi/3Aia Kavovi^jfXiva, a.va‘yi’yv(t3(rK6~ 
 fxepa). The question of the determination of the 
 Canon, both of the Old and the New Testament, 
 has been already fully treated in the Dictionary 
 OF THE Bible (pp. 250 ft’.). The present article 
 relates mainly to the authoritative promulgation 
 of lists or catalogues of books to be read, under 
 tlie name of Scripture, in the services of the 
 Church. The canon of books to be publicly 
 read is not wholly identical with the canon of 
 books from which the faith is to be established 
 (see Westcott, u.s.). 
 
 1. Athanasius (^Ep. Festal, tom. i. pt. ii. 
 
 p. 962, ed. Ben.) divided all the books which 
 claimed the title of Holy Scripture into three 
 classes. (1.) Kauopi^ofxeva, books which 
 
 belonged in the fullest sense to the canon, and 
 were the standard of the faith. (2.) ’Avayiyvu}- 
 <TK6,j.€va, books which, though not belonging in 
 the strictest sense to the canon, might be read 
 in time of divine service, and recommended to 
 catechumens, “ for example of life and instruc¬ 
 tion of manners.” (3.) 'Air6Kpv<pa, spurious books 
 claiming authority under venerable names. 
 This distinction between the books truly canoni¬ 
 cal and the books proper to be read has been 
 perpetuated in the Greek Church to this day; 
 and it is the present rule of the English Church, 
 which, in the sixth Article, after enumerating 
 the books of the Hebrew canon, proceeds to say 
 that “ the other books (as Hierom saith) the 
 Church doth read for example of life and instruc¬ 
 tion of manners; but yet doth it not apply them 
 to establish any doctrine.” 
 
 2 . In the Latin Church also at the same period 
 a distinction was drawn by some between the 
 books of the Hebrew canon and the later addi¬ 
 tions. Rufinus {Expos, in Si/mh. cc. 37, 38) 
 divides the books into three classes: “ Canonici 
 . . . quos patres intra canonem concluserant, ex 
 quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare volue- 
 runt; . . . ecclesiastici . . . quos legi quidem 
 in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tainen proferri ad 
 auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam ; . . . 
 caeteras vero scripturas apocrypkas nominarunt, 
 quas in ecclesiis legi voluerunt.” Here, the 
 ecclesiastici are exactly equivalent to the avayi- 
 ypuaKOfieva of Athanasius. Jerome, in the /Vo- 
 logus Galeatus, enumerates the twenty-two books 
 of the Hebrew canon, and adds, “ quidquid extra 
 hos est inter apociypha ponendum,” giving the 
 word apocrypha a wider meaning than that' 
 adopted by Rufinus, so as to include all books 
 claiming to be Scripture not found in the He¬ 
 brew canon. This use of the word A/wcri//?A r, 
 which seems in ancient times to have been pecu¬ 
 liar to Jerome, was adopted by the English and 
 otlier Refoi-mers in the sixteenth century, and 
 so has become familiar to us. It is not, however, 
 used in the sixth Article, where, as we have 
 seen, the books read by the Church but not 
 reputed strictly canonical are called simply “ the 
 other books.” 
 
 3. The Apostolic Constitutions were probably 
 
 intended to give an appearance of apostolic 
 authority to actually existing practices, and the 
 substance of the first six books may be as old as 
 the 3rd century. In the fifty-seventh chapter 
 of the second book (p. 67, ed. Ueltzen), w'e have 
 an approach to a catalogue of the books to be 
 read as Scripture in public worship. The pas¬ 
 sage is as follows : “ Let the reader, standing in 
 the midst on a raised space, read the Books of 
 Moses, and of Joshua the son of Nun, those of 
 Judges and of Kingdoms (6acrtAei'wv), those of 
 Chronicles and the Return from Captivity [Ezra 
 and Nehemiah]; in addition to these those of 
 Job and of Solomon and of the sixteen Prophets 
 . . . After this let our Acts [Acts of Apostles] 
 be read and the Epistles of Paul our fellow- 
 worker, which he enjoined on the churches ac¬ 
 cording to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and 
 after these let a deacon or presbyter read the 
 Gospels which we, Matthew and John, delivered 
 to you, and those which Luke and Mark, Paul’s 
 fellow-workers, received and left to you.” 
 
 In this catalogue (unless Esther be omitted) 
 the canon of the Old Testament is exactly that 
 of the Jews. The Catholic Epistles are possibly 
 included under Acts; for in a Syrian version, 
 which places the Catholic Epistles immediately 
 after the Acts, at the close of the Epistles fol¬ 
 lows the colophon, “ The end of the Acts,” 
 (Wiseman, Horae Synacae, p. 217, quoted by 
 Westcott, Bible in Church, p. 176) as if the 
 term Acts included the Epistles. It is not easy 
 to see on what ground A. Ritschl {Alt-kathol. 
 Kirche, p. 329, note 1) affirms the sentence re¬ 
 lating to St. Paul’s Epistles to be “ plainly inter¬ 
 polated.” It does not appear that there is any 
 variation of MSS. in this place. 
 
 The list contained in the eighty-fifth of the 
 Apostolical Canons, of the books to be held in 
 veneration by all clergy and laity, is no doubt of 
 much later date ; but as it is in itself remark¬ 
 able, and had a powerful influence on some of 
 the Eastern Churches, it is given in the parallel 
 arrangement opposite.. 
 
 After the foundation of Constantinople (about 
 A.D. 332), Constantine desired Eusebius to pro¬ 
 vide fifty splendid copies of the Scriptures for the 
 churches of his new city. How he fulfilled his 
 charge we cannot exactly affirm, as he gives no 
 catalogue of the books he included in the collec¬ 
 tion, and not one of his copies is known to exist; 
 pi'obably the canon of these books diflered little, 
 if at all, from that of Cyril and Laodicea. 
 
 A catalogue of the books of Scripture, the 
 authority of wdiich is strictly ecclesiastical and 
 not imperial, is found in the works of Athana¬ 
 sius. That great prelate joined to his “ Festal 
 Letter ” • of the year 365 a list of the books 
 which w^ere canonized and traditional and con¬ 
 fidently believed to be divine (to Kapovi^6iJ.eva 
 Kol TrapaSodevTa irKrTevdeuTa t 6 Bela fhai $i~ 
 B\ia). In the New Testament, this list gives 
 exactly the books which we receive in the order 
 in which they stand in the oldest Greek MSS. 
 In the Old Testament, Baruch and the Letter are 
 added to Jeremiah; Esther is placed among the 
 Apocrypha; and the books of Maccabees are 
 omitted altogether. 
 
 • The circulars in which the bishop of Alexandria 
 annually announced to the diSFerent churches of his pro¬ 
 vince the date of Easter were called "Paschal” or 
 ” Festal” letters. 
 
PANONICAL BOOKS 
 
 279 
 
 Athanasius (^Ep. Feat., in Cone. Laodicenum, can. 60 
 vpp. ed. Ben. I. ii. 962.) (Bruns’s Cavoiies, i. 79). 
 
 Carumes Apost. 85), 
 (Ueltzen’s Const. 
 Apost. p. 253.) 
 
 Genesis 
 Ek' dus 
 Leviticus 
 Numbers 
 Deu teronoray 
 Jo^hua 
 J udges 
 lluth 
 
 Kings, four 
 Cbrunicles, two 
 Ksdvas, two 
 Esther 
 
 Macciibees, three 
 Job 
 
 'I'lie Psalter 
 Solomon’s Proverbs 
 Ecclesiastes 
 Song of Sonp 
 
 Book of the Twelve Pro¬ 
 phets, one 
 Isaiah 
 Jeremiah 
 Ezekiel 
 Daniel 
 
 For^instruction of yotith, the 
 XVisdom of Sirach 
 
 Gospels, four: 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Mark 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 Epistles of Paul, fourteen 
 
 Peter, two 
 
 John, three 
 
 James, one 
 
 Jude, one 
 
 Clement, two 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions, 
 {Aiarayai), eight 
 Acts of the Apostles 
 
 Genesis 
 
 Exodus 
 
 Leviticus 
 
 Numbers 
 
 Deuteronomy 
 
 Joshua 
 
 Judges 
 
 Ruth 
 
 I. and II. Kings 
 111. and IV. Kings 
 I. and 11. Chronicles 
 1. and II. Esdras 
 Psalms 
 Proverbs 
 Ecclesiastes 
 Song of Songs 
 Job 
 
 Minor Prophets, twelve 
 Isaiah 
 
 Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamen 
 tations, and the Letter 
 Ez-kiel 
 Daniel 
 
 Gospels, four: 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Mark 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 Acts of Apostles 
 Catholic Epistles of 
 Apostles, seven: 
 
 James one 
 Peter, two 
 John,three 
 Jude, one 
 
 Epistles of Paul the 
 Apostle, fourteen; 
 Romans 
 
 Corinthians, two 
 
 Galatians 
 
 Ephesians 
 
 Pliilippians 
 
 Colossiaiis 
 
 ’rij"8salonians, two 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 Timothy, two 
 
 Titus, one 
 
 Philemon 
 
 The Ap. calypse of John 
 
 1. Genesis 
 
 2. Exodus 
 
 3. Leviticus 
 
 4. Numbers 
 
 6. Deuteronomy 
 
 6. Joshua 
 
 7. Judges and Ruth 
 
 8. E-sther 
 
 9. 1. and II. Kings 
 
 10. 111. and IV. Kings 
 
 11. I. and II. Chronicles 
 
 12. I. and IJ. Esdras 
 
 13. The 150 Psalms 
 
 14. Proverbs of Solomon 
 
 15. Ecclesiastes 
 
 16. Song of Songs 
 
 17. Job 
 
 18. The Twelve Prophets 
 
 19. Isaiah 
 
 20 Jeremiah, Baruch, La¬ 
 mentations, and the 
 Letter 
 
 21. Ezekiel 
 
 22. Daniel 
 
 Gospels, fotir: 
 
 Matthew 
 
 Mark 
 
 Luke 
 
 John 
 
 Acts of A postles 
 
 Catholic Epistles, seven: 
 James, one 
 Peter, two 
 John, three 
 Jude, one 
 
 Epistles of Paul, fourteen : 
 Romans, one 
 Corinthians, two 
 Galatians, one 
 Ephesians, one 
 Pbilippians, one 
 Colosr'i.ms, one 
 Thes.salonians, two 
 H> brews, one 
 'riniothy, two 
 Titus, one 
 Philemon, one 
 
 Cone. Carthagin. III. can. 4^ 
 (Bruns s i aiionts, i. 153.) 
 
 Genesis 
 
 Exodus 
 
 Leviticus 
 
 Numbers 
 
 Deuieronony 
 
 Joshua 
 
 Judges 
 
 Ruth 
 
 Books r)f King.s, four 
 Books of Chronicles, two 
 Job 
 
 The Psalter of David 
 Books of Salomon, five 
 Books of Prophets, twelve: 
 Isaiah 
 Jeremiah 
 Ezekiel 
 1 )aniel 
 Tobit 
 Judith 
 Esther 
 
 Books of Esdras, two 
 Books of Maccabees, two 
 
 Gospels, four books 
 Acts of Apostles, one 
 Epistles of Paul the Apostle, 
 thirteen 
 
 The same to the Hebrews, 
 tme 
 
 Peter the Apostle, two 
 John the Apostle, three 
 Jude the Apostle, one 
 James, one 
 
 The Apocfilypse of .lohn, 
 one. book 
 
 The earliest conciliar decision on the subject 
 of Canonical Books is that of the provincial 
 synod of Laodicea, about the year 36.3. As the 
 canons of this council now stand in the printed 
 editions and in mo.st MSS., the fifty-ninth canon 
 enacts that “ psalms composed by private per¬ 
 sons should not be used in churches, nor un¬ 
 canonized (d/coj/di/jo-To) books, but only the ca¬ 
 nonical books of the New and Old Testament ” ; 
 and the sixtieth gives a list of the books which 
 should be read [in churches] (tlrra Sei 
 avayiyvwcKecrOai). But this list is unques¬ 
 tionably a later addition; it is not found in the 
 best Greek MSS., in ancient Syriac versions, in 
 one of the two complete Latin versions, nor in 
 the oldest digests of ecclesiastical canons (see 
 Westcott, Canon of N. T. pp. 500 ff.). Yet it is 
 probably a very early gloss, being in fact iden¬ 
 tical (excepting in the addition to Jeremiah of 
 Baruch and the Letter, in the place occupied by 
 Esther and Job, and in the omission of the Apo¬ 
 calypse) with the list given by Cyril of Jeru¬ 
 salem about A.D. 350 {Catech. Myst. iv. 33 [al. 
 
 22]), a list which he distinctly describes as the 
 canon of ecclesiastical books, desirino- his cate- 
 chumens not to read other books than those 
 which were read in the churches. 
 
 In the Latin Church, as we have seen, a dis¬ 
 tinction was drawn by Rufinus and Jerome 
 between the books of the Hebrew canon and fhe 
 later additions; but the distinction drawn by 
 these learned and able doctors was not generally 
 received in the Latin Church. The old Latin 
 translation was made from the LXX. and gave 
 no indication that the different books were not 
 all of the same authority ; and when this had 
 obtained general currency, the great leaders of 
 the Latin Church were unwilling to draiv di.s- 
 tinctions which would shake the received tra¬ 
 dition. Hence Ambro.se and Augustine, with 
 the great mass of later writers, cite all the 
 books in question alike as Scrijiture, and Au¬ 
 gustine (de Duct. Gnrist. ii. 8) gives a list of 
 the books of which “ the whole canon of the 
 Scriptures” consists, without making any clear 
 distinction between the apocryphal and the other 
 
280 
 
 CANONICAL BOOKS 
 
 CANONICAL BOOKS 
 
 books.*’ The ecclesiastical canon of the Latin 
 Church has in fact from the date of the first Latin 
 translation included what Ave call the Apocryphal 
 Books, though we not unfrequently meet with 
 expressions which show that the Latin Fathers 
 were conscious that the books of their canon 
 were in fact of very different degrees of autho¬ 
 rity. Gregory the Great, for instance, speaks of 
 the books of Maccabees as not belonging, in the 
 proper sense, to the canon. 
 
 At the third Council of Cai'thage, at which 
 St. Augustine was present, and at which his in¬ 
 fluence no doubt predominated, a decree was 
 made which determined the list of canonical 
 Scriptures. The forty-seventh canon (Bruns’s 
 Canones i. 133) begins thus : “ It is also agreed, 
 that besides Canonical Scriptures nothing be read 
 in tho Church as Holy Scripture (sub nomine 
 Divinarum Scripturarum),” and a list of cano¬ 
 nical writings follows, in which the Apocryphal 
 books are mingled with those of the Hebrew 
 canon, without distinction. Some of the MSS. 
 however omit the two books of Maccabees. The 
 canon ends with saying, in one text, “ Let it be 
 made known to our brother and fellow-bishop 
 Boniface [of Rome], or other bishops of those 
 parts, for confirming that canon, that Ave have 
 received from our fathers these books to be read 
 in churches; ” in another text, “ The books then 
 amount to tAventy-se^ven ; let the churches 
 aci'oss the sea [j. e. Italian] be consulted about 
 that canon.” In both texts, permission is giA’en 
 to read the Passions of Martyrs on their anni¬ 
 versaries. 
 
 The confirmation of Rome was probably ob¬ 
 tained, and this canon of Carthage, though of 
 course only binding in its proper force on the 
 churches of a particular proA'ince, became the 
 general ecclesiastical rule of the West. “ Usage 
 recei'/ed all the books of the enlarged canon 
 more and more generally as equal in all respects; 
 learned tradition kept aliA’-e the distinction be- 
 tAA'een the Hebrew canon and the Apocr^'pha 
 Avhich had been draAvn by Jerome ” (Westcott, 
 Bible in Church, p. 190). 
 
 The Apostolical, Laodicean, and Carthaginian 
 canons were all confirmed by the second canon 
 of the Quiuisextine Council, a.d. 692 (Bruns’s 
 Canones i. 36), no regard being had to their A’^aria- 
 tions. The 68th canon made proA'ision for the 
 reA’-erent treatment of copies of the sacred books. 
 
 In these lists, the first and second books of 
 Kings are of course those AA'hich Ave call the first 
 and second books of Samuel, and the third and 
 fourth books of Kings those Avhich Ave call the 
 first and second books of Kings. It is not alAA’^ays 
 easy to say Avith certainty Avhat is intended by the 
 first and second books of Esdras. In the Vatican 
 and Alexandrian MSS. of the LXX., “ I. Esdras ” is 
 the apocryphal book Avhich aa'c call the first book 
 of Esdras, Avhile “ II. Esdras ” is composed of the 
 books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Westcott, Bible in 
 Church, pp. 303 ft'.). In the Vulgate, “ 1. Esdras ” 
 is the canonical book of Ezra, and “ H. E.sdras ” 
 the canonical book Nehemiah. Jerome in the Pro- 
 logus Galeatus mentions only one Esdras, Avhich 
 (he says) the Greeks and Latins divided into tAvo 
 books; iiitiBc two books Avere, as appears from 
 the Praef. in Esdram and the Ep. ad Paulinum 
 
 *> Canon Westcott has however pointed out [art. Canon, 
 p. 255j that his language is imonsioient on this point. 
 
 (c. 16) the canonical books of Ezra and Nehe¬ 
 miah. A letter of Pope Innocent 1. to Exsupe- 
 rius, bishop of Toulouse (a.d. 405) contains a list 
 (given by Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung, p. 504) 
 identical in contents Avith that of the Council or 
 Carthage, but differing in the arrangement of the 
 books. There is also a papal list attributed to 
 Gelasius (Pope A.D. 492-496) and another to Hor- 
 misdas (514-523). But none of these lists are 
 free from suspicion. They AA'ere unknown in the 
 middle of the 6th century to Cassiodorus, who 
 collected the lists of canonical books current in 
 his time, and still later to Isidore of ScA'ille ; 
 and different copies of the Gelasian list vary in 
 such a Avay as to suggest that they were not all 
 deiuA'ed from the same original. The letter of 
 Innocent is found in the collection of Decretals 
 attributed to Dionysius Exiguus, but that col¬ 
 lection, as is Avell knoAvn, contains matter of a 
 much later date than that of its supposed com¬ 
 pilation (about 500). It is not, in fact, until 
 the 8th century that we have distinct eAudence 
 of its existence, when it formed part of the Code 
 sent to Charlemagne in the year 774 by Pope 
 Hadrian I. The list of canonical books in the 
 decree of Gelasius does not distinctly appear till 
 about the lOth century. Both lists simply re¬ 
 peat the Canon of Carthage (Westcott, Bible in 
 Church, 194 ff.). It is a remarkable instance of 
 the rapid A'ictory of usage over scholarship, that 
 in the Codex Amiatinus (written about 541) of 
 Jerome’s Vulgate, the books of the Apocrypha 
 are mixed Avith those of the HebreAv canon, 
 against the express judgment of Jerome himself. 
 But indications are not AA^anting, that the ques¬ 
 tion of the A’alue and authority of certain works 
 was regarded in the Latin Church as distinct 
 from that of ecclesiastical use. 
 
 The determination of the canon in Spain was 
 a matter of unusual importance. The Pris- 
 cillianists during the 5th century introduced a 
 multitude of apocryphal Avntings, AA'hich it Avas 
 one of the chief cares of the orthodox bishops 
 to destroy. The Arian Goths probably rejected 
 the Epistle to the HebreAvs and the Apocalypse, 
 as Avell as the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. 
 On their conA’ersion, they bound themselves to 
 accept the Roman canon, as well as other de¬ 
 crees of the see of Rome. Isidore of Seville 
 (t636) folloAA's Augustine expressly in dealing 
 Avith the Old Testament Apocrypha, and reckons 
 among “ Canonical Scriptures ” books Avhich the 
 Hebrews do not receiA’e (see Ongines, vi. 2.) In 
 the list which he giA'es (Kirchhofer’s Quellen~ 
 sammlung, p. 505), the books of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment are enumerated exactly as in the English 
 canon, except that Job and Esther are placed 
 after Solomon’s Song. After Malachi, he adds, 
 Avithout any mark of distinction, “Judit et 
 Tobias et Machabaeorum Libri quibus auc- 
 toribus scripti sunt minime constat.” Eccle- 
 siasticus. Wisdom, and the apocryphal books 
 of Esdras, do not seem to be mentioned at all. 
 In the NeAV Testament, after the Gospels and 
 Acts, he proceeds, “ Pauli Epistol. xiA', novem 
 ecclesiis, reliquae discipulis scriptae. AJ He- 
 braeos a pleri.sque Latinis ejus esse dubitatur, 
 propter dissonantiam sermonis; eandem aiii Bar- 
 nabae, alii dementi adscribunt. Jacobi, Petri ii., 
 Cath. Judae et Johannis. Johannis Apocalypsis. 
 Caetera Apocrypha.” He seems therefore to have 
 I acknowledged only one epistle ot St. John. 
 
CANONICAL HOURS 
 
 CANONiCI 
 
 281 
 
 The code which Charlemagne gave at Aix for 
 the government of the Church was founded upon 
 that which he received from Pope Hadrian as 
 mentioned above. In this it was enjoined that 
 “ the Canonical Books only be read in the 
 Church but it does not appear that any defi¬ 
 nite list was given, though in the printed editions 
 the list of Laodicea was appended. Alcuin, the 
 well-known English scholar (■j■804), Charle- 
 magre’s chief literary adviser, was commissioned 
 towards the close of his life to undertake a revi¬ 
 sion of the Latin Bible for public use. He re¬ 
 stored in a great measure Jerome's text in those 
 books which Jerome had translated, but did not 
 separate the Apocrypha. Several MSS. remain 
 which claim to be derived from Alcuin’s revi¬ 
 sion. One of the finest of these, known as 
 “ Charlemagne’s Bible,” is in the British Museum. 
 A peculiarity of this copy is, that it contains the 
 apocryphal Letter to the Laodiceans as a fifteenth 
 Epistle of St. Paul. [C.] 
 
 CANONICAL HOURS. [Hours of 
 Prayer.] 
 
 CANONICI. The canonical clergy have 
 occupied an intermediate position between the 
 monks and the secular clergy. As living to¬ 
 gether under a rule of their own they were 
 often regarded popularly as a species of monks ; 
 while, inasmuch as their rule was less strict, 
 and their seclusion from the world less complete, 
 they were sometimes, from a monastic point of 
 view, classed even with the laity, as distinguished 
 from those who were “ religious.” Thus the 
 collesres of the “ canonici ” were sometimes called 
 “ monasteria ” (Hospiu. De Monach. iii. vi. p. 
 72 b.) ; while Dudo {De Act. Norman, iii. v.) 
 broadly dividing Christians into “ regular ” or 
 “ contemplative,” and “ secular ” or practical 
 places “ canonici ” among the “ secular ” (Du 
 Cange, Gloss. Lat'mit. s. voce). The canonici did 
 not fully assume this quasi-monastic chai’acter 
 till the 8th century. The theory which would 
 trace them back as a monastic order to St. 
 Augustine, and which ascribes to him the 
 Augustinian Rule scarcely needs refutation 
 (Hospin. De Monach. iii. vi. p. 71 b.; Bingh. 
 Orijin. Eccles. vii. ii. § 9). 
 
 The “ canonici ” were at first the clergy and 
 other officials attached to the church, and were 
 so called either as bound by canons (v. Du Cange, 
 s. V.'), or more probably as enrolled on the list of 
 ecclesiastical officers, Kavwv, matricula, albus, 
 tabula (Socr. H. E. i. 17; Theod. Lect. //. E. i. 
 p. 553 ; Cone. Chalced. 451 A.D. c. 2; Vales, ad 
 Socr. II. E. V. 19; Bingh. i. v. § 10). Du 
 Cange explains the word by the “ canon ” (r-rrop- 
 rv \^; a certain proportion (one-fourth) of the 
 alms of the faithful set apart for the mainte¬ 
 nance of the clergy and other officers of the 
 church {Concc. Agath. 506 A.D. c. 36; Aurel. iii. 
 538 A.D. c. 11; Narhon. 589 A.D. cc. 10, 12). 
 Anothei", but most improbable derivation is 
 from KoivofviKol (Du Cange, s. v.). A passage 
 is cited by Du Cange from the life of Antony 
 attributed to Augustine— irifia rhv Kav6va —to 
 show that the word was equivalent to “ clerus.” 
 But “canonici” was at first a more compre¬ 
 hensive word than “ clerus,” embracing all who 
 held ecclesiastical offices, as readers, singers, 
 porters, &c. (Thomass. Vet. et Nov. Discipl. 1. ii. 
 34; Bingh. i. v. § 10). 
 
 Some bishops even before the 5th century, for 
 instance Eusebius of Vercellae, Ambrose of 
 Milan, the great Augustine, and Martin of Tours, 
 set an example of monastic austerity to the 
 clergy domiciled with them, which became widely 
 popular {Concc. Tolet. ii. a.d. 531, c. 1; Turon. 
 ii. A.D. 567, c. 12). Gelasius I. at the close of the 
 5th century founded an establishment of “ ca¬ 
 nonici regulares ” at Rome in the Lateran 
 (Hospin. III. vi. p. 72 b.; Bingh. VII. ii. § 9). 
 In 531 A.D. the 2nd Council of Toledo speaks of 
 schools conducted by the “canonici” wherein 
 the scholars lived “ in domo ecclesiae sub Epi- 
 scopi praesentia ” (cc. 1, 2); and, before the end 
 of the same century, the 3rd Council of Toledo 
 orders the Scriptures to be read aloud in the 
 refectory of the priests, “ sacerdotali couvivio ” 
 (c. 7). A similar phi-ase, “mensa cauouica,” is 
 quoted by Du Cange from Gregory of Touj-s 
 {Hist. X. ad fin.) in reference to the “ canonici ” 
 established by Baudinus, archbishop of Tours, in 
 the 6th century, and from a charter granted by 
 Chilperic in 580 A.D. (Miraei Diplom. Belg. II. 
 1310, ap. Du Cange, s. u.). In the 3rd Council of 
 Orleans, A.D. 538, the “ canonici ” are forbidden 
 .secular business {Cone. Aurel. III. c. 11). The 
 college in which the canons resided, or rather 
 the chui'ch to which the college was attached, is 
 styled “canonica” in a charter 724 A.D. {Chart. 
 Langob. Brunett. p. 470, ap. Du Cange, s. v.). 
 
 Bishops, especially for missions, were fre¬ 
 quently chosen out of the monasteries ; and these 
 naturally surrounded themselves with monks. 
 In the words of Montalembert many a bishopric 
 was “ cradled ” in a monastery. Thus in Armo¬ 
 rica “the principal communities formed by the 
 monastic missionaries (from Britain in the 5th 
 century) were soon transformed into bishoprics.” 
 {Monks of the West, II. 273.) In countries 
 which owed their Christianity to monks, the 
 monastery and the cathedral rose side by side, 
 or under one roof. But cathedral-monas¬ 
 teries are, strictly speaking, almost peculiar 
 to England (Stubbs, Introd. to Epp. Cantuir. 
 xxi.); for, while elsewhere, for the most part, 
 either the cathedral or the monastery ousted 
 the other, in England many of the cathedrals 
 retained their monastic, more exactly their 
 quasi-monastic character till the Reformation. 
 Usually it was the mother-church, as Canterbury 
 or Lindisfarne, which thus adhered to its original 
 institution, while the new cathedrals for the 
 sub-divided diocese passed into the hands of the 
 nott-monastic clergy (Stubbs, v. sup. xxii.). In 
 either case, as at Worcester, the cathedral clergy 
 were the parochial clergy of the city (Stubbs, The 
 Cathedr. of Worcester in the 2>th Century, Com- 
 munic. to the Historic. Sect, of the Instit. July, 
 1862). The result of this combination on the 
 clergy generally, and on the monks, was twofold. 
 On the one hand the clergy became, in the first 
 instance, more monastic; on the othei*, a some¬ 
 what more secular tone was given for a time 
 to the monasteries. But, as these cathedral- 
 monasteries came to lose their missionary cha¬ 
 racter, other monasteries arose, by a reaction 
 of sentiment, of a less secular and of a more 
 ascetic kind ; e. g. in England, Crowland, and 
 Evesham, in contrast to Peterborough and Wor¬ 
 cester (Stubbs, V. sup.'). By the Council of 
 Clovesho, A.D. 747, all monasteries proper in 
 England were placed under the Benedictine rule; 
 
2S2 
 
 CANONICI 
 
 CANONICI 
 
 and tlixis the severance was defined of the chap¬ 
 ters and the monasteries. (Cone. Cloresh. c. 24; 
 cf. lieg. S. Bened. c. 58 ; cf. Mabill. AA. 0. S. B. 
 
 I. Praef. Ivi.). 
 
 But Chrodegang, or Chrodogang, cousin of 
 Pepin and archbishop of Metz, in the latter part 
 of the 8th century, was virtually the founder of 
 “ canouici ” as a semi-monastic order. By 
 enforcing strict obedience to the Rule and the 
 Superior he tightened the authority of the 
 bishop over the clergy of his cathedral (Beg. 
 Clirodeg. ap. Labb. Cone. vii. 1445). But, 
 while retaining the monastic obligations of 
 “ obedience ” and of “ chastity,” he relaxed that 
 of poverty. His “canouici” were, like monks, to 
 have a common dormitory and a common refec¬ 
 tory (Beg. Chrod. c. 3 ; Cone. Mogunt. 813 ad. 
 c. 9). Like monks they were to reside within 
 the cloister; and egress, except by the pointer’s 
 gateway, was strictly forbidden (Cone. Aquisgr. 
 816 A.D. cc. 117, 144). But they were allowed 
 a life interest in private property; “ though after 
 death it was to revert to the church to which 
 they belonged; and, which is especially curious, 
 they w'ere not to forfeit their property, even for 
 crimes and misdemeanoui's entailing otherwise 
 severe penance. (Beg. Chrod. cc. 31, 32; cf. 
 Stubbs, Kpp. Cantuar. Introd. xxiv.) Thus the 
 discipline of the cloister was rendered more 
 palatable to the clergy; while a broad line of 
 demarcation was drawn between them and monks 
 (Cone, Mogunt. cc. 9,10; Cone. T^iron. III. c. 25). 
 They were not to wear the monk’s cowl (Beg. 
 Chrod. c. 53, interpolated from Cone. Aquisgr. 
 c. 125). The essential difference between a 
 cathedral with its “canonici” and an abbey- 
 church with its monks, has been well expressed 
 thus ; the “canonici ” existed for the services of 
 the cathedral, but the abbey-church for the 
 spiritual wants of the recluses happening to 
 settle there (Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 443). 
 
 Chrodegang’s institution was eagerly adopted 
 by the tar-seeing Karl, in his reformation of 
 ecclesiastical abuses; indeed he wished to force 
 it on the clergy generally (Robertson’s Ch. Hist. 
 
 II. 200). He ordered the “ canonici ” to live 
 “ canonice,” and to obey their bishop as abbat; 
 a similar enactment was made at the Councils of 
 Aachen, 788 A.D. and of Mentz, 813 A.D. (Cone. 
 Aquisgr. cc. 27, 29; Cone. Mogunt. c. 9; cf. Du 
 Cange, s. u.; Hospin. xxii. 154; Robertson’s Ch. 
 Hist. II. 198). It was evidently the great legis¬ 
 lator’s intention to make these colleges of canons 
 instrumental for education (Cone. Cahill. 813 
 A.D. c. 3; Alte.'.er. Aseetieon. II. 1). Thus one 
 of the principal canons was the “ Scholasticus ” 
 (schoolmaster, or more proj)erly, chancellor. 
 Freeman, Norman Conquest, II. ^3), and the 
 buildings were arranged mainly to be used as 
 schools (Hospin. p. 153-6). 
 
 The rule of Chrodegang in its integrity was 
 shortlived. By the middle of the 9th century 
 it \vas in fox’ce in most cathedrals of France, 
 Germany, Italy, and, more partially, in England 
 (Robertson’s Ch. Hist. II. 200). But, though 
 milder even than that mildest of monastic rules— 
 the Benedictine—it was too severe to be generally 
 accepted by the clergy, especially in England. 
 In the 9th century (Robertson, II. 209), or, 
 leather, by the end of the 8th (Stubbs, E]p. 
 
 “ Also, the diet was more generous. (A’ej/. Chrod. 
 C. 22; Cone. Aquisyr. 816 a.d. c. 122.) 
 
 Can^wir. Intr. xvii.), bodies of secular clerks, 
 with the character if not the name of “ canonici,” 
 had sujiplanted monks in many parts of England ; 
 but they soon lost the ground which they had 
 gained. Partly, perhaps, from the popularity of 
 monks with the laity in England, as the harbingers 
 of Christianity, and as intimately connected with 
 the history of the nation, partly from the repug¬ 
 nance of the clergy to asceticism, the “ Lotha- 
 ringian ” rule never took root here (Freeman, 
 V. sup., II. 85). According to William of Malmes¬ 
 bury (Stubbs, De Invent. Crue. Intr. ix.), it 
 never was accepted here. “ An attempt was 
 made to introduce it in the Legatine Council 
 of 786, \vhich probably went no farther in 
 effect than to change the name of secular clerks 
 into canons, and to turn secular abbots into 
 deans” (Stubbs, v. sup. x.; Cone. Calcyth. c. 4.) 
 By 1050 A.D. it was nearly obsolete in England 
 (Stubbs, V. sup. ix.). Celibacy seems to have 
 formed no integral part of the plan in the 
 foundation of Waltham. (Freeman, v. sup. II. 
 443; Stubbs, He Inv. Cmic. xii.) 
 
 Even where it had been at first in vogue the 
 Rule of Chrodegang was soon relaxed ; nor were 
 the eftbrts of Adalbero, Willigis, and others, 
 eftectual to restore it (Robertson’s Ch. Hist. 
 II. 477). The “canonici” became, fii'st, a com¬ 
 munity dwelling together under the headship of 
 the bishop, but not of necessity under the same 
 roof with him; next, an “ acephalous ” com¬ 
 munity,—a laxity which had been specially con¬ 
 demned by the Council of Aachen, already men¬ 
 tioned (c. 101)—and, gradually, instead of repre¬ 
 senting the clergy of the diocese they developed 
 into a distinct, and, sometimes, antagonistic body 
 (Robertson, II. 476). As their wealth and in¬ 
 fluence increased they claimed a share in the 
 government of the diocese (Robertson, II. 401)^ 
 Trithemius speaks of the “ Canonici Trevirenses ” 
 in the close of the 10th century, as both in name 
 and in reality “secular^s non regulares”: and 
 Hospinian protests against the very expression 
 “canonici seculares,”*^ as a contradiction in 
 terms, like “ regulares irregulares.” (Hospinian, 
 V. sup. p. 73.) 
 
 The “Canons Regular of St. Augustine,” 
 founded by Ives of Chartres and others, in the 
 11th century, may be regarded as resulting fi’om 
 the failure of the attempts to force the canonical 
 rule on the clergy of the cathedral and collegiate 
 churches (Robertson’s Ch. Hist. II. 708). These 
 “ canonici ” diflered but slightly from the monks; 
 and, unlike the “ canonici ” ot older date, resem¬ 
 bled the monks in the renunciation of private 
 property. This order was inti’oduced into Eng¬ 
 land very early in the 12th century by Adelwald, 
 confessor of Henry 1st, but some assign an earlier 
 date. At the Reformation there were, according 
 to Hospinian (p. 73), moi'e than 8000 “ coenobia 
 canonicorum ” in Europe ; the number declined 
 greatly afterwards. The various mediaeval sub- 
 div^isions of “ canonici,” enumerated by Du Cange 
 (s. V.) do not fall within our present scope. (See 
 also Thomassini, Vetus et ^oca Hiseiphna, I. iii. 
 
 b rill the 14th ceiiturj’ these spmi-.ri'gular, semi-secular 
 foundations seem t<> have been uncongenial to the English, 
 Harold, the founder of Waliham, is an exception. (Free¬ 
 man, .Vorm. > 'onq. 11. 445). 
 
 c The expression “secular canons” sometimes occurs 
 prematurely (e. g. in Freeman's Xorman Conquest) where 
 *• secular eleilis ” would be more exact. 
 
CANONISTAE 
 
 CANOPY 
 
 283 
 
 cc. 7-12; III. ii. c. 27; BihliotJieque Sacr^e, par 
 Richard et Girardin, s. v. Par. 1822; Martigiiy, 
 Victionnaire des Antiquites Chretiennes, Par. 
 1885). 
 
 Canonicae in the primitive church were devout 
 women, taking charge of funerals and other 
 works of charity (Socr. H. E. i. 17 ; Soz. H. E. 
 viii. 23, cf. Justin. Aow//. cc. 43, 59, ap. Menardi 
 Comm, in S, Bcnod. Anion, Cone. Eoy. c. 68). 
 Though not originally bound by a vow, nor 
 compelled to live in a community (Bingh. Orig. 
 Eccl. VII. iv. § 1 ; but cf. Pelliccia Eccl. Christ. 
 Polit. I. iii. 3, § 1), they lived apart from men, 
 and had a special part of the church reserved for 
 them in the public services (Du Cange, s. v.). In 
 the 8th century the “ canonicae,” “ canonissae,” 
 or “ canonichissae,” lived together after the 
 example of the “ canonici,” being like them 
 attached to particular churches (Pellic. I. iii. 4, 
 
 § 1). They are distinguished from nuns (Cone. 
 Francof. 794 a.d. cc. 46, 47); but, like nuns 
 were strictly debarred from the society of men 
 {Cone. Aquisgr. 816 a.d. c. 20; cf. C.nc. Cahill. 
 813 A.D. c. 53). They were to occupy them¬ 
 selves specially, Ijkethe “ canonici” in education 
 {Cone. Francof. c. 40; Cone. Aquisgr. c. 22). 
 See further Magdeb. Centur. viii. 6. The “do- 
 micellae ” or secular canonesses are of later date 
 (Du Cange, s. v.). (See also Thomass. Vet. et 
 Nov. Discipl. I. iii. cc. 43, 51, 63; Alteserrae 
 Aseetieon. III. 3.) [!• G. S.] 
 
 CANONISTAE. [Canon Law.] 
 
 CANONIZATION is defined by Ferraris 
 (sub voc. Veneratio Sanetorum) to be a “ public 
 judgment and express definition of the Apostolic 
 See respecting the sanctity and glory of one, 
 who is thereupon solemnly added to the roll of 
 the saints, and set forth for the public veneration 
 of the whole Church militant, and the honours 
 due to saints decreed to him.” And it is distin¬ 
 guished by him from Beatification., which means, 
 according to the same authority, a like “ lawful 
 grant by the pope to a particular kingdom, pro¬ 
 vince, religious body, or place, to venerate and in¬ 
 voke, in the mass and by exposition of relics,” &c., 
 some particular person, deceased. Both, in this 
 sense, date subsequently to the period of which 
 the present work treats, the first formal canoni¬ 
 zation by a pope being said to be either that of 
 St, Suibert by Rope Leo 111. a.d, 804, at the re¬ 
 quest of Charlemagne (Ferraris, as above), or 
 (which however depends on a letter said to be a 
 forgery) that of Udalric, bishop of Augsburg, by 
 diploma of Pope John XV. a.d. 993 (Mabill. 
 Aett. SS. Ben. Saee. V. Pref. § 101 ; Gibbings, 
 Praeleet. on the Diptychs, p. 33, Dubl. 1864). 
 But canonization in some sense ( = inserting in the 
 Canon of the Mass) is the outgrowth of a practice 
 of very early date (being alluded to by Tertullian, 
 Be Cor. iii., and, earlier still, in the Martyr. Poly¬ 
 carp. xviii,, ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 15), viz. that of 
 reciting at a certain part of the Eucharistic service 
 the names (among others) of deceased saints and 
 martyrs [Diptychs] ; not for invocation (“ non 
 invocantur,” St. Aug. Be Civ. Bei, xxii. 10), but 
 “ in memory of those who have finished their 
 course, and for the exercising and preparation of 
 those who have yet to walk in their steps ” 
 {Mart. S. Polye.'). The authority by which a 
 name was inserted in this list—the saint being 
 then said to be “ vindicatus ” (Optat. Be Schism. 
 
 Bonat. i. 16)—was, until at least the 10th cen¬ 
 tury, that of the bishop, with (no doubt) the con¬ 
 sent of his clergy and people, and, as time went on, 
 of the synod and metropolitan, and according to 
 Mabillon {Praef. in Aett. SS. Bened. p. 412), of the 
 emperor or king. But the consent of the last 
 named could only have been asked or given in 
 cases of political importance, real or supposed. 
 The last case of canonization by a metropolitan is 
 said to have been that of St. Gaultier, or Gaucher, 
 abbat of Pontoise, by the Archbishop of Rouen, 
 A.D. 1153 (Gibbings, as above). And a decree of 
 Pope Alexander 111. A.D. 1170, gave the prero¬ 
 gative to the pope thenceforth, so far as the 
 Western Church was concerned [Calendar ; 
 Martyrology ; Menology] ; who proceeded 
 (acc. to Ferraris) in two ways, either by formally 
 sanctioning local or other saints, who had long 
 before been canonized in effect by common con¬ 
 sent, or by initiating the pi’ocess himself in new 
 cases. “ Canonizare ” is also used to signify 
 simply to “approve,” or to “appoint to a ca- 
 nonry,” or to enrol in the “canon” of the clergy, 
 or to make a canon in a Council. (Salig. Be 
 Biptyckis ; BuC&ngQ’., Suicer; Ferraris, Prom//Ai 
 Biblioth.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 CANOPY. The fixed solid canopy, or ciborium, 
 over the altar, has already been described under 
 Altar, p. 65. It has been supposed, however, 
 that the altar was sometimes anciently covered 
 with a canopy of a lighter kind, as of .silk. In 
 the will of Abbot Aredius (in the Works of 
 Gregory of Tours, p. 1313, ed. Ruinart), who 
 died A.D. 591, we find, among other things 
 declared necessary for a church, “ cooperturios 
 holosericos tres; calices argenteos quatuor . . . 
 item cooperturium lineum . . .” These silken 
 coverings Binterim {Benhwurd. vii. 3, 353) 
 believes to be not altar-cloths, but canopies, 
 while the “ cooperturius lineus ” is an altar-cloth, 
 distinct from the corporal. Gregory of Tours 
 also, a contemporary of Aredius, describing a 
 dream or vision, says, “ cum jam altarium cum 
 oblationibus/)a//iosmco coopertum esset,” Gunt- 
 chramn entered {Hist. Franc, ifii. 22, p. 347, ed. 
 Ruinart). Here again Binterim {u. s.) supposes 
 that a canopy is intended, insisting on the words 
 of Optatus {Be Schism. Bonat. vi. 1, p. 92), that 
 it was a matter of notoriety that the boards 
 of the altar were covered with linen. The 
 words of Optatus, however, written of the 
 African church in the 4th century, have but 
 little application to Galilean customs at the end 
 of the 6th, nor are they in fact contradictory 
 to the words of Gregory ; for the altar may have 
 been first covered with linen, and the oblations 
 upon it afterwards covered with a silken veil. 
 This was probably the case; for a word derived 
 from ‘ cooperire’ would naturally refer to covering 
 up closely, rather than to shading as a canopy 
 does. Compare Altar-cloths, p. 69. There 
 can be little doubt that Mabillon and Ruinart 
 are right in explaining the word cooperturius of 
 an altar-covering or Veil. The “cooperturius 
 Sarmaticus,” which Gregory rejected {Be Vitis 
 Patrum, p» 8, 1195), seems to have been intended 
 for a similar use. 
 
 The custom of carrying a canopy over the 
 pope in certain processions does not seem to be 
 mentioned earlier than the 12th* century (sec 
 Urdo Romanus XI. 17 126; 40, 136); and the 
 
CANTAB RAUII 
 
 CANTICLE 
 
 'J84 
 
 use of a canopy to overshadow the Eucharist in 
 Corpus Christi processions is later still. 
 
 For the cano[)y surmounting the seat of a 
 bishop, see Throne. [C.] 
 
 CANTABRARII. Literally, bearers of the 
 cantabrum, or cruciform standard of the later 
 Roman emperors, in military or religious pro¬ 
 cessions. The word occurs in the Cod. Theodos. 
 xiv. 7, 2, as applied to a guild of such persons, 
 and has no direct connexion with ecclesiastical 
 antiquity. Bingham, however (xvi. 5, 6), cites 
 the passage in its bearing upon the mention of 
 centurions by the C. in Trullo (c. 61) as con¬ 
 nected with divination; and hence it appears in 
 the index to his work as the name of “a sort of 
 conjurors.” The cantabrum itself is mentioned 
 by Minucius Felix (Octav. c. 27) and Tertullian 
 {Apol. c. 16)-as an instance of the unconscious 
 honour paid by the heathens to the figure of the 
 cross. [E. H. P.] 
 
 CANTATORIUM. [Antiphonarium.] 
 
 CANTERBURY, COUNCIL OF, two in 
 Labb. &c. : —(1) a.d. 605, fictitious, resting on 
 a foi’ged charter of Ethelbert to St. Augustin’s 
 monastery at Canterbury (see Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Counc. iii. 56, 57). (2) A.D. 685, founded on a 
 
 mere miustake. [A. W. H.] 
 
 - CANTHARUS (or -UM), also PharoCan- 
 
 THARUS, also CaNTHARUS CEROSTATUS or CERO- 
 STRATUS, 1. a chandelier for ecclesiastical use, de¬ 
 scribed by Ducange, s. v. as “ a disc of metal, 
 furnished with candles fixed upon it.” The word 
 is of very frequent occurrence in Anastasius 
 and other early authorities: e.g. S. Silv. xxxiv. 
 § 34, “ canthara cerostrata xii aerea; ” ib. § 36, 
 “ pharum cantharum argenteum cum delphinis 
 cxx, ubi oleum ardet nardinum pisticum . . . 
 canthara cerostrata in gremio basilicae quinqua- 
 ginta.” S. Symmach. liii. § 80, “ ad beatum Pe- 
 trum XX canthara argentea fecit.” Among the 
 ai-ticles of church property confiscated by Pope 
 Sergius I. a.d. 687, to raise the donative de¬ 
 manded by the exarch of Ravenna, as the price of 
 his support, we read of “ cantharos et coronas 
 quae ante sacrum altare et confessionem beat! 
 Petri Apostoli ex antique pendebant ” (Anast. S. 
 Sergius Ixxxvi. § 159). 2. a vessel for water 
 
 [Phlala.] [E. V.] 
 
 CANTIANILLA, with C antianus and Can- 
 Tius, martyrs at Aquileia, commemorated May 31 
 (^Mart. Rs)m. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CANTIANUM CONCILIUM. [Kent.] 
 
 CANTICLE (^Canticuni). A species of 
 sacred song. St. Paul [Eph. v. 19] mentions 
 “ psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” 
 XaKovpres iavroTs ipa\/uo?s Kal vfivois Ka\ ^8a?s 
 vuevjuaTiKaTs (“ canticis spiritualibus,” Vulg.). 
 He also couples the three terms in Col. iii. 16. 
 Some of the psalms are called in the LXX. and 
 Vulg.: ij/aX/ubs wdrjs (Psalmus Cantici), e.g. 
 LXVIL, XCI. (LXVIII., XCII.), or alvos <pSijs 
 (Laus Cantici) ; e. gr. XCll. (XClIl.). On the dis¬ 
 tinction between a ps dm and a canticle, Augus¬ 
 tine remarks (on Ps. LXVII.) that some before 
 his time had made this distinction between a 
 canticle and a psalm, that since a canticle is 
 sung with the voice alone, but a psalm with the 
 accompaniment of an instrument; so by a can¬ 
 ticle, the intelligence of the mind is signified, by 
 
 a psalm the operation of the body. He goes on 
 to give as a reason why the book of Psalms is so 
 called rather than the book of Canticles, that« 
 canticle may be without a psalm, but not a p.^alm 
 without a canticle. Jerome distinguishes to 
 the effect that psalms properly belong to the 
 region of ethics, so that we know through the 
 bodily organs what to do or avoid—while can¬ 
 ticles deal with higher matters, the harmony of 
 the universe, and the order and concord of crea¬ 
 tion. Hymns are distinguished from both, as 
 being directly occupied with the praises of God. 
 Others distinguish differently, while Chrysostom 
 and Basil define to much the same effect. So 
 also Thomasius. Bona distinguishes between 
 four sorts of sacred song: (1) Canticle (Can- 
 ticum) which is sung by the voice alone ; (2) 
 Psalm (Psalmus), which is sung by the voice, 
 accompanied by a musical instrument; (3) Can¬ 
 ticle of a psalm (Canticum Psalmi), w'hcn there 
 is an instrumental prelude to the voice; (4) 
 Psalm of a canticle (Psalmus Cantici), when the 
 voice begins and the organ or other instrumental 
 accompaniment follows. But this seems to be 
 over refining, and hence some have considered 
 the three words [Psalm, Canticle, Hymn] as 
 virtually synonyms, on the ground that it is 
 easy to show that sacred songs were called by 
 these three names, but not so easy to show that 
 these names represent different kinds of song, 
 since they are used promiscuously in the titles 
 of the psalms. Hence it has been though*, 
 by some that St. Paul in the passages referred 
 to is simply recommending the use of the psalter 
 On the whole we may be satisfied with St. 
 Augustine’s conclusion, w'ho after discussing the 
 point at some length, says he will leave the 
 question to those w'ho are able, and have the 
 leisure to make the distinction, and to define it 
 accurately. The broad distinction, to w'hich the 
 derivation of the Greek words would lead, seems 
 to be that a psalm was sung to instrumental 
 accompaniment, a canticle with the voice alone ; 
 while a hymn is a direct praise of, or thanks¬ 
 giving to God. 
 
 In ecclesiastical use the word canticle is 
 applied to those poetical extracts from Holy 
 Scripture, w'hich are incorporated among the 
 psalms in the divine office. For the most part 
 they are said at Lauds. In the Gregorian and 
 its derived rites, a canticle is said every day 
 among the psalms at Lauds, immediately before 
 the three final psalms; and St. Benedict in his 
 rule directs that on each day at Lauds a canticle 
 from the Prophets shall be sung, “ sicut psallit 
 Ecclesia Romana.” These canticles, still retained 
 in the Roman and cognate breviaries, are: seven 
 from the Old Testament, said in the following 
 order— 
 
 At Lauds:— 
 
 On Sundays and Festivals, “ Benedicite." 
 
 On Mondays. The Song of Isaiah (Is. xii.). 
 
 On Tuesday, The .Song of Hezekiah (Is. xxxvili. 10-20) 
 
 On Wednesday, The Song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10). 
 
 On Thursday, The Song of Mosts (Kx. xv. 1-19). 
 
 On Friday, The .Song of Habakkuk (Hah. iii. 2-19). 
 
 On Saturday, The Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 1-43). 
 
 And also three from the New Testament:— 
 
 Benedictm, said daily at Lauds, 
 
 Magnificat „ „ „ Vespers. 
 
 X'unc dimittis „ „ „ Compline. 
 
CANTICUM EVANGELICUM 
 
 CAPITULAKY 
 
 285 
 
 These canticles are said with an antiphon, in 
 the same manner as the psalms. 
 
 ^ Other Western breviaries use a greater variety 
 of canticles: thus the Benedictine and other 
 monastic breviaries of the same type, have th..ee 
 canticles instead of psalms, in the third nocturn 
 on Sundays and festivals. 
 
 In the Office of the Greek Church, the follow¬ 
 ing nine canticles, called odes (ySai), are ap¬ 
 pointed at Lauds :— 
 
 (1) The Song of Moses in BscoJus (Ex. xv. 1-19). 
 
 (2) The Song of Moses in Deut. (Deut. xxxii. 1-43). 
 
 (3) The Prayer of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10). 
 
 (4) The Prayer of Habakkuk (Hab. ili. 2-19). 
 
 (5) The Prayer of Isaiah (Is. xxvi. 9-20). 
 
 (6) The Prayer of Jonah (Jon. ii. 2-9). 
 
 (7) The Prayer f of the Three Holy Children (Dan. iil. 
 
 3-34). QJn Apocry.] 
 
 (8) The Song f of the Three Holy Children. [Benk- 
 
 DICITK.] 
 
 (9) Magnificat and Benedictus. 
 
 These are assigned:—(1) to Sunday and Mon¬ 
 day ; (2) to Tuesday; (3) to Wednesday; (4) to 
 Thursday; (5) to Friday; (6) and (7) to Satur¬ 
 day ; (8) and (9) are said at a different time. 
 
 Benedictus and Benedicite were in early times 
 sung in some masses: the former before the 
 prophecy in some early Gallican masses; the 
 latter is prescribed in the 4th Council of Toledo 
 to be sung before the epistle on Sundays and 
 festivals of martyrs. 
 
 “ Te Deum ” is the only composition not taken 
 from Holy Scripture, which is usually considered 
 a canticle. Some ritualists, however, think it 
 should be reckoned among hymns. 
 
 For a fuller collection of canticles see the 
 Mozarabic breviary, and Thomasius, vol. ii. 
 
 . [H. J. H.] 
 
 CANTICUM EVANGELICUM. “Bene¬ 
 dictus ” was sometimes so called, probably to 
 distinguish it from the other canticle said at 
 Lauds, which is taken from the Old Testament. 
 The expression occurs in a MS. Pontifical of the 
 Church of Poitiers of about 800 A.D., and else¬ 
 where. [H. J. H.] 
 
 CANTICUM GKADUUM. The Gradual 
 Psalms were sometimes so-called. They were 
 recited in the following order: the first five 
 with Bequiem aeternam, ^c., and followed by a 
 few versicles, were said “ pro defunctis.” The 
 next ten each with “Gloria;” five “pro cou- 
 gregatione,” and five “ pro familiaribus ; ” each 
 group being followed by a few versicles and a 
 collect. [H. J. H.] 
 
 CANTOR. (^Psalmtsta, \f/cl\Tr}s, ypa\T(f>56s, 
 (j55o's.) 
 
 Among the clerici of the ancient Church are 
 to be reckoned, as a distinct order, the Cantores 
 or Psalmistae, whose institution dates, it would 
 seem, from the 4th century. They are mentioned 
 in the Apostolical Constitutions, so called (ii. 25, 
 § 12; iii. 11; viii. 10, § 2, etc.) and in the Apo¬ 
 stolical Canons (cc. 26, 43, 69). In the fifteenth 
 canon of the council of Laodicaea, A.D. 365, they 
 are called KavoviKoX t/^dArai, i.e. singers enrolled 
 in the canon or catalogue of clergy, to whom the 
 office of singing in the church was then restricted. 
 The reason of their appointment seems to have 
 been to regulate and encourage the ancient psal¬ 
 mody of the Church. There can be no question 
 
 but that from the apostolical age, singing formed 
 a part of the public worship, the whole congre¬ 
 gation joining, as in the prayers ; but when it 
 was found by experience that the negligence and 
 unskilfulness of the general body of the people 
 rendered them unfit to perform this service with¬ 
 out instruction and guidance, it was re.solved to 
 set apart a peculiar order of men for the singers’ 
 office, not with a view to abolish the ancient 
 psalmody, but to retrieve and improve it. That 
 the restriction imposed by the council of Laodi¬ 
 caea must be regarded as a temporary provision, 
 designed only to revive and develop the ancient 
 psalmody, then falling into decay, appears from 
 the facts collected by S. Augustine, Chrysostom, 
 Basil, and others, that in their own age the 
 custom of congregational singing was again 
 generally observed in the churches. 
 
 As to the form of ordination by which the 
 cantores were set apart for their office, this was 
 done, as in the case of the other inferior orders, 
 without imposition of hands ; but in one thing 
 it differed from the others, that whereas the 
 latter were usually conferred by the bishop or a 
 chorepiscopus, this order might be conferred by 
 a presbyter, using the form of words following, 
 as given in the 4th council of Carthage, c. 10 : 
 “ See that thou believe in thy heart what thou 
 singest with thy mouth, and appi-ove in thy 
 works what thou believest in thy heart.” [Com¬ 
 pare Confessor, § 4.] Bingham, iii. 7; Martene 
 de Ant. Eccl. Ritibus 1 . c. viii. art. 8, § 4. [D. B.] 
 
 CANTUAEIENSE CONCILIUM. [Can¬ 
 
 terbury.] 
 
 CAPA OR CAPPA. [Cope.] 
 
 CAPITOLINI. A name of reproach applied 
 by the Novatians to the Catholics, because the 
 latter charitably resolved, in their synods, to 
 receive into communion again, upon their sincere 
 repentance, such as had offered sacidfice in the 
 Capitol (Bingham, b. i. c. 3). [D. B.] 
 
 CAPITULA. The name of a prayer in the 
 Mozarabic breviary immediately preceding the 
 Lord’s Prayer, which in this rite occurs near 
 the end of the office. It changes with the day 
 and office, and also varies much in length, but 
 has no special characteristics to distinguisli it 
 from other Mozarabic prayers. The corre¬ 
 sponding prayer in the Mass, not however called 
 by this name, is directed to be said “ ad ora- 
 tionem dominicam.” Baronins, referring to an 
 epistle of Poj)e A'^igilius, observes that formerly 
 the word Capitulum was used of “ preces quae- 
 dam prolixiores in honorom Sanctorum vel 
 Solennitatum.” [H. J. H.] 
 
 CAPITULARE. [Antiphonarium, p. 100.] 
 
 CAPITUIjARY. The term “Capitulary” 
 means a set or collection of capitula or little 
 chapters. It is applied to the laws and ordi¬ 
 nances of the early Frankish sovereigns, because 
 the laws enacted at one time and place were 
 usually collected and published in a continuous 
 series. The collective series was called a “ Capi¬ 
 tulary;” the several laws which were the mem¬ 
 bers of the series were called “ Capitula.” The 
 term has not in itself any ecclesiastical meaning, 
 being also applicable to temporal laws. But, as 
 a fact, the majority (though by no means the 
 whole) of the Frankish Capitula were of an 
 ecclesiastical character. 
 
 t So distinguished in the titles. 
 
286 
 
 CAPITULARY 
 
 CAPITULARY 
 
 The edition of Baluze* begins with Childe- 
 bert’s Constitution for the Abolition of Idolatry, 
 554 A.D. This is followed by various other 
 capitula of the first race of kings, viz. of Lo- 
 thaire I. and II-., Dagobert, and Sigebert. Crime, 
 slavery, man;iage, contracts, pledges, judicial 
 and ecclesiastical regulations, all find place 
 among these laws, which furnish some interest¬ 
 ing evidence of the religious, political, and social 
 condition of France. They show strong traces 
 of clerical influence, in the care which they take 
 of ecclesiastical interests. The Merovingian 
 princes were rude and unlearned, and were glad 
 to make use of the abilities and learning of the 
 priesthood: they were also dissolute, and perhaps 
 glad to compound for their excesses by gratify¬ 
 ing the priesthood ; and both these causes 
 conspired to throw wealth and power into epi¬ 
 scopal hands. Nor was this state of things 
 wholly without its advantages. The influence 
 of the clergy mitigated the ferocity of the 
 nobles, and it has been suggested that the 
 humane tone of portions of the Merovingian 
 laws is probably due to the part which they 
 took in the formation of them. 
 
 It may be briefly mentioned that the follow¬ 
 ing subjects appear repeatedly and with pro¬ 
 minence : 
 
 The right of sanctuary in churches. The 
 crime of doing violence to churches or monastic 
 houses. The crime of violence to the persons or 
 property of the clergy or monks.** The right 
 freely conferred on all men, without restraint, 
 of making gifts of land or other property to the 
 Church. The duty of a strict observance of the 
 Lord’s day.** 
 
 It is impossible, however, here to discuss these 
 laws in detail. Indeed, in the judgment of 
 Guizot, they hardly deserve it. Civilisation 
 during the Merovingian dynasty persistently 
 declined, and in the Church the bishops came by 
 degrees to constitute an irresponsible and ill- 
 organized aristocracy,—the power of the Metro¬ 
 politans and of the State having gradually 
 declined. 
 
 We come next to a few Capitularies in the 
 nominal reign of Childeric III., but in reality 
 the work of Carloman and Pepin, and then to the 
 Capitularies of Pepin le Bref as sovereign of the 
 Franks in the year 752. 
 
 Of these latter Baluze gives five or six, but 
 Hallam notices that only one is expressly said to 
 be made “ in general! populi conventu.” The 
 
 » Guizot speaks of this as, when he wrote, the best 
 edition, but still only to be regard- d as the materials for a 
 really correct and satisfactory edition of the Capitularies. 
 Since that time the voluminous and elaborate work of 
 Pertz has appeared, in which the Capitularies have been 
 re-edited from M.S. authority, and several unpublished by 
 Baluze added to the number. This is therefore pn.bai ly 
 now the standard edition; but the references in this article 
 have been kept to the work ot Baluze, ftecause it is more 
 p<jrtable, and probably more ac essible, and because 
 Guizot’s references are alwaj-s made to it. 
 
 b “ In all temporal affairs the Tfieodosian Code wa.s the 
 universal law of the clergy. But the barbaric jurispru¬ 
 dence had liberally provided for their personal safety : a 
 subdeacon was equivalent to two Fianks; the antrustion 
 and priest were held in similar e&timation ; and the life of 
 a bishop was appreciated far above the common standard, 
 at the price of 900 pieces of gold ” (Gibbon, vol. vi. chap. 
 xxxv'Iii.). 
 
 c This subject recurs continually in the Capitularies. 
 
 rest appear to be due to synods; but it would, 
 perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that they 
 mav not, in some c-oses, have had some kind of 
 subsequent assent from the lay Counts.** 
 
 It is, perhaps, hardly quite correct to say that 
 the Capitularies of Pepin “ relate without ex¬ 
 ception to ecclesiastical affairs ” (Hallam, Mid. 
 *Ayes, vol. i. chap. ii. part 2). Not only are they 
 concerned with questions of marriage and kin¬ 
 dred matters, which perhaps are quasi-eccle- 
 siastical, but one or two deal with tolls, with 
 the regulation of money, with parricide, and 
 with the administration of justice as well 
 secular as spiritual. The general complexion, 
 however, is ecclesiastical. Amongst other things, 
 tw'o synods are to be held annually, and detailed 
 regulations are made as to the rights of bishops, 
 abbots, monks, and clergy. 
 
 The continuance in the laws of Pepin, and, as 
 we shall see, in those of Charleinagne, of the 
 .same strong ecclesiastical type which is found in 
 those of the Merovingians, is perhaps due, 
 amongst other causes, to the desire to attract 
 the Church to the side of the new dynasty. “ In 
 order to encounter and subvert the reverence 
 which was still yielded to a merely titular 
 monarch, the supposed descendant of the gods, 
 it was necessary to enlist on their own side 
 religious feelings of a far deeper nature, and of 
 a much more solemn significance.” (Sir J. Ste¬ 
 phen, Lect. on Hist, of France, vol. i. p. 84.) 
 
 From the time of Pepin, however, the Sove¬ 
 reign Power set itself not only to advance the 
 interests of the Church, but to correct its dis¬ 
 orders. The strengthening of the Metropolitan 
 authority and that of the Crown were among 
 the means used for reorganizing the system. 
 
 We turn next to the important and copious 
 legislation of Charlemagne. 
 
 The public Capitularies of Charlemagne are 
 reckoned by Guizot at sixty in number. Five 
 other documents of a more private character 
 may also claim, in the opinion of that writer, a 
 right to the name.** Nearly all these Capitu¬ 
 laries contain a large number of Capitula, or 
 distinct articles in each of them. These amount 
 in all to 1150, and are upon very various sub¬ 
 jects, even when included in the same Capitu¬ 
 lary. Guizot classifies— 
 
 80 under Moral Legislation, 
 
 273 
 
 J) 
 
 Political 
 
 130 
 
 
 Penal 
 
 110 
 
 >> 
 
 Civil 
 
 85 
 
 
 Religious 
 
 309 
 
 
 Canonical 
 
 73 
 
 
 Domestic 
 
 12 
 
 
 Occasional 
 
 Under the first head he places such articles as: 
 “Turpe lucrum exercent qui per varias cii*- 
 
 d Comp, the 2nd Capit. of Carloman, a.d. 743, which 
 begins —“ Modo autem in hoc synodali conventu, qui 
 congregaius est ad Kalendas Martlas in l<x» qui dicitur 
 Liptenas, omnes venerabiles sacerdotes Dei et comiu-s et 
 praefecti prioris 8yn<jdi decreta consentienter firmaverunt, 
 seque ea impU re velle et observare promiserunt ” (Baluze, 
 i. 149). 
 
 e Balnze’s collection /wnta'ns many errors, but this is 
 due to the loose use of the word “ capitulary.” Pertz of 
 course gives more still; and some of those last might pro¬ 
 bably be fairly considered as of a public character, and 
 added to the computation of Guizot. 
 
CAPITULARY 
 
 CAPITULARY 
 
 287 
 
 ctiniventiones lucz’andi causa inhoneste res quas- 
 libet congregare decertant” (Baluze i. 454). 
 This is the 16th capitulum of a Capitulary made 
 A.D. 806. It is rather a maxim of ethics than 
 an edict or law. 
 
 Religious legislation in the above classification 
 is such as relates not to ecclesiastics alone, but 
 to all the faithful. In some points this resembles 
 the moral in its tone. Thus we find : 
 
 “ Ut nullus credat quod nonnisi in tribus 
 linguis (probably Latin, Greek, and German) 
 Deus orandus sit: quia in omni lingua Deus 
 adoratur, et homo exauditur, si juste petierit ” 
 (Baluze i. 270). This is No. 50 of a set put 
 forth A.B. 794. 
 
 Canonical legislation is the term for what 
 concerns the relations of the clergy among 
 themselves. The tendency of this class of 
 Capitula is to uphold the power of the bishops. 
 Even the monastic bodies are to be in subordi¬ 
 nation to them.f In fact, Charlemagne appears 
 to have considered that by reducing all the 
 clergy under the episcopate, and then exercising 
 a personal influence over the bishops himself, 
 he was providing the best remedy for the con¬ 
 dition of the Church, which was one of much 
 disorganisation. He aimed at a stronger and 
 more pervading discipline, not by reducing the 
 episcoj)al powers, but by taking care that their 
 vast powers were well exercised. 
 
 With the other heads of the classification we 
 have not here to do, except in so far as under 
 the title of “ Political Legislation ” some regu¬ 
 lations are found as to the i*elation of the secular 
 and ecclesiastical powers. These tend to show 
 that Charlemagne, while giving great power to 
 the bishops, consulting with them on church 
 matters, and using their learning and intelli¬ 
 gence for the general purposes of his govern¬ 
 ment, was careful not to become their tool, nor 
 to subject his own authority to theirs. “The 
 laws which fix the obligations, the revenues, 
 even the duties of the clergy, are issued in the 
 name of the emperor; they are monarchical and 
 .mperial, not papal or synodical canons ” (Mil- 
 man, Lat. Christ, book v. chap. 1). In return 
 for his having confirmed the system of tithes by 
 a law of the empire, Charlemagne “ assumed the 
 power of legislating for the clergy with as full 
 despotism as for the laity,” though “ in both 
 cases there was the constitutional control of the 
 concurrence of the nobles and of the higher 
 ecclesiastics, strong against a feeble monarch, 
 feeble against a sovereign of Charlemagne’s over¬ 
 ruling character. His institutes are in the 
 language of command to both branches of that 
 great ecclesiastical militia, which he treated as 
 his vassals, the secular and the monastic clergy.” 
 — Ibid. 
 
 In any inquiry, however, on the subject of 
 Capitularies, it is necessary to bear in mind the 
 extremely loose use of the word which prevails 
 in Baluze and other editors. Guizot has pointed 
 out that they apply this title equally to no less 
 than twelve distinct kinds of documents. “ We 
 find in their collections of so-called Capitularies” 
 —he says— 
 
 “ 1. Ancient laws revived. (Ra/. i. 281.) 
 
 f See 4th Capitulare, a.d. 806, cap. ii. (Bal. i. 450), and 
 1st Capitulare, a.d. 802, cap. xv (Ral. 1. 366). Pepin had 
 l&id down the same principle (Bal. 1. 169). 
 
 “ 2. Extracts from ancient laws put together 
 for some special purpose. (^Ibid. i. 395.) 
 
 “ 3. Additions to ancient laws (amounting 
 probably to new laws. (^fbid. i. 387.) 
 
 “ 4. Extracts from pi’evious Canons. (^Ibid. 
 i. 209.) 
 
 “ 5. New laws properly so called. 
 
 “ 6. Instructions given by Charlemagne to his 
 Missi^ to guide them in their duties. 
 (^Ibid. i. 243.) 
 
 “ 7. Answers given by Charlemagne to ques¬ 
 tions fi’om counts, bishops, &c., as to 
 practical difficulties in their administra¬ 
 tion. (^Ibid. i. 401.) 
 
 “ 8. Questions drawn up in order to be pro¬ 
 posed for discussion to the bishops or 
 counts at the next assembly, e. g., ‘ To 
 ascertain on what occasions and in what 
 places the ecclesiastics and the laity seek, 
 in the manner stated, to impede each 
 other in the exercise of their respective 
 functions. To inquire and discuss up to 
 what point a bishop or an abbot is justi¬ 
 fied in interfering in secular affaii's, and 
 a count or other layman with ecclesias¬ 
 tical affairs. To interrogate them closely 
 on the meaning of those words of the 
 Apostle : “ No man that warreth for the 
 law entangleth himself with the affairs 
 of this life.” Inquire to whom these 
 words apply.’ (^Ibid. i. 477.) 
 
 “ 9. Sometimes the so-called Capitula seem to 
 be little more than memoranda. (^Ibid. i. 
 395.) (Perhaps, however, this class is 
 identical in reality with Class 6.) 
 
 “ 10. Judicial decrees. {Ibid. i. 398.) 
 
 “ 11. Regulations for the management of the 
 royal lands and possessions. {Ibid. i. 331.) 
 
 “ 12. Matters of an executive and adminis¬ 
 trative rather than legislative nature. 
 {Ibid. i. 26, in Art. 1, 6, 7, 8, 53, 54.)” 
 
 It is obvious that a very different kind of 
 sanction might be required for some of them 
 from that which would be needed for others. 
 No general rule can therefore be laid down 
 applicable to all. Nor even in respect to those 
 which are in the strictest sense legislative is it 
 easy to discern an uniform constitutional pro¬ 
 cedure. 
 
 As regards ecclesiastical matters, it may pro¬ 
 bably be considered that the prelates were 
 always consulted, though in most cases the 
 initiative, and in all cases the final, authori¬ 
 zation came from the Sovereign. Thus a Capi¬ 
 tulary A.D. 813 of Canonical Rules is entitled— 
 
 “ Capitula de confirmatione constitutionum 
 quas episcopi in synodis auctoritate regia nuper 
 habitis constituerant.” 
 
 If it could be safely assumed that all legis¬ 
 lative Capitularia, on whatever subject, had the 
 collective assent of one of the General Assemblies 
 held in every year, it would follow that eccle¬ 
 siastical laws had the assent of the laity.6 For 
 
 K See Baluze, Preface. 7-9. He suggests that some 
 of the apparent exceptions consist of capitula which are 
 mere extracts from ancient Church Councils, and which 
 therefore the royal authority may have been deemed com¬ 
 petent to promulgate. In some other instances, be thinks 
 
288 
 
 CAPITULARY 
 
 CAPITULUM 
 
 in these assemblies, counts and great men, as 
 well as prelates, were present. Hincmar, in an 
 impoi tant document at the close of the ninth 
 century (Guizot, Lect. 20), gives some account 
 of these assemblies, and says that it was in the 
 option of the lay and ecclesiastical lords to sit 
 together or separately, according to the affairs 
 of which they had to tr^at — ecclesiastical, 
 seculai', or both. From th.s it might at first 
 appear that canonical matters were considered 
 by the clergy alone, but perhaps this may be 
 rather understood of the previous discussion 
 and preparation of the law. If so, it is con¬ 
 sistent with its being finally submitted for the 
 consent and approbation of the whole assembly. 
 
 The further question, as to which much con¬ 
 troversy has taken place, whether the lesser 
 freeholders had a share in legislation, and if so, 
 whether their voice was given in the assembly, 
 or when the Capitularies passed by the assembly 
 were subsequently proclaimed locally in the 
 different districts, is a matter rather of political 
 inquiry, and hardly belongs to the subject of the 
 present work. It is discussed by Hallam (^Middle 
 Ages, chap. ii. part II.), where references will be 
 found to other authorities. 
 
 Upon the whole, it must always be borne in 
 mind that in that early state of society—a state 
 in which the master-mind of Charlemagne was 
 reducing to something like order very chaotic 
 elements—we must not expect to find any 
 pedantic exactness of constitutional law. The 
 will of the Sovereign was the motive power of 
 the whole system, but before exercising it he 
 availed himself of the advice of the counsellors 
 who were most likely to be of service: so far all 
 is clear. The extent to which he submitted 
 every legislative regulation to the whole body of 
 the assembly, held, with certain modifications, 
 twice in the year, is a matter on which it is 
 more difficult to speak positively. Perhaps the 
 practice even as to legislative regulations was 
 not uniform, while certainly the boundary 
 between legislative and executive regulations 
 was very ill-defined. 
 
 On the reception accorded to the Capitularies by 
 the Church, and the quasi-canonical authority at- 
 
 capitularies may In the first instance have been put forth 
 by the sole authority of the sovereign, but subsequently 
 submitted to the general assemblies for their recognition 
 and consent, where such a step seemed to be expedient. 
 Butler says, “ They (the Capitularies) were generally pro¬ 
 mulgated in public assemblies composed of the sovereign 
 and the chief men of the nation, as well ecclesiastics as 
 secular” {Horae Juridicae., p. 129, edit. 1807). 
 
 In one case, in the reign of Childeric III., in a capitulary 
 due to Pepin, we read that synods are to be held annually, 
 “ ut haeresis amplius in populo non resurgat, sicut Inve- 
 nimus in Adalberto haeresim, quern publiciter unE voce 
 condemnaveruiit xxiii. episcopi et alii multi sacerdotes 
 cum consensu Principis et populi" &c. (Bal. i. 157). Here 
 the laity seem to have had a consentient voice even in so 
 purely spiritual a matter as heresy. 
 
 Hallam notices the more frequent mention of “ general 
 consent" in the capitularies of Charlemagne, as compared 
 with those of his predecessors {Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 215, 
 216, ed. 1855). On the other hand, the author of the article 
 “ Capitularicae " in Herzog thinks that Hincmar’s words 
 point to a separation made by Charlemagne between the 
 clergy and laity, so that the former obtained a right to 
 make “• leges ecclesiasticae,” as distinguished from capi- 
 tulai-ies (for which latter general assent was still needful); 
 but subject to a veto on the part of the sovereign. 
 
 tributed to them, much information will be found 
 in the Preface of Balu'ze, § 18 et seq. See also 
 the letter of Leo IV. in Gratian, Dist. 10, c. 9. 
 
 Capitularies subsequent to the reign of Char¬ 
 lemagne do not fall within our limits. The 
 latest are those of Carloman in 882, after which 
 there is a long blank in French legislation. 
 
 It does not seem that a formal collection of the 
 Capitularies was made till they were edited in 
 four books by Angesise, Abbot of Fontenella, 
 ■who died in 833. These four books contain the 
 laws of Charlemagne, and a portion of those of 
 Louis le Dehonnaire. Charles the Bald cites 
 this work as a code of authority. Subsequently 
 Benedict, a deacon of Mayence, about the year 
 842, added three more books. These, however, 
 contain fragments of Roman and canon law, 
 besides the Capitularies of the Carlovingian 
 kings. Four supplements again have been added 
 by anonymous compilers. 
 
 Authorities.—Capitularia Regum Francorum. 
 Additae sunt Marculfi monachi et aliorum for~ 
 mulae veteres et notae doctissimorum virorum. 
 Stephanus Baluzius Tutelemis in unum collegit, 
 ad vetustissimos codices manuscriptos tmendavit, 
 magnam partem nunc primnm edidit, notis illus- 
 tracit. Parisiis, 1677 (2 vols.). GmzoVs Lectures 
 on the History of Civilization in France, trans¬ 
 lated by Hazlitt. Bogue, 1846. Hallam‘s 
 Middle Ages. Herzog’s Real-Encyclopddie, Art. 
 “ Capitularien.” Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae 
 Historica, tom. i. Legum. Hanover, 1835. [B. S.] 
 
 CAPITULUM, CAPITULAEE, = Ke<pd. 
 Xaiou .—(1) Properly, a summary or heading, 
 under which many particulars are arranged ; 
 “ brevis multorum complexio ” {Papias ap. Du 
 Cange). Hence (2), in the plural, codes of law, 
 ecclesiastical or civil, digested under chapters or 
 capitula (so used in Cod. Theodos.). And inas¬ 
 much as these mostly applied to special emergent 
 cases not adequately met by existing general 
 laws, Capitula came to mean Additamenta et 
 Appendices legum. So the Capitula or Capitularia 
 of Charlemagne and his successors, mostly passed 
 in mixed assemblies of clei’gy and laity. (3) The 
 word came .also to mean the (usually short) 
 “ chapter ” itself, of which it was properly the 
 heading. As, e.g. the capitula or short lessons 
 (e. g. from the Psalms) for particular days, men¬ 
 tioned in the Council of Agde, a.d. 506, can. 21, 
 and by Pope Vigilius, A.D. 538 X 555, Epist. 2; 
 called also Capitella in the same Council of Agde, 
 can. 30. And Capitulare Evangeliot'um in circulo 
 Anni was a list of the beginnings and endings of 
 the Gospels for the Church year. So also, again 
 (besides our modern use of the word “ chapter ”), 
 the Capitula of a Monastic Rule. (4) And from 
 this last-mentioned usage, coupled with the prac¬ 
 tice of reading a capitulum or chapter of the Rule, 
 or (as was St. Augustine’s practice) of the Scrip¬ 
 tures, to the assembled canons or monks, the 
 assembled canons or monks themselves came to 
 be called, in a body, the capitulum or chapter 
 [Chapter], and their meeting-place the chapter- 
 house. And in process of time the term in this 
 sense became limited to the cathedral chapter : 
 “ Capitulum dicitur respectu ecclesiae cathe- 
 dralis; conventus respectu ecclesiae regularis; 
 collegium respectu ecclesiae inferioris ubi est 
 collectio viventium in communi” (Lyndwood). 
 Congregatio was the earlier term. [A. W. H.] 
 
CAPTATORES 
 
 CAPRA SIUS 
 
 Chrodegang, bishop of Metz (t 766), in his 
 Buie (c. 18) desires the canons of his order to 
 assemble after prime, to hear a reading of a 
 martyrology or some similar work ; on Sun¬ 
 days, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and on saints’ 
 days, treatises or homilies of an edifying kind 
 were to precede this reading; on other days, the 
 Rule itself, or a portion of it. Similar directions 
 are frequent in later statutes. This assembly 
 was called cnpitulwn. (Martene, De Antiei. Eccl. 
 Bitihus, lib. iv. c. vii. § 4.) See also the Life of 
 Benedict of Aniane by Ardo, c. 52 (in Acta SS. 
 Bened. saec. iv. pt. 1). In the Life of Germar, 
 abbot of Flaviacum (f 658 ?), the third hour is 
 mentioned as the time for holding capitulum 
 Cc. 15, in Acta SS. Ben. saec. ii.); so in Adre- 
 valdus. Be Mirac. S. Bened. (c. 28, ib.). Dunstan 
 {Concordia^ cc. 1 and 5) desires capitulum to be 
 held after prime in summer, after terce in winter. 
 This seems to be in accoi'dance with the intentions 
 of St. Benedict: for one object of the capitulum 
 was the distribution of the day’s labour among 
 the brethren; and accoi’diug to his Rule., c. 48, 
 labour was to begin after prime in summer, 
 after terce in winter. 
 
 The place of holding the capitulum seems 
 anciently (according to the Ordo Conversat. 
 Monast. c. 3) to have been the cloister; but see 
 Chapter-house. [C.] 
 
 (5) The “ little Chapter,” said at all the 
 canonical hours excepting Matins, after the 
 psalms. It consists of one or two verses of 
 Scripture, usually taken ft’om the Epistles, 
 whence the corresponding passage in the Am¬ 
 brosian breviary is called Epistolella. It is 
 often taken from the Prophets, and occasion¬ 
 ally from other parts of Scripture. It is recited 
 by the officiating priest, standing, and is not 
 preceded by a Benediction. At the end “ Deo 
 Gratias ” is aaid. See (3) above. 
 
 (6) An anthem in the Ambrosian rite said at 
 
 Lauds after the psalms anJ before the antiphon, 
 and varying with the day. That for ordinary 
 Sundays is “ Cantate Domino canticum novum : 
 laudatio ejus in ecclesia sanctorum.” It is also 
 said at the lesser hours, and at Compline fol¬ 
 lowing the Besponsio brevis, after the Epi¬ 
 stolella. [H. J. H.j 
 
 [Du Cange; Mayer, Biss, in his Thes. Nov. Stat. 
 ^c., Eccles. Cathedr. et Colleg. in Gennanid; 
 Walcott, Sacred Archaeology.'] 
 
 CAPRASIUS, martyr at Agen, is comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 20 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CAPSA, also Capsula, Capsella. A box or 
 case. The name is applied to several kinds of 
 caskets for ecclesiastical use. 
 
 1. The casket used to contain the unconse¬ 
 crated elements. According to the direction of 
 the Ordo Romanus I. c. 8, two acolytes bear in 
 the procession before the pope, when about to 
 celebrate,“ capsas cum sanctis apertas.” On this 
 passage Binterim {Benkwurdigkeiten, vii. 1, 369) 
 observes that by ‘ sancta ’ in the neuter plural 
 we are to understand, not the consecrated Body 
 of the Lord, but the yet unconsecrated Elements, 
 which the acolytes bore before the mass, just as 
 after it they carried off the remains of the 
 oblations in ‘ sacculi.’ This procession corre¬ 
 sponds, in fact, to the ‘Greater Entrance’ of 
 the Greeks, in which the elements are borne in 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 289 
 
 solemn procession from the sacristy to the Holy 
 Table. 
 
 2. Capsa sometimes designates the vessel in 
 which the reserved Eucharist was borne from 
 one place to another. The seventeenth canon of 
 the council of Orange enjoins, “ cum capsa et 
 calix offerendus est, et admistione Eucharistiae 
 consecrandus ” [Consecration]. The meaning 
 of this, 'hl&h\\\on{Comra. Praev. in Ord. Rom. p. 
 cxxxix) considers to be that, together with the 
 ‘ capsa ’ containing the sacred vessels and per¬ 
 haps the Eucharist, the chalice was also to be 
 brought to the altar. The word Turris is used 
 in a similar sense. Compare Tabernacle. 
 
 3. A repository or Shrine (Fi*. chasse) for 
 preserving the relics of saints. The legates of 
 the Apostolic See in their letter to Hormisdas 
 (in Hormisdae Epistolae, p. 475, Migne) say that 
 they suggested the making of shrines (capsellas) 
 for the I'elics of each of the apostles severally 
 in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. 
 In the description of the altar built by St. 
 Benedict at Aniane, we read that an opening 
 was made in the back of it for inserting the 
 ‘ capsae ’ which contained relics of saints {Acta 
 SS. Feb. ii. 614). Compare Altar, p. 64. 
 
 4. A casket to contain the book of the Gospels. 
 
 Ado of Vienne speaks {Chronicon, a.d. 519) of 
 twenty “ capsae evangeliorum ” of gold, richly 
 jewelled [Liturgical Books]. [C.] 
 
 CAPSARIUM. The room in which the 
 capsae containing relics were placed. Perpetuus 
 of Tours (circa a.d. 490), in his will (D’Achery’s 
 Spicilegium, v. 105) distinguishes a reliquary j 
 which he left to a friend from another gilded 
 ‘ theca ’ which was in his capsarium, and which 
 he left to the church (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v.). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CAPSUM. The nave of a church. Gregory 
 of Tours {Hist. Franc, ii. 14) describes a certain 
 church as having thirty-two windows in the 
 sanctuary, twenty in the nave (in capso). (Du¬ 
 cange’s Glossary, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 CAPTATORES. The leaving by testament 
 the institution of an heir to the secret will of 
 another was by the Roman law tei*med a cap- 
 tatoria institutio, and forbidden (see Dig. bk. 
 xxviii. t. V. 11. 70, 71, 81 ; Code, bk. vii. t. xxii. 
 1. 11). In a less technical sense, however, the 
 captator answered substantially to our legacy- 
 hunter, and the scandal is one which seems to 
 have been rife in the early church—as indeed 
 the satirists shew it to have been in the heathen 
 world of the day. Perhaps we may see a germ 
 of it in what St. Paul says (ii. Tim. iii. 1, 2) of 
 the “ covetous ” who shall be “ in the last days,” 
 adding, “ for of this sort are they which creep 
 into houses, and lead captive silly women ” (v. 
 6), though his description applies mainly to dis¬ 
 honest and selfish teachers. By the end of the 
 4th century, at any rate, Christian emperors had 
 to legislate against it. A law of Valentinian, 
 Valens, and Gratian (a.d. 370) in the Theodosian 
 Code, enacted that clerics or professors of con¬ 
 tinence were not to frequent the houses of 
 widows and female wards, but should be banished 
 by public judgment, if the relatives of such 
 females should deem fit to prosecute them ; nor 
 should any such persons receive aught from the 
 woman with whom they might becoiiu' connected 
 
290 
 
 CAPTATORES 
 
 CAE 
 
 under pretext of religion, by any kind of libe¬ 
 rality, or by her last will; but any bequest to 
 them from such females should be void, nor could 
 they tare und :Y any trust either by donation or 
 testament. Should anything be so given or left 
 to them after the date of the law, the public 
 exchequer was-to receive it. Another law in 
 the same Code (1. 27), of Valentinian, Theodosius, 
 and Arcadius (a.d. 390), contains special pro¬ 
 visions as to liberalities by deaconesses, who 
 amongst other things were forbidden to nominate 
 as their heirs any church, cleric, or poor man; 
 this however was partly revoked a few months 
 later (1. 28 ib.) by the same emperors, so far as 
 allowing the enjoyment of certain articles of 
 personal use by clerics or servants, under the 
 name of a church (Bingham does not seem quite 
 to have understood the bearing of this last 
 enactment). These laws, although as will be 
 seen, they did not hold their ground in the state, 
 are remarkable from the reference to them in one 
 of Jerome’s best known letters (^Ep. 2, ad Nepo- 
 tianum) : “ Shameful to say, the priests of idols, 
 actors, charioteers, harlots receive inheritances; 
 only to clerics and monks is this forbidden by 
 law, and forbidden, not by persecutors but by 
 the princes. Nor do I complain of this law, 
 but lament that w"e should have deserved it.” 
 And he proceeds to draw one of his scathing 
 sketches of those who devote a shameful service 
 to old men and childless old women, besieging 
 their bedsides, performing for them the most 
 menial and repulsive offices, in dread at the 
 doctor’s entrance, asking with trembling lips if 
 the patient be better, in peril if he become a 
 little stronger, feigning joy whilst their minds 
 are tortured by their avarice, sweating for an 
 empty inheritance. 
 
 There is a striking analogy between Jerome’s 
 picture and one traced in one of the novels of 
 Leo and Majorian, annexed to the Theodosian Code 
 (bk. viii. N. vi. § 11; a.d. 458). It professes to 
 restrain the avidity of these captatores, who by 
 attendance by the bedside of persons they scarcely 
 know, corrupt by simulated affection minds 
 wearied with bodily illness and having no longer 
 any clear judgment, so that forgetting the ties 
 of blood and affinity, they may name strangers 
 their heirs. Medical men are suborned to per¬ 
 suade their patient to wrong, and neglecting the 
 care of healing become ministers to the cove¬ 
 tousness of others. And it proceeds to enact that 
 persons who could not claim in case of intestacy 
 in any degree from a testator, if they should 
 receive anything by way of bequest or trust, 
 should give one-thii-d to the treasury, until by 
 fear of this the injustice of testatoi's and dis¬ 
 honesty of captators should come to an end. It 
 will be observed that this law, instead of being 
 confined to clerics and monks like the previous 
 one, is of a general character. Perhaps, though 
 it did not hold its place, it has not been without 
 influence on the differential duties imposed by 
 most modern states on legacies and successions, 
 which are generally highest as against strangers 
 to the family of the testator or predecessoi*. 
 
 As respects the clergy, indeed, we find by a 
 law almost contemporary with the last, inserted 
 in Justinian’s code, that of Valentinian and 
 Marcian, A.D. 455 (bk. i. t. ii. 1. 13), that widows, 
 deaconesses, virgins dedicated to God, nuns, and 
 women bearing any other name of religious 
 
 honour or dignity, received full liberty to leave 
 by will or otherwise all or any part of their 
 fortune. In short, the strongest laws against 
 clerical captation which Jerome applauded seem 
 to have been tacitly abrogated, utterly incon¬ 
 sistent as they were with the growth of Romish 
 or Oriental priestcraft. 
 
 The term haeredipetae seems only to differ from 
 that of captiitores, so far as it implies only the 
 captation of inheritances, not of gifts from the 
 living. [J. M. L.] 
 
 CAPTIVES, REDEMPTION OF. The 
 
 disasters which fell upon the Roman emjnre in 
 the 4th and 5th centuries gave a special promi¬ 
 nence to this as one of the forms of Christian 
 love, and it connects itself accordingly with some 
 of the noblest acts and words of the teachers of 
 the Church. Ambrose was charged by his Arian 
 opponents with sacrilege for having melted down 
 the eucharistic vessels of the church at Milan 
 for this purpose, and defends himself against the 
 charge on the grounds that this was the highest 
 and best use to which he could have applied them 
 {De Offic. ii. 28). Augustine did the same at 
 Hippo (Possidius, Vita, c. 24). Acacius, Bishop 
 of Amidas, ransomed as many as 7000, who had 
 been taken prisoners by the Persians (Socr. H. E. 
 vii. 21); Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage, the 
 Roman soldiers who had been carried off by Gen- 
 seric after the capture of Rome (Victor Utic. de 
 persecut. Vandal, i., Bibl. Pair. vii. p. 591). It 
 is worth noting that this was not only admired 
 in individual actions, but that the truth that 
 mercy is above sacidfice was formally embodied 
 in ecclesiastical legislation. The Code of Jus¬ 
 tinian (i. tit. 2, de Sacros. Eccles. 21), while for¬ 
 bidding the alienation of church ve.ssels or vest¬ 
 ments for any other purpose, distinctly permits 
 them to be pledged or even sold for this or other 
 like works of mercy or necessity. [E. H. P.] 
 
 CAPUA, COUNCIL OF, a.d. 389, provin- 
 cial, respecting the schism at Antioch between 
 Flavianus and Evagrius; also respecting the de¬ 
 nial by Bonosus of the perpetual virginity of the 
 B. V. Mary; passed also a canon against rebap¬ 
 tizing, re-ordination, and translation of bishops, 
 embodied in the African code (3. Andjros. Epist. 
 78, 79; Cod. Can. Afric. 48; Labb. ii. 1039, 
 1072). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CAPUT JEJUNII. [Lent.] 
 
 CAPUTIUM, a covering for the head, worn 
 by monks, sometimes sewn on to the tunic, as a 
 hood (^Reg. Comm. S. Bened. c. 55). [I. G. S.] 
 
 CAR, CART, CHARIOT, &c. Herzog 
 {Real-Encyclopddie fur protestantische Theologie 
 u. Kirche, 8vo. Gotha, 1861, s. v. “ Sinnbilder,”) 
 mentions a sculpttire in St. Callixtus, which con¬ 
 tains a chariot without driver, with pole turned 
 backwards, and whips left resting on it. T^is, 
 as he says, appears evidently intended as a syfebol 
 of the accomplished course of a life. In Bottari, 
 tav. clx., two quadrigae are represented at the 
 base of an arch (covered with paintings of ancient 
 date) in the second cubiculum of the catacomb 
 of St. Priscilla on the Salarian Way. The cha¬ 
 rioteers carry palms and crowns in their hands, 
 and the horses are decorated with palm-branches, 
 or perhaps plumes; which connects the image of 
 the chariot with St. Paul’s imagination of the 
 
CARACALLA 
 
 Christian race (1 Cor. lx. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7). 
 (See Martigny, s. v. “ Cheval,” and article Horse 
 in this book.) 
 
 GueneTiaulf refers to a sculpture from an 
 ancient Gothic or Frank tomb at Langres ( Univ. 
 Pittoreique (^France), pi. xlv.), and to a cart or 
 waggon on one of the capitals in the crypts in 
 St. Denis (pi. Iv. vol. ii. in A. Hugo, France 
 Pittoresque et Monumentale). In Strutt ( View 
 of the Inhabitants of England, Lond. 1774, 4to. 
 vol. i. p. 5, fig. 6) there is a chariot of the 9th 
 century, so presumed. See also D’Agincourt, 
 Peinture, pi. clxiv. No. 14, and pi. clvii. In the 
 catacomb of St. Praetextatus (see Ferret, Cata- 
 combes, vol. i. pi. Ixxii.) there is a somewhat 
 powerful and striking representation of the Cha¬ 
 riot of Death, who is taking a departed woman 
 into his car. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CARACALLA (in late Greek writers Kapa- 
 Kakiov'). Originally a garment peculiar to Gaul; 
 it was introduced into Roman use by the em¬ 
 peror M. Aurelius Antoninus, commonly known 
 in consequence as Caracallus or Caracalla. See 
 Ferrarius, de Re Vest, pars ii. lib. i. c. 28. 
 Ecclesiastical writers speak of it as worn by 
 clerics (Ven. Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 7, refer¬ 
 ring to the year 305 A.D. and to the martyr¬ 
 dom of St. Alban), and as corresponding in shape 
 to the Jewish ephod. So says St. Eucherius of 
 Lyons, writing about the middle of the 5th cen¬ 
 tury, and referring evidently to the genuine 
 Gallic caracalla, which was a kind of short tunic 
 with sleeves and furnished with a hood. With 
 him agrees Dio Cassius (quoted by Rubenius, 
 de Re Vest. lib. i. c. 6), who describes the 
 caracalla as a sleeved tunic made somewhat in 
 the fashion of a corselet, 
 
 6(i>paKos rp6Trov riva imroi-qixlros. But the 
 caracalla introduced into use by M. Aurelius 
 was lengthened so as to reach nearly to the feet. 
 So we must infer from the statement of Aurelius 
 Victor : “ Cum e Gallia vestem plurimam de- 
 vexisset, talaresque caracallas fecisset, coegisset- 
 que plebem ad se salutandum talibus introire, de 
 nomine hujus vestis Caracalla nominatus est.” 
 Spartianus .speaks still more distinctly to the 
 same effect: “ Ipse Caracalla nomen a vestimento 
 quod populo dederat, demisso usque ad talos, quod 
 antea non fuerat, unde hodieque dicuntur An- 
 toninianae Caracalla^ ejusmodi, in usu maxime 
 Romanae plebis frequentatae.” From the re¬ 
 ference to this vestment made by St. Jerome 
 {Epistle to Fahiola'), we may infer that, like other 
 garments suited for out-door use, the caracalla 
 was furnished with a hood. “ Ephod . . . pal- 
 liolum mirae pulchritudinis praestringens ful- 
 gore oculos in modum caracallarum sed absque 
 cucullis.” The statement to the same effect 
 made by St. Eucherius of Lyons, is evidently a 
 mere reproduction of St. Jerome. {Tnstit. lib. ii. 
 cap. 10. “Ephod, vestis sacerdotalis . . . Est 
 autem velut in caracallae modum, sed sine cu~ 
 cullo.") [W. B. M.] 
 
 CARAUKUS. [Charaunus.] 
 
 CARILEFUS, presbyter, of Aninsula in 
 Gaul, is commemorated July 1 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CARILIPPUS, martyr, is commemorated 
 April 28 {M(U't. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CARISIUS, with Calustus, martyr at Co- 
 
 CARDIXAL 291 
 
 rinth, is commemorated April 16 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CARITAS. [Charitas.] 
 
 CARPOPHORUS. (1) One of the Coronati 
 QriATUOR, commemorated Nov. 8 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, martyr at Spoleto, comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 10 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CARPUS. (1) Bishop, martyr at Pergamus, 
 commemorated April 13 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) The disciple of Paul, martyr at Troas, 
 commemorated Oct. 13 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usu¬ 
 ardi) ; as “ Apostle ” and one of the Seventy, 
 May 27 {Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Thyatina, martyr, Oct. 13 {Cal. 
 
 Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 CARDINAL. As the Benedictine Editors of 
 St. Gregory the Great {Ad Ep. i. 15) truly re¬ 
 mark : “ Nomeii vetus, nova est dignitas, pur¬ 
 pura recentior.” Our chronological limits extend 
 at most to the early dawn of the dignity, which 
 is a long way out of sight of the purple. Cardinal 
 winds, cardinal numbers, cardinal virtues, the 
 cardinal altar, and cardinal mass, are expressions 
 all illustrative of the gradual adaptation of the 
 term to that which was chief in the hierarchy. 
 As the name of “ pope,” or “ papa,” was originally 
 common to all bishops, so the chief presbyters 
 and deacons of any church to which a cure of 
 souls was attached were apt to have the term 
 “ cardinal ” applied to them by way of dist.no¬ 
 tion long before it was applied to the presbyters 
 and deacons of the Church of Rome in particular. 
 Parish churches had come to be called “ titles,” 
 as conferring a title upon those who served them ; 
 and a title, from the notion of fixity that was 
 implied in it, “ cardo,” the hinge on which, when 
 fixed to a door, the door turns. Then, as thei-e 
 were chapels and oratories that were not parish 
 churches—in other words gave no distinctive 
 title—so there were priests and deacons attached 
 to parish churches temporarily, that were not 
 fixtures; or who went by their titles, yet were 
 not therefore called cardinals. In the writings 
 of St. Gregory the Great this distinction comes 
 out strongly, being applied by him even to 
 bishops, as is shewn by Thomassin {De Ben. ii. 
 part ii. 115). Thus, on one occasion, he bids the 
 Bishop of Grosseto visit the church of Porto Bar- 
 rato, then vacant, and ordain “ one cardinal 
 presbyter and tw’o deacons there” {Ep. i. 15). 
 On another occasion we find him naming Martin, 
 a Corsican bishop, whose see had been destroyed, 
 “ cardinal priest,” or “ pontiff,” of another church 
 in the island that had long been deprived of its 
 bishop (i. 79). Elsewhere, he forbids Januarius, 
 archbishop of Cagliari, making Liberatus “ a car¬ 
 dinal-deacon,” unless furnished with letters cli- 
 missory from his own diocesan (i. 83). “ Car- 
 
 dinales violenter in pax’oehiis ordinatos forensibus 
 in pi’istinum cardinem revocabat Gregorius,” as 
 is said of him by his own biographer, John the 
 Deacon (iii. 11), a writer of the 9th century; 
 instances of which abound in his epistles: 
 “ cardinare ” and “ incardinatio ” are words used 
 by him in describing this process. The bishop, 
 priest, or deacon, made “cardinal” of a churefc 
 in this sense, was attached to it permanently, in 
 contradistinction to bishoj ? administering the 
 
 U 
 
292 
 
 CARDIXAL 
 
 CASK 
 
 affairs of a diocese during a vacancy, and priests 
 or deacons holding subordinate or temporary 
 posts in a parish church. Of titles, or parish 
 churches in Rome, the number seems to have 
 varied in different ages. According to Anastasius, 
 or whoever wrote the lives of these popes (on 
 which see Cave, s. v.), St. Euaristus, a.d. 100-9, 
 divided the city amongst his presbyters, and ap¬ 
 pointed seven deacons. St. Fabian, a.d. 236-50, 
 divided its “ regions ” amongst these deacons. 
 Cornelius, the next pope, tells us himself of as 
 many as 44 presbyters there then, while the 
 number of deacons remained the same (Euseb. 
 vi. 43). From St. Dionysius, A.D. 259-69, being 
 also credited by his biographer with ha\dng di¬ 
 vided the churches in Rome amongst his pres¬ 
 byters, and instituted cemeteries and parishes or 
 dioceses, we must infer that the old arrange¬ 
 ments had been thrown into confusion, and the 
 number of churches diminished considerably, by 
 the persecutions under Decius and Valerian. 
 And this would explain what we are told once 
 more by Anastasius, that St. Marcellus, A.D. 
 308-10, appointed 25 titles, as parishes (jjucisi 
 dioeceses) in the city, for administering baptism 
 and penance to the multitudes converted from 
 paganism, and for burial of the martyrs. Long 
 after this, the number of titles in the city stood 
 at 28. Accordingly, when we read of a pres¬ 
 byter or deacon of the Roman church without 
 any further distinction, a member of the Roman 
 clergy is meant who was attached to some chapel 
 or oratory within the city. When we read of a 
 presbyter or deacon of some particular title there, 
 a member of the Roman clergy is meant, who 
 was either temporarily or permanently attached 
 to one of the 25 or 28 parish churches, or 
 seven regions of the city; and to those perma¬ 
 nently attached to either the name of “ cardinal” 
 was given, after it had got into use elsewhere. 
 Anastasius himself, or a namesake and contem- 
 poi'ary of his, had it applied to him (Cave, s. v.). 
 The fact that the popes in those days were 
 elected, like most other bishops, by the clergy 
 and people of their diocese, is amply sufficient 
 to account for the prodigious importance that 
 attached gradually to the cardinal presbyters and 
 deacons of the Church of Rome, throwing those 
 of all other churches into the shade. Cardinal 
 bishops were not known there for some time 
 afterwards, as Thomassin shews (ib. c. 116). On 
 the contrary, the rule laid down under anathema 
 by the synod under Stephen IV. a.d. 769, was, in 
 the words of Anastasius, that “ nobody, whether 
 a layman, or of any other rank soever, should 
 be capable of being advanced to the pontifical 
 dignity, who had not risen regularly step by step, 
 and been made cardinal presbyter or deacon.” 
 But when Anastasius, a little further on, speaks 
 cf the same pope appointing the seven bishops, 
 whom he calls “ hebdomadal cardinals,” to func¬ 
 tionate at the altar of St. Peter in turn, he is 
 probably not using the phrase in the exact sense 
 which it has since borne : as in the Coun^cil of 
 Constantinople that restored Photius, A D. 879, 
 and -was contemporary with* Anastasius, Paul, 
 bishop of Ancona, and Eugenius, bishop of Ostia, 
 were present as legates of John VIII., and w^ere 
 styled and subscribed as such; while Peter, the 
 thii’d legate, subscribed as “ presbyter and car¬ 
 dinal,” and was so styled throughout (Bever. 
 Synod, ii. 299). Similarly, in the list of sub¬ 
 
 scriptions to the Roman synod that preceded it- 
 all the bishops write themselves bishops only, 
 while the presbyters and deacon^ are written 
 “ cardinals ” in addition. The seven bishops of 
 Ostia, Porto, St. Rufina, Albano, Sabina, Tus- 
 culum, and Praeneste, began, in point of fact, to 
 be called “cardinals” in the 11th century, or 
 the age of St. Peter Damian, himself one of them, 
 when formed into a college with the cardinal ures- 
 byters and deacons by the decree of Nicholas II. 
 A.D. 1059, for electing all future pwpes. And it 
 w’as a much later development by which bishops 
 of distant sees came to be made cardinal deacons 
 or presbyters of some chui’ch in Rome as well. 
 For a description of the Roman church in the 
 11th century, by which time the seven cardinal 
 bishops had been appointed to the church of 
 St. John Lateran to officiate there in turn for 
 the pope: and the 28 cardinal presbyters distri¬ 
 buted between the four churches of St. Mary 
 Major, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Laurence, 
 seven at each, see the old ritual in Baron. 
 A.D. 1057, n. 19 ; Comp, the Liber Diurnus Pontif. 
 Pom. iii. 11, in Migne’s Patrol, cv. p. 77; and 
 more in Du Cange, Hoffman, Moreri, Morone, s. v.; 
 and Muratori, Antiq. Ital. v. 155-8. [E. S. F.] 
 
 C AREN A ( = Quadragena'). A forty-days? 
 fast, imposed by a bishop upon clergy or laity, 
 or by an abbot, upon monks [Pexitexce]. -4 
 MS. Penitential, quoted by Ducange (s. r.), 
 speaks of fasting on bread and water, “ quod in 
 communi sermone carina vocatur.” [C.] 
 
 CARNIPRIVIUlvr, or Cap.xisprivicm. This 
 name is said by Macer (^Hiero^exicon, s. v.) to 
 be applied to Quinquagesima Sunday, as being 
 the last day on which it was permitted to eat 
 flesh, the Lent fast anciently commencing on the 
 following day, as, he says, is still customary with 
 the Orientals and w’ith some religious orders in 
 Europe. In the calendar of the Greek Church, 
 however, the KvpiaKn ’ATrJfcpeo^s [Apocreos] is 
 Sexagesima Sunday. Beleth says (^Rationale., c. 
 65), “ Secunda Dominica Septuagesimae dicitur 
 vulgo carnispriviiim,” where by the “ second 
 Sunday of Septuagesima ” we must no doubt 
 understand Quinquage.sima; and this Sunday is 
 called in the Mozarabic Missal Dominica ante 
 
 cames tollendas (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 • 
 
 CARNIVAL. This w'ord, variously derived 
 from “ caro vale,” or “ ubi caro valet,” is applied, 
 in the narrowest sense, to the three days pre¬ 
 ceding Ash-Wednesday; in a wider sense to the 
 wffiole period from St. Blaise’s Day (Feb. 3) to 
 Ash-Wednesday. The period immediately pre¬ 
 ceding Lent has long been a season devoted to 
 somewhat more than usual gaiety, in anticipation 
 of the austerities of Lent. (Wetzer and Welte’s 
 Kirchenlexicon.) [C.] 
 
 CARPENTORACTENSE CONCILIUM 
 [Carpextras.] 
 
 CARPENTRAS, COUNCIL OF [near 
 Narbonne, Carpextoractexse], a.d. 527, Nov. 
 6, respecting the fair distribution of revenue 
 between the bishop and the parish-priest (Labb. 
 Cone. iv. 1663). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CARTHAGE, COUNCILS OF. [African 
 
 COUXCILS.] 
 
 CASK, as symbol. [D 0 LIUM .3 
 
OASSTANUS 
 
 CASULA 
 
 293 
 
 CASSIANUS. (1) Martyr at Saragossa, is 
 commemoi’ated April 16 (^Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop and confessor of Autun, is comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 5 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Rome (Bede), or at Imola 
 (Eom. Vet.^ Usuardi, is commemorated Aug. 13 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Tangier’s, is commemorated 
 Dec. 3 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Of Rome, a.d. 431, is commemorated Feb. 
 29 (Cal. Byzant.). Perhaps identical with (3). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CASSIUS. (1) Martyr at Damascus, is com¬ 
 memorated July 20 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) jMartyr, is commemorated Oct. 10 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). • [C.] 
 
 CASSOCK. (Ral. Casacha, Casachina ; Fr. 
 Casaque; Flem. Casacke.) It is not easy to 
 determine with what older words, or with what 
 older garment, the present ‘ cassock,’ as a gar¬ 
 ment and as a word, is to Le identified. Some 
 have thought that the Italian ‘casacha’ and the 
 French ‘casaque’ are to be traced to ‘ cara- 
 calla ’ (see the article above), ‘ casacha ’ repre¬ 
 senting an older ‘ caracha.’ Others trace the word 
 thi’ough Kacras or Kaaaus (Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 
 3, 6-8; Jul. Pollux, vii. 68, describing it as 
 iTTiTiKhs xiTwi/) to zeds, skin or hide. In con¬ 
 nexion with this it may be noticed that Agathar- 
 cides (a Greek grammarian, at Alexandria, of 
 the 2nd century B.C.), quoted by Lepsius ( Ep.ad 
 Belyas, 44), states that th« Egyptians had cer¬ 
 tain garments made of felt which they called 
 Kacrai. “Apud Aegyptios aroKas rivas rriXTiTas, 
 verba sunt Agatharcidae, Trpoo'ayoptvoua't Kacras 
 . . . Acue in ultima habes ‘ casack,’ difficili 
 alias originatione.” See thjs and other refer¬ 
 ences in Menage, Diet. Etym. under ‘ Casa¬ 
 que.’ [W. B. M.] 
 
 CASTOLUS, or CASTULUS, martyr at 
 Rome, is commemorated March 26 (Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). , [C.] 
 
 CASTOR, martyr at Tarsus, is commemorated 
 April 27 (Afar^. Hieron., Usuardi); also March 
 28 (lb.). [C.] 
 
 CASTORIUS. (1) Martyr at Rome, is com¬ 
 memorated July 7 (Mart. Lorn. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome under Diocletian, Nov. 8 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CASTUS. (1) Martyr in Africa in the 3rd 
 century, is commemorated May 22 (Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr, Sept. 4 (Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Capua, Oct. 6 (Mart. Hieron., 
 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CASUTjA. (See also Amphibalum, Planeta, 
 Infula, Paenula.) 
 
 § 1. The uord and its derivation .—The word 
 Casula (whence Fr. and Eng. Chasuble), a dimi¬ 
 nutive originally of casa, “ a cottage,” comes 
 before us in patristic literature in two senses. 
 It is used, first, in its literal meaning of a cottage 
 or hut; as by St. Gregory of Tours (De Mirac. 
 S. JuHani, cap. xliv.), and by St. Isidore of Seville 
 (De Off. Eccl. lib. ii. ‘ de monachis.’), It is used 
 also, and far more commonly, as a designation for 
 an outer garment; the word having been in all 
 
 probability a provincial term, of popular use, for 
 the garment which in the older Latin was known 
 as ^paenula. St. Isidore of Seville, circ. 600 A.D., 
 is the first writer who gives any formal deriva¬ 
 tion of the word, or anything approaching to a 
 description of the garment it-self. “ The casula,” 
 he says (De Oriyin. xix. cap. 21), “ is a garment 
 furnished with a hood (vestis cucullata) ; and is a 
 diminutive of ‘ casa,’ a cottage, seeing that, like a 
 small cottage or hut, it covers the entire person.” 
 Philo Judaeus, some 600 years earlier, had used a 
 similar comparison, when, describing a garment 
 made of goat-skins (no doubt a rough paenula) 
 commonly worn in his time, he says that it 
 formed a “ portable house ” (cpoprjT^ oiKia) for 
 travellers, soldiei’s, and others, who were obliged 
 to be much in the open air. (De Victimis, Phi- 
 lonis 0pp. Fol. Paris, 1640, p. 836, A.) 
 
 § 2. Form and material of the Casula. —As a 
 description of the form or appearance of the 
 casula, which will add anything to that of St. 
 Isidore already quoted, the earliest notice we 
 have is in a MS. of uncertain date (probably 9th 
 century, or thereabout), containing fragmentary 
 notices of the old Galilean liturgy (Martene, 
 Thesaurus Anecdot. tom. v. col. 99) : “ Casula, 
 quam amphibalum vocant quo sacerdos indu- 
 
 itur, tota unita.Ideo sine manicis, quia 
 
 sacerdos potius benedicit quam ministrat. Ideo 
 unita extrinsecus, non scissa, non aperta, quia 
 multae sunt Scrlpturae sacrae secreta mysteria, 
 quae quasi sub sigillo sacerdos doctus debet 
 abscondere,” etc. This “ vestment,” for Church 
 use, for such it here is (see below, § 5), is 
 here described as “ made in one piece through¬ 
 out,” as “ without sleeves,” and “ without slit 
 or opening in front.” This description is exactly 
 what might be expected on the supposition that 
 the casula was virtually a paenula under another 
 name. And it exactly corresponds with the 
 earliest representations of the chasuble preserved 
 in ecclesiastical art. (See Planeta.) 
 
 The materials of the casula varied according 
 to the purposes it was designed to serve. In the 
 earlier periods of its history, when it was regarded 
 as a garb of very humble pretensions, it was made 
 of wool (St. Augustine, De Civit., quoted below, 
 § 3), and probably also, like the paenula, often of 
 skins, dressed with the wool or fur upon them. 
 But, from the sixth century downwards, we hear 
 of chasubles of brilliant colour (superbi coloris), 
 and of costly materials, such as silk. Boniface III. 
 (a.d. 606) sent a chasuble, formed partly of silk 
 and partly of fine goats’-hair, as a present to 
 king Pepin. (Bonifacii, P. P. III. Epist. III. 
 apud Oct. Ferrariurn, De Re Vest. p. 685.) 
 
 § 3. Various uses of the Casula. —The earliest 
 notices of the casula shew that, like the paenula, it 
 was originally a garment of very humble charac¬ 
 ter, such as would be worn by peasants and arti¬ 
 sans as their ordinary out-door dress, for protec¬ 
 tion against cold and wet. Being furnished with 
 a hood, it was both hat and cloak in one. St. Au¬ 
 gustine, writing about the close of the 4th cen¬ 
 tury, but speaking of a story dating from before 
 his own time, tells a tale of one Florentius, a 
 working tailor at Hippo, who lost his casula, 
 and had no money to buy a new one (De Civit. 
 Dei, lib. xxii. cap. 8, § 9). Fifty folks” as we 
 learn from the course of the story, would have 
 been thought about a reasonable sum for him to 
 pay. But he himself for greater economy meant 
 
294 
 
 CASULA 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 to buy some wool, which his wife might make 
 up for him as best she could. In another passage 
 (^Senno cvii. cap. v. opp. tom. v. p. 530) St. Au¬ 
 gustine speaks of the casula as a garment which 
 any one of his congregation might be expected to 
 possess, and one which every one would take care 
 to have good of its kind. A notice of the casula, 
 preserved to us in Procopius (^De Bello Vandalico, 
 lib. ii. cap. 26), shews that even to his time 
 (circ. 530) the tradition had survived of the very 
 humble character attaching to this dress. He 
 has occasion to speak of the abject submission by 
 which Areobindus, when defeated by Gontharis, 
 sought to disarm the anger of the victor. And 
 he speaks of him as putting upon him an outer 
 garment unsuited for a general, or for any war¬ 
 like usage, but befitting a slave or a man of 
 humble station; this being, he adds, what the 
 Romans, in the speech of Latium, call KacrovXa. 
 
 § 4. Worn by Monks, and, as an out-door dress, 
 by the Clergy. —The same reasons which made the 
 casula a suitable dress for peasants, recommended 
 it also as a habit for monks. Ferrandus, first 
 the deacon and afterwards the biographer of 
 Facundus, bishop of Ruspa, in Africa, tells us 
 that the bishop retained his monastic dress 
 and ascetic habits after being advanced to epi¬ 
 scopal dignity (circ. 507 A.D.). He continued to 
 wear a monk’s leathern girdle (^pelliceum cin- 
 gulwn); and neither used himself, nor permitted 
 his monks to use, a casula of costly quality or of 
 brilliant colour (“ Casulam pretiosam vel superbi 
 coloris nec ipse habuit, nec suos monachos habere 
 permisit”). At a period a little after this St. 
 Caesarius, archbishop of Arles in Gaul (t 540), 
 is described as wearing a cassia in his ordinary 
 walks about the streets (S. Caesarii Vita, apxvd 
 Acta Sanctoimm, Augtisti d. xxvii. tom. vi.). And 
 he had also one special casula, of finer material 
 doubtless, and either white or of some rich colour, 
 for processional use. (“ Casulam, qua in pro- 
 cessionibus utebatur, et albam paschalem, profert, 
 datque egeno, jubetque ut vendat uni ex clero.”) 
 The same bishop, in his will, when disposing of 
 his wardrobe, distinguishes between the indu¬ 
 menta paschalia, or vestments for church use on 
 Sundays and high festivals, which had been pre¬ 
 sented to him, and his casula villosa, or long- 
 napped cloak, which would be suitable for out¬ 
 door wear only :—“ Sancto et domino meo archi- 
 episcopo, qui mihi indigno digne successerit... 
 indumenta paschalia, quae mihi data sunt, omnia 
 illi serviant, simul cum casula villosa et tunica 
 vel galnape quod melius dimisero. Reliqua vero 
 vestimenta mea, excepto birro amiculari, mei 
 tarn clerici quam laici .... dividant.” 
 
 At or just after the close of the sixth century, 
 a further notice of the casula, preserved to us by 
 John the Deacon (^Bivi Gregorii Vita, lib. iv. 
 cap. 63), serves to indicate that the casula, worn 
 at Rome as an out-door habit by ecclesiastics, 
 must have differed in some respects from the cus¬ 
 tomary dress then worn in the East by persons of 
 the same class. One abbot John, a Persian, came 
 to Rome in St. Gregory’s days, “ ad .adorandum 
 loculos sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli.” 
 “ One day,” so he himself tells the story, “ I was 
 standing in the middle of the city, when who 
 should come across towards me but Papa Gre¬ 
 gorius. Just as I was thinking of making my 
 obeisance to him (“ mittere me ante eura ”), the 
 pope came close up, and seeing my intention. 
 
 sicut coram Deo dice, fratres, he bowed himself 
 to the ground before me, and would not rise till 
 I had done so first. Then embracing me with 
 much humility, he slipped three pieces of money 
 into my hand, and desired that a casula should be 
 given me, and everything else that I required.” 
 
 This use of the casula as the characteristic out¬ 
 door garb of the clergy, and in many places also 
 of monks, was maintained in the West from the 
 5th to the 8th century. In the Council of 
 Ratisbon, held in April, a.d. 742, under the pre¬ 
 sidency of St. Boniface, one of the canons deter¬ 
 mined on was directed against those of the clergy 
 who (in out-door life, as we may infer) adopted 
 the dress of laymen, the sagum, or short oj^en 
 cloak then commonly worn. “ We have decreed 
 that presbyters and deacons shall wear, not 
 ‘saga,’ as do laymen, but ‘casulae,’ as becometh 
 servants of God.” (“ Decrevimus quoque ut 
 presbyteri vel diaconi non sagis laicorum more, 
 sed casulis utantur, ritu servorum Dei.”) 
 
 § 5. Use of the Casula as a Vestment of Holy 
 Ministry. —From the 5th to the 8th century the 
 term planeta (q. v.) appears to have been the 
 term ordinarily employed in Italy and Spain, if not 
 elsewhere, for the supervestment worn in offices 
 of holy ministry. The earliest undoubted evi¬ 
 dence of the word casula being used in this precise 
 meaning dates from the 9th century, or possibly 
 the 8th, if the Sacramentary of St. Gregory be 
 longs in its present form to that time. But the 
 usages of words in formal documents such as this 
 last, confirmed as this is by the nearly contem¬ 
 porary writings (circ. 820) of Rabanus Maurus, 
 Amalarius, and Walafrid Strabo, indicate, gener. 
 ally, a considerably earlier popular usage. How¬ 
 ever this may be, we know that from the date of 
 these last writers to the present time, the word 
 casula has been used as the exact equivalent of 
 planeta by western ritualists, and has in general 
 usage quite superseded all other terms, such as 
 amphihaluni, infula, planeta, by which at various 
 times it has been designated. 
 
 It does not fall within the compass of this 
 work to trace the various modifications of the 
 ‘ chasuble,’ in respect of form, material, and 
 ornament, from the 9th century downwards, or 
 to treat of the various svmbolical meanings 
 attributed to it. Full information, however, 
 upon these points will be found in the following 
 treatises. Bock, Geschichte der liturgischen 
 Geu-Under des Mitteldlters, 2 vols. 8vo., Bonn. 
 1866; Pugin, Glossary of Ecclesiastical Orna- 
 7nent, fol., London, 1846 ; Rock, The Church of 
 our Fathers, London, 1849 ; and in the Vestiarium 
 Christianuin (London, 1868) of the writer of this 
 article. [W. B. M.] 
 
 CATABASIA (Kara$a<ria). An anthem or 
 short hymn in the Greek offices, so called because 
 the two sides of the choir come down (Karo^Sat- 
 vovai) into the body of the church and unite in 
 singing it. It often occurs between the “ odes ” 
 of a “ canon ; ” and its construction is that of 
 any other “ troparion.” Sometimes two “ cata- 
 basiai” occur together between each ode, as on 
 the Sunday after Christmas-day, where each 
 pair consists of the first troparion of the corre¬ 
 sponding odes of the two canons for Christmas- 
 day, mentioned in a preceding article. [H. J. IL] 
 
 CATACOMBS. Few words are more familiar, 
 or more universally intelligible than “ Catacomb,” 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 295 
 
 as signifying a subterranean excavation con- ' 
 structed for the interment of the dead. Yet in 
 its original meaning the word had no connection 
 whatsoever with sepulture, or even with exca¬ 
 vations, but was simply used as the name of a 
 particular district in the vicinity of Rome.® 
 
 The word Cutacum'yie, the earliest form in 
 which we meet with it, is unquestionably de¬ 
 rived from the Greek Kara and Kv/jL^r}, “ a hol¬ 
 low,” and so “a cup,” “a boat,” &c., a widely 
 spread root which we trace in the Greek Kvfx- 
 /8aAo(', the Latin Cymba, the Celtic Cum, the 
 A.-S. Combe, and the Piedmontese Coiiiba, “ a 
 valley,” or “ hollow.” It is allied to the San¬ 
 skrit Kumbhas, “ a pit.” In Ducange Gloss. Med. 
 et fnf. Graecitatis we find “ Kvjx^r], Cymbi ,— 
 7 rAo?a 7r€pj</)ep^ "P(ay.aiois, Suid iS.” Kv/x^etou, 
 elbos TTOTripiov TrapaTrX'ficriou tw ttAoiou f> 
 
 Ka\(7Tai KVfx^r)” Auctor. Etymol. The district 
 near the tomb of Cecilia Metella and the Circus 
 of Romulus on the j. ppian Way aj)pears, probably 
 from its natural configuration, to have borne this 
 designation. In the fmperia C.(es irum, a docu¬ 
 ment of the 7th century, printed by Eccard in 
 his Corpus Hist. Med. Aeo. vol. i. p. 31, the 
 erection of the Circus of Maxentius, or Romulus, 
 AD. 311, in that locality is spoken*of in these 
 words, “ Maxentius Termas in Palatio fecit et 
 Circum in Catecumpas.'' The site of the adjacent 
 Basilica of St. Sebastian is indicated by the same 
 name in a letter of Gregory the Great to Con- 
 stantia (the daughter of the Emperor Tiberius 
 Constantinus, married by him to his successor 
 Maurice) towards the end of the 6th century, 
 excusing himself for not sending her the head of 
 the Apostle Paul, which she had requested as a 
 gift to the Church she had erected in his honour 
 (Greg. Magn. Epist. iv. Ind. xii. Ep. 30). Speak¬ 
 ing of the bodies of the Apostles Peter and Paul 
 he writes “ quae ducta usque ad secundum urbis 
 milliarium in loco qui dicitur [ad] cat 'cumbas 
 collocata sunt.” A various reading, catcdumbas, 
 found in some MSS., and adopted by Baronius, 
 MartyroL ad xiii. Kal. Feb. has led some writers 
 to adopt a different etymology, ad (Kara) tum- 
 bas, and to consider the word an early synonvm 
 for “ coemeterium.” But the best MSS. read 
 cumbas not tumbas, and there is no ground for 
 believing that Christian burial places generally 
 were known by any such name till a considerably 
 later period. The view of Padre March! (^Monum. 
 Primitiv. p. 209), that the word catacomb is a 
 mongrel, half Greek and half Latin, and that the 
 second element is to be found in the verb cumbo, 
 is based on false philological principles, and may 
 safely be rejected. The distance of the Basilica 
 of St. Sebastian from the Tiber is a sufficient 
 reason for discarding the etymology of the ano¬ 
 nymous author of the History of t e Transhdion 
 of St. Sebastian, c. vi. “Milliario tertio ab Urbe, 
 loco qui ob stationem navium Catacumhas dice- 
 batur.” 
 
 All through the middle ages the phrase “ ad 
 catacumhas” was used to distinguish the sub¬ 
 terranean cemetery (catacomb in the modern 
 sense) adjacent to the Basilica of St. Sebastian 
 (“ in loco qui appellatur Cutacumbas ubi corpus 
 beati Sebastian! martyids cum aliis quiescit.” 
 
 • For other examples of a local name becoming 
 generic cf. “Capitol,” “ Palace,” "Academy,” "Newgate," 
 
 •• Bedlam,” &c. 
 
 ' Anast. Hadrian, i. § 34-3; “ coemeterio Sancti 
 Christi martyris Sebastiani in catacum'ia.” Ib. 
 Nicolaus i. §601) while the term itself in its re¬ 
 stricted sense designated a subterranean cha])el 
 communicating with that Basilica in which, 
 according to tradition, the bodies of the two 
 great Apostles had been deposited after the in¬ 
 effectual attempt of the Greeks, referred to by 
 S. Gregory u. s. to steal them away (Bosio, Rom. 
 Sotteran. cap. xiii.). In documents from the 6th 
 to the 13th century we continually meet with 
 the expressions “ festum ad catacumhas,” “ locus 
 qui dicitur in catacumhas,” and the like. The 
 earliest authority is a list of the Roman ceme¬ 
 teries of the 6th century, where we find “c/me- 
 terium catecumbas ad St. Sebastianum Via Appia.’* 
 In the De Mirabilibns Eomae of the 13th century 
 we read “ Coemeteria Calisti juxta Catacumbas." 
 The first recorded use of the word in its modern 
 sense out of Rome is at Naples in the 9th century 
 (De Rossi, R.G. i. 87.) ** 
 
 Bede, at the beginning of the 8th century, writes, 
 de Sex aetatibus rnundi ad ann. 4327. “ Damasus 
 Romae episcopus fecit basilicam juxta theatrum 
 S. Laurentio et aliam in catacumhas ubi jacue- 
 runt corpora sancta Apostolorum Petri et Pauli.” 
 The celebrity acquired by this cemetery as the 
 temporary resting-place of the chief of the 
 Apostles led to a general familiarity with its 
 name, and a gradual identification of the term 
 “ catacumbae ” with the cemetery itself. When 
 in process of time the other underground places 
 of interment of the Christians fell into neglect 
 and oblivion, and the very entrances to them 
 were concealed, and their existence almost for¬ 
 gotten, this one beneath the Church of St. 
 Sebastian remained always open as the object 
 of pilgrimage, and by degrees transferred its 
 name to all similar subterranean cemeteries. “A 
 visit to the cemeteries became synonymous with 
 a visit ad catacumhas, and the term catacomb gra¬ 
 dually came to be regarded as the specific name 
 for all subterranean excavations for purposes of 
 burial, not only in the neighbourhood of Rome, 
 but also in Naples, Malta, Paris, Sicily, and 
 wherever else similar excavations have been 
 discovered ” (Northcote, R. S. 109). 
 
 Oriyin. —Until a comparatively recent period 
 a very erroneous opinion as to the origin of the 
 subterranean cemeteries of Rome was univer¬ 
 sally entertained. No one thought of calling 
 in question the assertion that they were ex¬ 
 hausted sandpits, and had been originally exca¬ 
 vated for the pui-pose of obtaining the volcanic 
 stratum known as arena by the ancients, and 
 as pozzolana by the moderns, so extensively 
 used by them in the composition of their mortar; 
 and that the Christians, finding in the laby¬ 
 rinthine recesses of these deserted nrenariae suit¬ 
 able places for the concealment of the bodies of 
 their martyred brethren, had taken possession 
 of them and employed them as cemeteries. 
 There was great plausibility about this view. 
 It seemed to derive support from the ‘ Martyro- 
 logies’ and other ancient documents in which 
 the expressions in arenario, or juxta arenarium, 
 or in cryptis arenariis are of not unfrequent 
 
 *> In the same way as this cemetery of St Sebastian 
 was known by the designation “ ad caUicutnbas," others 
 were specified as " ad Nymphas,” “ ad Ursum pileatnm,” 
 “ inter duas lauros,” “ ad Sextum Philippi,” and the lik& 
 
296 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 ©ccurrenre. It also removed the seeming diffi¬ 
 culty, which a fuller understanding of the laws 
 regulating sepulture among the Romans has dis¬ 
 sipated, as to the possibility of a small and per¬ 
 secuted body excavating galleries of such enor¬ 
 mous extent, and disposing of the material 
 extracted from them without attracting the 
 notice and provoking the interference of the sup- 
 })orters of the dominant religion. Once started 
 and given to the world under the authority of the 
 names of men of acknowledged learning it found 
 general acceptance, and became an historical tra¬ 
 dition indolently accepted by one generation of 
 investigators after another. Bosio, the pioneer 
 of all subsequent examinations of the catacombs, 
 maintained a discreet silence upon the origin of 
 the subterranean cemeteries; but their Pagan 
 origin is accepted by his translator and editor, 
 Aringhi, as well as by Baronius, Severano, Bot- 
 tari, Boldetti, and other writers on the subject. 
 Marchi, with a touch of quiet sarcasm, affirms that 
 it causes him no surprise that this hypothesis 
 should have been maintained by Bottari, who, it 
 is abundantly evident, “ studied the subterra¬ 
 nean Rome quite at his ease not under but above 
 ground.” (Marchi, n. s. p. 15.) But he confesses 
 to astonishment that “ the excellent Boldetti,” 
 with all the opportunities afforded by personal 
 examination for perceiving the wide difference 
 between the arenariae and the cemeteries which 
 lie below them, should have never seen the 
 untenableness of the traditional view. In more 
 modern times the same origin of the catacombs 
 was asserted by D’Agincourt, Raoul-Rochette, 
 and indeed by every one who wrote on the 
 subject. Padre Marchi has the merit of being 
 the first to promulgate the true doctrine that 
 the catacombs were the work of Christians 
 alone, and from the first designed for places 
 of sepulture. The Padre ingenuously informs 
 us (p. 7) that he commenced his investigations 
 with the most unquestioning faith in the uni¬ 
 versally received theory, and that it was only 
 by degrees that his studies and experience, 
 not among books and papers, but in quarries, 
 cemeteries, and sand-pits, led him to an opposite 
 conclusion, and put him in a position to declare 
 to the world as an unquestionable fiict, that in 
 the Christian cemeteries no Pagan ever gave a 
 single blow with pickaxe or chisel. The brothers 
 De Rossi, the pupils of Padre Marchi in the work 
 of investigation, have continued his labours in 
 the Same path of patient e.xamination of facts, 
 and that with such success that it may now be 
 regarded as established beyond controversy that 
 the origin of the catacombs was Christian and 
 not Pagan, and that they were constructed ex¬ 
 pressly for the purpose of interment, and had no 
 connection with the arenariae beyond that of 
 juxtaposition. In certain cases, as at St. Callis- 
 tusand St. Agnes, the catacombs lie at the side 
 of or beneath those excavations, so that they are 
 entered from them, the arenariae effectually 
 masking the doors of access to the Christian 
 galleries, while they afforded them an easy mode 
 of removing the excavated earth. 
 
 Padre Marchi’s confidence in the old theory of 
 the Pagan origin of the catacombs was first dis¬ 
 turbed by a careful examination of the geological 
 characteristics of the strata in which they were, 
 as a rule, excavated. The surface of the Cam- 
 pagn?. surrounding Rome, esjjeclally on the left j 
 
 bank of the Tiber, where the catacombs are 
 chiefly situated, is almost entirely formed of 
 materials of volcanic origin. These igneous 
 strata are of different composition and antiquity. 
 We will only specify the three with which wc 
 are concerned, viz., the so-called tufa litoide, tufa 
 granolare, and pozzolana pura. The pozzolana 
 pura is a friable sand rock, entirely destitute of 
 any cementing substance to bind the molecules 
 together and give them the nature of stone. 
 The tufa granolare is in appearance almost the 
 same rock as the pozzolana pura. The distin¬ 
 guishing mark is the presence of a slight cement, 
 which gives the mass some degree of solidity, 
 and unites the sandy particles into a stone which 
 is cut with the greatest ease. The third stratum, 
 the tufa litoide, is a red conglomerate cemented 
 into a .substance of sufficient hardness to form an 
 exceedingly useful building stone. Of these 
 three strata, it was the first and the last alone 
 which were worked by the ancient Romans for 
 architectural purposes, while it is exclusively in 
 the second, the tufa granolare, that the cata¬ 
 combs were excavated. The tufa litoide was 
 employed from the earliest ages, as it still is, in 
 the buildings of Rome. The interior of the 
 Cloaca Maxima, the Tahularium of the Capitol, 
 and others of the most ancient architectural 
 works, attest its durability, as well as the early 
 date of its use, and it is still extensively quarried 
 as building stone at the foot of Monte Verde, 
 outside the Porta Portese (Murray’s Handbook 
 for Rome, p. 324). While this formation fur¬ 
 nished the stone for building, the third named— 
 the pozzolana pura, found in insulated deposits, 
 rarely of any considerable extent—supplied the 
 sand required for the composition of the mortar, 
 and as such is commended by Vitruvius (ArcA. 
 iii. 7) as preferable to every other kind. The 
 vicinity of Rome, and indeed some parts of the 
 city itself, abounded in pozzolana pits, or aren¬ 
 ariae, forming an intricate network of excava¬ 
 tions, not running in straight lines, as the galleries 
 of the catacombs do almost universally, but pur¬ 
 suing tortuous paths, following the direction of 
 the sinuous veins of the earth the builders were 
 in search of. References to these sand-pits, 
 whose dark recesses afforded secure concealment 
 as well to the perpetrators of deeds of blood as 
 to their intended victims, appear in some of the 
 chief classical writers. Cicero mentions that 
 the young patrician Asinius had been inveigled 
 into the gardens of the Esquiline, where he was 
 murdered and precipitated into one of the sand- 
 quarries : “ Asinius autem . . . quasi in hor- 
 tulos iret, in arenarias quasdam extra Portam 
 Esquilinam perdiictus occiditur ” {Orat. pro 
 Cluentio, c. 13). Suetonius also relates that 
 when the trembling Nero, fearing instant a.ssas- 
 siuation, took refuge in the villa of his freed- 
 man Phaon, between the Nomentan and Sala- 
 rian roads, he was advised to conceal himself 
 in an adjacent sand-pit, “ in specum egestae 
 arenae,*' but he vowed that he would not go 
 underground alive, “ negavit se vivum sub 
 terram iturum ” (Sueton. in Heron. 48). 
 
 Exhausted sand-pits of this kind also afforded 
 burial places for the lowest dregs of the po])u- 
 lace, for slaves, and others who on ceremonial 
 gi’ounds were denied the honour of the funeral 
 pile. The best known are those left by the 
 sand-diggers on the Esquiline, which, we learn 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 from Horace, were used as common receptacles 
 for the vilest corpses, and defiled the air with 
 their pestilential exhalations, until Maecenas 
 rescued the district from its degradation and 
 converted it into a garden (Horat. Serm. i. 8, 
 7-16). 
 
 “ Hue pHiis angustls ejecta cadavera cellis, 
 
 Conservus vili portanda locabat In area, 
 
 Hoc miserae plebi stabat commune sepulchrum.” 
 
 (Cf. the commentary of Acron the Scholiast on 
 the passage: “Hue aliquando cadavera porta- 
 bantur plebeiorum sive servorum: nam sepulchra 
 publica erant antea.”) These loathsome burial 
 pits were known by the names of puticuli or 
 puticulae; a diminutive of puteus, “a well,” ac¬ 
 cording to the etymology given by Festus. They 
 were also designated culinae, from their shape. 
 (Facciolat. stib. voc. culina ; Padre Lupi, Disserta- 
 zimi, I. § cxxxix. p. 63). 
 
 We need not pause to refute the monstrous 
 theory so carelessly propounded by Basnage, Bur¬ 
 net, Misson, &c., which identified the first begin¬ 
 nings of the Christian catacombs w'ith these 
 horrible charnel-houses, which were the op])ro- 
 brium of Paganism, and asserted, in Burnet’s 
 words, that “those burying-places that are graced 
 with the pompous title of catacombs are no other 
 than the puticoli mentioned by Festus Pompeius, 
 where the meanest sort of the Roman slaves were 
 laid, and so without any further care about them 
 were left to rot.” The most superficial acquaint¬ 
 ance with the catacombs will convince us of the 
 absurdity of such an hypothesis, and prove 
 the correctness of the assertion that “ the puti- 
 cuU into which the carrion of the Roman slaves 
 might be flung had not the slightest analogy 
 with the decorous, careful, and expensiA^e provi¬ 
 sions made by the early Christians for the con¬ 
 servation of their dead ” (^Edin. Eev. No. 221, 
 Jan. 1859). 
 
 But, if otherwise probable, this presumed 
 connection between the arenariae and the ceme¬ 
 teries of the Christians would be at once dis¬ 
 proved by the I’emarkable fact first noticed by 
 P. Marchi, and confirmed by the investigations 
 of the brothers De Rossi, to which we have 
 alluded above, that the strata which furnished 
 pozzoluna pu-a Avere carefully avoided by the 
 excavators of the catacombs, Avho ran their vast 
 system of galleries almost exclusively in the 
 tufa granoltre. While, on the one hand, they 
 avoided the solid strata of the tufa litoide, 
 which could not be quarried Avithout at least 
 threefold the time and labour required in the 
 granul ir tufa, and the excaAbated material from 
 Avhich could not be disposed of without great 
 inconA'enieuce, Avith equal care these subterranean 
 engineers avoided the layers of friable pozzolana 
 Avhich would haA^e rendered their Avork insecure, 
 and in which no permanent gallery or rock tomb 
 could have been constructed, and selected that 
 stratum of medium hardness Avhich Avas best 
 adapted for their peculiar purpose. The suita¬ 
 bility of the tufa granolare for the object in view 
 cannot be better stated than in the Avords of Dr. 
 Northcote: “ It is easilv worked, of sutlicient con- 
 sistency to admit of being holloAved out into galle¬ 
 ries and chambers Avithout at once falling in, and 
 its porous nature causes the Avater quickly to drain 
 off from it, thus leaving the galleries dry and 
 wholesome, an important consideration when we 
 
 CATACOMBS 297 
 
 think of the A^ast number of dead bodies Avhich 
 once lined the walls of the subterranean ceme¬ 
 teries ” (Roma Sotterr. p. 321). To these advan¬ 
 tages may be added the facility Avith Avhich the 
 rock Avas triturated so as to be carried out of 
 the excavations in the form of earth instead of 
 heavy blocks of stone, as would have been tho 
 case in the quarries of compact tufa. 
 
 rian of Arenaria 
 
 The exclusively Christian origin of the cata¬ 
 combs, and their destination from the first for 
 purposes of interment is also evident, from the 
 contrast furnished by thoir plan, form, and mode 
 of construction, to the arenifodinae,^ or sand-pits, 
 and lapidicinae, or stone quarries, of ancient 
 times. This contrast is made evident to the eve 
 by Padre Marchi, from Avhom the annexed Avood- 
 cuts are borrowed (Tav T iii. ix.-xii.), and by 
 
 Plan of St. Agnos. 
 
 Dr. Northcote and Mr. BrownloAv in the plan 
 and atlas appended to their Roma Sotterranea. 
 The ground jilaus given by Marchi lay before us 
 in successive ])lates the ichnography of the 
 stone quarry Avhich lies above the catacomb of 
 St. Pontianus, and of the ttrenaria which lies 
 above that of St. Agne.s, and the portions '>f the 
 cemetery immediately beneath tbem. Nothing 
 could more forcibly show the difference between 
 the vast cavernous chambers of the quarry, 
 
298 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 where the object was to remove as much 0 / the 
 stone as was consistent with safety, and the long 
 narrow galleries of the catacomb in which the 
 object was to displace as little of the stratum as 
 would be consistent with the excavator’s purpose. 
 The plates also enable us to contrast the tortuous 
 passages of the aretuiriae, running usually in 
 curved lines, with a careful avoidance of sharp 
 angles, and wide enough to admit a horse and 
 cart for the removal of the material, and the 
 straight lines, right angles, and restricted dimen¬ 
 sions of the ambulacra of the catacombs. An¬ 
 other marked difference between the arenai'iae 
 and the subterranean cemeteries of the Christians 
 is, that the walls of the latter always rise ver¬ 
 tically from the floor of the gallery, while, on 
 account of the frailness of the material in which 
 they were excavated, the wails of the sand quar¬ 
 ries are set at a re-entering angle, giving the 
 gallery almost the form of a tunnel. This mode 
 of construction renders it impossible to form 
 sepulchral recesses with exactly closed apertures, 
 as we find them in all the galleries of the cata¬ 
 combs. The friability of the material also forbids 
 the adaptation of a plate or marble or tiles to 
 the aperture of the I'ecess, which was essential 
 to confine the noxious effluvia of the decaying 
 corpses. 
 
 The wide distinction between the mode of 
 construction adopted in the quarries and that 
 rendered necessary by the requirements of the 
 cemeteries, and the practical difficulties which 
 stood in the way of transforming one into the 
 other are rendered more evident by the few 
 instances in which this transformation has been 
 actually effected. The examples we would bring 
 in proof of our statement are those given by Mich. 
 Stef. De Rossi from the cemeteries of St. Hermes 
 and St. Priscilla (^Analis. Geol. ed Arch. vol. i. pp. 
 31, 32, sq.; Northcote, R. S. pp. 323, 329). In 
 the first piano of the catacomb of St. Hermes 
 we have a specimen of a sepulchral gallery with 
 three rows of lateral loculi, constructed in brick 
 and masonry, within an ancient arenaria. At 
 first sight the difference between the form and 
 proportions of the galleries and loculi, and those 
 of the usual type, is scarcely noticeable. Closer 
 inspection, however, shows that the side walls 
 are built up from the ground, in advance of the 
 tufa walls of the gallery, which is two or three 
 times the ordinary width, leaving space enough 
 for the depth of the loculi. These are closed in 
 the ordinary manner, with the exception of those 
 of the uppermost tier, where the closing slabs 
 are laid at an angle, sloping up to the barrel 
 vault of the gallery, and foi’ming a triangular 
 instead of a rectangular recess. When the 
 galleries cross one another the space becomes 
 wider and the walls more curved, and the vault 
 is sustained in the centre by a thick wall con¬ 
 taining tombs, which divides the ambulacrum 
 into two parallel galleries. This example indi¬ 
 cates the nature of the alterations required to 
 convert an arenaria into a cemetery. These as 
 a rule were so costly and laborious that the 
 Christians preferred to undertake an entirely 
 fresh excavation. 
 
 The second example is that from the cemetery 
 of St. Priscilla, on the Via Salaria Nova. The 
 annexed plan given fx-om De Rossi enables us, 
 by a valuation in the shading, to distinguish 
 between the original excavation and the form 
 
 into which it was subsequently converted when 
 it became a Christian burial-place, and helps 
 us to appreciate the immense labour that 
 was expended in the erection of “ numerous 
 pillars of various sizes, long walls of solid ma- 
 soniy, sometimes straight, sometimes broken 
 into angles, partly concealing and partly sustain¬ 
 ing the tufa and the sepulchres of the galleries, 
 frequent niches of various sii.e often interrupted 
 by pillars built up within th<>m,” and the other 
 modifications necessary to convert the original 
 excavation into its pi*esent fox'm. We may men¬ 
 tion a third example of the same kind: the 
 arenaria adjacent to St. Saturninus, on the same 
 I’oad. A poi'tion of this cemeteiy has been exca¬ 
 vated in good pozzolana eaidh, and has the cha¬ 
 racteristics of a true arenaria. The galleries are 
 wide, and are curved in plan. The walls and 
 vault are arched, and it has not been thought 
 
 Plan of part of ihe Catacoml)sof St. Priscilla from Dt? Xtoaei, showing 
 the adaptation of an Arenaria to a Christian i-.einelery. The dark 
 sbadiag represents the tnfa rock ; the lighter the added masonry. 
 
 consistent with secuiuty to construct more than 
 two ranges of loculi near the pavement, and even 
 these occur at wfider intervals than is usual where 
 the 1 ‘ock is harder. In all respects the conti-ast 
 this divi.sion of the cemetery presents to the 
 oi’dinaiy type is most marked. “ Hei-e we have 
 another instance of the Christians having made 
 the attempt to utilise the arenaria, but it appears 
 that they found it moi’e convenient to abandon 
 the attempt, and to construct entirely new gal¬ 
 leries, even at the cost of descending to a gi'eater 
 depth into the bowels of the earth ” (Northcote, 
 R. S. p. 330). 
 
 These examples when candidly examined lead 
 to a conclusion directly opposite to that atfli*med 
 so confidently by Rixoul-Rochette and othei*s. 
 So far fi-om its being the case that the Christians 
 commenced their subterranean cemeteries by 
 adopting exhausted arenariae, which they ex* 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 tended and enlarged to suit their increasing 
 requirements, so that “an arenaria was the 
 ordinary matrix of a catacomb,” the rarity of 
 such instances that can be adduced, and the 
 marked contrast between the arenaria and the 
 catacomb both in plan and mode of construction, 
 confirm our assertion that the subterranean ceme- j 
 teries of the Christians had a distinct origin, and 
 from the first were intended for places of inter¬ 
 ment alone, and that what, previous to recent 
 investigations, was regarded as the normal con- j 
 dition of things, was really extremely exceptional, \ 
 and is to be explained in each case on exceptional 
 grounds. 
 
 The traditional hypothesis to which we have 
 referred, by which the conclusions of all inves¬ 
 tigators before the memorable epoch of Padre | 
 March! were fettered, had its foundation in cer- i 
 tain passages in ancient documents of very ques¬ 
 tionable value, which describe the burial-places 
 of certain martyrs and others as being in arena- j 
 no, juxta arenarium, ad arenas, or in cryptis | 
 arenariis. These passages are almost exclusively | 
 derived from the documents known as “ Acta ' 
 Martyrum,” which, from the extent to which ' 
 their text has been tampered with at difterent 
 dates, are generally almost worthless as histo¬ 
 rical authorities. None of those in question are 
 contained in Ruinart’s Acta Martyrxim Sincera, 
 and they are probably of little real weight. And 
 further, even if the statements contained in them 
 deserved to be received with more confidence 
 De Rossi has very acutely demonstrated that 
 they cannot fairly be considered to prove the 
 fact for which they are adduced. They show 
 little more than that the terms arenarium, &c., 
 were used more loosely at the time these “Acts” 
 were compiled than strict accuracy warranted, 
 and were applied to the whole “ hypogaeum ” of 
 which the sand-pit at most only formed part. 
 According to Mich. Stef. De Rossi {Analis. Geol. ed 
 Arch. vol. i. pp. 13-34), if we confine ourselves 
 to a range of five or six miles out of Rome, there 
 are no more than nine passages of these “Acts ” 
 in which martyrs are recorded to have been 
 interred in arenario or in cryptis arenariis; 
 while of this limited number of authorities, four 
 refer to cemeteries in which an arenaria is 
 actually found more or less closely connected 
 with the cemetery, and in which therefore the 
 fact may be at once acknowledged to be in agree¬ 
 ment with the record, without in the least 
 impugning our conclusion as to the generally 
 distinct nature of the two. 
 
 It deserves notice also, as showinsr the worth- 
 lessness of these records as statements of fact, 
 that two of the passages which speak of inter¬ 
 ments in ci*yptis arenariis, that of SS. Nereus 
 and Alexander in the cemetery of Domitilla, and 
 that of S. Laurentius in that ofCyriaca, refer to 
 localities where pozzolana is not to be found, 
 but where the stratum in which the cemetery is 
 constructed is that known as capellaccio, which 
 is quite worthless for building purposes. No 
 arewanum, or c ypta arenaria, properly so called, 
 could have existed there. 
 
 With regard to the passage which refers to 
 the place of sepulture of SS. Marcus and Mar- 
 cellinus. Padre Marchi justly observes that it 
 is not said that these martyrs were buried in 
 cryptis arenarum, but “m loco qui dicitur ad 
 arenas,'' and therefore merely in the neighbour- 
 
 299 
 
 hood of the pits from which the walls of the city 
 were built. 
 
 But although the exclusively Christian origin 
 of the catacombs has to be distinctly asserted, 
 and the idea that they had their origin in sand 
 quarries, already existing in the first ages of the 
 Church, must be met with a decided contra¬ 
 diction, we must be careful not to press the 
 distinction so far as to deny the connection which 
 really exists, in very many instances, between 
 the cemetery and an arenaria. We must also 
 allow that there are examples in which loculi for 
 Christian interment have been found in the walls 
 of the tortuous roads of a sand quarry. Mr. 
 J. H. Parker, who by his accurate investigations 
 is conferring on the architecture and topography 
 of Rome the same benefits he has bestowed on 
 the architecture of his native Country and of 
 France, has discovered loculi in the sides of a 
 sand-pit road, near the church of S. Drbano alia 
 Catfarella. This road evidently Communicated 
 with the cemetery of Praetextatus, to which the 
 main entrance was from the church, originally 
 an ancient tomb. A modern brick wall, built 
 across the road, prevents any further examina¬ 
 tion of the locality. Such communications be¬ 
 tween the cemeteries and the adjacent arenariae 
 were frequently opened in the days of perse¬ 
 cution, when, as Tertullian informs us, the 
 Christians were “daily besieged, and betrayed, 
 and caught unawares in their very assemblies 
 and congregations; their enemies having in¬ 
 formed themselves as to the days and places of 
 their meetings ” (Tert. Apol. vii.; ad Nat. i. 7), 
 and when, therefore, it became necessary as far 
 as possible to conceal the entrances to their 
 burial places from the public gaze. In those 
 times of trial the original entrances to the cata¬ 
 combs were blocked up, the staircases destroyed, 
 and new and difficult ways of access opened 
 through the recesses of a deserted sand-pit. 
 These afforded the Christians the means of ingress 
 and egress without attracting public notice, and 
 by means of them they had facilities for escape, 
 even when they had been tracked to the cata¬ 
 comb itself. The catacomb of S. Callistus affords 
 examples of these connections with arenaria. 
 (Cf. the plans given by De Rossi, Northcote, and 
 Marchi.) 
 
 History. —The practice of interring the entire 
 corpse unconsumed by fire in a subterranean ex¬ 
 cavation has been so completely identified with 
 the introduction of the Christian religion into 
 Rome that we are in danger of losing sight of 
 the fact that this mode of burial did not in any 
 sense originate with the Christians. However 
 great the contrast between the sepulture after 
 cremation in the urns oi columbaria, or the indis¬ 
 criminate flinging of the dead into the loathsome 
 puticoli, and the reverent and orderly interment 
 of the bodies of the departed in the cells of a 
 catacomb, the Christians, in adopting this mode, 
 were only reverting to what one of the early 
 apologists terms “ the older and better custom of 
 inhumation” (Minuc. Fel. Octao. c. 34). It is 
 well known that the custom of burying the dead 
 was the original custom both with the Greeks 
 and Romans, and was only su})erseded by burn¬ 
 ing in later times, chiefly on sanitary grounds. 
 The Etruscan tombs are familiar examples be¬ 
 longing to a very early period. In Rome, cre¬ 
 mation did not become general till the later days 
 
300 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 of th(; republic. The authority of Cicero is defi¬ 
 nite on this point. He states that Marius was 
 buried, and that the Gens Cornelia adopted cre¬ 
 mation for their dead in living memory, Sulla 
 being the first member of that Gens whose body 
 was burnt (Cic. de Leg. ii. 22). Under the 
 Empire cremation became the almost universal 
 custom, though not so as absolutely to exclude 
 the other, which gradually regained its lost hold 
 on tlie public mind, and was re-established 
 by tlie fourth century. Macrobius asserts posi¬ 
 tively that the custom of burning the dead had 
 entirely ceased in his day. “ Urendi corpora de- 
 fiinctorum usus nostro saeculo nullus ” (Macrob. 
 Saturn d. lib. vii. c. 7). Of the practice of in¬ 
 humation of the unburnt body we have not un¬ 
 frequent examples in Rome itself. The tomb of 
 the Scipios, on the Appian Way (now within the 
 Aurelian walls), is a familiar instance. The 
 correspondence between the arrangements of this 
 tomb and those of the earlier Christian catacombs, 
 e.g. that of Domitilla, is very marked. In both 
 we have passages excavated in the tufa, giving 
 access to sepulchral chambers arranged in stories , 
 burial placai’, cut in the native rock and covered 
 with a slab of stone; sarcophagi standing in 
 recesses, partially hollowed out to receive them. 
 Visconti was of opinion that this tomb was a 
 used-out stone quarry. In this he is followed 
 by Raoul-Rochette, Tableau des Cutac. p. 23. 
 It is favoured by the irregularity of the plan. 
 Another like example is the tomb of the Nasos, on 
 the Flammian Way, described by Bartoli, in 
 which Raoul-Rochette has traced a marked re¬ 
 semblance to the plan and general disposition to 
 the catacomb of St. Hermes, which, as we have 
 seen already, presents many marked variations 
 from the ordinary plan of the Christian cata¬ 
 combs. Other examples are given by De Rossi, 
 L. S. i. 88, who remarks that this mode of inter¬ 
 ment was much more general in Rome and its 
 vicinity than is usually credited. He quotes 
 from Fabretti, Insc. Dom. p. 55, a description of 
 a tomb found by him at the fourth mile on the 
 Flaminian Way. “Necdum crematione instituta 
 in topho indigena excavatum sepulchrum .... 
 qurUia in nostris Christianorura coemeteriis 
 visuntur,” and mentions a numerous series of 
 cells of a similar character cut in the living rock 
 examined bv him in different localities in the 
 vicinity of the city. 
 
 But although Pagan subterranean burial 
 places possess a family likeness to the ceme¬ 
 teries of the Christians, they are unmis¬ 
 takably distinguished from them by certain 
 unfailing marks. They are of much more con¬ 
 tracted dimensions, being intended for the mem¬ 
 bers and dependants of a single family, instead 
 of being open to the comnuiuity of the faithful 
 generally. As being destined to be the abodes 
 of the dead only, their entrances were firmly 
 closed, while the burial niches were frequently 
 left open ; while on the other hand, in the Chris¬ 
 tian cemeteries, constantly visited for the pur- 
 'poses of devotion and for the memorial of the 
 departed, the loculi were hermetically sealed, to 
 prevent the escape of noxious gases, while the 
 entrance stood ahvays open, and the faithful 
 could approach each separate grave with their 
 prayers and their offerings. These distinctions 
 are broadly maintained as a rule. As regards 
 dimensions, however, there are exceptions each 
 
 way. We meet with some isolated Christian 
 burial chambers designed to receive the indi¬ 
 viduals of a single family; and on the other 
 hand, some heathen tombs exceed the usual 
 limits of a single chamber*. De Rossi mentions 
 the existence of many hypogaea, opening from 
 the tombs and columbaria on the Appian and 
 Latin Ways, which contain a few small CM^icu/aand 
 three or four very short ambulacra. Such hyjio- 
 gaea were assigned by Marchi, without sufficient 
 evidence, to the adherents of idolatrous Oriental 
 sects (De Rossi, R. S. i. pp. 88-92). 
 
 But it is not in these heathen examples that 
 we are to find the germ of the Christian catacombs. 
 We are to look for them in the burial places of 
 another people, with whom the Christians of 
 Rome were from the first closely connected, and 
 indeed in the popular mind identified—the Jews. 
 The first converts to the faith in Rome were 
 Jews; and, as Dean Milman has remarked {Lxt. 
 Christianity, i. 31), no Church seems to have 
 clung more obstinately to Judaising tenets and 
 Jewish customs than the Roman. In their man¬ 
 ner of sepulture, therefore, we should anticipate 
 that the Roman Christians would follow the 
 customs of the land which was the cradle of their 
 religion, and to which so many of them traced 
 their parentage—customs which were faithfully 
 adhered to in the land of their dispersion. They 
 had an additional reason for regarding this mode 
 of interment with affectionate reverence, as one 
 hallowed to them by the example of their cruci¬ 
 fied Master, and in Him associated with the 
 hopes of the resurrection. The practice of burial 
 in sepulchres hewn out of the living rock was 
 always familiar to the Jews, and was adopted by 
 them in every part of the world wherever they 
 made settlements and the nature of the soil 
 permitted it. The existence of Jewish catacombs 
 in Rome, of a date anterior to Christianity, is no 
 matter of conjecture. One was discovered by 
 Bosio at the opening of the 17th century, and 
 described by him {R. S. c. xxii. p. 141 seq.), 
 bearing unmistakable evidence of a very early 
 date. This cemetery, placed by him on ilonte 
 Verde, outside the Porta Portese, has escaped all 
 subsequent researches (Marchi, p. 21 seq.). From 
 the meanness of its construction, the absence of 
 any adornment in painting, stucco, or marble, 
 and the smallness and paucity of its cnbicula 
 (only two were found), it was evidently a burial 
 j)lace of the poorer classes. There was an utter 
 absence of all Christian symbols. Almost every 
 loculus bore—either painted in red or scratched 
 on the mortar—the seven-branched candlestick. 
 In one inscription was read the word CTNAmr. 
 (Tvraycoyr). 
 
 Another Jewish catacomb is still accessible 
 on the Via Appia, opposite the Basilica of St. 
 Sebastian. According to Mr. Parker (who has 
 included photogra})hs of this catacomb in his in¬ 
 valuable series. Nos. 1160, 1161), part of it is of 
 the time of Augustus, part as late as Constantine. 
 It contains two cubicula, with large arcosolia, 
 ornamented with arabe.sque paintings of flowers 
 and birds, devoid of distinctive symbols. Some 
 of the lojuli present their ends instead of their 
 sides to the galleries—an arrangement very rarely 
 found in Christian cemeteries. The inscriptions 
 are mostlv in Greek characters, though the 
 language of some is Latin. Some bear Hebrew 
 words. Nearly all have the candlestick. In 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 301 
 
 1866 another extremely poverty-stricken Jewish 
 catacomb, dug in a clay soil, was excavated in 
 the Vigna Cimarra, on the Appian Way. 
 
 The idea so long and so widely prevalent, that 
 works of such immense extent, demanding so 
 large an amount of severe manual labour, could 
 have been executed in secret, and in defiance of 
 existing laws, is justly designated by Mommsen 
 as ridiculous, and reflecting a discredit, as un¬ 
 founded as it is unjust, on the imperial police of 
 the capital. It is simply impossible that such 
 excavations should have escaped official notice. 
 Kor was there any reason why the Christians 
 should have desired that their burial places 
 should have been concealed from the state autho¬ 
 rities. No evidence can be alleged which affords 
 even a hint that in the first two centuries at 
 least there was any official interference with 
 Christian sepulture, or any difficulties attending 
 it to render secrecy or concealment desirable. 
 The ordinary laws relating to the burial of the 
 dead afforded their protection to the Christians 
 no less than to their fellow citizens. A special 
 enactment, of which we find no trace, would 
 have been needed, to exempt the Christians from 
 the operation of these laws. So long as they did 
 not violate any of the laws by which the sepul¬ 
 ture of the dead was regulated the Roman Chris¬ 
 tians were left free to follow their taste and 
 wishes in this matter. Nor, as we have seen, 
 was there anything altogether strange or repul¬ 
 sive in the mode of burial adopted by the Chris¬ 
 tians. They were but following an old fashion 
 which had not entirely died out in Rome, and 
 which the Jews were suffered to follow un¬ 
 molested. One law they were absolutely bound 
 to observe, viz., that which prohibited interment 
 within the walls of the city. And a survey of 
 the Christian cemeteries in the vicinity of Rome 
 will show that this was strictly obeyed. All 
 of them are contained in the zone at once pre¬ 
 scribed bv law and dictated by convenience, 
 within a. radius of about 2^ miles from the 
 Aurelian walls. “ Between the third and fifth 
 mile from the walls no Christian sepulchre has 
 been found; at the sixth, only one, that of St. 
 Alexander; while beyond the seventh mile tombs 
 are again met with, but these belong rather to 
 the towns and villages of the Campagna than to 
 Rome itself” (Northcote, R. S. p. 334; Mich. 
 Stef de Rossi, Analis. Geol. ed ArcU. i. 45). 
 
 Legal enactments and considerations of practical 
 convenience having roughly determined the situ¬ 
 ation of the Christian cemeteries, a further cause 
 operated to fix their precise locality. Having 
 regard to the double purpose these excavations 
 were to serve—the sepulture of the dead, and the 
 gathering of the living for devotion—it was 
 essential that a position should be chosen where 
 the soil was dry, and which was not liable to be 
 flooded by the neighbouring streams, nor subject 
 to the infiltration of water. If these rules were 
 not observed, not only would the putrefaction of 
 the corpses have taken place with dangerous 
 rapidity, and the air become poisoned, but the 
 galleries themselves would have been choked 
 with mud and been rendered inaccessible. We 
 find, therefore, that the plannei’s of the ceme¬ 
 teries, as a rule, avoided Jhe valleys and low 
 lands, and restricted their operations to the 
 higher grounds surrounding the city, particularly 
 where the geological conditions of the soil pro¬ 
 
 mised them strata of the tufa grnnolare, in which 
 they by preference worked, and where springs of 
 water were absent. As an. example of the disas¬ 
 trous consequences of not attending to these pre¬ 
 cautions we may name the cemetery of Castulu-s, 
 on the Via Labicana, re-discovered by De Rossi 
 in 1864 (^Bulletmo de Arch. Crist., Fev. 1865). 
 From its loxv position, the galleries are filled 
 with clay and water, which have reduced them 
 to ruin and rendered the cemetery quite inac¬ 
 cessible. 
 
 As a rule, each catacomb occupies a separate 
 rising ground of the Campagna, and one divided 
 from any other by intervening valleys. The 
 general humidity of these low grounds, and the 
 streams which flow along them, efl'ectually pro¬ 
 hibit the construction of galleries of communica¬ 
 tion between the various cemeteries. The idea 
 broached by Raoul-Rochette, and contended for 
 by Marchi, that a subterranean communication 
 at a low level exists between the whole of the 
 Christian cemeteries of Rome, as well as with 
 the chief churches within the city, is, in Momm¬ 
 sen’s words, “a mere fable”—in fact, a complete 
 impossibility. Such galleries of connection, if 
 formed, would have been constantly inundated, 
 if they had not at once become mere conduits of 
 running water. 
 
 Each of the larger cemeteries, then, may 
 be regarded as an insulated group, embracing 
 several smaller cemeteries, corresponding to the 
 original funeral areae assigned to the interment 
 of the early Christians, but never crossing the 
 intermediate depressions or ravines, and seldom, 
 if ever, having any communication with each 
 other (M. Stef, de Rossi, R. S. Analis. Geol. ed 
 Arch. i. 41, seq.). 
 
 The notions which have been entertained 
 as to the horizontal extent of the catacombs 
 are very greatly exaggerated. It has been even 
 gravely asserted that they reach as far as Tivoli 
 in one direction and Ostia in the other. It is 
 probably quite impossible to form a correct esti¬ 
 mate of the area actually occupied by them, from 
 our ignorance of their real extent. Not a few 
 which were known to the older investigators 
 cannot now be discovered, and it can hardly be 
 questioned that others exist which have never 
 been entered since the period when they were 
 finally given over to neglect and decay. M. Stef, 
 de Rossi, in his valuable Analisi Geologica cd 
 Architetlonica, so often referred to, p. 60, de¬ 
 clares his belief that nearly the whole of the 
 available space wdthin the above-named ceme- 
 terial zone, where the soil was suitable for the 
 purpose, was occupied by burial vaults. But he 
 discreetly abstains from any attempt to define 
 either their superficial area or their linear 
 extension. The calculations that have been 
 hazarded by Marchi and others are founded on 
 too vague data to be very trustworthy. Marchi 
 calculated that the united length of the galleries 
 of the catacombs would amount to 800 or 900 
 miles, and the number of graves to between six 
 and seven millions. The estimate quoted by Mar- 
 tigny {^Diction, des Atd. Chret. p. 128) does not 
 go beyond 587 miles. That given by Northcote 
 {R. S. p. 26) is more modest still,—“on the 
 whole there are certainly not less than 350 miles 
 of them.” But all such estimates are at present 
 simply conjectural. 
 
 The beginnings of these vast cemeteries were 
 
302 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 small and comparatively insignificant. There is 
 little question that almost without exception 
 they had their origin in sepulchral areas of limi¬ 
 ted extent, the property of private families or 
 individuals, devoted by them to this sacred pur¬ 
 pose. The investigations of De Rossi, an ex¬ 
 plorer as sagacious as he is conscientious, have 
 satisfactorily proved that the immense cemetery 
 of Callistus, with its innumerable cubicula and 
 stories of intricate ramifications, originally con¬ 
 sisted of several small and independent burial 
 grounds, executed with great regularity within 
 carefully prescribed limits. The manner in 
 which a subterranean cemetery was constructed 
 was as follows. First of all a plot of ground 
 suitable for the purpose was obtained by gift or 
 by purchase, extending so many feet, in froute, in 
 length, along the high road, so many, in ogro, 
 in depth, at right angles to the road. That which 
 used to be known as the cemetery of Lucina, the 
 most ancient part of the cemetery of Callistus, 
 measured 100 Roman feet in length by 180 feet 
 in depth. A second area of the same cemetery 
 including the Papal crypt and that of St. Caecilia 
 measured 250 along the road, and reached back 
 100 feet in agro. Such a plot was secured by its 
 Christian proprietor as a burial-place with the 
 usual legal formalities. The fact of the indivi¬ 
 dual being a Chidstian threw no impediment in 
 the way of the purchase, or of the construction of 
 the cemetery. All were in this respect equally un¬ 
 der the protection of the laws. The first step in the 
 construction of the cemetery was the excavation 
 of a passage all the way round the area, commu¬ 
 nicating with the surface by one or more stair¬ 
 cases at the corners. Loculi were cut in the 
 walls of these galleries to receive the dead. 
 When the original galleries were fully occupied, 
 cross galleries were run on the same level, gra¬ 
 dually forming a network of passages, all filled 
 with tombs. If a family vault was required, or 
 a martyr or other Christian of distinction had 
 to be interred, a small rectangular chamber, 
 cubiculuni, was excavated, communicating with 
 the gallery. In the earlier part of the cemetery 
 of Callistus a considerable number of these small 
 burial chambers are found, succeeding one an¬ 
 other as we proceed along the ambulacrum with 
 as much regularity as bedrooms opening out of a 
 passage in a modern house. When the galleries 
 in the original piano had reached their furthest 
 extension consistent with stability, the excavators 
 commenced a new system of galleries at a lower 
 level, i-eached by a new staircase. These were 
 carried out on the same principle as those in the 
 story above, and were used for sepulture as long 
 as they afforded space for graves. When more 
 room was wanted the fossores formed a third 
 story of galleries, which was succeeded by a 
 fourth, and even by a fifth. Instances indeed 
 are met with, as in some parts of the cemetery 
 of Callistus, where, including what may be called 
 a mezzanine story, the number of piani reaches 
 seven. Sometimes, however, according to Cav. 
 Mich. S. de Rossi (^Analis. Geol. ed. Architet. del 
 Cimitero di Callisto, vol ii. p. 30), the upper 
 piani are of later date than the lower, experience 
 having given the excavators greater confidence in 
 the .security of the strata, and the complete 
 cessation of persecution removing the temporary 
 necessity for concealment. Some of these later 
 galleries are not more than from three to four 
 
 inches below the surface. The extreme narrcw- 
 ness of the galleries is one of the most marked 
 characteristics of the Christian catacombs. The 
 object of the excavators being to economize 
 space and make the most of a limited area, the 
 gallery was not formed of a greater width than 
 would be sufficient for the purpo.se of affording 
 two tiers of sepulchral recesses, with room 
 enough between for the passage, usually, of a 
 single person. The narrowest galleries, which 
 are by no means rare, are from 2 ft. to ft. 
 wide. The normal width is from 2^ ft. to 
 
 3 ft. A few are 3J ft. wide. A still smaller 
 number, and those usually very short, are from 
 
 4 ft. to 5 ft. in width. These rules, says 
 M. S. de Rossi, are unalterable, whatever be 
 the piano, or the quality of the rock. The 
 only variation is that where the rock is more 
 friable the galleries are less numerous, and 
 more of the intervening stratum is left un¬ 
 touched; while they become more numerous and 
 intricate the greater the solidity of the forma¬ 
 tion. The ceiling is usually flat, sometimes 
 slightly arched. The height of the galleries 
 depends on the nature of the soil in which they 
 are dug. The earliest were originally the least 
 elevated ; the fossores being aj)prehensive of 
 making them too high for security. As they 
 gained confidence in the strength of the rock, 
 space required for more graves was obtained by 
 lowering the floor of the galleries, so that not 
 unfi-equently the most ancient are now the 
 most lofty. Sometimes the construction of 
 galleries at a lower ’evel was stopped by the 
 cessation of the strata of tufa grunolare: and at 
 others, as in the Vati« an cemetery, by the oc¬ 
 currence of springs, which threatened the inun¬ 
 dation of the gallei’ies and the destruction of 
 the graves. When further progress down¬ 
 wards was prevented, another funeral area was 
 opened by the side of the original one, and the 
 same process was repeated. It often happened 
 that in the course of time independent ceme¬ 
 teries which had been formed in adjacent plots of 
 ground were combined together, so as to form 
 one large necropolis. Examples of this are 
 found in almost all the great cemeteries of Rome, 
 and the combination of names which has thus 
 arisen has given rise to no little confusion. Por¬ 
 tions of what has since become one cemetery bear 
 different appellations in the ancient documents, 
 and it is not easy to unravel the tangled skein: 
 e.g. the cemetery “ad Ursum pileatum ” on the 
 “ Via Portuensis ” bears the titles of St. Pontia- 
 nus, SS. Abdon and Sennen, and St. Pigmenius. 
 That on the “ Via Appia,” usually known as the 
 cemetery of St. Praetextatus, is also called after 
 St. Urbanus, SS. Tiburtius and Valeriauus, St. 
 Balbina and St. Marcus. 
 
 Tradition and documentary evidence have 
 assigned several of the Roman catacombs to the 
 first age of the Church’s history. For some, an 
 apostolical origin is claimed. It may be difficult 
 to prove beyond question thatanV of the existing 
 catacombs belong to the age of St. Peter and 
 St. Paul, but the matter has been very care¬ 
 fully and dispassionately examined by De 
 Rossi, R. S. i. p. 184 seq., and the evidence he 
 collects from the existing remains in support of 
 the traditional view is of a nature to convince us 
 that some of them were constructed at least in a 
 very early period. This evidence is presented by 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 303 
 
 paintings in a pure classical style, with a very 
 rare admixture of distinctly Christian symbols; 
 decorations in fine stucco, displaying a chaste 
 architectural si)irit; crypts of considerable size, 
 not hewn out of the living tufa, but carefully, 
 and even elegantly, built with pilasters and 
 cornices of brick and terra-cotta; wide corridors 
 with painted walls, and recesses for sarcophagi, j 
 instead of the narrow ambulacra with their 
 walls thickly pierced with shelf-like funeral 
 recesses; whole families of inscriptions to persons 
 bearing classical names, and without any dis- ^ 
 tinctively Christian expressions; and lastly, 
 though rarely, consular dates of the second, and 
 one or more even of the first century. The cata¬ 
 combs that present these distinctive marks of 
 very early date are those of Priscilla on the Via 
 Salaria Nova, that of Domitilla on the Via Arden- 
 tina, of Praetextatus on the Via Appia, and a 
 portion of that of St. Agnes, identified with the 
 cemetery of Ostrianus or Fons Petri. 
 
 The evidence of early date furnished by in¬ 
 scriptions is but scanty. It must, however, be 
 borne in mind that only a very small proportion 
 have the date of the year, as given by the 
 consuls, upon them. The chief object was to fix 
 the anniversary of the death, and for this the day 
 of the mouth was sufficient. The most ancient 
 dated Christian inscription is of the third year 
 of Vespasian, a.d. 72, but its original locality is 
 unknown (Northcote, R. S. p. 65). Rostell 
 (^Roms Beschreibung, i. 371), quotes from Bol- 
 detti, p. 83, one of the consulate of Anicius and 
 Virius Callus, A.D. 98, from the catacomb of 
 Hippolytus; but it begins with the letters 
 D. M., and contains no distinctly Christian ex¬ 
 pressions. One of the consulate of Sura and 
 Senecio, a.d. 107, and another of that of Piso 
 and Bolanus, a.d. 110, were seen by Boldetti in 
 the catacomb beneath the basilica of St. Paul 
 (Boldetti, pp. 78, 79). The same explorer found 
 here also an inscidption, which the name of 
 Gallicanus fixes either to a.d. 127 or a.d. 150. 
 
 The beginning of the third century finds the 
 Christians of Rome in possession of a cemetery 
 common to them as a body, and doubtless secured 
 to them by legal tenure, and under the protection 
 of the authorities of the city. We learn this 
 instructive fact from the Rhilosophumena of 
 Hippolytus (ix. 11), where we read that Pope 
 Zephyrinus “set Callistus over the cemetery,” 
 Karearrjffev cTrl Koifirtrripiov. As we have 
 seen reason to believe that at this period several 
 Christian cemeteries were already in existence, 
 there must have been something distinctive about 
 this one to induce the bishop of Rome to intrust 
 its care to one of his chief clergy, who in a few 
 years succeeded him in his Episcopate. We can 
 have little hesitation in accepting De Rossi’s 
 conclusion (for the grounds of which the reader 
 must be referred to his great work Roma Sotter- 
 r.inea, or to Dr. Northcote’s excellent abridgement 
 of it under the same title) that this was the 
 cemetery which we read in Anastasius, § 17, 
 Callixtus “ made on the Appian Way, where the 
 bodies of many priests and martyrs I’epose, and 
 which is called even to the present day coeme- 
 terium Callixti.” In a crypt of this cemetery 
 Zephyrinus himself was buried, in violation of 
 the rule which had prevailed almost without 
 exception up to that period, that the bi.shops 
 of Rome should be laiil where St. Peter was 
 
 believed to repose, in the crypt of the Vatican. 
 Of the fifteen bishops who are reported to have 
 preceded Zephyrinus, all but Clemens, who is 
 recorded to have been buried in Greece, and 
 Alexander, w'hose sepulchre was made near the 
 scene of his martyrdom, on the Via Nomentava, 
 according to the oldest and most trustworthy 
 recensions of the Liber Pontifcalis, were sup¬ 
 posed to sleep in the Vatican cemetery. Of 
 the eighteen who intervened between him and 
 Sylvestei’, no fewer than thirteen repo.se in the 
 cemetery of Callistus. • Slabs bearing the names 
 of Antero.s, a.d. 236, Fabianus, a.d. 251, (the 
 first bishop of whose martyrdom there is no 
 question), Lucius, A.D. 253, and Eutychianus, 
 A.D. 275, in Greek characters, the official lan¬ 
 guage of the Church, with the words Episcopus, 
 and, in the case of Fabianus, martyr, added, 
 have been discovered by Cav. de Rossi in this 
 crypt. An adjoining vault has revealed the 
 epitaph of Eusebius, a.d. 311, set up by Dama- 
 sus, and engraved by his artist Furius Dionysius 
 Philocalus, whose name it bears. In another crypt 
 in the same cemetery De Rossi’s labours have 
 been rewarded by the fragments of an epitaph 
 which is reasonably identified with that of Cor¬ 
 nelius, A.D. 252, whose portrait, together with 
 that of his contemporary and correspondent 
 Cyprian, is painted on its wall. Callistus 
 himself does not lie in the catacomb that bears 
 his name. He met his end by being hurled from 
 a window into a well in the Trastevei’e, and his 
 corpse was hastily removed to the nearest cem¬ 
 etery, that of Calepodius, on the Via Aurelia. 
 It cannot be reasonably questioned that a ceme¬ 
 tery which was the recognised burial-place of 
 I the bishops of the city had a jmblic, official 
 character distinct from the private cemeteries 
 with which the walls of Rome were surrounded. 
 
 I do the period of peaceful occupation and 
 undisturbed use of the cemeteries by the 
 Christian population of Rome succeeded that of 
 ' persecution. We cannot place this earlier than 
 the middle of the third century. There might 
 be occasional outbreaks of popular violence 
 directed against the Christians, and isolated acts 
 of cruelty and severity towards the professors of 
 an unpopular religion. We know from the 
 famous correspondence between Pliny and Mar¬ 
 cus Aurehus, that even under the merciful survey 
 ^ of so wise and benevolent a ruler, the position of 
 a Christian was far from one of security. Of 
 this we hav'e a proof, if it be really authentic, in 
 the touching record of a martyrdom within the 
 precincts of the catacombs, given by the cele¬ 
 brated epitaph of Alexander from the cemetery 
 of Callistus (Bosio lib. iii. c. 23, p. 216). 
 
 “Alexander mortuus non est sed vivit super 
 astra et corpus in hoc tumulo quiescit. Vitam 
 I explevit cum Antonino Imp. qui ubi multum 
 beuefitii anteveuire previderet pro gratia odium 
 I reddidit. Genua enim flectens vero Deo sacri- 
 ficatui’us ad supplicia ducitur. O tempora in- 
 fausta quibus inter sacra et vota ne in cavernis 
 quidem si\lvari possimus. Quid mi.serius vita, 
 sed quid miserius in morte cum ab amicis et 
 parentibus sepeliri nequeant. Tandem in caelo 
 coruscat. Parum vixit qui vixit iv. x. Tern.” 
 
 Another of almost equal interest, from the 
 same cemetery, is also found in Bosio, p. 217, 
 referring to a martyrdom in the days of Hadrian. 
 
 “Tempore Adriani Imperatoris Marius ado- 
 
304 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 lescens Dux niilitum 
 pro Clio consumsit. 
 
 qui 
 
 In 
 
 satis vixit dum vitam 
 pace taudem quievit. 
 
 Benemereutes cum lacrimis et metu posuerunt. 
 
 There was no general persecution of the 
 Christians in Rome from the reign of Nero, ^ 
 A.D. 65, to that of Decius, a.d. 249-251. , 
 “ During that period,” writes Dean Milman ' 
 {History of Christianity, bk. iv. c. ii. p. 329, note ' 
 2'), ‘‘ the Christians were in general as free and 
 secure as tlie other inhabitants of Rome. Their j 
 assemblies v/ere no more disturbed than the 
 synagogues of the Jews,, or the rites of other 
 foreign 'religions. From this first terrible but 
 brief onslaught under Decius, to the general and 
 more merciless persecution under Diocletian and 
 Galerius, a.d. 303, there is no trustworthy , 
 record of anj' Roman persecution.” These epochs 
 of persecution left their marks on the construc¬ 
 tion of the catacombs. The martyrdom of 
 Xystus II. in the cemetery of Praetextatus, j 
 A.D. 257 (“ Xystum in cimiterio animadversum 
 sciatis . . . ct cum eo diacouos quatuor,” Cy- j 
 prian, Ep. 80), and the walling up alive of a con- j 
 siderable number of the faithful, men, women, 
 and children, near the tombs of the martyrs 
 Chrysanthus and Daria, in a catacomb on the ’ 
 Via Salaria, recorded by St. Gregory of Tours, | 
 De Gloria Martyr, i. c. 28 ; and other traditions | 
 of the same period, even though we are com- j 
 pelled to hesitate as to some of them, testify to i 
 the danger that attended the meetings of the 
 faithful in the cemeteries, and the necessity 1 
 which had arisen for secrecy and concealment if 
 they would preserve the inviolability of their 
 graves, and continue their visits undisturbed. 
 To these fierce times of trial we may safely 
 assign the alterations which we find made in the 
 entrances of and staircases leading down to the 
 catacombs, and the construction of concealed 
 ways of ingress and egress through the arenariae 
 which lay adjacent to them. We may instance 
 the blocking up and partial destruction of two 
 chief staii’cases in the cemetery of Callistus, and 
 the formation of secret passages into the arena- 
 ria. One of these is approached by a staircase 
 that stops suddenly short some distance from the 
 floor of the gallery, and was thus rendered 
 utterly useless to any who could not command a 
 ladder, or some other means of connecting the 
 lowest step with the arenaria (Northcote, B. S. 
 pp. 331, 347 ; De Rossi, B. S. ii. 47-49). It happens 
 not unfrequently that galleries are found com¬ 
 pletely fille l up with earth from the floor to the 
 vault. It has been considered by many that 
 this was the work of the Christians themselves, 
 with the view of preserving their sepulchres 
 inviolate by rendering the galleries inaccessible 
 to friend or foe. This view, first propounded by 
 Buonarruoti, Osserv. p. xii., is strongly main¬ 
 tained by De Rossi, B. S. ii. 52-58, who assigns 
 this earthing-up of the tombs to the persecution 
 of Diocletian, a.d. 302. But the opinion main¬ 
 tained by other equally competent authorities is 
 more probable, that this proceeding was simply 
 dictated by convenience, as a means for disposing 
 more easily of the earth excavated from newly- 
 formed galleries. It must always have been 
 a tedious and laborious operation to convey the 
 freshly-dug earth from the catacomb to the 
 surface, through the long tortuous passages, and 
 by the air-tunnels. The galleries already piled 
 with tombs, and therefore useless for future 
 
 interments, offered a ready reception for the 
 material, and in these it was deposited. This is 
 the view of Marchi, p. 94, and Raoul-Rochette, 
 Tablem des Catac. p. 35, and even of Boldetti, 
 pp. 607 ; although the last-named author is 
 unable altogether to reject Buonarruoti’s idea 
 that the galleries were thus filled up to save 
 the hallov/ed remains they contained from the 
 sacrilegious hands of the heathen. 
 
 The middle of the fourth century, which saw 
 the establishment of Christianity as the religion 
 of the Roman states, was the commencement of 
 a new era in the history of the catacombs. Sub¬ 
 terranean interment gradually fell into disuse, 
 and had almost entirely cea.sed by the close of 
 that century. The undeniable evidence of the 
 inscriptions with consular dates as given by 
 De Rossi, Inscr. Christ, i. p. 117, &c., shews that 
 between a.d. 338 and A.D. 360 two out of three 
 burials took place in the subterranean portions 
 of the cemeteries. Between a.d. 364 and A.D. 
 369 the proportions are nearly equal, and a 
 new era in the history of the cemeteries began 
 —the era of religious interest. • The zeal dis¬ 
 played by Pope Damasus a.d. 306-384 in re¬ 
 pairing and decorating the catacombs; erecting 
 new staircases for the convenience of pilgrims, 
 searching for the places of the martyi's’ interment, 
 and adorning them with exquisitely engraved 
 epitaphs in large faultless characters, the work 
 of an artist named Furius Dionysius Philocalus, 
 caused a short sudden outburst of desire to be 
 buried near the hallowed remains, resulting 
 in wholesale destimction of many hundreds of 
 early paintings with which the walls of the 
 cubicula and arcosolia were covered. But the 
 flame soon died out. Between A.D, 373 and 
 A.D. 400 the subterranean interments were only 
 one in three, and after A.D. 410, the fatal year 
 of the taking of Rome by Alaric, scarcely a 
 single certain example is found. But although 
 the fashion of interment came to an end, the 
 reputed sanctity of those whose remains were 
 enshrined in them caused them to be the object 
 of wide-spread interest. Pilgrims flocked to 
 visit the places hallowed by the memories of 
 so many confessors and martyrs, for whose 
 guidance catalogues of the chief cemeteries and 
 of the saints buried in them were from time to 
 time drawn up, which have prove<l of consider¬ 
 able service in their identification. Even hermits 
 came from a distance and fixed their cells in their 
 immediate neighbourhood. 
 
 It appears evident from Jerome’s well-known 
 description of his visits to the catacombs when a 
 schoolboy, circa A.D. 354, llieron. in Ezech. c. xl. 
 that even in the latter half of the fourth cen- 
 tui’y interment was rare in them. He speaks 
 of visiting “ the tombs of the apostles and 
 martyrs,” and describes the walls of the crypts 
 “ lined with the bodies of the dead but his 
 language is that of one describing a cemetery 
 long since disused, not one in daily activity. So 
 also, Praef. ad Lib. ii. in Galat., “ Ubi alibi tanto 
 studio et frequentia ad martyrum sepulchra 
 curritur?” The words of the poet Prudentius, 
 written about the same time, describing the 
 tomb of Hippolytus, lead to the .same conclusion. 
 His lengthened and minutely detailed de.scription 
 does not contain a word that indicates that the 
 cemetery which contained this sacred shrine was 
 used for actual interment. 
 
•V 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 305 
 
 Amidst all the Jevastation committed by the 
 barbarian conquerors both in the first and second 
 sack of Rome, A.D. 410, 457, we have no record 
 of damage inflicted on the cemeteries. It may 
 be simply lack of evidence. We cannot deem it 
 likely that any feeling of reverence would have 
 led the Goths to refrain from the rich plunder 
 the piety of devotees had stored up in the burial 
 chapels. Prudentius informs us that the aedicula 
 which enshrined the relics of St. Hippolytus was 
 bright with solid silver, and other catacombs were 
 certainly as sumptuously decorated. But whether 
 the catacombs were devastated by Alaric’s hordes 
 or no, it is certain that after a.d. 410 “ the use 
 of the subterranean cemeteries as places of 
 burial was never resumed, and that inscriptions 
 and notices that seem to refer to them will be 
 found on closer examination to relate to basilicas 
 and cemeteries above ground. The fossors’ occu¬ 
 pation was gone, and after a.d. 426 their name 
 ceases to be mentioned. The liturgical books of 
 the fifth century refer constantly, in the prayers 
 for the dead and the benediction of graves, to 
 burials in and around the basilicas, never to the 
 subterranean cemeteries,” (Northcote R. S. p. 
 104). But though disused as places of sepulture 
 the catacombs continued to be visited by pilgrims, 
 and were regarded with special devotion by the 
 popes, who from time to time repaired and beau¬ 
 tified them {e. g. Symmachus, A.D. 498-514; 
 Anast. §81). The fatal zeal displayed by succes¬ 
 sive pontiffs in the restoration and decoration of 
 these consecrated shrines is the cause of much per¬ 
 plexity to the investigator who desires to dis¬ 
 cover their original form and arrangements. 
 Nothing but long experience and an intimate ac¬ 
 quaintance with the character of the construction 
 and ornamentation of difi'erent periods can enable 
 us to distinguish with any accuracy between 
 the genuine structure of the catacombs and the 
 paintings with which they were originally I 
 adorned, and the work of later times. Many of i 
 the conclusions drawn by Roman Catholic writers I 
 from the paintings and ritual arrangements of 
 the catacombs as we now find them, and the 
 evidence supposed to be furnished by them as to 
 the primitive character of their dogmas and tra¬ 
 ditions, prove little worth when a more search¬ 
 ing investigation shows their comparatively 
 recent date. An analogous exaggeration has 
 widely prevailed with regard to the custom of; 
 resorting to these gloomy vaults as places of 
 concealment in times of persecution. We can¬ 
 not fairly doubt that they occasionally served as 
 places of refuge, though it is not always ea&y to 
 determine whether the language used refers to 
 the subterranean part of the cemetery, or to the 
 cellae, the basilicas, and other buildings which 
 had gradually risen in the area that lay above 
 them ; but that which was at most exceptional 
 has been spoken of almost as if it were the rule. 
 
 We have direct eviilence that the ravages of the 
 Goths under Vitiges, when they sacked Rome, A.D. 
 537, extended to the catacombs, “ Ecclesiae et cor¬ 
 pora sanctorum martyrum exterminatae sunt a 
 Gothis” (Anast. § 99). On their retirement the 
 havoc they had committed was repaired by Pope 
 Vigilius, who replaced the broken and mutilated 
 epitaphs of Pope Damasus by copies, not always 
 very correct. These good deeds stand recorded in [ 
 an inscription of this pope now in the Gallery of 
 the V^atican :— 
 
 CHUIST. ANT. 
 
 “ Dum pnritura Getae posuissent castra sub urbem 
 Moverunt Sanctis bella nefanda ))rius, 
 
 Totaque sacrilege verterunt corde sepulclira 
 Martyiibus quundaiu rite sacrata plis. 
 
 Quos inoni-traiite Deo Damasus sibi Papa probates 
 Allixo moniiit carmine jure coli; 
 
 Sed periit titulus coufracto maimere sanctus 
 Nec tamen his iterum posse latere fuit. 
 
 Diruta Vigilius nam poslbaec Papa gemiscens 
 Hestibus expulsis omne novavit opus.” 
 
 The reverence for the catacombs was now 
 gradually dying out. One pope after another 
 attempted to revive it by their decree.s, but 
 without any permanent effect. John III., circa 
 A.D. 568, restored the cemeteries of the holy 
 martyrs, “and ordered that oblations” (the 
 Eucharistic elements), “cruets, and lights [‘ob- 
 lationes, ampullae ’ (var. lect. ‘ amulae ’), vel ‘ lu- 
 minaria ’], should be supplied from the Lateral! 
 every Sunday” (Anast. § 110). It is also re¬ 
 corded in commendation of Sergius I., a.d. 687- 
 701, that when he was a presbyter it was his 
 wont to “ celebrate mass diligently through the 
 different cemeteries” (Anast. § 158). In the 
 next century, circa 735, Gregory III., a zealous 
 builder and repairer of churches, arranged a 
 body of priests to celebrate mass, and provided 
 that lights and oblations should be furnished from 
 the palace for all the cemeteries round Rome 
 (Anast, § 204). In neither of these cases, how¬ 
 ever, can we affirm that the reference is chiefly 
 to underground cemeteries or catacombs. 
 
 We have now reached the period of the reli¬ 
 gious spoliation of the catacombs, from which 
 they have suffered more irreparably than from 
 any violence offered by sacrilegious hands. 
 The injuries commenced by the Goths had been 
 repeated by the Lombards under Astolphus, 
 a.d. 956. But these invaders did little more 
 than complete the devastation which was being 
 already caused by the carelessness of those 
 by whom these cemeteries should have been 
 religiously tended. The slothfulness and neglect 
 manifested towards these hallowed places are 
 feelingly deplored by Paul I. in a Constitution 
 dated June 2, A.D, 761. Not only were sheep 
 and oxen allowed to have access to them, but 
 folds had been set up in them and they h id 
 been defiled with all manner of corruption. 
 The holy father therefoi’e resolved to trans¬ 
 late the bodies of the saints and enshrine 
 them in a church he had built on the site of his 
 paternal mansion (Anast. § 259, 260). Paul’s 
 immediate successors reversed his policy, and 
 used all their endeavours to i-estore the lost 
 glories of the catacombs. But it was too late, 
 the spirit of the age had changed. As the only 
 means of securing the sacred I'blics from dese¬ 
 cration, Paschal, A.D. 817-827, was forced to 
 follow the example set by Paul, July 20, a.d. 
 817. He translated to the church of St. Pras- 
 sede, as recorded in an inscidption still to be 
 read there, no less than 2300 bodies. The work 
 was continued by succeeding popes, and many 
 cartloads of relics are recorded to have been 
 transferred at this period from the catacombs to 
 the Pantheon. The sacred treasures which had 
 given the catacombs their value in the eyes of 
 the devout having been removed, all interest in 
 them ceased. Henceforward all inducement to 
 visit them was lost, and with some insignificant 
 exceptions the catacombs lapsed into complete 
 
306 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 oblivion, in which they remained wrapped for 
 more than six centuries. It was not till May 
 31, 1578, that their fortuitous discovery re¬ 
 vealed to the astonished inhabitants of Rome 
 the hidden treasures that lay beneath their feet, 
 and awoke an interest which, though sometimes 
 flagging and not always intelligently exercised, 
 has never since expired, and which the combined 
 genius, learning, and industry of Marchi, and 
 his pupils, the brothers De Rossi, together with 
 the remarkable discoveries which have rewarded 
 their researches, and the skill with which they 
 have known how to interpret and employ the 
 results of their investigations, have of late raised 
 to a pitch that has never before been equalled. 
 
 It is not within the scope of this article to 
 record the names and trace the labours of the 
 investigators who have employed themselves in 
 this held of research. This will be found in the 
 chronological sketch prefixed to Raoul-Rochette’s 
 excellent and unprejudiced little work, Tab¬ 
 leau des Catacombes de Rome” Paris, 1853, as 
 well as in the opening pages of the Roma 
 Sutterranea of De Rossi, and the English abridge¬ 
 ment by Dr. Northcote and the Rev. W. K 
 Bi'ownlow, London, 1869. 
 
 Description. —The catacombs of Rome, to 
 which as the most interesting and most thoroughly 
 investigated of the subterranean cemeteries our 
 present remarks will be confined, consist of a vast 
 labyrinth of narrow subterranean passages or 
 galleries excavated in the strata of volcanic earth 
 that underlie the fity and its neighbourhood, 
 for the purpose of the interment of the dead. 
 These galleries are excavated at different levels, 
 forming various stories or piani, one beneath the 
 other, communicating by narrow flights of steep 
 stairs cut in the native rock, as well as by shafts 
 and wells sunk for the purpose of affording light 
 and air. These stories of galleries lie one below 
 the other sometimes to the number of five, or 
 even, as in the cemetery of St. Callistus of 
 seven. The galleries as a rule preserve the level 
 
 Boction of the Crypt of St. Lnetus in the Catacomb of St Callistna, 
 from De Bossi. 
 
 of the piano to which they belong, so that it is 
 very rare to meet with galleries, gradually de¬ 
 scending by an inclined plane to a lower story. 
 The only communication, as a rule, between the 
 stories is by flights of steps. The lowest are usual ly 
 
 the latest; the additional labour of removing the 
 earth from the greater depth not being under¬ 
 taken until the want of burial space in the story 
 above forced it upon its possessors. Instances 
 occur where a stratum of considerable thickness 
 having been left by the original con.structorj 
 between two stories of ambulacra, an interme¬ 
 diate story (a mezzanine or entresol), has been 
 excavated in later times. These corridors, or 
 amhnlacra, follow no definite system. They more 
 usually than not run in straight lines, forming 
 an intricate network continually crossing and 
 recrossing one another at difl’erent angles, and 
 as no law of parallelism is adopted in laying out 
 the plan, it is not easy to reduce them to any 
 system. These galleries are not merely passages 
 of access to the cemetery, but themselves con- 
 
 Oallery with “ Loculi,” from Nortbeote's ‘ Bomn Sottcrraiiea. 
 
 stitute the cemetery. They do not conduct to 
 the places of interment, but the dead are interred 
 in them. The walls are vertical, and (as re¬ 
 presented in the annexed woodcut) are pierced on 
 each side with long low horizontal recesses, com¬ 
 mencing a few inches above the level of the floor, 
 and rising tier above tier, like the berths in a ship’s 
 cabin, to the number of five, six, and sometimes 
 even twelve ranges. They are divided from one 
 another by an intervening shelf of tufa as thin 
 as was compatible with security. The length of 
 these niches is almost invariably in the direction 
 of the gallery. This form was much easier to 
 excavate, and enabled the corpse to be laid in its 
 tomb with greater facility and reverence than 
 when the recess entered deep into the rock, at 
 right angles to the axis of the corridor. Examples 
 of this latter form do exist in the Roman cata¬ 
 combs, but very rarely. Padre Marchi, Monu- 
 menti delle AHi Christ. Prim. pp. 110, 225, tav. 
 xiv., xliii., xliv., gives a description and engra¬ 
 vings of 20 specimens discovered by him in the 
 cemetery of St. Cyriaca (see ground plan). The 
 same mode of construction appears in the heathen 
 catacombs in Egypt, and those of the Saracens at 
 Taormina, engraved by D’Agincourt, pi. ix. Tlie 
 name given in modern times to these sepulchral 
 cavities is loculus. The original term, appearing 
 thousands and thousands of times in the inscrip- 
 
CATACOMBS CATACOMBS 307 
 
 tioQS of the catacombs, was locus. The word 
 loiulus, properly signified a hier or a coffin, 
 “cujus (Agapeti) corpus in loculo phunbeo trans- 
 latum est (Constantinopoli) usque iu basilicam B. 
 Petri apostoli ” (Anastas, lix. § 95: cf. Ibid. 
 
 Local! in Uie Catacomb of St. Cyriaca, from March!. 
 
 Ixiii. 110), and is incorrectly applied to the 
 grave. Its use iu this sense was introduced by 
 Lupi iu the early part of the 18th century. He 
 writes “ loculum apjtello excuvatum in coeme- 
 terii parietibus feuestram parvam ad unum alte- 
 rumve cadaver excipiendum” (Lupi, Dissert, ad 
 Sev. Martyr. Epitaph. 1734, p. 2, note 3). Each 
 recess usually contained a single body. But 
 instances are by no means rai-e where by in¬ 
 creasing its depth it was made capable of re¬ 
 ceiving two, three, or four corpses. Such recesses 
 were designated bisonii, trisomi, quadrisomi, etc., 
 according to the number of bodies for which they 
 were destined. Examples of the use of all these 
 terms appear in the epitaphs. Bisomi: from 
 that of St. Callistus, “ Donata se viv. emit sibi 
 et Maxentiae locum bisomum.” (Boldetti, p. 
 286.) “Sergius et Junius Fossores B. N. M. iu 
 pace bisoia.” (Boldetti, p. 65.) “ Hoctavie coivgi 
 neofite bisomv. maritus fecit” (Bosio, p. 5u7). 
 Trisomi: “ Seberus, Leontius Bictorinus. 'I'ri- 
 somu ” (Bosio, p. 216). “ Se biba (viva) emet 
 
 Domnina locum a Successum trisomu ubi positi,” 
 (Ib.). Quadrisomi: “Consulatu Nicomaci Flabiani 
 locum Marmorari quadrisomum ” (Maitland, p. 
 39; see Marchi, pp. 115-117.) The/ ocmV were 
 iu later times purchased of the sextons, fossores, 
 and as some of the inscriptions already given 
 show, not unfrequently in a person’s lifetime. 
 Another example is the following ungrammatical 
 epitaph from Bosio, lib. iii. c. 41. “ Locus Bene- 
 nati 11 et Gaudiosae compares || se vivi compara- 
 verunt || ab Anastasio et Autiocho FS. (lo.s.so- 
 ribus).” An inscription from the Museum of the 
 Capitol given by Burgon, Letters from Rome, 
 p. 181, no. 25, acquaints us with the price paid, 
 1500 folles (the follis is said at that time to 
 have been equivalent to an obelus'), and that the 
 bargain was struck in the presence of Severus 
 and Laurence his brother sexton. “ Emit locum 
 ab Ar||taemisium visomum \\ hoc est et prae- 
 tium II datura Fossor Phila|Iro yd est Fol. N. ><! 
 S. Prae||sentia Severi Foss, et Laurent.” Some¬ 
 times loculi were excavated by the heirs of the 
 fossor with whom the bargain was made, “ fos- 
 soris discendentibus ” (De Rossi, R. S. i. 215). 
 The loculi are found of all sizes, from those suit¬ 
 able for an infant of a few days old which occur 
 by thousands to those adapted to the bodv of a 
 
 full gro^n man. In the more ancient galleries 
 apertures of various dimeu.sions occur confusedly, 
 having been formed as occasion required. The 
 earlv loculi are al.so of much larger dimensions 
 tnau was needful for the reception of the body, 
 and neither in the form of the niches themselves 
 nor in their arrangement does the idea of eco¬ 
 nomy of space shew itself. But experience taught 
 the excavators how to make the most of the space 
 at command, and Marchi, pp. 112, 113, tav. xv., 
 ])roduces an example from the cemetery of St. 
 Cyriaca, where the loculi are arranged in groups 
 according to their dimensions, every square inch 
 of rock being utilised as far as was consistent 
 with stability. In some ca.ses the back wall of 
 the loculus instead of being parallel to the lines 
 of the opening is set at an angle, forming a 
 tra})ezoidal recess in which bodies of dillerent 
 stature might lie side by side (see annexed 
 ground plan and section) (Marchi, tav., xv. 
 xviii.). In later times space was also economised 
 by making the recess wide at the head and 
 narrow at the feet. Examples are not wanting 
 of graves being dug like those of our own day in 
 the floor of the corridors. Marchi gives instances 
 from the catacombs of Calepodius and Calli.stus, 
 tav. xxi. xxvi. etc. But they’ are very uu- 
 frequent. The loculi, after the introduction of 
 the bod)’ were closed with great care, either with 
 slab's of marble (tabulae) or with large tiles. 
 
 Plan of above locali cbiiwinii) from the Catacomb of St CjTiaca, 
 from Mai'clii. 
 
 usually three, very exactly cemented together, 
 and luted round with lime to prevent the escape 
 of the gases of the putrefying bodies. The tiles 
 closing the early’ loculi in the cemetery of Domi- 
 tilla are of vast size. (De Rossi, Bullett. de Ant. 
 
 . Christ. Magg., 1865.) On the slabs of the 
 earlier loculi, e.g. in the cemeteries of PrLscilla 
 and Domitilla, the name is only painted In 
 red and black pigment, not cut or scratched 
 (Fabretti Insc. Dom. viii. p. 579 ; Aringhi, R. S. 
 iv. 37, p. 126; Boldetti, lib. ii. c. 1). The 
 striking fact that, in the words of Dean Milman 
 (Lat. Chr. i. p. 27), “ for a considerable jiart of 
 the first three centuries the church of Rome 
 was a Greek religious colony ;” that its language, 
 organisation, writers, scriptures, liturgy, were 
 Greek, is evidenced by the inscriptions on these 
 primitive buidal places. They are almost exclu¬ 
 sively in Greek. When engraved the lettei*s are 
 often coloured with vermilion. But an immense 
 number of loculi are entirely destitute of any 
 
 X 
 
308 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 inscription (Bosio, lib. iii. c. 41 ; Boldetti, lib. ii. 
 c. 1 ; Lupi, p. 38). On these slabs were engraved 
 the funeral inscription or epitaph, often accom¬ 
 panied with some of the more usual Christian 
 emblems, the dove, the anchor, or the monogram 
 of Christ. The word tabula appears in some of 
 the epitaphs,, e. g., of a master to a pupil, 
 “ Posvit tabvla magister discenti Pempino bene- 
 merenti” (Marchi, p. 119). “ Bicentivs karo 
 
 tilio karissimo benemerenti posvit tabvla qvi 
 bixit annos iii et dies xxii ” (/6. p. 120). Both 
 from the catacomb of St. Cyriaca. 
 
 A small glass vessel containing indications of 
 the presence of a red fluid, is often found em¬ 
 bedded in the mortar at one extremity of the 
 loculus. This was formerly considered to be a 
 certain mark of a martyr’s tomb, the “ Congre¬ 
 gation of Relics ” having so decided (Apr. 10, 
 1068), the red sediment being supposed to be 
 blood. But this opinion has long ceased to be 
 entertained by the best and most unprejudiced 
 Christian archaeologists who almost unanimously 
 agree that the vessel contained Eucharistic wine, 
 and was used at the funeral agape. [Glass, 
 Christian.] Incised on the slab, or scratched on 
 the mortar, the pa/m bi'anch is one of the symbols 
 that most constantly presents itself in connection 
 with the loculus. This also has been authorita¬ 
 tively declared to be an indisputable evidence of 
 a martyr’s tomb, “ palmam et vas sanguine 
 tinctum pro signis certissimis martyrii haberi,” 
 (^Decree of the Cong, of lielics, u. s.), and has been 
 as completely set aside by later and less enthu¬ 
 siastic investigators. Not to dwell on the fact 
 that the epitaphs found in connection with the 
 palm branch, have as a rule, no reference to a 
 martyr’s death, this symbol is found on tombs 
 prepared by individuals in their lifetime (e. g., 
 “ Leopardus se biv. fecit ” between two palm 
 branches, Boldetti, p. 264), and decorates those 
 of young children (/6. p. 268); dignifies that of 
 Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, who died in schism, 
 (/■i. p. 262); and even appears on pagan tomb¬ 
 stones {Ib, p. 281, sq.). Not a few of the marble 
 slabs {ta')ulae\ closing the loculi, prove on exami¬ 
 nation, like some of our mediaeval sepulchral 
 brasses, to have been used before, their back 
 bearing a second inscription. These ai-e known 
 as opisthographs. They are usually heathen 
 slabs, but not always. One described by Marchi, 
 p. 53, bears on one side “ Hilara in Pace,” and on 
 the other “ Irene in Pace ”—both Christian. 
 Boldetti, lib. ii. c. 10, supplies a large number of 
 examples of these twice used slabs. Mabillon 
 {Iter. Ttal. p. 136), writes of this custom, “ Chris- 
 tianis mos erat ut e sepulchris gentilium lapides 
 revellerent in suos usus, et relicta ex ea parte^ 
 quae interiora Christiani tumuli spectabat pro- 
 fana inscriptione aliam in exteriore apponerent 
 ritu Christiano ” (Cf. Idem. Euseb. Roman, p. 34; 
 Marchi, pp. 53, 123). 
 
 Besides the opisMojyrajoA'? where a heathen slab 
 has been applied to a Christian use no inconsidei- 
 able number of distinctly pagan epitaphs has been 
 discovei’ed, in which no such transformation has 
 taken place. Boldetti, lib. ii. c. 9, gives no less 
 than 57 heathen inscriptions without any Chi-is- 
 tian admixture from the various catacombs, and 
 the list might be very largely increased. One 
 such is mentioned by Mabillon in his Iter'. Ttali- 
 cum. Mus. It. vol. i. p. 47, which though it was 
 destitute of Christian tokens was sent to Tou- 
 
 lou.se as the slab of a supposed marln, Julia 
 Euodia, when it was really that of Casta her 
 mother, and was pagan. In Boldetti, p. 447, we 
 have a curious heathen slab from St. Agns.s, with 
 the inscription “ Domine frater ilaris semper 
 ludere tal ula ” and symbols of gaming. De 
 Rossi found pagan sarcophagi aud pagan inscrip¬ 
 tions in the catacomb of Callistus in excavations 
 made under his own eye {Rom. Sott. ii. pp. 169, 
 281-290). It has been usually held that these w’ere 
 slabs which had been removed from the heathen 
 tombs in the vicinity of the catacombs after the 
 Christian religion had become dominant, and 
 brought down to be re-engraved and fitted for 
 their new purpose. “ Primes Christianos Paga- 
 norum memorias titulosque suffuratos esse et 
 suis loculis coemiterialibus claudendis propriis no¬ 
 minibus insculptis et profanorum absconditis aut 
 abrasis .. . ostendere possumus ” (Fabretti Insc. 
 Ant. p. 307). But another and widely different 
 view has lately been propounded by Mr. Parker 
 and others, that the rigid separation usually sup¬ 
 posed to exist between Christians and heathen 
 in the places of sepulture was not always main¬ 
 tained, and that when in the fourth century the 
 burning of the dead ceased the catacombs became 
 the common burial places of Rome for heathen 
 and Christians alike. This is one of the many 
 questions in connection with the catacombs in 
 which fuller light may show that the traditional 
 view requires some modification, but which 
 must wait the result of further investigations 
 for complete resolution. A class of mixed in¬ 
 scriptions remains to be noticed in which the 
 heathen formula D. M., or even the full Dis 
 Manihus appears in connection with Christian 
 phraseology, and Christian emblems. “ Debit a 
 sacratis manibus officia ” is quoted from Gruter 
 by Fabretti Inscr. Dom. 112 A., as a Christian 
 inscription. From the same collection (Gruter, 
 MLXi.) he also gives one in which occurs the line 
 “Sanctique Manes nobis petentibus adsint,” in 
 connection with the clause “ quievit in pace,” 
 and the term “depositio.” Other inscriptions 
 from Fabretti’s collection evidence the same 
 lingering retention of heathen formula and phra¬ 
 seology in the expressions “ Lachesis, ” “Taena- 
 riae fauces,” “ fatis ereptus iniquis,” and the like. 
 The strangely unchristian phrase “Tartarea 
 custodia ” occurs in the epitaph of a presbyter 
 (Fabr. p. 329, no. 484). “ Domus aeterna ” is by 
 
 no means infrequent: e.g. “ Floreutia quae vixit 
 anuis xxvi Crescens fecit Venemerenti et sibi et 
 suis domu aeterna in pace” {ib. p. 114, no. 
 289). The untenable fallacy contended for by 
 Boldetti, lib. ii. c. 11, Fabretti. and the earlier 
 school of antiquaries, that the letters D. M. 
 stood for Deo Maximo has been deservedly ex¬ 
 ploded. De Rossi allows that they can only 
 stand for Dis Manibus, and we may safely regard 
 the occurrence of these letters on Christian 
 tombstones as an instructive example of the 
 slowness with which an entire people changes 
 its ancestral faith, and of the obstinacy with 
 which certain usages are clung to long after 
 their real force and meaning has passed away.® 
 
 ® On this subject and Its kindred topics the dispas¬ 
 sionate verdict of Dean Merivale may be read wiih 
 a'ivantagp. " The first Christians at Home did not sepa¬ 
 rate themselves frem the heathens, nor renounce their 
 ordinary callujs; they intermarried with unbeliever.-. 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 309 
 
 Examples are not wanting whei*e the work of 
 excavation has not been completed, and the form 
 of the loculus is still seen as it was sketched by 
 the/bssor<?s on the wall of the ambulacrum. 
 
 d'he bodies of the faithful were not buried 
 naked, but with the same feeling of reverence 
 that pervaded the whole rite, were, like that of 
 their Master, wrapt in linen cloths “ as the man¬ 
 ner of the Jews is to bury.” Sometimes the 
 body was enveloped in a sheet; sometimes swathed 
 in many lengths of bands, in the same fashion 
 as Lazarus is represented in the early Christian 
 pictures and bas reliefs. Bosio assures us that 
 in his investigations he found instances of both 
 modes. He mentions that, in excavating the 
 foundations for St. Petei^’s, bodies were exhumed 
 bound with linen bands, and that he himself had 
 seen very many wrapt in linen sheets of exceed¬ 
 ing fineness, which fell to dust at a touch (Bosio, 
 R. S. cap. 19; Marchi, p. 19). The story of the 
 double discovery of the body of St. Caecilia rirst 
 by Pope Paschal, c. 820, and then by Cardinal 
 Sfondrati, A.D. 1599, in the robes of golden tissue 
 she had worn in life is familiar. (It may be read 
 in Northcote, R. S. pp. 154-157.) That the 
 bodies placed in the loculi were embalmed is pro¬ 
 bable from the known custom of the early Chris¬ 
 tians. Boldetti, lib. i. c. 59, affirms that on re¬ 
 peated occasions when he was present at the 
 opening of a grave in the catacombs the assem¬ 
 bled company were conscious of a spicy odour 
 diffusing itself from the tomb. Of this custom 
 Prudentius writes: 
 
 “ Aspersaque myrrha Sabaeo, 
 
 Corpus medlcamlne servat,” 
 
 (in Exeq. les. Hymn 10). 
 
 Another and ruder mode of averting the evils 
 which might arise from the putrefaction of the 
 bodies in galleries which were the frequent resort 
 of the living was to bury the corpse in quick 
 lime. Padre Marchi remarked frequent exam¬ 
 ples of this custom, especially in the cemetery 
 of St. Agnes. The lime appeared to have been 
 placed between two winding sheets, one coarser 
 and the other finer, of the tissue of which it 
 retained the impress (Marchi, p. 19). 
 
 Interment in the loculus though infinitely the 
 most common, was not the only, and perhaps not 
 the earliest mode adopted by the Christians. 
 Cav. de Rossi has been led by his investigations 
 to the conclusion that the earliest form of Christian 
 burial was in sarcophagi placed in detached 
 chambers, and that burial in the loculus was of 
 later date. The truth may howev'er be that the 
 bodies of the wealthier were laid in sarcophagi, 
 which must have always been costly, while the 
 friends of the poorer contented themselves with 
 a simple loculus in the wall. The Cemetery of 
 St. Domitilla at Tor Marancia, which is consi¬ 
 dered by De Rossi to be the monument of a Christian 
 family of distinction, and is shown by the classi¬ 
 cal character of its architecture and decoration to 
 have belonged to the first age of the church, 
 affords examples of interment in sarcophagi, as 
 
 nor even tn their unions with one another did they 
 neglect the ordinary forms of law. It would seem that 
 they burnt their dead after the Roman fashion" (can 
 this be shown to be trne ?), “ gathered their ashes into the 
 sepulchres of their patrons, and inscrib' d over them the 
 customary dedication to the Divine Spirits."—Histury nf 
 the Humans, ch. llv. 
 
 well as of the transition from the sarcophagus to 
 the loculus, in some graves which “ though really 
 mere shelves in the wall are so disguised bv 
 stucco and painting on the outside as to* present 
 to passers by the complete outward appearance 
 of a sarcophagus” (De Rossi, R. S. i. 187, 195, 
 267 ; Northcote, R. S. p. 72, 73). Another 
 example is the so-called Capella Graeca of the 
 catacomb of St. Priscilla. This crypt is of a very 
 peculiar character, formed in the galleries of an 
 ancient arenaria, not hollowed out of the tufa, 
 but constructed of brick. The burial-places 
 here are not loculi, but large arched recesses 
 destined to contain sarcophagi of which in 
 Bosio’s time numerous fragments remained, and 
 some still exist (Bosio, R. S. 513, 533; De Rossi, 
 R. S. i. 188 sq.). The cemetery of Domitilla con¬ 
 tains also numerous examples of sarcophagi of 
 terra cotta buried in the floor of the ambulacra. 
 
 Another form of interment analogous to the 
 sarcophagus was that in the Table Tomb or Se- 
 polcro a mensa, an oblong chest either hollowed 
 
 Table Tcmb. 
 
 out in the living rock, or built up of masonry 
 slabs of stone or large tiles, and closed by a heavy 
 slab of marble lying horizontally on the top, form¬ 
 ing a table. The rock was excavated above the 
 tomb, to form a i*ectangular recess. When the 
 niche assumed a circular form, which is the more 
 fi’equent though not the earlier shape, it is known 
 by the name of arcosolium [Arcosolium.] Both 
 
 Arcosuliuin. 
 
 forms of tomb are met with in the galleries 
 among the loculi, but their more usual position 
 is in the sepulchral chambers, or cubicula, which 
 opened out of the galleries. The tabfe tomb some¬ 
 times stands in front of the wall, projecting 
 fi'om it, like the altar tombs of our own churches. 
 Examples of this arrangement appear in the 
 tombs of the presbyters Eusebius and Gregorius 
 in the papal crypt in the cemetery of St. Callis- 
 tus (De Rossi, vol. ii. p. 108, tav. I. A.). More 
 frequently it is let into the wall, and stands in a 
 recess, as we see in the tomb assigned by De 
 Rossi to St. Zephyrinus, which formed the original 
 altar in the same crypt (/6. pp. 20, 21, 51), 
 and that of St. Cornelius in the same catacomb 
 (76. vol. i. p. 284, tab. v.). The arched form or 
 arcosolium proper is not found in the more ancient 
 cemeteries, or in the earliest constructed ctsbicula. 
 This is an indication of date of great importance 
 in determining the relative antiquity of the 
 catacombs. De Rossi remarks (vol. ii.^p. 245) 
 that “ the arcosolium is the dominant form in 
 
310 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 erei’y part of the second and third area of the 
 cemetery of St. Callistus, and appears frequently 
 in some of the crypts added to the oi’igiual rect¬ 
 angular ai-ea to unite it to the second area, but 
 is entirely wanting (with one exception which 
 serves only to prove the rule) in all the cvhicula 
 of the primitive area, even in the most noble 
 and illustrious of its sepulchres ” (Cf. De Rossi, 
 vol. i. pp. 284, 285 ; vol. ii. p. 21). 
 
 In addition to the ordinary places of interment 
 in the ambulacra, the catacombs contain an im¬ 
 mense number of sepulchral chambers or cubi- 
 cvla, each enshrining a larger or smaller number 
 of dead, as well in tahlr. tombs and arcosolia as 
 in loculi pierced in the walls. These were origi- 
 
 In the Catacomb of St. Agnes, with seats hewn ont of the rock. 
 
 nally family burial places, excavated and embel¬ 
 lished at the expense of the friends of the 
 departed, and from the date of their first con¬ 
 struction served for the celebration of the eucha- 
 ristic feast and agape, on the occasion of the 
 funeral, and its successive annivei'saries. In 
 times of pei'secution they may have supplied 
 places of religious assembly where the faith¬ 
 ful might gather in security for the celebra¬ 
 tion of the holy mysteries at the graves of the 
 departed martyrs and others whose faith they 
 might be soon called to follow and seal their 
 testimony with their blood. The name cubicu- 
 lum is of exclusively Christian use as applied to 
 places of interment. We find it repeatedly used 
 in that sense in the Liber Pontificalis of Anasta- 
 sius. In the life of Sixtus III. a.d. 432-440, it is 
 distinctly used for a family vault “ Cujus ” (Bassi) 
 “ corpus sepelivit ad Beatum Petrum apostolum 
 in cubiculo pai’entum ejus ” (Anast. xlvi. § 63). 
 Padre Marchi, p. 101, gives several inscriptions 
 from the catacombs themselves, in which the 
 term occurs in this reference : e.g. CvbicvLVM 
 Domitiani ; Cubiculus Fal. Gaudenti Ar- 
 GENTARi, from the catacomb of St. Callistus. 
 An inscription of the year 336 given by De Rossi, 
 Ko. 45, indicates the family vault of Aurelia 
 Martina Cubiculum Aureliae Martinae. 
 *• These inscriptions indicate,” writes Marchi, p. 
 101, “ that in the fourth century the persons 
 named caused that their own cubicula should be 
 excavated at their own expense. Each cubiculum 
 was of sufficient dimensions to serve for several 
 generations of their respective families. If it 
 proved insufficient loculi were added at a greater 
 or less distance from the cubiculum.” Sometimes 
 
 we find the arch of an arcoso^vim of the first 
 century cut through and used as a door or en¬ 
 trance to a second cubiculum excavated in its rear, 
 the original sarcophagus being removed and 
 carried to the back of the chapel that other 
 bodies might be placed near it {Bulletin, di Arch. 
 Christ. 1867). The number of these sepulchral 
 chambers is almost beyond computa .ion. Marchi 
 reckons more than sixty in the eighth part of the 
 catacomb of St. Agnes. In that of St. Callistus 
 they amount to some hundreds. They are 
 equally frequent in the other cemeteries. Their 
 form is very varied. In the catacomb of St. Cal¬ 
 listus, with very few exceptions, they are rect¬ 
 angular, and that appears to have been the 
 earlier shape. But the plates of Marchi, Boldetti, 
 &c., afford examples of many other forms, tri¬ 
 angular, pentagonal, hexagonal, octagonal, circu¬ 
 lar, and semi-circular. Among the examples 
 given by Boldetti, pp. 14, 15, and Marchi, tav. 
 xxiii., of which we give a plan and section, one 
 
 Plan of Cnbicnlnm from Catacomb of St Callistn!!. 
 
 Section of Cubiculum from Catacomb of St Calliatos. 
 
 from the cemetery of Callistus is circular, with a 
 domed vault, and is surrounded by six arched 
 niches. Another from that of St. Helena on the 
 Via Labicana is square, with an insulated tomb in 
 the centre, the roof being supported by four co¬ 
 lumns standing quite free of the walls, cut out ol 
 the native tufa. The roof is sometimes a barrel 
 vault, sometimes a coved ceiling, nearly flat: in 
 one instance, it expands into a lofty dome, lighted 
 by a luminare (Bosio, p. 489, Marchi, tav. xxxi.). 
 Both the roof, the vaults, and the recesses of the 
 arcosolia are generally coated with stucco, and 
 richly decorated with religious paintings. In 
 the later restorations the walls are often veneered 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 311 
 
 with plates of costly marble [Platonia]. In a 
 very large number of examples the Good Shepherd 
 occupies the centre of the ceiling, the surrounding 
 lunettes containing Adam and Eve after the Fall, 
 the history of Jonah, the Sacrifice of Abraham, 
 Moses striking the Rock, the Three Children in 
 the Furnace, the Visit of the wise men to Christ, 
 the Raising of Lazarus, the Healing of the 
 Blind man, the Paralytic caiTying his Bed, the 
 Miracle of the Loaves, and other scenes from the 
 limited cycle of Scriptural subjects to which early 
 Christian art confined itself, treated with a 
 wearisome uniformity ; embellished with palm 
 branches, vines laden with gi*apes, the dove, the 
 peacock, and other familiar Christian symbols. 
 The walls of the chamber were also similarly 
 decorated [Frescos]. The vault is in some cases 
 supported by columns, either cut out of the tufa, 
 or formed of brick coated with stucco (Marchi, 
 tav. xix. xxii. xxx. xxxiii.). A very interesting 
 cubiculum from the Via Latina given by Marchi, 
 tav. xxii. p. 141, sq. from a plate of Bosio’s, p. 
 30J, has a domical vault and pillars covered with 
 stucco, ornamented with vine branches and amo- 
 rini in relief. The character of the decoration 
 claims for this a very early date. It is doubtful 
 whether any other of the kind has been dis¬ 
 covered in the catacombs. Light and air were 
 not unfrequently admitted by means of a shaft 
 communicating with the surface of the ground, 
 called luininare. A chamber so lighted was 
 known as a cubiculum clarurn (Cf. Anastas. Bibl. 
 17^. Marcellin. “ Sepelivit (corpora) ... in coe- 
 meterio Priscillae in cu'nculo claro"). For ex¬ 
 amples see Marchi, tav. viii. xxix. xxxii. xlviii. 
 Jerome’s well known description of the catacombs 
 in Ezechiel. c. xl. contains an allusion to these 
 luminaria. His words are “ raro desuper lumen 
 admissum horrorem temperat . . . . ut non tarn 
 fenestram quam foramen demissi luminis putes.” 
 And again, praefat. in Daniel. “Cum et quasi 
 per cryptam ambulans rarum desuper lumen 
 aspicerem.” Prudentius also in his Periste- 
 ph tnon, xi.-v. 161-8 uses similar language :— 
 
 OccuiTunt caesis immissa foramina tectis 
 Quae jaciunt claios antra super radios. 
 ****** 
 
 Attamen excisi subter cava viscera montis, 
 
 Crebra ten brato fornice lux penetiat, 
 
 Sic datur absentis per subU'rranea soils 
 Cernere fulgorem luminlbusque frui.” 
 
 The Acts of SS. Marcellinus and Peter record 
 that the martyr Candida was put to death by 
 hurling her down an airshaft, and overwhelming 
 her with stones, “per luminare cryptae jactantes 
 lapidibus obruerunt,” ap. Bolland. ii. Jun. n. 10. 
 From an epitaph given by Marchi, p. 165, the 
 luminaria appear to have been divided into 
 “ larger ” and “ smaller,” “ majora,” “ minora.” 
 It is as follows : “ cumparavi Saturninus ajlSusto 
 (Sixto) locum visomum auri solidljos duo in lu¬ 
 minare majore. Que po||sita est ibi que fuit cum 
 marito an xl.” Marchi gives an interesting ex¬ 
 ample of a luminare majus serving for two cubi- 
 cala from the cemetery of SS. Marcellinus and 
 Peter (pi. xxix. pp. 165 sq.). A cylindrical shaft 
 immediately above the ambulacrum expands into 
 a cone as it descends, so as to supply light and 
 air to chambers on opposite sides of the passage. 
 Painted on the W'all of the shaft is a dove with 
 an olive branch. In the cemetery of Callistus 
 the same luminare sometimes serves for three 
 
 chambers (Northcote, R. S. p. 128). Examples 
 of the smaller luminaria from the cemetery of 
 St. Helena may be found in Marchi, tav. vi. vii. 
 viii. If the strata through which the shaft was 
 driven were not sufficiently solid to stand with¬ 
 out support, it was lined with a wall, carried up 
 a little distance above the level of the ground, 
 to avoid accidents. Many of the existing lumi¬ 
 naria belong to the Damasine period, having been 
 opened to admit light and air to the tombs of 
 the more renowned martyrs when they became 
 the object of pious visits. We may instance that 
 of the crypt of St. Cecilia. If, as was most 
 usual, there was no luminare, the chambers were 
 illuminated by lamps, sometimes suspended by 
 chains from the vault, sometimes standing in 
 niches, or on small brackets of tile cr marble 
 often placed at the angle of a loculus. Bottari, 
 vol. i. p, 17, asserts that when the catacombs 
 were first opened some of these lamps were 
 found still in their place, and we are informed by 
 Marchi, p. 136, that the upper part of the 
 niches, and the walls or ceilings above the lamps 
 still retained the blackness caused by the smoko. 
 
 These cubicula were very frequently double, 
 one on either side of the gallery, and, as we have 
 just noticed, in some instances a luminare was 
 sunk in the centre so as to give light to both 
 (Boldetti, p. 16, 6.). An inscription of the highest 
 interest given by De Rossi, vol. i. p. 208, de¬ 
 scribes a double cubiculum of this kind con¬ 
 structed by the permission of Pope Marcellinus, 
 A.D. 296-308, by the Deacon Severus for himself 
 and his family, “ Cubiculum duplex cum arcisoliis 
 et luminare || jussu P. P. sui Marcellini Diaconus 
 iste II Severus fecit mansionem in pace quietam 
 II sibi suis que.” De Rossi descidbes a luminare of 
 very large size and unusual character in the 
 cemetery of St. Balbina discovered by him. It 
 is nearly hexagonal, and opens on the subterra¬ 
 nean excavations with no less than eight rays of 
 light illumining as many distinct chambers and 
 galleries (A. S. i. 265). 
 
 Each side of the,cubiculum usually contains a 
 table tomb or an arcosolium. That facing the en¬ 
 trance, behind which the rock is often excavated 
 so as to form an apse, was the chief tomb of the 
 chamber, and very frequently contained the re¬ 
 mains of a martyr, and according to primitive 
 usage, based on Rev. vi. 9-11, lurnished an altar 
 for the celebration of the Eucharist. The altar 
 was sometimes detached from the wall. But 
 this was not a primitive arrangement. In the 
 papal crypt in the cemetery of Callistus we have 
 traces of two altars. The original altar remains 
 hewn out in the rock, the front of brickwork, 
 and the stone slab covering it forming the holy 
 table. In front of this, a raised marble step 
 or podium, with four shallow holes or sockets 
 is an evidence of a second later altar standing 
 on four pillars. We have noticed above an 
 example of an insulated altar from the cemeterv 
 of St. Helena. As more space was required for 
 the interment of the bodies of members of the 
 same family the walls above and around the 
 original tombs were pierced with loculi, some¬ 
 times amounting to nearly a hundred. The 
 desire of reposing in the same locality with 
 the blessed dead, and in close proximity to a 
 saint or martyr, which was awakened at so early 
 a period and exercised so much power (cf. August. 
 de Curd pro Mortuis gerendd ; Retract, lib. v. 
 
312 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 c. 64. Maximus Taurinensis. Horn. Ixxxi. Ambros. 
 ad pop. de SS. Gervas. et Frotas. Paulinus Nol. 
 in Pa'oegyr. Celsi) led to the excavation of loculi 
 in the walls behind the earlier tombs, with com¬ 
 plete disregard of the paintings decorating them, 
 which were thus mutilated or destroyed. A 
 very badly spelt and ungrammatical inscription 
 given by Marchi, p. 102, fi’om Boldetti, who 
 copied it from the cemetery of St. Cyriaca, tells 
 us of two ladies Valeria and Sabina, who in 
 their lifetime had purchased from fossores named 
 Apro and Viator a double grave (bisomum) in 
 the rear of that in which the bodies of recognised 
 saints had been buried, “ retro sanctos.” It is 
 as follows: In Crypta. Noba retro sanctus 
 
 EMERUM (-RUNT) SE VIVAS BaLER | RA ET 
 
 Sabina Merum locu \ Bisoni ab aprone et 
 A I Biatore. The inscription set up by Damas- 
 us in the cemetery of Cailistus in honour of the 
 companions in martyrdom of Pope Xystus bears 
 witness to his participation in this feeling, and 
 his relinquishment of the fulfilment of his 
 wishes lest he should disturb the ashes of the 
 faithful. 
 
 “ Hie fateor Damasus volui niea conSere membra, 
 
 Sed cineres timui sanctos vexare piorum.” 
 
 An inscription given by Gruter, Insc. Antiq. 
 Christ, p. 1167, No. 4, testifies the same senti¬ 
 ment. 
 
 “ Sanctorum exuviis penitus confine sepulchrum, 
 Promeruit sacro digna Marina solo.” 
 
 St. Ambrose also states that he had resigned the 
 place beneath the altar in which he had intended 
 his own body should lie, “dignum est enim ut 
 ibi requiescat sacerdos ubi ofierre coesuevit ” to 
 the relics of the recently discovered martyrs 
 Gorvasius and Protasius, and contrasts the posi¬ 
 tion of Christ present on the altar with the saints 
 beneath it, “ ille super altari qui pro omnibus 
 mortuus est, isti sub altari qui illius redempti 
 sunt passione.” (Ambros. Ep. xxii. 15.) See also 
 Jerome, adv. Vigilant, p. 359. [Altar.] For 
 e.xamples of this ruthless destruction of earlier 
 decorations (Cf. De Rossi, vol. ii. tav. 27, 28, 29; 
 Northcote, R. 8. Plate xvi.) When the cubicu- 
 lum was absolutely too full to receive any more 
 bodies loculi were dug in its vicinity, their con¬ 
 nection with the family vault being indicated 
 by an inscription to that effect, e. g. Marchi, 
 p. 101, LOCA adpertinentes ad cubiculum 
 germulani. 
 
 The altar was sometimes protected from any 
 careless approach by lattice work of marble, 
 transenna, the prototype of the cancelli of later 
 Christian churches. Fragments of an enclosure 
 of this kind were found by De Rossi in the 
 papal crypt, and supply the authority for the 
 restoration (i2. S. vol. ii. pp. 20-27, tav. i. I. A.). 
 Other examples are given by Boldetti from the 
 cemeteries of Praetextatus and Helena, and 
 Priscilla (pp. 34, 35, Marchi, p. 128). A very 
 beautiful example of the transenna is seen in the 
 cemetery church of St. Alexander, A.D. 498. 
 
 We know that it was the universal custom 
 of the early church to celebrate the Eucharist 
 at the time of a funeral, provided it took place 
 in the morning (for authorities see Bingham bk. 
 xxiii. ch. iii. § 12). By degrees a corrupt custom 
 crept in, based on a superstitious view of the 
 magical power of the consecrated elements, of 
 administering the Holy Communion to the de¬ 
 
 parted (Bingham Grig. bk. xv. c. iv. § 20). Thft 
 j)rohibition of this profane custom in the canons 
 of some early councils (e,g. Auxerre, A.D. 578, 
 can. 12; Carthage iii. A.D. 397, can. 6; Trullo, 
 A.D. 691, can. 83) is evidence for its existence. 
 The consecrated bread was laid as a charm on 
 the breast of the corpse. The wine enclosed in 
 small glass or earthenware bottles was placed in 
 the grave, or imbedded in the mortar at the 
 mouth of the loculus, and the red colour left by 
 the exsiccated wine mistaken for blood in the 
 early stages of catacomb investigation has created 
 thousands of false martyrs. Another analogous 
 custom was that of pouring libations of wine on 
 the graves after the old heathen fashion, and 
 supplying the dead with food for their last 
 journey, viaticum. The 22nd canon of the Se¬ 
 cond Council of Tours A.D. 567 mentions those 
 “ qui in festivitate cathedrae domini Petri Apo- 
 stoli cibos mortuis offeruut.” Paulinus of Nola 
 Poem, xxvii. vv. 566-7 thus alludes to the liba¬ 
 tions— 
 
 “ Simplicitas pietate cadit, male credula sanctos 
 Perfusis balante mero gaudere sepulchris.” 
 
 Another purpose of the cvbicula was for the 
 celebi’ation of the Funeral ^east on the anniver¬ 
 sary of the day of death. This was a custom 
 inherited from the heathen sepulchral rites, 
 which too often degenerated into heathen license. 
 St. Augustine deplores that “ many drink most 
 luxuriously over the dead, and when they make 
 a feast for the departed, bury themselves over 
 the buried, and place their gluttony and drunk¬ 
 enness to the score of religion ” (^De Mor. Eccl. 
 Cath. c. xxxiv.), and condemns those who “ make 
 themselves drunk in the memorials of the mar¬ 
 tyrs ” (Cont. Faust, lib. xx. c. 21). (Cf. Ambros. 
 de Elia. c. xvii.; August. Confess, vi. c. 2.) In 
 primitive times it may be charitably believed 
 that such abuses were the exceptions, and that 
 the anniversary was observed in a seemly manner, 
 and with a cheerfulness tempered by religion. 
 (On this custom see Neander, Ch. Hist. i. 454, 
 Clark’s edition; Bingham, Origines, bk. xx. ch. 
 viii. §§ 1-10; bk. xxiii. ch. iii.; §§ 3-17; 
 Bosio, lib. iv. c. 34.) The pictures on the walls 
 of the cubicula in some of the catacombs furnish 
 representations of these funeral feasts, of which 
 they were the scene. The most curious is from 
 an arcosolium in the catacomb of SS. Marcellinus 
 and Peter (Bosio, p. 391). Three guests—a 
 woman between two men—are seated at a cres¬ 
 cent-shaped, or sigma table, at the two ends of 
 which, in stately curule chairs, two matrons are 
 seated. No dishes appear on the table: they 
 are placed on a small three-legged stand in the 
 centre, at which a lad is stationed preparing to 
 execute the orders of the guests, which are 
 written above their heads—“ Irene da Calda,” 
 “ Agape misce mi ” (cf. Juven. Sat. v. 63 ; Mar¬ 
 tial, lib. i. Ep. 11 ; lib. viii., Ep. 63; lib. xiv., 
 Ep. 95). Another painting from the same ceme¬ 
 tery represents six persons, three of each sex, 
 seated at an empty table. One is drinking from 
 a rhytion; another stretches out his hand to 
 receive a cup from a person of whom no more 
 than the arm is left (Bosio, p. 355). 
 
 The cubicula generally speaking are of small 
 dimensions, and are incapable of containing more 
 than a very limited number of worshippers. 
 But thex'e are also found halls and chambers of 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 313 
 
 much larger proportions, which have been con¬ 
 sidered by the chief Roman Catholic authorities 
 on the subject to have been constructed for the 
 purpose of religious assemblies. These are dis¬ 
 tinguished by Padre Marchi, by an arbitrary 
 nomenclatui e which has failed to find acceptance, 
 inio crifiiae, for the smaller, and eccle.siac, for the 
 larger excavations. Of the latter the most 
 typical examj)le is that discovered in the cata¬ 
 comb of St. Agnes in 1842, and described and 
 figured by Marchi (pp. 182-191; Tav. xxxv.- 
 xxxvii.) from whom we borrow the annexed plan 
 and section. This comprises five quadrangular com- 
 
 Plan of supposed Church, from flie Catacomb of St. Agnes, Vom 
 Uarchi. 
 
 partments, three on one side of the ambulacrum 
 and two on the other, connected by a tolerably 
 wide passage cutting the gallery at right angles. 
 The two comp;irtments to the right of the 
 gallery are supposed to have been reserved for 
 
 ' but the whole rests on too conjectural a basis to 
 be accepted as anything more than a possible 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Some of the so-called crypts are destitute of 
 orrcosolia, or have the arcosolia placed at too 
 great an elevation to serve as holy tables for the 
 celebration of the sacred mysteries. Tliese are 
 assumed by Marchi to have been devoted to the 
 instruction of catechumens. They usually con¬ 
 sist of two chambers, one for each sex, and are 
 provided with chairs for the (presumed) cate¬ 
 chists, and benches cut in the tufa rock for the 
 catechumens (cf. Marchi, pp. 130-133; tav. 
 xvii.). But such an identification is exceedingly 
 1 doubtful. 
 
 i When the catacombs became places of refuge 
 in times of persecution (as it is indisputable 
 they did, though not to the extent popularly 
 credited), it was essential that there should be 
 the means of obtaining a supply of water w ithout 
 leaving the limits of the cemetery. This want 
 was supplied by wells and springs, whether dug 
 i for this purpose or not, many of which remain 
 ! to the present time, still holding water. We 
 may mention one in the Area prima of the Cata¬ 
 comb of St. Callistus (Fj in De Rossi's plan), 
 which may still be used for its original purpose. 
 The shaft of this well is furnished with foot 
 holes, to enable a man to descend for the purpose 
 of cleaning it out, as is the case, according to De 
 Rossi, in all the ancient wells connected with tl a 
 catacombs (M. S. de Rossi, Analis. Geol. ed Arch 
 
 SecUon of Bnpposed Church, from the Catacomb of St. Agues, from MarchL 
 
 women, and two of the three to the left of the i 
 gallery for men. The third compartment, di¬ 
 vided from the others by an arch supported on 
 stuccoed columns, formed the chancel or sanc¬ 
 tuary. In the centre of the end wall stands the 
 cathedra, or bishop’s seat, flanked on each side 
 by a stone bench running along the side walls, 
 which formed seats for the clergy. Hollowed 
 out so as to furnish loculi for children, an arco- 
 solium fills the space behind the episcopal chaii', 
 and occupies both sides of each of the compart¬ 
 ment. The walls above the arcosolia are pierced 
 with tiers of loculi. There is no trace of an 
 altar. The cathedra entirely prevents the arco- 
 solium fronting the entrance being so used. 
 Marchi therefore concludes that the altar must 
 have been portable. The whole is entirely des¬ 
 titute of painting, or decorations of any kind, 
 beyond a rich marble paneling, a small portion 
 of which remains. The result of the learned 
 father’s researches was to satisfy him that the 
 two sexes reached the church by distinct stair¬ 
 cases (p. 42) and by .separate corridors, and that 
 the church itself mu.st have been constructed 
 before the commencement of the thix'd century: , 
 
 I vol. ii. p. 97). Wells ai’e also mentioned by 
 Boldetti (p. 40) as existing in the cemeteries ol 
 Praetextatus and St. Helena, and natui-al springs 
 in those of St. Pontianus, Ostrianus or Fons Petri 
 and the Vatican. 
 
 In close connection with the wells of the 
 catacombs stand the so-called The 
 
 most I'emarkable of these is that in the Cata¬ 
 comb of St. Pontianus, the purpose of which is 
 put beyond doubt by its pictoi-ial decoration 
 (Aringhi, i. 381; Bottari, tav. xliv.; Boldetti, 
 p. 40 ; Marchi, pp. 32, 220-224; tav. ii. xlii.). ' 
 A descent of ten steps leads to a cistern filled by 
 a natural sti'eam flowing through a channel in 
 the rock. The wall above the cistern retains a 
 fresco of the Baptism of our Lord, and on that 
 at the back of it is a magnificent jewelled cross, 
 the stem immersed in the water, blossoming into 
 flowers and leaves, and fi’om its arms, which 
 suppoi’t lighted candles, the charactei’s A. fl. 
 suspended by chains. Another of these so-called 
 baptisteries is found in the lowest piano of gal¬ 
 leries in the Catacomb of St. Agnes. It is a well- 
 pi-eserved chambei*, with rude columns cut in 
 , the tufa rock in the corners. A spring of water 
 
314 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 runs through it. The paintings have entirely 
 perished from damp. 
 
 In connection with some cemeteries we find 
 provision for washing the corpse. This is seen 
 in the very remarkable early Cemetery of Domi- 
 tilla at Tor Marancia. The entrance is above 
 ground on the side of a hill cut down for the 
 purpose. On each side of the doorway is a 
 vestibule, or covered portions. To the left is a 
 chamber where may be traced a well and cistern, 
 with the place for the pulley of the but:ket. 
 This chamber was probably devoted to the cus¬ 
 tomary washing of the dead body before inter¬ 
 ment. (See Bosio, R. S. cap. 17.) A similar 
 chamber is found at the entrance of the Jewish 
 Catacomb on the Via Appia. It has a mosaic 
 pavement, and drains to carry the water away. 
 
 jCntrance to the Catacomb of St. Doiuitilla, from De Bosei. 
 
 a) Enti ance to the Catacomb. (?<) Porter’s lodge with a well and 
 chamber for washing the bodies, (c) “ Schola," or place of meeting. 
 
 Some of these wells probably had no other 
 object than that of draining the catacombs. 
 This was the case with that dug by Damasus in 
 the Vatican Cemetery. The galleries of this 
 catacomb being rendei’ed unfit for the purpose 
 of sepulture by the infiltration of water, Da¬ 
 masus cut away the rock till he found the spring, 
 and diverted its waters to supply a baptistery. 
 It is this spring which now supplies the fountain 
 in front of the Pontifical Palace. 
 
 Damasus recorded his good work in the fol¬ 
 lowing inscription:— 
 
 “ Cingebant latices montem teneroque meatu 
 Cor, ora iriultorum cineres atqne < ssa riaiabant. 
 
 Non tulit boc Jlamasus commiinl lege s pultos 
 Post .-equiem trisles itfnun persolvi re porn »s. 
 Protinns aggressus magnum snperare laborem 
 Aggeris imnienti dejf cit culmina mentis, 
 
 Intlma sollicite scrutatus viscera terrae, 
 
 Siccavit lotum quMquld madefecerat humor, 
 
 Invenit foutem pratbet qui dona saluiis. 
 
 Haec curavit Mercurius Levita fidelis." 
 
 The singular variety of objects discovered 
 within the loculi of the catacombs is an evidence 
 of the permanence of the old heathen idea, which 
 regarded the life after death as a continuation of 
 the present life with its occupations and amu.se- 
 ments, as well as of the strength of the universal 
 human instinct, which leads the bereaved to 
 deposit in the grave of their loved ones the tools 
 and ornaments and playthings which had lost 
 their use by the death of their possessor. Bol- 
 detti, lib. ii. cc. 14, 15, furnishes us wdth very 
 interesting details of the results of his investiga¬ 
 tions in this department, together with engraved 
 representations of some of the more curious and 
 typical objects discovered by him, some of which 
 are still to be seen in the Christian Mu.seum 
 
 of the Vatican. Among the objects extracted 
 from children’s graves are jointed dolls of ivory or 
 bone, similar to those which we learn from Cancel- 
 lie ri cZe/9ecr. Basil. Vatican, tom. ii. pp. 99.5-1000, 
 were found in the bier of Maria, the daughter 
 of Stilicho and wdfe of Honorius, belonging to 
 the close of the 4th century—little earthenware 
 mmei^-jars, — masks, and a very great abundance 
 of small bronze bells, such as we know to have been 
 in use in classical times for the amusement of 
 children, frequently met with in heathen tomb.s, 
 and mice in metal or terra-cotta. Female tombs 
 have furnished numerous examples of toilet equip- 
 a ;e and personal ornaments ; mirrors, comJjs in 
 ivory or boxwood, bodkins, pins of ivory or bone, 
 vinaigrette-!, taeezers, toothpicks, and earpicks; 
 bracelets and armlets, earrings and necklaces; 
 buckles and brooches, rings and seals; studs and 
 buttons, bullae, and other similar objects, setting 
 before us vividly the Roman Christian ladies of 
 the first ages. In not a few instances, according 
 to the same authority (Boldetti, Osserv. p. 297), 
 the false hair worn in life was buried with the 
 corpse. Among other objects of interest dis¬ 
 covered in the loculi we may mention dice, ivory 
 knife-handles, nailheads, a lock and key, one half of 
 an ivory egg with portraits of a husband and wife 
 and the Christian monogi’am engraved on the 
 flat section; tortoiseshell, vreights of stone, and 
 small glass fish engraved with numbers, the 
 purpose of w’hich has not been determined. 
 
 The number of lamps discovered in and about 
 the tombs is countless. The majority are of 
 terra-cotta, but some have been found of bronze, 
 and some even of silver and amber. One in this 
 last material was found in the catacomb o^ 
 St. Priscilla (Boldetti, Osserv. p. 298, tav. i. 
 no. 7). By far the greater part of these lamps 
 have only the monogram of Christ impre.ssed on 
 them. But there are a very large number 
 which present other familiar symbols, such as 
 the palm-branch, the dove, the fish, the ship, 
 and A and Cl. The Good Shepherd is of frequent 
 occurrence. The lamps found in the Jewish 
 catacombs almost universally bear the seven- 
 branched candlestick. 
 
 The so-called instmments of torture which the 
 eager imagination of pious enthusiasts, resolved 
 to convert every buried Christian into a martyr, 
 has discovered enshrined in the loculi, or in¬ 
 cised on their closing slabs, in the opinion of the 
 best informed and most calm judging writers, 
 are nothing more than implements of handicraft. 
 One singular pronged weapon, spedmens of 
 which are preserved in the Vatican and the 
 Collegio Romano, has been identified with a 
 heathen sacrificial instrument, and its presence 
 in a Christian catacomb has yet to be explained. 
 
 Topography of the Roman Catacombs. 
 
 The following catalogue of the ancient Christian 
 cemeteries of Rome, the names of which stand 
 recorded in ancient historical documents, ar¬ 
 ranged according to the chief lines of road 
 leading from the city, is derived from De Rossi’s 
 great work. The first column gives the name of 
 the road. The second that which De Rossi’s 
 investigations have led him to believe to have 
 been the primitive names of the larger cemeteries 
 in the first age of the Church. In the third 
 column appear the de.signations by which they 
 were known in the fourth century, after the 
 
CATACOMBS 
 
 315 
 
 establishment of the peace of the Church. The 
 fourth column gives the titles of certain lesser 
 cemeteries or isolated tombs of martyrs, which 
 are often confused with the larger cemeteries to 
 
 which they were adjacent, and with which they 
 were sometimes locally connected. The later 
 cemeteries formed, subsequent to the peace of the 
 Church, occupy the last column. 
 
 Roads. 
 
 Appia . . 
 
 Ardeatina . . 
 
 Ostiensis . . . 
 
 Cornelia 
 
 Flaniinia. . . 
 Clivus Cucutneris 
 
 Saluria Vetus 
 
 Siilarla Nova 
 
 Nomentana . . 
 
 Tiburtina . . 
 Labicuna . . . 
 
 Latina . . . 
 
 dreater Cemeteries. 
 
 Primitive Names. 
 
 Portuensis . . . 
 Aurelia . . . 
 
 { Luoinae . 
 Zepbyrini 
 {'allisti . 
 Hippolyti 
 
 2. Praetextati . . . 
 
 3. Ad Catacumbas . 
 
 4. Domitillae . . 
 
 5. Basilei .... 
 
 6. Commodillae 
 
 7. Pontiani ad Ursum 
 Hleatum .... 
 
 8 . 
 
 9. Lucinae . 
 0. Calepodii . 
 
 • • 
 
 11 . 
 
 2. Ad Septem Columbas 
 13. Basillae . . . 
 
 14. . . . 
 
 5. Maximi 
 
 16. Thrasonis 
 
 17. Jordanorum 
 
 18. Priscillae 
 
 19. 
 
 ianum 
 
 triani 
 
 vel Os- 
 
 20 . ... 
 
 21. Cyriacae 
 
 22. Ad Duas Lauros 
 
 23. 
 
 24. 
 
 Names in the 4th 
 Century. 
 Time of I'eace. 
 
 • S. Xysti. 
 
 >S. Caeciliae 
 SS. Xysti et Comelii 
 
 S. Januarii. 
 
 SS. Urban!, Felicissimi, 
 Agapiil, Januarii, 
 Quirini. 
 
 SS. Tiburtii, Valeriani, 
 et Maximi. 
 
 S. Sebast ani . . . 
 
 S. I^etronillae . . ) 
 SS Petronillae, Ne- > 
 rei, et Achiliei . ) 
 SS. Marci et Marcel- 
 liani. 
 
 SS. Fellcis et Audacti 
 
 II 
 
 SS. A bdon K Sennen 1 
 Anastasii, pp. > 
 Innocentii, pp. * 
 S. Pancratii . . . 
 
 'SS. Processi et Mart- 
 iani. 
 
 S Agaihae ad Giru- 
 lum. 
 
 S. Callisti via Aurelia 
 Julii via Aurelia. 
 
 S. Valf'ntini. 
 
 Ad caput S. Joannis. 
 S. Hermetis. 
 
 SS. Hermetis, Basillae, 
 Proti, et Hyacinthi 
 S. Pamphyli. 
 
 S. Felicitatio . . . 
 
 S. Satuminl. 
 
 S. Alexandri. 
 
 SS. Alexandri, Vlta- 
 lis tt Martialis et 
 Vll. Virginum. 
 
 ( S. Silvestri. 
 fS. Marcelll. 
 t Coemeterium majus. 
 
 < Ad NymphasS. Petri. 
 (Foutis S. Petri. 
 
 { 
 
 S. Hippolyti. 
 
 S. Laurentii. 
 
 S Gorgonli. , . . 
 SS Pet) i et VTarcellini. 
 S. Tiburtii. 
 
 S. Castuli. 
 
 S. Gordi mi. 
 
 SS. Gordiani et Epi- 
 machi. 
 
 SS. Simplicil et Scr- 
 viliani, guarti et 
 V Ou'nii, et Sophiae. 
 
 23.j .S. rertulliiii. 
 
 26 Aproniani . . . [ S. Eugeniao. 
 
 Lesser Cemeteries, 
 or isolated 
 Tonibs of Martyrs. 
 
 27. Soterldis. 
 
 28. Sepulcrum Pauli 
 Api'stoli in praedio 
 Lucinae. 
 
 29. Coemeterium Ti- 
 mothei in horto 
 Theoiiis. 
 
 30. Kcclesia S. Theclae. 
 
 31. EcclesiaS.Zenonis. 
 
 Cemeteries 
 constructed after 
 the Peace of the 
 Church. 
 
 38. Balbinae sive S. 
 Marci. 
 
 39. Damasi. 
 
 40. Julii via Portu- 
 ensi mill. iii. S. Fe¬ 
 licia via Portuensi. 
 
 41. S. Felicia via Au¬ 
 relia. 
 
 .32. Mf'moria Petri 
 Apostolietsepultu- 
 rae episcoporum in 
 Vatlcano. 
 
 33. Ecclesia S. Hi- 
 larlae in horto ejus- 
 dem. 
 
 34. Crypta SS. Chry- 
 santi et Dariae. 
 
 35. Coemeteilum No- 
 vellae. 
 
 36. Coemeterium S. 
 Agnetis in ejusdem 
 agello. 
 
 37. Coemeterium S. 
 Nlcomedis. 
 
 42. InComitatu sfve 
 SS. Quatuor. tforo- 
 natorum. 
 
316 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 CATACOMBS 
 
 Catacombs of Naples, &g. 
 
 To the north of the city of Na])les, four sub¬ 
 terranean Christian cemeteries are known to 
 exist, in a sj^ur of Capodimonte, no great dis¬ 
 tance from one another. They have been distin¬ 
 guished by the names of S. Vito, S. Serero, 
 S. Maria della Santifa, and S. Gennaro (Janua- 
 rius) dei poveri. There is also a fifth at some 
 distance under the monastic Church of S. Efremo. 
 That of S. Gennaro is the only one now acces¬ 
 sible. It has been fully described by Pelliccia 
 {de Christianae Eccles. Fold. Neapol. 1781, vol. iv. 
 Dissert. V.), and more recently in an elaboi-ate 
 treatise of great value, embracing the whole 
 subject of interment in the catacombs, by Chr. 
 Fr. Bellermann, Hamburg, 1839. 
 
 With many points of resemblance as regards 
 the formation of the graves, and the actual mode 
 of interment, the Neapolitan Catacombs differ 
 very widely in their general structure from 
 those of Rome. Instead of the low narrow 
 galleries of the Roman Catacombs, we have at 
 Naples wide lofty corridors, and extensive 
 cavern-like halls, and subterranean churches. 
 The chief cause of this diversity is the very 
 different chai-acter of the material in which they 
 are excavated. Instead of the friable tufa gra- 
 nolare of Rome, the stratum in which the 
 Neapolitan catacombs lie is a hard building 
 stone of great durability and strength, in which 
 wide vaults might be constructed without any 
 fear of instability. To quote the words of 
 Mabillon, Iter Ttalicum, “ altiores habent quam 
 Romana Coemiteria fornices ob duritiem et 
 firmitatem rupis secus quam Romae ubi arena 
 .sen tophus tanturn altitudinis non patitur.” It 
 IS probable that these catacombs were originally 
 stone quarries, and that the Christians availed 
 themselves of excavations already existing for 
 the interment of their dead. On this point 
 Marchi speaks without the slightest hesitation 
 {fMonum. Primitive, p. 13). 
 
 The Catacomb of St. Januarius derives its 
 name from having been selected as the resting- 
 place of the body of that saint, whose death at 
 Puteoli is placed a.d. 303, when transferred to 
 Naples by Bp. John, who died a.d. 432. 
 
 Mabillon speaks of three stories: “ triplex 
 ordo criptarum alius supra alium.” INvo only 
 are mentioned by Pelliccia and Bellermann as 
 now accessible. The galleries which form the 
 cemetery proper, are reached through a suite of 
 wide and lofty halls, with vaulted ceilings cut 
 out of the rock, and decorated with a succession 
 of paintings of different dates, in some instances 
 lying one over the other. The earliest frescos 
 are in a pure classical style, and evidently belong 
 to the first century of the Christian aera. There 
 is nothing distinctly Christian about these. In 
 many places these have been plastered over, and 
 on the new surface portraits of bishops, and 
 other religious paintings, in a for inferior style 
 and of a much later date, have been executed. 
 [Fresco.] 
 
 The interments are either in loculi, arcosolia, 
 or cubicula. The loculi are cut without order or 
 arrangement, the larger and smaller apertures 
 bring all mixed together, with no attempt at 
 economising space. The arcosolia have barrel 
 vaults. Some of them are painted; one con¬ 
 tains ci fresco of the peacock, and on the wall 
 
 abox'e portraits of a mother and daughter whose 
 remains are interred below, with a rudely 
 written inscription, “ Vixit Rufina annos Iv. et 
 filia ejus .... xxxvii." Another also presents 
 the portraits of its occupants, all in juaiyer; 
 a bearded father, Michelinus; a girl, Hilarias 
 aged 14, and a child Nonnosa aged 2 years 10 
 months, with spotted frock, peaid head-dress and 
 earrings, necklace, and buckle to belt. In a 
 third is the bust of a young man in white tunic 
 and red pallium, with the inscription “Hie 
 rcquiescit Proculus.” A fourth contains full- 
 length figures of St. Paul and St. Lawrence. 
 The cubicula average 7 palms broad, by 10 jialms 
 in height and depth. The roof is horizontal or 
 slightly coved. Each contains from 3 to 8 
 loculi. The graves were hermetically sealed 
 with slabs of marble. But all have been opened 
 and ransacked. The interments in the lower 
 piano occur in two long parallel galleries, one 
 much wider than the other, communicating 
 with one another by 14 transverse passages. In 
 the upper story the graves are cut in the sides 
 of three large, broad, low vaulted halls exca¬ 
 vated out of the rock, and certainly with no 
 original view of sepulture. 
 
 At the entrance of the lower piano we find a 
 so-called martyrs’ church, with a slightly vaulted 
 roof. It was divided into a nave and sanctuary 
 by two^ pillars, the bases of which remain, with 
 cancelli between. In the sanctuary stands the 
 altar, built of rough stone, and a rude bishop’s 
 seat in an apse behind it. On the South wall are 
 the arcosolia of John I. a.d. 432, and Paul a.d. 
 764, who, according to Joannes Diaconus, desired 
 to be buried near St. Januarius. In other rooms 
 we find a well and a cistern, recesses for lamps, 
 and the remnants of a Christian mosaic painting. 
 In a niche in the upper piano, which was tradi¬ 
 tionally the place of the font, is the symbol 
 
 ^ . Here, according to Pelliccia, iv. 162, 
 Nl I KA ’ ° ’ ’ 
 
 a marble shell was discovered, since used as a 
 holy water-basin in the church of St. Gennaro. 
 The inscriptions in these catacombs go down to 
 the 9th or 10th century. 
 
 Among other Christian catacombs known to 
 exist in different parts of the shores of the Medi¬ 
 terranean, of which we are still in want of fuller 
 and more scientific descidptions, we may parti¬ 
 cularize those of Syracuse known as “ the grottos 
 of St. John,” and described by D’Agincourt as 
 “ of immense size,” and believed by him to have 
 passed from pagan to Christian use: the Saracen 
 catacomb near Taonnina, with ambulacra as 
 much as 12 feet wide; the loculi r\. right angles 
 to, not parallel with, the direction of the gal¬ 
 leries; each, as in the Roman catacombs, herme¬ 
 tically sealed with a slab of stone : those of Malta, 
 supposed by Denon {Voyage in Sidle, Par. 1788), 
 to have served a double purpose, both for the 
 burial of the dead, and as places of refuge for 
 the living ; and which, according to the same 
 authority, “ evidence a iiui’poso, leisure, and re¬ 
 sources far different from the Roman catacombs 
 and those of Egypt. Of these last D’Agiucourt 
 gives the ground-plans of several of pagan origin. 
 The most remarkable is one beyond the canal of 
 Canopus, in the quarter called by Strabo, xvii. 
 p. 795, “ the Necropolis.” The plan of this 
 hypogaeum is drawn with great regularity, very 
 unlike the iittricate maze of those of Rome. The 
 
317 
 
 CATALOGUS HIERATIC US 
 
 walls are pierced with three ranges of loculi, 
 running, as at Taormina, at right angles to their 
 length. Very recently a small Christian catacomb 
 has been discovered at Alexandria, described by 
 De Rossi Nov. 1864, Agost. 1865). It 
 
 is entered from the side of a hill, and is reached 
 by a staircase, which conducts to a vestibule with 
 a stone bench and an apse. This is succeeded by 
 a cuhiculutn, with an arcosolium on three sides, 
 opening into au ambulacrum containing 28 loculi, 
 all set endways to the passage. The whole is full 
 of paintings, of various dates, on successive 
 layers of stucco. One, of a liturgical character, 
 is assigned by De Rossi to the 4th century. But 
 this is probably much too eaidy. 
 
 Authorities. —Aringhi, Roma Suhterranea. Bol- 
 detti, Osscrvazioni sopra i cimiteri de* santi mar- 
 tiri ed antichi Christiani di Roma. Bosio, Roma 
 Sotteranea. Bottari, Sculture e pitture sagre 
 estratte dai cimiteri di Roma. Fabretti, Inscrip- 
 tionum antiquarum explicatio. Lupi, Dissertatio. 
 Mabillon, Iter Italicum. Marchi, I monumenti 
 delle arti cristiane primitive nella metropoli del 
 Cristianesimo. Northcote (J. S.) and Brownlow 
 (W. R.), Roma Sotterranea. Panvinius, De ritu 
 sepeliendi mortuos apud veteres Christianos et 
 eorum coerneteriis. Ferret (Louis), Les cata- 
 comhes de Rome. Raoul-Rochette, Tableau des 
 Catacombes. Rossi (J. B. de’), Inscriptiones 
 Christianae. Rossi (J. B. de’ and Mich. S. de’), 
 Roma Sotterranea. Seroux D’Agincourt, Histoire 
 de Cart par les monuments. [E. V.] 
 
 CATALOGUS HIERATICUS, the name 
 given in the Apostolic Canons (15 and 51, or 14 
 and 50) to the list of the clergy of a particular 
 church. The term is also said to be applied to 
 that part of the Diptychs which contained the 
 names of those, still living, who were named in 
 the Eucharistic serA'ice ; auz. of those who had 
 made offerings, emperors, patriarchs, &c., and 
 lastly of the bishop and clergy of the particular 
 church, as above, said. [A. W. H.] 
 
 CATECHUHIENS. The work of the Church 
 in admitting converts from heathenism or Juda- 
 ism presented, from the nature of the case, very 
 different features, according to the varying cir¬ 
 cumstances with Avhich she had to deal. Disci¬ 
 pline might be more or less highly organised, 
 converts of higher or lower grades of knowledge 
 or character. If Ave attempt to form a complete 
 picture from data gathered from different 
 churches and centuries, it must be Avith the 
 resei'A^e that all such pictures are more or less 
 idealised, and that practically there Avere ei'ery- 
 AA'here departures more or less important from 
 it. It Avill be conA'enient to arrange what has 
 to be said under the heads (I.)The Catechumens. 
 (II.) The Catechists or Teachers. (HI.) The 
 Place of Instruction. (IV.) The Substance of the 
 Teaching. 
 
 I. Instruction of some' kind, prior to the ad¬ 
 mission of converts by baptism, must haA'e been 
 giA'en from the first, and the Avord, which after- 
 Avards became technical, meets us in the N. T. 
 Apollos Avas “instructed’ ” i^KOT’qx'gp^vos') in the 
 Avay of the Lord (Acts xviii. 25). Theophilus 
 had been “ instructed ” in the main facts of the 
 Gospel history Avhich St. Luke inscribes to him 
 (Luke i. 4). The v-fj-moi of the apostolic epistles, 
 though not confined to the stage prior to baptism, 
 would naturally include those Avho were passing 
 
 CATECHUMENS 
 
 t.hrough it; and in the (ttoix^'Icl ttjs apxvs twv 
 Xoyiuu rov Qeov of Heb. v. 12, Ave have, probably, 
 a summary of the instruction which the Aviiter 
 looked on as adapted for such pevsons. In jirac- 
 tice, however, as in the instances of the Ethiopian 
 eunuch (Acts Auii. 36®), and the Philippian gaoler 
 (Acts xvi. 33), it must have been of the briefest 
 and simplest kind. The traces of the process 
 and method of instruction in the sub-apostolic 
 age, and the two centuries that folloAved, are 
 fragmentary and vague. It 's not till Ave get to 
 the 4th century, with its strivings after a more 
 elaborate organisation, that Ave meet Avith the 
 deA'eloped system Avhich has noAV to be described. 
 So far as Ave may think of it as having actually 
 prevailed, it deserves attention as presenting the 
 most complete plan of systematic mission-work 
 that the Church has ever knoAvn. 
 
 The conA^erts, it is obvious, might be of any 
 age—might haA^e been Jews, or heathens, or here¬ 
 tics—might be ignorant or educated, of good 
 or bad character. They might have been led to 
 offer themseh-es by the influence of personal 
 friends, or by the sermons preached in (Jhristian 
 a.ssemblies at the religious services to Avhich even 
 outsiders Avere admitted. They presented them¬ 
 selves to the bishop or priest, and Avere admitted 
 sometimes after inquii-y into charactef, sometimes 
 without any delay, by the sign of the cross 
 (August. Conff. i. 11, De peccat. merit, ii. 26) and 
 imposition of hands, to the status of catechumens 
 (1 Cone. Arelat. c. 6, Cone. EH'k c. 3). The 
 Councils, as might be expected, prescribe condi¬ 
 tions and alloAV immediate admission only in cases 
 of sickness and of at least decent conduct. St. 
 Martin, hoAveA^er, in his mission work in Gaul, 
 is reported to have admitted his hearers to be 
 catechumens as they rushed to him catervatim 
 on the spot (Sqlpicius, Vita, ii. 5, p. 294). 
 From that moment they Avere recognised as 
 Christians, though not as “fideles” (1 Cone. 
 Constant, c. 7; Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. Aui. de 
 Apostat. leg. ii.), and began to pass under in¬ 
 struction. The next epoch in their progress Avas 
 the time AA'hen they Avere sufficiently adA^anced 
 to giA^e in their names as candidates for baptism ; 
 and some Avriters (e. g. Suicer and Basnage) 
 have accordingly recognised only tAvo great divi¬ 
 sions, the Audikntes, and the Competentics. 
 Others, like Bona and Bingham, have made three 
 or four divisions, though differing in details; and 
 it will be Avell for the sake of completeness to 
 notice these, though it is belieA'ed that the classi¬ 
 fication Avas neA'er a generally received one. 
 
 (1.) Bingham’s first class are the i^uoQovjxivoi, 
 those, i. e., Avho Avere not alloAved to enter the 
 church, and receiA^ed whatever instruction Avas 
 giA''en them outside its Avails. The existence of 
 such a body is, hoAvever, very doubtful. It rests 
 only upon an inference draAvn from the fifth 
 canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea, ordering 
 that a catechumen (one of the Audientes) Avho 
 had been guilty of grievous offences should be 
 driA’^en out (e^udeiadcv), and there is no mention 
 of such a class either in the canon itself or else- 
 Avhere. What is described is the punishment of 
 an individual offender ; and even if the offenders 
 
 » The interpolation of the question and answer of 
 V. 37 in the MSS. nf later date shows an uncas3’ con¬ 
 sciousness of the difference between the ecclesiastical and 
 the apostolic practice. 
 
318 
 
 CATECHUMENS 
 
 CATECHUMENS 
 
 were numerous enough to attract notice, there 
 would be no ground for classing them as in a 
 distinct stage of instruction. 
 
 (2.) The next division, that of the Audientes, 
 or aKpowixevoi, rests on better evidence. The Greek 
 term is, indeed, not found as the designation of 
 a class till the 4th century, but the Audientes 
 or Auditores are mentioned both by Tertullian 
 (de Pocnitent. c. 6) and Cyprian {E/dst. 13 to 34). 
 Over and above the instruction they received 
 from their teachers, they were allowed to attend 
 in churches and to listen (hence their name) to 
 the scriptures and to sermons, sharing this privi¬ 
 lege with the unbelievers, but probably occuj)ying 
 a distinct place in the congregation.They 
 were not allowed, however, to be present when 
 the strictly liturgical worship of the church 
 began, and when the sermon was over, the deacon, 
 mounting on a rostrum of some kind, proclaimed 
 tliat it was time for them to go (Constt. Apost. 
 viii. 5). As applied to these, or to the whole 
 body of those who wei'e under catechetical train¬ 
 ing, the missa catechumenorum became the 
 dividing point between the more general worship 
 of the church and the K^iTovpyia, properly so 
 called. 
 
 The feeling which showed itself in this disci- 
 plina arcani kept them in like manner from 
 hearing the Creed oi the Lord’s Prayer till they 
 took their place among the fdcles (Chrysost. 
 J/o)n. xix. in Matt.'). Sozomen {H. E. i. 20) 
 even hesitated about inserting the Nicene Creed 
 in his history lest it should fall into the hands 
 of those who were still in the earlier stage of 
 their Christian training. The practice of repeat¬ 
 ing the Lord’s Prayer secretd, which still prevails 
 in the Western Church, probably originated in a 
 like 2 )recaution. Assuming the Audientes to 
 represent the first class of beginners in Christian 
 training, we may fairly identify them with the 
 “ rudes ” of Augustine’s treatise (De catechiz. 
 rudihus') and the areXeaTepoi of the Greek 
 Canonists (Balsamon ad Cone. Eeocaesar. c. 5). 
 The time of their probation probably varied 
 according to the rapidity of their progress, and 
 the two years specified by the Council of Eliberis 
 (c. 42), or the three fixed by the Apostolical 
 Constitutions (viii. 32), can hardly be looked on 
 as more than rough estimates of what was 
 thought advisable. Any lapse into idolatrous 
 practices or other open sins involved, in the 
 nature of things, a corresponding prolongation 
 of the time of trial. Where the offence was fla¬ 
 grant, the term, in which penance rather than 
 instruction was now the dominant element, might 
 be extended to the hour of death, or to som.e 
 great emergency (^Conc. Elib. c. 68). 
 
 (3.) Writers who maintain a threefold or four¬ 
 fold division of the body of catechumens see the 
 third class in i\\Q prostrati ovgenuflectentes {yovv- 
 K\lyouT€s). These were admitted, not only to 
 stand and listen, but to kneel and pray. As 
 being thus more prominent, they seem to have 
 been known as specially t/ie catechumens, as, e.g., 
 in the evxv Karrixov/aeuay of the C. of Laodicea, 
 c. 19. The name, it will be remembered, was 
 applied also to those who were in one of the 
 stages of the penitential discipline of the Church, 
 
 b The place assigned for the Audierdes was the Xarthev 
 or portico of the chuich. (Zonaras, ed. tone. X'icatn. 
 
 c. 11.) 
 
 the fdeles being degraded from their rightful 
 position and placed on a level with tho.'-e who 
 were not as yet entitled to the privileges of mem¬ 
 bership. [Penitents.] 
 
 (4.) After these stages had leen traversed, 
 each with its appropriate instruction, the cate¬ 
 chumens gave in their names as a})plicants for 
 baptism, and were known accordingly as Compe- 
 tentes (^trvvairovvTfs). This was done commonly 
 at the beginning of the Quadragesimal fast, and 
 the instruction, carried on through the whole of 
 that jieriod, was fuller and more public in its 
 nature (Cyril Hieros. Catech. i. 5; Hieron. Ep. 
 61, ad Parnmach. c. 4). To catechumens in this 
 stage the great articles of the Creed, the nature 
 of the Sacraments, the penitential discipline of 
 the Church, were explained, as in the Catechetical 
 Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, with dogmatic 
 fu-ecision. Special examinations and inquiries 
 into character w^ere made at intervals during the 
 forty days. It was a time for fasting and watch¬ 
 ing and prayer (ConsfA Apost. viii. 5; 4 C. Carth. 
 c. 85 ; Tertull. De Bapjt. c. 20; Cyril. 1. c.), and, 
 in the case of those who were married, of the 
 strictest continence (August, de fde et oper. v. 8). 
 d'hose who passed through the ordeal were known 
 as the perfectiores (r^X^Lwrepoi), the electi, or in 
 the nomenclature of the Eastern Church as ^arr- 
 ri(6/j.evoi or <pcoTt(6iJ.fuoi, the present participle 
 being used of course with a future or gerundial 
 sense. Their names were inscribed as such in 
 the album or register of the church. They were 
 taught, but not till a few days before their bap¬ 
 tism, the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer which 
 they were to use after it. The periods for this 
 registration varied, naturally enough, in different 
 churches. At Jerusalem it was done on the 
 second (Cyril. Catech. iii.), in Africa on the fourth 
 Sunday in Lent (August. Serm. 213), and this 
 was the time at which the candidate, if so dis¬ 
 posed, might lay aside his old heathen or Jewish 
 name and take one more specifically Christian 
 (Socrat. H. E. vii. 21). The ceremonies connected 
 with their actual admission will be found under 
 Baptism. It is only necessary to notice here 
 that the Sacrarnentum Catechumenorum of which 
 Augustine speaks (Z)e Peccat. Merit, ii. 26) as 
 given apjiarently at or about the time of their 
 first admission by imposition of hands, was pro¬ 
 bably the evXoyiai or panis benedictus, and not, 
 as Bingham and Augusti maintain, the salt 
 which was given with milk and honey after 
 baptism.® 
 
 ® It may be well to quote the passage referred to 
 “ Non unius est modi sanctlficatlo; nam et catechumenos 
 secundum quendam modum suiim per signum Cbristi et 
 orationem et manus impositionem puto sanctificari: et 
 quod accipiunt, quamvis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum 
 est tanien, et sanclius qnam cibi quibus alimur, quoniam 
 sacrarnentum est.” Bingham (x. 2, 16). following Bona, 
 infers from a canon of the 3rd Cone. Carth. c. 6, forbidding 
 any other sacrarnentum than the “solitum sal” to be 
 given to catechumens during the Easter festival, that this 
 must be that of wliicb Augustine speaks; and it is bej'ond 
 question that this was given during the period of probation, 
 as well as immediately after baptism. It would seem, how¬ 
 ever, from the canon itself, that some other sacrarnentum 
 was given at other times; and the words of Augustine, 
 “ quamvis non sit corpus Christi,” imply, it is believed, 
 something presenting a greater outward likeness to the 
 Eucharistic brejid than could be found in the salt. The 
 proviso would hardly have been needed, on Bingham’s 
 suppositiou. 
 
CATECHUMENS 
 
 CATHEDRA 
 
 319 
 
 It is clear that many cases would present 
 themselves in which the normal order of progress 
 would be interrupted. (1.) The catechumen 
 might lapse into idolatry or other grievous sin. 
 In that case he was thrown back, and had to go 
 through a penitential discipline, varying, accord¬ 
 ing to the nature of the offence, from a few 
 months to three or five years, or even to a life¬ 
 long exclusion ((7. EHh. c. 4, 10, 11, 68; C. Nicaen. 
 c. 14; C. JS'eo. Caesar, c. 5). In no case, how¬ 
 ever, was the sacrament, which was thought of 
 as indispensable to salvation, refused to the peui- 
 cent when the hour of death approached. Their 
 sins were looked on as committed in their unre¬ 
 generate state, and therefore less heinous than 
 they would have been in those who had been 
 admitted to full Christian fellowship. (2.) They 
 might, however, through their own neglect, die 
 without baptism. In that case, they were buried 
 v.'ithout honour, with no psalms or oblations 
 (1 C.Bracar. c. 35), and were not mentioned in the 
 prayers of the Church. The one comfort left to 
 their surviving friends was to give alms to the 
 poor in the hope that thus they might obtain 
 some alleviation for the souls that had passed 
 beyond the grave without the new birth that 
 admitted men to the Kingdom (Chrysost. Horn. 3 
 in Philipp.'). (3.) Where the loss of baptism was 
 not incurred by their own defiiult, the will was 
 accepted, at least in special cases, for the deed. 
 The death of the younger Valentinian led Am¬ 
 brose (de Obit. Valent, p. 12) to the wider hope. 
 What was true of catechumen-martyrs and the 
 baptism of blood, as supplying the lack of the 
 baptism of water—and this was received almost 
 as an axiom by all Christian writers from Ter- 
 tullian downwards (see Bingham, x. 2, 20)—was 
 true of one of whom it might be said “hunc sua 
 pietas abluit et voluntas.” Augustine, following 
 in the footsteps of his master, appealed to the 
 crucial instance of the penitent thief against the 
 rigorous dogmatism of those who thaught that 
 baptism was absolutely indispensable (de Bapt. 
 iv. 22). (4.) Another common case was naturally 
 that of those who were stricken down by some 
 sudden sickness before the term of their probation 
 had expired. In this case the Church did not 
 hesitate to anticipate the wdshed-for goal, dis¬ 
 pensed with all but the simplest elements of 
 instruction, and administered baptism on the 
 bed of death. [Baptism, p. 169.] 
 
 II. It is noticeable that, with all this syste¬ 
 matic discipline as to the persons taught, there 
 was no order of teachers. It was part of the 
 pastoral office to watch over the souls of those 
 who were seeking admission to the Church, as 
 well as of those who were in it, and thus bishops, 
 priests, deacons, or readers might all of them be 
 found, when occasion required, doing the work 
 of a catechist. The Doctor Audientium, of 
 whom Cyprian speaks, was a lector in the church 
 of Carthage. Augustine’s treatise, de Catechi- 
 zandis Pudibus, was addressed to Deogratias as a 
 deacon, the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem were 
 delivered by him partly as a deacon, partly as a 
 presbyter. The word Catechist implied, accord¬ 
 ingly, a function, not a class. Those who under¬ 
 took that function were known sometimes as 
 vavrSXoyoi (Constt. Apost. ii. 37), as having a 
 work like that of those to whom that title was 
 applied on board ship. It was their part to 
 BjH'ak to tho.se v/ho were entering the ark or ship 
 
 of Christ’s Church, to tell them of the perils ol 
 the voyage which they were about to undertake, 
 and take their })ledge for payment of the fare. 
 The word was part of the metaphor which saw in 
 the bishop the steersman, and in the j)resbyters 
 the sailors, in the Church itself the navis or ship. 
 
 III. The places in which catechetical instruc¬ 
 tion was thus carried on must have varied 
 widely at different times and in different places: 
 sometimes the room or building in which the 
 f deles met to worship, before or after service; 
 sometimes a room in the presbyter’s or deacon’s 
 house, probably at Alexandria, from the special 
 nature of the case, a lecture-room, like the 
 “ school” of Tyrannus in Acts xix. 9. It is not 
 till we come to the fully-developed organisation 
 of the Church that we read of special buildings for 
 the purpose, under the name of Karr]xoviJL€vua. 
 They are mentioned as such in the 97th canon of 
 the Trullan Council, and appear, from a Novella 
 of the Emperor Leo’s, to have been in the uTrepepov, 
 or upper chamber of the church; probably, i. e. 
 in a room over the portico. In some instances 
 the baptistery seems to have been used for this 
 purpose (Ambros. Ep. 33), while in others, again, 
 perhaps with a view to guarding against prema¬ 
 ture presence at the rite of baptism, they were 
 not allowed to enter the building in which it 
 was administei’ed (Cone. Arausic. c. 19). 
 
 IV. The ideal scheme of preparation involved 
 
 obviously a progress from lower to higher truths. 
 The details varied probably according to the dis¬ 
 cretion of the teacher and the necessities of the 
 taught; but two great representative examples 
 are found of the earlier stage in Augustine’s 
 treatise de Catechizandis rudihus, and in the 
 Catecheses of Cvril of Jerusalem. The range of 
 subjects in the former includes the sacred history 
 of the world from the Creation downwards, and 
 then proceeds to the ti’uths of the resurrection and 
 judgment according to works. The better edu¬ 
 cated may be led to the allegorical meaning of 
 Scripture, and the types of the law. Then came 
 the Gospel narratives, and the Law of Christ. 
 The teaching of Cyril, as intended for the com- 
 petentes, took a wider and higher cycle of subjects, 
 and are based (Catech. iv.) upon a regula fidei, 
 including the dogmas (1) of God, (2) of Christ, 
 (3) of the birth from the Virgin’s womb. (4) of 
 the cross, (5) of the burial, (6) of the i’esurrcc- 
 tion of Christ, (7) of the ascension, (8) of judg¬ 
 ment to come, (9) of the Holy Spirit, (10) of tlie 
 soul, (11) of the body, (12) of meats, (13) of 
 the general resurrection, (14) of the Holv Scrip¬ 
 tures. [E.'H. P.] 
 
 CATHEDRA (Kadedpa). —(1) First and pro¬ 
 perly, in ecclesiastical usage, the actual throne 
 or seat of the bishop in his episcopal church ; 
 the Kal dporos v\pr]Xos of Eusebius (//. E. 
 
 vii. 30), to which Paul of Samosata arrogantly 
 added a a-f^Kp^rov ,—distinguished by the same 
 Eusebius from the Sfvrepoi Qp6voi of the presby¬ 
 ters (ib. X. 5. 23);—who also speaks of the atroaTo- 
 XiKhs dpovos of St. James at Jerusalem, meaning 
 the actual seat itself still preserved there (ib. vii. 
 19, 32);—called cathedra velata by St. Augustin 
 (Epist. ad Maxim, cciv.), and linteata by Pacian; 
 and inveighed against by St. Greg. Naz. (Carm. xi.) 
 as vy^7)Xoi dp6voi; and so Prudentius speaks of 
 the bishop’s seat, “ Fronte sub adversa [i. us 
 the upper end of the apse] gradibus sublime 
 
:v20 
 
 CATHEDRA 
 
 CATHOLIC 
 
 tribunal Tollitur ” //. iv. 225). St. 
 
 Mark’s chair is said to have existed for a long 
 time at Alexandria (Vales, ad Euseb. //. E. vii. 9). 
 And one assigned to Pope Stephen is said to have 
 been found in the catacombs by Pope Innocent XII. 
 The wooden chair, with its heathen ivories, re¬ 
 presenting the - labours of Hercules, which is sc 
 carefully honoured in St. Peter’s at Rome as 
 St. Peter’s, is at once the most celebrated, and 
 the most unfortunately chosen, specimen of the 
 class. Episcopal chairs are frequently repre¬ 
 sented in ancient Christian mosaics or marbles, 
 sometimes adorned with two lions’ heads, some¬ 
 times with two dogs’ heads, sometimes with our 
 Lord Himself represented as sitting in them, 
 sometimes with the B. Virgin, sometimes with 
 the open Gospels laid upon them, sometimes 
 with the bishop himself (Ciampini, Vet. Mun. I. 
 tab. 2, 37, 47, II. tab. 41; and cf. St. Aug. Epist. 
 ad Eiosc. Ivi.); sometimes raised upon steps 
 (^gradatae, St. Aug. Epist. ad Maxim, cciii., and 
 see Aringhi, ii. 325); sometimes “ veiled ” (ve- 
 latae., St. Aug. as above, see Bosio, Rom. Setter. 
 
 р. 327). And certain chairs or seats, cut in the 
 tufa stone in the catacombs, are conjectured to 
 have been intended for the bishop at the time 
 when persecution compelled the Christians to 
 hold service there. A Council of Carthage, A.D. 
 535, forbids a bishop “ cathedram collocare in 
 monasterio,” i. e. to ordain there. 
 
 But hence (2) the word was transferred to 
 the see itself of the bishop, as in Victor Vitens. 
 De Fersec. Vandal, iv. So Cone. Milevit. ii. 
 cans. 21, 24; and “Cathedrae viduatae ” in 
 Collat. Cartliag. i. c. 185, 217; “Cathedrae ma¬ 
 trices,” in Cone. Milev. ii. c. 25; and Cod. Can. 
 Afric. 123; and “Cathedrae principales,” in Cod. 
 Can. Afric. 38. So also Greg. Tur. II. F. iii. 1, 
 and Sidon. Apollin. repeatedly. And earlier than 
 all these, Tertullian {De Praescript. xxxvi.) 
 speaks of “ Cathedrae Apostolorum,” as still 
 existing in the “ Ecclesiae Apostolicae;” mean¬ 
 ing, not the literal chairs, but the specially 
 Apostolic succession of the bishops of those sees. 
 
 (3) The word became used for the Episcopal 
 Church itself, “ principalis cathedra,” in Cone. 
 Aquisgr. A.D. 789, can. 40, meaning the cathedral 
 as opposed to the other churches in the diocese : 
 “ Ecclesia Cathedralis,” Cone. Tarracon. A.D. 516, 
 
 с. ult.: called also “ Ecclesia mater,” in the Cone. 
 Rom. sub Sglvestro, c. 17 ; and “ Ecclesia matrix,” 
 in Cone. Mogunt. i. c. 8; and “ matrix,” simply, 
 by Ferrand. Breviar. cc. 11, 17, 38. But “ca¬ 
 thedral,” used absolutely for the “ ecclesia catlie- 
 dralis,” dates from the 10th century, and belongs 
 to the Western Church only. [Cathedral.] 
 
 [Du Cange ; Bingham ; Martigny ; Walcott, 
 Sacr. Arch?\ [A. W. H.] 
 
 CATHEDRA PETRI. [Peter, Festivals 
 
 OF.] 
 
 CATHEDRAL, also in later times Do<m- 
 kirche, Duomo : the chief and episcopal church 
 of a dioceso; not so called however until the 
 10th century, when the epithet, derived from 
 the bishop’s cathedra or chair, became a sub¬ 
 stantive name; called previously the mother 
 church, or the ecclesia matrix., in distinction 
 from the parish churches, which were called 
 tituli or ecclesiae dioecesanae. [Cathedra.] 
 It was also sometimes called the “ Catholic ” 
 church. [Catholic.] The architectural features 
 
 of a cathedral are treated in the article Cjiurch, 
 The gradual formation and character of the 
 cathedral chapter will be found under Chapter. 
 A.nd for the immunities belonging to it simply 
 as a church, see Church, Sanctuary. As a 
 cathedral church, it was held to be—what at 
 first and in the earliest times it literally was— 
 the parish church of the diocese, to which the 
 others stood as it were in the relation of chapels. 
 In it the bishop was formally enthi'oned: so 
 catliedrare and incathed'rare., to enthrone. And 
 in it he was to be consecrated, according to 
 ordinary rule. [Bishop.] Ordinations also, and 
 diocesan synod.s, were commonly held there. And 
 manumissions of serfs, in Celtic and Saxon England, 
 took place at the altar of the cathedral in the 
 presence of the bishop. Schools and libraries 
 were attached in cour.se of time to cathedrals. 
 And Charlemagne, who ordered monastic schools, 
 and founded palatine schools, found episcopal 
 schools ready to his hand. [Schools ; Canonici, 
 p. 281.] [A. W. H.] 
 
 CATHEDRATICUM.—(1) A pension paid 
 annually to the bishop by the churches of his 
 dioce.se, “in signum subjectionis;” acc. to Cone. 
 Bracnr. ii. c. 2, “ pro honore cathedrae;” and 
 to Cone. Ravenn. A.D. 997, c. 2, “ pro respectu 
 Sedis;” both councils limiting the payments in 
 each case to two shillings severally. So also Cone. 
 Bracar. iii. A.D. 572, and Tolet. vii. c. 4.—(2) 
 (vOpovKTTiKhp, a fee paid by the bishop to the 
 bishops who had consecrated him, and to the 
 clerks and notaries who assisted (Julian. Ante¬ 
 cessor, Constit. 115, 431 ; Justinian, Novell. 
 cxxiii. c. 3; quoted by Du Cange). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CATHISMA {KaOicpa). A section of the 
 psalter. 
 
 (1) The psalter in the Greek Office is divided 
 into twenty sections, called Cathismata. Each 
 Cathisma is sub-divided into three Staseis, and 
 “ Gloria ” is said at the end of each stasis only. 
 These divisions and the order of reciting the 
 psalter will be explained in a later article. The 
 reason for the name assigned is that, while 
 the choir stand two and two by turns to recite 
 the psalms, the rest sit down. 
 
 (2) A short hymn which occurs at intervals 
 
 in the offices of the Greek Church. It consists 
 of one stanza, or troparion {rpo-ndpiov), and is 
 followed by “ Gloria.” The name is said to 
 indicate that while it is sung the choir sit down 
 for rest. [H. .1. H.] 
 
 CATHOLIC, Ka6o\iKhs, Catholicus, used in 
 its ordinary sense of “ universal,” not only by 
 heathen writers (as. e.g. Pliny), but also not 
 uncommonly by ecclesiastical writers also (as, 
 e.g. Justin Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph. 81, Ka9o- 
 At/ch avd<TTa(Tis, and Tertullian, Adv. 3farcion. 
 ii. 17, “Catholica . . . bonitas Dei,” kc. &c.); but 
 commonly employed by the latter as an epithet 
 of the Christian Church, Faith, Tradition, People ; 
 first in St. Ignatius (^Ad Smyrn. viii.), in the 
 Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (in Euseb. II. E. iv. 
 14, &c.), in the Passio S. Pionii under Decius 
 (ap. Baron, in an. 254, n. ix.), in St. Clem. Alex. 
 {Strem. vii. p. 899, Oxf. 1715), and thencefor¬ 
 ward commonly, being embodied in the Eastern 
 (although not at first in the Western) creed:— 
 indicating (1) the Church as a whole, as in St. 
 Ignatius above quoted; and so in Arius’ creed 
 (Socrat. i. 26), = ^ anh Trepdraw %ws irtparut^l 
 
CATHOLIC 
 
 CATHOLICUS 
 
 321 
 
 (2) that portion of the universal Church which 
 IS in any particular place, as ri eV 'Zfx.vpvri KaOo- 
 \lk^ iKKKTjcrla, as in the M<xrt. S. Polycurp.: (3) 
 (v;^hen it had grown into an epithet ordinarily 
 attached to the word church), used as equivalent 
 to Christian, “Catholica tides” in Prudent. Peri- 
 steph. iv. 24-, “Catholici populi,” id. ib. 30: or 
 to “ orthodox,” as opposed to “ hereticalas in 
 Pacian. Epist. 1, ad Sempron. “Christianus mihi 
 nomen est, Catholicus cognomen;” and in Cone. 
 Antioch. A.D. 341, at KadoXiKal iKKXrjrriai, as op¬ 
 posed to the Samosatenians ; and in Cone. Arimin. 
 A.D. 3o9, y KadoXiK^ iKKXrjfria. in like opposition 
 to heretics ; and in St. Cyril. Hieros. Lect. Catech. 
 xviii. advising, in a town where there are heretics, 
 to enquire, not, ttoD earlu anKws y (KKXyala, 
 aWa, irov €(Tt\v t] kuBoKik^ eKKXr^a'ia, &c. &c. 
 So also in the Athanasian Creed, “ the Catholic 
 religion,” and “ the Catholic faith.” (4) When 
 men began to look about for a rationale of the 
 epithet, or when driven to do so as in the Do- 
 natist controversy (the Donatists meeting the 
 argument against them, drawn from the word, 
 by explaining it, “ non ex totius orbis commu- 
 nione, sed ex observatione omnium praeceptorum 
 divinorum atque omnium sacramentorum,” St. 
 Aug. Epist. 93, § 23), taken to indicate the uni¬ 
 versality of the Church ; so in St. Aug. Epist. 
 52, § 1, “ KaOoXiK^] Graece appellatur, quod per 
 totum orbem terrarum diffunditur;” and simi¬ 
 larly Isidor. Sentent. i. 16, &c. &c. And St. Cyril. 
 Hieros. {Lect. Catech. xviii. § 23) dilates upon 
 the word rhetorically in this sense, as intimating 
 that the Church subjugates all men, teaches all 
 truth, heals ail sin, &c. In somewhat like way, 
 the Catholic Epistles are so called {^''E.yKVKXioi) 
 as early as the 3rd century (Euseb. H. E. vi. 25, 
 vii. 25); because written, ov irphs %v eOvos aXXa 
 KaOSxou irphs irauTa (Leont. De Sect. Act. 2). 
 And not only these, but such epistles also as 
 those of Dionysius of Corinth (KadoXiKa7s Trphs 
 TCLS iKKXT](Tias iiTKrroXais, Euseb. E. E. iv. 23). 
 So Tertullian, again {De Monog.'), of Catholic 
 tradition. And similarly the well-known defi¬ 
 nition of “ vere Catholicum,” in St. Vine, of 
 Leri ns, as that which had been held “semper, 
 ubique, et ab omnibus.” Optatus {Cont. Donat. 
 ii.), in explaining the term by “ rationalis et 
 ubique diffusa,” was possibly in the first half 
 of his definition thinking of the “Rationalis,” 
 who was also called KaQoXiKbSy being the 
 general receiver of the imperial revenue under 
 the Roman empire; but more probably was 
 confounding the real derivation /ca0’ ’6Xov., with 
 a supposed one from Kara x6you. (5) Used 
 also somewhat later of the Church as a build¬ 
 ing : viz. as the distinctive epithet of the bishop’s 
 or cathedral church, as against the parish 
 churches; e.g. in Epiphanius, Haer. lix. § 1 
 KadoXiK^ eKKXrjcr'ia iv 'AXf^avSpela, in op})Osition 
 to the smaller churches there, and so also Niceph. 
 XV. 22). (6) In Cone. Tt-ull. can. lix. (Labb. 
 
 vi. 1170), as the name of the church, as op¬ 
 posed to an oratory {cvktvp'kp oiKcp\ baptisms 
 (and by inference the eucharist) being cele¬ 
 brated in the KadoXinij iKKXrjaicu, but not in 
 the oratory. (7) In Byzantine Greek times, an 
 epithet of the parish church, which was open to 
 all, in distinction from the monastic churches 
 (Codinus, Balsamon, &c.). (8) Still later, the 
 
 Patriarchs or Primates of Seleucia, of the Arme¬ 
 nians, of the Ethiopians, were styled Catholici 
 CHKISr. ANT. 
 
 (Du Cange). See also Thomassin, I. i. 24. The 
 Catholicus of the Persian Church was so called as 
 early as Procopius {De Bell. Persico, ii.); and the 
 Catholicus of Seleucia was made so independently 
 ofthe Patriarch of Antioch {Arabic Vers, of Eicene 
 Canons'). The term means, more exactly, a pri¬ 
 mate, having under him metropolitans, but 
 himself immediately subject to a patriarch. 
 [Catholicus.] KaOoXiKol OpSvoi, in Theophan. 
 (in F. Constant. Copronymi), were the sees of 
 Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. (9) 
 The term became a title of the King of France, 
 Pipin being so called A.D. 767 ; and very much 
 later, of the King of Spain also. (Pearson, On 
 the Creed., art. ‘ Holy Catholic Church ;’ Du 
 Cange ; Suicer.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 CATHOLICUS. “ I have ordered the ca¬ 
 tholicus of Africa to count out 3000 purses to 
 your holiness,” said the Empei'or Constantine to 
 Caecilian, bishop of Carthage (Euseb. H. E. x. 6). 
 
 A similar order to indemnify Eusebius the his¬ 
 torian for the costs of getting 50 copies of the 
 Bible transcribed for general use was issued by 
 him to the catholicus of the diocese; that is, of 
 the civil diocese called the East (ib. Vit. Const, 
 iv. 36). A former holder of this office, Eusebius 
 elsewhere tells us, named Adauctus, had been 
 martyred under Diocletian {H. E. viii. 11). Ap¬ 
 parently there was one such for each of the 13 
 civil dioceses, and a 14th attached to the im¬ 
 perial household— cttI rlcv uadoXov XSyaiv Xeyo- 
 fievos elvai BaeiXecus {ib. vii. 10)—who was in 
 later times, according to the Basilics, or code of 
 the Emperor Basil 1., called the “ logoihete’* 
 (lib. vi. tit. 23). Various ordinances relating to 
 this office are to be seen there. The two promi¬ 
 nent ideas attaching to it were that of a receiver- 
 general, and of a deputy-YQC^ix&Y. It was formerly 
 discharged in England by the sheriff’ or vice- 
 comes of each county, who forwarded his annual 
 account of receipts and disbursements to the 
 king’s exchequer. The ecclesiastical officer called 
 “ catholicus ” was of a piece with the civil. 
 Procopius, in his history of the Persian war 
 (ii. 25) under Justinian, says that the chief dig¬ 
 nitary among the Christians of Dubis was called 
 “catholicus,” as presiding over the whole coun¬ 
 try, namely, Persia. But according to Dr. Neale 
 {Eastern Ch. i. 141), this title had been assumed 
 at a much earlier date by the bishops of Seleucia, 
 meaning by it that they were “ procurators- 
 general,” in the regions of Parthia, for the 
 Patriarch of Antioch, to whose jurisdiction they 
 were subject, till for political reasons their inde¬ 
 pendence was allowed. The “ catholicus ” men¬ 
 tioned by Procopius w’as doubtless head of the 
 Nestorians in Persia, whose teaching w’as speedily 
 carried thither from Edessa, as the well-known 
 letter of Ibas, bishop of the latter place, to the 
 Persian Maris, alone would shew. Having on 
 the death of Acacius, twenty-second catholicus of 
 Seleucia, a.d. 496, obtained possession of that see, 
 they established their head-quarters there, con¬ 
 stituting its archbishop patriarch, and styling him 
 “ catholic patriarch.” By this phrase they must 
 have meant however not rf<;ynt(y-patriarch, which 
 he was no longer, but oecumenical patriarch, which 
 to them he was in fact. So that when the title 
 got into sectarian hands, it seems to have shifted 
 its meaning to some extent, and implied uni¬ 
 versal rather than vicarious powers. But as it 
 
322 
 
 OATULINUS 
 
 CAUPONA 
 
 was a dignity confined at first to the eastern 
 portions of the single patriarchate of Antioch, 
 and there common to the orthodox and heterodox 
 alike, we must not expect to find the accounts 
 giv'en of it clear or always consistent. As a 
 general rule the “ catholicus ” was subordinate 
 to the patriarch, and had metropolitans under 
 him; but the officer answering to this descrip¬ 
 tion among the Jacobites was more comnjonly 
 called “ maphrian” or “ fruit-bearer the Nes- 
 torians on all occasions doing their best to 
 monopolize the other title. Still we read of a 
 “ catholicus ” for Armenia and for Georgia among 
 the former, as well as for Chaldaea and Persia 
 among the latter; and Jacobite patriarchs also 
 callea themselves “ catholic,” in imitation, and 
 to the annoyance, of the Nestorian. (Asseman. 
 De Monoph. § 8, and De Syris Nestor, c. xi. ; Du 
 Cange, Gloss. (Trace, s. v.) Later writers, again, 
 speak of a “catholicus” of Ethiopia, of Nubia, 
 of the isles and elsewhere : that is to say, this 
 title came to be applied in time to any grade 
 between metropolitans and pati'iarchs (Bever. 
 Synod, i. 7G9), and to be no longer peculiar to a 
 single iiatriarchate. [E. S. F.J 
 
 C ATULINUS, deacon, martyr at Carthage, is 
 commemorated July 15 (^Mart. Carthag., Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CAIIPONA, CAUPONES, tavern, tavern- 
 keepers. The Apostolical Constitutions enume¬ 
 rate the caxipo amongst the persons whose 
 oblations are not to be accepted (bk. iv. c. 6). 
 If such oblations were forced on the priest, they 
 were to be spent on wood and charcoal, as being 
 only fit for the fire (J,h. c. 10). A later consti¬ 
 tution still numbers the caupo amongst those 
 who could not be admitted to the church unless 
 they gave up their mode of life (bk. viii. c. 32). 
 Bingham, indeed, holds the caupo of the Apos¬ 
 tolical Constitutions not to have been strictly a 
 tavern-keeper, but a fraudulent huckster, and 
 there is no doubt that the word is to be found 
 used in a more extended sense in many instances. 
 But there is in the present one no reason for 
 diverting it from its ordinary use. It is clear 
 from too many evidences that the ancient tavern 
 —the caupona of the Romans—differed little 
 from a brothel; see for instance Dig. bk. xxiii. 
 t. ii. 1. 43; Code, bk. iv. t. 1. vi. 1. 3. A Con¬ 
 stitution of Constantine (a.d. 326), whilst de¬ 
 claring that the mistress of a tavern (the words 
 caupona and taherna are here used indifferently) 
 was within the laws as to adultery, yet if she 
 herself had served out drink, as.similated her to a 
 tavern-servant, classing such persons among those 
 whom “the vileness of their life has not deemed 
 worthy to observe the laws ” (Code, bk. ix. t. ix. 
 1. 29). In the work called the “ Lex Romana,” 
 which is considered to represent the law of the 
 Roman population in Italy during Lombard times, 
 and which is mainly founded on the Theodosian 
 Code, a similar provision is contained, but with 
 the use of the word taberna alone (bk. ix.). This 
 evidently implies that the ca^ipo himself, or the 
 cauponae or tabernae domina, was undistinguish- 
 able from the brothel-keeper, and the forbiddance 
 to receive the coupons offering resolves itself into 
 that contained in Deut. xxiii. 18. 
 
 This view is confirmed by almost all later 
 church authorities. Thus a cleric found eatinj 
 in a caupona, unless through the necessities of 
 
 travel, was by the 46th (otherwise 53rd) of the 
 Apostolical Canons—supposed to be of the 4th 
 century—sentenced to excommunication, the 
 Canon evidently intending a tavern and not a 
 mere huckster’s shop. The 24th Canon of the 
 Council of Laodicea (latter half of the 4th cen- 
 tuiy, but the alleged dates varying from 357 to 
 367), enacts that none of the priestly order 
 {lepaTiKovs), fi’om. the presbyter to the deacon, 
 nor outside of the ecclesiastical order to the ser¬ 
 vants and readers, nor any of the ascetic class 
 shall enter a tavern {KairriX^lov see also the 7th 
 Canon of the so-called African Council, which 
 however itself only designates a general collec¬ 
 tion of African Canons). The book of Canons of 
 the African church, ending with the Council of 
 Carthage of 419, c. 40, repeats substantially the 
 above-quoted article of the Apostolical Canons. 
 
 In spite of these enactments, we find by later 
 ones that clerics, who were forbidden to enter 
 taverns, actually kept them. Thus certain 
 “ Sanctions and Decrees” printed by Labbe and 
 Mansi, after the various versions of the Nicene 
 Canons, from a codex at the Vatican, but evi¬ 
 dently from a Greek source, require (c. 14) that 
 the priest be neither a caupo nor a tahernarius, 
 making thus a distinction between the two 
 terms, which often appear in later days t« be 
 synonymous. A canon ascribed by Ivo to the 
 Synod of Tours, A.l» 461, states that “ it hath 
 been related to the holy synod that certain 
 priests in the churches committed to them (an 
 abuse not to be told) establish taverns and there 
 through caupones sell wine or allow it to be 
 sold;” so that where services and the word of 
 God and His praise should alone be heard, there 
 feastings and drunkenness are found. Such 
 practices are strictly forbidden, the offending 
 priest is to be deposed, the laymen, his accom¬ 
 plices, to be excommunicated and expelled (cc. 2, 
 3). In the East, indeed, it appears certain from 
 the 43rd Novel, that in the first half of the 6th 
 century, and presumably since the days of Con¬ 
 stantine, taverns were held on behalf of the 
 church, and must have been included among the 
 1100 separate trading establishments which were 
 the property of the cathedral church of Con¬ 
 stantinople. But apparently this tavern-keeping 
 for the church w'as not held equivalent to tavern¬ 
 keeping by clerics, since about sixty years later, 
 the 9th Canon of the Council of Constantinople 
 in Trullo, A.D. 691, bears “that it shall not be 
 lawful for any cleric to have a tavern. For if it 
 be not permitted to him to enter one, how much 
 less can he serve in it, and do there that which 
 is not lawful ?” He must therefore either give it 
 up or be deposed. And although the 68th Canon 
 of the same Council uses a compound of the 
 Greek Synonym for caupo, in a more general 
 sense (rots ^L^Xioxatr'fjXois, translated librorum 
 cauponatoribus, i.e. book-sellers), yet in the 76th 
 the strict idea of the tavern seems to recur, 
 where it is enacted that no KairriXeTou is to be 
 set up within the holy precincts, nor food or 
 other things to be exhibited for sale. And by 
 the 8th century the original sense of caupo, cau¬ 
 pona is palpable through the more modern word 
 (in this application) taberna, which occurs in 
 numerous I’epetitions more or less literal j)f the 
 above-quoted Apostolical Canon; as in a Capi¬ 
 tulary of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, to his 
 clergy, A.D. 797, forbidding them to go from 
 
CELIBACY 
 
 323 
 
 CAVEENENSE CONCILIUM 
 
 tavern to tavern, drinking or eating (c. 13); ' 
 one of the injunctions of Charlemagne, from 
 a MS, of the Monastery of Angers, forbidding 
 priests to enter a tavern to drink ; the 19th 
 Canon of the Council of Frankfort, and the em¬ 
 peror’s Frankfort Capitulary (794) to the same 
 effect, but extending also to monks; a capitulary 
 of 801 (general coll., bk. i. c. 14), quoting the 
 Council of Laodicea and the African; the b2oth 
 chapter of the 5th book; the Canons of the 
 Councils or Synods of Rheims (c. xxvi.), applying 
 to monks and canons, and of Tours (c. xxi), both 
 inA.D.813; the Edict of Charlemagne in 814, c. 18. 
 
 It will thus appear that whilst the severity of 
 the Apostolical Constitutions against the indi¬ 
 vidual tavern-keeper is not followed in later 
 ames, yet that the Western Church, at least 
 luring the period with which this work is occu¬ 
 pied, persistently treated the use of the tavern 
 by clerics, otherwise than in cases of necessity, 
 etill more their personal connexion with it, as 
 incompatible with the cleidcal character. The 
 witness of the Eastern Church is also to the same 
 effect, but its weight is marred by the trade, 
 including that in liquors, which for two centuries 
 at least seems to have been carried on at Con¬ 
 stantinople for the benefit, not indeed of indi¬ 
 vidual devices, but of churches and charitable 
 foundations. [See also Drunkenness.] 
 
 [J. M. L.] 
 
 CAVEENENSE CONCILIUM. [African 
 Councils.] 
 
 CEALCHYTHE, COUNCILS OF. [Cal- 
 CiiUTHENSE.] Exact locality unknown, but cer¬ 
 tainly in Mercia, and probably Chelsea, originally 
 called Chelcheth, Chelchyth, &c. (1) A.D. 787, 
 
 or possibly 788, a legatine council, George, bishop 
 of Ostia, and Theophylact, bishop of Todi, being 
 the legates for Pope Adrian I. Its object was to 
 renew the “ antiquam amicitiam ” between Rome 
 and England, and to affirm “ the Catholic faith ” 
 and the six Oecumenical Councils. But it also 
 appears to have been made the occasion of pre¬ 
 paring the way for the erecting of Lichfield into 
 an archbishopric independent of Canterbury, 
 which actually took place in 788. A companion 
 council was held in Northumbria (Haddan and 
 Stubbs, Counc. iii. 444, sq.). (2) A.D. 789, called 
 
 “ Pontificale Concilium;” grants made there 
 now extant (K. C. D. 155; Haddan and Stubbs, 
 iii. 465). (3) A.D. 793, at which a grant was 
 
 made to St. Alban’s (K. C. D. 152; Haddan and 
 Stubbs, iii. 478). (4) A.D. 799, at which a 
 
 cause was adjudicated between King Coenulf and 
 the Bishop of Selscy (K. C. D. 116, 1034; Haddan 
 and Stubbs, iii. 528). There were several councils 
 at the same place after A.D. 800. [A. W. H.] 
 
 CELEDEI. [CoLiDEi.] 
 
 CELEDONIUS, martyr at Leon in Spain, 
 is commemorated March 3 {Ma/i. Bom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CEI.ENENSE CONCILIUM, a.d. 447, 
 held in a small place close to Lugo in Gallicia, 
 against the Priscillianists; an appendage to the 
 1st Council of Toledo (Labb. Cone. iii. 1466). 
 
 [A. W. H.] 
 
 CELEEINA, martyr in Africa under Decius, 
 is commemorated with Celerinus, Feb. 3 (^Mart. 
 Hieron., Bom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CELIBACY. The history of Christian 
 thought and legislation in reference to this sub¬ 
 ject is essentially one of development. From the 
 first there were the germs of tw'o different sys¬ 
 tems, at first in due proportion, each the comple¬ 
 ment of the other. Then, under influences which 
 it will be our work to trace, one passes through 
 rapid stages of growth till it threatens to over¬ 
 power or crush the other. Protests are uttered 
 from time to time, with more or less clearness. 
 The idea which seemed threatened with extinction 
 finally revives and in its turn dominates undulv. 
 It remains for the future to restore the balance 
 which we recognise in the primitive records of 
 the faith. 
 
 1. Any preference of celibacy over marriage 
 was, it need hardly be said, foreign to the ethics 
 of the Old Testament. Wedlock and the fruits 
 of wedlock were God’s best gifts. To be un¬ 
 married or childless was to be under a “ reproach,” 
 which it was difficult to bear. The asceticism of 
 the later sects of Jews made in this respect no 
 difference. Even the Essenes lived the life of 
 a communist rather than a monastic society and 
 had wives and children with them. No book of 
 the Canonical Scriptures is stronger in its praises 
 of marriage, or its condemnation of the sins that 
 mar its perfection than that which represents 
 the ethical teaching of the Judaism of Alexandria 
 (Ecclus. XXV. xxvi.). Preference for the celibate 
 life had, it must be confessed, so far as the Chris¬ 
 tian Church was concerned, its origin in the New 
 Testament. The birth from the Virgin’s womb, 
 the virgin-life of the Baptist and of the Son of 
 Man, the strange words of implied blessing on 
 those who “made themselves eunuchs for the 
 kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. xix. 12) could 
 not fail to make an impression on the minds of 
 many disciples. The work of the great Apostle, 
 whose activity threw that of all others into the 
 shade, tended in the same direction. He declared 
 without reserve that it was a good and noble 
 thing for a man not to “ touch a woman ” with 
 the touch even of wedded love (1 Coi\ vii. 1). 
 Himself leading a celibate life,® he wished that 
 all men could follow his example (1 Cor. vii. 7), 
 and laid down principles which, though limited 
 by his reference to a “ present necessity ” (1 Cor. 
 vii. 26), led on almost inevitably to a wider 
 generalisation. If the man or woman unmarried 
 was more free from “ care,” more able to render 
 an undivided service to their Lord, it would be a 
 legitimate inference to think of that life as the 
 more excellent of the two. The degree of its 
 superiority might be exaggerated at a later period, 
 but a higher excellence of some kind was cer¬ 
 tainly implied in the language of St. Paul. The 
 vision of the 144,000 in the Apocalypse as of 
 those who were “ virgins, who were not defiled 
 with women ” (Rev. xiv. 4) seemed to carry the 
 recognition of that higher excellence into the 
 glorified life of the heavenly Jerusalem. 
 
 2. All this was, however, balanced by the 
 fullest recognition of the sacredness of marriage, 
 and was as far as possible removed fi‘om the 
 Manichaeau tendencies which afterwards cor- 
 
 • This is not the place to discuss the question. It may 
 be enough to say that It is a rash exegesis which secs a 
 reference to a wife in the “ true yoke-fellow ” of Phil. iv. 3 , 
 or finds, not celibacy, but married continent', in 1 Cot 
 vii. 7, 8. 
 
 Y 
 
324 
 
 CELIBACY 
 
 CELIBACY 
 
 rupted it.. Tlie presence of Christ at the mar¬ 
 riage-feast of Cana (.John ii. 1), his vindication of 
 the sacredness of marriage against the casuistry 
 of the scribes, as resting on God’s primeval or¬ 
 dinance and the laws of human life (Matt. xix. 4), 
 his choice of Apostles who had wives (Matt, 
 viii. 14), and probably children (Matt. xix. 27, 
 29), guarded against any tendency to treat mar¬ 
 riage as among the things common and unclean. 
 Nor was the teaching of St. Paul less clear. The 
 great casuistic Epistle recognises it as a divine 
 institution, makes all limitation on the jus con- 
 jug ii but a temporary means to an end beyond 
 itself (1 Cor. vii. 3-5); allows even, though not 
 approving, the marriage of widowers and widows 
 (1 Cor. vii. 39). The duties of husbands and 
 wives are enforced on new and more mystic 
 grounds than in the ethics of .Judaism or Heathen¬ 
 ism (Eph. V. 22—33). Their life, in all its manifold 
 relations, was recognised as giving scope for the 
 development of a high and noble form of Christian 
 holiness (1 Pet. v. 1-7). With what might seem 
 an almost startling contrast to his own example 
 St. Paul required the bishop-presbyter to have 
 had the experience of marriage and with at least 
 a preference for those who had brought up 
 children (1 Tim. iii. 2, 4), and extended the re¬ 
 quirement even to the deacons of the Church 
 (1 Tim. iii. 11, 12). The writer of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews at least implied, perhaps asserted, 
 that marriage was, or might be, “honourable in 
 all things and the bed undefiled” (Heb. xiii. 4). 
 “ Forbidding to marry ” is classed by St. Paul as 
 one of the “ doctrines of devils ” which were to 
 be the signs of the apostasy of the latter days 
 (1 Tim. iv. 1). 
 
 3. The two lines of thought thus traced, ran 
 on through the Church’s history, but in unequal 
 measure. Gradually the teaching which St. Paul 
 condemned mingled itself with his, and the celi¬ 
 bate life was exalted above that of marriage, not 
 only because it brought with it a scope of more un¬ 
 interrupted labour and more entire conseci’ation, 
 but on the ground that there was in marriage 
 and its relations something impure and defiling. 
 In the language of some Gnostic sects, it be¬ 
 longed to the kingdom of the Demiurgus, the 
 I creator of the material universe and of the 
 human body as a part of it, not to that of the 
 higher Chvist-Aeon, who was Lord of the king¬ 
 dom (TertuU. de FracscripL c. 33; Irenaeus, i. 
 28 ; Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. i. 16). First, 
 womoii [Virgins], and then men, devoted them¬ 
 selves to unwedded life, as offering a higher spi¬ 
 rituality, At first, indeed, the more prominent 
 teachers kept within the limits of Apostolic 
 thought. Hernias (ii. 4, 4) almost reproduced 
 the language of St. Paul. Ignatius (^Ep. ad 
 Rolgc. e. 5) while introducing another thought, 
 that the life of celibacy is “ in honour of Our 
 l.ord’s flesh,’’.warns men against boasting of this, 
 and exalting themselves above others. Even 
 Tertullian, reproducing his own experience, 
 while declaiming vehemently against second, or 
 against mixed marriages, draws, with great power, 
 a picture of the beauty and ble.ssedness of a mar¬ 
 riage in which husband and wife are both true 
 worshippers of Christ (Ac?. Uxor. ii. 8). Clement 
 of Ale.\andria even ventures to depict the true 
 ideal Gno.Aic as one who marries and has children 
 and so attains to a higher e.xcelience, because he 
 conquers more temptations than that of the 
 
 celibate life {Strom, vii. 12 p. 741). There were 
 not wanting, however, signs of a tendency to 
 a more one-sided development. Putting aside 
 the treatise de Virginitate ascribed to Clement of 
 Rome,'* as probably" one of the many spurious 
 writings for which the authority of his name was 
 claimed, and belonging to the 3rd century rather 
 than the 1st, there remain the facts (1) that, 
 out.side the Church, Tatian and the Encratitrs 
 developed their rigorous asceticism into a total 
 abstinence from, and condemnation of, marriage; 
 (2) that Athenagoras {Legal, c. 33), while not 
 condemning it, speaks of many men or women 
 as “growing old unmarried, in the hope of living 
 in closer communion with God,” and passes 
 sentence upon second marriage as being no better 
 than a “decent adultery”; (3) that Justin con¬ 
 firms at once his statement and his opinion {Ap>ol. i. 
 15) ; (4) that Origen claims a special glory in the 
 world to come for those that have chosen the life 
 of consecrated celibacy {Horn. xix. in Jerem. 4), 
 and gave a terrible proof in his own self-mutila¬ 
 tion of the excesses to which a literal interpreta¬ 
 tion of the mysterious words of Matt. xix. 12 
 might lead. Many bye-currents of theologicjil 
 thought and feeling tended to swell the stream. 
 The influence of Eastern Dualism, the assimilation 
 by the Church of the feeling, if not of the dogma, 
 which culminated in Manichaei.sm, the growing 
 honour for the mother of the Lord as the Ever- 
 virgin, the deepening sense of the awfulness of 
 the Eucharistic sacrifice, the embarrassment 
 caused by domestic ties in times of persecution, 
 perhaps also the difficulty of maintaining the 
 purity of married life in the midst of the fathom¬ 
 less social corruption of the great cities of the 
 empire®—all these led men to take what seemed 
 to them at once the easier and the shorter road 
 to the higher blessedness of heaven. As the 
 monastic life spread, those who embraced it 
 thought of themselves, and were looked upon by 
 others, as being already “as the angels in heaven.” 
 The praises of the virgin-state became a common 
 topic for the rhetoric of sermons and treatises; 
 and the dialogue of Methodius of Tyre {Conviviuin 
 decern VirginurrC) is probably far from being an 
 exaggerated specimen of its class. 
 
 Through all this, however, strong as might 
 oe the influence of dogma or of feeling, the ques¬ 
 tion, as regards the lay-members of the Church, 
 was left as St. Paul had left it, as a matter for each 
 man’s conscience. The common sense of Christian 
 writers led them to see the absurdity of a rule 
 of life which would have led rapidly to the ex¬ 
 tinction of the Christian society : their reverence 
 made them shrink from condemning what had 
 been from the first a divine ordinance and had 
 now become the symbol of the mystic union 
 between Christ and his Church. There was no 
 attempt so far to enforce the higher life by 
 any legislation.** Even second marriages, though 
 
 •> The authenticity of the treatise has been defended by 
 Roman Catholic theologians. An English translation has 
 been published in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library. 
 
 c Comp, the picture drawn by Clement of Alexandria 
 (Paedagog. iii. 2, 3), as shewing what was possible even 
 among those who were nominally Christians. 
 
 A soliUiry exception is found in the correspondence 
 between Dionysius of Alexandria and Pinytus of Gnos.?us 
 in Euscbiu.s (//. £. iv. 23). The latter, it would seem, had 
 tried to enforce celibacy among those committed to his 
 care. The former warns him against rashly placing on 
 
CELIBACY 
 
 CELIBACY 
 
 325 
 
 condemned by the moi-e rigorous moralists, were 
 not forbidden. But it was otherwise with the 
 clergy. The feeling that they were bound to 
 exhibit what men looked on as the higher pat¬ 
 tern of holiness gained strength in proportion as 
 that pattern was more and more removed from 
 their common life. The passage already referred 
 to in Ignatius {Ep. ad Folyc. c. 5) shews that 
 even then there were laymen who, because they 
 were celibates, looked down superciliously on 
 bishops who continued, after their appointment, 
 to cohabit with their wives. 
 
 The practice of the Church of the first three 
 centuries has hardly been foirly dealt with by 
 Protestant controversialists. It is easy to point 
 to the examples of married apostles, of bishops 
 and presbyters, who had wives and to whom 
 children were born long after their ordination,® 
 and these prove, of course, that marriage was not 
 looked on as incompatible by the Church’s law 
 with ministerial duties. But it is difficult, per¬ 
 haps imi)ossible, to point to one instance in which 
 the marriage was contracted after ordination.^ 
 The unwritten law of the ancient Church was 
 indeed like that of the Greek Church at the pre¬ 
 sent day. Marriage was permitted in the clergy, 
 but, as such, they were not allowed to marry. 
 Thei'e were obviously many reasons for a ruLe 
 which, at first sight, appears illogical and incon¬ 
 sistent. It carried into practice the principle that 
 a man should abide in the state in which asacred 
 vocation had found him (1 Cor. vii.). Jt fulfilled 
 the condition laid down by St. Paul, that the 
 bishop-presbyter was to be the husband of one 
 wife, and yet guarded against the risk, so immi¬ 
 nent in all religious sects, of priestly influence 
 being exercised to secure a wealthy marriage. 
 It allowed the holiness of married life, yet tacitly 
 implied the higher excellence of the celibate. 
 Towards the close of the 3rd century the prin¬ 
 ciple was foi’mulated into a law, and both the 
 so-called Apostolical Canons (c. 25) and Consti¬ 
 tutions (vi. 17) rule that only the lower orders 
 of the clergy, sub-deacons, readers, singers, door¬ 
 keepers, and the like, might marry after their 
 appointment to their office. Those who disre- I 
 garded the law, and the offenders were numerous ^ 
 enough to call for special legislation, were to be 
 punished by deposition (Cone. Neo-Caesar, c. 1). 
 Another council, held about the same time (a.o. 1 
 314) at Ancyra, made a special exception (c. 10) 
 in favour of deacons who, at the time of their j 
 ordination, gave notice to the ordaining bishop 
 that they did not intend to remain single. If 
 they did not give notice, and yet married, they 
 were to lose their office. 
 
 The growing feeling that celibaev was a higher 
 state than marriage affected before long what has 
 been just described as the law of the Church for 
 the first three centuries. The married clersv 
 might from various motives, genuine or affected 
 
 -I 
 
 their shoulders a burden which they could not bear. -It 
 is obvious that the rule would be applied with greater 
 stringency to the clergy, who were more immediately 
 under him. | 
 
 ® One striking example is found in the history of , 
 Novatus, who, being a priest, is charged hy Oyprian I 
 
 (‘Epist. 49) with having so ill-treated hia wife th.it she * 
 
 miscarried. j 
 
 f Hefel», a singularly fair and accu'’ate writ- r, says 
 that there is absolutely no example of such a marriage 
 {^BtUrdye, i. p. 123). I 
 
 aspirations after greater purity, desire to be free 
 from what they had come to regard as an impe¬ 
 diment to attaining it. The penalty of deposition 
 pronounced by the Apostolic Canons (c. 6) on any 
 bishop, presbyter, or deacon who sejiarated him¬ 
 self from his wife “under the pretence of piety,” 
 shows that so far the Church was determined to 
 maintain the validity of the contract as still 
 binding. 
 
 A more difficult question, however, presented 
 itself. Admitting that the contract was not to 
 be dissolved, on what footing \vas.it to continue? 
 The rigorous asceticism of the time did not hesi¬ 
 tate to answer the question by affirming that 
 the husband and wife were to live together as 
 brother and sister, that any other intercourse 
 was incompatible wuth the life of pra^'er, and 
 profaned the holiness of the altar. The Council of 
 Elvira (a.d. 305), representing the more excited 
 feelings that had been roused by the persecution 
 of Diocletian, made the first attemjit to enforce 
 on the clergy by law, and under pain of deposition 
 (c. 33), what had probably been often admire 1 
 as a voluntary act of self-control. The Council 
 of Nicaea was only sar'ed from ado])ting a like 
 decree as a law for the whole Church by the 
 protest of Paphnutius, a confe.ssor-bishop from 
 the Upper Thebaid, who, though himself a celibate 
 all his life, appeared as the advocate at once of 
 the older law of the Church, and of the married 
 life as compatible with holiness (Sozom. 11. E. i. 
 23; Socrat. H. E. i. !!).& 
 
 It is probable, however, that over and above 
 the ascetic view which looked on marriage as 
 impure, there rvas also a strong sense of some 
 of the inconveniences connected with a marrie I 
 clergy. The wives of bishops took too much upon 
 them, spoke and wi’ote as in their husbands’ name 
 even without their authority, and interfered with 
 the discipline of the diocese. It is significant 
 that the same council which took the lead in 
 condemning the cohabitation of bishops, priests, 
 or deacons with their wives, should have, as its 
 last canon, one directed against the practice, 
 apfiarently common, of women receiving or 
 giving literae paciiicae in their own name 
 (G. EUb. c. 81). 
 
 The contrast between the decrees of the Nicene 
 Council and that of Elvira on this matter shows 
 the existence of opposite tendencies in Eastern 
 and Western Christendom, and from this point 
 the divergence, first in feeling and afterwards in 
 legislation, becomes more marked. It w'll be 
 convenient to trace the paths taken by the two 
 great divisions of Christendom separately. The 
 Council of Gangra was, in this as in other respects, 
 the representative of a healthier and more lium.in 
 feeling. Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, had taught 
 men to look on marriage as incompatible with 
 holine.ss, on the ministrations of married priests 
 as worthless, and his followers accordingly held 
 aloof from them. The Council diil not hesitate 
 to pass a solemn anathema on those who thus 
 acted. (C. Gangr. c. 4.) The more ascetic view, 
 however, gained ground in Macedonia, Thessaly, 
 and Achaia, and the man who was most urgent 
 
 8 The narrative has been called in question by Ba- 
 ronius and other Romi^h writers on this ground, that 
 Socrates was biassed hy his prepossession in favour of the 
 Novattans. who allowetl the marriage of the clerjiy, but 
 Is detend«.d by ilelele {Beitruye, i. 129J. 
 
 V 
 
32G 
 
 CELIBACY 
 
 CEIJBACY 
 
 jn pressing it was the Heliodorns, then bisliop 
 ot’ Tricca, who, in earlier life, had written the 
 sensuous, erotic romance of the Aethlopica (Socr. 
 If. E. V. 22). This is one of the instances, how¬ 
 ever, in whicih the exception proves the rule, and 
 the general practice of the Eastern Church was 
 not aflected by the rigorous asceticism of its 
 European provinces. Even bishops had children 
 born to them after their consecration. This, 
 however, was in its turn opposed to the domi¬ 
 nant practice, and the fact that Synesius (a.d. 410) 
 refused to accept the bishopric of Ptolemais unless 
 he was allowed to continue to cohabit with his 
 wife, shews that a dispensation was necessary, 
 and that he too was an exception to the general 
 practice. It came accordingly to be the rule of 
 the Eastern Church that men who were married 
 before their oi’dination might continue, without 
 blame, to live with their wives, but that a higher 
 standard of self-devotion was demanded of bishops, 
 first by })ublic opinion and afterwards by eccle¬ 
 siastical and even civil legislation. The feeling 
 found a formal expression in the Council in Trullo, 
 which sanctioned cohabitation in the case of sub¬ 
 deacons, deacons, and priests (c. 13) married be¬ 
 fore ordination, but ordered the wife of a bishop 
 to retire to a convent or to become a deaconess 
 (c. 48).** Those who had married after their 
 ordination wei-e however to be suspended, and in 
 future absolutely deposed (c. 36). The strong 
 protest in c. 33 against the growth of a Lcau- 
 tical hereditary priesthood in Armenia may 
 indicate one of the elements at work in bring¬ 
 ing about the more stringent enforcement of 
 celibacy. Even the former were subject to re¬ 
 strictions analogous to those which governed the 
 ministrations of the Jewish priesthood, and were 
 not allowed to contract marriage after their ordi- 
 nation, the rule being based on the canon of the 
 Council of Ancyra already referred to, but ex¬ 
 cluding the power which that conceded of giving 
 notice of the intention to marry, at the time of 
 ordination. The Theodosian Code {De Episcop. 
 14, 2) enforced the same rule, and children born 
 of marriages so contracted were to be treated as 
 illegitimate (Cod. Theod. de bonis cleric., Jus¬ 
 tinian. Novell. V. c. 8). The Emperor Leo the 
 Wise (a.d. 886-911) confirmed the Trullan canon, 
 with a modification tending towards leniency. 
 Clergy who so married were not to be reduced as 
 before to lay communion, but were simply de¬ 
 graded to a lower order and shut out from strictly 
 })riestly functions. The results of this compro¬ 
 mising legislation were probably then, as they 
 arc now, (1) that nearly all candidates for the 
 priesthood married before they were admitted to 
 the diaconate, (2) that they continued to live 
 with their wives, but did not marry again, if they 
 were left widowers ; and (3) that the great mass 
 of the secular clergy being thus ineligible for 
 the episcopate, the bishops were mostly chosen 
 from among the monks. 
 
 Zacharias, Nriova Giustificazione del Celibato 
 Sacro, pp. 129, 130.] [I. G. S.] 
 
 It remains to trace the progress of a more 
 stringent and “ thorough ” policy in the Churches 
 of the West. The principle asserted at Elvira 
 extended to Western Africa, and was carried fur¬ 
 ther in application. Not only bishops, presbyters, 
 and deacons, but those of a lower grade who 
 ministered at the altar were to lead a celibate 
 life (2 C. Garth, c. 2). It was assumed as an 
 axiom that the intercourse of married life was 
 incompatible with prayer and the sacrifice of the 
 altar, and as the priest ought always to pray, and 
 daily to offer that sacrifice, he must of necessity 
 abstain altogether (Hieron. Contr. Jovinian. i. 34). 
 The bishops of Rome used their authority in the 
 same direction. Siricius, in the first authentic De¬ 
 cretal (a.d. 38.5), addressed to Himerius, bishop 
 of Tarragona, forbade absolutely the marriage of 
 presbyters and deacons. Innocent I. (a.d. 405) in 
 two Decretals addressed to Victricius, bishop of 
 Rouen, and Exsuperius of Toulouse, enforced the 
 prohibition under pain of degradation {Corp. Juris 
 Can. c. 4, 5, and 6 Dist. 31). Leo I. (a.d. 443) tried 
 to unite the obligation of the marriage vow and 
 the purity of the consecrated life by allowing 
 those who were alreadv married to continue to 
 
 y 
 
 li,ve with their wives, but “ habere quasi non ha- 
 beant . . . quo et salva sit charitas connubi- 
 
 orum et cessent opera nuptiarum’” (Epist. 167 ad 
 Eusticum). If this law were not kept, they were 
 to be subject to the extreme penalty of excommu¬ 
 nication. So in like manner the 1st Council of 
 Toledo (c. 1) forbade the promotion of deacons or 
 presbyters “ qui incontiueuter cum suis uxoribus 
 vixerint” to a higher grade. So also the 1st 
 Council of Orange (can. 22, 23, 24) forbade the 
 ordination of deacons unless they make a vow of 
 chastity, and punishes subsequent cohabitation 
 with deprivation. The 1st Council of Tours, as if 
 afraid of the consequences of this extreme rigour, 
 reduced the penalty to the suspension of those 
 who were ah-eady priests from priestly functions, 
 and, in the case of others, excluded them from 
 any higher grade than that which they already 
 occupied (1C. Turon. c. 1, 2), but allowed both to 
 partake of the sacrament of the altar. The sub¬ 
 deacons, perhaps as finding less compensation in 
 the respect of the people and in the nature of 
 their work, held out longer than those of higher 
 grade. The yoke was, however, pressed on them 
 too by Leo (Epist. 34 to Leo of Catania) and 
 Gregory the Great (Corpus Juris Can. c. 14, Dist. 
 31), and Spain still kept its old pre-eminence in 
 ascetic rigour. The 8th Council of Toledo (c. 6), 
 a.d. 653, condemned both the marriage of sub¬ 
 deacons after their ordination, and continued co¬ 
 habitation if they were married before. Their 
 work as bearing the vessels of the altar required 
 that they should keep themselves free from the 
 pollution which was inseparable from that union. 
 Offenders were to be sentenced to something like 
 
 [It is interesting to note that the Nestorians 
 till the middle of the 6th century relaxed consi¬ 
 derably the i-ules of the Trullan Council, and 
 that the Monophysite Abyssiniaas allowed their 
 bishops to retain their wives and live with them. 
 
 The Council, however, recognized, while it deplored, 
 the fact that bishops continued to live with their wives in 
 Africa, Libya, and elsewhere (c. 12). It forbade the scandal 
 for the future, and punished offenders with deposition. 
 
 perpetual imprisonment in a monastery. The 
 9th Council (c. 10), A.D. 659, described every such 
 union, from bishops to sub-deacons, as a “ con- 
 nubium detestandum,” and their issue were not 
 only treated as illegitimate and excluded from all 
 rights of inheritance, but treated as slaves “jure 
 perenni ” of the Church against which their 
 fathers had offended. It is melancholy, but in¬ 
 structive, to find another Ct'Uncil of the same 
 Church, seventy-two years later (a.d. 731), com- 
 
CELIBACY 
 
 CELLA 
 
 327 
 
 pelled to pass canons on the one hand against the 
 spread of unnatural crime among the clergy, 
 pronouncing the sentence of deposition and exile 
 on the bishops, priests, and deacons who were 
 guilty of it, and, on the other, against the 
 attempts at suicide which were becoming fre¬ 
 quent among those who had been subjected to 
 the discipline of the Church, with its censures 
 and its penances (16 C. Tolet. c. 3 and 4). 
 Stephen IV. (a.d. 769) enforced the rule of the 
 Western as contrasted with that of the Eastern 
 Church (^Corpus Juris Can. c. 14, Dist. 31). 
 
 [The contrast between Eastern and Western 
 feeling is shown singularly enough in their esti¬ 
 mate of the relative guilt of clerical marriage 
 and fornication. The Council of Neo-Caesarea 
 (c. 1) punishes the latter with greater severity 
 than the former. That of Orleans (c. 1) calmly 
 puts the two on the same level, “ si quis pellici 
 vel uxori se jungat.”] [1. G. S.] 
 
 One marked exception has to be noted to the 
 general prevalence of this rigoiu*. The Church 
 of Milan, in this as in other things, maintained 
 its independence of Rome, and, resting on the au¬ 
 thority of Ambrose, was content with the Eastern 
 rule of monogamy, and applied it even to its 
 own archbishops. “ The practice of marriage 
 was all but universal among the Lombard clergy. 
 They were publicly, legally married, as were the 
 laity of Milan ” (Milman’s Latin Christianit /, 
 b. vi. c. 3).' The practice against which Peter 
 Damiani raved in the 11th century was clearly 
 of long standing, and it may be noted that it 
 bore its fruit in the high repute, the thorough 
 organization, which made the Milanese clergy 
 famous through all Italy. 
 
 It does not fall within the limits of this work 
 to carry on the history further. Enough has 
 been said to shew that when Hildebi'and entered 
 on his crusade against the marriage of the clergy 
 he was simply acting on and enforcing what had 
 for about seven centuries been the dominant rule 
 of the church. The confusions of the period that 
 preceded this had relaxed the discipline, but the 
 law of the Church remained unaltered. The ex¬ 
 ceptional freedom enjoyed by the Church of Milan 
 would but make one who strove after the unity 
 of a theocracy more zealous to put a stop to 
 what he regarded as at once a defilement of 
 the sacred olfice and a rebellion against divine 
 authority. 
 
 [Obviously this rapid and yet gradual deve¬ 
 lopment which has been traced of clerical celi¬ 
 bacy was very largely, if not mainly, due to the 
 influence of monasticism. Celibacy becomes, step 
 by step, compulsory on all the clergy, while the 
 monastic obligation is rivetted more and more 
 tightly by an irrevocable vow. In the monk 
 celibacy was, as has been indicated, an aspiration 
 after superhuman holiness, intensified by that 
 feeling of despair with which he was apt to 
 regard the world around him, and its apparently 
 hopeless state of corruption ; and in subtle com¬ 
 bination with motives of this kind was the han¬ 
 kering after wonder and veneration. In every 
 
 * The passages from Ambrose have been much tam¬ 
 pered with, and the text Is doubtful. " Monogumia sacer- 
 dotum ” and “ castimonia ” present themselves as various 
 readings. One text permits, another prohibits, coba- 
 bitition after marriage. See the discussion in Milman’s 
 note, 1. c. 
 
 way the example of the monks told powerfully 
 on the clergy. The more devout longed to attain 
 the monk’s moral impassibility; lower natures 
 were attracted by the prospect of gaining for 
 themselves the monks’ commanding position. 
 Thus the rivalry, which never ceased, between 
 the regular and the secular clergy, made the 
 clergy generally more willing to accept the hard 
 conditions exacted of them by the policy of their 
 rulers. So at least it was in Western Christen¬ 
 dom. In the East there was a more complete 
 severance between the monks and the secular 
 clergy, the former being debarred more closely 
 from intercourse with the world, and the latter 
 acquiescing in what was for them ecclesiastically 
 a lower standing.] [I. G. S.] 
 
 It is obvious that just in proportion to the 
 stringency with which the law of celibacy was 
 carried into effect were its evils likely to shew 
 themselves. One—and that for a time a very 
 formidable one—will form the subject of a seyia- 
 rate article. If men had not wives, while the 
 habits of .society made them dependent on the do¬ 
 mestic services of women, they must have house¬ 
 keepers. The vei’y idealism of purity which held 
 that husband and wife might live together as 
 brother and sister, seemed to imply that any man 
 and any woman might live together on the same 
 footing without risk or scandal. The scandal 
 came, however, fast enough—and the Sub-imtko- 
 UUCTAE or ’ZwiicaKToa came to occupy a very 
 prominent position in the legislation of the 
 Church. [E. H. ?.] 
 
 [See, further, Alteserrae, Asceticon vel Origo 
 Eei Monasticae, Par. 1671-; S. Bonaventurae, 
 Sentent. iv. xxxvii. 0pp. Venet. 1751 ; Hallier, 
 Dc Sacr. Elect, et Ordiaat. v. i. 10, Paris, 1536; 
 Gersou, Dialogus sup. Coelibatu, 0pp. ii. p. 617, 
 Aatverp. 1606; Feri'aris, Bibliotheca., s. vv. Cle- 
 ricus, Conjuges, Venet. 1778; Launoy, hnpedi- 
 laent. Ordin. 0pp. I. ii. p. 742, Colon. 1731 ; 
 Schramm,^ Compend. Theolog. iii. p. 694, Augs¬ 
 burg, 1768 ; Bingham, Origines Eccles. VII. iv. 
 Bond. 1727 ; Concina, De Cuelibatu, Romae, 1755 ; 
 Paleotimo, De Coelib ;tu, Suintna Orig. Eccles. 
 Venet. 1766; Mich, de Medina, De Sacr. Hom, 
 Continentid, Ven. 1568; Camj)egius, De Coelib. 
 Sacerdotum. Ven. 1554; G. Callixtus, De Conjug. 
 Cleric. Helmstadt, 1631; Osiander, E.cam Coelib. 
 Cleric. Tubingen, 1664 ; H. C. Lea, Ilistorg of 
 Christia/i Celibacy, Philadelphia, 1867.] [I. G. S.] 
 
 CELLA or CELT.A MEMORIAE, a small 
 memorial chapel erected in a sepulchral arrtt 
 over the tomb of the deceased, in which at stated 
 times, especially the anniver.sai'y of his decease, 
 his friends and dependents assembled to celebrate 
 •An agape, and partake of a banfjuet in his honour. 
 These were often built over the tombs of martvrs, 
 and were then known as Martyria, Memoriae 
 Marty rum, C n-'Uia M otyrum, and Con'cssiones. 
 Sepulchral buildings of this character were com¬ 
 mon both to heathens and Christians. Indeed 
 here, as in so much el.se, Chri.stianity simplv in¬ 
 herited existing customs, purged them of licen¬ 
 tious or idolatrous taint, and adopted them as 
 their own. Thus heathen and Christian monu¬ 
 ments mutually throw light on one another. A 
 Christian inscription, recording the formation <'f 
 an area and the construction of a cella, is given 
 in the article Cicmkteuv. 
 
 Directions for the erection of a building bearing 
 
328 
 
 CELLA 
 
 CELT.ITAE 
 
 the same title, and devoted to a similar ptirpose 
 by a pagan, are given in a very curious will, 
 once engraved on a tomb at Langres, a copy of 
 a portion of wliich has been discovered in the 
 binlinv of a MS. of the 10th centurv' in the Li- 
 brary at Basle. The will is printed by l)e Rossi 
 in the IhiUe'tiuo di Arc. Crist., Dec. 186.S. In it 
 we hnl most j)articular directions for the com¬ 
 pletion of the cella m’lnoriae, which the testator 
 had already begun, in exact accordance with the 
 ])lan he left behind him. This celUx stood in the 
 centre of an area. In front of it was to be erected 
 an altar of the finest Carrara marble in which the 
 testator’s ashes were to be deposited. The cella 
 itself was to contain two statues of the testator, 
 one in bronze, one in marble. Provision was to 
 be made for the easy opening and shutting of 
 the cella. There was to be an exedra, which was 
 to be furnished with couches and benches on the 
 days on which the cella was opened. Coverlets 
 {lodices') and })illows (cervicalia) to lay upon the 
 seats were also to be provided, and even gar¬ 
 ments {ahollac and tunicae') for the guests who 
 assembled to do honour to the departed. Orchards 
 anJ tanks (lacus) formed part of the plan. It 
 was also ordered that all the testator’s freedmen 
 were to make a yearly contribution out of which 
 a feast was to be provided on a certain day, and 
 partaken of on the spot. Additional light is 
 thrown upon the last-named provision by the 
 terms of a long and curious inscription relating 
 to a colle jium for the burial of the dead, consist¬ 
 ing chiefly of slaves, of the year a.d. 133. One 
 of the regulations was that the members of the 
 confraternity were to dine together six times in 
 the year (Xorthcote, B. S. p. 51). These cellae 
 wei'e memorial halls for funeral banquets. The 
 Christians were essentially men of their country 
 and their age, following in all things lawful the 
 customs of the time and place in which their lot 
 was cast. The recent investigations of De Rossi 
 do much to dispel the idea of the specific and 
 exclusive character of the Christianity of the 
 primitive Church. Rejecting the abuses arising 
 from the license of ))agan morals, there was 
 nothing in itself to take exception at in the 
 funeral feast. Indeed the primitive agapae or 
 love-feasts were often nothing more than funeral 
 banquets held in cellae at the tombs of the faith¬ 
 ful, the expenses of which, in the case of the 
 j)oorer members, were provided out of the area 
 communis ov church-chest. We are familiar with 
 pictorial rej)resentations of banquets of this na¬ 
 ture derived from the Catacombs. Bottari sup- 
 )>lies us with two such of remarkable interest 
 from the cemetery of SS. Marcellinus and Peter 
 (Bottari, Pitture, tom. ii. tav. 107, 109, 127), 
 and one from St. Callistus (thid. tom. iii. p. 1, 
 110, 118). [Catacombs.] There was a remarkable 
 con-espondence between the arrangements of the 
 Christians and heathens in these matters. In 
 both not only was the cost of the funeral banquet 
 paid out of the general fund, but suitable cloth¬ 
 ing was also provided for those who were present 
 at these banquets. In an inventory of furniture 
 confiscated in the Diocletian persecution in a house 
 where Christians were in the habit of meeting at 
 Cirta in Numidia, in addition to chalices of gold 
 and silver, and lamps, &c., we find articles of 
 attire and shoes (tunicae muliebres Ixrxii, tunicae 
 viriles xvi, caligae viriles paria xiii, calig te m-di- 
 ebres paria xlviij, and other entries of a similar 
 
 nature. These cellae were not only used for the 
 funeral feasts, v,'hich were nece.ssarily infrequent, 
 but also formed oratories to which the faithful 
 re.sorted at all times to offer up their devotions 
 over the remains of their departed brethren. 
 The name cella, as applied to such places of 
 reunion, seems to have been restricted to non- 
 subterranean buildings erected in the funeral 
 area, above the grave of the individual whom it 
 was desired to commemorate. Chambers con¬ 
 structed for this purpose in the subterranean 
 cemeteries were known as cuhicula [Catacomb]. 
 Another aj)pellation by which they were known 
 whether above ground or below, was memoriae 
 martgrum or martgria until they lost their pri¬ 
 mitive name of cellae, and became known as 
 basilicae (Hierom. Ep. ad Vigilant.). In fact, the 
 magnificent basilicas erected above the tombs of 
 the martyrs in the age of the peace of the Church, 
 by Constantine and other Christian emperors, 
 were nothing more than amplifications of the 
 humble cellae or memoriae built in the area of 
 the cemeteries. 
 
 We know from Anastasius (§ 21) that many 
 buildings were erected in the cemeteries by the 
 direction of Pope Fabianus (a.d. 238-354), “mul- 
 tas fabricas per coemeteria fieri praecepit.” 
 These fnbricae we may safely identify, w'ith 
 Ciampini, Ansaldi, De Rossi, &c. with the cellae 
 memoriae of which we have been speaking. 
 “ They were probably little oratories constructed 
 either for purposes of worship, or the celebra¬ 
 tion of the agap le, or of mere guardianship of 
 the tombs according to the common practice 
 of the Romans ” (Northcote, B. S. p. 86). The 
 peace which the Church had at this time enjoyed 
 for nearly 50 years would have encouraged the 
 erection of such buildings, and rendered the use 
 of them free from apprehension. 
 
 Cella and cellula were employed at a later time 
 for sepulchral chapels built along the side walls 
 of a church. It is used in this sense by Pauli- 
 nus ofNola, in whose writings such chapels are 
 more frequently termed cubicula. [Cubiculum.] 
 
 An example of the use of the word in the sense 
 of a monastic cell is given by Combefis, De 
 Templo S. Sophiae p. 260, bfborai K\r]p(f> /cat 
 /ceAAta els to 7rept| Kara ttjv auTwi'. 
 
 [E. V.] 
 
 CELLERARIUS, Cellarius, KeWdpios, Ke\- 
 \apirris. One of the highest officials in a monas¬ 
 tery. As the prior was next to the abbat in 
 spiritual things, so the Cellerarius, under the 
 abbat, had the management and control of all 
 the secular affairs. He was sometimes called 
 oeconomus (oIkouS/xos), dispensator or procurator. 
 According to most commentators on the Bene¬ 
 dictine Rule he was to be appointed by the abbat 
 with consent of the seniors, and was to hold 
 office for one year or more (Beg. S. Bened. c. 31, 
 cf. Concord. Begul. c. 40). [I. G. S.] 
 
 CELLI'FAE, KeAAictJrat. A class of monks, 
 midway between hermits and coenobites. Strictly 
 speaking, they were the anchorites, dvaxf^pV'rai, 
 so called because they withdrew or retired from 
 the coenobia, wherein the monks dwelt together, 
 to small cells in the immediate vicinity. On 
 festivals they repaii’ed to the church of the 
 monastery, and thus, being still semi-attached 
 to the community, they differed from the her¬ 
 mits, epgfi'iTai, who were independent of control 
 
CELIJTAE 
 
 CEMETERY 
 
 329 
 
 (Suic. Thes. s. v.). As preferring the more 
 complete privacy and quiet of these cells to 
 living in common, they were sometimes called 
 hesychastae, rjO’vxO’CTTai, and their cells fjavxa- 
 aTTjpla (Bingh. Orij. VII. ii. 14.; Justin. Novell. 
 V. 3).» 
 
 The word “ cella,” KeWlov, originally meaning 
 the cave, den, or separate cell of each recluse 
 (Soz. H. E. vi. 31; Greg. Dial. ii. 34),^ soon 
 came to be applied to their collective dwelling- 
 place ; in this resembling the term monasterium, 
 which signified at first a hermit’s solitary abode, 
 and subsequently the abode of several monks 
 together. “ Cella,” in its later use, was applied 
 even to larger monasteries (Mab. Ann. v. 7); 
 but usually to the offshoots or dependencies of 
 the old foundation (Du Cange, s. v.) “ Celiula ” 
 is used for a monastery by Gregory of Tours 
 {Fist. vi. 8, 29, &c.). In the Rule of St. Fruc- 
 tuosus “cella” stands for the “black-hole,” the 
 place of solitary confinement for oft'enders against 
 the discipline (Mab. Ann. xiii. 41). The Regula 
 Agaunensis forbad sepai'ate cells for the monks; 
 but it is not clear whether this prohibition refers 
 to cells within the walls or to the cells outside 
 of the “ cellitae.” 
 
 Cassian, in his account of the different kinds 
 of monks in Egypt, condemns the “ Sarabaitae,” 
 who dwelt together in small groups of cells 
 without rule or superior (Cass. Coll, xviii. 17). 
 The same distrust of what inevitably tended to 
 disorder and licence is shown in the decrees of 
 Western Councils (c. g. Concc. Aurel. I. c. 22; 
 Agath. c. 38). But the cells of the “Cellitae,” 
 properly so called, resembled rather a “ Laura ” 
 in Egypt and Palestine, each Laura being a 
 quasi coenobitic cluster of cells, forming a com¬ 
 munity to which, in the earlier days of monachism, 
 the abbat’s will was in place of a written rule. 
 The first of these “ Lauras ” is said to have been 
 founded by St. Chariton, about the middle of the 
 4th century, near the Dead Sea (Bulteau, Hist, 
 l^lon. d’Orient. 282). Other famous lauras were 
 those of St. Euthymius, near Jerusalem, in the 
 next century, and of St. Sabas, near the Jordan; 
 to the former only grown men were admitted, to 
 the latter only boys (Helyot, Hist, des Ordr. 
 Mon. Dissert. Prelim. § 5). 
 
 The motive for withdrawing from a monas¬ 
 tery to one of those little cells clustering round 
 it was, apparently, a desire in some cases of soli¬ 
 tude, in others of a less austere mode of life. 
 Each cell had a small garden or vineyard, in 
 which the monk could occupy himself at pleasure 
 (Du Cange, s. v.). But sometimes the “Cellita” 
 was a monk with aspirations after more than 
 ordinary self-denial. Thus it was a custom at 
 Vienna, in the 6th century, for some monk, se¬ 
 lected as pre-eminent in sanctity, to be immured 
 in a solitary cell, as an intercessor for the people 
 (Mab. Ann. iv. 44, cf. vii. 57). 
 
 A strict rule for “Cellitae” was drawn up in 
 the 9th century by Grimlac. Their cells were 
 to be near the monastery, either standing apart 
 one from another or communicating only by a 
 window. The cellitae were to be supported by 
 
 • KeAAiwnis also meant an imperial chamberlain at 
 the couit of Constantinople. 
 
 '' “ Ad nropriam cellam revertlsset” is taken by some 
 commi niaiors as r* ferrlng to a convent of nuns already 
 fo’-Uided by S‘»- Scholastica (Greg. Dial, ii, 34). 
 
 their own work or by alms : they might be either 
 clergy or laymen. If professed monks, they 
 were to wear the dress of the order; if not, a 
 cape a-s a badge. None were to be admitted into 
 the “ Cellitae ” except by the bishop or the 
 abbat, nor without a noviciate. They were to 
 have their own chapel for mass; and a window 
 in the wall of the church, through which they 
 might “ assist ” at the services, and receive the 
 confessions of penitents. A seal was to be set 
 by the bishop on the door of each cell, never to 
 be broken, except in urgent sickness for the 
 necessary medical and spiritual comfort (Helyot, 
 Diss. Pret. § 5 ; Bulteau, Hist, de I'Ordre S. B. I. 
 ii. 21). 
 
 The term cellulanus has been supposed equiva¬ 
 lent to cellita. It is used by Sidonius Apolli- 
 naris for the Lei-inensian monks (IX. Ep. 3, ad 
 Faust.'). According to Du Cange it sometimes 
 means a monk sharing the same cell with 
 another. [1. G. S.] 
 
 CELSUS. (1) Child-martyr at Antioch un¬ 
 der Diocletian, is commemorated Jan. 9 (^Mart. 
 Pom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr with Nazarius at Milan, June 12 
 (^Murt. Usuardi). 
 
 The Mart. Pom. Vet. places the invention of 
 the relics of these saints on this day, the mar¬ 
 tyrdom on July 28. The Cal. Byzant. comme 
 morales them on Oct. 14. [C.J 
 
 CEMETERY (KoturiTTjptov, Coemeterium). 
 In the familiar term cemetery w'e have an ex¬ 
 ample—one among many—of a new and nobler 
 meaning being breathed by Christianity into a 
 word already familiar to heathen antiquity. Al¬ 
 ready employed in its natural sense of a “ sleep¬ 
 ing place ” (Dosid. apud Athenaeum, 143, C.), it 
 became limited in the language of Christians to 
 the places where their brethren who had fallen 
 asleep in Christ were reposing until the morning 
 of the Resurrection. Death, through the Resur¬ 
 rection of Jesus Christ, had changed its nature 
 and its name. “ In Christianis,” writes St. Je¬ 
 rome, Ep. 29, “ mors non est mor.s, sed dorrnitio 
 et somnus appellatur.” “ Mortuos consuevit 
 dicere dormientes quia evigilaturos, id est resur- 
 recturos vult intelligi” (Aug. Ps. in J's. Ixxxvii.). 
 And the spot where the bodies of the departed 
 were deposited also changed its designation and 
 received a new and significant title. The faithful 
 looked on it as a Koiyr}Ti}piov, “ a sleeping-place ;” 
 the name being, as St. Chi-ysostom says, a per¬ 
 petual evidence that those who were laid there 
 were not dead but sleeping: Sia Tovro alnhs 
 6 tJttos Koip.r\ri}piov wi/J/xacrrat 'Iva fidOrfs brt 
 ol TeXeuTTj/fJres Ka\ cpravda Keipcvoi ov t60j/7j- 
 Kaai aWa Koi/xwyTui Kal KaSiv^ovai. (^Homil. 
 Ixxxi.) 
 
 The earliest example of the use of the word 
 is, perhaps, in the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, 
 c. 222, where we read that Zephyrinus, bishop 
 of Rome, “ set ” Callistus, afterwards his suc¬ 
 cessor, “ over the cemeteryF tls rh KoiyrtTrfpiou 
 KaT(o-TT)a(v (I'hilosophum. lib. ix. c. 7). Here the 
 word is recognized as an already established term. 
 That its origin was exclusively Christian, and 
 that in its new sense it was a term unknown, 
 and hardly intelligible to the heathen authorities, 
 is evidenced by the form of the edicts which 
 supply the next examples of its u.se. In the pei- 
 secution under V^ilerian, a.d. 257, Aemilianus 
 
330 
 
 CEMETERY 
 
 CEMETERY 
 
 the prefect prohibited the Christians of Alex¬ 
 andria, ets Ta KahovfXfPa Koi/xTjr-fipia elcrt- 
 4vai. This edict was revoked by Gallienus on 
 the cessation of the persecution, c. 259, and an 
 imperial rescript again permitted the bishops 
 Tix Twv KaXov fJLiv <ji3V Koi/xr]Tt]p'ia}V a-KoKap.- 
 ^dueiv Had the term been one in familiar 
 
 use among the heathen inhabitants, it would 
 have been needless to have thus specilied them. 
 
 A distinction between the burial places of 
 Christians and those of another faith had its 
 origin in the very first ages of the Church. This 
 principle of jealous separation after death be¬ 
 tween the worshippers of the True God and the 
 heathen was inherited from the Jews. The Jews 
 wherever they resided had their own places of 
 sepulchre, from which all but their co-religionists 
 were rigidly excluded. In Rome they very early 
 had a catacomb of their own in the Monte Verde 
 on the Via Portuensis, outside the Trasteverine 
 quarter of the city, which was their chief place 
 of residence. Another has been investigated by 
 De Rossi on the Via Appia; the construction of 
 which he considers takes us back as far as the 
 time of Augustus. So also the Christians, in 
 death as well as in life, would seek to carry 
 out the apostolic injunction to “ come out, and 
 be separate, and touch not the unclean thing.” 
 The faithful brethren of the little flock, the 
 “ peculiar ]5eople,” lay apart, still united by the 
 ties of a common brotherhood, waiting for “the 
 great and terrible day” which according to the 
 universal belief of the primitive church was so 
 near at hand. As an evidence of the abhorrence 
 felt in very early, though not the earliest, times 
 of uniting Christians and pagans in one common 
 sepulchre, we may refer to the words of Cyprian, 
 A.D. 254. This Father upbraids a lapsed Spanish 
 bishop named Martialis, among other crimes, with 
 having associated with the members of a heathen 
 funeral college and joined in their funeral ban¬ 
 quets, and having buried his sons in the cemetery 
 over which they had superintendence—“ Praeter 
 gentilium turpia et lutulenta convivia et collegia 
 diu frequentata, filios in eodem collegio, exter- 
 arum gentium more, apud profana sepulchra 
 depositos et alienigenis consepultos ” (Cyprian. 
 Ejjist. 67). Hilary of Poitiers, c. 860, also com¬ 
 menting on the text, “ let the dead bury their 
 dead,” asserts the same principle, “ Ostendit 
 Dominus .... inter fidelem filium patremque in- 
 fidelem jus paterni nominis non relinqui. Ron 
 obsequium humandi patris negavit, sed . . . ad- 
 monuit non admisceri memoriis sanctorum mor- 
 tuos infideles ” {Cumm. in Matt. cap. vii.). These 
 Christian cemeteries were in their first origin 
 private and individual. The wealthier members 
 of the Church were buried each in a plot of 
 ground belonging to hinr), while the tombs of 
 the poorer sort, like that of their Lord, were 
 dug in the villas or gardens of rich citizens or 
 matrons of substance who had embraced the faith 
 of Christ, and devoted their property to His 
 service. The titles by which many of the Roman 
 cemeteries are still designated, though often 
 confused with the names of conspicuous saints 
 and martyrs who in later times wore interred in 
 them, are derived from their original possessors, 
 some of whom may with great probability be 
 referred to very early if not apostolic times. 
 The cemeteries vvhich are designated as those of 
 Lucina, Donjitilla, Commodilla, Cyriaca, Priscilla, 
 
 Practextatus, Pontianus, &c., were so called, not 
 as being the burial places of these individuals, 
 but because the sepulchral area which formed the 
 nucleus of their ramifications had been their pro¬ 
 perty. Not that in every instance the original 
 cemetery received this large extension. Under¬ 
 ground Christian tombs have been found in the 
 vicinity of Rome consisting of no more than a 
 single sepulchral chamber, so that some of these 
 cemeteries may have been always limited to the 
 members and adherents of a single family. The 
 only necessary restriction was that of a common 
 fiith. A few years ago a gravestone was found 
 in the catacomb of Nicomedes outside the Porta 
 Pia, bearing an inscription in which a certain Va¬ 
 lerius Mercurius, according to the Roman custom, 
 bequeathed to his freedmen and freedwomen and 
 their posterity the right of sepulture in the same 
 cemetery, provided that they belonged to his 
 own religion. At (ad) rkligionem pertine.vtes 
 MEAM. We liave another example of the same 
 kind in an inscription which may Still be seen in 
 the most ancient part of the cemetery of Nereus 
 and Achilleus. In this it is recorded that M. 
 Antonins Restitutus made a hypogaeum for him¬ 
 self and his family trusting in the Lord, “sibi 
 et suis fidentibus in Domino.” We have no 
 example of language of this kind in any heathen 
 epitaph. The strongest tie of brotherhood among 
 Christians was a common faith. This bond out¬ 
 lasted death, and nowhere was its power more 
 felt than in their burials. Nor was there any¬ 
 thing in the social or religious position of the 
 first Christians in Rome and elsewhere to curtail 
 their liberty in the mode of the disposing of 
 their dead. They lived in, and with their age, 
 and followed its customs in all things lawful. No 
 existing laws interfered with them. On the con¬ 
 trary, all the ordinances of the Roman legislation 
 under which, as citizens, they lived, vvere favour¬ 
 able to the acquisition and maintenance of burial 
 places by the Christians. In Rome land used 
 for interment became ipso facto invested with a 
 religious character which extended not only to the 
 area in which the sepulture took place, but to 
 the hypogaea or subterranean chambers beneath 
 it, and perhaps also to the cellae memoriae, the 
 gardens, orchards, and other appurtenances be¬ 
 longing to them. The violation of a tomb was 
 a crime under the Roman law visited with the 
 severest penalties. According to Paulus (Digest, 
 lib. xlvii. tit. xii. § 11) those convicted of remov¬ 
 ing a body or digging up the bones were, if per¬ 
 sons of the lowest rank, to suffer capital punish¬ 
 ment ; if of higher condition, to be banished to 
 an island, or condemned to the mines. This 
 privilege reached even to those who, as martyrs, 
 had forfeited their lives to the law. The I iyect 
 contains the opinions of some of the most eminent 
 Roman lawyers that the bodies of criminals might 
 legalh" be given up to those who asked for them. 
 
 Corpora animadvex'sorum quibuslibet petenti- 
 bus ad se))ulturam danda sunt ” (Paulus ap. 
 Digest, lib. xlviii. tit. xxiv.). LTpian (^i'nd, § 1) 
 adduces the authority of the Emperor Augustus 
 for the restoration of the bodies of criminals 
 to their relations. In his own time, he re¬ 
 marks, a formal petition and permissii>n was 
 requisite, and the request was sometimes refused, 
 chiefly in cases of high treason. This exception 
 may have sometimes interfered with the Chris¬ 
 tians obtaining possession of the body of a 'martyr 
 
CEMETERY 
 
 CEMETERY 
 
 831 
 
 who had refused to swear “ by the fortune of 
 Caesar.” But for the first two centuries there 
 is no evidence of any such prohibition, and 
 unless the “ Acts of the martyrs ” are to be 
 altogether discredited, the nucleus of many of 
 the existing catacombs was created by the burial 
 of some famous martyr on the private property 
 of a wealthy Christian. The facilities for burial 
 would be also further enlarged by the existence 
 of lescalized funeral guilds or confraternities 
 (coUe(jia), associated together for the reverent 
 celebration of the funeral rites of their members. 
 The Christians were not forbidden by any I’ules 
 of their own society, or laws of the empire, to 
 enter into a corporate union of this kind. The 
 jurist Marcian, at the beginning of the third 
 century, as quoted in the Digests (^De Colleg, ei 
 Corpor. lib. xlvii. tit. xxii. 1), when stating the 
 prohibitions against collegia sudalicia, soldiers’ 
 clubs, and other illicit combinations, expressly 
 excepts meetings the object of which was re¬ 
 ligious, “ religionis causa coire non prohibentur,” 
 provided they were not forbidden by a decree of 
 the senate; as well as associations of the poorer 
 classes meeting once a month to make a small 
 payment for common purposes, one of which was 
 the decent burial of their members, “ permittitur 
 tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum ta- 
 men semel in mense coeaut ” (Digest, ibid.). That 
 such associations existed among Christians with 
 the object, among others, of defraying the funeral 
 expenses of their poorer brethren, is clear from 
 the Apology of Tertullian. He says, speaking 
 of the area publica, or public chest: “ Every one 
 makes a small contribution on a certain day of 
 the month (modicarn unusquisque stipem men¬ 
 strua die. . . . apponit), or when he chooses, pro¬ 
 vided only he is willing and able, for none is 
 
 compelled.The amount is, as it were, a 
 
 common fund of piety. Since it is expended not 
 in feasting, or drinking, or indecent excess, but 
 in feeding and burging the poor, &c. (egenis 
 alendis humandis-(\ne).'’ Tertull. Apolog. c. xxxix. 
 The first historical notice we have of any in¬ 
 terference with the Christian cemeteries is found 
 in Africa, A.D. 203. And this was not an act of 
 the civil power, but was simply an outbreak 
 of popular bigotry. “Areae non sint,” Tertull. 
 ad iscapul. c. iii. [AREA]. We do not find'any 
 general edict aimed at the Christian cemeteries 
 before that of the Emperor Valerian, A.D. 2b7 ; 
 and even this is directed not against the ceme¬ 
 teries themselves but against religious meetings 
 in the sacred precincts, and is absolutely silent 
 as to any prohibition of burial. After this, the 
 cemeteries became expressly recognized by the 
 civil power. 
 
 We cannot doubt that places of interment 
 must have been provided by the Church, in 
 its corporate capacity, for its members at a 
 very early period. It was not evei’y Christian 
 v/hose dead body would be sure of receiving 
 the pious ^are that attended the more distin- 
 gui.-.hed members of the Church. Their ab¬ 
 horrence of cremation, and repugnance against 
 admixture with the depai’tcd heathen forbad 
 their finding a resting place in the heathen 
 columbaria. The horrible puticuli where the 
 bodies of the lowest slaves were thrown to rot in 
 an undistinguished mass, could not be permitted 
 to be the last home of those for whom, equally 
 with the most distinguished members of the 
 
 Church, Christ died. “ Apud nos,” writes Lac- 
 tantius, “inter pauperes et divites, servos et do¬ 
 minos, intere.st nihil ” (Lact. Div. Inst. v. 14, 15). 
 A common cemetery would be one of the first 
 necessities of a Christian Church in any city as 
 soon as it acquired a corporate existence and 
 stability. Rome could not have long dispensed 
 with it. And when we read of Callistus being 
 “ set over the cemetery,” by Pope Zephyrinus 
 (c. 202), we cannot reasonably question that the 
 cemetery which we know from Anastasius “Cal¬ 
 listus made (fecit) on the Appian way, and which 
 is called to the present day the cemetery of Cal¬ 
 listus” (Anastas. § 17), was one common to the 
 whole Christian community, formed by Callistus 
 on a plot of ground given to him for this purpose 
 by some Roman of distinction. It is a plausible 
 conjecture of De Rossi that the example of tho.^-e 
 who had bestowed this cemetery on the Christian 
 community would speedily' be followed by other 
 believers of wealth, and that others of the larger 
 cemeteries which surround Rome ow'e their origin, 
 or fuller development to this epoch. This pro¬ 
 bability is strengthened when we find it recorded 
 by Pope Fabian, in the early part of the same 
 century (a.d. 238), that “after he had divided 
 the regions among the deacons he ordered nu¬ 
 merous buildings to be constructed in the ceme¬ 
 teries ” (multas fabricas per coemeteria fieri 
 praecepit), Anast. § 21. It was in one of these 
 memorial chapels that in all probability Pone 
 Xy'stus II. was martyred, a.d. 261, “ in coemeterio 
 animadversum,” Cyprian, Ep. 80 (81). Anas¬ 
 tasius records that the charge under which he 
 suffered was contempt for the commands of Va¬ 
 lerian (Anast. § 25), and, as we have seen, one of 
 the persecuting edicts of that emperor forbad the 
 Christians to enter their cemeteries. Among 
 the internal arrangements of the church attri¬ 
 buted in the Liber Pontificalis to Dionysius (a.d. 
 261-272) is the institution of cemeteries, “coe¬ 
 meteria instituit ” (Anast. §26). From this pe¬ 
 riod large public cemeteries became a recognized 
 part of the organization of the Christian Church, 
 it was considered a duty incumbent on the richer 
 members to provide for the revei'ent interment of 
 the poor, and where other means were wanting, 
 St. Ambrose sanctioned the sale of the sacred 
 vessels by the Christian community rather than 
 that the dead should want burial (Ambros. de 
 Offic. lib. ii. c. 28). 
 
 The form, position, and arrangements of the 
 early Christian cemeteries were not regulated 
 by any uniform system, but were modified ac¬ 
 cording to the customs of the country, the nature 
 of the soil, and the conditions of climate. 
 Attention having been for a long time chief!v 
 drawn to the subterranean cemeteries of Rome, 
 it has been too hastily inferred that all the earlv 
 Christian burial places were underground vaults. 
 But as Mommsen says, “the idea that the dead 
 were usually buried in such vaults in earlv 
 Christian times is as erroneous as it is prevalent ” 
 (Co7itempor. liev., May 1871, p. 166). We know 
 that at Carthage the Christian dead were buried, 
 not in hgpogaea^ but in open plots of ground, 
 areae sepultu>'arum nostrarum." Against these 
 burial places the populace dii’ected their mad 
 attack with the wild cry, “ Down with the burial 
 places” (areae non sint), and with the fury of 
 Bacchanals dug up the graves, dragged forth the 
 decaying corpses, and tore them into traginonts 
 
332 
 
 cp:metery 
 
 CEMETERY 
 
 (Tei'tull ad Soap, 3, Apolog. c. xxxvii.). Half a 
 century later we find the word in use at Car¬ 
 thage. St. Cyprian was buried “ ad areas Ma- 
 crol)ii Candidiani procuratoris ” (Kuinart, Acta 
 Martyrum Sincera, p. 263). It also occurs in the 
 Acts of Montanus and Lucius, “ in medio eorum 
 in area solum servari jussit (Montanus) ut nec 
 sepulturae consortio privaretur” (^ib. 279). The 
 same term is found in connection with a monu¬ 
 mental cemetery chapel, cella memoriae, in a very 
 remarkable inscription from Caesarea in Maure¬ 
 tania (lol) given by De Rossi (^Bullet, di Arch, 
 Crist. April, 1864) :— 
 
 “ Aream at (ad) scpulchra cultor verbl contulit, 
 
 Et cellam stnixii suis cunctis sumptibus. 
 
 Kclesiae sanctae hanc reliquit inemoriatn. 
 
 Salveie fratres puro corde et siinplici, 
 
 Euf'lpias VOS satos sancto Spiritu. 
 
 Eclesia Fratrum liunc rostitult titulum. 
 
 Ex ing. Asteri.” 
 
 “This graveyard was given by the servant of 
 the VVord, who has also built the chapel entirelv 
 at his own expense. He left the memoria to the 
 Holy Church. Hail, brethren! Euelpias with 
 a pure and simple heart greets you, born of the 
 ‘Holy Spirit.” The remainder of the inscription 
 records the restoration of the titulus, which had 
 been damaged in one of the former persecutions, 
 by the Ecclesia Fratrum. The concluding words, 
 “ ex ingenio Asterii,” give the name of the poet. 
 
 We find sufficient evidence of this custom of 
 burying in enclosed graveyards, according to the 
 modern usage, prevailing in other districts. The 
 language of St. Chrysostom with respect to the 
 immense concourse of people who assembled on 
 Easter Eve and other special anniversaries for 
 worship and the celebration of the Eucharist in 
 the cemeteries and at the martyria, with which 
 the city of Antioch was surrounded, can only be 
 interpreted of cemeteries above ground. There 
 is not the slightest reference to subterranean 
 vaults, which would have been altogether inade¬ 
 quate to receive the multitudes who thronged 
 thithei' (cf. Chrysost. Horn. 81, €ts rb ovoya kol- 
 /j-yrripiov ] Horn. 65, de Ma7'tyrihus; Horn. 67, 
 in Dt'O'.idem). The same inference as to the 
 position of the cemeteries may be legitimately 
 drawn from other passages of early writers. 
 This is the only satisfactory interpretation of 
 the passage in the Apostolical Constitutions 
 (lib. vi. c. 30), relating to assemblies held in 
 the cemeteries “ for reading the sacred books, 
 singing in behalf of the martyrs which are 
 fallen asleep, and for all the saints from the 
 besfinnino; of the world and for the brethren that 
 are asleep in the Lord, and offering the accept¬ 
 able Eucharist.” We learn also from Athanasius 
 (Apoloy. pro Fuja, p. 704) that during the week 
 after Pentecost the people fasted and went out 
 to pray ire pi ra KoiyrjTr^pia. The prohibitions of 
 the Council of Elvira (a.d. 305, Canon, 34, 35) 
 of the custom of females passing the night in 
 the cemeteries, which was the cause of many 
 scandals under the colour of religion (cf. Pe- 
 tron. Arbit. Matrona Ephes.), and of the light¬ 
 ing of candles in them during the day-time, 
 “ placuit cereos in coemeteriis non accendi, inqui- 
 etandi enim Sanctorum spiritus non sunt ” (cf. 
 1 Sam. xxviii. 15, “Quaj’e inquietasti me ui sus- 
 citarer?”), indicate open-air cemeteries fur¬ 
 nished with martyria, monuments, and memorial 
 
 chapels, not subterranean vaults. We would ex- 
 j plain in the same way the 110th canon of thf 
 Council of Laodicaea (a.d. 366) forbidding mem 
 bers of the Church to resort to the cemeteries 
 or rruirtyria of heretics for the purpose of prayer 
 and divine service, eux'/js ^ depaneia^ tVe/ca. 
 Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont, d. 482, 
 describes the burial place of his grandfather as 
 a grave (scrobs) in a field (campus) (Sidon. Apoll. 
 lib. iii. ep. 12). 
 
 Nor even in Rome itself, though the actual 
 place of interment was as a rule in a subter¬ 
 ranean excavation, now known as a catacomb, 
 does the word coemeterium exclusively denote 
 these underground vaults. De Rossi, following 
 Settele (Atti della Pont. Acad, d' Arch. tom. ii. 
 p. 51) has abundantly shown in his Roma Sot- 
 terranea (cf. vol. i. pp. 86, 93, &c.), that coeme¬ 
 terium. when it occurs in the Lives of the Pojies 
 and other early documents frequently denotes 
 the monumental chapels and oratories, together 
 with the huts of the fcssores and other officials, 
 erected in the funeral enclosure. “ The long 
 peace from the I'eign of Caracalla to that of De- 
 cius might well have encouraged the Christians to 
 erect such buildings, and allowed them to make 
 frequent use of them notwithstanding occasional 
 disturbances from popular violence ” (Northcote, 
 R. S. p. 86-87). When we read of popes and 
 other Christian confessors taking refuge in the 
 cemeteries and living in them for a considerable 
 period, we are not to suppose that they actually 
 passed their time underground, under circum¬ 
 stances and in an atmosphere which would render 
 life hardly possible, but in one of the buildings 
 annexed to the cemeteries, either for religious 
 purposes, or for the gua)’dianship of the sacred en¬ 
 closures.* Thus when we read in Anastasius (§ 60) 
 that Boniface 1. in the storm} period that ac¬ 
 companied the double election to the popedom, 
 A.D. 419, “ habitavit in coemeterio Sanctae Fe- 
 licitatis,” we find Symmachus, his contemporary, 
 writing without any allusion to the place of his 
 retirement, “ extra murum deductus non longe 
 ab urbe remoratur ” (Symmach. Ep. x. 73). We 
 have a distinct example belonging to the same 
 period, of residence in a cella of a cemetery. This 
 is the priest Barbatianus, who having come from 
 Antioch to Rome retired to the cemetery of Cal- 
 listus, “ clam latens in cellula sua ” (Agnellus, 
 Vitae Pont. Ravenn.). Ptolemaeus Silvius, quoted 
 by De Rossi, Bulletthio, Giugno, 1863, writing A.D. 
 448, speaks of the innumerable cellulae dedicated 
 to the martyrs with which the areas of the 
 cemeteries were studded. All these buildings 
 taken collectively were often comprised under 
 the name coemeterium. Onuphrius Panvinius 
 (d. 1568), one of the earlie.st writers on Christian 
 interment, De Ritu sepeliend. Mort. apud vet. 
 Christ., p. 85, expressly states that “ inasmuch 
 as worshippers were wont to assemble in large 
 numbers at the tombs of the martyrs on the 
 anniversaries of their death, the name of cemetery 
 was extended to capacious places adjacent to 
 the cemeteries, suitable for public meetings 
 for prayer.” “We read,” he continues, “that 
 the early Roman pontiffs were in the habit of 
 keeping these stations, that is, performing all 
 their public pontifical acts among the tombs of 
 
 * Express reference is made by Ulpian to the habit of 
 dwelling lu sepulchres (Digest. Ub. xlvii. tit. xii. ^ 3). 
 
CEMETERY 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 333 
 
 the mnvtyrs. And thus these cemetevies were 
 to the Christians as it were temples, and places 
 of prayer in which bishops used to gather their 
 fivnods, administer the sacraments, and preach 
 the word of God.” [Churchyard.] 
 
 That the term cooneterium was not restricted 
 to the subterranean places of interment is also 
 clear from the fact that though interment in the 
 catacombs had entirely ceased in the 5th cen¬ 
 tury, we read of one pope after another being 
 buried in coemeterio (cf. Siricius, A.D. 398, Anast. 
 §55; Anastasius A.D. 402, f6. § 56; Bonifacius, 
 A.D. 422, ib. § 61 ; Coelestinus, A.D. 432, ib. §62). 
 Even of Vigilius, who died A.D. 555, long after 
 the catacombs were disused for burial and had be¬ 
 come nothing more than places of devotion at the 
 tombs of the martyrs, we read {ib. § 108), “ cor¬ 
 pus . . . sej)ultum est ... in coemeterio Priscil- 
 lae ” (Anast. § 108). Hadrian I. in his celebrated 
 letter to Charlemagne on images, also makes 
 mention of the pictures executed by Coelestinus 
 “in coemeterio suo” {Concilia, Ed. Mansi xiii. 
 p. 801). (For fuller particulars, see De Rossi, 
 Bom. Soft. vol. i. p. 216, 217). There is an ap¬ 
 parent exception in the case of Zosimus, A.D. 418, 
 Sixtus III. A.D. 440, and Hilarius, A.D. 468, all 
 of whom are stated to have been buried “ad 
 Sanctum Laurentium in crypta ” (Anast. § 59, 
 65, 71). But as De Rossi remarks the exception 
 only proves the rule. For this crypt did not 
 at this time form part of the extensive cemetery 
 of St. Cyriaca, but was the substructui-e of the 
 altar {confessio) of the Basilica erected over it 
 by Constantine, A.D. 330, of which it formed the 
 nucleus. The result of his investigation is thus 
 summed up by De Rossi, u. s. : “ It is manifest 
 that the cemeteries in which during the fifth cen¬ 
 tury the bodies of the popes were interred were 
 all buildings under the open sky, and that history 
 is in accord with the monuments in presenting 
 no single example in that period of a burial 
 performed according to the ancient rites in'the 
 primitive subterranean excavations.” 
 
 Although the words Koipyrripiou, coemeterium, 
 were generally apjdied to the whole sepulchral 
 area, and the buildings included within it, yet 
 instances are not wanting in which it is used of 
 a single grave. The examples adduced by De 
 Rossi {B. S. p. 85) are exclusively Greek. He 
 refers to Corpus Inscr. Graec., n. 9298 ; 9304—6 ; 
 9310-16: 9439-40; 9450; and mentions a bi¬ 
 lingual inscription from Narbonne of the year 
 527, in which the tomb is styled KTMETEPION. 
 In Boldetti, p. 633, we have an inscription from 
 Malta stating that the KOIMHTHPION had been 
 purchased and restored by a Christian named 
 Zosimus. Aringhi also {Bom. Subt. tom. i. p. 5) 
 adduces an example of a sarcophagus bearing 
 this designation, KOIMHTHPION TOTTO HK- 
 TABIAAH TH lAIA FTNAIKI AATAAKIE. 
 The word is of exce.ssive rarity in the catacombs 
 themselves. The epitaph of Sabinus (Ferret V. 
 xxix. 67), in which we read Cvmrterium- Bal- 
 BIXAE, is perhaps the only instance known. 
 
 The Latin equivalents for KoiprjTripiov most 
 usually found were either donnitorium — e. g.. 
 Fecit in pace Domini Dormitorium (cf. Reines, 
 Syntagm. Inscr. Antiq. 356); “ Pompeiana nia- 
 
 •> In the Sacramevla.rium Eccl. Roman, the Missa 
 in Cijmi-teriis, cap. 103, contains prayers for the souls 
 " ontnium hdelium in hac Basilica quiesceutium." 
 
 trona corpus eju.s de judice emit et imposuit in 
 dormitorio suo ” {Acta S. Maximil. apud Ruinart, 
 p. 264)—or in Africa, acculntorium (De Rossi, 
 B.S. i. p. 86). A long list of other names by which 
 at various ej)ochs and in ditlerent countries, 
 Christian places of interment were designated 
 may be found in Boldetti {Osservazioni, pp. 
 581-586). 
 
 (Bingham, Grig. Eccl. bk. viii. ch. 8- 10, bk. 
 xxiii. ch. 1-2; Boldetti, Osservazioni sopra i 
 Cimeterii; Bottari, Sculture e pitture sagre; 
 Bosio, Boma Sotterranea ; Aringhi, A’o/na Subter- 
 ranea ; Panvinius, De Bitu Sepeliendi; Anasta- 
 sius, De Vitis Bom. Pontif. ; Raoul-Rochette, 
 lableau des Catacombes ; De Rossi, Boma Sotter¬ 
 ranea ; Northcote and Brownlow, Boma Sotter¬ 
 ranea). [E. V.] 
 
 CENSER. [Thurible.] 
 
 CENSURIUS, bishop and confessor at Aux- 
 erre (about a.d. 500, is commemorated June 10 
 {yiart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CEREAIjIS. ( 1 ) Martyr at Rome under 
 Hadrian, is commemorated June 10 {Mart. Bom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Soldier, martyr at Rome under Decius, 
 Sept. 14 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CEREMONIALE. A book containing direc¬ 
 tions or rubrics for the due performance of cer¬ 
 tain ceremonies. The more ancient term for such 
 a book is Ordo, which see., [C.] 
 
 CEREUS. [Taper.] 
 
 CEREUS PASCHALIS. [Maundy 
 Thursday.] 
 
 CHAIR. [Cathedra: Throne.] 
 
 CHALCEDON (Councils of), (i) a.d. 
 403, better known as “the Synod of the Oak”—a 
 name given to a suburb there—at which St. 
 Chrysostom was deposed. To appreciate its 
 proceedings, we should remember that St. John 
 Chrysostom had been appointed to the see of 
 Constantinople five years before, and that Theo- 
 philus, bishop of Alexandria, had been summoned 
 thither by the emperor Arcadius to ordain him. 
 Theophilus had a presbyter of his own whom he 
 would have preferred, named Isidore, so that in 
 one sense he consecrated St. Chrysostom under 
 constraint. It was against the 2nd of the Con- 
 stantinopolitan canons likewise for him to have 
 consecrated at all out of his own diocese: but in 
 another sense he was probably not loth to make 
 St. Chrysostom beholden to him, and be possessed 
 of a pretext himself for interfering in a see 
 threatening to eclipse his own, where he could 
 do so with effect. Hence the part played by him 
 at the Synod of the Oak, over which he presided, 
 and in which no less than 12 sessions were occu¬ 
 pied on charges brought against St. Chrysostom 
 himself, and a 13th on charges brought against 
 Heraclides, bishop of Ephesus, who had been or¬ 
 dained by him (Mansi iii. 1141-54). The num¬ 
 ber of charges alleged against St. Chrysostom 
 was 29 at one time and 18 at another. When 
 cited to appear and reply to thcrti, his answer 
 was: “Remove my avowed enemies from your 
 list of judges, and I am ready to appear and 
 make my defence, should any pei’son bring aught 
 against me; otherwise you may .send as often as 
 you will for me, but you will get no farther.” 
 And the first of those whom he reckoned as such 
 
334 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 was Theophilus. One of the charges against 
 him was some unworthy language that he had 
 used to St. Epiphanius, lately deceased, who had 
 supported Tirnotheus in condemning the origi- 
 nists, regarded by St. Chrysostom with more 
 favour. The others refer to his conduct in his 
 own church, or towards his own clergy. The 
 synod ended by deposing St. Chrysostom, having 
 cited him four times to no purpose; when he 
 was immediately expelled the city by the em¬ 
 peror, and withdi’ew into Bithynia, to be very 
 shortly recalled. 
 
 ( 2 ) The 4th general —held its first session, 
 October 8, A.D. 451, in the church of St. 
 Euphemia — for the architectural arrangements 
 of which see Evagidus (ii. 3)—having been con¬ 
 vened by the emperor Marcian shortly after his 
 elevation. In his circular to the bishops (Mansi, 
 vi. 551—4), he bids them come to Kicaea—the 
 place chosen by him originally—to settle “ some 
 questions that he says had arisen apparently 
 respecting the orthodox faith, and been also shown 
 him in a letter from the archbishop of Rome.” 
 But in reality St. Leo had urged a very different 
 course. In his last epistle to the late emperor 
 he had indeed petitioned that a council might be 
 held in Italy, should a council be required at all 
 (j6. 83-5): and when Marcian applied to him 
 “ to authoi'ise ” the council about to be held («6. 
 93—4), his reply was that he would rather it 
 were postponed till the times w'ere more favour¬ 
 able (i6. 114—5). It was only when he found 
 his advice unheeded that he decided on sending 
 representatives thither (i5. 126-9), and then on 
 the solemn understanding that there should be 
 no resettlement attempted of the Nicene faith. 
 Even so, he reminds the empress (ib. 138-9) that 
 his demand had been for a council in Italy; and 
 tells the council expressly that his representa¬ 
 tives are to preside there, custom forbidding his 
 own presence (i6. 131-5). His representatives, 
 on their part, warn the emperor that unless he 
 is present in person they cannot attend (j6. 557- 
 8). Hence, to facilitate this arrangement, the 
 council is transferred to Chalcedon. Bishops to 
 the number of 360 attended, in some cases by 
 deputy, the 1st action, and 19 of the highest lay 
 dignitaries represented the emperor. Usually 
 630 bishops are said to have been at the council 
 sooner or later (Bever. ii. 107). It might have 
 been supposed this total had been gained origi¬ 
 nally by placing the 6 before, instead of after, 
 the 3 : still there are 470 episcopal subscriptions 
 to the 6th action, and members of the council 
 themselves spoke of it as one of 600 bishops 
 (Mansi, vii. 57, and the note). 
 
 As to their places in church, the lay dignitaries 
 occupied the centre, in front of the altar-screen; 
 and one of the most remarkable traits of this 
 council is their control of its proceedings all 
 through. On their left were the legates from 
 Rome, and next to them Anatolius of Constan¬ 
 tinople, Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Caesa¬ 
 rea, Stephen of Ephesus, and other Easterns. On 
 their right were Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal 
 of Jerusalem, with the bishops of Egypt, Illyria, 
 and Palestine generally. On the motion of 
 Paschasiuus, the first legate, Dioscorus was 
 ordered by the magistrates to quit the seat occu¬ 
 pied by him in the council, and to take his place 
 in the midst where the accused sat. The charges 
 alleged against him by the legates were that he 
 
 had held a council and sat as judge, without 
 permission of the apostolic see. Eusebius of 
 Dorylaeum, sitting in the midst as his accuser, 
 complained of the iniquitous sentence passed 
 upon Flavian and himself at the council of 
 Ephesus (see the art. on thi.s) two years before. 
 Dio.scorus begged its acts might be read. This 
 was done: but meanwhile Theodoret, bishop of 
 Cyrus, who had been deposed there, having since 
 been restored by St. Leo, and invited to this 
 council by the emperor, entered and took his 
 seat, amidst vehement protests from the bishops 
 on the right. After the acts of the “ Robbers’ 
 Meeting” had been read, which included those 
 of the two synods of Constantinople pi-eceding it, 
 all agreed that Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius, 
 and three more, who had been most forward in 
 deposing Eusebius and Flavian, deserved to be 
 deposed themselves. The rest might be par¬ 
 doned, as having acted in ignorance or under 
 coercion. 
 
 Action or session 2 followed, October 10. 
 The judges or lay dignitaries proposing that the 
 faith should be set forth in its integrity, 
 the bishops replied that they were limited to the 
 creed of Nicaea, confirmed at Ephesus, and in¬ 
 terpreted by the letters of SS. Cyril and Leo 
 more particularly. On this it was recited bv 
 command of the judges, from a book by Euno- 
 mius, bishop of Kicomedia, amidst shouts of 
 adhesion. And immediately after, without a 
 word more, by order of the same judges, Aetius 
 or Atticus, deacon or archdeacon of the church 
 of Constantinople, recited from a book what 
 purported to be the creed of the 150 fathers, 
 that is, of the 2nd general council, on which 
 some remarks hav'e been made elsewhere. 
 [CONC. Const, and Antioch.] But the abrupt¬ 
 ness of its introduction here merits attention, 
 especially when viewed in connection with a 
 short scene in the 1st action (Mansi, vi. 631-2). 
 Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, there remarked that 
 Eutyches had dealt fraudulently in professing 
 his faith in the words of the creed of Xicaea, as 
 it stood originally; for it had received additions 
 from the holy fathers since then, owing to the 
 false teaching of Apollinarius, Valentinus, Mace- 
 donius, and their followers; two such being 
 “ from heaven ” after “ descended,” and “ by the 
 Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary ” after “ in¬ 
 carnate.” This is the first clfear reference to the 
 new clauses of the Constautinopolitan creed in 
 this or any other council extant And it is to be 
 observed that even the creed of Xicaea, quoted 
 in the definition, contains them. But Diogenes 
 had hardly finished his sentence, when the 
 Egyptian bishops exclaimed, “nobody will hear 
 of any additions or subtractions either: let what 
 passed at Xicaea stand as it i.>!.” Dioscorus had 
 ura:ed this all along. Thus advantage was 
 promptly taken of his condemnation to promul¬ 
 gate this creed in the same breath with that of 
 Nicae?i, while the account given of the additions 
 occurring in it by Diogenes is such as to' connect 
 it at once with those synods of Antioch and 
 Rome, at which the errors of Apollinarius and 
 Macedonius were condemned. Its recital was 
 followed bv the same shouts of adhesion as the 
 older form, which is the more remarkable as, up 
 to that time, stress had been laid exclusively, 
 both here and at the synods rehearsed in the 
 first action, on the ci'eed of Xicaea, confirmed at 
 
CHAI.CEDON 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 335 
 
 Ej)hesus, without the slightest reference to any- 
 tliing that had ever passed at Constantinople. 
 After this, the two letters of St. Cyril were read 
 that had been heard already from the acts of the 
 council under Flavian, and then the letter of St. 
 lyco to Flavian—the reading of which had been 
 prevented at the “Robbers’ Meeting” — in a 
 Greek translation. Three passages in it were 
 called in question by the bishops of Illyria and 
 Pale.stiue; but Aetius and Theodoret producing 
 similar expressions from St. Cyi’il, they were 
 accepted. Five days were allowed for further 
 deliberation. 
 
 At the 3rd action, however, October 13, 
 two days in advance from which the lay dig¬ 
 nitaries Avere absent, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
 having brought another indictment against Dios- 
 corus, fresh charges were produced against him 
 also by tAvo deacons and one layman of his own 
 church, and he not appearing to meet them, 
 after having been twice summoned, Avas formally 
 deposed—the Roman legates, by general consent, 
 delivering their judgment first, and the rest in 
 order assenting to it—but the sentence of his 
 deposition was framed on the model of that of 
 Kestorius. Letters were written to the emperor 
 and empress and to his own clergy, acquainting 
 them Avith it. 
 
 Action 4 followed, October 17, or rather 15 
 (see Mansi, vii. 83), Avhen the judges appeared 
 true to their engagement. By their order 
 minutes of the 1st and 2nd actions were read 
 out, to the marked exclusion of what had passed 
 at the 3rd. They then called upon the bishops 
 to declare what had been decided by them re¬ 
 specting the faith. The legates replied by pro¬ 
 nouncing the faith of Nicaea, Constantinople, and 
 Ephesus to haA"e been embraced by the council 
 and expounded faithfully by St. Leo in his epistle 
 to Flavian. To thi.s, all present assented; and 
 .luA’enal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eusta¬ 
 thius, the five bishops who had, in the 1st action, 
 been classed Avith Dioscorus, Avere permitted to 
 sit in the council on subscribing to it. Con¬ 
 sideration of a petition from 13 Egyptian bishops 
 who objected to do so Avas adjourned till they 
 had elected a new archbishop. Eighteen priests 
 and archimandrites Avho had petitioned the em¬ 
 peror Avere next heard. Among them Avas Bar- 
 sumas the Syrian, accused of having murdered 
 Flavian. The burden of their petition was that 
 Dioscorus should be restored. The 4th and 5th 
 canons of Antioch were quoted from a book—in 
 it numbered as canons 83 and 4—against them, 
 and they were allowed 30 days for consideration 
 whether to submit to the council or be deposed. 
 Lastly, Photius of Tyre was heard in behalf of 
 the rights of his chui'ch against Eustathius of 
 Berytus, Avhose city had been created a metro- 
 j)olis by the late emperor. The council ruled, 
 and the judges concurred, that the question be¬ 
 tween them should be settled according to the 
 canons, and not prejudiced by any pragmatical 
 constitutions of the empire. 
 
 On the 5th action, commencing October 22, 
 the judges called on the bishops to produce what 
 had been defined by them on the hiith. When 
 read it gave offence to the legates and some few 
 Easterns, as not including the letter of St. Leo. 
 The former threatened to leaA'e, and Avere told 
 they might; but on reference to the emperor, 
 he said a synod should be held in the West, if 
 
 they could not agree. A committee Avas there* 
 fore formed of the principal bishops, and at 
 length the definition appeared Avith the creeds 
 of Nicaea and Constantinople folloAving in suc- 
 ce.ssion, but authori.sed equally, in the fii’st part 
 of it; and in the second, the synodical letters of 
 St. Cyril to Nestorius and to the Easterns, and 
 the letter of St. Leo to Flavian, as their received 
 exponents on the mystery of the Incarnation. 
 On the doctrine of the Trinity, those creeds, it 
 was particularly said, required no further expla¬ 
 nation ; nor Avas any other faith to be taught, or 
 creed proposed for acceptance, to converts from 
 Avhat heresy soever, under pain of deposition in 
 the case of the clergy and excommunication in 
 that of the laity. 
 
 At the 5th action, October 25, all subscribed 
 to this definition—the Roman legates attesting 
 merely that they subscribed, the rest that they 
 defined as Avell. This Avas done in the presence 
 of the emperor Marcian, the empress Pulcheria, 
 and a splendid suite; the emperor telling them 
 in a short address that he had come thither, like 
 Constantine, to confirm what they had done, not 
 to display his poAver. After Avhich, he approA'ed 
 of their definition, and announced his intention of 
 punishing all Avho contravened it, according 
 to their station. At his instance three rules 
 Avere made; one for making monks more depen¬ 
 dent upon bLshops, and two more forbidding the 
 clergy to undertake secular posts, or migrate 
 from the church to Avhich they belonged. And 
 here the council, doctrinally speaking, ends. 
 
 The other actions, to the 14th inclusively, re¬ 
 lated to matters betAveen one bishop and another, 
 and occupied the re.st of October. At action 7 
 sanction Avas given to a territorial arrangement 
 between the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem, 
 by which the former was in future to haA'e 
 jurisdiction OA'er the tAvo provinces of Phoenicia 
 and that of Arabia—the latter over the three 
 called Palestine. At the 8th action Theodoret, Avho 
 had already subscribed to the definition Avith the 
 rest, Avas called upon to anathematise Nestorius, 
 Avhich he did, including Eutyches, and three 
 more bishops similarly called upon did the same. 
 The 9th and 10th actions passed in enquiring into 
 Avhat had been decided at the synods of Tyre and 
 Berytus respecting Ibas, bishop of Edessa, three 
 years" before. Their acts having been rehearsed, 
 and the sentence passed upon him at the “ Rob¬ 
 bers’ Meeting” summarily cancelled, he Avas 
 declared orthodox on anathematising Nestorius 
 and Eutyches, and restored to his see. Yet, in¬ 
 consistently enough, in another case, that of 
 Domuus of Antioch, the judgment of the “Rob¬ 
 bers’ Meeting ” was alloAved to stand, his suc¬ 
 cessor, Maximus, having been consecrated by 
 Anatolius of Constantinople, recognised by St. 
 Leo, and receiA'ed at this council. Domuus, 
 Avhose piety Avas admitted by all, Avas adjudged 
 a pension out of the reA'enues of the see in Avhich 
 he had been uncanonically superseded. The 
 Greek account of this proceeding indeed has 
 been lost, but tAvo of the Latin versions contain¬ 
 ing it purport to have been made from tlie Greek 
 (Mansi, vii. 177-8, 269-72, and 771-4). Actions 
 11 and 12 Avere taken up in hearing a con¬ 
 tention betAA-een Bassianus and Stephen for the 
 see of Ephesus, as bishop of which, Stephen had 
 hitherto sat and A’oted at this council. Neither 
 had been canonically ordained in the judgment 
 
336 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 CHALCEDON 
 
 of the council, so that a fresh election had to be ' 
 made, but both were allowed their i-ank and 
 ordered a pension of 200 aurei respectively out 
 of the revenues of that see. In the foi mer of 
 these actions, the 16th and 17th canons of 
 Antioch were read out of a book by Leontius, 
 bishop of Magnesia, numbered as 95th and 96th, 
 and applied to, their case. At the 13th action 
 Eunomius, bishop of Nicomedia, complained that 
 the privileges of his church had been infringed 
 by the bishop of Nicaea. Imperial constitutions 
 were quoted on both sides, which, according to 
 the judges themselves, had nothing at all to do 
 with the rights of bishops: and the 4th Nicene 
 canon which Eunomius read out of a book as the 
 6th, settled the question in his favour. The in¬ 
 sertion of a salvo to the see of Constantinople, 
 proposed by its archdeacon, was negatived by 
 the judges, who said that its rights of ordaining 
 in the provinces would be declared in their 
 proper order. At the 14th action, Athanasius 
 and Sabiuianus, who had each sat and subscribed 
 as bishop of Perrhe, submitted their respective 
 claims—the former adducing two letters in his 
 favour from SS. Cyril and Proclus, the latter the 
 acts of the .synod of Antioch under Domnus, de¬ 
 posing his rival, and the fact of the “ Robbers’ 
 Meeting ” having restored him. For the 
 judgment of the council, see Concil. llierap. 
 A.D. 445. 
 
 What is printed as the 15th action, without 
 date or preface, would seem to be, strictly 
 speaking, a mere continuation of the 10th action 
 by the hierarchy for framing canons after the 
 judges had retired. This would follow from what 
 is said to have passed in the 16th action, October 
 28—at least, if this date is correct. There the 
 legates complained to the judges of what had 
 been done yesterday, after the latter had retired, 
 and subsequently to their own withdrawal also. 
 Kow, October 27 had been the day of the 10th 
 action, and the 11th action was not till October 
 29. Consequently there was just the interval 
 required for them to have complained on October 
 28, and had the canon to which they objected 
 read out publicly. Thus, when Ibas had been 
 acquitted, the judges withdrew, and the bishops, 
 probably not expecting any more business, re¬ 
 mained to make canons. Twenty-seven in all, 
 including those previously recommended by the 
 emperor, were drawn up, and, according to one 
 of the oldest Latin versions extant, were sub¬ 
 scribed to by all, not excepting the legates 
 (Mansi, vii. 400-8). After the legates had re¬ 
 tired, the Eastern bishops again remained, and 
 agreed to three more, making a total of 30; but 
 to the last three the legates had not been parties, 
 and equally declined subscribing the day after 
 (Mansi, ib. 429-54). As Beveridge remarks, 
 they are omitted as well by John Scholasticus 
 as by Dionysius Exiguus (ii. 124), nor have they 
 ever been received in the West. 
 
 Only the 28th, however, demands any notice. 
 Those who were most interested in it said in their 
 defence that they had asked the legates to take 
 part in framing it, and they had replied that 
 they were without instructions. The judges, on 
 the other hand, had bade them refer it to the 
 council. And doubtless it was as much a ques¬ 
 tion for the council as those which had been 
 settled in the 7th and 13th actions. In one 
 seuse it merely renewed the 3rd canon of Con¬ 
 
 stantinople, A.D. 381, conferring honorary pre¬ 
 cedence (7rp€<T0€?a, throughout—erroneousl} ren¬ 
 dered by the Latins in each case “ primatum ”) 
 upon the bishop of that city next after Rome, 
 and for the same reason as had there been given. 
 And if, in addition, it gave the bishop of that 
 city the right of ordaining metropolitans in the 
 dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, still this 
 was afterwards proved to have been done with 
 the full consent of the bishops of those dioceses. 
 And so we are brought to what really pa.ssed at 
 the 16th action, opening abruptly with a speech of 
 the legate Lucentius (Mansi, vii. 441), as reported 
 in the Greek version. Here both sides were 
 called upon by the judges to produce the canons 
 on which they relied ; and the legates, in quoting 
 the 6th of Nir^aea, substituted for the first clause 
 of it, “ Quod ecclesia Romana semper habuit 
 primatum.” No protest was actually made to 
 these words, but it was cited in its genuine form 
 afterwards by the Constantinopolitan archdeacon. 
 And as for the 3rd of Constantinople, Lusebius 
 of Dorylaeum testified to having read it himself 
 at Rome to the Pope, and to his having received 
 it (j 5. 449). The judges at last having delivered 
 their opinion that the primacy before all, and 
 chiefest honour, according to the canons, should 
 be preserved to the archbishop of elder Rome, but 
 that the archbishop of Constantinople ought to 
 have the honour and power ass'gned him in this 
 canon, it was accepted by all present, in spite of 
 the legates, who had pi'eviously desired to have 
 their protest recorded against what had been 
 passed m their absence, for this 2nd speech of 
 Lucentius clearly followed the reading out of the 
 canon, October 28. Afterwards it was denounced 
 in a series of epistles by St. Leo, who neverthe¬ 
 less, neither by his legates, nor in his own name, 
 seems ever to have objected to the 9th and 17th 
 canons of this council, authorising appeals to the 
 see of Constantinople far more fully than the 
 Sardican canons ever had to Rome (Bever. ii. 
 115-6). Yet these form part of the 27 subscribed 
 to by all, including the legates, and received in 
 the West. No others among them, save the first, 
 are worth noticing; but these, perhaps, have 
 never been sufficiently noticed. By the first it 
 is decreed that “ the canons of the Holy Fathers, 
 made in every synod to this present time, be in 
 full force ”—in other words, the collection of 
 canons jmblished by Beveridge, Justellus, and 
 others, as the “ code of the universal Church,” is 
 ordered to become law (Bever. ii. 108; Cave, 
 Hist. Lit. i. 486-7). It only remains to observe 
 that EA'agrius attributes no more than 14 actions 
 to this council (ii. 18), and seems to say that 
 most of the canons were framed at the 7th. 
 Other accounts, that of Liberatus, for instance 
 (Brev. i. 13), vary from his. Before separating, 
 the bishops addressed the emperor in vindication 
 of their definition, and the Pope in vindication 
 of their 28th canon (Mansi, vii. 455-74 and vi. 
 147-61), telling St. Leo that he had interpreted 
 the faith of Peter to them in his epistle, and 
 •presided over their deliberations in the person of 
 his legates, as the head over the members. The 
 Pope was deaf to all argument on the subject of 
 the canon, while setting his seal to their definition. 
 In one of his letters to Anatolius (Mrnsi, vi. 203) 
 he goes so far as to say that the 3rd canon of 
 Constantinople had never been notified to the 
 apostolic see, though Eusebius of Doryiaeum had 
 
CHALDAEI 
 
 CHALICE 
 
 337 
 
 testified at the council to his having publicly 
 received it himself. In the same spirit it is, 
 perhaps, too, that he never once mentions the 
 creed of the 150 fathers ; in other words, that of 
 Constantinople, by name, though he must have 
 received it with the definition of this council: 
 and indeed he said of it latterly, “tarn plenis 
 atque perfectis definitionibus cuncta firmata sunt, 
 ut nihil ei regulae quae ex divina inspiratione 
 prolata est, aut addi possit aut minui ” {Ep. ad 
 Leon. Iinp.^ Mansi, vi. 308). Such, however, 
 was his zeal against the canon that he was at 
 one time thought not to have approved of the 
 definition. 
 
 Edicts in succession issued from the emperor, 
 ordering all persons to submit to the council, 
 and forbidding all further discussion of the 
 points settled by it. The law of the late em¬ 
 peror, confirming the acts of the “ Robbers’ 
 Meeting,” was repealed ; Eutyches deprived of 
 the title of priest; and Dioscorus exiled to 
 Gangra in Paphlagonia. Great opposition was 
 nevertheless made to its reception by their ad¬ 
 mirers, in Egypt especially, to which the “Codex 
 Encyclius,” or collection of letters in its favour, 
 addressed for the most part to the emperor Leo, 
 on his accession, A.D. 458, was intended to be a 
 counter-demonstration (Mansi, vii. 475-627 and 
 785-98). [E. S. F.] 
 
 CHALDAEI. [Astrologers.] 
 
 CHALICE. (Latin, calix ; Greek, iroT-fipiop, 
 KvireWov ] French, cal ice ; Italian, calice; Ger¬ 
 man, Kelch; Anglo-Saxon, calic.') The cup in 
 which the wine is consecrated at the celebration 
 of the Holy Communion, and from which the 
 communicants drink. Chalices have been divided 
 into several classes, of which the more important 
 are—ofiertorial, in which the wine brought by 
 the communicants was received; communical, 
 in which the wine was consecrated; and mini¬ 
 sterial, in which it was administered to the com¬ 
 municants. 
 
 Vessels of this description being indispensably 
 required for the celebration of the most impor¬ 
 tant of the rites of the Christian religion it is 
 obvious th.at from the very earliest period some 
 such must have been in use, but it does not 
 seem possible to determine how soon they began 
 to be distinguished by form, material, or orna¬ 
 ment from the cups used in ordinary life. Per¬ 
 haps the earliest notice which we have of any 
 mark by which a cup used for eucharistic pur¬ 
 poses was distinguished from those in ordinary 
 use, is the passage in Tertulliau (/)e Pudlcit. c. 
 10): “ Si forte patrocinabitur pastor, quern in 
 calice depingis, prostitutorem et ipsum Chris- 
 tiani sacramenti, merito et ebrietatis idolum et 
 moechiaj asylum post calicem subsecuturae.” 
 
 It seems indeed quite possible that at that 
 early period when the administration of the 
 Eucharist was connected both as regards time 
 and locality with the feasts of charity {agapae) 
 the distinction between the vessels used for 
 each purpose was less strongly drawn than 
 afterwards came to be the case, and that in 
 the earliest centuries there was little or no dis¬ 
 tinction of either form or decoration between 
 the eucharistic cup and that of the domestic 
 table. 
 
 The eventually exclusive adoption of the word 
 “ calix ” as signifying the eucharistic cup, mav 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 perhaps be deemed to imply that the form of 
 cup most generally employed in the celebration 
 of the Communion, was that specifically called 
 “ calix.” This word is held usually to denote a 
 cup with a somewhat shallow bowl, two handles 
 and a foot. Vases of various forms are often 
 depicted on the walls or vaults of the catacombs, 
 but it is generally uncertain how far these aro 
 merely ornaments, and it would not appear that 
 in any one instance a representation of what can 
 with certainty be assumed to be a eucharistic 
 chalice has been observed among these paintings. 
 It would at first sight appear extremely probable 
 that among these numerous representations of 
 vases, some at least should be intended to repre¬ 
 sent that which was above all precious to those 
 for whom these decorations were executed, but 
 the paintings of the earlier period are with hardly 
 an exception allegorical or symbolical, scarcely 
 ever in a primary sense historical, and never 
 liturgical, unless the allusions to the sacraments 
 conveyed by figures of fishes, baskets of bread, 
 and the like deserve to be so called. 
 
 Vases from Sarcophagus at Bordeaux. 
 
 It has been supposed by some, Boldetti (^Osser- 
 vazioni sopra i Cimiteri dei SS, MaHiri) among 
 others, that the glass vessels decorated with 
 gold leaf, the bottoms of which have been found 
 in considerable numbers in the catacombs at¬ 
 tached to the plaster by which the tiles closing 
 the loculi were fixed, were, if not actually cha¬ 
 lices, at least drinking-v^essels in which the com- 
 
 Vase from the Sarcophagus of Ataulphus at Milau. 
 
 municants received the consecrated wine, and 
 from which they drank. Padre Garrucci ( Vetri 
 Ornnti cf Oro, Pref. xi) has however shown that 
 this opinion does not rest on any secure founda¬ 
 tion. It has also been thought that the figures 
 of vases so often found incised on early Christian 
 
333 
 
 CHALICE 
 
 CHALICE 
 
 memorial stones were intended to represent cha- 
 li 'es, and thereby to indicate that the deceased 
 person was a priest. Though this may possibly 
 have sometimes been the case, other and more 
 probable explanations of the occurrence of these 
 figures of vases may be suggested; but there is 
 a marked similarity between the type of vase 
 usually employed and the forms of the earliest 
 chalices of which we have any positive know¬ 
 ledge. 
 
 The woodcut represents one of these vases as 
 shown in low relief on the sarcophagus in the 
 chapel of St. Aquilinus attached to the church 
 of S. Lorenzo at Milan, which is supposed to have 
 contained the remains of Ataulphus king of the 
 Goths (ob. A.D. 415), or of his wife Placidia. 
 
 The earliest chalice still existing is probably 
 that found wuth a paten at Gourdon in France, 
 
 Cbalic<j found at Gourdon. 
 
 and now preserved in the Bibliotheque Imperiale 
 in Paris. This is represented in the annexed wood- 
 cut, and is of gold ornamented with thin slices 
 of garnets. With it were found 104 gold coins 
 of Emperors of the East, 25 of which of Justin I. 
 (518-527) being in a fresh and unworn condition 
 and the latest in date of the entire hoard, it is 
 reasonable'to conclude that the deposit was made 
 in the earlier part of the 6th century. 
 
 Of not much later date were the splendid cha¬ 
 lices belonging to the basilica of Monza, no longer 
 in existence, but of which representations, evi¬ 
 dently tolerably accurate, have been preseiwed in 
 a large painting probably executed in the latter 
 half of the 15th century, and now in the library 
 
 Chalices from Monza. 
 
 of that church. This painting represents the 
 restitution to the basilica of the contents of its 
 treasury which took place in 1345. These cha¬ 
 lices are represented in the accompanying wood- 
 cuts, both were of gold set with jewels; their 
 weight is variously stated at from 105 to 170 
 ounces. These there Is ground to believe, wei*e 
 
 in the possession of the church of Monza before 
 the year 600, and may indeed with great proba¬ 
 bility be supposed to be of even greater age. A 
 rude sculpture over the west doorway of that 
 church, believed to date from circa A.D. 600, 
 represents several chalices of various sizes, some 
 with and some without handles. 
 
 Chalices of glass of very similar fonn are met 
 with, and may with much probability be attri¬ 
 buted to the 6th or 7th centuries; two examples 
 are in the British Museum ; these are of blue 
 glass and somewhat roughly made. As, however, 
 these bear neither inscriptions nor any Christian 
 symbol, it cannot be affirmed with certainty that 
 they were sacramental chalice.'i. Moroni (^Diz. 
 di Erudizione Storico - Ecclesiast.) mentions a 
 chalice of blue glass as being preserved in the 
 church of the Isola S. Giulio in the lake of Orta 
 in Lombardy, as a relic of the saint who lived in 
 the 5th century; this, he says, was without a 
 foot. It is not now to be found there. 
 
 In the sacristy of the church of Sta. Anastasia 
 at Rome a chalice is preserved as a relic, as it is 
 said to have been used by St. Jerome ; the bowl 
 is of white opaque glass with some ornament in 
 relief, the foot is of metal. 
 
 A chalice is preserved (? at Maestricht), which 
 is believed to have belonged to St. Lambert, 
 bishop of that city (ob. 708); it is of metal 
 (? silver) gilt, the bowl hemispherical, the foot 
 a frustum of a cone; the whole without orna¬ 
 ment. 
 
 A chalice of exactly the same form is to be 
 seen in an illumination in the very ancient 
 gospels preserved in the library of Corpus Christi 
 College at Cambridge, and known as St. Au¬ 
 gustine’s. 
 
 Chalice formerly at Chelles. 
 
 Until the vear 1792 the abbey of Chelles, in 
 the diocese of Paris, possessed a most splencid 
 
CHALICE 
 
 example of a golden chalice (see woodcut), which 
 ancient inventories asserted to have been the 
 "work of St. Eligius (or Eloi), and therefoi-e to 
 date from the first half of the 7th century. 
 Fortunately an engraving of it has been pre¬ 
 served in the Panoplia Sacerdotalis of Du Saussay, 
 and the character of the work corresponds with 
 the alleged date. It is obviously an instance of 
 transition from earlier to later forms, though 
 somewhat exceptional from the great depth of 
 the bowl. It was about a foot high and nearly 
 ten inches in diameter, and held about the half 
 of a French litre. 
 
 A singular exception in point of form was the 
 chalice which was found with the body of St. 
 Cuthbert when his relics were examined in the 
 year 1104-; this is described as of small size and 
 in its lower part of gold and of the figure of a 
 lion, the bowl which was attached to the back of 
 the lion being cut from an onyx (Acf. Sanct. 
 Boll. 2 Mart.'). It may be surmised that this 
 was not really made for a chalice, but had been 
 presented to him and converted to that use. 
 
 Of the next century, the 8th, a very remai-k- 
 able example still exists in the convent ofKrems- 
 
 Riu'nster m Upper Austria; this chalice is (vide 
 woodcut) of bronze ornamented with niello and 
 incrustations of silver. As the inscription shows 
 that it was the gift of Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, 
 it is probably earlier than A.D. 788, the year 
 when that prince was deposed by Charles the 
 Great. 
 
 One of the bas-reliefs of the altar of S. Am- 
 brogio at Milan (finished in 835) gives a good 
 example of the form of a chalice in the beginning 
 of the 9th century. It has a bowl, foot, and 
 handles. 
 
 So much may be gathered from still existing 
 examples, or representations of them ; much may 
 also be collected, especially as regards the size 
 and weight of chalices and the materials of which 
 thej were composed, from the notices to be 
 
 CHALICE 339 
 
 found in various historical documents, and par¬ 
 ticularly in the Li')er Pojitif calls. 
 
 It has been asserted that in the apostolic age 
 chalices of wood were in use : but for this asser¬ 
 tion there is no early authority ; St. Boniface in¬ 
 deed is reported in the 18th canon of the Council 
 of Tribur to have said that once golden priests 
 used wooden chalices, and Platina (I)e Vii. Pont.) 
 asserts that Pope Zephyrinus (a.d. 197-217) 
 ordered that the wine should be consecrated not 
 as heretofore in a wooden but in a glass vessel. 
 The Liber Pontificalis in the life of Zephyrinus, 
 however, merely says that he ordered patens of 
 glass to be carried before the priests when mass 
 was to be celebrated by the bishop. Glass was 
 no doubt in use from a very early date; St. 
 Jerome (ad liustic. Mon. Ep. 4) writes of Exu- 
 perius, bishop of Toulouse, as bearing the Lord’s 
 blood in a vessel of glass, and St. Gregory 
 (Dialog, lib. i. c. 7) says that St. Donatus, bishop 
 of Arezzo, repaired by prayer a chalice of glass 
 broken by the heathens. The use of wood for 
 chalices was prohibited by several ])rovincial 
 councils in the 8th and 9th centuries (Cone. 
 Tribur. can. 18), of horn by that of Ceal- 
 chythe (Cone. Calcut. can. 10), and Pope Leo 
 IV. (847-855) in his homily, De Cura Pas- 
 torali, lays down the rule that no one shoula 
 celebrate mass in a chalice of wood, lead, or 
 glass. Glass, however, continued to be occa¬ 
 sionally used to a much later date. Martene (De 
 Antiq. Keel. Pit. t. iv. p. 78) shows from the 
 life of St. Wiuocus that in the lOth century thf 
 monks of the convent in Flanders founded by 
 him still used chalices of glass. Pewter was 
 also in use, and it would seem was considered as 
 a material superior to gla.ss, for we are told of 
 St. Benedict of Aniane (ob. 821) that the vessels 
 of his church were at first of wood, then of glas.s, 
 and that at last he ascended to pewter (see his 
 Zi/i?, by Ardo, c. 14, in Mabillon’s Act. SS. ord. 
 S. Benedicti, Saec. iv). 
 
 A chalice of glass mounted in gold is men¬ 
 tioned in the will of Count Everhard, A.D. 837 
 (Miraeus, Op. Dip. t. i. p. 19). A chalice of ivory 
 and one of cocoa-nut (?) (de nuce) set with gold 
 and silver are mentioned in the same document; 
 those however may have been drinking-cups, not 
 sacramental chalices. 
 
 The use of bronze appears to have been excep¬ 
 tional and perhaps peculiar to the Irish monks. 
 St. Gall (Mabillon’s Act. SS. 07'd. S. Ben. Saec. 2, 
 p. 241), we are told, refused to use silver vessels 
 for the altar, saying that St. Columbanus was 
 accustomed to offer the sacrifice in vessels of 
 brouze (aereis), alleging as a reason for so doing 
 that our Saviour was affixed to the cross by 
 brazen nails. This traditional use of bronze was 
 no doubt continued by the successors of the Irish 
 missionaries in the South of Germany, and ex¬ 
 plains why the Kremsmiinster chalice is of that 
 material, a circumstance which has caused the 
 question to be raised whether that ve.ssel was 
 anything but a mere drmking cup. The u.se of 
 niello and of damascening with thin silver in 
 the decoration of this ves.sel, and the peculiar 
 patterns of its ornamentation, connect it closely 
 with the Irish school of artificers, who were in 
 the habit of employing bronze as the main mate¬ 
 rial of their works. 
 
 The precious metals were however from a 
 very early, perhaps the earliest, period most pro- 
 
 z ■ 
 
340 
 
 CHALICE 
 
 CHALICE 
 
 bably the usual material of the chalice. The 
 earliest converts to Christianity were not by any 
 means exclusively of humble station, and it was 
 not until it spread from cities into remote vil¬ 
 lages that many churches would have existed 
 whose members could not afford a silver chalice : 
 nor do we until a later age find traces of a spirit of 
 asceticism which would prefer the use of a mean 
 material. We have at least proof of the use of 
 both gold and silver in the sacred vessels in the 
 beginning of the 4th century, for we are told by 
 Optatus of Milevi that in the Diocletianian perse¬ 
 cution the church of Carthage possessed many 
 “ ornamenta ” of gold and silver (Opt. Mil. 
 De Schism. Donat, i. 17). The church of Cirta 
 in Numidia at the same time possessed two golden 
 and six silver chalices (^Gesta Furgat. Caeciliani, 
 in the Works of Optatus.). That it was believed 
 that the churches possessed such rich ornaments 
 at an earlier period is shown by the language 
 which Prudentius puts into the mouth of the 
 Praefectus Ur bis interrogating St. Lawrence— 
 
 “ Argenteis scyphis ferunt, 
 
 Fumare sacrum sanguinem," Sfa 
 
 {Peristej)h. Hymn iii. C9). 
 
 The passages in the Lib. Pont, which relate 
 the gifts of Constantine to various churches are 
 with reason suspected as untrustworthy, but 
 are at least of value as recording the traditions 
 existing at an early age. They make mention 
 of many chalices, some of gold, some of silver; 
 40 lesser chalices of gold, each weighing 1 lb., 
 and 50 lesser ministerial chalices of silver, each 
 weighing 2 lbs., are said to have been given to the 
 Constantinian Basilica (St. John Lateran), and 
 in lesser numbers and of very various weights 
 to many other churches. Whatever, however, 
 may be the historical value of these passages, 
 that churches in the 4th and 5th centuries pos¬ 
 sessed great numbers of golden or silver chalice.s, 
 cannot be doubted. Gregory of Tours {ffist. 
 Franc. 1. iii. c. x.) tells us that Childebert in the 
 year 531 took among the .sp>oils of Amalaric 
 sixty chalices of gold. Many instances of gifts ot 
 chalices of the precious metals to the churches 
 of Rome by successive popes are to be found in 
 the Lib. Font. Of these the following may de¬ 
 serve special mention: a great chalice (calix 
 major) with handles and adorned with gems, 
 weighing 58 lbs. ; a great chalice with a syphon 
 (cum scyphone) or tube, weighing 36 lbs.; a 
 covered (spanoclystus, i.e. i-jrapdoKKeicrTos) cha¬ 
 lice of gold, weighing 32 lbs. ; all three given 
 by Pope Leo III. (795 j. 
 
 Little is to be found as to the decoration of 
 chalices; occasionally they bore inscriptions, as 
 in the case of that made by order of St. Remigius 
 (Remi, ob. 533), which Frodoard tells us boi’e 
 the following verses :— 
 
 “ Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine^sacro, 
 
 Injeito aeternus qnem fudit vuliiere CLristus, 
 Remigius reddit Domino sua vota sacerdos.” 
 
 The golden chalices of Monza, it will be seen 
 by the woodcuts, were splendidly adorned with 
 gems, which in the painting from which these 
 figures have been drawn, are coloured green and 
 red, but the only symbol betokening their desti¬ 
 nation is the cruciform arrangement of the larger 
 gems on one of them. The chalice found at 
 ^jurdon also has neither inscription nor Chris- 
 tiin symbol, and if it had not been found in 
 
 company with a paten bearing a cross its desti¬ 
 nation might have been a matter of doubt. 
 
 On the chalice of Kremsmiinster are on the 
 bowl half-length figures of Christ and the four 
 Evangelists, on the foot like figures of four 
 prophets. 
 
 The division of chalices into various classes 
 evidently belongs to a period when primitive 
 simplicity of ritual underwent a change to a 
 moi e complex and elaborate system. The earlier 
 Ordo Fomanus speaks of a “ calix quotidiauus,” 
 and opposes to this the “ cali.x major ” to be 
 used on feast-days (“ ditbus vero festis calicem 
 et patenam majoi-es ”), but says nothing of any 
 distinction between the “ calix san«tus ” and the 
 “ calix ministerialis.” Reasons of convenience 
 no doubt caused the use of chalices of very 
 different sizes. The great number of chalices of 
 small size mentioned in the Lib. Fontif. and 
 elsewhere may lead to the suppo.sition that at 
 one period the communicants drank not from one 
 but from many chalices ; but this matter is in- 
 Amlved in doubt. 
 
 A practice existed of communicating the clergy 
 alone by means of the chalice in which the wine 
 was consecrated, and of pouring a few drops from 
 this into the larger chalice which was offered to 
 the laity. When this practice originated or how 
 long it lasted seems obscure. It is suggested in 
 the article “ Calix,” in Ducange’s Glossary, that 
 the verses engraved by order of St. Remi on the 
 chalice which he caused to be made (o. ante) 
 allude to this practice; but this does not seem 
 certain. It is mentioned in the Ordo Bom. (c. 
 29), but the vessel in which the drops of con¬ 
 secrated Avine w'ere mixed with the unconse¬ 
 crated, and from which the laity drank through 
 a “ fistula ” or “ pugillaris,” is called scyphus, 
 and is apparently the same vessel as that carried 
 by an acolyte at the time when the oblations 
 were received from the laity and into which the 
 contents of the calix major (c. 13) were poured 
 when the latter had become filled. Pope Gregory 
 11. (a.d. 731-735), in his epistle to Boniface, 
 disapproves of the practice of placing more than 
 one chalice on the altar (“ congruum non esse 
 duos vel tres calices in altario ponere ”). When 
 this practice was in use we may conclude that 
 the large chalices with handles were those used 
 for the laity. 
 
 The large chalices were also u.sed to receive 
 the wine which the intending communicants 
 brought in amulae ; as in the 1st Ordo Rom. c. 
 13 (“ Archidiaconus sumit amulam Pontificis . . . 
 et Mefun lit super colum in calicem ”). When 
 used in this manner it is called “ offertorius ” or 
 “ofierendarius.” “Calices baptismi” or “ bap- 
 tismales ” were probably those used when the 
 Eucharist was administered after bapti.mi, and 
 possibly for the milk and honey which It was the 
 custom in some churches (Cone. Carth. iii. c. 24) 
 to consecrate at the altar and to administer to 
 infants. Pope Innocent 1. (a.d. 402—417) is said 
 in the Lib. Fontif. to have given “ad ornatxim 
 baptisterii ” (apparently of the basilica of SS. 
 GeVva.sius and Protasius at Rome) three silver 
 “ calices baptismi,” each weighing 2 lbs. Whe¬ 
 ther the baptismal chalices differed from other 
 chalices in form or in any other respect is not 
 known. 
 
 Besides the chalices actually used in the rites 
 of the church, vessels called “ calices ” were sus- 
 
CHALICE 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 341 
 
 pended from the arches of the ciborium and even 
 from the intercolumniations of the nave and 
 other parts of the church as ornaments. In the 
 Lib. Pontif. we find mention of sixteen “calices” 
 of silver placed by Pope Leo IV. (847-8) on the 
 enclosure of the altar (super circuitu altaris) in 
 the Vatican basilica, of sixty-four susjiended be¬ 
 tween the columns in the same church, and of 
 forty in a like jmsition at S. Paolo f. 1. m. Many 
 of these were, however, most probably cups or 
 
 vases, not such as would have been used for the 
 administration or consecration of the Eucharist. 
 The di-awings in MSS. show suspended vessels of 
 the most varied forms ; some exami)les taken from 
 the great Carlovingian bible formerly in the Bibl. 
 Imp. Paris, now in the Muse'e des Souverains in 
 the Louvre, are shown in woodcuts. [A. N.] 
 
 CHALICE, ABLUTION OF. [Purifi¬ 
 cation.] 
 
 CHALONS-SUR-SAONE, COUNCILS OF. 
 [Cahillonknse], provincial: — ( 1 ) a.d. 470, to 
 elect John bishop of Chalons (Labb. Cone. iv. 
 1820). ( 2 ) A.D. 579, to depose Salonius and Sa¬ 
 
 gittarius, bishops respectively of Embrun and 
 Gap, deposed by a previous council (of Lyons, 
 A.D. 567), restored by Pope John III., and now 
 again deposed (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, v. 21, 28; 
 Labb. Cone. v. 963, 964). ( 3 ) A.D. 594, to re¬ 
 
 gulate the psalmody at the church of St. Mar- 
 cellus after the model of Agaune (Labb. Cone. 
 V. 1853). ( 4 ) A.D. 603, to depose Desiderius, 
 
 bishop of Vienne, at the instigation of Queen 
 Brunichilde (Fredegar. 24; Labb. Cone. v. 1612). 
 (5) A.D. 650, Nov. 1, of thirty-three bishops, 
 with the “ vicarii ” of six others, enacted 20 
 canons respecting discipline : dated by Le Comte 
 A D. 694 (Labb. Cone. vi. 387). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CHANCEL (ra fvSov tS)V KiyK\'iSci)v, Theo- 
 doret, II. E. v. 18). The space in a church which 
 contains the choir and sanctuary, and which was 
 generally separated from the nave by a rail or 
 grating (cancelli), from which it derives its name. 
 “ Cancellus, cantorum excellens locus ” (Papias, 
 in Ducange, s. v.; compare Cancelli). It is a 
 characteristic difference between Eastern and 
 Western churches that in the former the dis¬ 
 tinction between the bema (or sanctuary) and 
 the choir is much more strongly marked than 
 that between the choir and the nave, in the 
 latter the distinction between the nave and the 
 choir is much more strongly marked than that 
 between the choir and the sanctuary. Compare 
 Choir, Presbytery. [C.] 
 
 CHANT. [Gregorian Music.] 
 
 CHAPEL. A building or apartment used for 
 the performance of Christian worship in cases in 
 
 which the services are of an occasional character, 
 or in which the congregation is limited to the 
 members of a family, a convent, or the like. 
 Greek, irap€kK\r](riai Latin, capella, oratorium. 
 In the languages of the Latin and Teutonic fa¬ 
 milies a moditication of the word ‘ caj)ella’ is in 
 use, as also in Polish. In Ru.ssian pridel. 
 
 The derivation of the word ‘capella’ is a 
 matter of doubt. The Monk of St. Gall (^Vita 
 Car. Mag. i. 4) states that the name was de¬ 
 rived from the ‘capa’ or cloak of St. Martin: 
 “Quo nomine (i.e. ‘capella’) Francorum reges 
 propter capam St. IMartini sancta sua apj)ellare 
 solebant.” The word ‘ capella ’ is said to be found 
 in inscriptions in the Roman catacombs in the 
 sense of a sarcophagus, a grave, or place of 
 burial. It occurs at a later time as used for a 
 reliquary, and for the chamber in which i-eliques 
 were preserved; as in a charter of Childebert of 
 A.D. 710, published by Mabillon (^De Re Dipl.')., 
 in which the passage “ in oratorio suo seu capella 
 S. Marthini ” occurs. The canopy over an altar 
 was also called ‘capella’ (compare Cupella). In 
 the sense of a chamber or building employed for 
 divine worship, it does not seem to have been in 
 use in early times. Among early instances of its 
 employment Avhich have been noticed, are, in 
 the capitularies of Charles the Gi’eat (Capit. v. 
 182), where it is applied to chapels in or an¬ 
 nexed to palaces; and in the passage in the 
 laws of the Lombards (iii. 3, 22), “ ecclesiae 
 et capellae quae in vestra parochia sunt,” where 
 detached buildings are probably referred to. In 
 the earlier centuries “ oratorium ” would no 
 doubt have been used in either sense, as in the 
 21st cap. of the Council of Agde, a.d. 506. “Si 
 quis etiam extra parochias in quibus legitimus 
 est ordinariusque conventus oratorium in agio 
 habere voluerit reliquis festivitatibus ut ibi 
 missas teneat propter fatigationem familiae justa 
 ordinatione permittimus;” but with the proviso 
 that the greater festivals should be celebrated 
 “ in civitatibus aut in parochiis.” 
 
 Chapels may be divided into several classes :— 
 1st, as regards their relation to other churches; 
 being (A) dependent on the church of the parish, 
 or (B) independent, in some cases even exempt 
 from episcopal visitation. 2dly, as regards their 
 material structure; being (A) apartments in 
 palaces or other dwellings; (B) buildings form¬ 
 ing part of or attached to convents, hermitages, 
 or the like ; (C) buildings forming parts of or 
 attached to larger churches ; (D) sepulchral or 
 other wholly detached buildings. No stidctly 
 accurate division is, however, possible, for in some 
 cases buildings might be placed in either of two 
 classes. 
 
 It is here proposed to speak of chapels with 
 regard to their material aspect only; and build¬ 
 ings which from an architectural point of view 
 do not differ from churches will be mentioned 
 under the head CiiURCK. As however it is im 
 possible to draw a clear line between churches 
 and chapels', several buildings will be found 
 treated of under Church, which in strictness 
 should perhaps be rather deemed chapels; some 
 of these, as Sta. Costanza at Rome, being too 
 important in an historical point of view, or 
 too extensive and magnificent, to be omitted 
 from any attempt to trace the progress of church 
 building in its main line. 
 
 Gatticus (^Dc Orat. Dom.) has collected many 
 
342 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 proofs of the early existence of domestic or 
 private chapels; but the earliest existing 
 example of the first class is probably the small 
 chapel now known as the Sancta Sanctorum 
 (originally St. Lawrence) in the fragment of 
 the ancient palace of the Lateran which still 
 remains. It was the private chapel of the 
 popes, and appears to have existed as early as 
 A.D. 383; for -Pope Pelagius II. then placed 
 there certain relics (MSS. Bibl. Vat. ap. Baronius). 
 It is a small oblong apartment on an upper floor. 
 The example next in date has fortunately been 
 singularly well preserved. It exists in the palace 
 of the archbishops of Ravenna, being their private 
 chapel. It was constructed, or at any rate deco¬ 
 rated with mosaic, by the Archbishop Peter Chiy- 
 sologus (elected in A.D. 429). It is a simple oblong 
 with a vaulted roof. Of the same character is 
 the chapel atCividale in Friuli, which, although 
 forming part of a Benedictine convent, as it mea¬ 
 sures only 30 feet by 18 feet, can hardly have 
 been other than a private chapel, probably of the 
 abbat. It is attributed on historical evidence to 
 the 8th century. It is a parallelogram without 
 an apse, about two-fifths being parted off by ? 
 low wall, to serve as a choir. 
 
 as the Oratory at Gallerus in Kerry, shewn in the 
 woodcut, may be considered to be the first erected 
 for Christian uses, and as ancient as, if even not 
 more ancient, than the conversion of the Irish by 
 St. Patrick. This example measures externally 
 23 feet by 10, and is 16 feet high, the walls 
 being 4 feet thick. It has a single window 
 in its east end. On each of the -gables were 
 small stone crosses, of which the Sockets only 
 now remain. 
 
 Of somewhat later date, but Mr. Petrie thinks 
 as early as the 5th or 6th centuries, are such 
 buildings as Tempull Ceannanach, on the middle 
 island of Arran, in the bay of Galway. This mea¬ 
 sures internally 16 feet by 12, and is built of verv 
 large stones, one not less than 18 feet in length. 
 The church of St. MacDara, on the island of 
 Cruach Mhic Dara, off the coast of Connemara, 
 measures internally 15 feet by 11. Its roof was of 
 solid stone, built in courses until they met at the 
 top. 
 
 The above-mentioned examples are simple 
 quadrangular buildings without distinction be¬ 
 tween nave and chancel, but others are met 
 with, apparently of equal antiquity, in which 
 a small chancel is attached to the nave and en¬ 
 tered hj- an archway. In no case 
 is an apse found in Ireland. 
 
 The buildings of this class are 
 so rude and simple that it is 
 not easy to establish .satisfactorily 
 any chronological arrangement 
 founded on their architectural 
 character; it would apj)ear, how¬ 
 ever, that buildings of similar 
 character were constructed until 
 in the 11th or 12th centuries more 
 ornate structures were erected. 
 Many of these small chapels 
 
 however, constructed of 
 and the whole class was 
 
 Oratory at Gall-ims. 
 
 Buildings of the second class, viz., conventual 
 chapels, were intended for the private and 
 daily use of the community ; the larger churches 
 for celebration on great festivals, when large 
 numbers of strangers attended the services. In 
 some instances even more than two chapels 
 existed in a monastery; for Adamnan (i)e situ 
 terrae Sanctae, ii. 24) says that at Mount 
 Thabor, within the wall of enclosure of the monas¬ 
 tery, were three churches, “non parvi aedificii.” 
 In the tower or keep of the convent of St. Ma¬ 
 carius in the Nitrian valley are three chapels, 
 one over the other (Sir Gardner Wilkinson, Hand¬ 
 book of Egypt)', but it does not appear what their 
 date is. Sir Gardner Wilkinson (^Handbook of 
 Egypt, p. 305) states that a tradition among the 
 monks attributes the foundation of the convent 
 to the 5th century. 
 
 In Ireland still exist some small chapels which 
 may be assigned with probability to x'ory early 
 dates. Mr. Petrie ( The Ecclesiastical Architecture 
 of Ireland, p. 133) thinks that such stnictures 
 
 were, 
 wood, 
 
 known (Petrie, p. 343) as ‘duir- 
 theachs,’ or ‘ dertheachs,’ the pro¬ 
 bable etymology of which is “ house 
 of oak.” It appears from a frag¬ 
 ment of a commentary on the 
 Brehon laws (Petrie, p. 365) that 
 15 by 10 were customary dimen¬ 
 sions for such buildings, and the 
 stone chapels are usually found 
 not to differ very greatly from them. 
 
 Buildings of very similar character exist in 
 Cornwal*, and their foundation' is attributed to 
 missiona ies from Ireland: such was the cha})el 
 of Perra. zabuloe, or, St. Piran in the sand, said 
 
 eOUTM Dooa 
 ft STEPS 
 
 St Piran, 
 
 to have been founded by St. Piinn (or as he is 
 called in Ireland St. Kioran) in the 5th centui y. 
 It had been completely buried in the shifting 
 sand of the coast, but in 1835 the sand was re- 
 
CHAPEL 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 343 
 
 moved, and the building discovered in an almost j 
 pertec“t state; it is 29 ft. long externally by 16^ | 
 broad ; as will be seen from the plan, it was a 
 simple parallelogram, but divided into two parts 
 by a wall or screen. The tomb of the saint 
 apparently served as an altar. 
 
 The chapel of St. Maddern is very similar in 
 plan, but has the peculiarity of having a well 
 in one angle j that of St. Gwythian has both nave 
 and chancel, the latter entered by a narrow door¬ 
 way. Mention of several others of like chai-acter 
 will be found in a paper by the Rev. W. Haslam, 
 in vol. ii. of the Architectural Journal. The ma¬ 
 sonry of these buildings is very rude and irre¬ 
 gular, but the huge stones, and roofs construc¬ 
 ted of stone, which are found in Ireland do 
 not seem to occur in Cornwall. A building of 
 like character was disinterred from the sands 
 of the coast of Northumberland in 1853, near 
 Ebb’s Nook, not far from Bamborough; it closely 
 resembles the Cornish oratories. The name seems 
 to connect it with St. Ebba (ob. 683), sister of 
 St. Oswald, king of Northumberland. 
 
 Some of the Cornish chapels were perhaps 
 rather those of hermitages than of convents, and 
 the same observation may be applied to the like 
 buildings in Ireland. 
 
 Chapels of the third class, those attached to 
 churches, may be divided into three sections: 
 A, those forming part of the main building above 
 ground ; B, those connected with the main build¬ 
 ing, but distinct from it; C, those under ground, 
 or crypts. 
 
 Although very many churches built before 
 A.D. 800, exist in such a state that we may feel 
 tolerably certain that we possess an accurate 
 knowledge of their original ground-plans, scarcely 
 any clear examples of chapels which could be 
 placed in the fii’st section can be pointed out. We 
 cannot suppose the apartments which are found 
 in very many of the churches of the 5th and 6th 
 centuries in central Syria on either side of the 
 nai’thex to have been chapels in the sense of 
 having been used for divine worship; nor were 
 the lateral apses originally constructed for a like 
 use, since we liaA-e contemporary testimony (Pau- 
 linus of Nola, Ep. xxxii.) that one was used as 
 a sacristy, and the other as a place in which 
 the devout might read the sci'iptures and offer 
 prayers ; if, however, w’e define the word chaj)el so 
 as to admit apartments destined to serve as places 
 for prayer, but not for tbe celebration of the 
 rites of the church, we must consider the lesser 
 apse on the left of the great apse as a chapel. 
 In the description which St. Paulinus has given 
 (A/>. xxxii.) of the basilica of St. Felix, mention 
 is, however, made of ‘ cubicula ’ in the following 
 passage: “Totum exti’a concham basilicae, spa- 
 tium alto et lacunato culmine geminis utrinque 
 porticibus dilatatur, quibus duplex per singulos 
 arcus columnarum ordo dirigitur. Cubicula intra 
 porticus quaterua longis basilicae lateribus in- 
 terta secretis orantium vel in lege Domini medi- 
 tautium praeterea memoriis religiosorum et fa- 
 miliarium accommodates ad pads aeternae re¬ 
 quiem locos praebent.” [Cubigulum.] 
 
 This passage seems to show clearly that in 
 some instances apartments were placed by the 
 sides of the nave, but this was probably very ex¬ 
 ceptional, for, as has been said above, no example 
 of such a plan now exists. It should, however, 
 be noticed that in two churches of very early 
 
 date openings have existed in the side walls with 
 which cha))els may have been connected; these 
 are the churches of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme 
 and that of Sta. Balbina, both at Rome; in the 
 first were five openings on each side of the nave, 
 in the second six. The first of these buildings 
 is, however, held to have been the hall of the 
 palace of the Sessorium, and not originally con¬ 
 structed to serve' as a church; the second is 
 believed to date from the 5th century, but to 
 have been reconsecrated by St. Gregory about 
 A.D. 600. 
 
 At a very much later date we find in the 
 church of Sta. Christina at Pola de Lena, near 
 Oviedo, in S 2 )ain, apartments attached to and 
 entered from the nave. These are no doubt con¬ 
 temporary with the church, the date of which is 
 probably near A.D. 809. These apartments may 
 have been chapels, but it has been surmised that 
 they were really built to serve as sacristies. 
 The like arrangement occurs at Sta. Maria de 
 Naranco, near Oviedo, which dates from A.D. 848. 
 
 One almost unique example exists in the chui'ch 
 of Remain Metier, where the upper story of the 
 narthex has a small apse on the east, and was 
 therefore probably intended to serve as a chapel ; 
 it is nearly square in plan, and divided into 
 three aisles by two ranges of columns supporting 
 groined vaults. As the church of which this 
 forms a part was a large conventual one, this 
 was probably intended to serve as the smaller 
 chapel generally found in convents. The church 
 is believed to date from 753, the narthex to be 
 somewhat later. 
 
 The chapels which belong to the second section, 
 viz. those attached to churches, but distinct 
 buildings, are not very numerous, and in most 
 cases their primary object was sepulchral. Such 
 the three attached to the church of St. Lorenzo 
 at Milan would appear to have been, though it 
 has been suggested that that on the south was 
 a baptistery, and that on the north a porch or 
 vestibule. 
 
 That on the south, now called the church of 
 St. Aquilinus, is octagonal externally, while in¬ 
 ternally semicircular and rectangular niches al¬ 
 ternate, one in each face; in it are two massive 
 sarcophagi, one of which is believed to contain 
 the remairs of Ataulphus, king of the Goths. 
 The conchs of two of the niches retain some 
 mosaics of a A'ery early period, perhaps the 6th 
 century. Thic building is connected with the 
 church by a vestibule, supposed by Hiibsch (A/f- 
 Christliche Kircken, p. 22) to be of later date; 
 it is a square vaulted chamber with apses east 
 and west. The chapel of St. Sixtus on the north 
 side has exactly the same plan, but is much 
 smaller; that of St. Hippolytus at the east end 
 of the church is also octangular externally, but 
 internally forms a cross with four equal limbs. 
 All three are probably not remote in date from 
 the church itself, which would seem to have been 
 built about the end of the 4th or the beginning 
 of the 5th century. 
 
 In like manner Pope Hilarus (461-467) added 
 to the baptistery of the Lateran chapels dedi¬ 
 cated in honour of St. John the Baptist and 
 St. John the Evangelist. 
 
 Of the early part of the 9th century we have 
 a most interesting example in the chapel of St. 
 Zeno attached to the church of St. Praxedis (Sta. 
 Prassedc) at Rome, built by Pope Paschal I. 
 
344 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 about 819, and fortunately preserved almost un¬ 
 altered. It is in plan a square with three rect¬ 
 angular recesses, the walls are covered with 
 marble and the lunettes and vaults with mosaic. 
 
 This chapel is entered from the nave, and the 
 doorway is very remarkable, being partly made 
 up of ancient materials and partly original work, 
 as the inscription testifies, of Pope Paschal’s 
 time. Over this doorway is a window, and the 
 wall around it is covered with medallion por¬ 
 traits of our Lord, the Apostles, and some other 
 saints in mosaic. The execution is but rude. 
 This chapel is contemporaneous with the church 
 to which it is attached, and is perhaps the earliest 
 undoubted instance of such an arrangement; it 
 IS, however, so constructed as both externally 
 and internally to seem an independent building 
 attached to the church and not a portion of it. 
 
 The practice of constructing such appendages 
 to a church seems, however, to have continued 
 exceptional until the end of our period. None 
 appear on the plan for the monastery of St. Gall, 
 no doubt prepared between 820 and 830; nor do 
 any seem to have formed parts of the minster of 
 Aix-la-Chapelle. 
 
 Crypt under Bipon Cathedral. 
 
 In the East, as the rule that there should be 
 only one altar in a church has always existed, 
 chapels (in the sense of apartments in which 
 celebrations of the eucharistic service could take 
 place) have rarely formed parts of churches, but 
 sometimes are found attached to them. One in¬ 
 stance of a chapel attached to a church would 
 appear to exist in the church of St. Demetrius at 
 Thessalonica, where a small triapsal building is 
 attached (v. Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Arch. 
 pi. xviii.) to the east end of the south side of the 
 church. It has been suggested that this was a 
 sacristy, but its form seems to show that it was 
 really a chapel ; it may possibly have belonged 
 to the adjacent monastery. To the church of 
 the convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai 
 six chapels are attached on each side of the 
 nave, but these are doubtless not of the original 
 fabric. 
 
 The third class, viz. subterranean chapeV^, 
 doubtless had their origin from the chambers in 
 
 the catacombs in which the remains of martyrs 
 or confessors had been placed. What could be 
 more natural than that when a church or an 
 oratory was built over the spot where a martyr 
 had been interred, the chamber should be pre¬ 
 served and made accessible ? 
 
 We have probably an instance of one of these 
 chambers preserved in the remains of the basilica 
 of St. Stefano, in Via Latina, built by Pope Leo L, 
 440-461. Where, however, no chamber existed, 
 a crypt was not constructed. Hence, in the 
 earlier churches of the city of Rome, we find no 
 crypt forming part of the original plan, but 
 small excavations under the altar, to receive 
 some holy corpse brought from the extramui'al 
 cemeteries. [Coxfkssio.] 
 
 St. Gregory, we are told, “ fecit ut super 
 corpus beati Petri et beati Pauli Apostolorum 
 Missae celebrarentur.” He probably formed a 
 crypt and placed the ‘loculus’ in it, erecting 
 an altar in the church above over the bodies. 
 After this time frequent mention is made of 
 the confe.ssion as a vault with stairs leading into 
 it. In those churches of the earlier period at 
 Rome, which remain in a tolerably unaltered 
 
 state as Sta. Sabina 
 (a.d. 425) and Sta. 
 Maria in Trastevere, 
 only very small vaults 
 are found as confes¬ 
 sions, but in S. Apol- 
 linare in Classe, at 
 Ravenna, a crypt ap¬ 
 pears as part of the 
 original structure; it 
 consists of a passage 
 running within the 
 wall of the apse, and 
 another passing under 
 the high altar. 
 
 French antiquaries 
 (Martigny, Diet, dei 
 Antiq. Chre't. art. 
 ‘ Crypte ’) have claimed 
 a very high antiquity 
 for crypts under seve¬ 
 ral churches in France, 
 e. g. that under the 
 church of St. Mellon 
 (? St. Gervais), at 
 Rouen, is alleged to 
 show the construction of the 4th century. It 
 would seem probable that in most cases where 
 they belong to early periods they are ancient 
 sepulchral chapels or oratories, or, possibly, 
 tombs of the Roman period, and not structural 
 crypts. Two crypts, however, exist, which 
 were, it would seem, structural; these are those 
 of St. Irenaeus at Lyons and of St. Victor at 
 Marseilles. The first of these has a central and 
 side aisles divided originally by columns which 
 caiTy arches, the courses of which are of brick 
 and stone alternately, above there is a string 
 and a barrel vault. The central aisle ends in an 
 apse; the church is said to have been founded 
 in the 4th century. The crypt of St. Victor is 
 in connection with some catacombs, the original 
 church dated from the 5th century. The crypt 
 consists of a series of vaulted compartments 
 divided by very massive rectangular piers. 
 
 Two remarkable crypts exist in England, those 
 in the cathedral of Rip^n and in the abbey church 
 
CITArEL 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 345 
 
 of Hoxham : both are attributed to St. Wilfrid, 
 who founded monasteries at both places; that at 
 Kipon between (>70 and 678, that at Hexham 
 about 673. It appears from the testimony of 
 Leland {Itin. i. 83, 2nd ed.) that the actual 
 cathedral of Ripon does not occu})y the same 
 place as the church of the abbey built by WillVid, 
 Hud there is much uncertainty whether the like 
 is not true of the church of Hexham. 
 
 The similarity of the i)lans and the peculiarity 
 of the structures can leave no doubt that one 
 person planned both, and this can hardly have 
 been any other than St. Wilfrid. The model 
 which he followed was evidently not the con¬ 
 fession of a church but the cubiculum and 
 galleries of a Roman catacomb, and the principal 
 vault in each does in fact bear considerable re¬ 
 semblance to the cubiculum adjacent to the 
 cemetery of St. Callixtus (about two miles from 
 Rome in the Via Appia), in which the bodies of 
 SS. Peter and Paul are said to have ]-emained for 
 a considerable time. 
 
 The vault in question (Marchi, Eoma Sott. 
 pi. xli.; Catagomus, p. 310) has an arched roof 
 nearly semicircular, but really formed by five 
 small segments of circles, and has the same 
 height, about 9 feet, and the same width, 8 feet, as 
 the two crypts, but being in plan nearly square, 
 while the crypts are oblong, is only 8 feet long, 
 while they are 11'3 and 13’4. It is evidentl}'’ 
 by no means unlikely that St. Wilfrid may 
 have intended to construct models of a place 
 in his time most highly venerated and much 
 resorted to, just as models of the Holy Sepulchre 
 were built in later times. Some of the small 
 niches in the walls were pi-obably intended to 
 contain relics or to hold lamps. The ante-cham¬ 
 ber to the principal vault is stated to be covered 
 by a demi-vaulted roof, as Mr. Walbran sur¬ 
 mises, in order that the steps of the altar might 
 be carried on it. If these structures were not 
 beneath churches, probably small “ cellae me¬ 
 moriae,” such as will be hereafter noticed, 
 coveied and protected the access to them. 
 Whether they were originally provided with 
 altars is uncertain. 
 
 A crypt existed in the Saxon church of Canter¬ 
 bury, and was, we are told by Kdmer, the chanter 
 (quoted by Gervase, Be Combust, et Rep. Dorob. 
 Keel.'), “ad instar confessionis S. Petri fabricata,” 
 it was beneath a raised choir, and appears to have 
 had several passages or divisions. Whether this 
 formed part of the early church, or was one of 
 the additions made by Archbishop Odo (cir. 950), 
 is unknown. 
 
 A crypt also appears in the plan for the church 
 of St. Gall (made cir. a.d. 800). It consisted of 
 two parts, a “ confessio,” Avhich was reached by 
 steps descending between two flights ascending 
 to the raised pi-esbytery, and a “ crypta,” which 
 seems to have consisted of two pas.sages entered 
 from the transepts on either side, but running 
 outside the walls ; a third, connecting the former 
 two, and running in front of the apse, and another 
 short passage running from the last mentioned 
 to a spot beneath the high altar. There is a 
 close re.semblance between this arrangement and 
 that in the Roman churches of the same period 
 (as Sta. Cecilia) where the crypt follows the line 
 of the wall of the ap.se. Altars were placed in 
 both crypt and confe.ssiou. 
 
 In the church of Brixworth, in Northampton¬ 
 
 shire, which there is evidence for believing to 
 date from cir. A.D. 700, is a crypt running round 
 the apse externally, originally covered with a 
 vault; and, according to Mr. Poole (^Reports and 
 Papers of Arch. Soc. of Aorthants, York, and TAn- 
 coln, i. 122) there are also traces of a short 
 ]iassage running westwards from this to the pro¬ 
 bable position of a “confessio” below the high 
 altar. Mr. Watkins, however {T/ie Basilica &c. 
 of Brixuorth), asserts that there could have been 
 no cryi)t under the apse, as the original floor was 
 on a level with the rest of the church. [Cfiurcii.] 
 
 A remarkable crypt or “ confessio ” exists 
 under the raised presbytery of the church of St. 
 Cecilia at Rome, and apparently dates from the 
 construction of the building by Pope Paschal 1. 
 (817-824). It consists of a A%aulted sface .south 
 of the altar (the church .stands nearly nortii and 
 south), a pas.sage running round the interior of 
 the apse, and another passage running south 
 from the north end of the former, but stoj)ped 
 by a ma.ss of masonry supporting the high altar. 
 Within this mass is a sarcophagus, containing 
 the body of the saint. The passages are lined 
 with slabs of marble set on end: many of the.so 
 have early inscriptions, and were probably 
 brought from an adjacent cemeter)\ The same 
 arrangement exists at Sta. Prassede, and nearly 
 the same at SS. Quattro Coronati and St. Pau- 
 crazio—all at Rome—and it seems to have been 
 the normal arrangement about this j)eriod. It 
 will be observed that it is very much the same 
 as that at Brixworth and St. Gall. At Fulda, 
 in He.sse Cassel, is a ciypt which is usually attri¬ 
 buted to the 9th century. It consists of a circu¬ 
 lar pa.ssage, within which is a circular space, the 
 vault of which rests on a short clumsy column, 
 with a rude imitation of an Ionic capital. 
 
 Buildings of the fourth class, i.e. sepulchral 
 chapels, were constructed at a very early 
 period. The practice of erecting large structures 
 for such purposes being familiar to several nations* 
 of antiquity before the Christian era it is not 
 surprising that when they became converts to 
 Christianity they continued a practice which 
 their new faith would rather encourage than 
 reprehend. 
 
 The greater part of the chambers in the cata¬ 
 combs near Rome may be considered as belonging 
 to the class of sepulchral chapels. [See Cata- 
 COMDS.] 
 
 At what time the practice of placing an altar 
 and of celebrating the eucharistic service in a 
 sepulchral chapel was first introduced cannot be 
 stated with precision. We are indeed told in the 
 /.iber Pontificalis of Poj)e Felix I. (250-274), 
 that he “ constituit super sepulcra martyruin 
 mi.ssas celebrari,” but altars not placed over 
 tombs may have already been used. As, however, 
 the pnwdice of praying for the dead existed in 
 the 4th and even in the 3rd century, it seems 
 not unlikely that the practice of jjlacing altars 
 in sepulcjtiral chapels may have come into use in 
 the former of those periods. Perhaps the ear¬ 
 liest undoubted instance of a chapel having been 
 constructed to serve at once as a place of sepulture 
 and of divine worship is that of the “Temj)lum 
 Probi,” a small basilica attached to the exterior 
 of the apse of St. Peter’s at Rome, and built by 
 Sixtus Anicius Petronius Probus, who died a.D. 
 395. He and his wife were undoubtedly buried 
 in it, and its form makes it highly improbablo 
 
346 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 CHAPEL 
 
 that the celebration of the eucharist within it was 
 not contemplated by the builder. 
 
 Cav. de Rossi, however, appears di Arch. 
 
 Crist. 1864, p. 25) to think that in the earlier 
 centuries the chief use of such “cellae memoriae” 
 was to afford a fit place for the banquets held in 
 honour of the dead, and such buildings he be¬ 
 lieves to have bpen erected in arkai:, or en¬ 
 closures set apart for sepulture outside the walls 
 of cities, as early as the 2ud century,'or probably 
 even at an earlier period. That such buildings 
 were also used as oratories there can be little 
 doubt, since Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. ix. 2) states 
 that the martyr St. Eusebia was placed in a 
 fvKT-fipiov near Constantinojde, on the spot 
 where the church of St. Thyrsus was afterwards 
 built. [CiiLLA Memorial:.] 
 
 An example has been recently discovered out¬ 
 side the gates of Rimini of V'ery similar plan, 
 which is described as that of a Greek cross, 
 before which is an oblong apartment. Some 
 remains of bas-reliefs, and a sepulchral ins -"ip- 
 tion dated Maximo Cousule (i.e. a.d. 526), give 
 ground for the presumption that the building is 
 not of later date than the 6th century. The 
 remains of an altar were discovered; but as this 
 contained a “se})ulcrum” in which was a leaden 
 box, doubtless containing relics, it could hardly 
 have been coeval with the building. 
 
 Of about the same date were apparently the 
 chapels at the cemetery of St. Alessandro, about 
 six miles from Rome, discovered a few years ago : 
 these had been formed from chambers in the first 
 level of a catacomb, and are partly below the 
 ground. There were two chapels with a space 
 between them; one of these ends with an aj)se, 
 on the chord of wliich is what appears to be the 
 substructure of an altar; the other has a rectan¬ 
 gular termination: at the end of this was found 
 a marble cathedra raised upon a platform, and 
 below this platform an altar, under which is a 
 shallow grave lined with slabs of marble, from 
 which the body of St. Alexander is believed to 
 have been removed. Another chapel opened 
 from this, and is of an irregular square form, 
 with a small apse. The general character of 
 the pavements and such ornamental portions as 
 remained is of circa A.D. 500, and a monumental 
 inscription boi’e the names of consuls of 443 
 and 527. 
 
 Of sepulchral chapels or mausoleums of un¬ 
 doubted date, perhaps the earliest is the tomb of 
 the Em])ress Helena, outside Rome (cir. A. D. 
 328), a circular building standing on a square 
 basement, in which is a vault. In the circular 
 portion, which is about 66 feet in diameter inter¬ 
 nally, are on the floor, eight large niches, and 
 above them as many windows; the whole is 
 covered by a dome. It may be said that this Is 
 merely a tomb, but the large size of the windows 
 points to an use other than that of a sepulchre. 
 The Liber Fontificalisstates that it was provided by 
 the Emperor Constantine with an altar of silver 
 and much church furniture and many vessels, 
 but the trustworthiness of this part of the book 
 is doubtful. Of nearly the same date is Sta. 
 Costanza, the mausoleum of a daughter of the 
 Emperor Constantine, also a circular building 
 with a dome, but which has an internal peristyle 
 and had also one externally. Further descrip¬ 
 tion of this building will be found under 
 Church, 
 
 Another circular mausoleum, which no longer 
 exists, was that built by the Emperor Honorius 
 in connexion wdth the Vatican Basilica ; it was 
 about 100 feet in diameter and very similar to 
 that of the Em])ress Helena, in the ruins of this, 
 in 1543, a marule sarcojjhagus containing the 
 remains of one or both of his wives was dis¬ 
 covered. 
 
 The building next to be mentioned is one of 
 peculiar interest having come doxvn to our time 
 almost uninjured, and containing the sarcophagi, 
 which it was constructed to receive, unviolated; 
 this is the chapel at Ravenna now called the 
 church of SS. Naz- 
 
 zaro e Celso, erected 
 by the Empress Galla 
 Placidia, as a mauso¬ 
 leum for herself and 
 family before the 
 year 450, it has, as 
 will be seen by the 
 plan, the form of a 
 Latin cross. There 
 was originally a por¬ 
 tico by which it was 
 connected wdth the 
 atrium of the adja¬ 
 cent church. of Sta. 
 
 Croce. Three im¬ 
 mense sarcophagi are placed in the three upper 
 arms of the cross, and contain the remains of 
 the Empress Galla Placidia, and of the Emperors 
 Honorius H. and Constantins HI. Between these 
 stands the altar, but this is said to have been 
 brought from the church of St. Vitale. The 
 chapel is paved and lined wdth rich marbles up 
 to the springing of the arches which carry the 
 dome ; this last, the lunettes below' the dome 
 and the arches and the soffits of the arches are 
 all covered with mosaics of very beautiful cha¬ 
 racter. 
 
 Of the highest interest, both architecturally 
 and historically, is the tomb of Theodoric (ob. 
 526), outside the walls of Ravenna; this is 
 
 8S. Naz/aro e C«Iso Kavenna. 
 
 Manaoleum of Theodoric, 
 
 of two stories, the lower externally^decagonal, 
 but enclosing a cruciform crypt. The upper 
 story is circular and was surrouuded by a range 
 of small pillars carrying arches; opposite tD the 
 entrance is a niche, w'hich no doubt once contained 
 an altar ; this story is covered by a low dome 
 30 feet in diameter internally, hollowed cut 
 from a single slab of Istidan marble. There are 
 many peculiarities of detail in this building, 
 
CHAPEL 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 347 
 
 amoug them a small window in the form of a 
 cross with limbs of equal length, all the bound¬ 
 ing lines of which are convex. The sarcophagus 
 containing the body of the king was probably 
 placed in the centre of the upper chamber. 
 
 In one very remarkable instance, however, 
 that of the Minster at Aix-la-Chapelle, the great 
 Emperor founded neither an episcopal nor a 
 conventual church, but constructed a building on 
 a magnificent scale indeed, but essentially on the 
 plan of a mausoleum of the earlier Empire; 
 whether or not it was the intention of Charle¬ 
 magne to construct at once a Minster and a 
 s))leudid tomb, it is certain that it has ever been 
 looked upon as the “memoria” of that great 
 man. An account of this vei-y remarkable 
 building will be found under Church. 
 
 Detached chaj)el-like buildings not attached to 
 convents, and not sepulchral, are not often met 
 
 with, though pro- 
 
 
 bably once com¬ 
 mon. In most 
 instances they 
 have perished 
 either from time 
 or neglect. In 
 the Haoui-an, 
 however, where 
 since the 6th cen¬ 
 tury the ruined cities have been uninhabited 
 and the country a desert, many buildings which 
 Count de Vogiie' (Aa Syrk Centrale, Avant- 
 
 Piaii ot' Ka]>be. 
 
 nave, a square central portion, and three large 
 semi-circular niches or apses, the so-called trans¬ 
 verse triapsal arrangement. Such a plan was 
 often adopted in order to afford place for three 
 sarcophagi, and hence it may be thought that this 
 chapel was really built as a “ cella memoriae;” 
 but it exists in the church of Bethlehem, where 
 it certainly could not have been chosen with that 
 intention. 
 
 CHAPLET. (1) It was anciently the prac¬ 
 tice of some churches to crown the newly baptized 
 with a chaplet or garland of flowers. See Bap¬ 
 tism, p. 164. 
 
 (2) For chaplet in the sense of a succession of 
 prayers recited in a certain order, regulateil by 
 beads or some such device, see Rosarv. [C.] 
 
 CHAPTER [Oapitulum], the body of the 
 clergy of a cathedral, united under the bishop 
 (for other senses of the Latin term see Capi- 
 tulum). 
 
 1. The origin of chapters themselves, apart 
 from the name, begins from a very eaidy date. 
 The presbyters, and subordinately the deacons of 
 each diocese, constituted from the beginning the 
 council of the bishop of that diocese [Bishop],\ 
 joined in his administration of it, and in the 
 approval of candidates for ordination, ^c., and in 
 fact, though not in name, were his chapter. And 
 these, at first, all lived in the cathedral city; 
 and as country cures came gradually to exist, 
 served them from that city. In time, however, 
 
 Kalyb^ at Omm-es-Zeitoum 
 
 propos, p. 8) considers to nave been oratories 
 or chapels still exist, a good example of these 
 Kalybes is that of Omm-es-Zeitoun, which 
 an inscription engraved on its front shows to 
 have been built in A. D. 282. It must, however, 
 be observed that there seems to be in them no 
 trace of any altar or of any place to receive it, 
 and that, in that at Chagga, is a vault below the 
 building, which latter circumstance gives rise to a 
 doubt whether they may not have been sepulchral. 
 
 One example may be mentioned of a detached 
 chapel of an early date, which was not certainly 
 sepulchral, that, namely, built by Pope Damasus 
 (367-385) near the baptistery of the Lateran at 
 Rome, but not now in existence, it liad a short 
 
 country presbyters became fixed in their several 
 localities. And a distinction grew up accord¬ 
 ingly, by the period of the great Nicene Council, 
 between town and country presbyters,— civit t- 
 tenseSy and dioecesani or Tncrales presbyteri, —the 
 latter being reckoned as a somewhat lower grade 
 than the former. In accordance with this dis¬ 
 tinction, and as a natural result of their distance 
 from the bishop’s residence, the country presbyters 
 (and deacons) became in etiect, although never 
 formally, excluded from the Episcopal council or 
 (so to call it by anticipation) chapter. At Rome 
 this state of things became permanent, so that 
 all the city clergy, and they only, became the 
 chapter ; and hence, after a lapse of centuries and 
 
348 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 Bome other ehjuigcs, the onrdinal-bishops, priests, 
 and 'deacons. Jn gc'iieral, liowever. time brought 
 about two further but equally gradual changes. 
 
 1. 'I'he bishop and his more immediate clergy 
 took to living a life in common, although each 
 still retaining his own special share of church 
 goods and living upon it. And thus the town 
 clergy in general became separated from those, 
 who specially served the cathedral but had no 
 cure in the city itself. And the cha))ter (so to 
 call it) became gradually restricted to the latter, 
 vix., the cut/u'd/'ules proper, to the exclusion of 
 the former, or general body of the town clergy; 
 a right disused, as before, ceasing naturally in 
 time to be recognised as a right at all. 2. The 
 cathcdrules themselves became increased in 
 number by the addition of various diocesan 
 officers: as e. g. the archdeacon, archpresbyter, 
 priiaicerius or custos, scliolusticus; or again, 
 thi'ough the musical services of the cathedral, 
 the archicuntur; and through the engrafting 
 upon the bishoji’s establishment of seminaries 
 for youths and clergy, the pri(ej,ositus or provost, 
 &c. And thus a body of officers grew up, who, 
 through their position and s])ecial attachment to 
 the bishop and the cathedral, helped yet more to 
 exclude outsiders. The time of St. Augustine 
 and of Eusebius of Vercelli may be taken as the 
 period whence the first of these changes began; 
 the latter bishop endeavouring also to engraft 
 the monastic life upon the common life of him¬ 
 self and his clergy, which St. Augustin did not; 
 and the monastic bishoprics of the Anglo-Saxon 
 church, established by St. Gregmy and the Can¬ 
 terbury St. Augustine, and copied through Anglo- 
 Saxon missions in Germany, helping on the 
 practice. The British monastic bishops may be 
 also referred to, who were anterior to the Canter¬ 
 bury mission ; but the Celtic monasteries, with 
 their dioceseless and often subordinate bishops, 
 are anomalous, and irrelevant to the present 
 question. The progress of the change may be 
 marked, 1, by the Councils of Tours, ii. a.d. 567, 
 and of Toledo, iv. a.d. 663, which require the 
 presbyters, deacons, and all his c/crict, manifestly 
 the town clergy, to reside with the bishop, the 
 latter making an exception for tho.se only of 
 whom health or old age. rendered it desirable 
 that they should live apart in their own houses; 
 and by Cone. Emerit. A.D. 666, can. 12, which 
 empowers a bishop to recal a country presbyter 
 and make him a cathed' alis\ —2, by the gradual 
 limitations of the word Cunonici, which in the 
 Councils of Clermont, a.d. 549, can. 15, and 
 Tours ii. a.d. 567, still included all the clergy, 
 even the minor orders, while the 3rd Council of 
 Orleans, A.D. 538, uses it for all on the roll, and 
 the 4th, A.D. 549, speaks still of “matricula 
 ecclesiae; ” but which Gregory of Tours (//. F. 
 X. sub fin.), who wrote about the close of the 6th 
 century, speaking of “ mensa canonicorum ” and 
 a charter of Chili)eric, A.D. 580 (quoted by Du 
 Cange), restrict to the cathedral clergy (the 
 distiiudion of regular and secular canons and the 
 special sen.se of the term belonging to the later 
 period after Chi’odegang); so that in A.D. 813, 
 Cone. Mognnt. and Tmon. iii., tliere had grown 
 accordingly to be two classes of “ Canonici,” 
 chajders under a bishop, and colleges under an 
 abbat (.see also Council of Calchythe, A.D. 785, 
 can. 4); aiul these two, under the name of Capi- 
 tula, are mentioned in Cone. Vern , A.D. 755, can. 
 
 11, the monks living “.secundum regulam t. c., 
 of St. Benedict, the clergy of the cathedral “sub 
 ordine canonico.” Yet even in the time of 
 Charlemagne “canonicus” still had a double 
 meaning, being either in general any clergyman 
 on the roll (and “ canonical ” life meaning 
 “ clerical ” life), or in particular the clergy who 
 lived in common under the bi.shop [Canonici]. 
 The second change abov'e noticed was also of 
 gradual growth. The offices of archj>re.>byter 
 and archdeacon were no doubt ancient [Aitcii- 
 I'liicsiJVTER, Archdeacon], but did not become 
 attached at once to the cathedral, prob.ably not 
 until the 6th or 7th centuries. The Priniiccrius 
 and Arcliicantor were of later date still [Pre¬ 
 centor, Pri.micerius] ; and so also the Scholas- 
 ticus [ScnOLASTiccJs]. Two further changes 
 however were needed in order to complete the 
 establishment of the modern chaj)ter,— 1, The 
 appointment of a dean, which grew out of the 
 office of praeposiim. The latter came into 
 existence under the bishop, in analogy with the 
 praepositns under the abbat among Chrodegang’s 
 canons, but his office being gradually re.stricted 
 to external administration, a decunus was aj)- 
 pointed to conduct the internal dis(^jdiue, after 
 the analogy apparently of monastic decani; the 
 10th century being the period of the first insti¬ 
 tution of the office; and the dean gradually sup 
 planted the provost [Decanus]. 2. The cou- 
 v'ersion of the prebends (in fact though not in 
 name) into benefices, i. e. of customary separate 
 ^layments to individual cathedral members out 
 of the church stock into a common treasury of 
 the body, together with fixed rights of individual 
 members to definite shares. The first “commune 
 aerarium ” in France is attributed to Kigobert, 
 Archbishop of Rheims, after A.D. 700; so that 
 canonici quasi koivuvikoX, although a bad deriva¬ 
 tion, yet represented at first a real fact; as does also 
 the more plausible derivaition t'rom canon =. a 
 fixed pen.sion, called sportula by St. Cyprian, and 
 “ consuetum clericorum stipondium ” by Cone. 
 Valentin., Hispal., and Agath., quoted by Du 
 Cange. Prebends also began to be founded by 
 bishops and other patrons about the same period. 
 
 2. For the history of the word chapter, see 
 Capitulum. It was used as early as a.d. 755, 
 Cone. \ ern., and so at Aix in 789, and Mayence 
 in 813. &;c., for the episcopal chapter, as well as 
 that of Chrodegang’s canons. And about that 
 time it was that bishops began to make the 
 cathedral clergy their special council. Its re¬ 
 striction to this only, followed in the course of 
 another two centuries. 
 
 3. The functions of the cathedral chajiter were 
 simply deriv^ed, and (so to say) usurped, from 
 those of the original council of the bishop, viz. 
 the diocesan clergy. And the 8th century may 
 be taken as-the period when the “ chapter ” thus 
 absorbed into itself the right of being the special 
 council of the bishop. Administration of the dio¬ 
 cese in the bishop’s ab.sence or during a vacancy, 
 naturally fell to the bishop’s “senate;” and ac¬ 
 cordingly, even in early times, it was fouuu 
 necessary to enact, “ ut presbyteri sine conscien- 
 tia epi.scopi nihil faciant ” (Cone. Arelat. i. c. 19 ; 
 and see Can. Apost. 38, &c.). Ordinations, how¬ 
 ever, were of course always excluded ; but not sc 
 the patronage, under the like circumstances, ol 
 the bishojfs livings. And this became the pri¬ 
 vilege of the chapter about the 8th century. 
 
CHAPTER OF BIBLE 
 
 CHARISMATA 
 
 349 
 
 The right of electing the bishop was not so > 
 speedily usurped. It did not become customary 
 for the chapter only to elect until the 11th cen¬ 
 tury. And the final decree, absolutely restrict¬ 
 ing the right of election to that body (to the 
 exclusion of the comju-ovincial bishops, as well 
 as of the other diocesan clergy), only dates from 
 Pope Innocent III. in the 13th. The change had 
 run parallel with that which restricted the elec¬ 
 tion. of the pope to the cardinals. The charge 
 of the cathedral services of course belonged to 
 the chapter. Other privileges enumerated by 
 Mayer (i. 73) for the most part are merely such 
 as belong to any corporate body as such; as, e. g. 
 the possession of a common seal (the earliest, 
 however, known to Mabillon, dating only A.D. 
 1289), the right of making bye-laws, the power 
 of punishing the excesses or misconduct of indi¬ 
 vidual members. For the schools attached to 
 cathedrals, see Schools. 
 
 4. The constituent members of a chapter varied 
 in almost every cathedral. The dean, as has been 
 said, was a comjiaratively late addition, of at 
 earliest the 10th century; while in most cathe¬ 
 drals there was no such office until late in the 
 11th. The archpresbyter appears to have been 
 at first the principal, under the bishop; until he 
 was supplanted by the archdeacon. And these 
 two, with the custos, or primicerius (so called at 
 Rome, i. e. as the first entered on the wax tablet 
 or list), were styled the “ tria culmina ecclesiae.” 
 Chorepiscopi, in name but in nothing else, lingered 
 on in a very few, mostly French, cathedrals. A 
 scholasticus, a sacrista or cimeliarcha, an archi- 
 cantor, &c., also occur; for whom see under the 
 several titles. And there were, besides, a staff 
 of clergy for the general service of the cathedral 
 church, together with lectores^ ostiarii, exorcistae, 
 acolgthi, &c. A praepositus, or provost, also 
 occurs in the 8th and 9th centuries. But the 
 complete organization of a modern or a medieval 
 chapter—the bishop, the quatuor personae, sc. 
 dean, precentor, chancellor, and treasurer, the 
 archdeacons, canons, &c.— belongs to Norman 
 times and the 12th century. And minor canons, 
 and vicars choral, &c., are an abuse of like date. 
 
 5. In the Eastern Church, the body of clergy 
 serving a cathedral church was often exceedingly 
 numerous: e.g. under Justinian, the “Great 
 Church,” out of the four at Constantinople, 
 is said to have been served by 60 presbyters, 
 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 100 
 readers, 25 cantores^m all 415; besides 100 os- 
 tiarii, who served all four churches. There were 
 also special officers in Eastern cathedrals, as e. g. 
 TTpcuT^TraTTas, TrpwTO\pd\Trjs, x°'P'’'o<pv\a^, (TKevo- 
 <pv\a^, Sic. ; for whom see under the several titles. 
 But no such development of the chapter took 
 place as in the West, so as to restrict to it the 
 offices of electing the bishop, acting as his council 
 or representative, &c. &c. 
 
 [Thomassin; Du Cange; Mayer, Thes. Abr. 
 Stat., 4'C., Eccles. Cathedr. et Coll, in Ger¬ 
 mania; Walcott, Cathedralia, and Sacr. Archae¬ 
 ology.-] [A. W. H.] 
 
 CHAPTER OF BIBLE. [Lectionary.] 
 
 CHAPTER - HOUSE, a place of assem¬ 
 bly for monks or canons, forming part of the 
 conventual buildings; called capitulum, says 
 Papias, because there the capitula, or chapters 
 of the monastic rule, were read and expounded. 
 
 For the ancient custom was that after prime, 
 before the monks went forth to their labour, 
 a chapter of the rule was read aloud to them. 
 The meeting of the monks for the jmrpose of 
 hearing such a reading was itself called Cali- 
 TULUM (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. Capitulum). 
 The ancient plan of St. Gall contains apparently 
 no chapter-house; and perhaps the fii'st instance 
 of a house built especially for the general meet¬ 
 ings of a brothei’hood or college for other than 
 devotional purposes is that mentioned in the life 
 of Abbot Ansegis of Fontanelle (c. 9, in Acta tiS. 
 Ben. saec. iv. pt. 1, p. 635), who is said to have 
 built, about A.D. 807, near the apse of the church 
 of St. Petei*, and on the northern side of it, 
 a house which he called conventus or curia, in 
 Greek huleuterion, because in it the brethren 
 were wont to assemble for the purpose of taking 
 counsel on any matter (Martene, Be Hit. Monach. 
 lib. i. c. V. § 3). [C.] 
 
 CHAPTER, THE LITTLE. [Capitulum.] 
 
 CHARALAMPES, martyr, a.d. 198, com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 10 ifial. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CHARALINUS, martyr at Chartres, is com¬ 
 memorated May 28 (^Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CHARIOTEERS. Among the callings which 
 were regarded by the Church of the first three 
 centuries, that of the charioteer held a j)romi- 
 nent place. It had its chief, if not its sole, 
 sphere of action in games which were insei)arably 
 connected-with the old religion of the empire. 
 The men who followed it were commonly nmre 
 or less disreputable, and had been excluded, even 
 by Roman law, from most of the privileges of 
 citizenship (Tertull. de Spectac. c. 22). It was, 
 through the eager excitement which attended it, 
 incompatible with meditation and prayer (Tertull. 
 1. c.). We find accordingly that such persons 
 were not admitted to baptism, unless they re¬ 
 nounced their occupation {Constt. Apost. viii. 
 32). If they returned to it after their admis¬ 
 sion to Christian fellowship they were to be ex¬ 
 communicated (C. Elib. c. 62,“ 1 C. Arelat. c. 5). 
 When the games of the circus were reproduced 
 under Chidstian emperors, the rigour of the 
 Church’s discipline was probably relaxed. 
 
 [E. H. P.] 
 
 CHARITAS, virgin, martyr under Hadrian, 
 commemorated Aug. 1 {3Iart. Usuardi). As 
 Agape, Sejff. 17 (CaL Byzant.). Compare Sa- 
 piENTiA, Sophia. [C.] 
 
 CHARITINA, martyr, is commemorated 
 Oct. 5 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CHARITON, holy father and confessor, .A D. 
 276, is commemorated Sept. 28 {Cal. Byzant ). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CHARISMATA: literally “graces” which 
 are the effect of grace ; that is, of the outpouring 
 of the Holy Ghost, consequent on the Ascension 
 of our Lord into heaven,—all, jiroperly speaking, 
 subjective : yet St. Paul calls the pardon of sin 
 in one place (Rom. v. 15), and eternal life in 
 another {ib. vi. 23), a “ charisma ”; that is, a 
 gracious or tree gift on the part of God through 
 Christ. Again, subjective graces have been dis- 
 
 • A various reading gives, however, “augur,” instead 
 of “ auriga.” It is possible that this may be a sign of a 
 diminished horror of the charioteer’s calling. 
 
350 
 
 CHARITY SCHOOLS 
 
 CHERUBIC HYMN 
 
 tin^uished into two classes: 1. those conferrino; 
 mere power (gratiae gratis datae) ; and 2. those 
 wliich atfect the chai-acter {gratiae graturn fa- 
 dentes'). The locus classicus for both is 1 Cor. xii. 
 to the end of ch. xiv. (on which see Bloomfield, 
 Alford, Cornelius k Lapide, and others), where 
 they are thrown together without much system 
 or classification.” Of the former class, some were 
 neither permanent nor universal, as the gift of heal¬ 
 ing : others, as for instance, that which he affirms 
 elsewhere to be in Timothy by the laying on of 
 his hands (2 Tim. i. 6; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10) ; in 
 other words, the gift conferred upon all ministers 
 of the Gospel at their ordination, fitting them 
 for their respective posts, were permanent, but 
 not universal. Both were bestowed primarily for 
 the edification of the whole body; not but that 
 it would fare better or worse with each individual 
 possessed of them according to the way in wliich 
 they were used. “ The manifestation of the Spirit 
 is given to every man, to profit withal.” Of the 
 latter class all were permanent and universal, 
 being designed primarily for individual sanctifi¬ 
 cation : all had them therefore without exception ; 
 an 1 any body might double or quadruple his share 
 of them by his own exertions. Where they lay 
 dormant in any, the fault was his own. Wherever 
 they were cultivated, they would bring forth, 
 some thirty, some sixty, and some a hundredfold. 
 “ Follow after charity,” says the Apostle : this is 
 a gift of the same character with faith and hope, 
 permanent {gevei) and bestowed on all. Therefore 
 the degree to which you may become possessed 
 of it rests with yourselves. As you follow after 
 it, so you will obtain it. For those gifts which 
 are not given to all you can only pray; still I 
 enjoin you to pray; and of these “pray rather 
 that ye may prophecy;” in other words, that ye 
 may “understand the Scriptures ” (cornp. Luke 
 xxiv. 45), and be able to interpret them for the 
 benefit of others, as well as your own ;—a gift 
 which is permanent, and for the good of all, like 
 charity. Of ordinary gifts, I have devoted a 
 whole chapter to shew that charity should occupy 
 the first place : of extraordinary gifts, I proceed 
 to shew in the ensuing chapter my reasons for 
 considering prophecy, taken in its widest sense, 
 to be first also; one is for practice, the other for 
 information: to understand the Scriptures, and 
 to act upon them aright, for general as well as 
 for private profit and edification, is to fulfil every 
 purpose for which grace is vouchsafed. Prophecy, 
 therefore, will mean here the gift of expounding, 
 rather than of foretelling (Corn, i Lap. ad. l.\ 
 and to the nine extraordinary “charismata” set 
 down here, correspond the nine ordinary, described 
 as “ the fruit of the Spirit,” in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians (v. 22), To these last three more 
 have been added, making twelve in all; while 
 faith, hope, and charity have been contrariwise 
 classified by themselves as the three theological 
 virtues. [E. S. F.j 
 
 CHARITY SCHOOLS. [Schools.] 
 CHARMS. [Amulets.] 
 
 CHARTOPHYLAX. One, says Beveridge 
 (Synod, ii. 167), who kept the archives and docu¬ 
 ments or charters of the church. This in the 
 Church of Constantinople was a high office; so 
 much so, that under Andronicus Junior he was 
 called “ Magnus Chartophylax” who discharged it. 
 
 His duties were by no means those of a mere libra¬ 
 rian or registrar, but included with them those of 
 a chancellor. He wore sus))ended round his neck 
 the ring or seal of the patriarch ; received and 
 examined all letters intended for him, with the 
 exception of those coming from other patriarchs; 
 furnished the list of those who should be pro¬ 
 moted to vacant benefices of all sorts; and was 
 entrusted with the authorisation of the nuptial 
 benediction. When the 6th Council opened, it 
 was the chartophylax, or keeper of the archives 
 of the great church, whom the emperor ordered 
 to fetch the books of the previous oecumenical 
 councils from the patriarch’s library, then the 
 depository for all authentic ecclesiastical records. 
 As both volumes of the 5th Council were subse¬ 
 quently proved to have been tampered with 
 [CoNciL. Constant. 34], there must have been 
 one dishonest chartophylax at least in the 130 
 years intervening between the 5th and 6th 
 councils. For the rest, see Gretser and Goar, 
 c. 4 of their Commentaries on Codinus ; c. 1, Du 
 Fresne’s Gloss. Graec. et Lot.; Suicer’s Thesaur. 
 s. V. [E. S. F.] 
 
 CHARTULARIUS. An officer entrusted 
 with the keeping of charters or registers; and in 
 the Eastern Church subordinate to the charto¬ 
 phylax. Such was his position, at all events, in 
 the Church of Constantinople, according to the 
 ecclesiastical list of Codinus (c. 1, with Gretser 
 and Goar’s Commentaries, c. 13) ; but from his 
 next chapter we see there was a superior officer 
 called “ the great chartularius ” attached to the 
 imperial household (c. 2, and Gretser and Goar, 
 c. 3). Elsewhere we read of “ chartularii ” 
 belonging to the army, navy, and several other 
 departments of state, whose records were vo¬ 
 luminous ; while the number of ecclesiastical 
 “ chartularii ” for the different dioceses of the 
 East is regulated by Justinian in the first book 
 of his Code (tit. ii. c. 25). St. Gregory the Great 
 calls a monk named Hilary, whom he employed 
 in Africa to transact business for him, indif¬ 
 ferently his “chartularius” or “notary”; shew¬ 
 ing both offices to have been synonymous in the 
 Church of Rome then {Ep. i. 77, ed. Migne, and 
 the note). And Photius, two centuries and a half 
 later, addresses one Gregory several times, in 
 corresponding with him, as “ deacon” and “ char¬ 
 tularius ” (A)?. iii. ed. Valetta). Later, a very 
 different sense sometimes attached to this word : 
 “ Qui per epistolam liber fiebat,” says Sirmondus 
 (ad tom. ii. Concil. Gall. p. 679), “ chartularius 
 dicebatur.” Again, “ chartularium,” in the 
 neuter gender, stands for the place where char¬ 
 ters and such like documents were kept literally ; 
 but in the West it has long served to denote 
 those volumes, often called Red or Black Books 
 from the colour of their binding or their rubrics, 
 and written on parchment, in which the charters 
 and customs and properties belonging to each 
 monastery were transcribed (Du Fresne, Gloss. 
 Lat. et Graec. s. V.). [E. S. F.] 
 
 CHASUBLE. [Casula.] 
 
 CHEESE, IN EUCHARIST. [Elements.] 
 
 CHERSONESUS, the martyrs of, a.d. 296, 
 are commemorated March 7 {Cal. Byzaid.). [C.] 
 
 CHERUBIC HYMN. [Hymn, the Che¬ 
 rubic.] 
 
CHEST 
 
 CHILDREN 
 
 351 
 
 CHEST. [Arca : Capsa.] 
 
 CHILDBIRTH. [Churching of Women."] 
 
 CHILDEBERT, king, deposition at Paris, 
 Dec. 23 (^Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CHILDREN. It is the object of this article 
 to bring together the materials for a picture of 
 the home life of Christians of the first eight 
 centuries, so far as it affected the treatment of 
 their children and their thoughts about them. 
 It is obvious that every such picture must be 
 more or less idealised, that in practice its com¬ 
 pleteness was marred by valuations at different 
 periods and in different churches, by the more 
 or less perfect triumph of Christianity over 
 heathenism. Making allowance for this, how¬ 
 ever, it is hoped that the representation here 
 given will enable the reader to estimate the in¬ 
 fluence of the religion of Christ in this phase of 
 human life with some distinctness. It is obvious 
 also that in the course of the inquiry we must 
 come in contact with many questions which, 
 separately, demand a more dogmatic and more 
 exhaustive discussion. These it will be enough 
 to notice briefly. 
 
 (1.) We may start with the fact that the new 
 faith taught men to set a higher value upon the 
 sacredness of human life. The corrupt morals 
 of the empire had all but crushed out the natural 
 OTTopy^ which binds the hearts of the fathers to 
 the children. Infants were looked upon as in¬ 
 cumbrances to be got rid of. The mothers of 
 illegitimate children, sometimes even mothers 
 who were married, killed or deserted their child¬ 
 ren without scruple, or called in the aid of 
 women who made a business of the art of abor¬ 
 tion. Against all such pi-actices Christian purity 
 raised its voice. Barnabas enumerates the sins 
 in question among the things incompatible with 
 the “ way of light ” (c. 19). The author of the 
 Epistle to Diognctus speaks of the freedom of the 
 Christian society from these practices as one of 
 the marks of difference between them and the 
 heathens among whom they lived (c. 5). Athe- 
 nagoras condemns those who expose children, or 
 procure abortion, as alike guilty of murder 
 (^Legat. c. 35). Justin speaks against the expo¬ 
 sure as a common offence, and dwells on the 
 enormities that followed, children so deserted, 
 male and female, being the chief supply of the 
 market for prostitution (^ApoL i. 29). The prac¬ 
 tice lingered, however, even among Christians, 
 and the Council of Elvira had to treat them as 
 excluding a female catechumen from all but 
 death-bed baptism, one who was already bap¬ 
 tized even from death-bed communion (C. Elib. 
 c. 63, 68). The Council of Ancyra, about the 
 same time, acknowledging that the severer pen¬ 
 alty had been the rule of the Church, reduced it 
 to ten years’ penance (c. 20), that of Lerida 
 (c. 2) to seven, subject however to the condition 
 of continuance in a penitential life; and if the 
 offenders wero in orders, to exclusion from litur¬ 
 gical functions. 
 
 (2.) We start, then, with the Christian con¬ 
 viction that children were a “ heritage and gift 
 that Cometh fr'om the Lord,” to be received as a 
 trust for which parents would have to render 
 an account. It might have seemed that that 
 feeling would have found universal expression in 
 the dedication of infants, as soon as might be 
 after their birth, by the sacred rite of baptism. 
 
 Our Lord’s command, “Suffer little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not,” might 
 seem to sanction, if not to command, the practice. 
 It must be admitted, however, that the traces 
 of infant baptism in the first 150 years are but 
 scanty, that the evidence of the New Testament 
 is far from decisive. The statement of Suicer 
 (^Thesaur. ii. 1136) that for the first two centu¬ 
 ries no one was baptized who could not make a 
 conscious profession of his faith is, pei haps, over¬ 
 strained, but it is true that the evidence on the 
 other side is meagre. Justin’s statement that 
 “many had been made disciples of Chi’ist, e/c 
 Traidwi/” (Apol. ii. p. 62) is somewhat strained 
 when these words are translated, as Bingham 
 does, “ from their infancy.” The witness of Ire- 
 naeus, who says that “ infantes ” (as well as 
 parvuli ”) “ renascuntur in Deum ” (ii. 22), and 
 identifies regeneration with baptism is, however, 
 more distinct. That of Origen, however, that 
 the Church’s practice was “ etiam parvulis bap- 
 tismum dari ” (//om. viii. in Levit.) is rendered 
 less so, by the distinction drawn by Irenaeus 
 between the parvuli ” and the “ infantes.”^ The 
 treatise in v/hich Tertullian urges “cunctatio bap- 
 tismi ” as the safer and better course is rather 
 in the tone of one who is contending against a 
 growing practice than of one who rejects a tra¬ 
 dition of the universal Church (de Bapt. c. 18). 
 Wall on Infant Baptism is, of course, the great 
 storehouse of arguments in favour of the primi¬ 
 tive and universal use of the rite for infar.t 
 children. It may be noted, however, (1.) that 
 the command in Matt, xxviii. 19, seems to imply 
 capacity for discipleship as a condition of baptism; 
 (2.) that the “ holiness ” of Christian children 
 is made to depend, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, not on bap¬ 
 tism, but on the faith of one, at least, of the 
 parents ; (3.) that the mention of “ households ” 
 as baptized is, at best, a precarious foundation for 
 a wide generalisation. If baptism were thought 
 of as limited to those who could make a confession 
 of faith, it would not be deemed necessary to men¬ 
 tion infiints as not included in the “ household ” 
 that was baptized, any more than it would be ne¬ 
 cessary to except them if one were speaking of a 
 whole household going forth to fight against the 
 enemy. It may fairly be conceded, however, that 
 at least from the time of Irenaeus, Origen, Tei‘- 
 tullian, the practice was common. The further 
 question remained, at what stage in their infancy; 
 and here the answers varied. Some pressed the 
 analogy of circumcision and argued for the eighth 
 day, but this was rejected by Cyprian {Epift. ad 
 Fidum, lix. al. Ixiv.) and by a Council of Car¬ 
 thage under his guidance. Gregory of Nazian- 
 zum, on the other hand, urged a delay of three 
 yeai's, more or less, that the child might be able 
 to utter its profession of faith with its own lips 
 (Orat. xl. de Bapt.). The Council of Elvira 
 (c. 22) sanctioned the earlier age; but this was 
 done not as resting on an immemorial practice, but 
 on a special dogmatic ground, “quia non suo 
 vitio peccarunt,” as though it needed a justifica¬ 
 tion. Generally, except in cases of necessity, 
 their baptism, like that of adult converts, was 
 
 » We have in both these passages to content ourselves 
 with a Latin translation of a Greek original. A passage in 
 the [.Jitin version of Origen’s Horn, in Lnc. xlv. seems to 
 bring even children who are just bom wiihin the range of 
 the " par-vuli." 
 
352 
 
 CHILDREN 
 
 CHOIR 
 
 postponed till the Easter following their birth 
 (Socrates, H. E. v. 22; G. Antissiod. c. 18; 
 August. Serin, de Temp. 110 ; Ambros. de Mmter. 
 Tasch. c. b.).** The case of Augustine shows, 
 however, that even a mother like Monica, act¬ 
 ing, it may be, under the influence of the feeling 
 of which Tertullian had been the spokesman, 
 could postj'oiie her child’s baptism indefinitely, 
 only eager to hasten it if there were any immi¬ 
 nent fear of death (August. Conff. i. 11).<= 
 Even where baptism was postponed, however, the 
 child was claimed for Christ, was signed with 
 the sign of the cross, and made to taste of the salt 
 which was known as the “ mysterium ” or “ sacra¬ 
 ment ” of catechumens {Ibid.). [Catechumens.] 
 Afteran interval, varyingaccording tothediflerent 
 viewsjust stated, the child was brought to the font, 
 stripped of its clothes, and baptized, making its 
 acts of renunciation and adherence, if old enough, 
 with its own lips; if still in infancy, through 
 its sponsors. [Sponsors.] Where children were 
 left orphans, or were deserted by their parents, 
 they were brought by benevolent Christians, 
 who in the sight of the Church took charge of 
 them. The priest announced the fact from the 
 altar, and the child became the “a/wmnus” or 
 foster-child of the person so adopting him ^ 
 (1 C. Vasens. c. 9). 
 
 Baptism in such cases was followed, after an 
 interval of uncertain duration, by confirmation. 
 If a bishop were present at the baptism, the I’ule 
 was that both rites were administered in imme¬ 
 diate succession. As soon as the child was taken 
 from the water he received the sacred unction 
 and the im 2 )osition of hands. (Tertull. de Bapt. 
 c. 7, de Resurr. Cam. c. 8.) In the absence of 
 the bishop there was, of course, a delay; but 
 the modern practice of Protestant churches of 
 treating confirmation as the personal acceptance 
 by the adult of what had been promised by the 
 infant, was altogether foreign to the life of the 
 ancient Church, as it is now from that of the 
 East. In both cases, indeed, in order to guard 
 against any inconvenience which might follow 
 from the prolonged absence, of the bishop, the 
 priest was allowed to administer confirmation as 
 well as baptism. 
 
 The admission of the infant to the privileges 
 of Cnristian fellowship did not, however, stop 
 here. There is almost, if not altogether, as 
 weighty evidence for infant communion as there 
 is for infant bapti.sm. It was the recognised 
 practice of the African Church in the time of 
 Cvprian {De laps. c. 25). The Apostolical 
 Constitutions (viii. 12, 13) show that it was 
 also the custom of the East. It was vehe¬ 
 mently urged by Augustine as essential to the 
 complete salvation even of the baptized {Epist. 
 23 ad Bonifac. De Peccat. Merit, i. 20) and was 
 defended against the scorn of unbelievers by the 
 mystic pseudo-Dionysius {de Hierarch. Eccles. 
 vii. 11). The Sacramentary of Gregory and the 
 Council of IMacon (c. 6), a.d. 588, are witnesses 
 to its prevalence in the churches of Rome and 
 Gaul. The first intimation of any wish to stop 
 
 •> The Sunday before Easter was known in consequence 
 as the “ Ochivae Infantmu.” 
 
 « Augustine blames the d( lay, it is true, but it is with 
 reference to a baptism in boyhood, not in infancy. 
 
 d The word occurs in this sense in Christian epitanhs. 
 (De Rossi, i. 46.) 
 
 it is found in the third Council of Tours (c. 19), 
 in A.D. 813, and that continued inopei-ative foi 
 nearly three centuries. In this i-espect the 
 Churches of the East, as in the case of confirma 
 tion, follow in the footstep.s of antiquity. 
 
 So far, then, the child of Christian parents 
 was met at its birth with these symbols, and, as 
 it was believed, assurances of salvation. The 
 work of moral training began with the first dawn 
 of consciousness. He would be taught to make 
 the sign of the cross upon his brow, or lips, oi 
 chest, on rising or lying down to sleep, or when 
 he bathed or put on his clothes (Tertull. de Cor. 
 MU. c. 2). Soon a pious parent would tell him 
 the story of the Gospels, as Monica did to Augus¬ 
 tine, even though unbaptized {Co/iff. i. 17), or 
 give him daily some te.xts of Scripture to be 
 learnt by heart, as Leonidas did to Origen (Euseb. 
 //. E. vi. 2). He would learn the Lord’s Prayer 
 and the Creed as things for daily use, would be 
 taught to pray at midnight, at sunrise, and at 
 every meal (Tertull. de Oral. c. 20). The stories 
 of martyrs who had suffered, sometimes the 
 actual spectacle of those sufferings, would kindle 
 his emotions. The range of instruction would 
 become wider as he would be led first to the 
 didactic, or sapiential, books of Scripture, the 
 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes; then the Gospels, 
 the Acts, and the Epistles: last of all the Penta¬ 
 teuch, the historical books, and the Prophets 
 (Hieron. Epist. bl, ad Laetam). For his general 
 education, however, he would have to go to any 
 school that might be opened, and these were, for 
 four centuries or more, in the hands of heathens. 
 For those who went to such schools Homer was 
 still the groundwork of intellectual culture 
 (August. Conff. i. 23). Grammar, dialectics, rhe¬ 
 toric, geometry, completed the course of teaching 
 (Euseb. //. E, vi. 2). It would be naturally a 
 time of anxious watchfulness for Christian pa¬ 
 rents. When this was over the child would 
 2 )ass to the responsibilities of adolescence. Nega¬ 
 tively we may be sure that no true Christian 
 would allow his child to be a spectator of the 
 games of the circus or the mimes of the theatre; 
 that wherever this was tolerated it would be 
 looked on as a sign of spiritual decav. [Actors.] 
 
 [E. H. P.] 
 
 CHILDREN, COMMUNION OF [Infant 
 Communion.] 
 
 CHIONIA, martyr at Thessalonica, under 
 Diocletian, April 1 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae); 
 April 3 {Mart. Usuardi); April 5 {Mart. Hieron.); 
 April 16 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CHIROTHECAE. [Groves.] 
 
 CHLODOALD, presbyter and confessor, is 
 commemorated Sept. 7 {Mart. Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CHOIR, ARCHITECTURAL {CJiorus, Suggest US ; 
 ‘'Afj.fiuu). Every complete church consists of at 
 least three parts; bema (or presbytery), choir, 
 and nave. The bema, entered in ancient times 
 by none but the clergy, was devoted to the cele¬ 
 bration of the holy mysteries; the choir was for 
 the “clerks,” in the widest sense of the word ; 
 the nave for the general body of the faithful. 
 The bema corresponds to the sjiace east of the 
 altar-rails (called the sanctuary or presbytery) 
 in an ordinary English church, and the choir to 
 the remaining portion of the chancel. In mo¬ 
 nastic churches the choir is the place when the 
 
. CHOREPISCOPUS 
 
 CHOIR 
 
 brethren assemble to say the ordinary daily 
 offices. 
 
 It is extremely difficult to determine the 
 antiquity of the division between sanctuary and 
 choir. Most of the passages of ancient authors 
 bearing upon the matter give the impression that 
 the rail or screen [Cancelli] separated the 
 whole space devoted to the clergy from that 
 devoted to the people, and that there was no 
 ‘chorus’ distinct from the sanctuary. It is, in 
 fact, probable that Honorius of Autun (Gemma 
 Anbn ie, i. 140) is right in saying ‘‘ olim in modum 
 coi’onae circa aras cantantes stabant,” though 
 his etymology is wrong. The canon of the fourth 
 council of Toledo, in the 7th century, quoted 
 below, is perhaps the earliest instance in which 
 the threefold division, sanctuary, choir, and nave, 
 is clearly recognised. The remains of ancient 
 churches give us but little information on this 
 point, as screens are the most destructible and 
 changeable portions. When w'e do meet with 
 authentic testimony as to the arrangements of 
 churches, we find generally that the whole of the 
 eastern apse was occupied by the sanctuary, 
 which was screened off from the rest of the 
 church, while the choir was a raised space im¬ 
 mediately west of the screen of the sanctuary 
 [CiiURCi!, p. 375]. Whether the Greek Soleas 
 was identical with this raised space or suggestus 
 IS doubtful. 
 
 The description of a church in the Apostolical 
 Constitutions (ii. 57) implies that bishop, pres¬ 
 byters, and deacons occupied the space at the 
 east end of the church, which was set apart for 
 them, but does not mention any barrier between 
 clerks and people. We find however such a 
 barrier existing in the 4th century, when the 
 laity were forbidden to enter the enclosure set 
 a])art for the altar and the clergy. This appears 
 from the fact that St. Ambrose deprived the 
 emperors of the exceptional right which they 
 had enjoyed of passing within the screen [Can¬ 
 celli]. See Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. vii. 25; Theo- 
 doret, //. E. v. 18. To this the emperors sub¬ 
 mitted ; and the edict of Theodosius the younger 
 and Valentinian lays down that the emperors are 
 to approach the altar only for the purpose of 
 making their offering, and to withdraw imme¬ 
 diately. In accordance with this the Trullan 
 council (canon 69), while forbidding the laity 
 generally to enter the sanctuary (Uphv dvaiaffTr,- 
 piov), expressly permits the emperors to enter for 
 the purpose of offering their gifts, “ according to 
 very ancient custom.” This privilege Tarasius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople (f SQG), threatened 
 to withdraw from Constantine VI. if he con¬ 
 tracted the marriage which he was meditating 
 (Life by Ignatius, in Acta SS. Feb. iii. p. 584). 
 
 The same privilege which was granted to empe¬ 
 rors seems in ancient times to have been conceded 
 to unordained monks (Jerome, Ad Ileliodorum). 
 
 The 4th canon of the second council of Tours 
 (a.d. 567) forbids the lay people to stand among 
 the clergy, whether at vigils or at mass, and re¬ 
 serves all that portion of the church which is on 
 the altar-side of the screen for the clerks engaged 
 in the service (choris psallentium clericorum) ; 
 yet the sanctuary (sancta sanctorum) was to be 
 open for the purpose of praying and communi¬ 
 cating both to laymen and to women [Com¬ 
 munion]. The same canon was repeated in 
 effect by the council of Autun in the year 672. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT, 
 
 353 
 
 So too a Capitulary of the year 744 (art. 9, ed. 
 Baluz.) forbids the laity to be within the screen 
 in time of divine service, whether mass or vigil. 
 So the council of Koine under Eugenius II., 
 canon 33. 
 
 The liberty which in Gaul was given to lay 
 people, of entering the choir to communicate, 
 does not seem to have been given in Africa. 
 St. Augustine (Cerm. 392) speaks of the screen 
 (cancelli) as the place where laymen ordinarily 
 communicated ; neophytes, however, seem to have 
 drawn near the altar for their first communion 
 (Serm. 224). In Spain the fourth council of To¬ 
 ledo (can. 18) of the year 633 enjoins the [minis¬ 
 tering] priest and deacon to communicate before 
 the altar, the rest of clerks in the choir, the 
 people outside the choir. 
 
 Women were generally not permitted to enter 
 the choir (Cone. Laodic. c. 44), unless for the 
 purpose of communicating. And although nuns 
 were probably excepted in ancient times (Augus¬ 
 tine, Epist. iii.), their exclusion seems in the 9th 
 century to have been general, at least in Gaul 
 (Theodulf of Orleans, Capituhre, c. 6). Ahito, 
 bishop of Basle in the early part of the 9th century 
 (Capitulare, c. 16), ordains that no woman should 
 approach the altar; and that when the altar- 
 cloths required washing, they should be taken off 
 by the clerks, and handed to the women at the 
 door of the screen. The presbyters were also to 
 receive the women’s offerings outside the screen. 
 (Ducange’s Gloss try, s. v. Chorus; Martene, De 
 Ritih'is Antiquis, i. 123 ff'.) [C.] 
 
 CHOIR OF SINGERS. (Chorus Cantor- 
 urn.) St. Augustine (on Ps. 149) says, “ Chorus 
 quid significet, multi norunt . . . chorus est con- 
 sessio cantantium.” Isidore of Sevile gives the 
 definition, “ chorus est multitude in sacris col- 
 lecta, et dictus chorus quod initio in modum 
 coronae circum aras starent et ita psallerent.” 
 This etymology is undoubtedly false, but the 
 statement upon which it is founded is by no 
 means improbable. Whether it be true or not, 
 that in the earliest ages the choir was grouped 
 round the altar, we know that at a comparatively 
 early period the choir had a space assigned to it 
 in a church, [Choir, Architectural,] distinct 
 from the Sanctuary, which contained the altar. 
 
 “The choirs of our time,” says Amalarius (de 
 Div. Off. iii. 4), early in the 9th century, “are 
 clothed in linen (linum),” and he distinguishes 
 between this and the finer vestment of byssus 
 which the singers wore under the Old Dispensa¬ 
 tion (2 Chron. v. 12). Compare Sciiola Can- 
 TORUM. [C.] 
 
 CHOREPISCOPUS (XccpeirltTKOTTOs) — 
 country bishop, vicarius episcopi (Cone. Ancyr., 
 Neo-Caesar., Antioch., &c., Isid. Hispal. De Offic. 
 Eccl. ii. 6, &c.), villanus episcopus (Capit. Car. M. 
 vii. 187), vicanus episcopus (fR'memAv), as opposed 
 to the cathedralis episcopus (Du Cange);—to 
 be distinguished, as being stationary, from the 
 TTfpio^evT^s or visitator, who itinerated, although 
 the two became often confounded together :—a 
 class of ministers between bishops proper and 
 presbyters, defined in the Arabic version of the 
 Nicene Canons to be “loco episcopi super villas 
 et monasteria et sacerdotes villarum called 
 into existence in the latter part of the 3rd cen¬ 
 tury, and first in Asia Minor, in order to m<!et 
 the want of episcopal supervision in the country 
 
354 
 
 CIIOREPISCOPUS 
 
 CHOREPISCOPUS 
 
 parts of the now enlarged dioceses without sub¬ 
 division : — first mentioned in the Councils of 
 Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, a.d. 314, and again in 
 the Council of Nice (which is subscribed by fifteen, 
 all from Asia Minor or Syria); sufficiently im¬ 
 portant to require restriction by the time of the 
 Council of Antioch, a.d. 341 ; and continuing 
 to exist in the East until at least the 9th cen¬ 
 tury, when they were supplanted by t^apxoi 
 [Exarchi]:— first mentioned in the West in the 
 Council of Riez, a.d. 439 (the Epistles of Pope 
 Damasus I. and of Leo M. respecting them being 
 forgeries), and continuing there (but not in 
 Africa, principally in France) until about the 
 10th century, after which the name occurs (in a 
 decree of Pope Damasus II. ap. Sigeb. in an. 1048) 
 as equivalent to archdeacon, an office from which 
 the Arabic Niceue canons expressly distinguish it. 
 The functions of chorepiscopi, as well as their 
 name, were of an episcopal, not of a presbyterial 
 kind, although limited to minor offices. They 
 overlooked the country district committed to 
 them, “loco episcopi,” ordaining readers,exorcists, 
 subdeacons, but, as a rule, not deacons or pres¬ 
 byters (and of course not bishops), unless by 
 express permission of their diocesan bishop. They 
 confirmed in their own districts, and (in Gaul) are 
 mentioned as consecrating churches (Du Cange). 
 They granted elprjuiKal, or letters dimissory, 
 which country presbyters were forbidden to do. 
 They had also the honorary privilege (jipw- 
 fx^voi) of assisting at the celebration of the Holy 
 Eucharist in the mother city church, which 
 country presbyters had not. (Co?ic. Ancyr. can. 
 xiii.; “ Neo-Caesar, can. xiv.; Antioch, can. x. ; 
 St. Basil, M. Epist. 181; Rab. Maur. De Instil. 
 Cler. i. 5 ; &c. &c.) They were held therefore to 
 have the power of ordination, but to lack juris¬ 
 diction, save subordinately. And the actual ordi¬ 
 nation of a presbyter by Timotheus, a chorepi- 
 scopus, is recorded (Pallad. Hist. Lansiac. 106). 
 The office also offered an opportunity for a com- 
 pi’omise in cases of schism, of which the Nicene 
 Council availed itself, by authorising a Catholic 
 bishop (among other alternatives) to find a place 
 as chorepiscopus for any reconciled Novatian 
 bishop (Cone. Nic. can. viii.). And the same 
 council (Epist. Syn. in Socrat. i. 9) places recon¬ 
 ciled Meietian bishops also in a somewhat similar 
 position, although not calling it by the name 
 itself. It was found also a convenient mode of dis¬ 
 posing of “ vacant ” bishops, when such occurred. 
 The office continued to exist among the later 
 Eastern sects also: sc. among the Jacobite 
 Syrians, where the chorepiscopus proper, who 
 presided over a rural district, is distinguished, 
 both from a titular chorepiscopus, more propeidy 
 archipreshyter or proto-pope, who was a kind of 
 leading presbyter in the episcopal city, and from 
 the or visitator, who went circuit; 
 
 and among the Nestorians, where also both chor¬ 
 episcopus and irepioSevT^s existed, as distinct 
 classes (Denzinger, Hit. Orient. Proleg. 116, sq.; 
 and see also the Arabic version of the Nicene 
 canons, cans. 58 to 70). In both these bodies 
 the chorepiscopi were presbyters. And in one 
 ritual they are appointed without imposition of 
 hands (Denzing. ib.). In the West, i.e. chiefly 
 in Gaul, the order appears to have preA’^ailed 
 
 “ For the meaning of this canon and its various read¬ 
 ings, see Routh, Beliq. Sac. iii. 430-439. 
 
 more widely, to have usurped episcopal functions 
 without due subordination to the diocesan.s, and 
 to have been also taken advantage of by idle or 
 worldly diocesans. In consequence it seems to 
 have aroused a strong feeling of hostility, which 
 shewed itself, first in a series of papal bulls, 
 condemning them; headed, it is true, by two 
 forged letters respectively of Damasus I. and 
 Leo M. (of which the latter is merely an inter¬ 
 polated version of Cone. Ilisptl. 11. A.D. 619, 
 can. 7, adding chorepiscopi to presbyteri, of which 
 latter the council really treats), but continuing in 
 a more genuine form, from Leo III. down to Pope 
 Nicholas 1. (to Rodolph, Archbishop of Bourges, 
 A.D. 864); the last of whom, however, takes 
 the more moderate line of atfirming chorepiscopi 
 to be really bishops, and consequently refusing 
 to annul their oi’dinations of presbyters and 
 deacons (as previous popes had done), but orders 
 them to keep within canonical limits;—and 
 secondly, in a series of conciliar decrees,— Cone. 
 Ratispon. A.D. 800, in Capit. tit. iv. c. 1, Paris. 
 A.D. 829, lib. i. c. 27, Meld. a.d. 845, can. 44, 
 Metens. A.D. 888, can. 8, and Capitul. v. 168, 
 vi. 119, vii. 187, 310, 323, 324,—annulling all 
 episcopal acts of chorepiscopi, and ordering them 
 to be repeated by “true” bishops; and finally 
 forbidding all further appointments of chorepi¬ 
 scopi at all. The title however lingered on for 
 some centuries, in France and Germany, as applied 
 to various cathedral dignitaries in particular 
 cathedrals, but in senses wholly irrelevant to its 
 original and proper meaning (see instances in 
 Du Cange). 
 
 That chorepiscopi as such— i. e. omitting the 
 cases of reconciled or vacant bishops above men¬ 
 tioned, of whose episcopate of course no question 
 is made—were at first truly bishops, both in 
 East and West, appears almost certain, both from 
 their name and functions, and even from the 
 arguments of their strong opponents just spoken 
 of. If nothing more could be urged against them, 
 than that the Council of Neo-Caesarea compared 
 them to the 70 disciples,—that the Council of 
 Antioch authorises their consecration by a single 
 bishop, and that they actually were so conse¬ 
 crated (the Antiochene decree might mean merely 
 nomination by the word yiueadai, but the actual 
 history seems to rule the term to intend con¬ 
 secration, and the [one] exceptional case of a 
 chorepiscopus recorded \^Actt. Episc. Cenojnan. 
 ap. Du Cange] in late times to have been or¬ 
 dained by three bishops [in order that he might 
 be a full bishop], merely proves the general rule 
 to the contrary),—and that they were conse¬ 
 crated for “ villages,” contrary to canon,—then 
 they certainly were bishops. And Pope Nicholas 
 expressly says that they were so. Undoubtedly 
 they ceased to be so in the East, and were prac¬ 
 tically merged in archdeacons in the West. And 
 the non-episcopal nature of the functions to 
 which they came to be limited would naturally 
 lead to such a result. The language of the 
 canons and of the Fathers (e.g. St. Basil. M. 
 above quoted, or again St. Athanasius [_Apol. ii. 
 0pp. i. 200], who distinguishes them both from 
 bishops proper and from presbyters, and again 
 both from city and from country presbyters), 
 naturally implies that at first they were bishops 
 in the common sense of the word The special 
 rites in the East for their appointment probably 
 belong to a time when they had undoubtedly 
 
CHORISTER 
 
 there sunk down into presbyters. It ought to 
 be said, however, that authorities are divided 
 upon the question : English writers mainly (Be¬ 
 veridge, Hammond, Cave, Bingham, Routh, to 
 whom may be added the weighty authority of 
 Van Espen) asserting their ei)iscopal character, 
 while others (see a list in Bing. II. xiv. 2, 3, 
 to which may be added Morinus and Du Cange) 
 allege them to have been presbyters. It need 
 hardly be said that they are not identical with 
 either coadjutors or suffragans, properly so called : 
 although they do bear a close resemblance to 
 such bishops as, e. q. the Bishop of Dover in pre- 
 Reformation times in England, and to the sundry 
 Irish and foreign and other stray bishops, who 
 are found so numerously doing the work of 
 English bishops for them in the 12th to the 16th 
 centuries, and to the suffragans as intended by 
 Henry VIll., and now actually revived in England. 
 (Bellarm. i)e Clericis, c. 17 ; Cellot. De Hierarch. 
 iv. 14; Morinus, De Sac. Ord. and Dissert.; De 
 Marca, De Concord., SfC. ii. 13 ; Du Cange ; Suicer ; 
 Bingham; Van Espen.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 CHORISTER. [Cantor.] 
 
 CHRESTIANI. A heathen variation of the 
 name Christiani. Instead of Xpiarhs, the more 
 classical word, Xpgarhs, gracious or good, was 
 commonly supposed to have been the name or title 
 by which Jesus of Nazareth was distinguished, 
 and his followers therefore were called Chrestiani. 
 The mistake is noticed by Justin Martyr, Ter- 
 tullian, Lactantius, and others, but the name 
 having a good signification, thev do not whollv 
 reject it. Tertullian however remonstrates with 
 the enemies of the faith for prosecuting Chris¬ 
 tians merely for their name, a name which, ac¬ 
 cording to either derivation, ought to command 
 admiration rather than hatred. “ Christianus, 
 quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. 
 Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur 
 a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes 
 vos) de suavitate vel benignitate compositum est. 
 Oditur ergo in hominibus innocuis etiam nomcn 
 innocuum ” (Tertul. Apol. c. 3; Bingham, I. 
 i. 11). [D. B.] 
 
 CHRISM. (Mupov, Xplcrga', Chrisma. The 
 latter word is sometimes fetninine: “miscitat 
 ipsam chrismam,” Ordo Rom. I. c. 42.) The 
 sacred oil or unguent used in the ceremonv of 
 baptism. The term is also used so as to include 
 the oil blessed for the unction of catechumens and 
 of the sick. 
 
 St. Ba.sil (De Spiritu S. c. 66 [al. 27]) mentions 
 the blessing of the oil of anointing for use in 
 baptism as one of the observances derived from 
 the earliest times by unwritten tradition. The 
 earliest extant testimonies to its use, whether in 
 baptism or in other ceremonies of the church, 
 are the following. 
 
 Tertullian (De Baptismo, c. 7) says, “next, 
 coming forth from the baptismal font, we are 
 anointed with oil blessed according to the pri¬ 
 mitive ordinances, in accordance with which men 
 were anointed with oil from the horn as a con¬ 
 secration for the priesthood.” He seems to 
 regard the anointing with oil as a symbol of the 
 universal priesthood of Christians. 
 
 St. Cyprian (Epist. 70, c. 2, p. 768, ed. HSrtel) 
 speaks of the oil sanctified on the altar, with 
 which the baptized are anointed [Baptism]; and 
 
 CHRISM 355 
 
 this oil, he says, the heretics who had no true 
 altar could npt have. 
 
 In the Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 43, § 3, 
 and 44, § 1) the direction is given, immediately 
 after baptism, “ let the ministrant anoint the 
 person baptized with unguent (p-upw), saying 
 over it, ‘ Lord God . . grant that this unguent 
 may so effectually work upon him that is bap¬ 
 tized that the sweet savour of Thy Christ may 
 abide in him fixed and firm.” In this case, the 
 unguent was evidently perfumed. There is 
 nothing in the passage to suggest that it had 
 undergone any previous consecration. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. 48, in Julian.') 
 S2)eaks of oil sanctified or consecrated on the 
 spiritual and divine Table; Optatus of Milevis 
 (C. Donatist. vii. p. 102) says that this ointment 
 is compounded (conditur) in the name of Christ; 
 and the Pseudo-Dionysius (De Hierarch. Eccles. 
 c. 4) mentions the use of the sign of the cro.ss in 
 the consecration of it. 
 
 The privilege of consecrating chrism was in 
 comparatively early times strictly confined to 
 the episcopal order. The twentieth canon of the 
 first council of Toledo (a.d. 398) censures those 
 presbyters who A'entured to prepare chrism for 
 themselves, and desires them to send a deacon or 
 subdeacon to fetch the chrism from the bishop, 
 so as to be in time for the festivities of Easter 
 Day. To the same effect writes Bishop Montauus 
 to the clergy of Palencia and to Theoribius 
 (Hardouin’s Concilia, ii. 1143). 
 
 The greater quantity of chrism was probably 
 at this time consecrated immediately before 
 Easter, but it does not appear that the con¬ 
 secration was as yet limited to a particular day ; 
 on the contrary, the canon above cited expressl}' 
 lays it down that the bishop might consecrate 
 chrism at any time. But in the^oth century it 
 became an established custom to consecrate the 
 chrism and oil for use throughout the year on 
 Maiindy Thursday. Pope Leo complains in a 
 letter to his namesake, the Emperor of the East 
 (Epist. 156, p. 1324), that in consequence of the 
 murder of Proterius, bishop of Alexandria, the 
 oblation was prevented and no chrism was con¬ 
 secrated. Ellgius of Noyon (f 658), jmeaching 
 on Maundy Thursday (Horn. 10 in Coena Dom. 
 p. 245, Biblioth. Patr. Colon.) speaks of chrism 
 being consecrated on that day throughout the 
 Christian world. In the em])ire the consecration 
 on Maundy Thursday was enjoined by a capitulary 
 of Charles the Great (Concil. Germaniie, i. 342); 
 yet at a somewhat later date the custom had 
 probably not become universal; for a synod of 
 Meaux of the year 845 forbade (canon 46) the 
 preparation of chrism on any other day, as if such 
 preparation was even then not (juite unknown. 
 
 The Gelasian Sacramentary has a Missa Chris- 
 malis on Maundy Thursday, referring to the 
 consecration both of chrism and of oil for the 
 unction of the sick (Migne’s Patrol. Ixxiv. 
 p. 1099). The Gregorian Sacramentary has also 
 on the .same day full directions for the con¬ 
 secration of oil and chrism in the mass (pp. 66- 
 69); the ceremony consists of benediction, and 
 breathing on the prepared unguent [Ampulla]. 
 With this may be compared the directions of ti e 
 Ordo Rom. I. (App. c. 7, p. 34), which are pro¬ 
 bably of about- the same age. Some of the later 
 Ordines (see 0. R. X. pp. 97, ff’.; XV. pp. 480 f.) 
 also give directions for the benediction of chrism 
 
 2 A 
 
356 
 
 CHRISMAL 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 by the pope on Maundy Thursday. It appears 
 from tlie Ordo last referred to that it was at one 
 time customary for the pope to bless chrism only 
 in the year of his coronation, and every seventh 
 year afterwai’ds. 
 
 It appears from the Euchologion that in the 
 Greek Church also the blessing of chrism is one 
 of the ceremonies of Maundy Thursday. 
 
 The chrism is not sim])le oil, but oil mixed 
 with balsam. Eligius of Noyon (//om. 8 , In 
 Cocna Bom.) tells us tha{ the mingling of balsam 
 with the oil typifies the union of regal and 
 sacerdotal glory. Compare Tertullian {Be Bapt. 
 7), cited above. And Gregory the Great {In 
 Cantic. i. 13) refers the balsam of Engaddi to 
 that balsam which, mixed with oil and blesseu 
 by the bishop, makes chrism, typifying the gifts 
 of the Holy S])irit. For the Eastern Church, 
 the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite testifies 
 (^Hierarch. Eccl. c. 4) that the sacred unguent 
 (juLvpov) or chrism is composed of fiuigrant sub¬ 
 stances. The modern receipt for its composition 
 (as given in the Euchologion) prescribes, in fact, 
 besides oil and wine, thirty-six different kinds of 
 aromatics. 
 
 For the principal uses of chrism, see Baptism, 
 Confirmation, Ordination. [C.] 
 
 CFIRISMAL {Chrismale). (1) The vessel or 
 flask in which the consecrated oil or Chrism 
 was contained [Ampulla]. 
 
 (2) A vessel for the reservation of the conse¬ 
 crated Host. In the Rheims MS. of the Gregorian 
 Sacramentarg (p. 432, ed. Menard) is given a 
 “ Praefatio Chrismalis,” while the Ordo Bomanus 
 in the corresponding place has the rubric, “ Prae¬ 
 fatio vasculi in quo Eucharistia reconditur.” It 
 is of this kind of chrismal that Egbert (Penit. 
 xii. 6 ; in Haddan and Stubbs’ Councils, iii. 428) 
 and Halitgar {Penit. c. 10, p. 701, Migne) speak, 
 as of a vessel which the priest carried with 
 him and might lose. Some, however, take this 
 chrismal for the Corporal. 
 
 (3) A cloth used to cover relics. In the Life 
 of Eligius, attributed to St. Ouen (ii. 71), we 
 read of a miracle wrought upon one who rubbed 
 his face with the fringe of a chrismal which 
 covered the relics of the saint. 
 
 (4) Old-English C/imoni. The white cloth laid 
 
 over the head of one newly baptized, after the 
 unction with chrism [Baptism, p. 163]. This 
 cloth is called in Theodore’s Poenitenticd (ii. iv. 
 7; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 193) “ pannus cris- 
 matis in later authors, “ vestis chrismalis,” 
 “ chrismalis pannus,” “ mitra baptizatorum,” 
 “ chrismale capitum.” (Ducange, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 CHRISMARIUM. The vessel in which 
 chrism is kept (Council of Auxerre, c. 6 ). It is 
 sometimes however taken for a reliquary (Gre¬ 
 gory of Tours, Be Mime. S. Martini, iv. 32 ; 
 Fortunatus, TV^a Gennani Paris, c. 47). [C.] 
 
 CHRISOM. [Chrismal.] 
 
 CHRIST, PICTURES OF.'' [Jesus Christ 
 in Art.] 
 
 CHRISTEMPOREIA, XpitTrcjunropela —the 
 selling of Christ—a name sometimes employed 
 in the 5th century to signify simony. During 
 the ages of persecution there was no place for 
 simoniacal transactions: but when the higher 
 offices of the Church brought wealth and dignity 
 
 to their posses, ors, there were not wanting am¬ 
 bitious and woildly men who sought to obtain 
 such offices by bribery or other unworthy means. 
 To check and prevent such discreditable prac¬ 
 tices, severe laws were enacted both in church and 
 state as early as the 5th century. The Council 
 of Chalcedou (c. 2 ) decreed that if any bishop 
 gave ordination or an ecclesiastical office or pre¬ 
 ferment of any kind for money, he himself should 
 lo.se his oflice and the party so preferred be de¬ 
 posed. Other like decrees occur in the so-called 
 Apostolical Canons (c. 29), the Council of Coii- 
 stantino])le under Gennadius, a.d. 459; the 2nd 
 Council of Orleans, Bracara, and many others. 
 The imperial laws also were no less .stringent in 
 regard to this abuse. E.g. it was enacted by one 
 of Justinian’s Novels (123, c. 1), that whenever .a 
 bishop was to be chosen, the electors should take 
 an oath and insert it in the election paper that 
 they did not choose him for any gift or promise 
 or friendship, or any other cause, but only be¬ 
 cause they knew him to be a man of the true 
 Catholic faith and of unblamable life and good 
 learning. And in another law (Novel 137, c. 2) 
 it is further provided that the party elected 
 shall also at the time of his ordination, take an 
 oath upon the holy Go.spels that he neither gave 
 nor promised by himself or other, nor hereafter 
 will give to his ordainer or to his electors, or 
 any other person, anything to procure him an 
 ordination. And for any bishop to ordain another 
 without observing the rule prescribed, is depo¬ 
 sition, by the same law, both for him.self and the 
 person so ordained. 
 
 These were some of the securities required by 
 the ancient Church against the practice whicli 
 they stigmatized by the designation of Christem- 
 poreia (Bingham, iv. 3, 4). [D. B.] 
 
 CHRISTENING. [Baptism.] 
 CHRISTIACUM CONCILIUM. [Cressv.] 
 
 CHRISTIANA, or CHRISTINA, virgin, 
 IxeyaKofxdpTvs, martyr at Tyrus in Italy (?) 
 A.D. 200, is commemorated July 24 (^Mart. Bedae, 
 Bom. Vet., Usuardi, Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 CHRISTMAS (Festival of) 76 - 
 
 y46\ios, rd yev40\ta, Batalis, Batalitia, Ba- 
 tivitas, Bomini, &c. From the latter is derived 
 the name of the day among peoples of the Latin 
 race [e.g. the French Noel], and also among the 
 Celtic nations, which were Christianized by 
 Latin-speaking missionaries. In Germany the 
 day is called the Weilniachtsfest from the solemn 
 vigils which preceded the festival itself. The 
 English Christinas [so the Dutch Kerstmisse, 
 Kersmis, whence Kerst-maend, a name for De¬ 
 cember], analogous to such forms as Candlemas, 
 Lammas, Michaelmas, Childermas, superseded 
 the older name Yule [Anglo-Saxon, Geol], by 
 which the dav is still known among the Scan¬ 
 dinavian nations). 
 
 1. Origin of Festivtd. 
 
 It is not hard to understand why the Christian 
 Church should have commemorated by an annual 
 festival the Saviour’s Incarnation. How far, 
 however, the church was led by the possession 
 of actual historical evidence to assign, as it has 
 done, December 25 as the date of the Nativity, is 
 a matter on which it is impossible to speak 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 357 
 
 otherwise than most doubtfully.* On the one 
 hand, due weight must be given to the una¬ 
 nimous agreement of the Western Church as far 
 as the tradition can be traced back, and to the 
 almost universal acceptance of this view by the 
 Eastern Church at an early date. It is certainly 
 not altogether impossible that there may have 
 been some trustworthy tradition, some founda¬ 
 tion for Tertullian’s remark as to the archives of 
 the Jews stored up at Rome, some slight sub¬ 
 stratum of truth underlying the legend as to the 
 investigation of the day by Julius 1. (vide infra). 
 Further, sundry independent considerations, 
 astronomical and otherwise, tend to make it 
 probable that our Lord’s birth took place near 
 the end of the year. On this point reference 
 may be made to Seyffarth’s Chronologia Sacra^ 
 which refers the Nativity to December 22 (p. 
 239), see also Ideler, Chronologic, vol. ii. pp. 38.5 
 sqq. On the other hand, some have argued on 
 various grounds in favour of the greater pro¬ 
 bability of the Nativity having been in the 
 autumn. Thus Lightfoot (Horae Hehraicae et 
 Talmudicae, vol. ii. p. 32, ed. Gandell) would 
 make it coincide with the Jewish Feast of Taber¬ 
 nacles, and associate it with that Festival in the 
 same way in which the Passover and Easter, 
 Pentecost and Whitsuntide correspond. His 
 arguments mainly turn on the interpretation of 
 Old Testament prophecies; e.g. our Lord died in 
 Nisan, and if His ministry lasted three years and 
 a half, as Lightfoot infers from Daniel ix. 27, 
 then since our Lord at the beginning of His 
 ministry was iruv rgiaKovra apxofifros (Luke 
 iii. 23), we have, reckoning back from His death, 
 Tisri or September for the season of His birth. 
 Again, he infers from a comparison of Zechariah 
 xiv. 16, 17, that it would be most improbable 
 that the Feast of Tabeimacles alone of the three 
 great Jewish festivals should fail of the honour 
 by which the Passover became exalted into Easter, 
 and Pentecost into Whitsuntide. To decide the 
 matter thus, however, in the absence of any more 
 tangible historical evidence, is obviously unsafe. 
 To the same end but on different grounds argues 
 Jablonsky (Dissertaliones ii. de origine Festi 
 Xativitatis Christi in Ecclesia Christiana qno- 
 tannis stato die celebrari solita, in his Opuscu'a, 
 vol. iii. pp. 317 sqq. Amsterdam 1809. See also 
 ^liinter,/Icr AF/em der Weisen, p. 110, Copenhagen 
 1827), maintaining for example that St. Luke’s 
 statement (ii. 8), of the shepherds keeping watch ' 
 over their flocks by night would hardly have 
 been possible on the assumption of the December 
 date, seeing that it w'ould then have been the 
 rainy season, and the flocks would therefore have 
 been under shelter. A further discussion, how¬ 
 ever, on this point rather belongs to the province 
 of Biblical Chronology. 
 
 Many learned men have seen in the particular 
 period at which we celebrate Christmas, evidence 
 m favour of our viewing the Christian festival 
 as an adaptation of previously existing Jewish or 
 heathen festivals; to the more striking views of 
 this kind we shall now briefly refer. 
 
 • Even in very early limes the great uncertainty of the 
 mailer was clearly felt. Thus Jacob, bishop of Edessa 
 (ob. 578 A.D.), is quoted by I)iony>ius Bar-Salibi as saying 
 " No one knows exactly the day of the nativity of the 
 Lord: this only is certain, from what Luke writes, that 
 He was born in the night” (Assemanl, Bill. Or. vol. ii. 
 ?. 163 > 
 
 (o) Some, as Oldermann (De festo Encaenionnn 
 Judaico, origine festi Nalivitatis Christi, 1715) 
 have viewed Christmas as a continuation and 
 development of the Jewish Feast of the Dedica¬ 
 tion, a festival of eight days’ duration beginninrr 
 on Cisleu 25 (= December 17), which was the 
 anniversary of the purification of the temple by 
 Judas Maccabaeus after the outrages of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes (see 1 Macc. iv. 52-59; 2 Macc. x. 
 1-8 ; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7, 6). Still while 
 there seem to be several coincidences between the 
 two feasts, such a transference from Judaism to 
 Christianity of which no hint whatever is given 
 in early times is exceedingly unlikely. 
 
 (6) Others have derived it from some one or 
 other of the Roman festivals held in the latter 
 part of December, as the Saturnalia, or the Sigil- 
 laria which followed them, or the Juvenalia 
 established by Nero. A more striking parallel, 
 however, than any of these is to be found in the 
 Brumalia, or the NataVs Invicti [6'o5's], when 
 the Sun, then at the winter solstice, was, as it 
 were, born anew, even as Christ the Sun of 
 Righteousness then dawned upon the world. 
 This is the view of Wernsdorf, De origine Sollem- 
 nium Ndtidis C <risti ec festivitate Natalis Invicti. 
 Wittenberg 1757 ; of Jablonsky partly [snpra']-, 
 also of Mr. King (Gnostics and their Remains, 
 p. 49), who derives the Roman festival from the 
 Mithras-worship of the Sun. Then as Mith- 
 raicism gradually blended with Christianity, 
 changing its name but not altogether its sub¬ 
 stance, many of its ancient notions and rites 
 passed over too, and the Birthday of the Sun, 
 the visible manifestation of Mithr.as himself, was 
 transferred to the commemoration of the Birth 
 of Christ. Numerous jllustrations of the above 
 remarks may be found in ancient inscriptions, 
 e.g. SOLI INVICTO ET LUNAE AETERNAE 
 C. VETTI GERMANI LIB. DUO -PARATUS ET 
 HERMES DEDERUNT, or HAIH MI0PA ANI- 
 KHTfl (Gruter, Inscriptiones.A'Btiqiuie,p. xxxiii.) 
 In the legend on the reverse of the copper coins 
 of Constantine, SOLI INVICTO COMITI, re¬ 
 tained long after his conversion, there is at once 
 an idea of the ancient Sun-God, and of the new 
 Sun of Righteousness. The supporters of this 
 theory cite various passages from early Christian 
 writers indicating a recognition of this view. 
 The sermon of Ambrose, quoted by Jablonsky, is 
 certainly spurious, and is so marked in the best 
 I editions of his works; it furnishes, however, an 
 interesting illustration of an early date. The 
 passage runs thus, “ Bene quodammodo sanctum 
 hunc diem Natalis Domini Solcm novum vulgus 
 appellat, et tanta sui auctoritate id confirmat, 
 ut Judaei etiam atque Gentiles in hanc vocem 
 consentiant. Quod libcnter amplectandum nobis 
 est, quia oriente Salvatore, non solum-humani 
 generis salus, sed etiam solis ipsius claritas in- 
 novatur” (Serm. 6, in Appendlce p. 397, ed. 
 Bened.). In the Latin editions of Chry.sostom is 
 a homily, wrongly ascribed to him, but probably 
 written not long after his time, in which we read, 
 “Sed et Invicti appellant. Quis utique 
 
 tarn invictus nisi Dominus noster, qui mortem 
 subactam devicit ? Vel quod dicunt Solis esse 
 Natalem, ipse est Sol Justitiae, de quo Malachias 
 propheta dixit, Orietur vobis timentibus nomen 
 ipsius Sol Justitiae et sanitas est in perinis ejus ” 
 (Scrino de Nativitate S. Joannis Baptistac: 
 vol. ii. 1113, ed. Pari.s, 1570). Leo the Great 
 
358 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 fiuils fault with the baneful persuasion of some 
 “quibus haec dies solemnitatis nostrae, non tam 
 de Nativitate Christi, quam de novi ut dicunt 
 soli's ortu, honorabilis videtur ” (Senn. 22, § 6 , 
 vol. i. p. 72, ed. Ballerini). Again, the same 
 father observes, “ Sed hanc adorandam in caelo 
 et in terra Xativitatem nullus nobis dies magis 
 quam hodieruus insinuat, et nova etiam in ele- 
 mentis luce radiante, coram (al. totam) sensibus 
 uostris mirabilis sacramenti ingerit claritatem ” 
 {Serm. 26, § 1 , p. 87). 
 
 We may further cite one or two instances from 
 ancient Christian poets : Prudentius, in his hymn 
 Ad Nata/em Domini, thus speaks (Cathcmerinon 
 xi. init., p. 364, ed. Arevalus):— 
 
 " Quid est, quod arctum circulum 
 Sol jam recurrens de.-^rit ? 
 
 Christusne terrls nascitur 
 Qui Incis auget tramilem?” 
 
 Paulinus ofNola also (Poema xiv. 15-19, p. 382, 
 ed. Mui'atori):— 
 
 “ Nam post solstitium, quo Christus corpore uatus 
 Solo novo gelidae mutavit tempora brumae, 
 
 Atque salutiferum praestans mortalibus ortum, 
 Proc?deiite die, secum decrescere noctes 
 Jussit." 
 
 Reference may also be made to an extract in 
 Assemani {Bibl. Or. ii. 163) from Dionysius Bar- 
 Salibi, bishop of Amida, which shows traces of a 
 similar feeling in the East; also to a passage 
 from an anonymous Syrian writer, who distinctly 
 refers the fixing of the day to the above cause; 
 we are not disposed, however, to attach much 
 weight to this last passage. More important for 
 our purpose is the injunction of a council of Rome 
 (743 A.D.) “ Ut nullus Kalendas Januarias et 
 hroma ( = brumalia) colei'e praesumpserit ” (can. 
 9, Labbe' vi. 1548), which shows at any rate that 
 for a long time after the fall of heathenism, 
 many traces of heathen rites still remained. A 
 similar mention is found also in the proceedings 
 of the Quinisext Council (692 A.D.), ras ovtu 
 Xeyoiiivas KaAdvSas /cal ra KaKov^ieva BpovfidXia 
 (can. 66 , Labbe'vi. 1170). 
 
 ( 7 ) Others have even derived Christm.as from 
 the Northern festival ( Vule) in December, in 
 honour of Freya (cf. Loccenius, Antiq. Sv^o-Goth. 
 lib. i. c. 5, Holmiae, 1645; Scheffer, Upsalia 
 Antiqua, p. 296, Upsal, 1666). 
 
 (5) Jablonsky, while considering, as we haA'e 
 said, that in the festival of the Natalis Invicti 
 is to be found the origin of the celebration of 
 our Lord’s Nativity by the Roman Church, main¬ 
 tains {op. cit. pp. 361 sqq.) that the Christians 
 derived this festival primarily from the Basili- 
 dians. These, as we learn from a passage of 
 Clement of Alexandria cited at length below, 
 celebrated Christ’s baptism as being His mani¬ 
 festation to the world on Tubi 11 ( = January 6 ), 
 and Jablonsky argues that this particular day 
 was suggested to them by the Egyptian festival 
 of the Invenlio Osiridis or Festum Osiridis nati 
 or renati (cf. Juvenal viii. 29; Athenagoras, 
 Jjpgatio, c. 22, p. 299, ed. Maranus), itself a com¬ 
 memoration of the renewed life of the sun from 
 year to year, which he thinks was celebrated on 
 that day. (On this last point, however, much 
 doubt exists. Wyttenbach, Animadversiones in 
 Piutarchi Mornlia ; De Iside et Osiride, p. 366 F, 
 considers that if Plutarch’s text is correct, the 
 festival took place in Athyr or November, and 
 
 Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus, vol. ii. part 2, p. 
 262, would fix it in Choeac or December.) 
 
 (e) Some writers have argued that the Chris¬ 
 tian festival was not so much a transformation 
 of a previously existing non-Christian one, as an 
 independent festival set up as a counter-cele¬ 
 bration at the same time with the heathen fes¬ 
 tival ; this distinction, however, is rather ap¬ 
 parent than real. Augusti, for example (Denk- 
 icvrdiykeiten, vol. i. p. 226), sees in it a standing 
 protest against those sects which denied or ob¬ 
 scured the great truth of the Incarnation, such 
 as the Manichaeans, Gnostics, Priscillianists, and 
 the like. 
 
 II. History of Festival. 
 
 We do not find in the earliest Christian times 
 uniformity of observance as to the day on which 
 our Lord’s Nativity was commemorated. The 
 earliest allusion to it is made by Clement of 
 Alexandria, and is of so much importance that 
 we shall give it at length. After speaking of 
 the year of our Lord’s birth, he proceeds : “And 
 there are some who over curiously (wepiep- 
 yorepoy) assign not only the year but even the 
 day of the birth of our Saviour, which they say 
 was in the 28th year of Augustus, on the 25th 
 day of Pachon.** And the followers of Basilides 
 celebrate also the day of His baptism (of Se otto 
 B. KOI Tov /SaTTTtV/uaTOs aiiTov ttjv rjpfpay eoprd- 
 Covcri), spending the night before in readings, 
 and they say that it was in the 15th year of 
 Tiberius Caesar, on the loth of the month Tubi, 
 but some say that it was on the 11 th of the 
 same month. . . . Further, some of them sav 
 that he was born on the 24th or 2oth of Phar- 
 muthi.” {Stromata, lib. i. c. 21 , vol. i. p. 407, ed. 
 Potter). The two days here specified as those 
 on which the Nativity was celebrated, Pachon 
 25, and Pharmuthi 24 or 25, are respectively 
 ^lay 20, April 21 or 22 (see Bede, De temporum 
 ratione, c. 11; Patrol, xc. 345). Jablonsky ( 0 ;;. 
 cit.'), and Le Nourry {In Clem. Alex. opp. Diss. 
 ii. art. 5) infer from the language of Clement 
 that Tubi 11 or 15 (January 6 or 10) was ob¬ 
 served by the followers of Basilides as the day 
 of the baptism as well as of the Nativity. We 
 should venture to doubt this idea, but it is per¬ 
 haps supported by the passage cited below from 
 Epiphanius. Gieseler also {Kirchenjescliichte, 
 vol. i. p. 154, ed. 3) considers the inference in¬ 
 correct. 
 
 We may probably assume the above-quoted 
 passage to be decisive against any general cele¬ 
 bration of the Nativity in Clement’s time. Pos¬ 
 sibly indeed, though as we have already said the 
 inference seems doubtful, he may refer to a cele¬ 
 bration of the day by some of the sects of the 
 time, since he speaks of the Easilidians “ observ¬ 
 ing also the day of the baptism.” Further, it 
 would seem as if Clement rather censured the 
 attempt to fix accurately the day of our Lord’s 
 birth, itself conclusive evidence against a general 
 recognition of the festival in Clement’s time. 
 
 It was the general custom in early times, in 
 the East, to fix the Nativity on January 6 , which 
 thus served as the anniversary both for the Birth 
 
 b Idcler {op. cit. ii. CS7 n.) suggests as a reason for this 
 fixing of the day on the part of the Egyptians, that hear¬ 
 ing Christ was bom in the 9th month, they referred it to 
 the 9ih month of their own calendar. 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 359 
 
 and the Epiphany. An illustration of this, not 
 however applying to an Oriental Church, may | 
 perhaps be derived from the accounts of the visit 
 of Julian the Apostate, when at Vienne in Gaul, 
 to a church with the view of seeming in accord 
 with the religion of his soldiery. Ammianus 
 Marcellinus (lib. xxi. c. 2) speaks of this visit 
 as taking place on the Epiphany (“ feriarum die 
 quern celebrantes mense Januario Christiani Epi- 
 phania dictitant ”), and Zonaras (^Annal. lib. xiii. 
 c. 11) on the Nativity (rijs y^v^QKiov (ruTrjpos 
 rjfiepas e^ecTTj/cy/as). It is just possible, however, 
 that the references may be to different events. 
 
 To derive illustrations of the practice from 
 distinctly Eastern sources, we may refer in the 
 first place to a letter attributed to Cyril of Jeru¬ 
 salem, which professes to be addressed by him 
 to Julius, bishop of Rome, on this subject. This 
 letter, though a palpable forgery, affords inter¬ 
 esting evidence of the existence of the practice 
 of combining the two feasts on January 6. We 
 derive our knowledge of it from two sources: 
 (1) a summary of it given in a letter. Be Nati- \ 
 vitate Domini, of John, bishop of Nicaea (end of 
 the 9th or beginning of the 10th century) to 
 Zacharias, Catholicos of Armenia Major (Combefis, 
 Haeresis Monothelit. pp. 298 sqq.); and (2) an 
 anonymous 'AvayKaia di-fiy-rjais, published by 
 Cotelier from a MS. in the Library of Paris (Pa- 
 tres Apostolici, i. 316, ed. 1724). The general , 
 substance of these is to the effect that the bishop , 
 of Jerusalem complained of the inconvenience of 
 celebrating the Nativity and the Epiphany on j 
 the same day, seeing that as he went in person 
 to scenes commemorated by these events, Beth¬ 
 lehem and the Jordan, it was difficult to perform 
 both journeys in one day, and the services were 
 necessarily mutilated. He therefore requests in¬ 
 formation as to the proper day of the Nativity, 
 adding that Titus carried away to Rome the 
 archives of the Jews from which the fact might 
 be cleared up. (For this point, cf. Tertullian 
 contra Marcionem, lib. iv. c. 7.) The pope in 
 answer declares that he has examined the records 
 and finds that December 25 is the day on which 
 the Nativity should be held. The latter of the 
 two documents we have referred to adds that 
 this decision caused much murmuring—“ Now 
 at that time Gregory Theologus [Nazianzen] ' 
 was at Constantinople, and there arose no small j 
 murmuring among the citizens, as though he had j 
 been dividing the feast, and they said. Thou hast j 
 divided the feast, and art casting us into idol- j 
 atry.” According to this document the name of 
 the bishop of Jerusalem in question was Juvenal, 
 a successor of Cyril (see Cyril. Hierosol. p. 370, 
 ed. Toutt^).<= 
 
 A possible allusion to this affair may be cited 
 
 ' The unhlstorical character of these documents is 
 equally obvious whether we take Cyril or Juvenal : for 
 Julius was dead nearly a century before the time of the 
 latter. Again as for Cyril, the letter, according to Cotelier’s 
 obvious co»-rei tion, claims to bo written not by tli^; well- 
 known Cyril (“ who wrote to Constantine ” [leg. Con¬ 
 stantins] conceining the appearance of the luminous cross 
 over Jerusalem), but a later one In the time of Valerius, 
 mentioned by Kplphanius {Haer. Ixvi. 20). This however 
 is impossible, for the end of the pontificate of Julius only 
 Just overlaps that of Cyril. Even if, in spite of the letter, 
 we referred It to Cyril 1., we are no better off, for it is 
 clear that the practice of celebrating the Nativity and the 
 Epiphany together continued in Jerusal m after his time. 
 
 from the Laudatio S. Stephani by Basil of Se- 
 leucia, who flourished at the time of the Council 
 of Ephesus {Patrol. Gr. Ixxxv. 469), who says of 
 Juvenal that he “ began to celebrate the glorious 
 and adorable salvation-bringing Nativity of the 
 Lord,"’ which not improbably means celebrated 
 as a distinct festival. Possibly the explanation 
 of the whole thing is that Juvenal initialed some 
 change in accordance with the Western practice, 
 which was then explained as a direct action of the 
 Roman See, and was finally associated with the 
 more famous name of Cyril. 
 
 To show that the change was not at once made 
 in Palestine, we may further appeal to the Latin 
 homily Be Nativitate Domini, found in Latin edi¬ 
 tions of Chrysostom, which though not received 
 as a genuine writing of that Father, is assigned 
 by Touttee (pp. cit. p. 369) to the 4th century 
 or the beginning of the 5th. d’he writer is con¬ 
 tending that the Western plan of dividing the 
 festivals is correct, and finds fault with Orientals 
 who clung to their old method on the ground 
 that they must know best in whose land our 
 Lord’s earthly life was past (Chrysostom, vol. i. 
 p. 1116, ed. Paris, 1570). 
 
 Important testimony on this point may be de¬ 
 rived from Cosmas Indicopleustes (Topographia 
 Christiana, lib. v.; Patrol. Gr. Ixxxviii. 197), 
 who after referring to the message of the angel 
 to Zacharias and the visit of the Virgin to Eliza¬ 
 beth, says that Christians concur in celebrating 
 the Nativity in the ninth month, on Choeac 28 
 (^December 24), “but the people of Jerusalem, 
 as though from what the blessed Luke .says 
 that Christ was baptized when ‘ beginning to be 
 about thirty years old,’ celebrate the Nativity 
 on the Epiphany.” He then appears to say that 
 the people of Jerusalem were right in supposing 
 that our Lord’s baptism fell on the anniversary 
 of His birth, but that the Church had wisely 
 postponed the celebration of one of these events 
 for twelve days lest either festival should meet 
 with insufficient attention. Thus Jerusalem Avas 
 incorrect in taking the later day for the anni¬ 
 versary of the Nativity. “ But the people of 
 Jerusalem alone by a reasonable conjecture, yet 
 not accurately, celebrate [the Nativity] on the 
 Epiphany, and on the Nativity they celebrate 
 the memory of David and of James the Apostle.” 
 We further gather from the letter of John of 
 Nicaea already referred to (o/j. cit. 1141) that the 
 Church of Jerusalem appealed to the authority 
 of James, the Lord’s brother, for their practice 
 of celebrating the Nativity on January 6. He 
 adds that in the time of Honorius the patriarchs 
 of Constantinople (Chrysostom), Alexandria, Je¬ 
 rusalem, and Antioch formally acquiesced in the 
 Western plan. 
 
 We shall now adduce evidence to show that tlie 
 practice of the Alexandrian Church agreed in this 
 matter with that of the Church of Jerusalem.. In 
 his notes to his Latin translation of the Arabic Pre¬ 
 face, Canons and Constitutions of the Nicene Coun¬ 
 cil, Abraham Ecchelensis cites from the Constitu¬ 
 tions of the Alexandrian Church, “ In die antem 
 Nativitatis et Epiphaniae eo tempore quo conci¬ 
 lium Nicaenum coactum fuit, praeceperunt ejus 
 patres ut noctu missa celebretur ” (Labbe ii. 402). 
 
 Cassian^ again (Collutio x. c. 2 ; Patrol. .\li.\. 
 
 It would almost seem as Ihougli tlieie were grounds 
 for believing the change to have taken place in Egypt by 
 
360 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 820) speaks ef it as the custom in Egypt in his 
 day : “ lutra Aegypti regiouem nios iste antiqua 
 traditioue servatur, ut peracto Epiphaniorum 
 die quern provinciae illius sacerdotes vel Domi- 
 uici Baptismi, vel secundum carnem Nativitatis 
 esse defiuiuut, et idcirco utriusqixe sacramenti 
 solemiiitatem non bifarie ut in occiduis pro- 
 vinciis, sed uha diei hujus festivitate concele- 
 brant . . . (cf. Isidore, De Eccl. Off. i. 27); 
 Gennadius (^De Scriptorihiis Ecclesiasticis, c. 58 ; 
 Patrol. Iviii. 1092) speaks of a certain Bishop 
 Timotheus who composed a book, not now extant, 
 on the Nativity of our Lord “ quam credit in 
 Epiphania factam.” Taken in conjunction with 
 what we have already said of the Egyptian prac¬ 
 tice this may refer to Timotheus, bishop of Alex¬ 
 andria. 
 
 We next pass on to notice the evidence for the 
 practice of the Armenians in this matter. Euthy- 
 mius {Panoplia Dorjmatica, tit. 23 ; Patrol. Gr. 
 exxx, 1175) says of them : “These deny the birth 
 of Christ according to the flesh and the mystery 
 of the true Incarnation, saying that they took 
 place only in appearance ; nor do they celebrate 
 the Annunciation of the Mother of God on the 
 day that we celebrate it, that is on March 25, 
 as the inspired Fathers, the great Athanasius ® 
 and John Chrysostom and those of their time 
 and after their time have handed it down to 
 us, but on January 5 ; in a very short time they 
 fancifully and obscuiely jxretend that they cele¬ 
 brate the Annunciation and the Nativity and 
 the Baptism of Christ, to the deceiving of the 
 uncorrupt and not according to truth.” Similar 
 evidence is forthcoming from Nicephorus (Hist. 
 Eccles. xviii. 53 ; Patrol. Gr. cxlvii. 440) : “ They 
 deny also the Nativity of Christ according to the 
 flesh, and say that He was born only in appear¬ 
 ance ; and differing from us xvho observe them 
 separately, they extend the fast to the 15th 
 [doubtless for iP here we should read e'] day of 
 the month January, and celebrate together the 
 Annunciation and Nativitj'^ and Baptism.” The 
 inquiry of the Armenian Catholicos Zacharias from 
 John of Nicaea, which called forth the letter of 
 the latter, is also evidence throwing a light upon 
 the matter in question. 
 
 We shall next cite from the answers of 
 John, bishop of Citrum, to Constantine Cabasilas, 
 archbishop of Dyrrachium (quoted by Cotelier, 
 Patres Apostolid, i. 316, ed. 1724, from MSS. in 
 the Library of Paris, though not given in the 
 printed editions, as Leunclavius, Jus Graeco-Ro- 
 manum^ p. 323): “ We abolish the twelve days’ 
 [fast] for the overthrowing of the fast of the Arme¬ 
 nians. For they fast for these twelve days before 
 Epiphany, and so celebrate together on the fifth 
 of January the three feasts: I mean the Annun¬ 
 ciation and the Nativity and Baptism of Christ.” 
 He proceeds to attribute this to the heresiarch 
 Ichanius, who held Docetic views. 
 
 Cotelier further quotes from a MS. in the same 
 
 Cassian’s time ; for In the heading of a homily by Paul, 
 bishop of Kmesa, delivered at Alexandria before Cyril, we 
 find K<s\9ela-a kO' Xoiax (= December 25) . .. eU ttjv yeV- 
 v7)(fiv Tov Kvpiov y]p.o)v ’Irjcrov Xpurrov. (Cone. Ephes. 
 Pars iii. c. 31; Labbe, iii. 1095.) 
 
 e The writer here doubtless appeals to the Quaestiones 
 ad Antiochum Ducf^ni, 55 (Patrol. Or. xxviii. 632), once 
 attributed to Athanasius, but universally acknowledged 
 now to be spurious. 
 
 Library a form of renunciation to be gone through 
 by Armenian heretics on joining the Roman 
 Church. Among other things is, “If anyone 
 does not celebrate on March 25 the Annunciation, 
 and on December 25 the Nativity of Christ, 
 let him be Anathema.” He had previously (op. 
 cit. p. 238) printed from the same MS. an attack 
 on the dp-q(TK(ia ruv KaKiaTcou ’Apue- 
 
 p'luu, where we find: “And on January 5 in the 
 evening, they celebrate the feast of the Annun¬ 
 ciation. . . . And in the morning they celebrate 
 the Nativity of Christ, and in the Liturgy the 
 Holy Epiphany.” 
 
 Finally, for the Armenian practice reference 
 may be made to two invectives (\6yoi ctttjAi- 
 revTiKoi) of Isaac, Catholicos of Armenia, in the 
 11 th or 12th century (i. 3, ii. 10, Combefls, Haere- 
 sis Monothelit. pp. 33.3, 405). The modern Arme¬ 
 nian Church still retains this practice (Neale, 
 Hohj Eastern Church, Introd. p. 741). 
 
 The Western Church, so far as we can trace 
 the matter back, seems to have kept the two 
 festivals of the Nativity and Epiphany always 
 distinct.^ Jerome says unhesitatingly (Comm, in 
 Ezech. i. 1, vol. v. 6, ed. Bened.): “Et dies 
 Epiphaniorum hucusque venerabilis est, non ut 
 quidam putant Natalis in carne, tunc enim ab- 
 sconditus est, et non apparuit.” 
 
 We may cite the very ancient Calendarium 
 Carthaginense (Patrol, xiii. 1227), which marks 
 December 25 thus: “ viii. Kal. Jan. Domini 
 Nosti’i Jesu Christi Filii Dei,” with a note of the 
 Epiphany on Jan. 6. We shall only cite here 
 from two other ancient calendars, that of Buche- 
 rius and the Leonine, which Muratori (De Rebus 
 lAturgicis, c. 4) refei’s approximately to the dates 
 355, 488 A.D. respectively. These severally 
 mark the day, “ Natus Christus in Bethlehem 
 Judae,” “ Natale Domini ” (1. c.). Other Litur¬ 
 gical monuments will be treated of separately. 
 
 Evidence, however, is forthcoming to show that 
 in the Roman Church the Epiphany was pro¬ 
 bably the older of the txvo festivals, and there¬ 
 fore in some respects the more important, for 
 the ancient Orda Romanus (In vigilia Theo- 
 phaniae, p. 21, ed. Hittorp, Cologne, 1568) 
 remarks: “ Nec hoc praetereundum est, quod 
 secunda Nativitas Christi (i.e. the Epiphany), tot 
 illustrata mysteriis, honoratior sit quam prima 
 (i.e. Christmas).” Still this is after all only a 
 matter of relative importance, and the Nativity 
 is evidently accounted a festival of the highest 
 order in the Leonine Sacramentary, which is cer¬ 
 tainly older than the Ordo which Hittorp refers 
 to the time of Pepin and Charlemagne. 
 
 We shall now endeavour to show that the 
 change of the day to December 25, in accordance 
 with the Western plan, began to take place in 
 the East towards the end of the 4th century. 
 The old Avay was that believed in by Ephrem 
 Syrus (ob. 378 A.D.), who is cited as saying, “On 
 the 10th day [of March] was His Conception, 
 and on the 6th day [of January] was His Na¬ 
 tivity ” (Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 163). The 
 change, however, must have been gradual. For, 
 
 f It will be noticed that the Western Church marks 
 the Epiphany by a Greek name, and the Nativity by a 
 Latin name. It is a reasonable inference that the former 
 took its rise in the East, and was thence introduced into 
 the West; while the latter as a separate festival was of 
 distinctly Western growth. 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 to say nothing of Armenians, we find E])i])hanlus 
 saying {Haer. li. 24, vol. i. p. 446, ed. Petavius): 
 “ For since He was born in the month of January, 
 that is, viii. Id. Jan. which is according to the 
 Romans January 5, according to the Egyptians 
 Tubi 11, according to the Syrians or the Greeks 
 Audyneus 6, according to the Cyprians or Sala- 
 miuians the 5th of the 5th month, according to 
 the Paphians Julus 14, according to the Arabians 
 Aleom 21, according to the Cappadocians Atarta 
 13, according to the Hebrews Tibieth (Tebeth) 
 13, according to the Athenians Maemacterion 6 
 . . . .” It does not appear whether Epiphanius 
 means that all these nations celebrated the 
 Nativity on the day thus indicated: it is more 
 jirobable that he is merely giving the various^ 
 equivalents for the day in different systems of 
 reckoning. Indeed his mention of the Romans 
 is perhaps conclusive. 
 
 The most important jiiece of evidence, however, 
 towards fixing the date of the change in the East 
 by which December 25 became recognized as the 
 day of the Nativity is to be found in a Homily 
 of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch, eis 't)]v 
 yev4d\iov ^fiepau rod ’XwTripos Tjpiwv 'lr}(TOv 
 XpKTTov (vol. ii. p. 354, ed. Montfaucon), which 
 Montfaucon (p. 352) e gives strong reasons for 
 believing to have been delivered on December 25, 
 386. After saying how earnestly he had wished 
 to see on the day of the Nativity a congregation 
 like that which was then met together, Chry¬ 
 sostom proceeds : “ Nevertheless it is not yet the 
 tenth year since this day has been made manifest 
 and plain to us, still as though it had been handed 
 down to us from the beginning (auwd(u) and 
 many years ago, it has flourished thus through 
 your zeal. And so a man would not err who 
 should call it at once new and ancient,—new, 
 in that it has recently been made known to us; 
 but old and ancient, in that it has speedily won 
 
 an equality with older festivals.” And as 
 
 jdants of good stock speedily grow up and pro¬ 
 duce fruit, “ so this day too, known from the 
 beginning to those who inhabit the West, but 
 
 brought to us not many years ago.” The 
 
 change, however, at first meets with opposition. 
 “ I know well,” he adds, “ that many even yet 
 dispute with one another about it, some finding 
 fault with it and others defending it, ... . since 
 it is old and ancient, for the prophets already 
 foretold His birth, and from the beginning it has 
 been manifest and notable to the dwellers from 
 Thrace even to Gades.” Again (§ 2) he refers 
 his hearers to the archives at Rome as a source 
 whence certain evidence on the point could be ob¬ 
 tained, and adds “ from those who have an accurate 
 knowledge of these things and inhabit that city, 
 have we received this day. For they who dwell 
 there, observing it from the beginning and by old 
 ti'adition, themselves sent to us now the know¬ 
 ledge of it.” Again (§ 5) after fixing April as 
 the time of the Annunciation, he arrives for the 
 Nativity at the month Apellaeus (December), 
 
 8 Montfaucon here cites Athanasius {Frag. Comm, in 
 Matth. vol. i. p. 1025, ed. Bened. 1787) as speaking of 
 December 25 as the Nativity. But In the first place the 
 Benedictine editors had considerable doubt of the genuine¬ 
 ness of the fragment (“si non aperte spurium adniodum 
 suspcctura videtur, in quo sunt pleraquc /xvOojSti; and 
 in the next, it seems rather the death of Herod which is 
 indicated than the birth of our Lord. 
 
 CHRISTMAS 3G1 
 
 “ this present month, in which we celebrate the 
 day.” 
 
 From the above-quoted language of Chry¬ 
 sostom, we may notice; ( 1 ) that about the year 
 386 A.D. the festival of the Nativity, as distinct 
 fi'om and independent of the Epiphany, was a no¬ 
 velty of a few years’ standing in the East; (2) that 
 Chrysostom believed that the Western Church 
 had celebrated an independent fe.stival “ from 
 the beginning and by old tradition ;” (3) that the 
 change was met with opposition, and therefore 
 would be gradual. 
 
 Combining, then, Chrysostom’s definite testi¬ 
 mony with the fact that Epiphanius had, perhajis 
 a little before this time, concurred with the old 
 Eastern view, and that at the time of the Council 
 of Ephesus the change was tacitly recognized at 
 Alexandria, we may fairly argue that except in 
 those parts of the Eastern Church where the old 
 plan was still continued (Jerusalem possibly and 
 Armenia certainly), the Western plan was being 
 gradually adopted in the period which we may 
 roughly define as the last quarter of the 4th and 
 the first quarter of the 5th century. 
 
 Whether before the time of Chrysostom any 
 part of the Eastern Church observed the Nativity 
 on December 25, it is difficult to say. The 
 date of the various parts of the Apostolic Con¬ 
 stitutions (see the Article) being so doubtful, 
 we shall merely cite from them a passage 
 bearing on this point: “ Observe the days of 
 the festivals, brethren, and first the Nativity, 
 and let this be celebrated by you on the 25th 
 day of the ninth month. After this let the Epi¬ 
 phany be very greatly honoured in your eyes, 
 on which the Lord revealed to you His Own 
 Godhead ; and let this be held on the 6 th day 
 of the tenth month ” (v. 13 ; cf. also viii. 33, 
 where the two festivals are again distinguished). 
 Cotelier in his introduction (op. cit. p. 197) also 
 cites a passage found in some MSS. of Anastasius 
 which professes to be quoted from the Apostolic 
 Constitutions.! in the present text of which, how¬ 
 ever, it is not found : “ For our Lord Jesus Christ 
 was born of the Holy Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, 
 iv fiTjvi Kara Alyvirriovs Xoiclk ue [probably a mis¬ 
 take for kQ'. which = December 25] thpa 
 rris Tifxipas % ccrrlv Trph oktw KakavSeiu ’lavova- 
 
 / 99 
 
 The result of all this investigation then 
 is roughlv this. In the case of the Eastern 
 Church there is no certain evidence pointing to a 
 general celebration of the Nativity on December 
 25 before the time of Chr)'sostom. Till then it 
 had been held on January 6 in conjunction with 
 the Epiphany, and even after this date some 
 churches of the East retained for some time 
 their old plan. 
 
 In the West we are told that the festival had 
 been recognized, and celebrated on December 25 
 “ from the beginning.” We are not able to produce 
 any very ancient witnesses from Western Fathers, 
 but may fairly assume that it had existed suffi¬ 
 ciently long for Chrysostom to be able to use 
 reasonably and without fear of contradiction 
 such a word as Hi/wOev. We have also called 
 attention to the recognition of it in ancient 
 calendars. 
 
 Since the time of Chrysostom, the Nativity has 
 been received by all Churches of Christendom as 
 one of tiieir most imi)ortant festivals. Thus, in 
 a sermon attributed to Gregory of Nvssa, but 
 
362 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 of doubtful authenticity, it is said : “ Now is 
 heard accordant throughout the whole inhabited 
 world the sound of them that celebrate the 
 feast ” (^Patrol. Gr. xlvi. 1148). Chrysostom (/n 
 B. Philogonium 4, vol. i. 497) speaks of it as 
 second in. importance to no festival, “ which a 
 man would not be wrong in calling the chief 
 (/i 7 jTpd 7 roA.ts) of all festivals.” 
 
 Sev'eral sermons are extant of Pope Leo I. on 
 the subject of the Nativity, further exemplifying 
 this statement {Perm. 21-30, vol. i. pp. 64 sqq. 
 ed. Ballerini). 
 
 It is curious that in one of his epistles Augustine 
 does not seem to recognize the Nativity as a fes¬ 
 tival of the first order, where after referring to 
 the Divine institution of the Sacraments, he pro¬ 
 ceeds to those things “ quae non scripta sed tra- 
 dita custodimus ” on the authority of the Apostles 
 and the Church, “sicut quod Domini Passio et 
 Resurrectio et Ascensio in caelum et Adventus 
 de caelo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria soleranitate 
 celebrantur ” {Epist. 54 § 1 [olim 118]; Patrol. 
 xxxiii. 200). Yet he deemed the festival of such 
 importance that he has wi'itten not a few sermons 
 for the day, showing the celebration of this festival 
 in Africa (see Penn. 184-196, 369-372; Patrol. 
 xxxviii. 995 sqq., xxxix. 1655 sqq.; the authen¬ 
 ticity of the latter group, however, is doubtful). 
 
 III. Liturgical Notices. 
 
 The Roman Church evidently accounted the 
 Nativity one of the most important feasts from 
 very early times. Their earliest Sacramentary, 
 that of Pope Leo, contains nine Masses for the 
 day (vol. ii. 148 sqq.). There is, however, no 
 notice of a Vigil. In the Preface in the first Mass 
 it is said: “ Quoniam quidquid Christianae pro- 
 fessionis devotione celebratur, de hac sumit solem- 
 nitate principium, ei in hujus muneris mysterio 
 continetur.” See again the Preface in the seventh 
 Mass : “ Atque ideo sicut primis fidelibus extitit 
 in sui credulitate pretiosum, ita nunc excusa- 
 bilem conscientiam non relinquit, quae salutaris 
 mysterii veritatera, toto etiam mundo testifi- 
 cante non sequitur.” 
 
 In the Gelasian Sacramentary four Masses 
 altogether «are given : ( 1 ) For the Vigil at Nones ; 
 (2) For the Vigil in nocte; (3) For the Vigil 
 Mam prinia ; (4) For the Nativity fn cf/e: that 
 is to say, there are practically three Masses on 
 the Nativity itself. After this again are several 
 prayers for the Nativity, whether at Vespers or 
 Matins. 
 
 The Gelasian Sacramentary borrowed a good 
 deal fi'om the Leonine here. The Collect and 
 Pecreta for the ser\nces of the Vigil at Nones 
 and Alayie prima, and a Collect and the Preface 
 for the Nativity itself as well as two (the 2nd 
 and 4th) of the added prayers all come from the 
 large number of Masses for the day in the older 
 Sacramentary (PaD-oL Ixxiv. 1055 sqq.). We now 
 pass on to the Gregorian Sacramentary. Here, 
 as iu the previous case, there are altogether four 
 services with a large number of alternative forms. 
 The second mass is connected In some MSS. with 
 the church of S. Maria Major; thus, Natalis 
 Domini ad S. Mariam Majorem (MS. Rodradi), 
 Nocte ad S. Mariam (MS. Ratoldi); and the third 
 contains also the commemoration of S. Anastasia, 
 and one INIS, mentioned by Menard {in loc.) gives 
 two prefaces for the day, one for the Saint and i 
 
 I the other for the Nativity (cf. Greg. Pacr. col. 
 5 s<jq. ed. Menard). See also the Antiphonarg^ 
 where, as before, four Masses in all are recog¬ 
 nized {ib. col. 657 sqq.), and a still more elabo¬ 
 rate set of forms is given in the Liber liespKtnsalis 
 attributed to Gregory {ib. col. 741 sqq.). 
 
 The Ordo liornanus {ed. cit. p. 19) prescribes 
 three Lections from Isaiah for the Vigil of the 
 Nativity : (1) ix. j-x. 4; (2) xl. 1-xli. 20; (3) 
 lii. 1-15. The Ambrosian Liturgy of the Church 
 of Milan (Pamelius, Liturgg. Latt. vol. i. pp. 
 293 sqq.) gives one Mass for the day. 
 
 We may now briefly examine the Liturgical 
 monuments of the Gallican Church. In the an¬ 
 cient Lectionary of that Church, there were 
 originally twelve Lections for the Vigil of the 
 Nativity. Tho.se which are yet extant, five in 
 number, are : Isaiah xliv. 23-xlvi. 13; an ex¬ 
 tract from a sermon of Augustine De Notiti- 
 tate Domini: Lsaiah liv. 1-lxi. 7 ; Malachi ij. 7- 
 iv. 6 ; St. John i. 1-15. 
 
 The Lections for the Nativity itself are Isaiah 
 vii. 10-ix. 8 (with some omissions); Danihel 
 [Benedicite] cum henedictione ; Hebrews i. 1-13 ; 
 St. Luke ii, 1-19 (Mabillon, de Liturgia Galiicana, 
 lib. ii. pp. 106 sqq.). In illustration of this plan 
 of having twelve Lections for the Vigil of the 
 Nativity, here doubtless equh'alent to the Matins 
 of the Nativity, Mabillon {1. c.) cites from the 
 Pegula of Aurelian, bishop of Arles : “In Natale 
 Domini et in Epiphania tertia hora surgite: di- 
 cite unum nocturnum et facite sex missas [ = lec- 
 tiones] de Isaia propheta; iterum dicite noc¬ 
 turnum, et legantur aliae sex de Evangelio ” 
 {Patrol. Ixviii. 396), 
 
 It will be seen that in the Gallican Lectionary 
 one Mass only is pre.supposed for the day of tlie 
 Nativity, and iu accordance with this the Gothico- 
 Gallic Mi.ssal {op. cit. pp. 188 sqq.) gives us one 
 Mass for the Vigil and one for the day. In the 
 ancient Gallican Missal are found forms of the Pre¬ 
 face “ ad vesperum Natalis Domini ” and prayers 
 “ ad initium noctis Natalis Domini,” “ in media 
 nocte Natalis Domini.” 
 
 The Mozarabic Missal gives us but one Ma.ss 
 for the day and ignores the Vigil. The Propheti¬ 
 cal Lection, the Epistle, and the Gospel are re¬ 
 spectively Isaiah ix. 1-7; Hebrews i. 1-12; St. 
 Luke ii. 6-20 (ed. Leslie, pp. 37 sqq.). The 
 Breviary gives Matins for the Vigil; and for 
 the day of the Nativity, (1) Vespers —that is on 
 the evening preceding December 25 ; (2) Matins 
 and Lauds. Into the Vesper service enters the 
 noble hymn, “ Veni Redempfor Gentium.” 
 
 It will have been noticed that the Roman 
 Liturgies, the Gelasian and Gregorian, give three 
 Masses for the Nativity, while those for the 
 Churches of Milan, Gaul, and Spain give but 
 one. In the case of the Gallican Church this 
 may be illustrated from Gregory of Tours, who 
 in the life of Nicetius of Lyons ( Vitae Patrum, 
 viii. 11, p. 1196, ed. Bened.), says: “Facta quo- 
 que hora tertia, cum populus ad inissarum so- 
 lemnia conveniret, hie mortuus in ecclesiam est 
 delatus.” On the other hand, we must men¬ 
 tion that in a writing of Eldefonsus, a Spanish 
 bishop, who wrote 846 A.D., is an allusion to a 
 triple Mass op the Nativity, Easter, Whitsunday, 
 and the Transfiguration {Patrol, evi, 888). This 
 
 This passage, attributed to Augustine, does not seem 
 to be bis, nor is it included in bis works. 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 CHRISTMAS 
 
 303 
 
 is probably a leaning to the Roman plan, or it 
 may be a custom of independent origin. 
 
 Tlie cause of the triple Mass in the Gelasian 
 and Gregorian Sacramentaries is thus explained 
 by Mabillon (1. c.), that in consequence of three 
 being the number of “ stations” discharged in 
 ancient times in Rome by a Pope on that day, 
 three Masses were instituted.* ■ We shall again 
 quote the ancient Ordo Jiomanus on this point 
 (p. 19): “Prima die Vigiliae Natalis Domini 
 hora nona canunt Missam ad S. Mariam. Qua 
 expleta canunt vespertinalem synaxim, dehinc 
 vadunt ad cibum. In crepusculo noctis intrat 
 Apostolicus ad vigilias in praefatam Ecclesiam, 
 tamen non cantant ibi invitatorium ad introitum, 
 sed expletis vigiliis et matutinis, sicut in Anti- 
 phonario continetur, ibidem canunt primam Mis¬ 
 sam in nocte. Qua expleta, vadunt ad S. Anas- 
 tasiam canere aliam Missam de nocte. Dehinc 
 pergunt ad S. Petrum, ut ibi vigilias celebrent, 
 ab eo loco ubi invenerit eos psallere qui ibidem 
 excubant. Ipsi enim intrant ad vigilias debito 
 tempore in processu noctis et canunt invitatorium 
 et prosequuntur ordinem Antiphonarii. Unde 
 etiam dupla officia in Romanorum Antiphonariis 
 hac nocte describuntur.” The above will account 
 for the commemoration of S. Anastasia at the 
 Mass Mane prima. The Ordo then adds the ob¬ 
 viously groundless statement that the institution 
 of these nocturnal Masses is to be referred to 
 Pope Telesphorus (ob. 138 A.D.). 
 
 Attention has already been called to the fact 
 of the early recognition of the Vigil of the 
 Nativity. In addition to the examples cited, we 
 may further appeal to a still older witness, Au¬ 
 gustine, who speaks of it in one of his letters 
 (Epist. 65 ad Xantippum [olim 236]; Patrol. 
 xxxiii. 234). It differed in this respect from 
 the ordinary type of Vigil in that it continued 
 through the night, making with the Nativity 
 itself one great solemnity. Thus we read in the 
 letter of the Bishops Lupus and Euphronius to 
 Bishop Talasius : “ Vigilia Natalis Domini longe 
 alio more quam Paschae Vigilia celebranda, quia 
 hie lectiones Nativitatis legendae sunt, illic 
 autem Passionis. Epiphaniae quoque solemnitas 
 habet suum specialem cultum. Quae Vigiliae 
 vel maxime aut perpete nocte aut certe in matu- 
 tilium vergente curandae sunt. Paschatis autem 
 Vigiliae a Vespere raro in Matutinum usque per- 
 ducitur” (^Patrol. Iviii. 66). In the Capitula of 
 I'heodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury 
 (ob. 690 A.D.), the difference of the practice of 
 the Latin and Greek Church in this matter is 
 pointed out, in that the former began the Vigil 
 at Nones, the latter late in the evening (Capit. 
 66; Patrol, xeix. 957). The Gelasian, Grego- 
 
 * This seems more pn^bable than the view adopted by 
 Quesnell In his notes on the works of Leo I. (Kjnst. 9 
 '11 ed. Quesnell], vol. ii. 1399), that the custom arose 
 from a distinct authorization in the Roman Church to 
 hold several masses, as might be found necessary, on 
 festivals of great importance, such as Christmas and Caster, 
 when there would be a great concourse of people, more 
 than a church could contain at once. lie quotes an illus¬ 
 tration of this from our own church, when the Council of 
 Oxford (1222 A.D.), under Stephen Langton, archbishop 
 of Canterbury, enacted “ ad haec duximus statuendum 
 districlius inhibentes ne sacerdos quispiam missarqm 
 solennia celebret bis in die, excepto die Nativitatis et 
 Resurrectionis Domiuicae vel in exequiis defunctorum.'’ 
 (Can. 6; Labile, vol. xi. p. 274.) 
 
 nan, and Pamelius’ Ambrosian Sacramentaries 
 give also Masses for the Octave of the Nativitv, 
 January 1. which would also of necessity be the 
 anniversary of the day of the Circumcision, by 
 which express name it is denoted in some other 
 Liturgies. [Circumcision.] 
 
 The existence of the group of important fes¬ 
 tivals between Chri.stmas and the Epiphany seems 
 to point to a wish on the part of the early 
 Church to render the whole season one great fes¬ 
 tival, by redeeming as much as possible of the 
 time from ordinary worldly business, in com¬ 
 memoration of persons more or less indirectly 
 connected with our Lord’s Nativity. Thus a 
 Council of Tours declares: “Inter Natale Do¬ 
 mini et Epiphania omni die festivitates sunt 
 itemque prandebunt” {Concil.Turonense ii. can. 
 17; Labbe, vol. v. 856). From the great import¬ 
 ance of the festival, the Nativity, if happening 
 to coincide with a fast, claimed the right of 
 overriding the fast. Indeed there was a fast pre¬ 
 ceding the Nativity which just stopped short 
 of it. Thus Aurelian, already quoted, says {1. c.), 
 “A Calendis Novembris usque ad Domini Natale 
 quotidie jejunandum abs(iue Sabbato et Domi- 
 nico.” Cf. also the canon we have just cited of 
 the Second Council of Tours, “ De Decembri 
 usque ad Natale Domini omni die jejunent.” 
 We may further cite in illustration Epiphanius 
 (^Adversus Haereses: Expositio Fidei 22, vol. i. 
 p. 1105), who, after saying that there is no fast 
 throughout the fifty days of Pentecost, adds, 
 “Nor on the day of the Epiphany, when the 
 Lord was born in the flesh, is it lawful to fast, 
 although it happen to fall on the fourth or the 
 sixth day of the week.” It will be remembered 
 from a previously cited pas.sage of this writer 
 that he follows the Eastern plan in this matter, 
 so that his day of the Epiphany is at once 
 Epiphany and Nativity. 
 
 As a festival of so great importance, Christma.s 
 was one of the seasons, on which it was especially 
 enjoined on all, clergy and laity alike, to com¬ 
 municate. Thus the (Council of Agde (506 a.d.) 
 orders : “ Ut cives qui superiorum solemnitatum, 
 id est Paschae ac Natalis Domini vel Pentecostes 
 fcistivitatibus cum episcopis interesse neglexerint, 
 cum in civitatibus communionis vel benedictionis 
 accipiendae causa sc nosse debeant, triennio a 
 communione priventur ecclesiae.” Again : “ Si 
 quis in clero constitutus ab ecclesia sua diebus 
 solemnibus defuerit, id est Nativitate, Epiphania, 
 Pascha A’^el Pentecoste, dum potius saecularibus 
 lucris studet quam servitio Dei paret, convenit 
 ut triennio a communione suspendatur. . . .” 
 {Concil. Agathense, can. 63, 64; Labbe, iv. 1393). 
 Springing from the same tendency is the injunc¬ 
 tion of the First Council of Orleans (511 A.D.): 
 “ Ut nulli civium Paschae, Natalis Domini vel 
 quinquagesimae solennitatem in villa liceat cele- 
 brare, nis*i quern infirmitas probabitur renuisse ” 
 (^Concil. Aurelianense i. can. 25; ibid. 1408). It 
 was allowed by the Council of Epao (517 a.d.) 
 for people of rank (cives superiorum natalium) 
 to invite their bishop to them.selves at Christmas 
 or Easter to receive his blessing (^Concil. Epaon- 
 ense, can. 35; ibid. 1580), 
 
 IV. Christmas Presents. As coming at the be¬ 
 ginning of the ecclesiastical year, and as being 
 in itself a time when from the Great Gift then 
 given by God to man, all memories call to peace 
 and friendship, the season of Christmas has from 
 
3C4 
 
 CIIRISTOPHORI 
 
 ClIRYSOTELUS 
 
 time immemorial been associated witli the mu¬ 
 tual giving of presents and the interchange of 
 cordial wishes. 
 
 A similar custom prevailed among the Romans, 
 who on the Calends of January oii'ered to the 
 emperor or to their patrons presents called strenae 
 (hence French etrenne). See, for instance, Sue¬ 
 tonius, Calig. 4'2; cf. Aug. d7, Tib. 34; also 
 Dion Cassius, liv. 35. 
 
 That the Christian custom is derived from the 
 above we do not of course affirm, although we 
 are far from denying the possibility of such an 
 origin. 
 
 Traces of the custom are to be found in the 
 Greek Cliurch, as we learn from Goar (Notes to 
 Codinus, De Ogjiciis Comtantinopolitanis, c. 6; 
 Patrol. Gr. clvii. 308), who speaks of boys and 
 youths running about the streets at this season, 
 and “ ad amicorum portas modulis sonis ac 
 musices instrumentis TroAuxpJz^ia [wishes for long 
 life and happiness ; see Ducange, Glossarium s. v.] 
 perstrepunt, xenia reportaturi, cunctique xpiO'T- 
 ovyivv't]TLKo'is pro natalitiis Christ! muneribus 
 se cumulaut certatim.” 
 
 The custom of the strenae as an offshoot of 
 heathenism, did not find much favour in the eyes 
 of the early Church. Thus in a sermon De Ca- 
 lendis Januarii, wrongly attributed to Augustine, 
 we read, “ Diabolicas etiam strenas et ab aliis 
 accipiunt et ipsi aliis tradunt ” (^Patrol, xxxix. 
 2002, 2004). 
 
 V. Literature. We must express our obliga¬ 
 tions here especially to Jablonsky’s Dissertationes 
 11.; Martene, De Antiguis Ecdcsiae Eitibus, vol. 
 iii. pp. 31 sqq. ed. Venice, 1783; August!, 
 Christl. Arclidologie., vol. i. pp. 211 sqq.: Bin- 
 lerim, Denkn iirdigkeiten^ vol. v. part 1, pp. 
 528 sqq. Kel’erence may also be made to By- 
 naeus, De Natali Jesu Cliristi, Amsterdam 1694; 
 Kindler, De Natalitiis C/iristi, Rotterdam 1699 ; 
 Kopken, 'laropov/aeua, Rostock 1705; Ittig, De 
 Eitu festuin Nut. Christi celebrandi, Wernsdorf, 
 De Originibus Solemnmm Natalis Christi, Witten¬ 
 berg, 1757. [R. S.] 
 
 CHRISTOPHORI. A name sometimes ap¬ 
 plied to Christians in the ancient Church, as 
 expressing the Presence of Christ within them 
 by His Spirit. As early as Ignatius we find the 
 appellation Theophori in u.se, to signify that 
 Christians are the Temple of God; and Christo- 
 phori also occurs in the early writers in a 
 similar sense: e.g. in the epistle of Phi leas, 
 bishop of Thmuis, recorded by Eusebius, 1. viii. 
 c. 10, we find him speaking of the martyrs of 
 his own time as XpiaToipdpoi papropes, because 
 they were temples of Christ and acted by His 
 Holy Spirit (Bingham, i. 1, 4). [D. B.] 
 
 CHRISTOPIIORUS. (1) Martyr in the 
 city of Samos, A. D. 256, is commemorated 
 July 25 (Mart. Eom. Vet., Usuardi); April 28 
 (Mart. Bedae); May 9 (Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (2) Monk, martyr at Cordova, Aug. 20 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). ^ [C.] 
 
 CHRONITAE, Xpov'nai. A name of re¬ 
 proach given to the Catholics or orthodox Chris¬ 
 tians by Aetius the Arian and his party: inti¬ 
 mating that their religion was but for a time, 
 that its day was being fast spent, and that it 
 must soon give place to the more enlightened 
 system of Arianism: a conceit which has been 
 
 characteristic of heresy in all ages of the Church 
 (Bingliam, 1. iii. 16). [D. B.] 
 
 CHRONOLOGY. The object of the several 
 articles in this work relating to chronology is to 
 describe the methods used by the writers of our 
 period in measuring time, and the reduction of 
 their methods to that at pre.sent in use in this 
 country. This evidently involves the considera¬ 
 tion of the various non-ecclesiastical calendars, 
 or modes of reckoning time, emjdoye<l by writers 
 of the fir.st eight centuries, and of the modi¬ 
 fications introduced into them by the influence 
 of Christianity. 
 
 To place an event in time, we must have a 
 fixed epoch or era from which to measure, and a 
 fixed, or at least a determinable, standard by 
 which to measure the interval from that era. 
 The principal epochs from which intervals of 
 time have been measured are given under Era. 
 The great natural divisions of time are days, 
 lunations, and solar years; and almost every 
 nation has either endeavoured to discover the 
 relation which lunations bear to solar years 
 [Epact], and so to keep the lunar mouths in 
 some kind of correspondence with the seasons of 
 the solar year; or has abandoned the observation 
 of the moon in its division of time, and divided 
 the solar year into twelve months, somewhat 
 longer than lunar months. See Month, Ykar. 
 Further, nearly all nations have adopted for the 
 convenience of common life purely conventional 
 divisions of time, not corresponding to any 
 natural division, such as the Roman Nundinae. 
 The conventional division with which we are 
 principally concerned is the Week 
 
 As the various events of Christian history 
 received annual commemoration, the days of 
 such recurring commemorations became recog¬ 
 nised as elements in chronology [Calendar]. 
 The principal modification which the calendar 
 underwent in consequence of eia^lesiastical con- 
 sidei’ations is that which arose from the annual 
 variation in the observance of Easter, and the 
 festivals connected with it. See Easter, Indic¬ 
 tion. [C.] 
 
 CHRYSANTHUS, martyr at Rome under 
 Numerianus (a.d. 283), is commemorated Dec. 1 
 (Mart. Usuardi); March 19 (Cal. Byzant.y [C.] 
 
 CHRYSOGONUS, martyr at Rome under 
 Diocletian, is commemorated Nov. 24 (Mart. 
 Hieron., Eom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). Some IMSS. 
 of the Hieronymiau Martyrology giA'e Aquileia as 
 the place of martyrdom. [C.] 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, LITURGY OF. [Li- 
 
 TURGY.] 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, ST. JOHN, is commemo¬ 
 rated Nov. 13 (Cal. Byzant., Ethiop.). Translation 
 of his relics to Constantinople, in the reign of the 
 younger Theodosius (a.d. 435), Jan. 27. The 
 Byzantine had also in more recent times a fes¬ 
 tival of SS. Basil, Gregory Nazianzenus, and 
 Chrysostom, on Jan. 30. The Mart. Eom. Vet., 
 and Mart. Usuardi place the Natalis of St. Chry¬ 
 sostom on Jan. 27, and do not mention the 
 Translation. [C.] 
 
 CHRYSOTELUS, presbyter, martyr at Cor¬ 
 dova, is commemorated April 22 (Mart. Bedae, 
 Eom. Vet. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 365 
 
 CHURCH (1), in respect to the reverence 
 and the privileges attached to the building. 
 
 (1) It was customary to wash the hands and 
 feet before entering the church, for which purpose 
 a fountain was commonly provided in the middle 
 of the atrium or court before the church, called 
 cantharus or phiala; so Euseb. H. E. x. 4; 
 Tertull. De Orat. c. xi.; Paulinus of Nola, Epist. 
 xii. ad Severum ; Socrates, ii. 38; St. Chrys., re¬ 
 peatedly ; Synes. Ei ist. exxi.: quoted by Bingham. 
 Kings and emperors also left their arms, and 
 even their diadems, and their guards, outside 
 when entering a church (Theodos. Orat. m Act. i. 
 C'jUC. Ephes.; Bingham, VIII. x. 8). And the 
 Egyptian monks, after Eastern custom, put off 
 their sandals (Cassian. Instit. i. 2). It was 
 customarv, also, to show reverence to the church 
 by embracing, saluting, and kissing, its doors, 
 threshold, and pillars. So St. Athanasius i^Opp. 
 ii. 304, ed. 1027), St. Chrysostom {Horn. xxix. in 
 2 Cor.), Paulinus (Natal, vi. Felicis), Prudentius 
 (Hpnn II. in S. Laurent. 519, 520), &c., quoted by 
 Bingham, ih. 9.—(2) Upon entering the church, 
 “ the Christians in the Greek and Oriental 
 churches have, time out of mind, used to bow . . 
 towards the altar or holy table a practice for 
 which no known ancient canon exists, and which 
 looks therefore like a primitive practice, and one 
 probably borrowed from the Jews (Mede, Disc, 
 on Ps. 132, quoted by BinghamV A profound 
 silence was also to be observed within the building 
 (Cassian, Instit. ii. 2 ; S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xix.). 
 And coughing, spitting, &c., were forbidden,— 
 “A gemitu, screatu, tussi, risu, abstinentes” 
 (St. Ambx'os. De Virg. iii. 9). And Nonna is 
 eulogized by her son, St. Greg. Naz. (Orat. xix.), 
 as, among other things, never spitting, and never 
 turning her back upon the altar.— (3) Election of 
 bishops and of clergy, synods, catechetical schools, 
 and the like, were allowed to be held within 
 churches. But eating meals there was strictly 
 forbidden, even in time the kyaizai :—Ov Sei iv 
 Tois KupiaKois I) iv rats iuKKriffiais tols Ae'yo- 
 fievas ayetTras iroieir koI iv rtp oXura tov 0eoC 
 iadieir Ka\ ctKov^ira (TTpwvuveiv (Cone. Laodi- 
 cen. c. 28) : —“ Ut nulli episcopi vel clerici in 
 ecclesia conviventur, nisi forte transeuntes hos- 
 pitiorum necessitate illic reficiantur; et populi, 
 quantum fieri potest, ab hujusmodi conviviis 
 prohibeantur ” (Cone. Carth. III. can. 30; Cod. 
 Can. Afric. 42). St. Augustin, however, is com¬ 
 pelled to tolerate, whilst he severely condemns, 
 the custom of feasting in the church in memory 
 of the martyrs—“ Qui se in memoriis martyrum 
 inebriant, quomodo a nobis approbari possunt, 
 quum eos, etiam si in domibus suis faciant, sana 
 doctrina condemnet ” (Cont. Faust, xx. 21). The 
 Emperor Leo also (Novel. Ixxiii.), and Cone. Trull. 
 can. 97, forbid people from lodging in certain 
 galleries in the church, called cateehumenia. And 
 the Cone. ElV<erit. can. 35, prohibits private vigils 
 of women in the church precincts—“ ne foeminae 
 in coemiterio pervigilentalthough the practice 
 of spending whole nights there in prayer w.as 
 permitted to men (see e.g. Theodoret, v. 24; 
 
 S. Athanas. Epist. ad derapion. : Socrat. i. 37 ; 
 Ac.); and cubkuh^ or cells, were sometimes pro¬ 
 vided for the purpose (Paulin. Epist. xii. ad 
 Sever.'). —(4) Holding assemblies privately out 
 of the church was strictly forbidden : Ef riy 
 irapa iKKKrjaiav Id'ia iuKSgaid^oi, Kal Kara- 
 ippovuv Trjs iKK\r)aias rd ttjs eKKAgrrias id4\oi 
 
 irpaTTfiv, yUT; (tvv6vtos tov r-peaftyTcpov Kara 
 yrcafirjr rov iiriaKStrov, dvdOeiaa tarw (Cone. 
 Gangr. can. 6); and can. 5 of the same council 
 condemns those who despise the church and its 
 assemblies.—(5) The church was a j)laceof safety, 
 both for valuables and for life and person. Be¬ 
 sides the archives and treasure of the church 
 itself, the church treasury served as a safe re- 
 ceptacle for other pi’ecious things, public or 
 private: as, e.g. the cubit wherewith the in¬ 
 crease of the Nile was measured, which had been 
 kept in the temple of Serapis, was transferred 
 by order of Constantine to the Christian church, 
 and retransferred to the idol temple by Julian the 
 Apostate (Ruffin, ii. 30; Sozom. i. 8; Socrat. i. 18). 
 — (6) Immunity of life and person attached also to 
 such as took refuge in a church : for the details of 
 which see Sanctuary. (Bingham.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 (2) The building set apart for the perform¬ 
 ance of Christian worship. 
 
 This article is arranged as follows :— 
 
 I. Names, p. 365. 
 
 II. Early History, p. 366. 
 
 Ill; I'be Period from Constantine to Justinian, p. 368. 
 IV. The Period from the death of Justinian to the death 
 of Charles the Great. 
 
 1. The western part of the territory of the Eastern 
 Empire, p. 378. 
 
 2 Armenia and the adjacent provinces, p. 379. 
 
 3. Italy, p. 379. 
 
 4. France, Germany, and Switzerland, p. 380, 
 
 5. Spain, p. 382. 
 
 6. 1 1 eland, p. 384. 
 
 7. .Scotland, p. 385, 
 
 8. England, p 3S6. 
 
 I. Names. — Greek, Ek/cA rycrm, KvpiaK^, or 
 rb KuptaKhu] 'Latin, Ecclesia, Dominica (i.e. domus 
 dominica), or Basilica ; French, I^glise ; Italian, 
 Chiesa ; Spanish, Igreja; Roumanic, Biserica; 
 Anglo-Saxon, Circ, Cyric; Old German, Chirichu ; 
 Modern German, Kirche; Dutch, Kerb; Ice¬ 
 landic, Kyrkia ; Swedish, Kyrka ; Russian, Tser- 
 koff; Polish, Kosciol, if Greco-Russian, Cerkievo ; 
 Irish, Domhliag (i.e. stone house), Tempull, Eclais, 
 Begles; Welsh, Eglwys; Hungarian, Egyhaz, 
 Templom. 
 
 The names for a church in the languages of 
 the Latin family are evidently derived from the 
 Greek ’E/cKATjeri'a ; those in the languages of the 
 Teutonic and Scandinavian families apparently 
 from KvpiaKrj. 
 
 Several other terms have been used by Greek 
 and Latin writers of the earlier centuries when 
 speaking either of churches, or of oratories or 
 places of assembly. Such are vahs, tcrnphim, by 
 Lactantius, St. Ambrose, Eusebiu.s, St. John 
 Chrysostom. Arnobius and Lactantius use the 
 word conventiculum, while concilium and syno- 
 dus are also found in use not only for the assem¬ 
 bly but for the edifice (v. Bingham ii. 84). 
 Isidore of Pelusium (lib. ii. Ip. 245) in the like 
 case distinguishes between 'EuKK-rjaia the assem¬ 
 bly, and 'EKKKri(Tia(TTT]piov the building. 
 
 Descriptive phrases were also employed, as 
 npo(revKT-f}pia, OIkoi EvKT-fjpioi (by Eusebius, 
 Socrates, Sozomen, and others) Oratoria, Domus 
 Dei, Domus Ecclesiae, Domus Divina, by various 
 writers from the third century downwards. 
 Bingham, however, has shewn that in the 6th 
 century Domus Ecclesiae was sometimes used, 
 not to signify the church, but the Bishop’s house, 
 and that in the 5th century (and probably even 
 somewhat later), Domus Divina was the official 
 style for the Imperial palace. 
 
3G6 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 'hvoLKTopov [see Anactokon] as equiv'alent to 
 basilica is used by Eusebius {JJe Laude Comtant. 
 c. 9), but is only rarely employed. 
 
 Churches erected specially in honour of mar¬ 
 tyrs were called Maprupta, Martyria, Memoriae, 
 Tp^Trata, Tropaea, T/rAot, Tituli. 
 
 d’hose who wrote in Latin, in the dark ages, 
 appear to employ" the word basilica for the most 
 part, when they wrote of a large church, ora- 
 tiorium when of a chapel or oratory. Those who 
 wrote in Gaul, in the 6th and 7th centuries, are 
 said by De Valois (v. Du Cange, Gloss, art. ‘Basi¬ 
 lica ’) to have used basilica for the church of a 
 convent, and ecclesia for a cathedral or parish 
 church. Gildas in the 6th century employs 
 ecclesia and basilica, adding to the latter word 
 ‘ martyrum.’ 
 
 II. Early History .—At what time the Chris¬ 
 tians began to erect buildings for the purpose of 
 celebi’ating divine worship is unknown, but it is 
 obvious that inasmuch as they held frequent 
 assemblies for religious purposes, suitable places 
 for such assemblies would be required, and that 
 when the congregations became large rooms in 
 private houses would cease to affoi'd the requisite 
 space. 
 
 The assertions of some of the earlier Christian 
 writers, as Arnobius {Disputat. ado. Gent. lib. vi. 
 c. 1), Origen (c. Cels. lib. 7, c. 8), Minucius Felix 
 (^Octav. c. 8, 10, 32) that the Christians had 
 neither temples, altars nor images, that God 
 could be worshijiped in every place, and that his 
 best temple on earth is the heart of man, should, 
 it would appear, be understood, not literally—for 
 there is positive evidence of the existence of 
 churches in the 3rd century—but that they 
 had no temples or altars in the Pagan sense of 
 those words, and that their religion was spiritual, 
 and not dependent upon places or rituals. 
 
 The passage from Clemens Alexandrinus(5'^?•o?/^. 
 vii. 5, p. 846) and those from other writers, quoted 
 by Bingham (^Antiq. bk. viii. c. 1, § 13), prove 
 that a certain place was called eKKXyaia, but, in 
 strictness, not that it was a separate building, 
 constructed and set apart for that purpose. The 
 documentary evidence of the next century, the 
 3rd, is, howev^er, much more decisive. The chro¬ 
 nicle of Edessa (in Asseraanni, Bibl. Orient, xi. 
 397) mentions the destruction of temples of 
 Christian assemblies in A.u. 292. 
 
 Aelius Lampridius in his Life of the Emperor 
 Alexander Severus (a.d. 222-235), narrates that 
 the Christians having occupied a certain place, it 
 was confirmed to them on the ground that it 
 was better that God should be worshipped there 
 after any manner, than that it shouhl be given 
 up to the adverse claimants, the ‘ popinarii,’ or 
 tavern-keepers. Gregory of Nyssa, in his life 
 of Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishoj) cf Neo-Caesa¬ 
 rea, states that he built several churches there 
 and in the adjacent parts of Pontus. In addition 
 to which, many other testimonies of a like nature 
 might be adduced. 
 
 The edict of Diocletian, usuall}' attributed to 
 the year 302, ordering the destruction of the 
 churches and the confiscation of the lands belong¬ 
 ing to them, confirms these statements, and 
 Lactantius’ account (/>•<? Mort. Persecutorurn, c. 
 12) of the destruction of the church at Nico- 
 media in A.D. 303, shows that some of them at 
 least were considei’able edifices. 
 
 There is some ground for believing that in the 
 
 3fd century those plans and arrangements of 
 churches which we find to prevail in the 4th 
 and following centuries were, at least in part, 
 already in use; St.Cyprian(/f/).59, p. 688, Hartel) 
 imagines Pagan altars and images usurping the 
 place of the altar of the Lord, and entering into 
 the “sacrum venerandum consessum ” of the 
 clergy. In this there seems to be an evident allu¬ 
 sion to the arrangement usual in later times, in 
 which the altar was placed in the apse, and the 
 clergy sat on a bench around it. 
 
 So also in the passage in 7'ertullian {Dc Pudieit. c. 
 4), when that writer speaks of certain sinnei's 
 being removed not only from the ‘ limen ’ but 
 also ‘omni ecclesiae tecto,’ not only from the 
 threshold of the church itself, but even from 
 every dependent building, such as the narthex, 
 the atrium, or the baptistery. It is doubtful 
 whether any now existing church can be attri¬ 
 buted, upon good evidence, to this century. One 
 which had been believed so to date, is the basilica 
 of Reparatus, near Orleansville, in Algeria, the 
 ancient Castellum Tingitanum. It i.s about 80 
 feet long by 52 wide, and is on the “ dromical ” 
 or as we now say basilican plan, that is, in the 
 form of a parallelogram, longer than wide. It 
 was divided into a nave 
 and four aisles by four 
 ranges of columns. It 
 has now an apse at each 
 end, both internal to 
 the line of walls. Ac¬ 
 cording to an inscrip¬ 
 tion, still remaining, 
 the earlier part of the 
 building dates from 
 252, but the era is most 
 probably not that of 
 Christ, but of Mauri¬ 
 tania, and the date 
 corresponds with a.d. 
 
 325; the other apse 
 was added about a.d. 
 
 403, to contain the 
 grave of the saint. 
 
 The earlier apse, with 
 the ground in front of it, is raised about three 
 feet; and below it was a vault, in which 
 were two sarcophagi. It is not, however, clear 
 whether this arrangement was original. An- 
 other African church, that of D’jemila, which 
 is believed to date from the latter part of this 
 century, })resents the remarkable peculiarity of 
 being without an apse. It measures 92 feet by 
 52. Near the end furthest from the entrance 
 door is an enclosure entered by a doorway in 
 front and one on each side. This, no doubt, sur¬ 
 rounded the altar and the seats of the priests. 
 
 Some other churches which have been supposed 
 to belong to this century, as the cathedral of 
 Treves (v. Hiibsch, Die altchristl. Kirchen, pi. 
 vi.), and the small church at Annona, in Algeria, 
 though on the basilican plan, are much wider in 
 proportion to their length than is usual in the 
 later examples. In the case of Treves the build¬ 
 ing is, in fact, a square (or very nearly so), 
 measuring about 120 feet internally with an 
 apse. The roof was supported by two mono¬ 
 lithic columns of granite, about 40 feet high, 
 on each side. If the church were not square, 
 but oblong, about which there is some doubt, 
 there were probably three, and perhaps even 
 
 Biisilica of Kfipaiatns. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 five of these columns on each side. By some, 
 however, as by Kugler, Gesch. der Bauhunst i. 
 404, this building is attributed to about the year 
 550, but it seems very improbable that so bold a 
 plan, involving arches of great span, supported 
 on monolithic columns nearly 50 feet high (in¬ 
 cluding bases and capitals) was conceived and 
 executed at that time. The church at Taffkha, 
 in central Syria, exhibits the same square form, 
 with a semi-ovoid apse projecting from the side 
 opposite to the entrance. This building, in style 
 and construction, most closely resembles a basilica 
 at Chagga, which M. -de Vogiie ascribes to the 
 third century, and it must be presumed that he 
 considers the church to be of the same date. It 
 
 CHURCH 367 
 
 depth by a little less in width, and being about 
 20 feet high internally. 
 
 Some of the churches in Egypt and Nubia, 
 as at Erment in Egypt and Ibrihm in Nubia 
 (v. Kugler, Gesch. der Bauhunst, i. 376), are, 
 no doubt, of a very early date, perhaps of the 
 end of the 3rd or the beginning of the following 
 century, but no certain date can be affixed to 
 them. In both those named the apse is 
 enclo.sed within the walls, the angles of which 
 are occupied by chambers. This arrangement, 
 indeed, seems to have been A^ery early adopted 
 and very generally adhered to in the East. Some 
 early examples of the same plan may be found 
 also in the West, as in the Church of St. Croce 
 
 8. Simeon Stylites, Ealat Sema’au. 
 
 is constructed like many other buildings in the 
 same part of Syria, in a very peculiar manner, 
 being entirely roofed with lai’ge slabs of stone, 
 which rest on arches spanning tiie nave at inter¬ 
 vals of about 7 ft. 8 in. The flat roofs of the 
 aisles formed galleries. 
 
 One very remarkable feature in this building 
 is the tower which ranges with the facade and 
 rises to a height of about 43 feet. If this 
 church be of the date to which it would seem to 
 belong, this must be considered as the first 
 appearance of a tower in ecclesiastical archi¬ 
 tecture. 
 
 The church is not large, measuring externally 
 (exclusively of apse and tower) about 57 feet in 
 
 in Gerusalemme at Rome : but it does not seem 
 to have been frequently used. 
 
 When, in the year A.D. 31.3, the Emperor Con¬ 
 stantine had published ttie edict tolerating the 
 Christian religion, and still more when, in 
 A.D. 324, he took it under his patronage, a 
 gi-eat increase in the erection of churches, and 
 ! in the size and splendour of the edifices, natu- 
 I rally ensued—the emperor himself setting the 
 example by erecting at Jerusalem and elsewhere 
 I churches of great magnificence, 
 j It has been shewn that churches of the basi- 
 I lican type were erected before the period of 
 Constantine, and it is probable that sepulchral 
 or memorial churches of circular or polygonal 
 
3G8 
 
 CIIUIICII 
 
 CIIUllCH 
 
 plan, and oratcries or eliapels of many various 
 forms, may have been also built, but it is not 
 until the 4th century that we have examples of 
 all three of these classes, the date and character 
 of which are well ascertained. Typical foraas 
 for the two first cl:t»>ses were established in the 
 great buildings erected duidng the reign of Con¬ 
 stantine, anil have infiuenced the construction of 
 churches down to the pi'esent day. 
 
 The basilican, or, as the Gi-eeks called it, the 
 dromical plan, continued, in the great majority 
 of instances, to l>e in use in the West (though 
 with certain modifications) until after the period 
 embi'aced by this work, and in Rome until after 
 the year 1000. 
 
 It was almost equally prevalent in the East 
 until the genius of the architect of St. Sophia at 
 Constantinoi)le had evolved from the other ty¬ 
 pical form, viz. that of the memorial church, a 
 new combination so striking and impressive as to 
 have permanently infiuenced the church archi¬ 
 tecture of Asia and of the east of Europe in 
 favour of a modification of the memorial type; 
 while in the West, churches the plans of which 
 are thence derived, continue to be, as they had 
 been before, exceptional; such are S. Vitale at 
 Ravenna and S. Lorenzo at Milan. 
 
 In the earlier period the choice of form would 
 seem to have been guided by the intention most 
 strongly present to the founder. Where special 
 intention of doing honour to the memory of a 
 martyr existed, the circular form was chosen, 
 but where this was not the leading thought, the 
 basilican; the latter lending itself better to the 
 celebration of divine services with a large at¬ 
 tendance of worshij>pers. In several instances 
 a basilican and a memorial church wei-e placed 
 in close proximity, as at .Jerusalem by Constan¬ 
 tine, Kalat Sema’an in Central Syria, at Nola by 
 Paulinus, at Constantinople in the churches of 
 St. Sergius and of St. Peter and Paul, and 
 several others, the circular or pol};;gonal church 
 being in almost all these cases dedicated in 
 honour of a martyr. 
 
 It will be most convenient when describing 
 the churches erected from the time of Constan¬ 
 tine to that of Justinian to divide them according 
 to the threefold division mentioned above, viz., 
 into: 1st, basilican; 2nd, memorial or sepul¬ 
 chral churches ; and 3rd, oratories (which are 
 treated of under the head chapel), without 
 paying much regard to the country in which 
 the examples are found. During this period, in 
 fact, so much unity, as well of ritual and prac¬ 
 tice in religious matters as of style and feeling 
 in art, prevailed throughout the Roman Empire, 
 that the differences between the ecclesiastical 
 architecture of its various provinces are chiefly 
 differences of detail. 
 
 At the beginning of the period which follows, 
 viz., that from Justinian to Charles the Great, 
 the great development of the Byzantine style 
 took place, and the architecture of the East is 
 thenceforward widely different from that of the 
 West. Soon afterwards the fragments into which 
 the empire had divided were formed into new 
 nations, most of whom developed something of 
 new plan or new style in their ecclesiastical 
 buildings, and it will therefore be necessary to 
 treat of the architectural history of most of 
 these nations separately. This part of the sub¬ 
 ject may be divided into the following sec¬ 
 
 tions:—1, The western part of the territorv of 
 the Eastern Empire; 2, Armenia and the ad¬ 
 jacent provinces ; 3, Italy ; 4, France, Gormany, 
 and Switzerland ; 5, Spain; 6, Ireland; 7, Scot¬ 
 land ; 8, England. 
 
 III. 'Ihe Period from Constarrtine to Justinian. 
 —It has been thought by some writers (v. 
 Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chr€t. art. Basilique), 
 that the crypts or chapels of the catacombs 
 near Rome have served as models for the pri¬ 
 mitive Christian churches, by which it would 
 appear that churches of the lj«silican tvpe are 
 meant. This opinion would, henvever, appear to 
 rest on no sufficient foundation, for the so-called 
 chapels are in general either a series of two, 
 three, or even five, chambers, usually not more 
 than 6 or 7 feet square, connected by doorways, 
 as in the instance of the “ chiesa principale ” of 
 the cemetery of St. Agnes (v. Marchi, tav. xxxv. 
 xxxvi. xxxvii.), or hexagonal, polygonal, or ob¬ 
 long excavations, without apse or any of the 
 usual features of a church, such as the crypt 
 discovered by Bosio in the cemetery of the Via 
 Salaria Nuova, but not now accessible, which has 
 been held to have been a church (v. Marchi, tav. 
 xxxii.). In this an octagon of about 23 feet in 
 diameter is connected by a doorway about 4 feet 
 wide, with an oblong chamber about 12 feet 
 wide by 32 long. [Catacombs.] 
 
 The so-called basilica of St. Hermes, in a ceme¬ 
 tery near the Via Salaria Vecchia, of an oblong 
 form, terminating in an apse, was, no douJ't, 
 reduced into its j)resent form by Pope Hadrian L, 
 as the Lib. 1‘ontif. tells us of that pope that he 
 “ basilicnm coemeterii sanctorum martyrum Hej- 
 metis, etc., mirae maguitudinis innovavit.” 
 
 No church of the period of Constantine bar, 
 come down to modern times in a complete state, 
 but fortunately a contemporary writer (Eusebius) 
 has left us such detailed accounts, that, with the 
 assistance which we can obtain from existing 
 remains, we can form a very complete picture of 
 a church of that period. 
 
 The earliest church of the building of which 
 we have a distinct account is that which Pau¬ 
 linus built in Tyre between A.D. 313 and a.d. 
 322. Eusebius {Eccl. Hist. bk. x. iv. s. 37) states 
 that the bishop surrounded the site of the 
 church with a wall of enclosure; this wall, 
 according to Dr. Thomson {The Land and the 
 Book., p. 189, c. xiii.) can still be traced, and 
 measui-es 222 feet in length, by 129 in breadth. 
 In the east side of this wall of inclosure he made 
 a large and lofty portico (jrpS-KvKop), through 
 which a quadrangular atrium (aWpiop) wr.s 
 entered; this was suri’ounded by ranges ot' 
 columns, the spaces between which were filled Jiv 
 net-like railings of wood. In the centre of the 
 open space was a fountain, at which those about 
 to enter the church purified themselves. 
 
 The church itself was entered through iuteri< r 
 porticoes (rots ipSordTO} irpoiruKoisf perhaps a 
 narthex, but whether or not distinct from tlie 
 portico which bounded the atrium on that side 
 does not appear. Three doorways led into the 
 nave ; the central of these was by far the largest, 
 and had doors covered with bronze reliefs; other 
 doorways gave entrance to the side aisles. Above 
 these aisles were galleries well lighted (doubtless 
 by external windows), and looking upon the nave ; 
 these were adorned with beautiful work in wood. 
 Th« passage is rather obscure, and has been 
 
CHUECII 
 
 cnuiiCH 
 
 3G9 
 
 varioush’^ translated: the above is the sense 
 ot’ Bunsen’s para])hvase (^Basilihen dots Christ, 
 Boms, s. 31). Hiib-sch {Alt. Christ. Kirchen, s. 
 ?.o) thinks that the word el<T^o\ds (entrances) 
 stands for windows, and that the woodwork ‘was 
 in them. It seems, however, more probable that 
 the €tV/3oAat were the openings from the gal¬ 
 leries into the nave, and the woodwork the 
 railings or balustrades which protected their 
 fronts. 
 
 The nave or central portion {^acriXcios oIkos") 
 was constructed of still richer material than the 
 rest, and the roof of cedar of Lebanon. Dr. 
 Thomson states that the remains of five granite 
 columns may still be seen, and that “ the height 
 to the dome was 80 feet, as appears by the 
 remains of an arch.” Nothing which Eusebius 
 says leads to the supposition that it was covered 
 by a dome, and the arch was probably the so- 
 called triumphal arch through which, as at 
 St. Paolo f. 1. m. at Rome, and many other 
 basilican churches, a space in front of the apse 
 somewhat like a transept was entered. Hiibsch 
 has made a conjectural restoration of the church 
 thus arranged. 
 
 The building, having been in such manner 
 completed, Paulinus, we are told, provided it 
 v.’ith thrones (dpdrois) in the highest places for 
 the honour of the presidents {irpoeSpoDv), and 
 with benches, or seats {^dOpois), according to 
 fitness, and, placing the most holy altar {dyiou 
 aylcov dvcriaa-Tvpiou) in the midst, suiTOunded 
 the whole with wooden net-like railings of most 
 skilful work, so that the enclosed space might 
 be inaccessible to the crowd. The pavement, he 
 adds, was adorned with marble decoration of 
 every kind. 
 
 Then on the outside he constructed very large 
 e.xternal buildings (eleSpaz) and halls (oT/coz), 
 which were attached to the sides of the church 
 (t6 ^aaiXetoi'), and connected with it by en¬ 
 trances in the hall lying between {rais (ttI rhv 
 fitaov oIkov ^l(r^o\a7s^. These halls, we are 
 told, were destined for those who still required 
 the purification and sprinkling of water and of 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In A.D. 333 Constantine caused a basilica to 
 be erected at Jerusalem near the site of the 
 sepulchre of our Lord, which was either included 
 in this building or in a circular or octagonal ad¬ 
 jacent .structure, the basilica being called czckAtj- 
 trz'a ^wTrjpos —church of the Saviour. What 
 the plan and situation of these buildings were, 
 and whether anything now existing be the 
 remains of the.se buildings, are questions full of 
 difficulty and have been the subject of much 
 controversy (v. Fergusson, De Vogiie, Eglises de 
 la Terre-SuinteX 
 
 To discuss the various theories and the argu¬ 
 ments on which they are founded would occupy 
 far too much s])ace. Eusebius unfortunately has 
 written of the subject in a somewhat rhetorical 
 manner, so that the plan of the structure cannot 
 be clearly made out, but some interesting par¬ 
 ticulars may be gathered from his account of 
 the basilica. 
 
 It had {Life of Constantine the Great, lib. iii.)' 
 double porticoes or, as we should say, aisles 
 (Sz'ttcwi/ arowv'), or rows of jiiers with colon¬ 
 nades {TrapdaraSei) in two stories above and 
 below or on the ground, which stretched through¬ 
 out the whole extent {/jirjKei) of the temple. 
 
 CI.'RlS'r. ANT. 
 
 By KaTayCiwv we should perhaps undei’stand not 
 subterranean but on a level with the ground, the 
 “ dvdy^iai” corresponding with the triforium of 
 a mediaeval church. Recent investigations have 
 shewn that extensive subterranean galleries 
 exist on a part of the site (az^cording to Mr. 
 Fergu.sson’s views) of this church, but their 
 character and date has as yet not been satis¬ 
 factorily ascertained. The inner rows were of 
 highly decorated piers, the exterior of enormous 
 columns (iii. c. 37). If we understand as Bunsen 
 {Die Basiliken Roms, s. 33) does, that the rows 
 stretched across the front as well as along the 
 sides, we may perhaps understand by interior {al 
 Se ez'zrcc; t&v e/xirpoader') those which ran 
 lengthwise, and by the exterior {al itrl Trpocruwov 
 rod o’Ikov) those which ran across the front. 
 
 The three doors by which it was entered 
 looked to the east. Opposite to these doors was 
 the hemispherical head region {KfcpdXaiou rov 
 -iraurhs r^/JLiacpaipiov) of the whole; i. e. the 
 apse. This was decollated with twelve columns, 
 on which were as many large silver vessels. 
 The walls were built of hewn stone in regular 
 courses, and covered i.iternally with slabs of 
 variegated marble. The roofs were of wood 
 richly carved and gilt, and covered externally 
 with lead (c. 36). 
 
 Before the entrances was an atrium. There 
 was a first court with porticoes, before which 
 were the entrances of the court ; then on the 
 middle of the market-place the propylaea or 
 outer gateways, whose magnificence astonished 
 all who saw them. Mr. Fergusson thinks that 
 the so-called golden gateway ou the east side of 
 the Haram enclosure, is one of these propylaea. 
 
 Another building in the Holy Land, the church 
 at Bethlehem, has strong claims to be considered 
 as the work of this period (v. De Vogue, Eglises 
 de la Terre-Sainte, p. 46). It has an oblong 
 atrium, a vestibule divided into three portions, 
 the central of which alone opens into the-church, 
 double aisles with columns of the Corinthian 
 order, and at the end opposite to the atrium the 
 transverse-triftpsal arrangement— i. e. one apse 
 at the end of the building, and two others, one 
 at each end of a tran.sept-like space; beneath the 
 centre of this space is the crypt of the Nativity. 
 
 As to the churches built in Rome during the 
 reign of Constantine much uncertainty exists: 
 the Liber I'ontificalis attributes to him the 
 erection (in several cases at the request ot 
 Sylvester, then bishop of Rome) of seven churches 
 in that city, and describes at much length the 
 ornaments and vessels of precious metals with 
 which they were decorated. As, however, these 
 accounts are for the most part not confirmed by 
 other authorities, and cont.iin many matters of 
 an improbable character, they are not generally 
 accepted as trustworthy. That the churches of 
 St. John Lateran, of St. Peter, Sta. Croce in 
 Gerusalemme, and Sta. Costauza, were erected or 
 converted into churches at this time is however 
 universally admitted. Of the first nothing of 
 the period of Constantine is now visible and no 
 distinct account of its size or jilan has come down 
 to us. Of St. Peter’s, though it no longer 
 exists, we have a full account .and careful draw¬ 
 ings and plans. It will be seen by the accom¬ 
 panying woodcut that it was of the same type .a.s 
 the churches which Eusebius describes, a five- 
 aisled basilica ending in an apse, before the front 
 
370 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 of which was an atrium. It was a church of 
 very large size, being ;-580 feet long by 212 wide, 
 and covering above 80,000 English square feet; 
 as much, as ISIi-. Fergusson remarks, as any 
 mediaeval cathedral except those of Milan and 
 Seville. The transept, it will be seen, extends 
 beyond the width of the nave. The interior 
 range of columns would seem to have been of 
 uniform dimensions and to have supported a 
 horizontal entablature, the exterior range carried 
 arches. Over the entablature was a lofty space 
 erf wall in later times divided into two layers of 
 panels, each containing a picture, and above these 
 were clerestory windows of great size, one over 
 each intercolumniation. It is not certain that 
 the prolongations of the transept beyond the 
 walls of the nave are part of the original plans 
 for Pope Symmachus (a.d. 498-514) is said in 
 the Lib. Pontif. to have built two cubicula, or 
 cratoria, in honour of St. John the Baptist and 
 
 five arched openings, of which that in the centse 
 is the largest. These have been supposed by 
 Kugler (^Gesch. der Uauhunst, i. 376) to have 
 been originally windows;; they are now built up, 
 but it may be seen that the masses of wall which 
 separate them were covered with thin plates of 
 marble of two or mure colours arranged in 
 patterns. Above these openings are a like num¬ 
 ber of immense windows measuring, according to 
 Ciampini {Vet. Mon. i. 75), about 28 feet high 
 by' 14 feet 6 inches wide. 
 
 The church of Sta. Pudenziana at Rome has 
 also been assigned, with much apparent proba¬ 
 bility, to the earlier half of this century ; it has 
 been greatly modernized, but retains in the apse 
 the finest early Christian mosaic in Rome (en¬ 
 graved in Gaily Knight’s Italian Churches, vol. i 
 pi. 23). This mosaic is assigned by most com¬ 
 petent judges to the 4th century. 
 
 The other church at Rome which has been 
 
 St. Peter, Rome. 
 
 St. John the Evangelist. The “ Confes.sion ” was 
 a very small vault under the altar, and it is not 
 quito clear that any vault at all was part of the 
 original construction. 
 
 The basilica of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme 
 deserves notice as an instance of the alteration 
 of a hall or civil basilica into a church. It 
 formed part of the palace known as the Ses- 
 sorium. When converted into a church a very 
 large apse was added at the east end; this 
 apse is enclosed by chapels, of which that on the 
 south-east is covered by a cupola and is believed 
 to be original, that on the north-east is of a later 
 date. It can hardly be doubted that a chapel 
 similar to that *on the other side originally 
 occupied the site. This is the only instance in 
 Rome of this system of enclosing the apse, one 
 which, as has been said, was common in Africa 
 and in parts of the Ea.st. 
 
 The lateral walls of Sta. Croce are pierced by 
 
 mentioned as of the Constantinian period, Sta 
 Costanza, will be descidbed when circular and 
 polygonal churches are spoken of. 
 
 Other churches of the basilican type were 
 constructed by order of Constantine, as the 
 original church ot St. Sophia at Constantinople, 
 that of the Apostles and others at the same place, 
 but all these have been destroyed or rebuilt. 
 
 • Towards the end of this century (a.d. 386) 
 the great church of St. Paul, beyond the walls 
 (fuor le mura) at Rome, was commenced and, 
 until the fire of 1822, remained far less altered 
 than any other building of the period in or near 
 that city. It resembled St. Peter’s in size and 
 in design, with the exceptions that the transept 
 was of the same width as the nave, and that the 
 columns of the nave supported arches instead of 
 architraves. It was lighted by (according to 
 Ciampini) 120 xvindows, each 29 feet high by 
 14 feet 6 inches wide. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 371 
 
 The church of S. Slofano in Via Latina, built 
 by Pope Leo 1. (a.d. 440-461), liad fallen into 
 ruin and the remains become coA^ered with earth. 
 They Avere discoA’^ered in the year 1858, and pre¬ 
 sent some points of interest. There is a double 
 A’estibule at the east end of the church, and a 
 remarkable arrangement in front of the altar 
 apparently arising from a wish to preserA'e a small 
 oratory already existing on the spot, but what is 
 still more interesting is that the plan of the 
 “chorus cantorum” and enclosure of the altar can 
 be traced, portions of the walls forming these 
 enclosures existing; they were Avorked in stucco 
 and painted. As this Avork has quite the cha¬ 
 racter of the 5th century these are probably the 
 earliest remains of the kind which haA^e been 
 noticed, if Ave except those on the basilica at 
 D’Jemilah in Algeria, mentioned aboA^e. The 
 paA-ement of large slabs of marble is also no 
 doubt original. 
 
 The church of St. John Studios at Constanti- 
 
 SeA'-eral churches in Central Syria are described 
 by Count de Vogiie as belonging tothis period. 
 
 The other principal ty])e of church is, as has 
 been said, the sepulchral or memorial, in the 
 earlier examj)les usually circular in })lan, in 
 later not unfrequently polygonal. The models 
 from which such buildings wore originally deA'e- 
 loped Avere doubtless the sepulehres of a circular 
 form, many of which AA'ere erected at Rome at 
 the close of the Republican period and under the 
 emperors. These structures AA’cre originally 
 nearly solid, containing only small chambers; 
 such are the tomb of Cecilia Metella and the 
 tomb of Hadrian no\A' enclosed in the castle of 
 St. Angelo. In later examples, as in that of the 
 Tossian family, and that of the Empress Helena 
 (now commonly called Torre Pignatarra), the 
 upper story is occupied by a chamber, taking up 
 as much of the diameter as the necessity of 
 making the Avail strong enough to sustain a 
 dome permitted. This chamber in some cases, 
 
 St. Panl, Rome. 
 
 nople, built A.D. 463, now a mosque knoAvn as 
 Imrachor-Dschamissi, shows that as regards plan 
 and design there Avas in the 5th century little 
 difference betAveen a basilican church in Rome 
 and in Constantinople. This building has been 
 Avell illustrated by Salzenberg (^Alt-Christliche 
 Baudenhmcile von ConstantinopeC), and it will be 
 seen from his plates that it consists of a portico 
 or narthex, a naA'e and aisles divided by columns, 
 carrying a horizontal architrave, and on this' 
 another colonnade supporting arches, so as to 
 furnish spacious galleries over the aisles, and an 
 apse semi-circular within, semi-hexagonal Avith- 
 out. The proportion of Avidth to length ■ is 
 greater than is usual in the basilican churches of 
 Rome, perhaps an early indication of that pre¬ 
 ference for plans approaching to a square Avhich 
 Byzantine architecture afteiuvards so strongly 
 manifests. The most characteristic feature is, 
 however, the great size of the galleries, no 
 doubt intendexl to be used as a gynccaeum. 
 
 as in that of the Torre Pignatarra, was Avell 
 lighted bv large Avindows. From such a Luild- 
 ing to the church of Sta. Costanza the progress 
 is easy, the external peristyle, as in Hadrian’s 
 tomb, was retained, and another Avas intro¬ 
 duced into the interior on which the dome 
 Avas supported. Some approach to a cruciform 
 plan it Avill be seen was produced by grouping 
 the tAventy-four couj)led columns Avhich carry 
 the dome in groups of six, and leaA'ing a wider 
 space betAveen each group than between each 
 pair of columns. A niche in the aisle Avail 
 corresponds to each inter-columniation, those 
 corresponding to the wider intervals being of 
 larger size than the others. In these larger 
 niches sarcophagi were placed ; one of porphyry 
 noAV in the Museum at the Vatican, Avas removed 
 from the niche opposite to the door. 'fhe 
 externa! peristyle has been entirely destroyed. 
 This building has been called a baptistery, but 
 there is no trace nor record of the existence of 
 
 2 B 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 372 
 
 a piscina or font. The probability would appeal 
 to be that it was erected as a mausoleum for the 
 Constantinian family. This building is about 
 100 feet ill diameter, the dome being about 40. 
 
 If we admit Mr. Fergusson’s theory that the 
 ‘ Kubbet-es-Sakhra,’ or ‘ Dome of the Rock,’ is the 
 building erected by order of Constantine over 
 tlie sepulchre of our Saviour, it must be classed 
 among memorial churches. This appropriation 
 of the building has been the subject of much 
 controversy, but in the present state of our 
 knowledge the question can scarcely be satis¬ 
 factorily decided. Whoever compares the en¬ 
 gravings of the capitals in the church at Beth¬ 
 lehem, given by (Jount de Vogiie (Ejlises de la 
 Terre Sninte, p. 52) with that of the capitals in 
 the ‘Dome of the Rock’ (^'Ihe Holy Sepulchre^ 
 by James Fergusson, p. 68), must see that both 
 are of one closely similar design and probably 
 of the same date, which there can^ be little 
 doubt is the earlier part of the 4th century. 
 The ‘ Dome of the Rock ’ is an octagon 155 feet in 
 diameter, with two aisles and a central dome, 
 this is supported by four great piers, between 
 each of which are three pillars supporting arches 
 springing direct from their capitals; the space 
 between these and the external wall is divided 
 into two aisles by a screen of eight piers and 
 
 sixteen pillars—two pillars intervening between 
 each pier. On the capitals of these pillars rest 
 blocks which carry a frieze and cornice; these 
 last carry arches above which was a second cor¬ 
 nice. The whole building has undergone much 
 alteration, and these capitals and friezes appear 
 to be the best preserved portions of the original 
 design. 
 
 It seems clear that one of two hypotheses 
 must be held ; either that the existing remains 
 are those of a building of the period of Con¬ 
 stantine, erected on the spot and still retaining 
 their original architectural arrangement, or that 
 portions of such a building have been removed 
 from another site, and re-erected where we now 
 find them. 
 
 Eusebius (J)e Vito. Constant, iii. 50) tells us 
 of another octagonal church erected by order of 
 Constantine, of which no trace now remains. 
 This was at Antioch ; Eusebius describes it as 
 of wonderful height, and surrounded by many 
 chambei's (oi'kois) and exedrae {i^edpais), which 
 it would appear were entered from the galleries 
 (xwpTjqaTO)!') which both above and below ground 
 encircled the church. 
 
 A church was also built by Constantine at 
 Constantinople (Eusebius, Vita Constant, iv. 58, 
 59) as a memorial church of the Apostles (fiap- 
 Tvpiou cTTi jj.viijx'y ruv anoffrSXwi''), and at the 
 
 same time as a place for his own burial. This 
 building was destroyed by Justinian, and its 
 precise form is unknown ; but that it was in 
 some manner cruciform appears from the dis¬ 
 tich of Gregory of Nazianzus, in the poem of 
 the dream of Anastasius :— 
 
 2vi/ TOt? Kal fx€ya\av\oi^ eSo? XpiirTOLO iiaffrjTuii' 
 nAevpai? o’TavpOTVTTOts T€Tpa\a rep-vop-tvov. 
 
 It would seem that it stood in the centre of a 
 large atrium, surrounded by porticoes. Bunsen 
 {Die Basiliken des Christl. Boms, s. .36) thinks 
 that in this edifice we may discern the germ of 
 the Byzantine type of church. 
 
 It is a matter of some difficulty to distinguish 
 between a sepulchral chapel or tomb and a me¬ 
 morial church ; the one class in fact runs into 
 the other, the distinction between them dejtend- 
 ing upon the object which the builder had in 
 view; when he constructed a large edifice in 
 which services were to be frequently held, still 
 more if this building was intended to be the 
 cathedral church of a bishop or the church of a 
 district, the structure must be considered as a 
 church, although it was also constructed in order 
 to honour a martyr and to protect his tomb ; 
 when on the other hand it was of small size, and 
 its primary object was to contain the tomb or 
 tombs either of the builder or of some saint, it 
 must be considered as only a sepulchral chapel 
 although containing an altar, and although ser¬ 
 vices were occasionally celebrated within it. 
 
 Several remarkable buildings of the 5th cen¬ 
 tury belong to the first class. One of these is 
 the church of St. George at Thessalonica, which 
 consists of a circular 
 nave 79 feet in dia¬ 
 meter, covered by a 
 dome, a chancel, and 
 an apse ; the walls of 
 the nave are 20 feet 
 thick, and in them 
 are eis:ht great re- 
 cesses, two of which 
 serve as entrances 
 and one as a sort 
 of vestibule to the 
 chancel, the roof is 
 covered with a mag¬ 
 nificent series of mo¬ 
 saics. The cathedral 
 at Bosrah, in the Haouran, the date of which 
 is ascertained to be a.d. 512, has a j)lan with 
 several points of similarity to that of St. George, 
 particularly as regards the chancel. 
 
 In Italy some circular churches were con¬ 
 structed to carry, not domes, but wooden roofs; 
 of these the most remarkable examj)le is St. 
 Stefano Rotondo, at Rome, built between a.d. 
 467 and A.D. 483. This church had originally 
 two aisles and is of very large size, having a 
 diameter of about 210 feet. 
 
 The church of St. Lorenzo at Jlilaii, once the 
 cathedral of the city, is very remarkable, as 
 shewing an attempt to combine the circular 
 with the square plan. Its real date has not 
 been ascertained, but it is probably of the earlier 
 part of the 5th century. The main building has 
 lost all original character through repairs, but 
 according to Hubsch the original walls exist to 
 a height of nearly 40 feet, and the ground plan 
 may therefore be accepted as original. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 373 
 
 It will be observ^ed that chapels are annexed 
 to the church on the north, south, and east; 
 that on the north is supposed by Hiibsch to have 
 been a vestibule, that now called St. Aquiliuo 
 on the south is thought to have been constructed 
 as a baptistery, that on the east in all proba¬ 
 bility was constructed to serve as a sepulchral 
 chapel, a purpose to which, whether it was 
 originally destined or not, the chapel of St. Aqui- 
 lino was also applied as early as the beginning 
 of the 5th century, if the sarcophagus said to 
 have contained the body of Ataulphus (ob. A.D. 
 415) really did so, and if this was its original 
 place of deposit. 
 
 Hiibsch, however, gives it as his opinion, 
 founded chiefly on the character of the brick¬ 
 work, that the chapels are later in date than 
 the main church. 
 
 In this instance we have the two classes, the 
 memorial church and the sepulchral chapel, in 
 juxtaposition. A few instances of the latter 
 class remain to be mentioned, and firstly the 
 two large circular edifices winch stood on the 
 north side of St. Peter’s at Rome, one of which 
 was afterwards called the church of St. Andrew, 
 
 and the other having been the sepulchre of 
 Honorius, or at least of his two wives (^Besch. 
 der Stadt Rom., II. i. 95), Avas afterwards dedi¬ 
 cated to St. Petronilla. 
 
 The building of the church of St. Andrew is 
 attributed to Pope Symmachus (a.d. 498-514) 
 on the authority of the Lib. Pontif., but the 
 position and connexion of the buildings w^as such 
 that it seems probable that both were built at 
 the same time, which Avas apparently that of 
 the Emperor Honorius. According to the plans 
 Avhich haA'e come down to us they had no apses, 
 but seA’en square-ended recesses in the thickness 
 of the walls. They were of large size, about 
 100 feet in diameter. 
 
 A still existing building of the same class is 
 the chapel at Ravenna, built by the Empress 
 Galla Placidia (ob. 450), Avhich, though more pro¬ 
 perly a sepulchral chapel than a chui’ch, cannot 
 be wholly passed over here. It is in plan a Latin 
 cross without an apse: from the intersection of 
 the arms rises a toAver enclosing a small dome. 
 This example is of peculiar interest, as the ear¬ 
 liest Known instance of this plan Avhich aftei’- 
 
 wards came to be so extensively used in Western 
 Europe. Recent excax^ations have shown that 
 the chapel Avas originally entered by a portico, 
 which Avas in connexion Avith the atrium or 
 narthex of the adjacent church of Sta. Croce. 
 (De Rossi, Bull, di Archeol. Crist. 1866, j). 73.) 
 
 A further account of sepulchral chapels will 
 be found under CifAPEL. 
 
 Although heathen temples were in consequence 
 of their plans little suited for adaptation to 
 Christian Avorship, they were occasionally during 
 the earlier centuries of the Christian era, as 
 well as in later times, conx’-erted to this purpose. 
 One of the most remarkable eaidy examples of 
 this transformation is that of the temple of 
 Venus at Aphrodisias, in Caria, where the ori¬ 
 ginal building Avas enclosed by a Avail and an 
 apse added at one end, the cella demolished, the 
 columns of the posticum remoA'ed and placed 
 in a line with the lateral columns, and a Avail 
 pierced with Avindows Avas raised on the lateral 
 colonnades so as to foi'm a clerestory. A church 
 Avas thus formed of large size, about 200 feet 
 long by 100 feet Avide. Messrs. Texier and Pullan 
 (Byz. Arch. p. 89) believe this transformation 
 to haA'e taken place betAveen the periods of Con¬ 
 stantine and of'Theodosius. 
 
 The pei’iod of Justinian is one of special im¬ 
 portance in the history of ecclesiastical architec¬ 
 ture. From this time the basilican plan went, 
 in the East, almost or entirely out of use, and a 
 modification’of the plan of St. Sophia Avas almost 
 exclusively adopted, the modified plan being a 
 quadrangular figure approaching a square Avith 
 a dome coA'ering the centre, and a large internal 
 porch or narthex at the entrance. This plan, 
 hoA\'eA’’er, did not originate Avith the architect of 
 St. Sophia, the germ of it is perhaps to be found 
 in the domed oratories or Kalybes of Syria; 
 from such a simple dome—a building like the 
 cathedral of Ezra, in Avhich the dome is sur¬ 
 rounded by an aisle, and an apse added—is 
 readily deriA'ed, this example dates from A.D. 
 510; and if to such a plan a narthex be added, 
 Ave have the typical Byzantine plan, as in the 
 church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus at Constanti¬ 
 nople, built under Justinian, but someAvhat ear¬ 
 lier than St. Sophia. The peculiar feature of 
 the latter church is the placing of the dome not 
 upon piers and arches on ex'ery side, but upon 
 semi-domes east and Avest, by which means a 
 vast space, more than 200 feet long by 100 feet 
 wide, totally unencumbered by piers or columns, 
 was obtained. This construction has, hoAvcA'er, 
 never been copied in Christian churches, but it 
 has seiwed as a model for the mosques of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 All the minuter peculiarities of construction 
 and of detail, hoAvever, henceforAvard prevail in 
 the East, to the exclusion of the Roman style, 
 which previously was in use. In the West, 
 examples of Byzantine character continue to be 
 very rare. St. Vitale at Ravenna is pei'haps the 
 only prominent example, until a much later 
 period. The church of St. Sophia is, hoAvever, 
 in itself a monument of such importance as to 
 require to be noticed in some detail. 
 
 It is a building of A'ery considei*able dimen¬ 
 sions, covering about 70,000 square feet, exclusive 
 of the portions of the atrium (or exo-narthe.x), 
 the baptistery, and other annexetl buildings. 
 
 Fr-om the exo-narthex, the principal or cso- 
 
374 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 narthex, 205 feet in length internally, by 26 feet with ornaments ia relief; but those now existing 
 m breadth, is entered. The principal mass of do not seem to be of the period of Justinian, 
 the building forms nearly a square 235 feet north * All the columns, capitals, &c., are of porphyry 
 and south, by 250 feet east and west, with an or marble. The floors and all other flat spaces 
 apse projecting on the east side. The central are covered with marble slabs of the richest 
 dome is 107 feet in diameter by 46 feet in height, colours, the domes and curved surfaces with gold 
 and rises 180 feet from the floor. The semi- grounded mosaics. 
 
 domes are of the same diameter. The aisles are | Little is known as regards the precise position 
 spacious, but, in consequence of the exigencies of of the various fixed appliances by which the 
 the constructional arrangement, are so divided as church was fitted for divine worship. The altar 
 
 to form rather a series of chambers than con¬ 
 tinuous galleries. There is, it will be seen, but 
 one apse, in front of which is a shallow chancel 
 space, covered by a barrel-vault. On the upper 
 floor are chambers corresponding with those 
 below, which furnished places for women. 
 
 The windows are filled with slabs of marble, 
 pierced with square openings filled with thick 
 pieces of cast glass. When the windows are large 
 they are divided into three or six parts by co¬ 
 lumns and architraves. The doors are of bronze. 
 
 is supposed to have stood in the chancel space or 
 bema, in front of the apse; the iconostasis appears, 
 according to Salzenberg, to have been placed at the 
 western end of the bema, and to have been about 
 14 feet high. From the poem of Paul the Silen- 
 tiary, we learn that it was of silver, had three 
 doors, the central the largest, and 12 columns 
 raised on a stylobate, and was adojmed with fi¬ 
 gures (probably bust figures) of our Lord, the 
 I Virgin Mary, Prophets and Apostles, in discs or 
 ! medallions. Whether tnese figures were in the 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 375 
 
 frieze, as Salzenberg supposes, or between the 
 columns, is not certain; but, as the Silentiary 
 says of the altar, that it was not fit that the eyes 
 of the multitude should look on it, it would 
 seem probable that they filled the spaces between 
 the columns, making a solid iconostasis, as in 
 modern Greek churches. 
 
 The altar was of table form, supported by 
 columns, and of gold, decorated with precious 
 stones; over it was a splendid ciborium of silver, 
 from the arches of which hung curtains with 
 
 where they were situated. It would seem pro¬ 
 bable that the compartment north of the tema 
 was the prothesis and that south, the diaconicon. 
 
 The seat for the emperor was on the south 
 side, and near the diaconicon; that for the em¬ 
 press, also on the south side, but in one of the 
 central divisions of the triforium. 
 
 The circular building was the sacristy, the 
 rectangular, the baptistery. 
 
 The same emperor, also, built a church at 
 Constantinople—that of St. Sergius, now called 
 
 St. Sophia, Ck>n3tantinopIe. 
 
 figures ot our Lord, St. John the Baptist, St. 
 Paul, and others, woven in silk and gold. 
 
 The circumference of the apse was occupied by 
 the synthronus or seats for the patriarch and 
 bishops. These were of silver-gilt, separated by 
 shafts, probably carrying canopies. 
 
 Paul the Silentiary says nothing as to the 
 chorus or place for the readers and singers, ex¬ 
 cept that the iconostasis divided the portion set 
 apart for the celebration of the mysteides from 
 that of the “ many-tongued multitude ” (ttoAu- 
 y\(t)(T(roio oixlXov). This seems to show that the 
 chorus extended from the iconostasis to the ambo, 
 which the same authority states to have stood 
 nearly in the middle of the church, but rather 
 towards the east. This space may, however, 
 have been divided into two parts ; one, the 
 soleas, to the east, set apart for the priests, 
 deacons, and sub-deacons; the other for the 
 readers and singers. The soleas is said by Codi- 
 nus to have been originally of onyx, but made 
 by Justinian of gold (xpvcra). In the same pas¬ 
 sage it is said tliat the ambo was made of gold. 
 We should no doubt under.stand in both cases 
 that the true meaning of the passage is that 
 much gilding was employed as a decoration. In 
 the case of the soleas the gilding may probably 
 have been applied to the seats or stalls for 
 the priests. 
 
 It would appear from the measurement given 
 by Evagrius {Hist. Eccl. lib. iv. cap. xxxi.) that 
 the holy conch (ayia K6yx'n) commenced at the 
 western end of the eastern semi-dome, possibly 
 therefore the line of division between the en¬ 
 closures for the superior and inferior clerics ran 
 at this point, the chorus for the readers and 
 singers, extending thence to the ambo. 
 
 Two compartments, known as the prothesis 
 and diaconicon, are mentioned by Byzantine 
 writers, but it has been a matter of dispute 
 
 Kutchuk Agia Sophia (Little St. Sophia)—which 
 evidently suggested the plan which eventually 
 became the noi*mal one of all Byzantine churches. 
 In this the peculiar form of capitals and treat¬ 
 ment of foliage, which are characteristic of 
 Byzantine art, are fully shown. 
 
 The church of S. Vitale at Ravenna, built 
 between 526 and 547, is, as Mr. Fergusson has 
 
 ■ 7 ■ 
 
 St. Vitale, Kaveiiua, 
 
 remarked, so far as the arrangement of the dome, 
 of the galleries, and of the pillars which support 
 them, almost identical with St. Sergius. But 
 S. Vitale has a sort of clerestory below the 
 dome, which is raised about 20 feet higher. The 
 arrangement of the aisles, choir, and exterior 
 walls differ, it will be seen, very much; and it 
 would seem that the architect had studied 
 the building at Rome Icnown as the Temple of 
 Minerva Medica. S. Vitale is thoroughly By- 
 
376 
 
 (JHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 zantine in datail, and, in spite of most tasteless 
 repairs and additions, still retains much that is 
 cliaracteristic and interesting, especially in the 
 choir, the lower part of which is lined with slabs 
 of })recious marbles, and the upper with the 
 well-known mosaics. 
 
 interior apse are innovations upon the original 
 plan. 
 
 Another basilican church of the period of 
 Justinian is I’nat of Dana, between Antioch and 
 Bir. This, likewise, has a single ajise, but the 
 end of the church is a straight line, oblong 
 
 While, however, churches with domes were 
 constructed, basilican churches were also built. 
 In connection with that of St. Sergius at Con- 
 stantinojile, was a basilican church dedicated to 
 SS. Peter and Paul, which has been destroyed. 
 The church of the monastery of St. Catharine, 
 on Mount Sinai, which still exists, is basilican. 
 It has never as yet been well illustrated; but the 
 
 apai'tments—no doubt to serve for the prothesia 
 and diacouicon—being placed one on each side. 
 It is remarkable that the arch of the apse is of 
 the horseshoe form, and those of the nave are 
 very much stilted. The capitals are Roman in 
 character. 
 
 The finest example of a basilican church of 
 this period is, however, that of S. Apollinare iu 
 
 8. Apollinare in Clause, Bavenna. 
 
 detail of the capitals appears to be more Roman 
 than Byzantine. It is a basilica with one apse; 
 but in order to form a chapel for the supposed 
 site of the burning bush, an interior apse has 
 been formed. At the .sides are four chapels, but 
 it would seem probable that the chapels aud the 
 
 Classe, at Ravenna, dedicated in 549. Here the 
 eastern ends of the aisles are parted off, and ter¬ 
 minate in apses, of which arrangement this is, 
 perhaps, the earliest instance of which the date 
 ' is well ascertained. It is a church of very 
 j noble proportions, and retains the decorations of 
 
(JHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 377 
 
 the apse in marble and mosaic, in a very com¬ 
 plete state. The capitals are, as seems to be usual 
 in the basilican churches of this period, more 
 Roman than Byzantine in character. Upon the 
 capital rests a block or dosseret, ornamented 
 with a cross, .as in many other churches of the 
 time. 
 
 Attached to the west front is 
 a tall circular tower of seven 
 stages, which is probably of 
 the same age, and perhaps the 
 earliest extant example of a 
 church tower. Though, according 
 to Hiibsch (^Alt. Christl. Kirchen, 
 p. 34), the lower part of the 
 tower standing near the cathedral 
 of Ravenna may probably date 
 from the previous century, and 
 parts of some other towers, both 
 at Rome and at Ravenna, may 
 belong to the beginning of the 
 6th. Attached to the church of 
 S. Vitale .at Ravenna are two 
 small round towers, which have 
 perhaps never been carried to 
 their full intended height. 
 
 The cathedral of Parenzo in 
 Istria, built circ. A.D. 542, is too 
 interesting to be passed over, 
 particularly as it h.as undergone 
 extremely little alteration, and 
 retains the atrium before the 
 front, and the baptistery opening 
 from the atrium on the side op¬ 
 posite to the church—the baptis¬ 
 tery, unfortunately, in a semi- 
 ruinous state. Here, it will be 
 seen, the aisles have apsidal ends 
 internally, but the wall is flat 
 externally. The apse is of pecu¬ 
 liar interest, retaining the cathe¬ 
 dra for the bishop and the bench 
 for the clergy, in apparently an 
 unaltered state, while the wall 
 behind, to about one half of its 
 height, is covered with an e.x- 
 tremely rich and tasteful decor.a- 
 tion in “ opus sectile,” the patterns being com¬ 
 posed of pieces of the richest marbles, lapis lazuli, ' 
 and mother-of-pearl. Above the cathedra is a 
 cross standing on a globe, and figures of dolphins, ■ 
 tridents, cornucopias, and burning candles 
 sparingly introduced among the 
 patterns of architectural ch.a- 
 racter. On the west front, and 
 on the east end above the apse, 
 are rem.ains of fresco paintings 
 of an early date. In this church, 
 although basilican in plan, the 
 capitals are Byzantine in cha¬ 
 racter. 
 
 To this accoiAt of individu.al 
 churches it may perhaps be 
 desirable to add, for the sake of giving a clearei ] 
 idea of what a church of the period which has 1 
 been under consideration was, an attempt to ; 
 reconstruct in imagination such a building in a i 
 complete state with its fittings and decorations. i 
 Existing remains, with the .assistance to be de¬ 
 rived from the writers of the time, allow this to 
 be done with sufficient assurance of accuracy. 
 A b;isilic.an church of the first class in Rome, 
 
 Constantinople, or one of the larger cities of the 
 Roman Empire, may be thus described. 
 
 A stately gateway gave admittance to a large 
 court (atrium) surrounded by coA’^ered colonnades, 
 in the centre of which w.as a fountain or a vase 
 (cantharus) containing Avater, so that ablutions 
 might be i)erformed before the church wa.s en- 
 
 6. ApoUinare in Claaae, Bavenna. 
 
 tered. On one side of this .atrium and entered 
 from it Avas the b.aptistery. The b.asilica itself Avau 
 usually, when the circumstances of the site per¬ 
 mitted, placed on the Avestern side of the atrium, 
 are , so that the rising sun shone on its front. This 
 
 PareuEO, 
 
 front was pierced by three or Aa'c doorways ac¬ 
 cording to the number of the aisles, and in that 
 part Avhich rose aboA'e the colonnade of the 
 atrium, AvindoAvs of immense size admitted light 
 to the interior; the Avail betAveen and above 
 these AvindoAvs Avas coA'ered sometimes, in parts, 
 Avith mosaic of glass in gold and colour, but 
 usually Avith plates of richly coloured marbels 
 and porphyries arranged so .as to form patterns; 
 
373 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 sometimes, however, stucco painted was the 
 cheaper substitute. When the building was, as 
 was always the case at Rome, of brick, the same 
 decoration, by means of marble slabs or of stucco, 
 was, if not actually carried out, in all probability 
 almost always projected for the whole exterior 
 of the building. In only one case at Rome—that 
 of the transept of S. Pietro in Vincoli, built a.d. 
 442—is the finish of the brickwork such as to 
 lead to the conclusion that it was intended to 
 remain uncovered. 
 
 The doors were of bronze adorned with sculp¬ 
 tures in relief, and frequently gilt, or of wood, 
 often richly inlaid or carved. Curtains of the 
 richest stuffs, often of purple or scarlet, em¬ 
 broidered with gold, hung at the doors, to ex¬ 
 clude the heat of summer or the cold of winter 
 while the doors stood open. 
 
 In the interior the whole floor was covered 
 either with tesselated pavements or with slabs 
 of many-coloured marbles arranged in beautiful 
 patterns. The aisles were separated from the 
 nave by ranges of marble columns whose capitals 
 supported either arches or horizontal architraves. 
 Tiie great width of the nave, in a first-class basi¬ 
 lica frequently more than 80 feet, and the forest 
 of columns on either hand (one of the colonnades 
 often containing 24 or more columns) when there 
 wei-e double aisles, produced an architectural 
 effect of great magnificence. The clerestory wall 
 was pierced by numerous immense windows with 
 arched heads, one of which was over each inter- 
 columniation. These windows were no doubt 
 divided by columns or pilasters and architraves, 
 and the divi-sions fitted with slabs of marble 
 pierced in a variety of patterns—these perfora¬ 
 tions were in many or most cases fitted with talc, 
 alabaster, or other transparent or semi-trans¬ 
 parent stones, or with glass either plain or 
 coloured. 
 
 The roof was flat and of wood, where magnifi¬ 
 cence was sought it was richly adorned with carv¬ 
 ing and gilt. The semi-dome which covered the 
 apse was covered with mosaic pictures, the subject 
 being usually Christ, either seated or standing, 
 with his apostles ranged on each hand. The 
 earliest existing example of this arrangement is 
 in the church ofSta. Pudenziana at Rome, which 
 although it has been much injured and largely 
 repaired, still shows so much goodness of style that 
 it can hardly be attributed to a later date than 
 the 4th century. Where a transept existed it 
 was usually divided from the nave by an arch, 
 the face of which fronting the naA^e Avas often 
 also covered Avith mosaics; a colossal bust of Christ 
 was often the central object of the picture, being 
 placed OA'er the crown of the arch, Avhile on either 
 side and beloAv are represented the seven candle¬ 
 sticks, the symbols of the CA'angelists, and the 
 tu’enty-four elders. 
 
 Details as to the arrangement of the fittings 
 of churches Avill be found under the respective 
 heads; it may be sufficient here to say that the 
 apse was furnished with a bench following its 
 circumference for the higher clergy, in the centre 
 of which Avas a raised seat (cathedra) for the 
 bishop; that the altar Avas usually placed on 
 the chord of the apse at the top of a flight of 
 steps, and parted off from the nave by railings 
 (cancelli); below it Avas often a platform or 
 space (soleas), and beyond this a quadrangular, 
 iLsually oblong, enclosure (chorus, presbyterium ; 
 
 the last perhaps improi>erly), in which the singers 
 and readers Avere stationed. This enclosure Avas 
 formed by railings or dwarf walls, and connected 
 Avith these Avas the ambo or reading desk. At 
 Rome, and probably elsewhere, a space on either 
 side of the chorus was also railed in, that on the 
 right being called ‘ senatorium,’ and appi’opriated 
 to senators or other men of rank, that on the 
 left, called ‘ matroneum,’ to women of the same 
 degrees. Where a gallery, or, as Ave noAv say, a 
 triforium existed, it was set apart for Avomen, 
 but this arrangement Avas not A'ery common in 
 the West. 
 
 Benches or other seats were probably provided 
 in the chorus, the senatorium, and the m.atro- 
 neum, but the rest of the church Avas left alto¬ 
 gether open and free. These seats AA'ere either 
 of marble or of carA^ed wood, in many iu.stances 
 gilded, the railings of the same materials or of 
 bronze. Over the altar Avas a lofty and richh' 
 decorated canopy (ciborium), from the arches of 
 Avhich hung curtains of stuffs of the richest 
 colours intei-AvoA'en Avith gold. Like curtains 
 often depended from the arches of the nave, and 
 hung at the doors. Vases, croAvns, and lamps 
 of silver or of gold hung from the arche.s, or 
 Avere placed upon the dwarf Avails or partitions 
 Avhich separated the various diA'isions of the 
 edifice. 
 
 According to the proposed plan, the history 
 of the ecclesiastical architecture of the period 
 Avhich folloAvs, viz. from the death of Justinian 
 to that of Charlemagne, Avill be treated of under 
 separate sections. 
 
 IV. The Period from the death of Justinian to 
 the death of Charlemagne. —1. The v:estern i)art 
 of the territory of the Eastern Empire. — 
 During the reign of the Emperor Justinian, 
 churches Avere built on the basilican plan, 
 as Avell as on one derived probably in part 
 from such churches as that at Ezra, in central 
 Syria, in part from the circular or polygonal 
 churches Avhich had been constructed thiougrh- 
 out Christendom. Soon after the time of 
 Justinian the basilican type was no longer 
 follovved, but a peculiar plan Avas adopted, 
 that in which the building assumes a form 
 approaching to a square, the central part 
 being covered by a dome placed on a drum 
 pierced with AvindoAvs. The period Avhich 
 followed the death of Justinian AA^as one of 
 political trouble, and hence examples of the 
 progress of Byzantine architecture during the 
 latter part of the 6th and the 7th centuries 
 are someAvhat deficient. The church of St. Cle¬ 
 ment at Ancyra, hoAvever, probably belongs to 
 this period, as the dome is raised on a Ioav drum 
 pierced Avith AvindoAvs ; in plan the church ap¬ 
 proximates to that of the later Greek churches. 
 The church of St. Irene at Constantinople, Avhich 
 may probably date from the earlier half of the 
 8th century, shows a further adA^ance, as the dome 
 is there raised on a lofty drum pierced Avith Avin- 
 doAvs; some features of the earlier plan are, 
 however, preserved, as there is only one apse, 
 and as its form is oblong. The church of St. 
 Nicholas at Myra is perhaps more modern than 
 either; it has a double narthex, three apses, a 
 lesser on each side of the larger, and a dome 
 raised on a drum in Avhich are AvindoAA's. If the 
 remains of the iconostasis and ciborium sheAvn 
 in plate Iviii. of Texier and Pullan’s Byzantine 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 379 
 
 Architecture are those of the original construc¬ 
 tion, the whole space east of the dome was parted 
 off from the bema. This church is of considerable 
 dimensions, about 100 feet in extreme length by 
 60 wide in the eastern part, the nartheces ex¬ 
 tending in width to about 115 feet. 
 
 Another church of much interest, and pro¬ 
 bably of about the same date, is that which 
 exists in ruins near the remains of the ancient 
 Trabala in Lycia. 
 
 2. Armenia and the adjacent provinces. —The 
 churches remaining in these countries have not 
 as yet been studied with sufficient care and 
 knowledge to allow very satisfactory conclusions 
 to be formed as to the real dates of those now 
 existing. The Persian invasions in the 5th and 
 6th centuries, and the Mahomedan conquest in 
 the 7th, must have caused damage and destruc¬ 
 tion to a great portion of the older buildings ; a 
 high antiquity is nevertheless claimed for several 
 churches, but how much of the existing building 
 is really of early date, is very uncertain.' 
 
 One of the earliest is apparently that at 
 Dighour near Ani in Armenia, which Mr. Fer- 
 gusson thinks may be referred to the 7th cen¬ 
 tury. It bears an evident resemblance in style, 
 though not much in plan, to some of the churches 
 of the Haouran dating from the previous century, i 
 
 triforium carried over the aisles and along the 
 wall of the front. At S. Lorenzo the aisle roofs 
 have been destroyed, but no doubt once existed. 
 In other respects they do not differ from the 
 earlier churches. 
 
 The church of SS. Vincenzo ed Anastasio alle 
 tre Fontane, near Rome, founded 625-638 and 
 rebuilt 772-795, is however very remarkable in 
 an architectural point of view, as it is not con¬ 
 structed with columns taken from older build¬ 
 ings, but altogether of new material and with 
 considerable originality. 
 
 In the early part of the 9th century three 
 churches were built in Rome by Pope Paschal I. 
 (817-824), Sta. Prassede, Sta. Cecilia, and Sta. 
 Maria, in Domenica. All still exist, and though 
 badly injured by repairs and alterations, still 
 present very much that is interesting and 
 original. The first has a nave and aisles, a 
 transept, and a single apse. The columns 
 dividing the nave from the aisles are antique 
 and support an entablature, the ranges are 
 broken hy thi-ee oblong piers, which carry 
 arches spanning the nave, but these, according 
 to Hiibsch, are not original, but inserted not 
 very long after the construction of the building. 
 The transept is entered from the nave bv a 
 triumphal arch, the front and soffit of which 
 
 SS. Viiicennu ed Auaataeio. 
 
 The church of St. Hripsime near Etchmiadzin 
 is believed by Dr. Neale (^Hohj Eastern Church, 
 1 . 204) to date from the 6th century, and he con¬ 
 siders its peculiar plan to have been the form 
 followed in a large proportion of the Armenian 
 and Georgian churches. The germ of the ar¬ 
 rangement, however, exists in the cathedral of 
 Bozrah in the Haouran of a.d. 512. 
 
 The two recesses in these Armenian churches 
 which flank the ap.se in which the altar stood, 
 were doubtless used for the prothesis and dia- 
 conicon, but to what use the other two were 
 applied must be matter of conjecture. 
 
 The primatial church of Armenia, that of 
 Etchmiadzin, has something of the same arrange¬ 
 ment, but wants the western chaniber. It was 
 jn-obably founded in 524, but underwent many 
 alterations and reparations, one very important 
 one in 705. 
 
 The church of Usunlar is said to have been 
 erected between 718 and 726; its plan is rather 
 Byzantine than distinctively Armenian. 
 
 3. Italy. —In Rome but few important works 
 were undertaken during the 6th, 7th, or 8th 
 centuries, the rebuilding of S. Lorenzo fuor le 
 Mura (578-59U) (the present choir), and of S. 
 Agnese (625-638) were among the most consi¬ 
 derable undertakings. These buildings are alike 
 in one respect, viz. that they have a gallery or 
 
 are covered with mosaics, as are also the apse 
 and the wall on each side of it. All these were 
 placed there by Pope Paschal, and are most 
 valuable monuments of the state of art of his 
 period. 
 
 Below the raised tribune is a “ confessio ”—a 
 vault under the high altar. The west end of 
 the transept (the church standing nearly north 
 and south) was at an early time parted off by a 
 wall, and on this a low tower has been raised. 
 The part thus walled off is of peculiar interest, 
 as perhaps no portion of a church of so early a 
 date remains in so unaltered a state. Tlie walls 
 are covered with remains of frescoes which seem 
 to be coeval with the mosaics, and the windows 
 retain the pierced slabs of marble, the apertures 
 of which still contain fragments of the laminae 
 of talc thi'ough which light was admitted. 
 
 The chapel of S. Zeno, attached to the east 
 side of the nave, has been noticed under Chapel. 
 The doorway leading into it is of great interest 
 to the architectural antiquary, as it shows that 
 in the beginning of the 9th century the pre¬ 
 valent style of ornament was that formed by 
 knots or plaited patterns of the same character 
 as those in use in England and elsewhere 
 between A.n. 700 and a.d. 1000. The execution 
 is feeble, scratchy, and irregular. 
 
 Sta. Cecilia Las been greatly altered, but 
 
380 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 retains very interesting mosaics, also the work 
 of Foiie I’aschal. The distribution and subjects 
 are mucli the same as those at Sta. Pi*assede. 
 
 The Roman chuixhes of this date, however 
 inferior in style to those of the earlier period, 
 must have presented an appearance of equal 
 splendour; mosaic and precious marbles were 
 not spared, nor doubtless gilded roofs. Doors 
 were of bronze, or even of more costly materials, 
 for Honorius 1. is said in the Lib. Pontif. to have 
 covered the doors of the Vatican basilica with 
 silver weighing 975 lbs. 
 
 Examples of churches of the period under 
 consideration, with wel’i-ascertained dates, are 
 not so I’eadily to be found in other parts of Italy 
 as in Rome ; but a few buildings exist which 
 can be assigned on historical data to this period, 
 the character of which is quite in accordance 
 with that of those of other countries whose date 
 can be ascertained. Such are the Duomo Vecchio 
 and Sta. Giulia at Brescia, and SS. Apostoli at 
 Florence. The first of these is by some assigned 
 to the latter part of the 7th century, by others, 
 with greater probability, to about A.D. 774; it 
 is a large circular church about 125 feet in 
 diameter, covered by a dome of 65 feet internal 
 diameter; it is extremely plain, having no shafts 
 or columns, but piers carrying square-edged 
 
 arches springing from very simply moulded im¬ 
 posts ; the whole is roughly and irregularly 
 built. 
 
 Sta. Giulia forms part of a convent founded by 
 Desiderius, King of the Lombards (757-773) 
 and is a basilican chui-ch. 
 
 SS. Apostoli at Florence is believed on respec¬ 
 table authority to have been dedicated in the 
 presence of Charles the Great; it is a small 
 basilican church with antique columns, pro¬ 
 bably brought from Fiesole. 
 
 The Duomo of Torcello, near Venice, is be¬ 
 lieved to have been originally built in the 
 7th century, but largely repaired or rebuilt in 
 A.D. 1000. It is on the basilican plan, with 
 ranges of columns dividing the nave from the 
 aisles; it is particularly interesting, as pre¬ 
 serving in a more iierfect state than elsewhere 
 the internal arrangement of the apse, the bishop’s 
 cathedra being placed against the central point 
 of the curve at the top of a flight of stejis, on 
 either side of which are six concentric i-anges of 
 steps for the presbyters ; the altar is jilaced on 
 a platform in front, and a screen divides the 
 presbytery or chorus from the nave. Under the 
 apse is a small crypt. In front of the church 
 
 are the traces of a baptistery, square externally, 
 octagonal within. The apse is flanked by two 
 minor apses, which may probably date from the 
 rebuilding. This church has much resemblance 
 to the cathedral of Parenzo in Istria. Close tc 
 its west fi’ont stands the small church of Sta. 
 Fosca, which by some is believed to be of the 
 Same date as the Duomo, by others is referred 
 to the 9th or 10th century. S. Giovanni in 
 Fonte, the baptistery of the Cathedral of Ve¬ 
 rona, though much altered and ixpaired, pro¬ 
 bably dates from a i)eriod not later than the 
 9th century ; it is a small building with nave, 
 aisles, and apse. 
 
 4. France, Germany, and Switzerland. — Though 
 many and large churches were constructed in 
 the opulent cities of the Roman provinces of 
 Gallia during the period of Roman occujxation, 
 nothing has come down to our time except a 
 few fragments. The description given by Sido- 
 nius Apollinaris (PJpist. xii.) of the gilded roof, 
 the glass mosaic of the walls, the variously 
 coloured marbles, and the stony wood of columns 
 seems to shew that in their pristine glory the 
 churches of Lyons or of “ opulent Vienna ” were 
 little inferior in splendour to those of the 
 imperial city. 
 
 Churches continued to be constructed under 
 the rule of the Teutonic conquerors, although 
 doubtless of much diminished magnificence. 
 Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc, ii. 14) describes 
 the basilica built by Perpetuus at Tours, in 
 honour of Eustochius, in the following words : 
 “Plabet in longum pedes centum sexaginta, in 
 latum sexaginta ; habet in altuni usque ad came- 
 ram pedes quadringenta quinque, fenestras in 
 altario triginti duas, in capso viginti; ostia octo, 
 tria in altario, quinque in capso.” 
 
 Hiibsch (Alt-Clirist. Kirchen, pi. xlviii. figs. 6 
 and 7) has made a conjectural plan and section 
 of this church, believing it to have been planned 
 as parallel-triapsal. 
 
 The same historian (ii. 16) describes the 
 church built by St. Namatius at Clermont, as 
 150 feet long, 60 feet broad, and 50 feet high, 
 with a round apse, and aisles on each side. It 
 had, he says, 42 windows, 70 columns, and 8 
 doors. The walls of the altarium were adorned 
 with “ Opus sarsurium,” i. e. sectile work, of 
 various marbles. 
 
 At Perigueux are said (.1. H. Parker, Archco- 
 logia, xxxvii. 248) to be remains of a church of 
 this period, remarkable as having barrel vaults 
 carried on arches transversely across the aisles. 
 At Beauvais, attached to the cathedral, is a 
 portion, no doubt the nave and aisles, of a much 
 earlier church known as the Basse Oeuvre; 
 it closely resembles in character the buildings 
 in Italy, such as SS. Vincenzo ed Anastasio near 
 Rome, which are believed to date from the 7th 
 or 8th centuries; but it may even be older, as 
 it is simply a building Roman in style, and so . 
 plain as to give none of that assistance towards 
 the formation of an opinion as to the date which 
 mouldings or ornament afford. The gi’eat size 
 of the windows is, however, perhaps, an indica¬ 
 tion of early date. Several other smaller ex¬ 
 amples of like character are said to exist within 
 the diocese of Beauvais. 
 
 In the baptistery at Poitiers we have an ex¬ 
 ample of a somewhat moix ambitious attempt 
 at classical architecture; but the manner io 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 381 
 
 which the ornamental pieces are put together 
 denotes an utter barbarism and want of archi- , 
 tectural knowledge or taste. j 
 
 Somewhat akin to this building are some ; 
 churches not far from the Loire, as St. Ge'ne'reux , 
 near Poitiers, Savenieres in Anjou, &c.; both 
 these shew a reminiscence of Roman methods of , 
 building, and the former has much decoration 
 bv triangular pediments and a sort of mosaic in 
 brickwork, probably a variety of the opus sar- 
 surium of Gi’egory of Tours. The buildings of 
 this class are ascribed by the French antiquaries 
 with much probability to the period from the ! 
 6th to the 8th century. [ 
 
 In the valley of tlie Rhone and the adjacent ter¬ 
 ritories, where are abundance of remains of Roman 
 architecture and plenty of excellent and durable 
 freestone, the classical models were so well copied 
 for several centuries that it is matter of great 
 doubt to what date many buildings should be 
 assigned. One A'ery characteristic example is 
 
 Avork, but the imposts generally are of the rudeet 
 kind, though one or two shew mouldings of a 
 somewhat complicated character and apparently 
 properly cut, whether these are the work of a 
 later time or not is not clear. Beneath the 
 central tower is a sort of cupola resting on pen- 
 denth'es, and pierced in the centre with a large 
 orifice. 
 
 When, however, the influence of Chas-les the 
 Great, whose regard for architecture is well 
 known, began to make itself felt, we find a 
 marked improvement in architecture ; besides the 
 most remarkable monument of his reign, the 
 minster of Aix-la-Chapelle, we have several other 
 churches erected either under him or his imme¬ 
 diate successors, which enable us to form a defi¬ 
 nite conception of the style of the period. 
 
 Before these are described one building of very 
 anomalous character should however be raen- 
 I tioned, this is the gateway at Lorsch, not far 
 j from Worms. It is a two-storied parallelogram, 
 
 Beanraifc. 
 
 the porch of the cathedral of Avignon, which 
 has all the character of a building of the lower 
 empire, but in Mr. Fergusson’s opinion is not 
 older than the Carlovingian era. The same 
 ornaments are found on this porch and in the 
 interior of the chu*i-ch, and it would therefore 
 seem that the whole building is of about the 
 same date. j 
 
 In the Jura, not far from Orbe, at the con- | 
 A’ent of Romain-motier, a church was dedicated 
 in A.D. 753 by Pope Stephen II., and the na^-e, ] 
 transepts, and tower now existing, are belieA'ed ; 
 to be those of the original structure. The two- ■ 
 storied narthex !Mr. Fergusson thinks may be a 
 century or two, but BL-ndgnac {Hist, de VArchi- \ 
 tecture Sacr^e, &c.) only a little later. The 
 columns of the naA’e are circular masses, only 
 three diametei's in height, corbelled out square 
 at the top, the bases quadrangular blocks. The 
 arches have a sunk face, but no ornament or 
 moulding. Some shafts in the eastern part of ‘ 
 the church have capitals rudely imitating Roman [ 
 
 the lower storey pierced with three large arch¬ 
 ways, and was no doubt the gateway leading 
 into the atrium of the church of the monasterv, 
 of which class of buildings this is perhajis the 
 only existing example (at least in the west), of 
 an early date. 
 
 Tue most remarkable and most authentic worK 
 of the period in Germany or France is the minster 
 of Aix-la-Chapelle, the original character of 
 which, though hidden by re]>airs and mistaken 
 attempts at decoration, c<in still be satisfactorily 
 ascertained : it was commenced in 796, and dedi¬ 
 cated in 804; it is externally a polvgon of six¬ 
 teen sides, to the west is attached a tower-like 
 building, flanked by two circular towers con¬ 
 taining staircases. What the original arrange¬ 
 ment of the east end was is unfortunately un- 
 kmnvn, as in the 14th century it was replaced 
 by a new choir. The building is about 105 feet, 
 the dome 47 feet 6 inches in diameter, and the 
 latter rises about 100 feet above the floor. 
 
 In the interior are eight compound piers, 
 
382 
 
 CHUIiCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 made up of rectangular figures and Avithout 
 shafts, which su[)port plain round arches; the 
 triforium is very lofty, and tlie arclies ojiening 
 from this into the central space have screens of 
 columns in two stories, the lower carrying arches 
 while the upper run up to the arch which spans 
 the openings.- Above there are eight round- 
 headed windows, and the whole is covered by 
 an octagonal dome. The columns of the trifo¬ 
 rium are antique, and so it would appear were 
 their capitals; the bases seem to have been 
 made for the building, and according to Kugler 
 (Gesch. der Baukumt, i. 409) are very shapeless. 
 The best preserved part of the interior is the 
 belfry over the porch; this is covered with a 
 plain waggon vault, and shews plain rectangular 
 piers with moulded bases, and imposts carrying 
 equally plain arches. The severely simple cha¬ 
 racter of the building is very well seen in this 
 chamber, which is on a level with and originally 
 opened into the tidforium. The dome was once 
 covered with mosaic, which has wholly dis¬ 
 appeared; but Ciampini (Fcf. Mon. ii. 41) has 
 engraved a joart of it, three of the eight segments 
 of which it was composed. In the central of 
 these is a colossal figure of Christ seated on a 
 throne, surrounded by concentric rings of colour 
 representing the rainbow, the ground on which 
 this figure was placed was golden with red stars, 
 beloAV are seven of the twenty-four elders of the 
 Apocalypse. The simple grandeur of this picture 
 must have harmonized well with the whole 
 character of the building. The triforium Avould 
 seem to have been paved with mosaic and other 
 paA'ements brought from Ravenna or Rome: two 
 fragments still remain, one of black and white 
 tesserae, the other of sectile work, in marble 
 slabs of various colours. The fronts of the 
 openings from the triforium to the central space 
 are protected by cancel li of bronze, doubtless 
 also brought from Ravenna or Rome; they are 
 of seA^eral patterns, some of classical Roman 
 character, others Byzantine. 
 
 ^ A'ault is said to exist beneath the centre of 
 the church, and to have served as the burial- 
 place of the great emperor; but it is not acces¬ 
 sible, and nothing seems to be known as to its 
 character. The western doors are of bronze. 
 
 The exterior is very plain, the only ornament 
 being some pilasters at the angles of the drum 
 of the dome ; these have capitals of classical 
 character, but in their wasted state it would be 
 difficult to decide whether they are really antique 
 or copies of antique work. 
 
 A document of the utmost value as affording 
 information as to the arrangements of a large 
 conventual church, is the plan preserved in the 
 public library of St. Gall, and first published 
 by Mabillon (Ann. Hen. Ord.). It appears to 
 have been sent to Abbot Gozpertus, who began 
 to rebuild the church and monastery in A.D. 829, 
 and very probably Avas prepared by Eginhard, 
 Avho Avas prefect of the royal buildings under 
 Charles the Great. The annexed cut represents 
 that part Avhich contains the church and its 
 apjAendages. 
 
 The plan is without scale, and little or no 
 reliance can be ])laced on the proportional size 
 of the parts, as Professor Willis has observed ; 
 the church is said, in legends Avritten upon it, 
 to be 200 feet long and 80 feet broad ; but in 
 the plan, if we assume the length to be 200 feet, 
 
 the breadth would be only 5G feet. The draw¬ 
 ing must no doubt be considered rather as a 
 scheme for a great monast^-y than as a plan to 
 be carried out by an architect; its peculiarities 
 Avill be readily seen; first among these are the 
 apses at each end, an arrangement aftei-Avards 
 common in Germany, but of Avhich Ave have no 
 earlier instance. The circular toAvers are also 
 remarkable. At the east end the drawing is 
 confused by the attempt to sheAv both the crvpt 
 and the choir; the space marked by slanting 
 lines bears in the original the legend “iiiA'olutio 
 arcuum,” and no doubt is meant to represent an 
 arched passage, from Avhence proceeds a short 
 passage to the confession. 
 
 The church of Granson, near the lake of Xeu- 
 chatel, according to Mr. Fergusson, is of the 
 Carlovingian era, though others are disposed to 
 place it in the 11th century. 
 
 In France the most important examples of the 
 Carlovingian period seem to be the nave of the 
 church of Mortier en Der, near Vassy, Avhich 
 exhibits a style very nearly akin to that of the 
 Minster of Aix-la-Chapelie, and the remains 
 of the church of St. Martin at Angers. This 
 last Avas founded some years before 819, as the 
 Empress Hermengarde, Avho died in that year 
 was the foundress, and AV'as interred Avithin 
 it. It consisted of a naA'e and aisles, a central 
 toAvex’, and a rather long ti’ansept; the eastern 
 part having been replaced by a choir of the 12th 
 century. The piers sepai-ating the naA'e from 
 the aisles ai’e oblong, but chamfei’ed at the 
 angles, and carry plain unmoulded arches of 
 rectangular section ; thei'e is no trifoidum, but a 
 clex’estory of AvindoAvs of i-ather long proj)ortiou. 
 The tower has a dome Avhich originally spi’ang 
 fi'om the capitals of four massiA'e circular pillars, 
 which, as they ax’e engaged in the piei’s Avhich 
 carry the toAver, shew only the fourth of a 
 cii’cle. The capitals haA-^e some shall oav carving, 
 chiefly pattenis of plaited Avork. In seA'ei’al 
 parts of the church tAvo or three courses of flat 
 bricks are intx’oduced betAveen the courses of 
 stoneAvork. 
 
 The chui’ch of Germigny-sui'-Loire is a build¬ 
 ing of very remarkable character, and in it, 
 incised on the abaci of the tAvo eastern capitals 
 of the tower piers, is an inscription I’ecoi-ding its 
 dedication in 806. The plan, it Avill be seen, 
 is peculiar, having a tower in the middle of a 
 squai’e, with an apse pi'ojecting from thi’ee of 
 the faces, and two small apses flanking the eastern 
 apse. The piei’s are square, and have imposts of 
 blocks and some knotAvork in shalloAV i-elief. 
 Among the most peculiar featux'es ai’e the small 
 shafts attached to the piei’s at the enti'ance of 
 the eastern apse. These recall some of the 
 details of Romain-motiei’, as the imposts do 
 those of St. Mai'tin at Angei’s. 
 
 5. Spain .—As in Gaul, little or nothing remains 
 in Spain of the churches built before the in¬ 
 vasion of the bai-bainans; and those Avhich the 
 latter constructed Avere desti’oyed by the Ax-abs. 
 Some capitals and fi’agments, px’obably of en¬ 
 closures of ‘ chori cantorum,’ exist at Cordova 
 (‘ Monumentos Arquitectonicos de Espana ’), and 
 some other fx'agments and capitals have been 
 found at Toledo on the sites of the basilicas of 
 St. Leocadia, built A.D. 600, and of St. Gines, 
 said to date from the 8th century (‘ El ai-tc 
 Latino—Bizantino en Espana,’ by Don Jose Ama- 
 
383 
 
 CHUECH 
 
 \A. The Church. 
 
 B. The Abbot's Iiodging. 
 
 C. The Public School. 
 
 D. The Hospitium or Guest House. 
 
 E. DispeoBary. 
 
 F. Kesidence of Doctor, with Garden of 
 
 medical herbs. 
 
 0. Another small double-apse Church, 
 diviiled by wall across centre. 
 
 E. Orchard and Cemetery. 
 
 I. Great Cloister. 
 
 J. Refectory. 
 
 E. Kitchen. 
 
 L. Wine Cellar. 
 
 M. Dormitory, with rarious dependent 
 
 buildings. 
 
 N. Another Hospitium, apparently for 
 
 inferior class of guests. 
 
 O. Stables for horses, cattle, sheep, &c. 
 
 P. Font. 
 
 R K. Open spaces or paradises. (That to 
 the west is surrounded by an open 
 semicircular porch, by which the 
 public were to gain access to the 
 Church.) 
 
 8. Vestry. T. Library. 
 
 U. Schoolmaster's House. 
 
 V. Porter’s House. 
 
 X. Fnrn.tce. 
 
 Y. Detached cbimncy-sliaft for ditto. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 384 
 
 dor de los Rios). At Venta de Banos, near 
 Palencia, the church built by Keccesvinthus in 
 A.D. 661, is stated to remain in a tolerably com¬ 
 plete state. 
 
 The only other churches which can be suj^posed 
 to date from a period even as early as the 9th 
 century which have as yet been noticed, ai'e a 
 few in the Asturias, not far from Oviedo. 
 
 These, however, present many remarkable 
 peculiarities of plan, having square ended chan¬ 
 cels, and chapels or apartments attached to 
 their sides. One of the group, Sta. I\Iaria de 
 Naranco is stated to have been built cir. 848, 
 and as the others are somewhat plainer and 
 ruder in style they are more probably earlier 
 than later. The most remarkable is that of the 
 Ermita de Sta. Christina, near la Pola de Lena, 
 which retains the original partition separating 
 the choir from the nave: the choir is raised 
 above the nave, and the altar recess above the 
 choir, these as well as the western part of the 
 church are vaulted over, so that there are 
 chambers above them. The central space is 
 covered by a waggon vault. The circular panels 
 ip the upper part of the choir screen are pierced, 
 the central panel below carved with ornament, 
 having much atiinitv with that to be seen on the 
 crowns of the 7th century found at Puente de 
 Guarrazeo, near Toledo. 
 
 S. Salvador de Valdedios, near \^illaviciosa, 
 has aisles, but the same system of vaulting over 
 both ends of the chuixh exists, and as in the 
 others there are small chambers right and left 
 on entering by the western door. One of these 
 probably served as a baptistry, as is the case at 
 Sta. Maria de Naranco. A porch and other 
 chambers are attached to the south side, and 
 may have served as dwellings for priests or 
 attendants on the church. This has been at¬ 
 tributed to A.D. 892. 
 
 Sta. Maria de Nai'anco is nearly on the same 
 plan, and appears to have always been a parish 
 church. 
 
 The upper chambers in all these churches are 
 open to the church, not closed as in Ireland, and 
 capable of being used as dwelling places. 
 
 These buildings are all small, Sta. Cristina 
 being about 50 feet long, Sta. Maria de Naranco 
 about 70, but have a good deal of ornament, and 
 exhibit a peculiarity of style, the origin of 
 which cannot be traced to any other country, 
 and which was probably developed from the 
 earlier imitations of Roman work. A clue to 
 the reasons for the peculiarit}' of plan seems 
 altogether wanting. The square end of the 
 chancel may perhaps be thought to indicate 
 some Irish influence as that country is the only 
 one where this form is anything but the rai'est 
 exception. 
 
 Although, as has been said, the churches of 
 the earlier period have disappeai-ed, Spain has 
 preserved in a remarkable manner some of the 
 traditions of the arrangement of churches in 
 the earlier periods; thus the ‘coro,’ instead of 
 beginning to the east of the transepts, is, like 
 the “ chorus cantorum ” of the early basi¬ 
 licas, extended into the nave, and the central 
 lantern tower is called the ‘ cimborlo,’ in 
 memory, doubtless, of a time when it served as 
 the ‘ ciborium ’ of the high altar, now placed 
 in the elongated choir, or, as it is called by the 
 Spaniards, ‘ capilla mayor.’ Probably these 
 
 traditions were handed down through a chain oi 
 numerous links, the earlier of which have 
 perished. 
 
 6. Ireland .—We find here a great number of 
 very small churches very roughly built, with very 
 little attempt at any decoration, frequently lighted 
 only by one very small window, but constructed 
 usually with extremely large stones, and not un- 
 frequently built witli that material exclusively, 
 the roof being formed by horizontal courses, 
 each brought forward until thev met at the 
 top. 
 
 Such are the churches or chapels of Tempull 
 Ceannanach, on the middle island of the bay of 
 Galway (Petrie, Eccle. Arch, of Ireland, p. 189), 
 of St. Mac Dara on the island of Cruach Mhic 
 Dara, off the coast of Connemara (<(i. p. 190), 
 of Ratass, O'*. Kerry {id. p. 169), of Fore, C'^. 
 Westmeath (jcf. p. 174), and many others. The 
 two first of these churches form single apart¬ 
 ments without any division into nave and chan¬ 
 cel, and measure, the first 16 feet 6 inches, by 
 12 feet 6 inches internally ; the second 15 feet 
 by 11 inches; both are roofed with stone in th« 
 manner described. The two other churches arc 
 in a less complete state, but their doorways 
 are remarkable for their square heads, and the 
 immense size of the stones of which they art 
 constructed ; in that of Ratass the lintel is 7 feet 
 6 inches long, 2 feet high, and extends through 
 the whole thickness of the wall. There appears 
 in this doorway an evident intention of imitating 
 the architecture of a Greek or Roman building 
 In that of Fore the lintel is 6 feet long, 2 fee 
 high, and 3 feet deep, and is sculptui’ed with 
 cross within a circle, on a projecting tablet 
 Both these churches are attributed by iMr. Petri/ 
 to the 6th or 7th centuiies. It is a questior 
 of much interest whence the builders of these 
 churches derived their ideas of architecture 
 these buildings resembling in no respect a.ny 
 contemporaneous structures in England, France, 
 or Italy. Improbable as the suggestion may at 
 first sight appear, it would seem that it was 
 Central Syria which furnished the models; that 
 country abounds with churches and monasteides 
 constructed between the 3rd and 7th centuries 
 in a style founded u23on the Roman architecture 
 of the time, but with many j')ecuRarities both of 
 construction and of detail. Among the former 
 of these is the use of very large stones, and the 
 pratice of roofing small buildings by advancing 
 each course somewhat nearer the centre than 
 that below; examples of both will be found in 
 plenty in Count Melchior de Vogue’s Syrie Cen~ 
 trale. Although in these buildings arched door¬ 
 ways ai-e the most common, those formed jire- 
 cisely in the same manner as the Irish examples, 
 with one large block for a lintel, are frequently 
 found; and one of these {Syrie Centrale, p. 99, 
 fig. 4), may almost pass for the original of whlvdi 
 the lintel at Fore is the rough copy. The Irish 
 buildings have far more the appearance of such 
 copies of the products of a cultivated school of 
 architecture as might be achieved by native 
 workmen under the direction of immigrants, 
 bringing with them recollections, rather than 
 accurate knowledge of the edifices they had left 
 behind, than that of the fii’st rude essays of an 
 uncivilised race. 
 
 The Persians i^iundered Syria in A.D. 573, the 
 Saracens invaded it in 613, and Central Syria 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 385 
 
 seems to have been entirely depopiilatcd about 
 that peviol. It at that time contained many 
 monasteries and many monks, and it is quite 
 possible that among the numerous foreigners 
 who sought an asvlum in Ireland at that period 
 may have been Syrian monks. In the litany of 
 St. Aengiis, written, it is believed, in the year 
 799 (Petrie, p. i:i7), among the scores, and even 
 hundreds, of strangers of various nations, men¬ 
 tion is made of seven Egyptian monks buried in 
 Disert Ulidh. The greater part of these immi¬ 
 grants are in the liUuiy simply called “ pere- 
 grini,” without indication of nationality. Dr. 
 Petrie (p. 127), however, seems to think the 
 peculiarities of construction of these early build¬ 
 ings are due to the colonisation of the country 
 hy “ the Firbolg and Tuatha de Danaun tribes, 
 which our historians bring hither from Greece 
 at a very remote period ; which tribes,” he says, 
 “ were accustomed to build, not only their for¬ 
 tresses, but even their dome-roofed houses and 
 sepulchres, of stone without cement, and in the 
 St vie now usually called Cyclopean and Pe- 
 lasgic.” 
 
 Besirles the small churches which have been 
 mentioned above, larger structures were also 
 erected in Ireland at an early date. The cathe¬ 
 dral church of Armagh, whether that erected in 
 the time of St. Patrick or of a later date, would 
 appear in the 9th century to have been 140 feet 
 in length (Petrie, p. 157). The more usual 
 length of a church of the first class would, 
 however, appear to have been 60 feet; this 
 dimension having, according to the tripartite 
 life of St. Patrick, been prescribed by the saint 
 for the Domnach Mor (Gi^at Church), near 
 Teltown, in Meath, appears to have been in¬ 
 vested with a sort of sacred character ; and it 
 is worth notice that the church at Glastonbury, 
 fi.uuded according to tradition by a St. Patrick, 
 but undoubtedly by missionaries from Ireland, 
 was 60 feet long, by 26 feet broad ; it seems to 
 have been of wood. 
 
 These larger churches had usually a chancel— 
 in plan a parallelogram—attached to the larger 
 oblong which formed the nave. 
 
 Two peculiarities mai-k the ecclesiastical ar¬ 
 chitecture of Ireland, one, that the altar end is 
 invariablv rectangular, the other that the towers 
 found near the early churches are always cir¬ 
 cular. Perhaps the most probable e.xplanation 
 of the former is that the form was originally 
 used as that most suitable for a very small 
 oratory, and perpetuated in consequence of the 
 extraordinary veneration which the Irish have 
 always entertained for anything connected with 
 their early saints. [For the round tower see 
 Tower.] 
 
 7. Scotland .—Irish ecclesiastics founded the 
 celebrated monastei-y of Iona, and spread Christi¬ 
 anity through the isles and mainland of Scotland, 
 but very few buildings which can be referred to 
 the period under consideration have been ob¬ 
 served. The most remarkable would seem to be 
 the church at Eglishay in Orkney, which bears 
 a close resemblance to one of the early Irish 
 churches, and is specially remarkable as having 
 n round tower attached to it. The nave is .30 ft. 
 by 16 ft., the chancel 11 ft. by 9 ft. 7 in., the 
 latter is covered by a plain semi-circular vault, 
 ever which was a chamber constructed between 
 it and the external covering of stone. The nave 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 also is stated to have had a stone roof. The 
 tower is entered by a door in the west wall 
 of the nave ; the chancel arch is described as of a 
 horse-shoe form, but this may probably be occa¬ 
 sioned by a settlement of the work. The windows 
 are few and small, the doorways plain, round- 
 headed arches. As in the Irish islands there 
 were numerous oratories scattered over Orkney 
 and Shetland ; the parish of Yell in the latter is 
 said (Hibbert’s Scotland, p. 530) to have con¬ 
 tained twenty chapels. The churches constructed 
 by the Christian Piets were probably either of 
 wood or of earth, which is the reason of the 
 entire absence of any buildings within their 
 territory which can be assigned to a period be¬ 
 fore A.D. 800, it is the more I’emarkable as the 
 numerous sculptured monuments show that the 
 j)eople who dwelt within the limits of the 
 Pictish kingdom could carve stone with extra¬ 
 ordinary skill for the period. 
 
 8. England .—Though the Christiaiis of Britain 
 must undoubtedly have possessed chui’ches of 
 considerable size before the occupation of the 
 country by the Saxons, Jute&, and Angles, no 
 certain remains of such buildings have as yet 
 been met with. 
 
 The historians of Canterbury assert that 
 Ethelbert gave to St. Augustine an existing 
 church in that city (Willis’ Arch. Hist, of Christ 
 Church, Canterbury, pp. 20, 30) which became the 
 cathedral. Bede mentions the church of St. 
 Martin as an ancient church given in like manner, 
 some portions of wall in the latter have been 
 thought to have formed part of the ancient 
 church. Of the Saxon cathedral nothing remains. 
 
 Three influences it will be seen contributed 
 in unequal degrees according to circumstances 
 and locality, to form or to modify ecclesiastical 
 architecture in England ; viz, 1, that of Roman 
 architecture either as derived from buildings 
 still existing in the country, or from designs 
 imported by ecclesiastics and other church 
 builders ; 2, that of the Irish missionaries ; 3, 
 that of the native school of timber architecture. 
 The first of these we may trace in the plans, in 
 the style of some churches, and in the frequent 
 assei’tion that a church was constructed “ opere 
 Romanorum;” the second, perhaps, in the pre¬ 
 ference of a rectangular east end overall apsidal, 
 which last, as we find it all but universal in 
 England in the 12th century and common in the 
 13lh, was probably the prevalent plan in earlier 
 centuries; the third, in construction evidently 
 copied from wooden buildings, and in the fact that 
 the baluster shafts, which more than anv other 
 feature characterize the ante-Norman style, were 
 turned in a lathe as if they had been wood. It 
 seems probable that the Roman and the native 
 style were concurrent, for we find the two 
 mixed together, as in the curious doorway at 
 Monkwearmouth which there .seems to be ground 
 to believe is part of the church built by' Benedict 
 Biscop, A.D. 671. Here we have an arch and 
 impost which are evident imitations of Roman 
 work, supported by coupled balusters, and an 
 excessively exaggerated base carved with inter¬ 
 lacing ornaments or snakes by a hand which no 
 doubt was accustomed to execute similar work 
 in wood. 
 
 The existing remains of English churches, 
 dating between 600 and 800, are unfortunatelv, 
 with very rare exceptions, only fragments. These 
 
386 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 scanty rernaiiis, assisted and illustrated by what 
 contemporary or somewhat later writers have 
 told us, will however enable us to form tolerably 
 clear ideas as to the character of the churches 
 which were built in the above-mentioned period. 
 
 Of the metro])olitan cathedral of Canterbury 
 we have a detailed account, written by Edmer 
 the Chanter, in which he describes the edifice as 
 it existed before the fire of 1067. The annexed 
 plan is copied from that drawn up by Professor 
 Willis o/C'A. Ch. Canterbury') from Edmer’s 
 
 description. The church, Edmer says, was built 
 “ Komanorum opere et ex quadam parte ad 
 imitationem ecclesiaa beati apostolorum princijiis 
 Petri,” meaning of course the great Vatican 
 basilica. The western apse was probably added 
 by Archbishop Odo about A.D. 950. 
 
 Of another church of the larger class we have 
 some important remains. Tliis is that of Stow, in 
 Lincolnshire, where a bishopric was founded in 
 A.D. 678. The church there is cruciform, mea¬ 
 suring 150 ft. from east to west, with a breadth 
 of 27 ft. in the nave and 24 ft. in the chancel ; 
 the transept is 90 ft. from north to south by 
 23 ft. wide ; the side walls are about 35 ft. high. 
 It has been shown that the transept is evidently 
 the work of two periods, the wall up to a certain 
 height having all the appearance of having 
 suffered from fire, while that above shows no 
 trace of such damage. There is ground for be¬ 
 lieving that in 870 the church was burnt by the 
 Danes, and that it was extensively rejiaired 
 between 1034 and 1050 (y. Rev. G. Atkinson, 
 On the Restorations in Progress at Stow Churchy 
 in Reports and Papers of the Architectural So¬ 
 cieties of Noi'thants. York, and Lincoln, i. 315; 
 and the same writer in v. 23 of the same pub¬ 
 lication, On Saxon Architecture), the existing 
 chancel being added in the early part of the 
 next century. 
 
 Another church, that of Brixworth, in North¬ 
 amptonshire, has strong claims to be considered 
 
 Basilica. Brixworth. 
 
 to date from the same period, for Leland tells us, 
 on the authority of Hugo, a monk of Peter¬ 
 borough, that Lanulphus, abbot of Peterborough, 
 
 about 690, founded a monastery there, and the 
 existing edifice may be reasonably supposed to 
 be the original church. The repairs which were 
 finished in 1865 enabled the ground jdan of the 
 church to be correctly ascertained, and it will be 
 seen to be somewhat peculiar, consisting of a 
 square tower, the lower jiart of which forms a 
 porch at the west end, with a chamber on each 
 side opening into the porch and also into the 
 aisles, a nave and two aisles with chambers at 
 their east end.s, a short chancel without aisles, 
 and an ap.se surrounded by a corridor or cry{)t 
 entered by steps from the chancel. The pier? 
 are oblong masses ; the arches, which spring from 
 square imposts, are of Roman bricks in two 
 courses and wholly without ornament; over 
 each pier is a rather small clerestory window 
 with arched head, ahso turned in Roman bricks. 
 Attached to the west side of the tower is a 
 circular stair turret of different and less careful 
 work, and therefoi-e probably a later addition. 
 The bases of piers which have been found show 
 that at the west end of the chancel were probably 
 three arches, through which it was entered from 
 the nave. 
 
 Another church still exists in a state so far 
 complete that there can be no doubt as to it.? 
 original plan, but there is no historical evidence 
 as to its date, and its architectural character is 
 such as scarcely to warrant a decisive opinion. 
 This is the church in the castle of Dover, which, 
 in consequence of recent repairs, can be studied 
 more satisfactorily than was previously the case. 
 A short account of it was published by the Rev. 
 John Puckle in 1864 from which the ground 
 
 Church at Dover. 
 
 plan is taken; from this it will be seen that it is 
 a cruciform church, with a tower between the 
 nave and chancel. 
 
 The churches described are undoubtedly ex¬ 
 amples of “ opus Romanum.” Some others which 
 have been destroyed were, doubtless, of like 
 character, and as the contemporary or later de¬ 
 scriptions contain points of interest, it will be well 
 to cite them. The most remarkable is that of the 
 church built by St. Wilfrid, at Hexham, about 
 673, written by his disciple Stephen Eddius 
 (VitaS. fUV/nrf/, ap. Mabillon, A A. SS. 0. S. Ben. 
 saec. iv., pt. i., p. 646), running as follows: 
 “ cujus profunditatem in terra cum domibus 
 mirifice politis lapidibus fundatam, et super 
 terram multiplicem domum columnis variis et 
 porticibus multis suftultam, mirabilique lougi- 
 tudine et altitudine, murorum ornatam, et variis 
 linearum anfractibus viarinn, aliquando sursum, 
 aliquando deorsum, per cochleas circumductam, 
 non est m.eae parvitatis hoc sermone explicare.” 
 Richard, the prior of Hexham, in the 12th cen¬ 
 tury, describes it (Tw'ysden’s Scriptores Decern, 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 387 
 
 p. 290) as a noble building of hewn stone, with 
 crypts beneath, and walls rising to a great height. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, the church Avas not 
 in existence at the time the prior wrote, having 
 been burnt by . the Danes, in 875, but his 
 testimony is not to be altogether disregarded, 
 particularly as his mention of crypts and subter¬ 
 raneous oratories and winding passages is 
 confirmed by the still existing crypt, a plan of 
 which will be found under Chapel, p. 344. 
 
 If, howcA'er, the church had three stories and 
 columns, some square, some of various forms, 
 it must haA'e been in advance of any building 
 now existing of as early a date, and it seems 
 probable that in his zeal for the glory of St. 
 Wilfrid, the prior somewhat exaggerated the 
 architectural splendour of the building. 
 
 Of the church built at Rijjou by the same 
 prelate, Eddius tells us “in Hrypis basilicam 
 polito lapide a fundamentis in terra usque ad 
 summum aedificatam, A'ariis columnis et porti- 
 cibus sulfultam, in altnm erexit” (Mabillon, 
 AA. SS. Ben. saec. iv. pt. 2, p. 5(33). 
 
 About the same time Benedict Biscop built 
 (a.d. 671) a monastery at Monkwearmouth, the 
 doorway of the church of which has been already 
 commented on, and Bede (Hist. Ab'iatum Wire- 
 muth. c. 5) gives some very interesting notices 
 of his proceedings. He went, we are told, into 
 Gaul, and brought from thence “ caementarios qui 
 lapideam sibi ecclesiam juxta Romanorum, quern 
 semper nmabat, morem facerent,” and afterwards 
 sent to the same country for makers of glass to 
 glaze the windows of his church. At a later 
 time he went to Rome, and brought thence pic¬ 
 tures of the Virgin Mary and the twelve apostles, 
 ‘‘quibus mediam ejusdem ecclesiae testudinem 
 ducto a pariete ad parietem tabulate praecingeret, 
 imagines evangelicae historiae quibus australem 
 ecclesiae parietem decoraret, imagines visionum 
 Apocalypsis beati Johannis quibus septentrio- 
 nalem aeque parietem ornaret.” As it appears 
 from this passage that there was a nave with aisles, 
 the north and south walls were probably the 
 ends of the transept, and the church was there¬ 
 fore perhaps ciuiciform. That in the 7th century 
 the founders of churches in England strove to 
 emulate the splendour of the Continental 
 churches, we may learn from the Akerses of 
 Aldhelm (pp. 116, 117, ed. Giles) on the church 
 built by Bugge, daughter of Kentwin :— 
 
 “ Pi aecelsa mole saccllum 
 Bugge construxit supplcx vcrnacula Christi, 
 
 Vua fulgent arae bis seno nomine sacrae, 
 
 Insuper apsidam consecrat Virginia aram. 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 Aurea contortis flavescunt pallia filis, 
 
 Quae sunt altaris sacri velamina pulcra. 
 
 Aureus atque calix gemmis fulvescit opertus. 
 
 Ut coelum rutilat stellis anientibus aptum, 
 
 Sic lata argento constat fabricata patena. 
 
 Hie crucis ex auro fulgescit lamina fulvo, 
 
 Argentique simnl gemmis ornata metalla; 
 
 Hie quoque thuribulum capitellis undique clnctam 
 Pendet de sumnio fumosa foramina pandens, 
 
 De quibus ambrosiam spirabant thura Sabaea, 
 
 Quando sacerdotes missas offerre Jubentur.” 
 
 The influence of the Irish missionaries upon 
 church architecture in England is perhaps rather 
 to be inferred than proved from existing ex¬ 
 amples ; carrying, as they did, their principles 
 ot asceticism even into their churches their rude 
 
 and humble chapels offered no models Avhich 
 could compete Avith those supplied by the archi¬ 
 tects brought from Gaul or Italy Avho built in 
 the manner of the Romans; but Avhen Ave call to 
 mind hoAV large an extent of country they oc¬ 
 cupied, and more or less Christianized, and in 
 Avhat great A'eneration they Avere held, it 
 difficult to believe that the peculiarities of their 
 ecclesiastical architecture Avere Avholly without 
 influence upon that of England. But for the 
 eventual triumph of the Roman system OA’er 
 theirs, more tangible proofs of this Avould no 
 doubt haA'e existed, but it is po.ssible that the 
 preference of a square oA^er an apsidal termina¬ 
 tion, which is so strongly shown in English 
 churches from the 12th century doAvnAvar.ls, is 
 really due to the habit of imitating the forms 
 of the oratories Avhich St. Cuthbert, St. Aidan, 
 or their disciple.s, may have constructed. That 
 
 Church Tower, at Eurls Barton 
 
 the influence of the Irish school upon ornamenta¬ 
 tion Avas A'ery great, there can be no doubt, at 
 it is amply proA^ed by existing manuscripts, as 
 the Gospels of Lindisfarne, Avritten about a.d. 
 710. That these patterns of interlacing ribbons 
 and animals Avere copied in stone may be 
 observed in the doorway of Monkwearmouth, 
 and on many crosses and other monuments of 
 the period. 
 
 No existing example shoAA's Avhat a large 
 church would have been if constructed without 
 
 2 C 
 
388 
 
 CHURCH-BOOKS 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 Roman influence, but the little oratories of 
 Cornwall ami that at Ebb’s Nook, in Northumber¬ 
 land (u. Cuapkl), will soiA'e to show what was 
 the character of their lesser relis;ious buildincrs. 
 
 The third influence, that of an existing school 
 of timber architecture, made itself felt more in 
 the smaller class of churches than in the larger, 
 and though very many portions of churches 
 which exhibit marks of it exist, no entire church 
 of any early date which manifests it has remained. 
 The chief peculiarity is the use of narrow stones 
 placed upright, dividing the wall into sections, 
 exactly in the same manner as timber quarter¬ 
 ing. No better example of this can be found than 
 tlie tow'er of the church of Earls Barton, in 
 Northamptonshire ; but it is diflicult to find any 
 safe ground for assigning a date to this building, 
 as it is certain that the style was continued 
 into the 11th century. Another peculiarity is 
 the use of the baluster as a shaft, and it has 
 been supposed that this was copied from some 
 Roman example; but the facts that these balu¬ 
 sters were turned in a lathe, that they were in 
 use at a very early date, and in every part of 
 England, all seem to point to their having ori¬ 
 ginated in an indigenous style of wooden archi¬ 
 tecture. 
 
 Many churches were constructed entirely of 
 wood. Bede (^Hist. Eccl. iii. 25) tells us that 
 Finian, who came from Iona, built at Lindisfarne 
 a church “episcopal! sede congruam, quam 
 tamen more Scottorum non de lapide sed de 
 robore secto totam composuit atque harundine 
 texit; ” and according to an Irish writer of the 
 11th century, Couchubean (Iff. 8. Moducnnae, 
 A A. 88. Boll. 6, Jul. 11), the Scoti wei’e accus¬ 
 tomed to build with boards “ tabulis dedolatis,” 
 or, as we may perhaps understand the passage, 
 with timbers not left in the round, but smoothed 
 with the adze. In this way, though no doubt at a 
 much later date, the church at Greenstead, in 
 Essex, was constructed, the slabs of oak left 
 after a plank had been sawn out of the middle 
 having been smoothed on the inside with the 
 adze, and placed upright with the curved portion 
 outwards, side by side, so as to form a wall. 
 Very many such structures, no doubt, -were 
 erected in districts where wood was plentiful and 
 stone scarce. [A. N.] 
 
 CHURCH-BOOKS (Libri Ecclesiasiict). Un¬ 
 der this name the following classes of books are 
 understood to be included : — 
 
 1. Such works as were necessary for the per¬ 
 formance of the sacred offices, whether of the 
 altar, the baptistery, or the choir [Liturgical 
 Books]. 
 
 2. Certain pastoral letters of venerable bishops, 
 canons of councils, and acts of martyrs, which 
 were occasionally i-ead in public. For instance, 
 we have the testimony of Dionvsius of Corinth 
 in Eusebius (//. E. iv, 23, § 11) that the epistle 
 of Clement to the Corinthians was preserved and 
 publicly read in the Corinthian Church [Ca¬ 
 nonical Books]. The so-called Canons and Con¬ 
 stitutions of the Apostles were probably regarded 
 as libri ecclesiastici in many churches. On the 
 use of acts of martyrs, see Ruinart, Acta 8incera, 
 pref. § 5. 
 
 3. Not unfrequently in ancient times the term 
 
 church-books included all books contained in the 
 libi'ai’y of a church [Libuarv]. i 
 
 4. In some cases the church-registers, whether 
 of the baptized or of the dead [Dirtvchs], seem to 
 be included under the term libri ecclesiastici. [C.] 
 
 CHURCHES, MAINTENANCE OF (Fa- 
 brica Ecclesiae), The funds for the mainte¬ 
 nance of the fabric of a church are, and have 
 been from ancient times, derived from two 
 sources, — estates appropriated to that purpose 
 and voluntary oflerings. As early as the 5th 
 century we find ordinances, that a definite j)rc- 
 portion of the general income of a church should 
 be set apart for the maintenance and repair of 
 the fabric. According to decrees of Pope Sim¬ 
 plicius, A.D. 475 {Ep. iii. in Binius, Concilia, 
 iii. 582), and Pope Gelasius, a.d. 494 (^Ep. ix. 
 Binius, iii. 636), this proportion was to be a 
 fourth part; while in Spain a third part was to 
 be appropriated to this purpose. See the Council 
 of Tarragona (a.d, 516), c. 8; the second of 
 Braga (a.d. 572), c. 2; of Merida (a.d. 666), 
 cc. 14, 16 ; the sixteenth of Toledo (a.d. 693), c. 5. 
 In the FTankish kingdom the repair of the fabric 
 was provided for by setting aside for that pur¬ 
 pose a certain part of the endowment of the 
 church ; a provision the more necessary, as the 
 voluntary contributions diminished in proportion 
 as the endowments increased. And as estates of 
 the church often fell into the hands of laics, 
 a Diet of the Empire held at Frankfort in 794 
 laid down the principle, that the maintenance of 
 the fabric of the church was a charge upon 
 church-lands, in whatever hands they were 
 (PeKz, Monumenta Germ. iii. 74). A similar 
 provision was made by some of the ecclesiastical 
 councils held in the year 813 by command of 
 Charlemagne; as in that of Mentz (c. 42), the 
 fourth of Arles (c. 25), and the third of Tours 
 (c. 46). At a somewhat later date, the obliga¬ 
 tion of forced labour for the benefit of the fabric 
 was laid upon the tenants of the church. 
 (Herzog, Beal-Enciicl. i. 737). Thei'e are special 
 treatises on this subject by Helfert ( Vo7i tier 
 Erbauimg, Erhaltung und Herstellunj der kirch^ 
 lichen Gebiiude, 2nd ed. 1834), by Von Reinhardt 
 (Ueber kirddiche Baidast, Stuttgart, 1836), and 
 by Permaneder (die kirchliche Baidast, Miinchen, 
 1838). [C.] 
 
 CHURCH SCHOOLS. [Schools.] 
 
 CHURCH (SvMiJOLS of). Early representa¬ 
 tions of the Church of Christ are veiy numerous, 
 and may be divided into (A) personifications and 
 (B) symbolisms; both of the highe.st antiquitv. 
 Those derived from Holy Scripture may be taken 
 first. 
 
 (A) 1. The Lord’s comparison of Himself to the 
 Good Shepherd, constantly represented in the 
 Catacombs, and supposed to be the most ancient 
 of purely Christian emblems in painting or sculp¬ 
 ture, has frequently united with it pictures of 
 two or more sheep at His feet, besides the one 
 carried on His shoulders. The word “ fold ” repre¬ 
 sents the Church, exactly as the word “ church ” 
 the congregation of Christ’s people. [Lamb, 
 Good Shepherd, (S:c.] The fresco in the Cal- 
 lixtine catacomb (Bottari, tav. Ixxviii., and 
 Aringhi, vol. i. lib. iii. ch. .xxii. p. 327, ed. Par. 
 1657), of the She})herd sitting under trees, and 
 surrounded by sheep, or sheep and goats, as here, 
 may be taken as one example out of many See 
 also that at tav. xxvi. In another (Bott. voi. ii. 
 
CHURCH 
 
 CHURCH 
 
 389 
 
 fnv. cxviii.) the sheep are issuing from a small 
 building, seeming to stand for a town, at whose 
 gate the Shepherd stands, or leans on His staff. 
 The sheep of the Gentile and of the Jewish 
 Chui'ches are distinguished in the painting in 
 Ciampini (^Vet. J/on.), where two flocks are issu¬ 
 ing from separate towns or folds, Ilierusalem 
 and Bfithleem, and moving towards our Lord. 
 [See Bethlehem.] In a woodcut given by 
 Martigny, He stands on a small rock, which, 
 by the winding lines at its base, and the word 
 lORDANES above, would seem to I’efer to His 
 baptism, and our baptism into His death, by 
 which the sheep reach Him. (See Martigny, 
 Diet. s. V. “ figlise.”) * 
 
 In a mosaic mentioned by Martigny at Sta. 
 Sabina’s, Rome, the two churches are represented 
 bv two female figures, standing each with an 
 Open book in hand. (See also Aringhi, lib. iii, 
 c. xxii. p. 327.) Over one is inscribed ECCLESIA 
 EX CIRCUMCISIONE, and St. Peter stands above 
 her; the other is named ECCLESIA EX GEN- 
 TIBIJS, and above her is placed St. Paul. 
 (See Gal. ii. 7.) The same subject occurs in a 
 compartment of the ancient gates of the cathedral 
 of Verona, treated with somewhat of the quaint¬ 
 ness of Lombai'd falicy, but quite intelligible as 
 to meaning. The twofold church is represented 
 by.two women, shaded by trees; one suckling 
 two children, the other two fishes. [Fisn.] 
 Martigny gives a woodcut of an interesting plate 
 in P. Garrucci, Hagioglypt. p. 222. It represents 
 two lambs looking towards a pillar, which sym¬ 
 bolizes the Church, and is surmounted by the 
 Lamb bearing on his back the decussated mono¬ 
 gram of Christ. From it spring (apparently) 
 palm-branches; and two birds, just above the 
 lambs, may be taken for doves. The figures of 
 St. Peter and St. Paul, with their division of the 
 Church into Jewish and Gentile, seem to be 
 represented in the fresco given by De Rossi 
 (vol. ii. Tav. d’Aggiunto A.); but are almost 
 destroyed by the opening of ^ tomb, which has 
 been broken into through the fi'esco, as so fre¬ 
 quently happens. There can be no doubt that 
 the Orantes, or praying female figures in the 
 Catacombs, are for the most part personifications 
 of the Church. (See Bottari, tav. xxxviii., 
 Orante with doves placed next to Good Shepherd.) 
 In the corners of the square ceiling of the well- 
 known crypt of Lucina, in the Callixtine cata¬ 
 comb (De Rossi, li. S. tav, x.), the Orante 
 alternates with the Good Shepherd. In a re¬ 
 cently discovered painting in St. Callixtus (De 
 Rossi, IX0TC, tav. i. u. 2), the Orante is offer¬ 
 ing the eucharistic sacrifice by the hands of a 
 consecrating priest. 
 
 2. A few representations exist within our 
 range, of Susanna and the elders, as typical of 
 the Church and its persecutors, Jewish and 
 Pagan. Mai-tigny names three sarcophagi as the 
 only certain examples of this subject in old 
 Italian art. For one he refers to Buonarotti, 
 Vetri, p. 1. Of the two others one is from the 
 Vatican, the other from St. Callixtus;. They are 
 found in Bottari, taw. xxxi., and Ixxxv,, sarcoph. 
 from St. Callixtus. In Southern Gaul they are 
 more numerous (Miilin, Midi de la F. pi. Ixv. .5; 
 Ixvi. 8; Ixviii. 4). All these are bas-reliefs, 
 
 * These subjects are repeateil very frequently in the 
 ancient mosaics of Uome an;/ Ravtiina. See Mr. J. H. 
 ParkePs Pbotographs- 
 
 I containing the elders as well as Susanna ; and 
 the third represents them as eagerly watching 
 her from behind trees. An allegory is given 
 below in woodcut, drawn from voL i. pi. Ixxviii. 
 
 of M. Perret’s work, of a sheep between two wild 
 beasts: SUSANNA and SINIORIS are written 
 above. 
 
 3. The Woman with the Issue of Blood has 
 been considered as a type of the Gentile Church, 
 which would account for the frequent repre¬ 
 sentations of that miracle to be found on ancient 
 sarcophagi. (See Bottari, taw. xix. xxi. xxxiv. 
 xxxix. xli. Ixxxiv. Ixxxv. Ixxxix. cxxxv.) So St. 
 Ambrose (lib. ii, in Luc. c. viii.). 
 
 (B) Symbolisms of the Church (it is not generally 
 observed how important the distinction between 
 symbolism and personification is) begin with the 
 ark of Noah ; passing by ea.sy transition to the 
 ship of souls and the ship of Jonah in the storm. 
 It is singular that our Lord’s similitude of the 
 net is very rarely found illustrated by the 
 graphic art of early Christendom. The idea of 
 the Lord’s drawing forth the sinner from the 
 waters, as with a hook and line (.see Baptism, 
 p, 168), seems to have prevailed over that of 
 the sweeping net. The net is perhaps assigned 
 to St. Peter in the Vatican sarcophagus there 
 represented (Bottari, tav. xlii.). A small net 
 is used on one side of the bas-relief. [Fish, 
 Ship.] 
 
 The ark is very frequently used as a type of 
 the Church militant. On tombs it is held to 
 imply that the dead exjiired in full communion 
 with the Church. In Bottari, tav, xlii., an 
 olive-tree stands in the ark. in the place of Noah. 
 It is of a square form, a chest in fact (Bottari, 
 taw. xl. cxx. clxxii. &c.); and in tav. cxviii. 
 it is placed in a boat or ship. The dove appears 
 with the olive-branch in almost all these, or is 
 represented by itself: in Bottari, tav. cxxxi., it is 
 placed on the poop of the .ship of Jonah. In tav. 
 xxxvii. and jousstm, Noah stands in a .square chest 
 on the shore, receiving the dove in his hands; 
 Jonah is being thrown from a boat into the .sea 
 next him. This ship represents th^ Church mili¬ 
 tant, and is one of the most frequent of all sym¬ 
 bolic works in the Catacombs, no doubt on account 
 of the Lord’s own comparison of Himself to the 
 pi’ophet. For representations in the catacomb of 
 Callixtus and elsewhere see De Rossi and Bottari. 
 The ship “covered with the waves” is represented 
 in Martigny, from a fresco lately discovered in 
 St. Callixtus. A man stands in the waist or 
 near the stern of a sharp-prowed vessel with a 
 square sail, such as are u.sed in the Mediterranean 
 to this day. The waters are dashing over her 
 close to him, and he is in an attitude of prayer: 
 far off' is a drowning man who has made ship¬ 
 wreck of the faith. The vessel in full sail 
 (Boldetti, pp. 360, 362, 373) is also common as 
 the emblem of safe-conduct through the waves 
 of this troublesome world ; that with sails 
 furled, as quietly in port resting after her 
 voyage (as in Boldetti, pp. 363, 366), is the 
 
390 CHURCHING OF WOMEN 
 
 .symbol of the repose of individual Christians in 
 death. 
 
 An even more interesting symbolism is where 
 not only the ship is painted as analogous to the 
 Church, but the actual fabric of a church is made 
 like a shij). This was the case with many of the. 
 early Romanesque churches, where the apse 
 which completed the basilica had the bishop’s 
 throne placed in' the centre, as the steersman’s 
 place, with .semicircular benches below for the 
 
 CHURCHING OF WOMEN 
 
 clergy; so that a real and touching resemblanic 
 followed. See the memorable passage in Ruskiu’s 
 Stones of Venice, vol. ii., on the ancient churches 
 of Torcello, the mother city of Venice, and an 
 extract in Martigny (s. v. Navis) of a long pas¬ 
 sage in the Apostolical Constitutions (ii. bl) to 
 the same effect,—the bishop being likened to the 
 steersman, the deacons to seamen, the faithful to 
 passengers, and the deaconesses, strangely, to the 
 collector of fares. 
 
 The ship placed on the back of a fish is found 
 in a signet illustrated by Aleandre (^Nav. Eccles. 
 referent. Symb. Romae, 1626 ; see also s. v. Fisn). 
 Another such gem is inFicoroni’s collection 
 Ant. Litt. tab. xi. 8, p. 105). A jasper given 
 by Cardinal Borgia Cruce Velitern. p. 213 and 
 frontispiece) places the Lord in a galley of six 
 oars on a side, holding the large steering oar. 
 This rudder-oar—or rather two of them—are in¬ 
 serted in the i-udest ship-carvings, where other 
 oars are omitted. 
 
 The column surmounted by a dove is mentioned 
 by M. Leblant in his fnscriptions Ckretiennes de la 
 Gaule, vol. i. p. 167, as existing on a lamp said to 
 have been found at St. Just. Another had on it 
 the monogram of Christ on a column. Reference j 
 is made to Bosio, p. 167, for a column between 
 two doves turning to look at it; but is inclined, 
 see p: 167, to regard it as a symbol of Christ 
 Himself rather than of the Church. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CHURCHING OF WOMEN; or. Thanks¬ 
 giving OF WOMF.N AFTER CHILDBIRTH. {Muli- 
 erum post Partum Purificutio ; sometimes called 
 Intkronisatio pod partum: see Herzog’s Real- 
 Encycl. xix. 671.) 
 
 The Mosaic law lays down (Lev. xii.) precepts 
 for the offerings and purification of women after 
 childbirth; and these legal precepts were ob¬ 
 served by the Mother of the Lord herself. Pos¬ 
 sibly in Jewish-Christian communities this 
 observance pas.sed over, like some other cere¬ 
 monies, with little change into the Christian 
 consresation; but of this nothing certain is 
 known. There is no mention of any purificatory 
 ceremony after childbirth in the works of 
 Clement of Alexandria, in the Apostolical Con¬ 
 stitutions, or ill the works of the Pseudo-Diony¬ 
 sius the Areopagite. The notion, however, that 
 childbirth occasioned some kind of defilement 
 continued to prevail among the Christians of 
 the East, hence the rituals of the Oriental 
 Churches in relation to this matter refer more 
 to purification from defilement than to thanks¬ 
 giving for safety. Dionysius of Alexandria 
 (canon 2 ; in Beveridge’s Pandectae, ii. 4) lays 
 it down as a matter admitting of no question, 
 that a woman ought not to be present in church, 
 nor to receive the Holy Communion, within forty 
 days after having given birth to a child. To the 
 
 same effect, the ninth of the Arabic canons of 
 Nicaea enjoins : “ Women ought to abstain from 
 entering the church and from partaking of Holy 
 Communion for forty days after a birth; after 
 which, let the wmman carefully wash her gar¬ 
 ments and bathe her person and the child; then 
 let her, together with her husband, present him 
 in the church at the steps of the altar; w'hom, 
 with their accompanying friends, let the priest 
 receive, and say for her the prayer of puriticatiou 
 and bless the child according to the prescribed 
 ceremonies of the Church.” The forty d.iy.s’ 
 period, then, was clearly regarded as the neces¬ 
 sary extent of the wmman’s purification. Mean¬ 
 time, however, she was not wholly neglected by 
 the Church. Immediately after the birth, a 
 prayer was said over mother and child, and the 
 child signed with the cross. This rite is thought 
 to be alluded to by Chrysostom (on 1 Cor., 
 Hum. 12, p. 108, ^ed. Montfaucon). The office 
 which accompanies it is believed by Goar to be 
 of modern origin. On the eighth day the mid¬ 
 wife, or some other matron, brings the child to 
 the church. Before the door the priest again 
 signs it with the cross, and carries it into the 
 church, when the name is given which it is to 
 bear after baptism. Such a ceremony took place, 
 though not in a church, at the birth of the 
 emperor Theodosius II. (a.d, 401), related in the 
 following manner in the life of Porphyrins of 
 Gaza, a contemporary witness: “ When seven 
 days were accomplished from the birth of the 
 child, the empress Eudoxia approached and met 
 us at the door of the chamber, bearing the infant 
 wrapped in purple. She bow'ed her head, and 
 said, ‘ Bless me, 0 fathers, and the child which 
 the Lord hath granted me through vour holv 
 prayers; and gave the infant into their arms, 
 that they might sign it with the cross. Then 
 the holy bishops signed both her and the infant, 
 and after pi’aying sat down.” {Acta Smetorum, 
 Feb. iii. 653). If the child w'as in danger 
 of death before the stated period for baptism, it 
 was at once baptized, but the unclean mother 
 was no longer allowed to suckle it, or even to 
 enter the room w'here it was (l\Iansi, Supplement. 
 Cone. i. 815). If the mother died within the 
 period of uncleanness, her body w'as taken into 
 the church, and the prayers of purification said 
 over it; after which it was regarded as clean 
 
CHUKCHING OF WOMEN 
 
 CHURCHYARD 
 
 391 
 
 {Canon. Nicaeno-Arab. c. 10; in Hardouin’s 
 Concilia, i. 512). 
 
 On the fortieth dav after the birth, the mother 
 3nd the child, accompanied by the godfather, 
 ivent solemnly to the church. Before the 
 church-door the priest received them, signed 
 the mother with the cross, and said over her 
 several prayei’s. He then took the child, made 
 the sign of the cross with it, and carried it up to 
 the altar; the godfather then received it from 
 the priest and left the church. In the Ethi- 
 opic Church, mother and child are anointed 
 on the brow with holy oil, and receive the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 In the Latin Church, also, we find traces of 
 the same feeling that exist in the East with 
 regard to the purification after childbirth. 
 Even St. Augustine lays down that the Levitical 
 law of the forty days was still binding under the 
 new dispensation {Qutest. in Lent, lib. iii. 
 quaest. 64). That Theodore of Canterbury held 
 the same opinion is not to be wondered at, as he 
 brought Oriental opinions from his early home 
 in Tarsus. He {Penitential, I. xiv. 18, in Had- 
 dan and Stubb’s Documents, iii. 189) pi'escribes 
 penance for a woman entering a church within 
 forty days after childbirth. Augustine of 
 Canterbury, however, had previously appealed 
 to Pope Gregory I. for his opinion on this point, 
 who answered, with characteristic largeness 
 of mind, that the Mosaic law was not binding 
 on Christians, and that if a woman went to 
 church to give thanks to God on the very day 
 on which she had given birth to a child, she 
 sinned not, although the old custom of keeping 
 at home for forty days was not to be blamed, 
 when it was observed in a right spirit (Gregorii 
 Ep. xi. 64; p. 1158). Gregory’s decision influ¬ 
 enced subsequent capitularies of the Franks and 
 canons of councils in the West. Even a council 
 of the Maronites (Mansi, Supplement. Cone. vi. 
 1217) rejected the “ simplicity or superstition” 
 of repelling women from church for the space of 
 forty days after the birth of a child. 
 
 2. It will readily be supposed that no thanks¬ 
 giving followed the birth of a child which was 
 the fruit of adultery or fornication. As women 
 who sinned in such sort were excluded from the 
 congregation until due penance had been done, 
 they were of course excluded from a service 
 which included thanksgiving for the fruit of 
 the womb. Herard of Tours (t871), enjoin¬ 
 ing women to return thanks in church as 
 soon as may be after a birth, expressly makes 
 the exception, “ nisi forte sit adultera ” (canon 
 60, quoted by Binterim, Denhwurd. vi. 2, 196). 
 To the same effect are some decrees of later 
 councils. 
 
 3. The service to be used in the churching of 
 women was probably in ancient times left to 
 the discretion of the priest, for no formularies for 
 this purpose are found in the ancient sacramen- 
 taries. Martene {Dc Ritih is Eccl. ii. 136, 137) 
 gives only two forms, from Galilean codices of 
 probably the 14th century. If a larger number 
 of ancient benedictionals had descended to our 
 times, we might possibly have found forms for 
 the benediction of women after childbirth ; but 
 these are rare. Binterim {Denhwiird. vi. 2. 
 199 ff.) gives a churching-service of the Ethiopia 
 Church, that contained in the Greek Euchologion, 
 and a Latin formula. The latter is from a MS. 
 
 of the 14th century, .and none probably are, in 
 their present form, very ancient. [C.] 
 
 CHURCHWARDENS. These officers would 
 seem to be the representatives in the later Church 
 of the seniores ccclesiastici, of whom frequent 
 mention is made by St. Augustine and Optatus. 
 We gather from these writers that the seniores 
 ecclesiae were a sort of elders who were not of 
 the clergy, but yet had some concern in the care 
 of the Church. Thus, St. Augustine inscribes 
 one of his epistles to his own church of Hippo, 
 “ Clero, senioribus et universae plcbi.” Some of 
 these seniores were the chief men or magistrates 
 of the place, such as we still call aldermen; who 
 also formed a sort of lay council of the bishops, 
 giving advice and assistance in many weighty 
 matters of the Church. But there were others 
 known more properly as seniores eccleriastici. who 
 were entrusted with the utensils, treasure, and 
 outward affairs of the Church, but had no con¬ 
 cern in its government or discipline; and these 
 may be regarded as the predecessors of our 
 churchwardens. The lay elders, so called, of 
 modern times are ranked above the deacons in 
 their own communities, and cannot therefore 
 be identified with the seniores ecclesiastici of 
 the ancient Church, who, not being reckoned of 
 the clergy, were ecclesiastically inferior to the 
 order of deacons (Bingham, ii. 18). [D. B.] 
 
 CHURCHYARD. The subject of places sei 
 apart for Christian burial has already been con¬ 
 sidered under Area, Catacomb, and Cemetery. 
 The present article relates simply to burial in 
 the precincts of churches. 
 
 The laws of the empire against burying in 
 cities of course prevented the use of churchyards 
 within the walls for the purpose of interment so 
 long as those laws continued in force. The first 
 attempts to bury in or near churches seem to 
 have occurred in the case of those churches or me¬ 
 morial cells which were built over the remains 
 of apostles or martyrs; for both Theodosius 
 {Codex, lib. ix. tit. 17 ; De Sepulc. Viol. leg. 6) 
 and Justinian {Codex, lib. i. tit. 2 ; De Eccl. leg. 2) 
 expressly provide against such churches being 
 made exceptions to the general law. When the 
 church had kings for nursing-fathers, the pri¬ 
 vilege of being buried within the precincts was 
 sometimes extended to Christian emperors. Thus 
 Constantine desired (Euseb. Vita Const, iv. 71) to 
 be buried near the apostles whom he had en¬ 
 shrined, and his son Constantins carried out his 
 wish by causing him to be buried in the Atrium 
 of the church ; a fact to which Chrysostom moi’e 
 than once alludes (On 2 Cor., Horn. 26, p. 929, 
 ed. Paris, 1616; Quod Cfiristus sit Deus, c. 8, p. 
 839). Theodosius the elder, Arcadius, and Theo¬ 
 dosius the younger, are said by a late historian 
 (Nicephorus, H. E. xiv. 58) to have been simi¬ 
 larly buried. The council of Braga of the year 
 563 (can. 18) allows corpses to be buried, if need 
 be, around the church (deforis circa murum 
 basilicae), but utterly forbids any to be buried 
 within, alleging the respect due to the relics of 
 saints. 
 
 Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury laid down 
 {Penitential, II. i. 5 and 6, in Haddan and Stubbs’ 
 Councils, iii. 190) the following rule : In a church 
 in which bodies of unbelievers arc buried it is 
 not lawful to consecrate an altar; but if the 
 church itself is of good material, let it be pulled 
 
392 
 
 CHURCHYARD 
 
 CINGULUM 
 
 down and rebuilt after the logs of which it is 
 composed have been planed or washed. If the 
 altar has been previously consecrated, mass may 
 be said upon it if ‘religious’ persons are buried 
 there; but if a pagan be buried there, it is better 
 that the altar should be i)urified and taken out 
 of the building. It is clear from this passage 
 that burials frequently took place in the rude 
 wooden churches of the 7th century in England, 
 and that only t^e bodies of pagans were held 
 absolutely to desecrate the place, though the 
 j'l’actice of burying in churches does not seem to 
 be looked upon with favour. The council of 
 Nantes, held probably towards the end of the 7th 
 century, in the 6th canon, permits burials in the 
 atrium or fore-court, in the cloister, and in the 
 outbuildings (exedrae) of a church, but utterly for¬ 
 bids them in the church itself and near the altar, 
 where the Body and Blood of the Lord are. The 
 same precept is repeated in the canons of later 
 councils, as in the 52nd of that at Mentz in 813, 
 which however expressly excepts bishops, abbots, 
 worthy presbyters, and faithful laymen. Similar ' 
 to this is the injunction of Theodulf of Orleans 
 (Capitul. ad Preshift, ix.). The council ofTribur 
 (a.d. 895), repeating the prohibition with regard 
 to laymen (can. 17), implies that the prohibited 
 bui’ials had already taken place, by the provision 
 that bodies buried in chiirches in times past were 
 not to be exhumed; but in case the multitude of 
 tombs was such that the ground could not con¬ 
 veniently be levelled, it provides, in almost the 
 same terms cis Theodulf, that the altar should be 
 I'emoved, and the church made a mere cemetery- 
 chapel or catacomb. 
 
 In the East, the Emperor Leo VL, about the 
 yiar 900, abrogated (Novell. 53) all the old laws 
 agrinst burying in cities, and left men at liberty 
 to bury either within or without the walls; a 
 permission which no doubt gave occasion to 
 burving in the precincts of city ohurche.s. 
 
 V/e conclude, then, that burying in the pre¬ 
 cincts of churches was practised, in the case of 
 very distinguished persons, from the 4th cen¬ 
 tury ; more generally, from the 7th century ; 
 but that the increasing practice of burying in 
 churches was constantly resisted by ecclesiastical 
 authorities during the whole period with which 
 we are concerned, and was held to be almost a 
 desecration. 
 
 Monastic bodies had from very ancient times 
 burying-grounds of their own, that they who 
 had consorted together in their lives might rest 
 together in death (Isidore of Seville, Pegtila, 
 c. 23); the.se were however originally outside 
 the precincts of the monastery, as we .see from 
 the instances of Pachomius, Benedict, and many 
 others. Bede, in the Life of St. Cuthhert, 
 sj)eaks of a dead monk being carried to his 
 burial in a cart, which Avould not have been 
 necessary if the interment had taken place within 
 the monastery. It appears that in many places 
 a chapel or oratory was built on the spot chosen 
 for the interment of the brethren. For instance. 
 Abbot Bertiuus (a.d. 660) enclosed a graveyard 
 for his monastery on a neighbouring hill, and 
 built in the midst of it a church dedicated to 
 St. Mary ( Acta SS. Bened. saec. iii. pt. 1, p. 110). 
 Afterwards, graveyards were formed within the 
 convent walls, but not within the cloister, and 
 were provided with a separate church. Of this 
 kind IS believed to have been the cemetery formed 
 
 by Eigil at Fulda, the church of which was dedi¬ 
 cated in the year 822 (Life of Eigil by Candidus, 
 c. 20, in Acta SS. Bened. saec. iv. pt. 1, p. 238). 
 Benedict of Aniane also cau.sed an oratory to be 
 constructed in the cemetery of his monasterv 
 (LAfe., c. 39, in Ada SS. Ben. saec. iv. pt. 1). 
 The ancient plan of St. Gall shows only a cro.ss 
 In the midst of the graveyard within the convent 
 walls. And in process of time burials took place 
 in the cloister itself. Abbot Walfrid, when dying 
 (a.d. 765), desired to be buried in i.he midst of 
 the cloister (Life, c. 8, Ada SS. Ben. saec. iii. 
 pt. 2); and it appears that other monks of that 
 rule were buried in the cloister (u. 5 . c. 14). 
 Later instances are frequent. Monks of dis¬ 
 tinguished sanctity were occasionally burie<l in 
 the church itself, as St. Vouel of Soissons in the 
 8th century (Acta SS. Ben. iv. 2, p. 550). Ex¬ 
 cept in the ca.se of very saintly persons, burial 
 was not permitted within the first eight cen¬ 
 turies in monastic more than in secular churches. 
 (Bingham’s Antiquities, bk. xxiii. c. 1; Marteue, 
 jDe Bitibus Eccl. Ant. Hb. iii. c. 7, §§ 10-14; 
 De Bit. Monach. lib. v. c. 10, §§ 100-104 ; Bin- 
 terim, L)enkv:urdigkeiten, vi. 3, 443 ft’.) [C.] 
 
 CIBORIUM. [Altar : Dove, Eeciiaristic.] 
 
 CILICIA (Council of), a.d. 423, at which 
 Theodorus of Mopsuestia, a town in this province, 
 who was still alive, was condemned for his errors 
 (Mansi, iv. 473-4). [E. S. F.] 
 
 CINGULUM. (Ziov'i], Zcua, Baltous, Funis.) 
 The girdle, in ancient times, was generally as¬ 
 sociated with the idea of active exertion, inas¬ 
 much as it served to confine and to gird up the 
 long flowing garments which, when unconrined, 
 interfered with all activity. But as a richly- 
 ornamented girdle commonly formed a j>art of 
 the robes of state worn bv Eastern monarchs, we 
 find the girdle occasionallv alluded to as a svm- 
 
 W t. • 
 
 bol of royal dignity. So Patriarch Germanus of 
 Constantinople, c. 715 a.d., Myst. Tkeor. p. 206, 
 speaks of the girdle, then worn as part of 
 a priest’s dress, as signifying the beauty where- 
 xvith Christ entering upon His kingdom did gird 
 Hiniself w'ithal, even the beauteous majesty of 
 Godhead. See Vestia ium Christianuni, pp. 84, 85. 
 Lastly, through yet other associations, which 
 will be obvious to all students of antiquity, the 
 girdle connected itself with the idea of chastity ; 
 and it is in this connexion that it is commonlv 
 referred to by the later ecclesiastical writers. 
 See, for example, St. Jerome on Ezek. xliv.; 
 Celestine, bishop of Rome, apud Labbe', 
 
 Concilia, ii. 1618 (“ in lumborum praecinctione 
 castitas . . . indicatur ”) ; Rabanus Maurus, de 
 Instit. Cleric, lib. i. c. 17; Pseudo-Alcuinus, 
 de Biv. Off. (Vest. Christ, p. Ill); Ivo Carno- 
 tensis (ib. p. 121). Both in East and West it 
 formed part of the monastic dress from the 
 earliest times. Among Western writers see the 
 lAfe of Fnlgentius, bishop of Ruspa, by Ferrandus 
 Diaconus (“ pelliceo cingulo tanquam monachus 
 utebatur”); Salvianus, ad Eccl. Catliol. lib. 
 iv'. (addres.sing a monk of unworthy character— 
 “ Licet religionem vestibus simules, licet fidem 
 cingulo aft'eras, licet sanctitatem pallio menti- 
 aris,” &c.); Joannis Cassiani, de Coenob. Instit. 
 lib. i. c. 11, apud Migne, Patrol, xlix. 60; the 
 Regula of St. Benedict, Migne, Ixvi. 490 (“ vestiti 
 dormiant, ct cincti cingulis aut funibus ”). 
 
CIEBA, COUNCILS OF 
 
 Hildemar, in the 9th century (apud Migne, tom. 
 c.), explains the distinction bet'.veen ‘cingulum’ 
 and ‘funis.’ “Funis est qui de cannaba fit vel 
 lino in rotundum ; cingulus (sic) autem cor- 
 i'igia est de lana vel lino, sed non in rotundum 
 sicut funis, sed in latum sicut tricia.” lor 
 Eastern usage see St. Jerome, Praefat, in 
 Pegulam S. Pachomii, opp. ii. 49; Palladius, 
 Lausiaca^ cap. 38 (Migne, Ixxiii. 1157) and 
 St. Germanus of Constantinople, in a passage 
 above referred to. He there says of the monastic 
 habit that it was like that of John the Baptist, 
 whose raiment was of camel’s hair, and who 
 wore a leathern girdle about his loins. Celestine, 
 bishop of Rome, in his letter to the bishops 
 of Vienna and Narbonne, already referred to, 
 dating about 430 A.D., marks the time when the 
 wearing of a girdle as part of the episcopal dress 
 (probably in imitation of the monastic habit) 
 was first introduced into Gaul. He reproves 
 those to whom he writes for dressing in a pal¬ 
 lium and wearing a girdle about the loins, and 
 so seeking to.observe the truth of Scripture not 
 in the spirit but in the letter. “ Amicti pallio, 
 et lumbos praecincti, credunt se Scripturae fidem 
 non per spiritum sed per literam completuros.” 
 See Labbe, Concilia^ ii. 1618 ; Vest. Christ, p. 
 45. [W. B. M.] 
 
 CIEBA, COUNCILS OF. [African Coun¬ 
 cils.] 
 
 CIECUMCELLIONES. (1) A name given 
 to the Donatist fanatics in Africa during the 
 4th century, from their habit of roving from 
 house to house, plundering (Aug. c. Gaudent. i. 
 32). They went about in predatory gangs, con¬ 
 sisting chiefly of rustics, on the borders of the 
 Gaetulian desert, ravaging Numidia and Mauri¬ 
 tania, provinces at that time neither thoroughly 
 Christianised nor thoroughly subjected to Roman 
 law. According to Augustine they were noto¬ 
 rious for their lawless violence against the 
 Catholics (Aug. c. Gaudent. i. 28. 32 ; Haer. 69 ; 
 c. Parinen. i. 11; c. Crescon. iii. 42, 46, 47; 
 Epp. 88, 105, 185), as well as against property 
 (Aug. Epp. 15, 85, 185). To restrain their tur¬ 
 bulence their own bishops were constrained to 
 invoke the aid of the Roman counts. Augustine 
 defends Macarius and Taurinus from the charge 
 of having been unduly severe against them, and 
 reproves the exultation of these fanatics OA'er 
 the death of Ursacius (Aug. c. Litt. Petilian. cc. 
 22, 25). At the Conference of Carthage in 411 
 A.D. the imperial commissioner decreed a fine on 
 those districts wherein-the “ circumcellioues ” 
 were not kept in order (Coleti Cone. t. iii.). 
 At Bagai they fought, but unsuccessfully, against 
 Roman cavalry. The war-shout of these 
 “avengers” or “champions of God,” as they 
 styled themselves {aywvKTTiKoi, Optat. Milevit. 
 De Schism. P)onat. iii. 4), “Deo Landes,” in 
 opposition to the “Deo Gratias ” of the other 
 party, was terrible to all peaceful people as the 
 roar of a lion (Aug. in Ps. cxxxii. v. 6). Instead 
 of swords, which for some time they felt a reli¬ 
 gious scruple against using (cf. St. Matt. xxvi. 
 52), they brandished clubs at first, which they 
 called “Israels” (Aug. in Ps. x. v. 5). J.ike 
 the Syrian “ assa.ssins,” the followers of the 
 “Old Man of the Mountain” in the time of the 
 Crusades, the “ Circumcelliones ” courted death, 
 wantonly insulting the Pagans at their festiA’als 
 
 CIECUMCISION, FESTIVAL OF 393 
 
 (Aug. c. Gaudent. i. 32, 49; Epp. 12, 16, 185); 
 and, in their frantic eagerness for martyrdom, 
 challenging all whom they met on their way to 
 kill them (Aug. c. Crescon. iii. 46, 49; c. Litt. 
 Petit, ii. 114; De Unit. Eccl. 50; Theodoret. 
 Haer. iv. 6). Among the titles which they as¬ 
 sumed was that of “Agnostici,” to indicate their 
 contempt for learning (Aug. in Ps. cxxxii. -v. 6). 
 Though pledged by profession to celibacy, they 
 were guilty of frequent outrages on women, if 
 their opponents may be believed (Aug. c. Litt. 
 Petit, i. 16, ii. 195; De Unit. Eccl. 50). For 
 these and similar offences, as well as on the 
 charge of aiding the Vandals, they were ordered 
 by Honorius, 412 a.d., to be fined (Hefele in 
 Kirchenlex.., iii. 261). Gibbon compares these 
 “circumcelliones” to the “ camisards ” of Lan¬ 
 guedoc in the commencement of the 18th century 
 ^Decline and Fall, ii. 445, Bohn, 1855). 
 
 Cii’oumce)Hones (2) were vagabond monks, 
 censured by Cassian, under the name of Sara- 
 baitae, for roving from place to place {Coll. 
 xviii. 7). Probably the name was transferred to 
 them from the Donatist fanatics. St. Augustine 
 rebuts this comparison as unmerited, at least 
 within his experience {in Ps. cxxxii. v. 6). But 
 elsewhere {De Oper. Monach. 28) he inveighs 
 with characteristic Avarmth against the idle, 
 A^agraut monks, “ nusquam missos, nusquam hxos, 
 nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes,” kc.., Avho 
 scoured the country for alms. Amending fictitious 
 relics. Benedictus Anianensis quotes Isidorus de 
 Offic. Eccl.{\\.lb') against these “circumcelliones” 
 or “circilliones ” as spurious Anchorites {Con¬ 
 cord. Pegg. c. 3, cf. Menard, ad loc.). These 
 vagabond monks Avere condemned as unstable 
 and scandalous {Cone. Tolet. Aui. c. 5); and 
 as mock-hermits {KvKXdpLoi \p€vd€p7i/j.7raL') in 
 the Synodica Epistol. Oriental is addressed to the 
 Emp. Theophilus (Suicer. Thesaur. sub A'oee). 
 They are denounced also by Nilus {Epp. iii. 19); 
 and are probably the “ gyrovagi ” censured in 
 the Pegula St. Benedicti (c. 1). The name 
 occurs so late as in Monachus Sangallensis, who 
 I’elateshowa monk, one of the “circumcelliones,” 
 “ ignarus disciplinae imperatoris,” intruded into 
 the choir in the presence of Carl {De Gest. Carol. 
 M, i. 8, V. Canisii Antigu. Lectmies'). [1. G. S.] 
 
 CIRCUMCISION. As a JcAvish rite, or as 
 connected with the controA'ersies of the Apostolic 
 age, this ordinance does not come Avithin the 
 limits of this Avork. It claims a place, how- 
 eA'er, eA^en in a Dictionary of Christian Anti¬ 
 quities, as haAung been adopted from a remote 
 period in the Church of Abyssinia, and as still in 
 use there. In this, as in many other practices, 
 the influence of a large Jewish population has 
 made that community the representatiA’e of a 
 type of Judaeo-Christianity Avhich must haA'e 
 been common in the first two centuries, but 
 Avhich has since been lost. It has to be noted 
 that circumcision is practised there (and the 
 present usage rests upon an immemorial tra¬ 
 dition) before baptism, betAveen the third and 
 the eighth day after birth, and that an ana¬ 
 logous operation is applied to female children. 
 
 Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 12. [E. H. P.] 
 
 CIRCUMCISION, FESTIVAL OF. 
 
 1. Origin of Festival .—From the necessary 
 connection of the eA'ent commemorated on this 
 day with the Nativity, we must obviously not 
 
394 CIRCUMCISION, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 look for notices of its celebration at a vlate 
 earlier than that at wliich we first meet with 
 those of tlie Nativity itself. 
 
 It will follow from the prescribed interval 
 between the birth of a child and its circum¬ 
 cision that the festival of the Circumcision will 
 fall on the octave of the Nativity; and con¬ 
 sequently we continually find January 1 thus 
 marked, even where the service contains re¬ 
 ferences to the' day as the anniversary of the 
 Circumcision. It is not until later that we find 
 the day to have acquired sufficient independent 
 rank to bear the title of the Circumcision rather 
 than of the octave as its special distinguishing 
 mark. 
 
 It is hard to say when the earliest traces of 
 an observance of the day under either designa¬ 
 tion are to be found. There is extant a long 
 homily by Zeno, bishop of Verona in the 4th 
 century, which would appear to have been 
 meant for delivery on this day; but, on the 
 other hand, it is not mentioned in the Kalenda- 
 rium Carthaginense, or in that of Bucherius, 
 both probably documents of the 4th century. 
 Now it has been shown elsewhere [Christmas] 
 that the first certain allusions to an observance 
 of Christmas as a distinct and independent fes¬ 
 tival occur towards the end of the 4th century, 
 and that this observ^ance of it was later in the 
 East than in the West. This agrees with what 
 is said above, and with the instances we shall 
 further quote, which tend to disprove the exist¬ 
 ence of any save perhaps a more or less local 
 recognition of the festival before the end of the 
 
 O 
 
 4th century. Here, as in the case of the parent 
 festival of the Nativity, our earliest illustrations 
 come from the West. 
 
 Thus we find the day noticed in the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary, the Gregorian Sacramentary and 
 Antiphonary, the Gallican Sacramentary and 
 Lectionary, in the Calendar of Fronto, the Mo- 
 zarabic Liturgy and Breviary, and the Martyro- 
 logium Hieronymi. 
 
 Passing on to the Eastern Church, we find 
 that in the calendar of the Coptic Church given 
 by Selden (de Synedriis Ebraeorum, lib. iii. c. 
 15), the Circumcision is reckoned among the 
 minor festivals, and that the Apostolic Constitu¬ 
 tions, a work doubtless of Oriental origin, ignores 
 it altogether. 
 
 In process of time the day became more and 
 more recognized, and at last the observance 
 became universal. 
 
 A reason for the Church’s apparent slowness in 
 recognizing and commemorating so important an 
 incident in our Lord’s earthly life, at which He 
 received the name Jesus—an event, one would 
 suppose, itself of more than ordinary interest— 
 is doubtless to be found in the fact that on the 
 Kalends of January was held a great heathen 
 festival, characterized by an excessive amount of 
 riot and licentiousness. The Christians, anxious 
 to avoid an apparent toleration of these abomi¬ 
 nations by holding a festival of their own, even 
 though of a totally different charactei", on the 
 same day, enjoined a solemn fast, as a whole¬ 
 some protest and as a means of guarding the 
 unwary from being led astray. See Augustine, 
 Sermon. 197, 198 (^Patrol, xxxviii. 1024 sqq.). 
 
 There is also an allusion to this in a canon of 
 the 2nd Council of Tours, a.d. 567 {Cone. Turo- 
 nense 11. can. 17 ; Labbe, v. 857). Further we 
 
 CIRCUMCISION, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 find in the Martyrologium Itom/inum (Janu¬ 
 ary 1), that a certain Alinachius sutlered martyr¬ 
 dom for saying, “ Hodie octavae Dominici diei 
 sunt, cessate a superstitionibus idolorum et a 
 sacrificiis pollutis.” If, as is assex’ted, this 
 Almachius be the same with the Telemachus 
 mentioned by Theodoret {Hist. Keel. v. 26), 
 this event must be referred to the time of 
 Honorius, and will point to a certain recognition 
 of the day by the Roman Church at the end of 
 the 4th century. To the subject of this fast we 
 shall briefly refer again. 
 
 We shall now i)roceed to discuss the observance! 
 of the day more in detail. 
 
 II. Liturgical Notices. — It is impossible to 
 determine the character of the evidence borne as 
 to this day by the Leonine Sacramentary, for it 
 is mutilated at the beginning, and commences 
 with the month of April. The last section in it, 
 how'ever, is “ In jejunio mensis decimi,” for 
 which five Masses are given, thus furnishing 
 evidence for the observance of the time, though 
 none for the name by which the day was known 
 (ii. 156, ed. Ballerini). It may be added, how¬ 
 ever, that with this exception there is no allusion 
 to the day in the writings of Leo L, although he 
 has many sermons on the Nativity itself. The 
 Gelasian Sacramentary gives a ^lass for the day, 
 In Octabas Domini, •i\iv\ there follows one Prohi- 
 bendum ah idolis, pointing to what we have al 
 ready .said as to the heathen festival on this day 
 {Patrol. Ixxiv. 1061), In the former Mass, the 
 main idea is evidently' of the octave of the Na¬ 
 tivity', and not of any special commemoration of 
 the day itself, there being merely a passing 
 allusion to our Lord’s Circumcision, as contrasted 
 with such expressions as “Cujus hodie octavas 
 nati celebrantes ...” and the like. 
 
 In the Gregorian Sacramentarv the Mass for 
 the day is headed In Octavis Domini (Gi’eg. 
 Sacr. col. 1.3, ed. Menard), but the Gospel treats 
 of the Circumci.sion, Luke ii. 21-32. Of two 
 collects given, one has .special reference to the 
 Virgin, the other to the octave, and in Pame- 
 lius’ edition of the Sacramentary, and in the 
 Cd. Reg. Suec. is read Ad S. Mariam ad Marty res ; 
 in the Ivalendarium Romanum is Natale S. Mariae, 
 and thus in the Gregorian Antiphonary {op. cit. 
 660) we have De Sancta Maria in Octava Do¬ 
 mini. 
 
 All this points to a twofold commemoration of 
 the day, the one having regard to the octave of 
 the Nativity or the Circumcision, the other to the 
 Virgin, and hence the special prominence given 
 to the mention of her in the Mass for the day* in 
 the modern Romish Missal. The Preface and 
 the Benediction in the Gregorian Sacramentary 
 do indeed refer to the Circumcision — “Cujus 
 hodie Circumcisionis diem et Nativitatis octavum 
 celebrantes—but there is a certain amount 
 of evidence against their authenticity', they' are 
 omitted by Pamelius and are wanting in the 
 Cd. Reg. Suec. Possibly, therefore, they are a 
 later addition. 
 
 We may next briefly notice the ancient litur¬ 
 gical documents of the Gallican Church. The 
 ancient Lectionary published by Mabillon {de 
 Liturgia Gallicnna, p. 112), gives lections In 
 Circumciaione Domini for matins and for the 
 Mass; for the former, Isaiah xliv. 24—xlv. 7, 
 and for the latter, Isaiah i. 10-20; with 1 Cor. 
 X. 14-31 and Luke ii. 21-40 for the Epistle 
 
CLAUDIUS 
 
 305 
 
 CIRCUMCISION, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 find Gospel, the Gospel being the same as in the 
 Gregorian and Mozarabic liturgy; the pro¬ 
 phetical lection and Kpistle in this last being 
 Isaiah xlviii. 12-20 and Philippians iii. 1~8. 
 It will be observed that the Epistle in the Galli- 
 can liturgy has reference to the idol practices 
 which characterized the day. The Gotho-Gallic 
 Missal (ib. 200) gives an 0)-do Missae in Cir- 
 cutncioioyie Domini nostri Jesit Christi, and the 
 Mozarabic Breviary and Missal style the day 
 Circuincisio Domini. 
 
 It is thus probable that we must look to Gaul 
 and Spain for early examples of this title of the 
 day. The first definite instance that we have 
 observed is to be found in the canon of the 2nd 
 Council of Tours (567 a.d.) already referred to, 
 which, after remarking that every day was a fes¬ 
 tival from Christmas to Epiphany, adds, “ ex- 
 cipitur triduiim illud, quo ad calcandam Gen- 
 tilium consuetudinem patres nostri statuerunt 
 privatas in Kalendis Januarii fieri litanias, et in 
 ecclesiis psallatur, et hora octava in ipsis Ka- 
 Icndis Circumcisionis ^lissa Deo propitio cele- 
 bretur ” (Labbe', 1. c.). There is also some evi¬ 
 dence for supposing that the title of the Circum¬ 
 cision was ajjplied to the day in Spain before 
 the death of Isidore (636 a.d,), for we read in 
 one place, “ placuit etiam patribus a die Natalis 
 Domini usque ad diem Circumcisionis solemne 
 tempus efficere ” (^Bejuki Monachorum 12; Patrol. 
 Ixxiii. 880). Arevalus does indeed suggest (not. in 
 loc.'), from the belief that the title Circumcision 
 IS probably of later date, that the original words 
 of Isidore here may have been Kalendas Janu- 
 arias; but when the passage is taken in con¬ 
 junction with the above quoted canon, there seems 
 the less reason for having recourse to this hypo¬ 
 thesis. Further, remarks in the laws of the Visi¬ 
 goths shew that by the middle or latter part of 
 the 7th centurv the dav ranked in Snain of so high 
 lir.portance that on it the law courts were closed, 
 and that it then bore the name of the Circum¬ 
 cision (Codex Leg. Wisigoth. lib. ii. tit. 1, lex 11; 
 lib. xii. t. 3, 1. 6; in Hispania Ilhistrata, iii. 
 863, 1004-, Frankfort 1606). Still, the old 
 name survived, for we find it at the end of the 
 8 th century in the liegula of Bishop Chrodegang 
 (^Patrol. Ixxxix. 1090), and in the proceedings of 
 the Council of Mainzf 813 a.d. (Cone. Mogun- 
 timan, can. 36 ; Labbe, vii. 1250). 
 
 Briefly then to sum up the results so far 
 obtained : we have seen that the a priori ex¬ 
 pectation, which would assign the end of the 
 4th century as the earliest possible date of 
 the recognition of the day under either title, is 
 borne out by the fact of the absence of allusions 
 to it before that date; and further that, until 
 at the earliest the middle of the 6th century, 
 it was solely as the octave of the Nativity, and 
 not as the Circumcision that the day was known. 
 It may be remarked here that the whole of 
 Christendom agrees in celebrating the Circum¬ 
 cision on January 1 except the Armenian Church, 
 which still adheres to the old Eastern practice 
 of commemorating the Nativity and Epiphany 
 together on January 6, and necessarily therefore 
 celebrates the Circumcision on January 13. 
 
 The primary idea of the day as a fast and not 
 a festival has already been referred to. The 
 canon of the 2nd Council of Tours which we 
 have c ted shows the state of the case in France; 
 that the same custom prevailed in Spain is shown 
 
 by an allusion in a canon of the 4th Council of 
 Toledo, A.D. 633 (Cone. Tol. iv. can. 11 ; Labbe, 
 V. 1709) ; cf. Isidore, de Eccl. Off. lib. i. c. 46 ; 
 although it must be added that a heading in the 
 Mozarabic Breviary points to the three days 
 before the Epiphany as the period of the fast: 
 “ Officiurn jejuniorum in Kal. Jan. observatm 
 tribus diebus ante festum Epiphaniae.” Lastlv, 
 we may refer to the Ordo Pomanus, which, after 
 speaking of the heathen abominations which de¬ 
 filed the day, adds, “Statuit uniA'ersalis Ecclesia 
 jejunium publicum in isto die fieri ” (p. 20, ed. 
 Hittorp.*). 
 
 It will, of course, be inferred from what has 
 been already remarked that there is an absence 
 of homilies or sermons for the day in the works 
 of early patristic writers. We may here again, 
 however, refer to the discourse of Zeno of Verona, 
 de Circumcisione (lib. i. tractat. 13, p. 99, ed. 
 Ballerini, where .see note 1). In an ancient MS. 
 of this of the 9th century (the Cd. Remensis) is 
 added a note in the margin of this discourse, 
 Tn Octaba Domini pontifeis nona lectio. The 
 Ballerini consider the.se notes to have been written 
 at the time when Archbishop Hincmar (ob. 882 
 A.D.) gave the MS. to the abbey of St. Remigiits at 
 Rheims, and while the MS. belonged to the 
 Church of Verona (Praef. § 5), and that this 
 discourse was there spoken on the octave of the 
 Nativity. They infer from the marginal note 
 the 1 ‘elative importance of the day, considering 
 that such a remark about the ninth lection would 
 be made only in the case of the more important 
 festivals. Bede has written a homily for the day 
 on Luke ii. 21 (Horn. x. ; Patrol, xciv. 53). 
 
 When the fast became a festival it is impos¬ 
 sible definitely to say. Probably the process 
 was a gradual one, and the period varied in 
 different countries. The statutes of St. Boniface 
 (ob. 755 A.D.) include it among the special 
 festivals on which no work was to be done 
 (D’Achery, Spicilegium ix. 66). Still, at a 
 period subsequent to this, traces of the old state 
 of things survived, the latest we have observed 
 being in the Capitula of Atto, bishop of Vercelli 
 in the 10th century, who dwells on the ex¬ 
 pediency of maintaining the ancient protest 
 (Patrol, cxxxiv. 43). [R. S.] 
 
 CIRCUS. [Charioteer.] 
 
 CIRINUS. [Cyrinus.] 
 
 CITHINUS, one of the “ martyres Sc.llitani” 
 at Carthage, July 17 (Cal. Carthaq., Bedae, Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLARUS, presbyter, and martyr “ in pago 
 Vilcasino,” Nov. 4 (Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CI.AUDIANUS. (1) Martyr in Egypt under 
 Numerian, Feb. 25 (Mart. Rom. I cL, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Nicomedia, March 6 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLAUDIUS. (1) Martyr at Ostia under 
 Diocletian, Feb. 18 (J/«/’L Rom. \'et., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Mart\u' at Rome, with Pope Marcellinins, 
 April 26, A.D. 304 (3/ar^. Usuardi). 
 
 » The allegi'd Statiita Kcchsiae Fikemt^nsis (l..abb4, v. 
 1691), attriliutcd to Bishop Sonnatius, In which (c. in) 
 reference is made to the Circnnicision as one of the days 
 “ahsfiue op -re forensi excolenda,” are probably fabrica¬ 
 tions of a later date. 
 
396 
 
 CL A V US 
 
 CLERUS 
 
 (3) Martyr at Rome, with Xicostratus and 
 others, July 7 (^Mart. Mom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr in Aegea, Aug. 23 (^Mart. Hieron., 
 Usuiirdi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Rome, with Nicostratus and 
 others, Nov. 8 (^Mart. Hieron., Bedae, llom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). Compare (3). 
 
 (6) The tribune, martyr at Rome under Nu- 
 
 mei’ian, Dec. 3 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi); 
 Aug. 12 {Mart. Hieron.). [C.] 
 
 CTjAVUS. We continually find in ancient 
 Christian frescoes and mosaics garments deco¬ 
 rated with long stripes of purjile, sometimes en¬ 
 riched with embroidery or an inwoven pattern, 
 called clavi. These generally run from the top 
 to the bottom of the garment, and are broader or 
 nari'ower according to the dignity of the wearer. 
 Thus, the Lord is often distinguished by a broader 
 clavus than those of the apostles, as in a fine 
 fresco in the cemetery of St. Agues (Ferret, 
 Catacombs, ii. pi. xxiv.). Undistinguished per¬ 
 sons also wore clavi, but very narrow. In neaidy 
 all cases these clavi are two in number, and run 
 from each shoulder to the lower border of the 
 dress. This arrangement of the clavi is alluded 
 to in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, where 
 the Good Shepherd is said to have appeared to' 
 the former “ distinctam habens tunicam inter 
 duos clavos per medium pectus” (Ruinart, Acta 
 Sincera, p. 32, ed. Verona). Tertullian {De Pallio, 
 c. 4) speaks of the care which was taken in the 
 selection of shades of colour. 
 
 There are a few examples of the single clavus, 
 running down the centre of the breast, which 
 Rubenius believes to have been the ancient fashion 
 of wearing it. These occur only in repre¬ 
 sentations of the Three Children in the fiery 
 furnace (Bottari, Sculture e Pitture, tav. cxlix. 
 clxxxi.). Clavi are common to both sexes; 
 women may be seen represented with that orna¬ 
 ment, for instance, in pictures of the Wise and 
 Foolish Virgins (Bottari, tav. clviii.); and female 
 figures are sometimes found adorned with two 
 clavi on each side. Jerome {Epist. 22, ad Eu- 
 stochium) alludes to the use of the clavus by 
 women, single as well as married. It is also 
 common in early art to personages of the Old 
 Testament and the New; it is given to Moses, 
 for instance, in a painting engraved by Ferret 
 (i. pi. xxiv.), and to the apostles in nearly all 
 representations of them, whether in fresco, in 
 mosaic, or in glass. Angels also wear the clavus 
 in early mosaics, as may be seen in Examples 
 given by Ciampini {Vet. Mon. i. tab. xlvi.; ii. 
 tab. XV.), in the Menologium of Basil (see parti¬ 
 cularly Dec. 16 and Dec. 29), and in several 
 ancient miniatures. 
 
 These purple stripes were worn on the penula 
 as well as the tunic: a fresco from an arcosolium 
 in the cemetery of Pidscilla (Bottari, tav. clxii.) 
 furnishes three examj)les. They are found also 
 in the pallium : a mosaic of St. Agatha Major at 
 Ravenna represents our Lord with clavi of gold 
 on such a garment. The dalmatic and colobium 
 were similarly decorated : the latter seems to 
 have had only one broad band of purple (latus 
 clavus) descending from the upper part of the 
 chest to the feet. See the Christian sarcophagi 
 engraved by Bottari (tav. xxdi. cxxxvii. and 
 other.s). 
 
 Priests, after the example of the senatore of 
 
 old Rome, are said to have worn the broad clavus, 
 while deacons contented themselves with the 
 narrow one on their tunics or dalmatics. The 
 clavus is sometimes represented as descendiiig 
 only to the middle of the chest: it is in these 
 cases decorated with small discs or sj)angles, and 
 terminates in small globes or bullae. This is said 
 to be the kind of decoration which is sometimes 
 called para(faudis. (Rubenius, De Re Vestiaria et 
 praecipue de Lato Clavo, Antwerp, 1665 ; Mar- 
 tigny, Diet, des Antiq. chrdt. s. v. Clavus.) [C.] 
 
 CLEMENT. (1) Of Ancyra, martyr, a.d. 
 296 ; is commemorated Jan. 23 {Cal. Pyzant.). 
 
 (2) Pope, martyr at Rome under Trajan, Nor. 
 
 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae, Rom. Vet., Usuardi); 
 
 Nov. 24 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) Of Alexandria ; is commemorated Dec. 4 
 
 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLEMENTINE LITURGY. [Liturgy.] 
 
 CLEMENTINUS, martyr at Heraclea, Nov. 
 14 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLEONICUS, martyr, a.d. 296 ; is comme¬ 
 morated March 3 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CLEOPHAS, martyr, at Emmaus, Sept. 25 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLERESTORY, or Clearstory. Al 
 upper story or row of windows in a church,, 
 rising clear above the adjoining parts of the 
 building. As the clerestory was a common fea¬ 
 ture in the old civil basilica, it was j)robably 
 soon adopted in buildings of the same type used 
 for ecclesiastical purposes. See for instance, the 
 ancient basilica of St. Peter at Rome, under 
 Church, p. 370 ; also p. 381. [C.] 
 
 CLERGY. [Clerus; Immunities of Clergy.] 
 
 CLERMONT, COUNCILS OF. [Galli- 
 CAX Councils.] 
 
 CLERUS, deacon, martyr at Antioch, Jan. 7 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLERUS (and Clericus = one of the Clerus), 
 at first equivalent to the whole body of the 
 faithful, as being the lot or inheritance of the 
 Lord (1 Pet. v. 3 = K\Tjp9uopia, v. Theodoret, ad 
 loc., and so still used by e.g. Theophanes, Horn. 
 xii. 70, quoted by Suicer); but appropriated 
 almost immediately to all, “qui in ecclesiastici 
 ministerii gradibus ordinati sunt ” (Isid. Hispal. 
 De Eccl. Offic. ii. 1); the distinction of clergy 
 and laity being found in 1 Cor. xiv. 16, and in 
 St. Clement of Rome, and the term being applied 
 to the former exclusively, “ vel quia de sorte 
 sunt Domini, vel quia Ipse Dominus sors, id est, 
 pars clericorum est ” (St. Jerpme, Ad Ne})otian., 
 followed by Isidore, as above, and by Rab. Maur. 
 De Instit. Cleric, i. 2). The more modern de¬ 
 rivation, fi’om the lots cast at the appointment 
 of St. Matthias (so e. g. Suicer), seems set aside 
 by the fact, that clergy were not chosen by lot. 
 The word clericus was further subdivided when 
 the minor orders came into existence; all being 
 called clervci {iravras K\T]piKovs KaXovfifv, Justin. 
 Novell, cxxiii. 19), but the name being also some¬ 
 times given in particular to the lertores, psalm- 
 istae, ostiariiy &c. who “ clericorum nomen reti- 
 nent ” (Cone. CarMa( 7 . iii. a.d. 397, c. 21); and 
 who in later centuries are often so called exclu- 
 
CLETUS 
 
 sively, while the three proper orders became dis¬ 
 tinguished as “ primi clerici ” (Coi. Theodos. lib. 
 xiii. De Judaeis et CoelicoL), and the lower orders 
 as “ int'erioris loci” (i6. leg. 41). See also the Can. 
 Apost. 17, al. 18, 24, al. 25, 30, .al. 31, 84; and 
 Cone. Laodiccn. cc. 24, 27, 30, the latter distin¬ 
 guishing the UpariKoi from the KX'qpiKoi, i.e. 
 bisho 2 )s, priests, and deacons, from subdeacons, 
 readers, &c. The terms majores and minores 
 ordines are of much later date. In Cone. 
 Chalced. a.d. 451, can. 2, KXrjpiKhs appears to be 
 used as coextensive with those in the Kaviiv or 
 roll, and to include expressly even the oeeono- 
 tnus and the defensor.! &c. In c. 3 of the same 
 council it is opposed to bishop on the one hand, 
 and to layman and monk on the other. On the 
 other hand, the term is sometimes found actually 
 used of monks, even as early as by Sozomen (viii. 
 18) ; and, again, by St. Germanus of Paris, by 
 Gregory of Tours {De Glor. Mart. ii. 21, and fre¬ 
 quently), and by many later writers quoted in 
 Du Cano-e. The use of the term as meaning a 
 scholar {ypafXfxaTuv itnerTr^fiot/fs only ought to be 
 made clerici, according to Justinian, Novell, vi. 4, 
 cxxiii. 12) dates from the 11th century. The 
 introduction of monks made yet a third class, 
 besides clergy and laity. And the term ‘ regu- 
 laris’ coming into use when Regulae began to 
 multiply, and when monachism was becoming 
 regarded as ‘ religion,’ i. e. about the 8th cen¬ 
 tury, the term ‘ saecularis ’ also lost gradually 
 its general sense of ‘ worldly,’ and became 
 simply the antithesis of a ‘ regular ’ or monk ; 
 the latter term, however, including canons also 
 at their first institution (“ Canonici, idest, Kegu- 
 lares Clerici,” in the so-called Egbert’s Excerpts, 
 in Pref., and so also Cone. Aquisgran. a.d. 789, 
 c. 73). Clericus regularis would thenceforth 
 mean a clergyman who was also a monk; and 
 Clericus saecularis,^. parish clergyman, or one who 
 kept a school, or lived in any way not under a 
 rule; the class being called ‘ clerici ’ simply in 
 Capit. i. c. 23 of a.d. 802 = “ parochitani pres- 
 byteri,” in Cone. Emerit. A.D. 666, c. 18. Canons, 
 however, were soon classed as distinct from 
 Regulars; as e. g. in the laws of Charles the 
 Great (in Murator. tom. I. P. ii. p. 100. 6, quoted 
 by Du Cange),—“ V’’igilauter curent [Episcopi], ut 
 Canonici secundum canones et Regulares secun¬ 
 dum regulam vivant.” In Cone. Vernons, a.d. 
 755, c. 3, the clerus are distinguished from the 
 regulares (Labbe, vi. 1665), which seems the 
 earliest instance of the use of the latter term. 
 The further distinction of Canonici themselves 
 into Regulars and Seculars (canons who had, and 
 canons who had not, a canon or rule) dates from 
 A.D. 1059, when Pope Nicolas II. substituted a 
 new rule for the original rule for Canons enacted 
 at Aix-la-Chapelle, followed by a yet stricter rule 
 enjoined by Ivo, bishop of Chartres; those who 
 adopted the rule of Nicolas being styled Saccular, 
 while those who preferred Ivo’s were called 
 Regular or Augustinian Canons. [A. W. H.] 
 
 CLETUS, or ANACLETUS, pope, martyr 
 at Home under Domitian, April 26 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Csuardi). [C.] 
 
 CLTCHY, COUNCILS OF [Clippiacense], 
 near Paris ; provincial:—(1) a.d. 628, summoned 
 by Lothaire, but nothing more known of it (Labb. 
 Cone. V. 1854, from Airnain). (2) a.d. 633, in 
 the presence of Dagobert, respecting the sanctuary 
 
 CLOVESHO, COUNCILS OF 397 
 
 of St. Denis (Labb. ib.'). (3) A.D. 659, in which 
 
 Clovis II. confirmed certain privileges to St. Denis 
 {ib. vi. 489, sq.). [A. W. H.] 
 
 CLBIACUS, JOHN, Holy Father, i, avy- 
 ypa(p€vs rrjs KKipaKos, A.D. 570 ; is comme¬ 
 morated March 30 {Cal. Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 CLINIC BAPTISM. [Sick, Visitation of.] 
 CLIPPIACENSE CONCILIUM. [Clichy.] 
 
 CLOISTER {Clan strum, Claustra, fern.). 
 The word claustrum applies strictly to the wall 
 or enclosure of a monastery ; as in the phrase 
 “ claustra monasteidorum,” in the 22nd and 29th 
 canons of the third council of Tours. Thence it 
 became a name for a monastery. According to 
 the definition of the Breviloquium, “ claustrum 
 dicitur inhabitatio religiosorum, vel domus in- 
 cludens monachos et moniales sub certa regula 
 viventes.” In this sense it is frequently used 
 in the Capitularies of Charlemagne, where we 
 read of “ claustra monachorum, canonicoruni, 
 clericorum.” Compare French cloitre, German 
 Kloster. A Roman synod of the year 826 (c. 7) 
 enjoins that a cloister should be formed near each 
 church, for the better discipline and instruction 
 of the clerks. 
 
 But claustrum (like our word cloister) is ap¬ 
 plied in a special sense to the quadrangle of a 
 monastery, or college of canons, one side of which 
 is generally formed by the church, and the 
 others by the conventual buildings, and which 
 frequently has an arcade or colonnade running 
 round the sides,, to seiwe as an ambulatory. This 
 was assigned in some ancient statutes as the 
 place for the reading of the monks in suitable 
 weather. The ancient 07'do Conversnt. Monast. 
 c. 9, desires that the monks of a convent should 
 assemble in one place for their reading, or sit in 
 the cloister. Similarly Hildemar (MS. Conime d. 
 on Benedict’s Rule, c. 48, quoted by Martene) 
 and Dunstan {Concordia, c. 5) desire the monks, 
 after terce and mass, to sit in the cloister to 
 read. • 
 
 The monks of St. Gall in the 9th centurv ex- 
 eluded from their cloister all secular ])ersons 
 whatever, unless under the guidance of a brother 
 and wearing a monk’s hood. (Ducange's Glos¬ 
 sary, s. V. Claustrum; Martene, De Ritibus 
 Monachorum, lib. i. c. vii. § 4; lib. ii. c. iii. 
 
 § 19.) [C.] 
 
 CLOISTER SCHOOLS. [Schools.] 
 
 CLOVESHO, COUNCILS OF, provincial; 
 locality unknown, except that it was in the 
 kingdom of Mercia, and probably near London 
 (Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. iii. 122). It was 
 selected by the Council of Hertford, a.d. 673, as 
 the place for the yearly synod of the English 
 Church {ib. 120), yet (singular to say) the first 
 recorded Council of Clovesho was not until 
 
 (1) A.D. 716, when the privilege of Wihtred of 
 Kent to the churches of Kent was confirmed by 
 a gtiieral .synod of the English bishops, under 
 Ethelbald, king of Mercia (Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Counc. iii. 300-302). This was followed by 
 
 (2) A.D. 742, a council, also under Ethelbald, 
 for the same purpose (i6. 340-342); and (3) A.D. 
 747, September, the Great Council under Cuth- 
 bert for reformation of abuse.s, communicated to, 
 but aj)parently not suggested by, St. Boniface of 
 Mentz (see the acts and letters, &c. ib. 360-385); 
 
398 
 
 COADJUTOR BISHOP 
 
 COCK 
 
 which appointed also a festival day foi* both St. 
 Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canter¬ 
 bury. (4) A.D. 794, ciilled “ Synodale Conci¬ 
 lium,” and “ Sanctum Concilium ” : two grants 
 are extant made there (Kemble’s Codex Diplo- 
 muticU', 164-167 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils. 
 486-485). (5) A.D. 798, referred wrongly by 
 
 Spelman to a.d. 800: some charters were passed 
 tliere (Kemble’s Codex Uiplotnoticus, 175, 186, 
 1019; Haddan' and Stubb.s, iii. 512-518). 
 There are intimations also of the annual synod 
 having been held, but without mention of the 
 place (^e.g. a.d. 704, and 736 or 737, both 
 Mercian councils, and again, a.d. 755, Haddan 
 and Stubbs, ib. 267, 337, 390), which may 
 easily therefore have been Clovesho, and pro¬ 
 bably was so. [A. W. H.] 
 
 COADJUTOR BISHOP, with a right of 
 succession, was distinctly against canon; on the 
 principle that such an appointment interfered 
 with the right of election in clergy and people, 
 &c. [Bishop.] The institution of chorepiscopi 
 appears to have been among the earliest plans 
 for meeting the case of overgrown dioceses. But 
 instances must have occurred at all times of 
 bishops incapacitated by sickness either of body 
 or mind, or b}^ old age. And under such circum¬ 
 stances resignations were, although grudgingly, 
 permitted. [Bishop.] Nevertheless, coadjutors 
 also,—meaning by the term full bishops, but 
 acting simply in place of the proper occupant of 
 the see (still remaining so), and with no right 
 of succession,—occur, although at first rarely; 
 almost eveiy early case being mixed up with the 
 succession-question. St. Ambrose certainly speaks 
 of a coadjutor in this special sense being given to 
 BishopBassus, “in consortium regendaeecclesiae” 
 (EpisL 79). And the 5th Council of Paris (a.d. 
 577), considerably later, contemplates the case 
 as an exceptionally legitimate one. “ Nullus 
 episcoporum se vivente alium in loco suo eligat, 
 
 . . . nisi certae conditiones extiterint ut ecclesiam 
 suam et clerum regere non posset ” (can. 2). 
 And in course of time such coadjutors became at 
 length common, and were provided for by, e.g. 
 Boniface VlII. (in Sexto c. Fastorcdis). St. Gre¬ 
 gory the Great meets the case of temporary 
 sickness by the temporary help of a neighbour¬ 
 ing bishop; but in more permanent cases he 
 distinctly recommends a coadjutor, but without 
 right of succession, as, e.g. in the case of John 
 of Justiniana Prima (6f. Gregory M. Epist. 
 IX. 41). [A. W. H.] 
 
 COARB (Coicarb, Comharba, Latinized, into 
 Corba, = Conterraneus, or ejusdem terrae, or dis- 
 trictus —so Colgan), the title in the Celtic-Irish 
 and Scottish churches, of the abbatial successor 
 of the original founder of a monastery. So an 
 abbat of Hy would be called the Coarb of 
 Columba; of A’^raagh, the Coarb of Patrick; of 
 Raphoe, the Coarb of Adamnan, &c., &c. The 
 word occurs much earlier in the Annalists ; but 
 its common use dates from late in the 8th century, 
 when such abbacies had become hereditary in 
 many cases, and not only so, but had passed into 
 the hands, in some instances, of laymen, while a 
 prior discharged the spiritual office. The trans¬ 
 formation in lapse of time of the Herenach or 
 Airchinneach, who was originally the represen¬ 
 tative of the lay Adcocatus of the monastery, 
 bu,t gradually usurped the position of hereditary 
 
 lay posse.s.sor of his original third of the produce 
 of monastic lands, brought him also by a different 
 line to a condition closely resembling what the 
 lay coarbs became (as e.g. at Dunkeld); so that 
 the coarb became to a monastery what the 
 herenach was to any church, monastic or not. 
 A female coarb occurs once or twice (Reeves, ad 
 Adamn. V. S. Columbne, Add. Notes, p. 404). 
 Coarbs that were still clergy, became styled 
 in Ireland in later times Pleh mi = rural deans, 
 or archpresbyters, or chorepiscopi (in the later 
 sense of the word), i.e. the head of a “ jdebs 
 ecclesiastica,” viz. of clergy who served chaj)els 
 under him as rector. [Reeves, Colton’s i'isi- 
 tatio7i, pp. 4 note, 145, 209; Sj)elman, Gloss, 
 in V. Corba; E. W. Robertson, Early Scotl. i. 
 330.] [A. \V. H.] 
 
 COAT, THE HOLY. Its miracles are com¬ 
 memorated on Oct. 1 in the Georgian Calendar. 
 
 COCHLEAR. [Spoon.] [C. 
 
 COCK. Representations of this bird occur 
 frequently on tombs from the earliest period. 
 When not associated with the figure of St. Peter, 
 as Bottari, tav. Ixxxiv., or placed on a pillar, as 
 Boldetti, p. 360; Bottari, taw. xxxiv. xxiii., &c., 
 it appears to be a symbol of the Resurrection, our 
 Lord being supposed by the early Church to have 
 bi'oken from the grave at the early cock-crowing. 
 A peculiar awe seems always to have attached to 
 that hour, at which all wandering spirits have 
 through the Middle Ages been supposed to vanish 
 from the earth. Hamlet and the ancient ballad 
 called The Wife of Usher’s Well occur to us as 
 salient examples of an universal superstition. 
 Prudentius’ hymn Ad Galli Cantum {Cathem. i. 
 16) adopts the idea of the cock-crowing as a call 
 to the general judgment (“ Nostri figura est 
 judicis ”); and further on (45 seqq.) he says : 
 
 * Hoc esge signum praescii 
 Noverunt proniissae spci, 
 
 Qua nos sopore liberi 
 Speramus adventum DeL” 
 
 And again, 65 seqq.: 
 
 " Hide est, quod onines crediraus, 
 lllo quietis tempore, 
 
 Quo gallus exultans canit, 
 
 Cbristum redisse ex inferis." 
 
 See Aringhi, vol. ii. pp. 328-9 (in a complete list 
 of animal symbols). Fighting-cocks (see the pas¬ 
 sage last quoted) seem to symbolize the combat 
 
CODEX CANONUM 
 
 CODEX CANONUM 
 
 399 
 
 with secular or sensual temptations. The prac¬ 
 tice pf training them for combat has probably 
 always existed in the East, and certainly was in 
 favour at Athens (cf. Aristoph. Av., aipe v\i]K- 
 Tfjou, et ixa.')(^e7, &c.). tor a symbol drawn from 
 such a pastime, compare St. Paul’s use ot the 
 word vircoTrid^w (1 Cor. ix. 27). See Bottari, vol. 
 iii. t. 137. 
 
 Two cocks accompany the Good Shephei’d in 
 Bottari, tav. clxxii. (from the tympanum of an 
 arch in the cemetery of St. Agnes). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CODEX CANONUM ECCLESIAE 
 
 GRAECAE. 
 
 „ „ „ ROM AN A E. 
 
 „ „ „ UNIYERSAE. 
 
 To treat of them in their chronological order, 
 we must reverse their alphabetical, and proceed 
 from the last to the first. Dionysius Exiguus, 
 in dedicating his own collection (Migne’s Patrol. 
 Ixvii. 139) to Stephen, bishop of Salona, speaks 
 of two collections anterior to it; one in Greek of 
 165 canons, according to him, terminating with 
 the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381; and 
 another in Latin, long ago translated from the 
 Greek, which he had in fact been asked to im¬ 
 prove upon. The Greek collection was composed 
 of 20 canons passed at Nicaea ; 25 at Ancyra 
 (which he reckons as 24); 14 at Neocaesarea; 
 20 at Gangra; 25 at Antioch; 59 at Laodicea ; 
 and 6 at Constantinople (which he gives as 3). 
 All had been framed in the 4th centurv; and as 
 they begin with the first General Council and end 
 with the second, the probability is that they were 
 put together so as to form a collection before 
 the date of the 4th Council, by the 1st canon of 
 which they were confirmed, and in the acts 
 of which they are more than once cited as still 
 numbered iu this collection. [CoxciL. Chalced.] 
 To it we may suppose to have been appended 
 meanwhile—Justellus (Patrol, ih. p. 29) thinks 
 by Stephen, bishop of Ephesus, who attended the 
 4th Council, as there seems to be a collection of 
 his still extant containing them—the 8 canons 
 of Ephesus : and it was further enlarged by the 
 canons of Chalcedon on being confirmed there. 
 In this shape it was ordered to have the force of 
 law by the Emperor Justinian in his 131st Novel. 
 Whether it included more than 27 canons of 
 Chalcedon is, however, open to question; as 
 Dionysius, who must have translated it rather 
 before then, ends with the 27th, telling Stephen 
 expressly, “ iu his Graecorum canonum finem esse 
 declaramus.” And so far is he from standing 
 alone in this, that even John Scholasticus, a 
 presbyter of Antioch, who became patriarch of 
 Constantinople in the last year of Justinian, 
 attributes no more than 27 canons to the Council 
 of Chalcedon in his collection, by which he means 
 of course the first 27. With these, therefore, 
 this code terminated. The Ephesiue canons in¬ 
 deed are not translated by Dionysius, nor in the 
 o’d Latin version of which he speaks; but they 
 are particularly named by Justinian : and John 
 S.’holasticus, though he reckons them at seven, 
 has quoted the 8th, passing over the 7th in all 
 probability for no other reason than its irrele¬ 
 vancy to the subject-matter of his collection. 
 Still this code, though it was probably con¬ 
 firmed at Chalcedon, and became law for the 
 emi)ire under Justinian in this shape, seems 
 never to have been received in this shape pre¬ 
 
 cisely by the Roman or the Greek Church. 
 John Scholasticus, whose descrij)tion of it, 
 checked by the number of canons assigned to it 
 by Dionysius, has been here followed in pre¬ 
 ference to the Greek version edite 1 by Justellus, 
 which is of later date (v. append, ad op. S. Leon, 
 ap. Migne, Patrol. Ivi. p. 18), prefaces it.by 85 
 canons of the Apostles, as he calls them; inter¬ 
 polates it with 21 canons of Sardica; and tacks 
 to it 68 of St. Basil. Similarly, Dionysius Exiguus, 
 prefacing it with 50 canons of the Apostle.s, omits 
 the Ephesine, but appends, over and above the 21 
 Sardican, no less than 138 African canons : in 
 other words, the entire code of the African 
 Church elsewhere described. Out of these two 
 collections were formed separately, (1) the code 
 of the Roman, and (2) the code of the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 1. Dionysius, as we have seen, speaks of an 
 old Latin version anterior to his own; and all he 
 I’emarks on it is its “ confusion.” It was first 
 pixblished by Voellus and Henry, son of Chris¬ 
 topher, Justelluf?, A.D. 1661, vol. i. pp. 276-304 
 of their Bibliotheca Juris Canonici 1 eteris ; and 
 afterwai'ds in a more perfect form, by the Bal- 
 lerini, in their learned disquisitions “ De anti- 
 quis collectiouibus et collectoribus canonum,” 
 appended to their edition of the works of St. Leo 
 (Migne’s Patrol. Ivi. 747-816). It exhibits 24 
 Ancyran canons, 14 Neocaesarean, 21 Nicene 
 (besides the ci-eed), 21 Sardican, 20 Gangran, 25 
 Antiochian, 27 Chalcedonian, 4 Constantino{) 0 - 
 litan; and then unnumbered, but as though 
 belonging to the last, the 28th canon of Chalce¬ 
 don, “De primatu ecclesiaeConstantinopolitanae.” 
 This doubtless was its “confusion” in the eyes 
 of Dionysius; and of course the canons of Con¬ 
 stantinople should have preceded those of Chal¬ 
 cedon. But further, at the head of the bishops 
 subscribing to the 28th canon of Chalcedon, 
 immediately before the Roman legates;, is Nec- 
 tarius, who had been previously and rightly 
 mentioned among the framers of the Constanti- 
 nopolitan canons. Dionysius corrected this inac¬ 
 curacy by omitting the 28th canon of Chalcedon 
 altogether. The fact of its existence there proxies, 
 however, that this old version could not have 
 been very much earlier than that of Dion)'sius 
 himself, and also that it could never have been 
 of any authority in the Roman Church. 
 
 That there was any regularly authorised col¬ 
 lection in the Roman Church, in short, before 
 Dionysius brought out his, seems improbable for 
 the very reasons which the Ballerini bring for¬ 
 ward in proof of qne ; namely, that till then the 
 Sardican and Nicene canons, undistinguished from 
 each other, and cited under the latter name, 
 formed its exclusive code : for this rather shews 
 —conformably with xvhat pa.ssed between Poj'e 
 Zosimus and the African church—that up to 
 that time Rome was not conscious of having 
 accepted any but the Nicene canons. At all 
 events, no earlier collection of a public cha¬ 
 racter including more than these, and used there, 
 has been brought to light on their own shewing 
 (i6. p. 63-88), as with the collections obtaining 
 in Africa, Spain, Britain, and France we are not 
 concerned. That the want of a similar collection 
 at Rome had been felt, we may infer from the 
 immediate welcome given there to that of Dio¬ 
 nysius. Cassiodorus, his contemporary, and a 
 Roman by birth, says iu his praise that “ he com- 
 
4C0 
 
 CODEX CANONTTM 
 
 CODEX CANOXUM 
 
 piled lucidly, and with great flow of eloquence, [ 
 from Greek sources, those canons which the 
 Roman church was then embi'acing, and using 
 so largely” (IHvin. Lect. c. 23): and Dionysius 
 made them doubly acceptable there by suj)ple- 
 meuting them with a collection of the decrees of 
 the Roman pontifls from Siricius to Anastasius II., 
 or from A.n. 383 to 498 ; which, in his dedicatory 
 preface to Julian, “presbyter of the title of St. 
 Anastasia,” he says he had arranged on the same 
 plan as his translation of the canons—a work 
 that he understood had given his friend so much 
 pleasure. Whether Dionysius omitted the canons 
 of Ephesus, as not being canons in the ordinary 
 sense of the word—which they are not [Concil. 
 El’ll.]—or because they were not in the old 
 Latin version, as observed before, or becau.se 
 they were not in the particular Greek version 
 used by him, is not, and probably will never be 
 made clear. Again, why he added the Sardican 
 canons, carefully distinguished from the Nicene, 
 is another question of some interest. What he 
 says is that he gave them as he found them 
 published, in Latin. Had they not, then, been 
 published in Greek likewise ? Certainly, whether 
 published in Greek as well as in Latin originally, 
 or translated into Greek since, we know from 
 what John Scholasticus says—of which presently 
 —that there must have been at least one Greek 
 collection of canons extant, at once containing 
 and citing them as the canons of Sardica—not of 
 Nicaea—when he published his, so that it would 
 have been useless for any Latin to have tried 
 keeping up the delusion of their being Nicene 
 canons any longer. But then supposing him to 
 have been willing to do .so, had it been possible, 
 his own spontaneous adoption of the African 
 canons would have been a still greater puzzle. 
 For if the canons of Sardica distinctly coun¬ 
 tenance, by making provision for, appeals to 
 Rome, the African canons contain the most po¬ 
 sitive declaration against them to be found in 
 history. [African Councils.] By his adoption 
 of the African canons, therefore, which he says 
 existed in Latin, and, as there seems every reason 
 to think, in Latin only then, from their not being 
 included by John Scholasticus, he placed his own 
 candour beyond dispute; thus enhancing the in¬ 
 trinsic merits of his collection. How he came 
 by his materials for the second part, or appendix 
 to it, consisting of the decrees of the Roman 
 pontiffs from the end of the 4th to the end of the 
 5th century, he omits to explain. He merely 
 says that he had inserted all he could find; 
 which is as much as to say, surely, that there 
 was no collection of them extant to his know¬ 
 ledge before his own. That there was one some¬ 
 where, notwithstanding, the Ballerini think highly 
 probable {ih. p. 200-6). However, they readily 
 grant that in each case the excellence of his col¬ 
 lections was so generally recog-uized as to make 
 them adopted everywhere. One speedily became 
 styled “ Codex Canonum the other, “ Liber J)e- 
 crctorum and both were presented, with some 
 later additions to each, as some think of his own 
 insertion or adoption, by Pope Adrian 1. to Charle¬ 
 magne, A.D. 787, with a dedication in verse at all 
 events as from himself, ending in these woi'ds : 
 
 “ A lege nunquam di.scede, haec observans statuta.” 
 It was ))rinted at Mayence A.D. 1525, and after¬ 
 wards at Paris, as “ Codex vetus ecclesiae lio- 
 manae’’' {Patrol. Ixvii. 135-8, and Ivi. 206-11); 
 
 I a title which belonged to it long before then, as, 
 together with all other authentic collections ia 
 the West, it had been supplanted gradually by 
 the fraudulent collection known as that of Isidore 
 Mercator, or Peccator, and first published in the 
 latter half of the 9th century. 
 
 2. We may now turn to the code of the Greek 
 church, founded, as has been said, on the col¬ 
 lection of John Scholasticus ostensibly, though 
 his was not the earliest work of the kind when 
 it came out. Like Dionysius, he sj)eaks of another, 
 or rather of others, who had anticipated him, 
 even in his plan of arranging the canons, not in 
 their chronological order, but according to their 
 subject-matter ; the only difference between him 
 and them being that they had made their col¬ 
 lection consist of sixty titles; he of fifty; they 
 had omitted the canons of St. Basil; he had sup¬ 
 plied them. In other respects his collection in¬ 
 cluded no more than theirs, nor theirs than his : 
 though he considered his own arrangement more 
 intelligible, and the more so as he had given a 
 list at starting of the councils from which he 
 had drawn, and of the number of canons passed 
 by each. In his own language, for instance, 
 the Apostles had published 85 canons through 
 St. Clement; and there had been ten synod* 
 since their time, Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, 
 Sardica, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, Constan¬ 
 tinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedou, whose canons 
 together amounted to 224 (their respective num¬ 
 bers have been anticipated) ; to which he had 
 ventured to append 68 of St. Basil. His posi¬ 
 tion as Patriarch of Constantinople, doubtless, 
 stamped his collection with authority from the 
 first. But, like Dionysius, he rendered it still 
 more acceptable for another reason, namely, that 
 he supplemented it by a second work called his 
 Nomocanon, from containing in addition the 
 laws of the emperors. Thus the imperial decrees 
 became mixed up with the code of the East, just 
 as the papal decrees with that of the West. 
 
 The earlier of his collections received autho¬ 
 ritative confirmation, as well as enlargement, in 
 the 7th century, by the second of the Trullan 
 canons, given in a former article. [CoNCiL. 
 Constant.] And this code was further aug¬ 
 mented by the 102 canons then passed, authori¬ 
 tatively received in the 1st canon of the 2nd 
 Nicene, or 7th Council. This Council added 22 
 canons of its own; and the two Councils of 
 Constantinople, called the 1st and 2nd under 
 Photius, 17 and 3 more respectively: all which 
 wei’e incorporated by Photius into two works of 
 his own, corresponding to those of his predecessor 
 John, already described ; one called his S'intagma 
 Canonum, and the other his Nomocanon (^ligne’s 
 Patrol. Gr. civ. 441-1218). But there is also 
 a third work, distinct from both, attributed to 
 him by Cardinal Mai, being the identical text of 
 the canons of each of the councils previously 
 mentioned, in their chronological order (exhi¬ 
 bited by Beveridge, Synod, vol. i.); followed by 
 the canons of the different fathers, enumerated in 
 the 2nd Trullan canon {Synod, vol. ii.), and by 
 the letter of St. Taraslus to Pope Adrian 1. against 
 simoniacal ordinations; on which Balsamon, Zo- 
 uaras, and Aristenus afterwards commented, and 
 called his Synagoge Canonum {Patrol, ib. p. 431). 
 Such accordingly was, and, so far as it goes, is 
 still the code of the Greek Church : the differences 
 between it .and that of the Roman Church may be 
 
I 
 
 CODEX 
 
 appreciated by concpariug their respective com¬ 
 ponents. [E. S. b.] 
 
 CODEX. [Lituugical Books.] 
 
 COEN A E. [.\gapak.] 
 
 COENA DOMINI. [Maundy Thursday.] 
 C0P:NA pub a. [Good Friday.] 
 
 COENOBIUM (koiuS^iov). The word “ coe- 
 nobium ” is equivalent to “ monasterium in 
 the later sense of that word. Cassian dis¬ 
 tinguishes the word thus. “ Monasterium,” he 
 .says, may be the dwelling of a single monk, 
 “ coenobium ” must be of several ; the former 
 word, he adds, e.xpresses only the place, the 
 latter the manner of living (Coll, xviii. 10). The 
 neglect of this distinction has led to much in- 
 accuracY in attempting to fix the date of the 
 first “ coenobia ” or communities of monks under 
 one roof and under one government. Thus Helyot 
 (Hist, des Ordr. Mon. Diss. Prelim. § 5) ascribes 
 their origin to Antony, the famous anchorite of 
 the Thebaid in the 3rd century. But the counter- 
 opinion, which ascribes it to Pachomius of Tabenua 
 a century later is more probable (cf. Tillem. 
 H. E. vii. 167, 176, 676); for it seems to have 
 been the want of some fixed rule to control the 
 irregularities arising from the vast number of 
 eremitae, with their cells either entirely isolated 
 from one another or merely grouped together 
 casually, which gave the first occasion to coe¬ 
 nobia.” ]\Iarteue indeed makes the community 
 monastic prior in time to the solitary life (Comm, 
 in Beg. S. B. c. 1); but in this he appeal’s to 
 be misled by the common error of attaching to 
 “ monasterium ” (g.ovaffTfipiov') in the oldest 
 writers the meaning, which it assumed only in 
 course of time (cf. Tillem. H. E. vii. 102). Cassian 
 himself in the very passage cited by Martene in 
 support of this theory, distinctly traces back the 
 word to the solitaries (ot novd^ovres'), the earliest 
 of monks (Coll, xviii. 5). In allowing that the 
 earliest mention of Lauras occurs a little before 
 the middle of the 4th century, Helyot supplies 
 a strong argument against himself (Diss. Prel. 
 § 5). I^r the Lauras were an attempt at com¬ 
 bining the detached hermitages into a sort of 
 community, though without the order and regu¬ 
 larity which constituted a “coenobium;” and 
 thus appear to have been a stepping-stone to¬ 
 wards the “coenobium ” of Pachomius. In view 
 of other considerations to the contrary, much 
 importance cannot be attached to the passage 
 which Helyot cites from the Vita Antonii, called 
 by St. Athanasius, as it may probably be one of 
 the many Interpolations there; nor to the pass¬ 
 age from Rut}inus(/)e Verb. Sen. 31) which speak 
 of Pior being dismissed at the early age of 25 
 ^by Antony, as already fit to live alone, for there 
 is nothing here about a community, only about 
 Pior being himself trained by the great eremite 
 (cf. Tillem. H. E. vii. 109). In fact, the growth 
 of coenobitism seems to have been very gradual. 
 L.arge numbers of ascetics were collected near 
 the Mons Nitrius (Ruff. /list. Mon. 30 [v. Cel- 
 litae]), and doubtless elsewhere also, even before 
 Pachomius had founded his coenobium. But the 
 interval is considerable between this very im¬ 
 perfect organisation of monks thus herding law¬ 
 lessly together (Pallad. Eist. Bans. c. 7), and 
 the svmmetricjil arrangement of the Benedictine 
 system. Tabenna forms the connecting link. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 COENOBIUM 401 
 
 V'ery probably the earliest coenobia were of 
 women; for, though the word no.gdivuv, in the 
 <account of Antony having his sister in the 
 charge of devout women (Ath. Vita Ant.) is by 
 no means conclusive (but cf. Tillem. //. E. vii. 
 107), the female eremites would naturally be 
 the first to feel the need of combination for 
 mutual help and security. 
 
 The origin of the coenobitic life is traced back 
 to the time befoi’e the Christian era. Something 
 similar is seen in the pages of Plato (Legg. 
 780, 1), and the Pythagoreans are described by 
 Aulus Gellius, as living together and having a 
 community of goods ( Noctes Atticae, i. 9). 
 
 Opinions have been divided among the admirers 
 of asceticism as to the comparative merits of the 
 solitary life and the coenobitic. Cassian looks 
 up to the life of perfect solitude as the pinnacle 
 of holiness, for which the coenobitic life is only 
 a preparatory discipline (e. g. Coll. xix. 3). Theo- 
 phylact interprets “ those who bear fruit an 
 hundredfold ” in the parable as virgins and 
 eremites (S. Marc. iv. 20). Basil, on the 
 contrary, and the sagacious Benedict, prefer the 
 life of the coenobite as safer, more edifying, less 
 alloyed by the taint of selfishness. (Bas. Reg. 
 c. 7, Bened. Reg. c. 1.) So, too, Isidorus His- 
 palensis, one of the founders of monasticism in 
 Spain (De Off. Ecc. ii. 15, ap. Cone. Reg. iii.), 
 and Cuthbert of Lindisfarne (Mab. Ann. xvi. 
 72). Even Jerome, his monastic fervour notwith¬ 
 standing, prefers life in the community to life 
 in uttei’ solitude; though at first he seems to 
 have been a zealous upholder of the contrary 
 opinion (Hier. Epp. ad Rustic. 125; cf. ad Ile- 
 liod. 14). Doubtless experience had impressed 
 on him the perils of solitude. Legislators found 
 it expedient to curb the rage for eremitism. 
 Justinian ordered monks to stay within the 
 .“ coenobia ” (Novell, v. ap. Suic. Thes. s. v. cf. 
 Cone. Carth. c. 47; cf. Cone. Agath. c. 38). 
 Similarly the great Karl discouraged hermits, 
 while protecting coenobitic monks (e. g. Cone. 
 Francof. 794 a.d. c. 12), and the 7th Coun¬ 
 cil of Toledo censured roving and .solitary 
 monks (Cone. Tolet. vii. c. 5). Even in the 
 East the same distrust prevailed of persons 
 undertaking more than they could bear. Thus 
 the Council in Trullo enjoined a sojourn of 
 some time in a coenobium as the preliminary 
 to life in the desert (Cone. Trull. 692 a.d. c. 
 41). Benedict aptly illustrates the difference 
 from his point of view between these two forms 
 of asceticism. The solitary, he savs, leaves the 
 Ijne of battle to fight in a single combat (Reg. 
 c. 1, cf. Cone. Regq. iii. cf. Sulp. Sev. Dial. 
 i. 17). 
 
 “ Coenobium ” is used sometimes in mediaeval 
 writers for the “basilica” or church of the 
 monastery (Mab. Ann. Q. S. B. iv. 4). A Greek 
 equivalent for “ coenobitae ” is avroSiTai, de¬ 
 rived from (TuudSos (Bingh. Orig. Eccl. vii. ii. 
 3, Suicer. Thes. .s. v.). Gennadius mentions 
 a treatise by Evagrius Monachus, “ De coeno- 
 bitis et synoditis ” (De Scr. Ecc. ap. Fabric 
 Bibl. Ecc.). Jerome gives “ Sauches,” or 
 “ Sausse.s,” as the Egyptian equivalent (Ep. 
 22, ad Eustoch.). In mediaeval Latin “ coeno- 
 bita” is sometimes ccenobitalis, -ialis, -iota, or 
 -ius. (Du Cange, Gloss, s. v.', ; “ claustrum ” 
 (cloister) “conventus” are frequently used for 
 “ coenobium.” 
 
402 
 
 COINTA 
 
 COLIDEI 
 
 Besides the authorities cited, sec Hospiuiani 
 (^De Origine et Progressu Mcynachatus, Lib. iii. 
 Tiguri 1588). See also Asceticism, Benedic¬ 
 tine Rule, and Monastery. [1. G. S.] 
 
 COINTA, martyr, Feb. 8. [Quinta.] [C.] 
 COFFIN. [Burial.] 
 
 COLIDEI, =/Serm Dei (explained 
 
 also by such authorities as O’Reilly and Curry, 
 as equivalent to Sponsi Dei, but, according to 
 O’Donovan and Reeves, with less probability): in 
 Scotch records, generally, Keledei, which seems 
 the more accurate spelling: in Jocelyn (F. 5. 
 Kenteg.'), Calledei; in Gii-ald. Camb. and in the 
 Armagh Registers, Colidei, as if Deicolae or Dei 
 Cultores, or (so Girald. Camb.) Caelicolae ; and in 
 Hector Boece, and from him in Buchanan, and 
 thence in modern writers, corrupted into Ciildei 
 or Culdees • — at first, simply an Irish rendering 
 of what was an ordinary Latin name for monks, 
 and so used apparently in older Irish documents : 
 but appropriated in Ireland about the latter part 
 of (at least) the 8th century to a specially ascetic 
 order of monks, established by Maelruain (ob. 
 A. D. 792) at Tamhlacht, now Tallaght, near 
 
 Dublin, whose Rule still exists (R)45411 T)4 
 
 CdG''D-U'DC) 5 whom it is also possible 
 
 that some of their peculiar characteristics were 
 borrowed from those of the canons established 
 by Chrodegang of Metz about a quarter of a cen- 
 turv earlier, inasmuch as the later Keledei of 
 both Ireland and Scotland did in many points 
 resemble secular canons. The name reappears 
 in Ireland (elsewhere than at Tallaght) in the 
 10th and llth centuries. But by this time, in 
 some instances, as at Clonmacnois, the head of 
 the Ce'li-De' was married, and his office heredi¬ 
 tary ; although there were still instances to the 
 contrary, as in the island in Loch Monaincha 
 (co. Ti])perary), the “Colidei” of which are dis¬ 
 tinctly called “ coelibes ” by the contemporary 
 Giraldus Cambr. at the end of the 12th century. 
 At Armagh, also, and at Devenish in Loch Erne, 
 the original “Colidei” are found, after Northmen 
 ravages and at later periods, displaced by, but 
 coexisting with, a regular cathedral chapter and 
 a priory of regular canons respectively; while, 
 in other places, they were merged altogether into 
 the chapter. At Armagh, indeed, the Culdee 
 body lasted until the Reformation, and the name 
 until at least a.d. 1628. In Scotland, the name 
 had a parallel but a more notable history. 
 The order seems to have been introduced into 
 that country shortly after A.d.« 800. “ Cal¬ 
 
 ledei,” living a specially ascetic life, but as 
 “ singulares clerici,” and “ in singulis casulis,” 
 were traditirnally the clergy of St. Kentegern’s 
 cathedral of Glasgow (Jocel. in V. 8. Kenteg.'); 
 and a di?t'.nct connection is traceable between 
 St. Kentegern and the Irish Church. But the 
 name keledei occurs historically, as a name for 
 a clerical body of monks, used in Scotland by 
 writers, contemporary (or nearly so), and in 
 charters, from the 9th century; and it becomes 
 thenceforward the name simply of a particular 
 but numerous class of the older monastic bodies 
 of the Irish type, all however north of the 
 Forth, as distinguished 1, from Columbite Mo¬ 
 nasteries, and 2, from the sjiecial Augustinian, 
 Benedictine; and other orders introduced from the 
 
 end of the llth century. And inasmuch as most 
 of those older foundations had become lax indis¬ 
 cipline, and often consisted of married men who 
 handed on t heir Culdeeships to their children,—yet 
 at the same time still commonly clerical, although 
 in some cases (like many Scotch monasteries of 
 that date) held and transmitted by lay abbat.s,— 
 the name came to signify, not (as at first) sjtecial 
 asceticism, but precisely the reverse. Accord¬ 
 ingly, a.d. 1124-1153, King David commenced 
 the great change, which finally either superseded 
 the Keledei by superadding to them a superior 
 body of regular canons, as at St. Andrews and 
 Dunkeld, or merged the Keledei themselves into 
 the cha 2 )ter, as at Brechin, Ross, Dunblane, 
 Dornoch, Lismore (Argyll), and the Isles, or 
 into a body of regular canons in no connection 
 with a bishop’s see, as at Abernethy, &c. The 
 middle or end of the 13th century appears to 
 have completed in Scotland the suppression of 
 both name and class. The name Colidei occurs 
 also in England at York as early as a.d, 936, as 
 applied to the then officiating clergy of the 
 Minster, who were displaced apparently (like 
 their Scotch brethren) by the arrival of Norman 
 archbishops, but continued under another name 
 (viz. as the hospital of St. Leonard’s) until the 
 dissolution under Henry VIII.; the name Colidei 
 being still employed in their chartulary, which 
 was engrossed in the reign of Henry V. (Dugd. 
 Mon. VI. ii. 607). Lastly, the same name is 
 applied by Giraldus Cambr. to certain ascetics 
 in the Isle of Bardsey in Wales in the year 1188. 
 Neither in Ireland nor in Scotland is there 
 the slightest trace of foundation, in any really 
 authoritative document, for any supposed pecu¬ 
 liarities of doctrine or of church government, 
 derived by Culdees from some Eastern or other 
 source, and handed down by them; nor for any 
 other connection between them and the Colum¬ 
 bite monasteries than that both were of Irish 
 type. The abbey of Hy itself was distinctly 
 not Keledean, although at a very late period 
 (a.d. 1164) a subordinate body of Keledei 
 are found in the island. The details however 
 of the great revolution in the organization of 
 the Scotch Church, which involved as part of 
 itself the transformation of the older monastic 
 arrangements into the new, and (more noticeable 
 still) the transfer of jurisdiction from presbyter 
 abbats to diocesan bishops,—both processes im¬ 
 plying in the majority of cases the suppression 
 of Keledean foundations,—belong to a jieriod 
 some centuries later than that to which this 
 article refers. As does also, much more, the 
 history of the strange perversions of the facts 
 of the case by combined ignorance and partisan¬ 
 ship, which are hardly, it seems, all exploded 
 everywhere even now. 
 
 [This account is abridged from Dr. Reeves’s 
 carefully exact monograjih On the Cnldees, 
 Dublin, 1864; to which is subjoined an Appendix 
 of Evidences, conclusively establishing the writer’s 
 main positions. There is a candid account of the 
 subject also in Grub’s Hist, of the Ch. of Scot¬ 
 land, vol. i., written however before the pub¬ 
 lication of Dr. Reeves’s exhaustive essay ; and a 
 brief, and on the whole competent, summary of 
 the case in ch. x. of E. W. Robertson’s Early 
 Scotland, written also under the like disad¬ 
 vantage. Earlier writers, as a rule, are not 
 worth mentioning.] [A. \V. H.] 
 
COLLATION 
 
 COLLATION (Collatio). The reading from 
 the lives or Collationes of the Fathers, which St. 
 Benedict {Rejula, c. 42) instituted in his monas¬ 
 teries before compline. Such compilations as, for 
 instance, the Cullationes of John Cassian were 
 read, and hence probably the name. Compare 
 Isidore, Rcgula, c. 8. Ardo Smaragdus, however 
 (on the Rulcy c. 42), says that this service was 
 called collatio “quasi collocutio vel confabu- 
 latio,” because the monks questioned each other 
 on the portions read. To the same effect Hono- 
 rius of Autun, Gemma Animae, ii. 63. Fructu- 
 osus (Rejula, c. 3) desires the abbot or provost 
 to expound the book read to the more simple 
 brothers. 
 
 The Benedictine practice is to hold this service 
 in the church, and this is probably in accordance 
 with the founder’s intention ; for he evidently 
 contemplated the collation being held in the 
 same place as compline. (Martene, De Ant. 
 Monach. Rit. lib. i. c. 11, p. 35; Ducauge, s. v. 
 Collttio.) [C.] 
 
 COLLECT (Collecta, Collecta orotio, oratio, 
 missa, see below). The Collects of the Western 
 Church, for they differ in some important respects 
 from the pra 3 ’’er-forms of the Eastern (Freeman’s 
 Principles, &c., i. 372) have certain well-marked 
 characteristics which are common to them all. 
 But the question what is the differentia of a 
 collect, what it is that makes a prayer receive 
 this name, must probably be determined by the 
 etymology or the history of the word. 
 
 The structure of collects consists of (1) an 
 invocation of God the Father with some attri¬ 
 bute, and the ascription in the relative form of 
 some property or action; (2) next follows the 
 object desired by the prayer, often with the 
 addition of ulterior results derived from it, 
 (3) either an ascription of gloiy or a plead¬ 
 ing of the merits of Christ. Their general 
 character is to “ combine strength with sweet- 
 ness,”* * says Canon Bright, “to say much in 
 saving little, to address the Most Hi"h in adoring 
 awe, to utter man’s needs with profound pathos 
 and with calm intensity, to insist on the absolute 
 necessity of grace, the Fatherly tenderness of 
 God, the might of the all-prevailing name 
 they “ are never weak, never diluted, never 
 drawling, never ill-arranged, never a provocation 
 to listlessness; thoy exhibit an exquisite skill of 
 antithesis and a rhythmical harmony which the 
 ear is loth to lose.” Many of the collects now in 
 use are undoubtedly of very great antiquity, and 
 are founded on prayer-forms, such as versicles 
 or responses, still older; and this distinction 
 between merely short petitions and what is in¬ 
 cluded in the idea of collect is made by Bona in 
 determining the date of the introduction of the 
 collects “ now in use ” into the Western Church.^ 
 
 Of these he says Loo the Great (pope from 
 440 to 461) and Gelasius (pope from 492 to 
 496) were the first composers, in the form that 
 is in which we have them in the Western Church. 
 From the S.vcramentaries attributed to Leo, 
 Gelasius, and Gregory, are derived many of the 
 collects of the English Prayer-Book. And the 
 remote source of these collects is more ancient 
 still.® “The idea of the Western collect, is in 
 
 * Ancient Collects, pp. 193-200. 
 
 Bona, De Reb. Lit. ii. 5. 4. quoted by Freeman, 1. 144. 
 
 ' F. D. S. i. 144-5. 
 
 COT.LECT 403 
 
 all respects derived from the consideration of the 
 Eastern system. We seem to sec comj)rcssed 
 into the terse collects of Lee, Gelasius, or Gre¬ 
 gory, the more diffuse sjiirit of the Eastern 
 hymns, and thus they would be, so to speak, the 
 very quintessence of the gospels on which the 
 latter were founded.” “ The only innovation 
 made by the Western composers, and that a very 
 natural one, was to incorporate the collect, not 
 with the ordinary service only but with the 
 communion office itself.” Indeed, in the ritual 
 of the West*^ the chief “means by which the 
 ordinary office is continually linked on to the 
 eucharistic is the weekly collect. In the East 
 the vespers and lauds preceding a festival are 
 largely coloured by a variety of hymns, many of 
 them resembling prayers, and all referring to the 
 gospel of the coming day. In the West, though 
 originally there were several, we have now' 
 mostly only a single prayer, composed generally 
 out of epistle and gospel taken together, or with 
 some reference to both. And this, though used 
 at the vespers of the eve, and characteristic of 
 that office, is also continued throughout the 
 week.” Our “ first collect, then, is not merely 
 a link betw'een our common and our eucharistic 
 offices, but reflecting as it docs the spirit of the 
 epistle and gospel it presents to us the appointed 
 variation of the eucharistic office for the current 
 week.” 
 
 It remains now to speak of the etymology 
 of the word, and it is a question more easy to 
 state than to settle. The w’ord may be derived * 
 either (1) from the circumstances of those who 
 use the prayer, or (2) from something in the 
 character of the prayer itself. (1.) In the former 
 case the name is taken from the “Collecta,” or 
 people assembled for w'orshijt; and this origin of 
 the word has the support of Krazer,*" who says 
 that in “early times the only ])rayer called 
 collect was that w'hich was wont to be said for 
 the people v/hen assembled (collectus) in one 
 church with the whole bod}' of the clei'gy for 
 the purpose of proceeding to another.” The 
 sacramentary of Gregory makes this quite 
 deal', in w’hich on the feast of the Purification 
 two prayers are provided, one entitled “ Ad 
 Collectam ad S. Adrianum,” where clergy and 
 people were assembled to go from - thence to S, 
 Maria Maggiore ; the other “ oratio ad missam ' 
 (as if the first were not an eucharistic jirayer), 
 “ but as time went on,” he says, “ all prayers 
 said ‘ad Missam’ were called collects, because 
 the priest rejieated them ‘super populum collec- 
 tum swe congregatum.’ ” This theory is perhaps 
 not so attractive as the two others w'hich remain 
 to be mentioned, but it has probability on its 
 side, as “collecta” for “oratio ad collectam ” is 
 just such an abbreviation as usage would produce, 
 while the more recent eucharistic association of 
 the word would account for prayers alike in 
 other respects being called, some of them prayers 
 and others collects. Those who reject this 
 origin must explain the phrase “oratio ad 
 collectam ” follow'ed immediately bj “oratio ad 
 missam ” on another hypothesis. 
 
 (11.) If the prayer derives its name ‘collect ’ 
 from its own character, it maj' be so called either 
 because (1) it is a condensation of Scripture- 
 
 <* Freeman, Principles of Divine .Service, i. p 367. 
 
 * Bright, A. C. 202, sq. i De l.ilurp. ^ 225. 
 
 2 L) 
 
401 
 
 COLLECT 
 
 COLLECT 
 
 teaching, anil more especially in the case of the 
 collects for Sun lays and holydays,^ because it is, 
 as has been said, in many cases the fiuintessence 
 of the epistle and gospel for the day. Wheatly 
 adopts this view (ch. iii. sect, xix.) with regard 
 to the communion collect, and Archdeacon Free¬ 
 man'* seems decidedly to incline to it, citing Ilona 
 {[{. L. II. V. § 3) in its support, and saying that 
 at ail events it renders very accurately one great 
 characteristic ' of the collect; or because ' (2) 
 “ colligit orationes” it sums up the prayers of 
 the a.ssembly ; but “ the communion collect does 
 not sum up any previous petitions,” though it 
 might be said to gather and offer up in one 
 comprehensive prayer all the devotional aspira¬ 
 tions of the people. And if this be the true idea 
 of the prayer, it must have got the name not 
 from summing up all that had been said in 
 prayer before, for these collectae were sometimes 
 said before the concluding part of the service,'' 
 but for the reason just given, that it collects and 
 presents to God in a compendious form all the 
 spoken and unspoken petitions of the congrega¬ 
 tion to Him. It is a recommendation of this 
 derivation that it applies equally to all prayers 
 of the collect-form, and does not apply only 
 to the communion-collects and leave the etymo¬ 
 logy of the others undecided, an objection which 
 may be urged against a former derivation 
 (H. 1). 
 
 It may be said that both these latter deriva¬ 
 tions have an ex post facto air, that they are 
 wanting in historical basis, and are just such as 
 would occur to persons who finding the word 
 set themselves to discover the origin of its use 
 from its form; while the first rests on the 
 fact that in the Vulgate, ' and by the ancient 
 fathers,'" the word collect is u.sed to denote the 
 gathering together of the people into religious 
 assemblies, and that in the sacramentary 
 of Gregory a collect is provided to be said 
 “ ad collectam ad S. Adrianum.” " Archdeacon 
 Freeman® infers from this that in Gregory’s 
 time the ordinary office as distinguished from 
 the communion was called “ collecta,” and goes 
 on to say, “ it is very conceivable that a 
 prayer which, though also said at commu¬ 
 nion has this as its characteristic that it was 
 designed to impart to the ordinary service the 
 spirit of the eucharistic gospel, would on that 
 account be called colleota,” which seems to be 
 rather going out of the way to account for a 
 prayer being called ‘collecta oratio ’ which was 
 said at a service confessedly called ‘ collecta.’ 
 [Collecta.] • 
 
 Whatever may have been the derivation of the 
 word Collecta, it is applied in rituals especially 
 to the following. 
 
 1. The prayers which immediately precede 
 the Epistle and Gospel in the Mass. What was 
 the number of these in ancient times is not 
 absolutely certain. In the Sacramentaries of 
 Gregory and Gelasius one is given in eaeh mass; 
 but St. Columbanus was blamed in a Council of 
 Miicon for having introduced the custom of 
 
 g Bright. A. C. 203. »> P. D. S. 146-7. 
 
 t Freeman, P. D. .S'. 115. k Bright, A. C. p. 205. 
 
 1 Lev. .vxiii. 36. Heb. x. 25. 
 
 " “A. populi collectio'.ie collectae appellaii ooeperunt." 
 Alenin, quoted by Wbeatly, ch. iii. sect. xix. $ 2, n. 
 
 “ Ivra/.cr, !)e Liturg. sect. iv. art. i. cap. ill. 
 
 «> /'. D. .S'. 1 . 146 . 
 
 using s'vcral collects, contrary to the general 
 practice of the church, and was defended by 
 Eustasiu.s, his successor in the abbey of Luxeuil 
 (Acta SS. Bened. sec. ii. p. 120). John, abbat 
 of St. Alban’.s, is said to have limited the num¬ 
 ber to seven (Matthew Paris in his Life)', and 
 the same rule is iciid down by the anonymous 
 author of the Speculum Ecclesiae, by Beleth (c. 
 37), and by Durandus {Rationale, iv. 14). The 
 Micrologus (c. 4) lays down that, for mystiail 
 reasons, the number of collects should be either 
 one, three, five, or seven. (Martene, De Antip 
 Eccl. Rit. i. 133.) 
 
 2. In the Hour-offices. Only one collect seems 
 anciently to have been used in each office ; for 
 Walafrid Strabo (De Reh. Keel. c. 22) says that it 
 was usual, not only at Mass but at other assem¬ 
 blies, for the highest in rank of the clergy present 
 to conclude the office with a short prayer, an ex¬ 
 pression which seems to exclude the supposition 
 that more than one of this kind was used. The 
 assigning the collect to the person of highest 
 rank accords with the injunction of the fifth 
 canon of the first Council of Barcelona (a.d. 
 540), according to one reading, “ episcopo prae- 
 sente orationes presbyter! non [al. in ordine] 
 colligant.” But the monks of the Thebaid seem 
 to have subjoined a collect to each psalm, or in 
 the longer psalms to have inserted two or three 
 collects at intervals (Cassian, De Nocturn. Orat. 
 
 ii. cc. 8 and 9). Fructuosus of Braga (Regtila, 
 c. 3) also testifies to the same practice in Spain. 
 Caesarius of Arles (Ad Monachos, c. 20) enjoined 
 collects to be intermingled with the lections. 
 The Rule of St. Benedict enjoins only that each 
 office be concluded with the Lord’s Prayer and 
 missae, meaning no doubt what are elsewhere 
 called orationes ,• but the practice mentioned by 
 St. Isidore (Regula, c. 7) of mingling collects 
 with the recitation of the psalms, and also con¬ 
 cluding the office with them, was very probably 
 in fact the custom of the Benedictine order, 
 though it does not appear distinctly in the Rule ; 
 for St. Benedict would scarcely have departed 
 from so general a practice as that of inter¬ 
 mingling collects with the psalms, especially as 
 he was much influenced by Egyptian precedent: 
 and this supposition accounts for the fact that 
 in many ancient MS. Benedictine psalters a col¬ 
 lect follows each psalm. • 
 
 It appears from Cassian’s testimony (De Noct. 
 Orat. ii. 9) that in the fifth century there was a 
 difference of practice with I’egard to the manner 
 of saying collects ; for some monks threw them¬ 
 selves on their knees to pray immediately after 
 the ending of each p.salm; others said a short 
 prayer before kneeling, and knelt for a short 
 time afterwards in silent adoration. During 
 prayer they stood upright, with expanded hands. 
 Similarly Fructuosus of Braga (Regula, c. 3). 
 The Benedictine practice is, that all kneel from 
 the time that the priest says the Kyrie Eleison 
 to the end of the last collect. Xhe collects were 
 said, in accordance with the principle mentioned 
 above, by the abbat, or the brother who presided 
 in his place (Martene De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, 
 
 iii. 15; iv. 12, ed. Venet. 1773). [E. C. H.] 
 
 COLLECTA. (1) The collecting of alms or 
 contributions of the faithful. From St. Leo the 
 Great (Horn, de Collectis) we learn that such a 
 collection was sometimes made on a Sunday, 
 
COLLECTIO 
 
 ssometimes on Monday or Tuesday (feria secunda, 
 tertia), for the benefit and sustenance of the poor. 
 These collections seem to have been distinct irom 
 Oblations. 
 
 (2) The gathering together of the people for 
 divine service, whether -of mass or houi’s. Je¬ 
 rome {Hpist. 27 [al. 108], § 19, p. 712) states that 
 the sound of Alleluia called monks to say their 
 offices (ad collectam). Pachomius {Refjula, c. 17) 
 speaks of the collecta in which oblation was 
 made, that is, the mass; he also distinguishes 
 (cc. 181, 18(5) between the “ collecta domus,” the 
 service held in the several houses of a monastery, 
 and the “ collecta major,” at which the whole 
 bodv of monks was brought together to say their 
 offices. In this rule, as in those of Isidore and 
 Fructuosus, collecta has very probably the same 
 sense as Collatio. 
 
 (3) A society or brotherhood. The 15th canon 
 
 of the first council of Nantes is “ De collectis 
 vel confratriis quos consortia vocant.” See also 
 Hincmar, Capitula ad Preshyt. c. 14. (Ducang-i’s 
 Gloss wy, s. V.) [C.] 
 
 COLLECTIO. In the Galilean missals cei*- 
 tain forms of prayer and praise are called Collec- 
 tiones. The principal of these are the Collectio 
 post Nomina, which follows the recitation of the 
 names on the diptychs; the Collectio ad Pacem, 
 which accompanies the giving of the Kiss of 
 Peace ; the Collectio post Sanctus, which imme- 
 diatelv follows the “ Holy, Holy, Holy,” and the 
 Collectio post Eucharistiam, after communion. 
 (Martene, Pe Piti'jus Eccl. Antiq. i. c. iv. art. 
 13.) [C.] 
 
 COLLECTION. [Alms : Collecta.] 
 
 COLLEGIUM. Corporations or gilds, called 
 colleyia, of persons united in pursuit of a com¬ 
 mon object, were numerous in the empii'e in the 
 early days of the Christian church. The im¬ 
 perial government of course took cognizance of 
 them, and did not permit such combinations for 
 every purpose. Associations for the purpose of 
 maiutainingr religious rites were however for the 
 most part not interfered with; but when the 
 presence of Christianity in all parts of the empire 
 attracted attention, its collegia, as the several 
 churches seemed to be from the jurist’s point of 
 view, w'ere declared illicit, and to belong to them 
 a misdemeanour. (Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. pp. 
 20, 114; Cunningham’s Trans., Philadelphia, 
 1836.) [Compare Brotherhood ; Canonici ; 
 Chapter.] [C.] 
 
 COLOBIUM (ko\6$iop). a tunic with 
 very short sleeves only, and fitted closely about 
 the arm. A few words of the Pseudo-Alcuin 
 (de Div. Off.') both describe the dress and re¬ 
 produce, with a characteristic modification, an 
 old Roman tradition concerning it. “ Pro tunica 
 hyaciuthina (i.e. the tunic of blue worn by the 
 Jewish high-priest) nostri pontifices primo colo- 
 biis utebantui". Est autem colobium vestis sine 
 manicis.” The older tradition was that Sylvester, 
 bishop of Rome, ordered that deacons should 
 wear dalmatics in offices of holy ministry, in 
 place of the colobia, which had previously been 
 in use. From this circumstance of the colobium 
 being regarded as the special vestment of a 
 deacon it is sometimes called lebiton (i.e. leviton) 
 or lebitonarium, a word which reappears in ec¬ 
 clesiastical Greek of the 6th and later centuries. 
 
 COLOUR 
 
 405 
 
 It is so used by 1 illadius of Hellenopolis, in the 
 Historia Lausiaca so-called, cap. 38, describing 
 the dress worn by the monks under Pachomius 
 at Tabennesis in the Thebaid (Migne, Patrol. 
 l-xxxiii. 1157), a dress prescribed, according to 
 the author, by an angel in vision:—“ Noctu 
 gestent lebitones lineos, succincti.” And again, 
 cap. 47 : rh 8e (vSv/xa iju avrep 6 Sy-irep 
 
 Tires ko\6^iov irpocayopevova'i. The monastic 
 colobium in Palestine, if not elsewhere, had upon 
 it a purple “ sign,” probably a cross. So St. 
 Dorotheus, archimandrite (Migne, Patrol. Scries 
 Graeca, Ixxxviii. 1631), describing the monastic 
 dress of his day in Palestine, late in the 6th 
 century; says:— rb (Txvpa h <popovp.ey Ka\6$i6y 
 iffTi, jjLi) exov Sep/^aTtpr), Kai 
 
 avaKa&os, Ka\ kovkov\iov . , . *'Exei rh 
 ko\6$iov <Tr]fxe7oy ti iropcpvpovv (as a mark of 
 service, he explains, under Christ our King). 
 Examples of the Greek colobium may be seen in 
 the ancient mosaics, reputed to be of the 4th 
 century, in the church of St. George at Thes- 
 salonica. See Texier and Pullan, Byzantine 
 Architecture, Ill. xxx.-xxxiii. ; Marriott, Vest. 
 Christ. Ill. xviii.-xx. [W. B. M.] 
 
 COLOGNE, COUNCIL OF (Agrippinense, 
 or Coloniense Concilium). (1) Said to have been 
 held a.d. 346, to condemn Euphratas, Bishop of 
 Cologne (for denying our Lord’s divinity) ; who 
 was however at Sardica as an orthodox bishop 
 the year after (Pagi ad an. 346, n. 6 ; Mansi, 
 ii. 1371-1378). Baronius and Cave think the 
 council spurious. Sirmond supposes Euphratas 
 to have recanted; others that he was acquitted; 
 others that there were two successive bishops of 
 Cologne so named. 
 
 (2) Another council is reported to have been 
 held a.d. 782, under Charlemagne; but this 
 was apparently a political council : nothing is 
 known of it ecclesiastically (Labbe and Cossart, 
 Concilia, vi. 1827, from Eginhard). [A. W. H.] 
 
 COLOUR. The assigning of special colours 
 in the vestments of ministers, &c. to certain 
 seasons does not belong to the first eight 
 centuries of Christianity (Hefele, Beitrage zur 
 Archdologie etc. ii. 158), and is probably first 
 found in the work of Innocent III. (tl216), 
 De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, lib. i. c. 65. There 
 are, however, certain peculiarities in the use of 
 colour in ancient art which may be mentioned 
 here. 
 
 (1) White was held to symbolize the pure bright 
 light of truth (Clemens Alex. Paedagog. ii. 10, 
 p. 235). Hence the Lord is represented with .a 
 white robe as “the Truth,” whether sitting in 
 the midst of the Doctors, or teaching His dis¬ 
 ciples. See for instance the ancient mosaics of 
 the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian (Ciampini, 
 Vet. Mon. ii. tab. xvi.), and of S. Agatha alia Sub- 
 urra at Rome (ih. i. tab. Ixxvii.). It is because of 
 its whiteness that Origen (In Exodum, Horn, vii.) 
 finds the manna to represent the word of truth. 
 Angels are generally represented on ancient mo¬ 
 numents in white robes, which tyjdfy, says Dio¬ 
 nysius the Areopagite (De Hierarch. Coelest. c. 
 15), their resemblance to God. Saints too are 
 clothed in white; foi instance, on the triumphal 
 arch of the basilica of S. Paolo f. 1. m. are repre¬ 
 sented .saints clothed in white robes laying their 
 crowns at the foot of the Divine Throne (Ciani- 
 
406 
 
 COLUM 
 
 COMMEMORATION 
 
 pini, Vet. Mon. i. 231). The same circumstance 
 may be noted in the mosaics of the church of 
 St. Vitalis at Ravenna, and elsewhere. 
 
 White, sometimes striped with purple [Cla- 
 vusj, was the almost invariable colour of minis¬ 
 terial vestments for all ranks of the ministry in 
 the early ages of Christianity (Marriott, Vesti- 
 arium Christ, p. xxii.), as it is still for the alb, 
 the amice, and the surplice. 
 
 White, the symbol of purity, was worn by the 
 newly baptized during the eight days which fol¬ 
 lowed their baptism. 
 
 It appears also from the evidence both of lite¬ 
 rature and art that the dead were shrouded in 
 white linen. In a fragment of ancient glass 
 figured by Buonarotti (Fefn, tav. vii. fig. 1) 
 the grave-clothes of Lazarus are of silver, while 
 the rest of the figures are in gold ; and in the 
 Menologium of Basil the bodies of Adauctus 
 (Oct. 4) and Philaret (Dec. 2) are represented as 
 wi'apped in white. Prudentius (^Cathemerinon, 
 X. 57) and Sulpicius Severus (^Vita S. Martini, 
 c. 12) also allude to the white colour of grave- 
 clothes. 
 
 (2) Red is the colour of ardent love. Hence 
 the Lord in performing works of mercy is some¬ 
 times represented clad in a red tunic or pallium, 
 and ahso in “ sending fire upon earth ” by the 
 mission of the apostles (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. i. 
 tabb. Ixviii. Ixxxvi, Ixxvii.). Arculf (in Bede, 
 Hist. Angl. v. 16) describes the “ monument and 
 sepulchre ” of the Lord at Jerusalem as being 
 white and reddish (rubicundo). 
 
 Angels are sometimes found on ancient monu¬ 
 ments represented with red wings, whether as 
 the symbol of love or of flame, according to one 
 of the derivations of the word seraph. This is 
 the case for inst.mce in the vaults of St. Vitalis 
 at Ravenna (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. ii. 65). 
 
 (3) Green, the colour of living vegetation, seems 
 to have been adopted as a symbol of life, and 
 hence is employed to denote the full abound¬ 
 ing life of the angels. See Dionysius the Areo- 
 pagite, De Hierarch. Coelest. xv. § 7. Hence, 
 angels and saints are not uufrequently clothed 
 
 ' in green, especially St. John the Evangelist. The 
 Virgin Mary is also sometimes clothed in this 
 colour. And the Lord Himself is occasionally 
 represented in a green robe as symbolizing the 
 life which is in Him. 
 
 (4) Violet, the mixture of red and black, has been 
 thought to symbolize the union of love and pain 
 in repentance. It symbolizes, at all events, some¬ 
 thing of sorrow; hence some monuments, as the 
 mosaic of St. Michael at Ravenna (Ciampini, Vet. 
 Mon. ii. p. 63, tav. xvii.) and that of St. Am¬ 
 brose at Milan (Ferrari, 8. Ambrogio, p. 156) re¬ 
 present the Man of Sorrows in a violet robe. The 
 sorrowing mother of the Lord is also sometimes 
 represented in violet, and St. John Baptist the 
 preacher of repentance. Angels also wear violet 
 when they call men to repentance, or share in 
 the sorrows of the Lord. 
 
 Abbots of the order of St. Benedict wore violet 
 up to modern times, when they adopted black. 
 In ancient times virgins of recluse life wore 
 violet veils (Jerome, Epist. 22, ad Eustochium). 
 
 Literature. —Portal, Des Couleurs symholiques 
 dans VAntiquite', Paris, 1837 ; Martigny,. Diet. 
 desAntig. chr€t. s. v. Couleurs, [C.] 
 
 COLUM. [Strainer.] 
 
 COLUMBA. (1) Presbyter and confessor 
 abbat of Iona (f 598); is commemorated June 9 
 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr under Aurelian, Dec. 31 
 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae, Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 COLUMBANUS, abbat, founder of many 
 monasteries, deposition at Bobbio, Nov. 2 {Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 COLUMBARIUM. This word can only find 
 its place in a Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 
 in order that opportunity may be given to j^ro- 
 nounce a decided opinion on the untenableness 
 of the view propounded by Keyssler, and since 
 revived by Mr. J. H. Parker and others, that 
 this distinctively pagan arrangement, essentially 
 belonging to the practice of burning the dead, 
 which was held by the ChrisWans in such abhor¬ 
 rence (“ execrantur rogos et damnant ignium se- 
 pulturas,” Minuc. Fel.), is ever found within the 
 limits of, or in close connection with a Christian 
 catacomb. The misconception has arisen from 
 the fact that the Christian excavators in carrv- 
 ing forward their subterranean galleries not un- 
 frequently came into contact with the walls of 
 a heathen columbarium. As soon as this unin¬ 
 tentional interference with the sanctity of the 
 tomb was discovered, the fossores proceeded tt 
 repair their error. The gallery was abruptly 
 closed, and a wall was built at its end to shut 
 it off from the columbarium. Padre March! de¬ 
 scribes his discovery of a gallery in the cemetery 
 of St. Agnese closed in this way with a ruined 
 wall, on the other side of which was a plundered 
 columbarium {Monum. Primit. p. 61). This is 
 probably the true explanation of the fact that 
 a passage has been found connecting a large 
 heathen tomb full of columbaria on the Via 
 Appia, near the Porta San Sebastiano, with a 
 catacomb. (March!, Monum. Prim. pp. 61 57 .; 
 Roestell, Beschreib. der Stadt Rom, ]ip. 389- 
 390; Raoul-Rochette, Tableau des Catacombes, 
 p. 283). [E. V.] 
 
 A vessel used 
 
 COLYMBION {Koxipfiiovy 
 for containing Holy 
 Water at the entrance 
 of a church. A re¬ 
 presentation of such a 
 vessel is found in one 
 of the mosaics of the 
 church of S. Vitale at 
 Ravenna, and is hei’e 
 engraved. It is note¬ 
 worthy, that the asper¬ 
 gillum which hangs 
 from the arch above the 
 basin is in shape not un¬ 
 like those of modern 
 times. (Neale’s Eastern 
 Ch. introd. p. 215.) [C.] 
 
 COMES. [Lection¬ 
 ary.] 
 
 C O M M E M O R A- 
 TION {Commemoratio). 
 
 The word commemoi*a- 
 tion in its liturgical use 
 designates — 
 
 (1) The recitation of the names of those for 
 whom intercession is made in the mass [Itip- 
 tyc is]. 
 
COMMENDATIO 
 
 (2) The introduction of the names of certain 
 saints or events in tlie Divine Office, called also 
 memorvt sanctorum or suffrayia sanctorum. Such 
 commemorations are generally ot the Cross, of 
 the Virgin Mary, of St. Peter and St. Paul, and 
 for Peace (Macri Hierolexicon). 
 
 (3) According to the rubrics of the Roman 
 
 Breviary {Ruhricae Generates^ ix.), when a greater 
 festival falls on the day of a ‘ simple ’ festival, the 
 latter is ‘ commemorated ’ by the introduction ot 
 certain portions of its proper service into that ot 
 the greater festival (^R. G. ix. §§ 8-11). [C.] 
 
 COMMENDA. [Diocese: Monastery".] 
 
 COMMENDATIO (irapadecrts). 1. In the 
 third Council of Carthage (c. 29) it is pro¬ 
 vided, that if a commendatio of the dead takes 
 place in the afternoon, it must consist of prayers 
 only, without the celebration of mass. In the 
 Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric. (c. 1U8) the set 
 forms to be ordinarily used in churches seem to 
 be summed up under the heads, preces, prae- 
 fationes, commendationes, manus impositiones. 
 Similarly the second Council of Milevis (c. 12), 
 and the fourth of Toledo (c. 13). In the Greek 
 version of the 41st canon of the Codex Eccl. Afric.., 
 which is identical with the 29th of the third 
 Council of Carthage, quoted above, the word jrapd- 
 deffis is used as equivalent to “ commendatio 
 which in this case is no doubt to be interpreted 
 “ of the commendation of the dead to the mercy of 
 God.” See Zonaras on this canon (p. 429), and 
 Balsamon (p. 655). 
 
 2. But the word Trapdd€(ris is also used to 
 designate the prayers made in the congregation 
 on behalf of the catechumens. Alexius Aristenus 
 (quoted by Sa'cer, s. v.) explains the word irapd- 
 0c(r:y, designating a part of divine service, as 
 “ the prayers over the catechumens, whereby we 
 commend them (-rrapaTide/j.eda') to the Lord.” 
 (Ducange’s Glossary., s. v. ‘ Commendationes 
 Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. TrapdOems.) [C.] 
 
 COMMENDATORY LETTERS. The ear¬ 
 liest trace of the practice connected with these 
 words is to be found in 2 Cor. iii. 1. St. Paul, 
 it would seem, had been taunted by rivals who 
 came with letters of commendation (eTrto-ToXal 
 avarariKal) from the Church of Jerusalem, with 
 the absence of such credentials in his own case, 
 wdth his attempts to make up for the omission 
 by reiterated self-commendation. The passage 
 show's that the practice was already common. 
 It was, indeed, the natural protection of a society 
 yet in its inffincy against the dangers to which 
 it was exposed, against the tricks of impostors, 
 the false teaching of heretics, the vices of evil¬ 
 doers. It is probable enough that letters of 
 tills kind had been in previous use among the 
 Jews, and that they thus maintained their unity 
 as a people through all the lands of the dis¬ 
 persion. Other instances of it in the Apostolic 
 ages are to be found in the letter given to 
 Apollos by the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 
 27), in the mention of Zeuas and Apollos in the 
 Epistle to Titus (iii. 13). The letter to Phi¬ 
 lemon, though more distinctly personal, has 
 somewhat of the same character. The practice 
 was in itself so wise and salutary that it be¬ 
 came universal, and was applied under many 
 name.s, and for many ditfei'ent purposes. As a 
 whole, it may be said, without exaggeration, 
 that no single practice of the early Christian 
 
 COMMENDATORY LETTERS 407 
 
 Church tended so much as this to impress on it 
 the stamp of unity and organization. 
 
 The bishop of .any congregation, in any part 
 of the empire, might commend a traveller, lay¬ 
 man or cleric, to the good oflices of any other. 
 The precautions against imposture might some¬ 
 times, as in the well-known instance of Pere- 
 grinus (Lucian, de Morte Pereyrin.'), perhaps 
 also in that of the ivap^iaaKToi \piv5d5e\(poi of 
 Gal. ii. 4, be insufficient, but as a rule it did 
 its work, and served .as a bond of union between 
 all Christi.an Churches. Wherever the Christian 
 traveller went, if he were provided with these 
 letters, he found the “ commuuicatio pads,” 
 the “ contesseratio hospital itatis ” (Tertull. de 
 Praescript. Haerctic. c. 20). Those outside 
 the Church’s pale, however arrogant might 
 be their claims, could boast of no such proof 
 of their oneness. They were cut off from w'hat 
 was in the most literal sense of the term the 
 “communion of saints” (^fbid. c. 32). It wa.> 
 the crowning argument of Augustine (^Epist. 
 xliv. 3) and Optatus (^De Schism. Donat, ii. 3) 
 against the Donatists that their letters w'ould 
 not be received in any churches but their own ; 
 that they were therefore a sect with no claim to 
 catholicity, no element of permanence. It was, 
 in like manner, but a necessary sequel to the 
 deposition of Paul of Samosata by the so-called 
 Second Council of Antioch, when the bishojvs 
 who passed sentence on him wrote to Dionysius 
 of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria (Euseb. 
 H. E. vii. 30), requesting them not to addi-ess their 
 letters to him, but to Domnus, whom they had 
 appointed in his place. The letters of Cyprian 
 on the election of Cornelius {Epist. xlv.) and to 
 Stephen (^Epist. Ixvii.) are examjiles of the same 
 kind. The most I'emarkable testimony, how¬ 
 ever, to the extent and the usefulness of the 
 practice is found in the wish of Julian to re¬ 
 organise heathen society on the same plan, and 
 to provide, in this way, shelter and food for any 
 non-Christian traveller who might be journeying 
 to a strange city (Sozomen. If. E. v. 16). 
 
 It was natural, as the Church became wealthier 
 and more worldly, that the restrictive side of 
 the practice should become the more promi¬ 
 nent ; that it should be, wh.at the passport 
 system has been in the intercourse of modern 
 Europe, a check on the free movement of clergy, 
 or monks, or laymen. Thus it w.as made penal 
 (and the penalty was excommunication) for any 
 one to receive either cleric or layman who c.ame 
 to a city not his own without these letters (Can. 
 Apost. c. 12). Those who brought them were 
 even then subject to a scrutiny, with the alter¬ 
 native of being received into full fellowship if it 
 were satisfactory, or, if it were otherwise, of 
 having to be content with some immediate 
 relief (^Ibid. c. 33).’' So the Council of Elvira 
 (c. 25) seeks to maintain the episcopal prero¬ 
 gative in this matter, and will not allow litterae 
 confessoriae (letters certifying that the bearer 
 was one who had suffered in persecution'*) to 
 
 » The canon ends with a warning, significant enough 
 of the nature or frequency of the abuses to which the 
 practice had given rise. (Etc KoivtavLav ovtou? Trpos- 
 &€^r)<Tdf, ttoAAo. yap Kara avvapnayrju yCverai.) 
 
 b A more received rendering of the word Is that the 
 letters were given as a “ libellum pads ” to the " lapsi ’’ or 
 others, by a “confessor," who thus usurped the pren^' 
 gative of the bishop. 
 
408 COMMENDATOKY LETTERS 
 
 take the place of the regular litterae communi- j 
 catoriac. It would appear, from one clause in 
 the canon, that the abuse had spread so far that 
 the “ confessor’s ” passport was handed from one 
 to another without even the insertion of the 
 name, as a cheque payable to bearer. The same 
 practice is condemned by the first Council of 
 Arles (c. 9). That of Elvira denounces also the 
 writing of such letters (the “ pacificae ”) by the 
 wives of presbyters or bishops. The prevalence 
 of this abuse may perhaps explain the zeal of 
 that synod against the marriage of the clergy. 
 The Council of Chalcedon (c. 13) renewed the 
 •prohibition of the Apostolic canon against allow¬ 
 ing any strange cleric, even as reader, to officiate 
 in another city without the (rvarariKa ypa/x- 
 Aiara from his own bishop. That of Antioch 
 i(a.d. 341) forbids any strangers to be received 
 without eV. elpt^yiKal, forbids presbyters to give 
 the eV. KavoviKoX, does not allow even Chorepi- 
 SoOpi to give more than the elprjuiKa'i. That of 
 Arles (c. 7) places those who have received the 
 litterae communicatoriae under the surveillance 
 of the bishop of the city to which they go, with 
 the provision that they are to be excommuni¬ 
 cated if they begin “ agere contra disciplinam,” 
 and adds, extending the precaution to political 
 offences, or to the introduction of a democratic 
 element into the government of the Church, 
 “ similiter de his qui rempublicam agere volunt.” 
 The system spread its ramifications over all 
 provinces (1 C. Carth. c. 7; C, Agath. c. 52). 
 It was impossible for the presbyter who had 
 incuri’ed the displeasure of his bishop to find 
 employment in any other diocese. Without any 
 formal denunciation the absence of the commen¬ 
 datory letter made him a marked man. The 
 unity of the Church became a terrible reality to 
 him. 
 
 It will have been noticed that other terms 
 besides the original (rvarariKal (commendatitiae, 
 or commendatoriae) appear as applied to these 
 letters, and it may be well to I'egister the use 
 and significance of each. 
 
 1. The old term was still retained, as in the 
 C. of Chalcedon, where, the prominent purpose 
 was to commend the bearer of the letter, whe¬ 
 ther cleric or layman, to the favour and good 
 offices of another bishop. 
 
 2. The same letters were also known as kovo- 
 viKal, “ in accordance with the rule of the 
 Church.” This is the word used in the letter 
 from the Synod of Antioch, already quoted, by 
 the Councils of Antioch (c. 8) and Laodicea 
 (o. 41). The Latin equivalent seems to have 
 been the literae forniatae,^ i.e. drawn up after a 
 known and prescribed form, so as to be a safe¬ 
 guard against imposture. It was stated at the 
 Council of Chalcedon by Atticus, Bishop of Con¬ 
 stantinople, that it was agreed by the bishops at 
 the Councils of Nicaea that every such letter 
 should be marked with the letters n. T. A. n., 
 in honour of the three Persons of the Trinity.** 
 In the West the signature or seal (ti^os) of the 
 bishop was probably the guarantee of genuine- 
 
 e The word “ formata ’’ occurs in the Acts of the Synod 
 of Milevis (c. 20). 
 
 d The statement rests on the somewhat questionable 
 authority of the Pseudo-Isidore; but the form is found in 
 German documents of the 9th century. (Herzog, s. v. 
 LiUraeformatet.) 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 ness. The first mention of the use of a seal¬ 
 ring occurs, it is believed, in Augustine (^Epist. 
 59 ; al. 217 ®)- 
 
 3. From the use of the letters a.s admitting 
 clergy or laymen to communion they were known 
 as KoivujviKoX, and are so described by Cyril of 
 Alexandria (.4c^. Ephes. p. 282). The corre¬ 
 sponding Latin, communicatoriae, appears in the 
 Council of Elvira (c. 25), Augustine {Ejnst. 43 ; 
 al. 162). 
 
 4. The inKTToKal upgviKaX appear to be dis¬ 
 tinguished from the (TvtnariKai as commending 
 the bearer for eleemosynary aid. They are to be 
 given to the poor and those who need help, 
 clerics or laymen (C. Clutlced. c. 11), especially, 
 according to the Gi’eek canonists (Zonaras ad 
 Can. ii. G. Chalcedi), to those who had suffered 
 oppression at the hands of civil magistrates. 
 The word is used also by the Council of Antioch 
 (c. 7, 8), already quoted as applied to letters 
 which might be given by presbyters as well as 
 bishops. 
 
 5. There were the Ittiitt. aTro\vriKa\, the 
 “ letters dimissory ” of modern times. The 
 word is of later use than the others, and occurs 
 first in the Council in Trullo (c. 17), in a con¬ 
 text which justifies the distinction drawn by 
 Suicer (s. v. a-iroXoriKi]), that it was used in 
 reference to a permanent settlement of the 
 bearer, the a-varaTiK^, when the sojourn in 
 another diocese was only temporary. [E. II. P.] 
 
 COMMERCE. It would be difficult to find in 
 either the Old or the New Testament any passage 
 in disparagement of trade, whether combined or 
 not with a handicraft. la the Old Testament, if 
 the calling of Bezaleel and Aholiab nuts the highest 
 honour on the skill of the artisan, the ordinary pro¬ 
 cesses of trade are no less sanctified by connecting 
 them with God Himself and His law in such pas¬ 
 sages as those of Lev. xix. 35-6; Deut. xxv. 13-15; 
 Prov. xl. 1, xvi. 10, 23, xxxi. 24; Micah vi. 11. 
 Nor is it amiss to observe that the Jewish cus¬ 
 tom which prevails to this day, of bringing up 
 every boy without excejition to a business, trade 
 or handicraft, appears to be an immemorial one, 
 and may serve to exjdain both the calling by 
 our Lord of fishermen-apostles. His own training 
 as a handicraftsman (Mark vi. 3), and the tent¬ 
 making of Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 
 3). No incompatibility, therefore, between the 
 exercise of a trade and the Christian calling, 
 whether as a layman or as a member of the 
 clergy, can be coeval with the Church, and 
 all legislation to this eft’ect must belong to 
 what may be termed the secondary, not the 
 primary, era of its development. It must, more¬ 
 over, be observed that the places in which the 
 Gospel seems to have preferably taken root were 
 busy commercial cities, such as Antioch, Corinth, 
 Ephesus; and it is a remarkable fact that the 
 age in which Christianity first forced itself on 
 the notice of the Pagan world, and was honoured 
 with imperial persecution, the time of Nero, was 
 also one of great commercial activity, as may be 
 seen from the account, chiefly derived from Pliny, 
 of the new trades and inventions introduced under 
 Nero, contained in the “Anecdota de Nerone ” 
 annexed to Naudet’s Tacitus, vol. v. p. 181 and 
 foil. (Paris, 1820). 
 
 « See the different meanings in Ducange, s. v. For^ 
 matae. 
 
COMMERCE 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 409 
 
 That trade under the later emperors was looked 
 upon as an occupation ot'inferior dignity is visible 
 from the fact that a constitution of Theodosius 
 and Valentinian (a.d, 436) required all bankers, 
 jewellers, dealers in silver or clothing, apothe¬ 
 caries, and other traffickers to be removed from 
 provincial offices, “ in order that every })lace of 
 honour and official service (militia) should be 
 cleared of the like contagion ” (a contagione 
 hujusmodi segregetur; Code, bk, xii. t. Iviii. 
 1, 12). Traders generally (except the metro¬ 
 politan bankers) were again excluded from the 
 militia by a constitution of Justin {Code, bk. xii. 
 t. XXXV.). This word indeed must no longer, as 
 under the Republic, be deemed to imply neces¬ 
 sarily military service, since the constitution last 
 referred to expressly distinguishes the armed 
 militia (urmata militia), admission to which is 
 forbidden to .all tx’aders alike, whilst the metro¬ 
 politan bankers (argenti distractores) are by pri¬ 
 vilege permitted to enter any other. Soldiers 
 conversely were by a constitution of Leo (a.d. 
 458) forbidden to trade (bk. xii. t. xxxvi. 1. 15); 
 and a constitution of Honorius and Theodosius 
 forbad men of noble birth, conspicuous dignity, 
 or hereditary wealth, to exercise a tr.ade “per¬ 
 nicious to towns, in order to facilitate mercantile 
 transactions in the way of buying and selling, 
 between plebeians and tradesmen ” (bk. iv. t. 
 Ixiii. 1. 3). 
 
 As respects the smaller trades and handi¬ 
 crafts (it is alwfiys difficult to distinguish the 
 two in the lower social strata) the exercise of 
 them differed often little from slavery. A con¬ 
 stitution of the Emperor Constantine (bk. vi. t. i. 
 1. 5; A.D. 329) speaks of freedraen-artificers 
 belonging to the state, and desires them to be 
 brought back, if enticed out of the city where 
 they reside. Artificers were exempted from all 
 official functions, which, considering the miser¬ 
 able condition of the . curiales, must rather 
 have been a boon to them (bk. x. t. Ixiv. and 
 passim). They formed collegia (see Collegia), 
 from which they could not withdraw without 
 l^resenting fit substitutes re.ady to accept all 
 their obligations (1. 15). The bakers—if indeed 
 the constitution of Leo which refers to them 
 has not been stretched by its present title 
 beyond its original intent—seem to have been 
 in an almost lower condition' still, since their 
 status is expressly treated as servile. Curiously 
 enough, the swinehei'ds of the capitals, as carry¬ 
 ing on a restless Labour for the benefit of the 
 Roman people, were specially exempted from all 
 .sordid offices (t. xvi. 1. 1). A special title (ix.) is 
 devoted to iron-workers {fabricenses), who were 
 to be m.arked in the arm, and who formed also 
 an hereditary caste, mutually responsible for the 
 offences of every member (1. 5), and forbidden to 
 engage in agriculture or any other occupation 
 (1. 7). Yet being exempted from all civil and curial 
 obligations (1. 6), and from giving quarters to 
 troops (bk. xii. t. Ixi. 1. 4), their condition (which 
 is termed a mildia) seems to have been a coveted 
 one, since the admission to it is regulated with 
 especial care (bk. xi. t. ix. 1. 4). It w.as to be 
 by deed, before the moderator of the province or 
 other high officer. The candidate had to show 
 that he was neither the son nor grandson of 
 a curial, th.at he owed no dues to the city, 
 and head no obligations towards a citizen. The 
 manufacture of arms was also by the 85th novel 
 
 limited to the official “ armifactores,” or “ to 
 those who are called fabriciensli ” (quaere, fabri' 
 censes). 
 
 Whole branches of trade, as we now under¬ 
 stand the term, did not exist. Instead of a trade 
 in corn, the transport of corn to the capitals 
 was a service attached to land (munus rei navi~ 
 culariae). Thus when Augustine was offered the 
 estate of one Bonifacius, he declined it, because 
 he would not have the Church of Christ a “ na- 
 vicularia,” and so incur the risk, in the event of 
 a ship being lost, of h.aving to consent to the 
 torture of the men on board, as part of the in¬ 
 vestigation (Aug. Serm. 355). 
 
 In the interior of the empire, trade w.as not 
 only restricted by monopolies which under Jus¬ 
 tinian were carried to a cruel height (see Gibbon, 
 c. xl.), and of which Dean Milman observes that 
 the state monopoly “ even of corn, wine, and 
 oil was in force at the time of the first cru¬ 
 sade,” but by the reservation of various articles 
 for imperial use. Thus the wearing of gold and 
 silver tissue or embroidery was forbidden to pri- 
 A'ate per.sons, nor could such tissue or embroidery 
 be woven or worked except in the imperial 
 gynecaea (bk. xl. t. viii. 11. 1, 2, 4). The use of 
 the dye of the “ holy murex,” or any imitation 
 of its purple, was equally forbidden (/6. 11. 3, 4, 
 5). The employment of gems (among which 
 pearls, emeralds, and jacinths were forbidden to 
 be used in horse-tr.appings) was also regulated, 
 as savouring of the imperial dignity {lb. t. xi.). 
 The 85th novel forbad even all sale of arms to 
 private persons. 
 
 Buying and selling seems to have been in great 
 measure carried on at fairs and in markets, the 
 holding of which was by imperial grant forfeit- 
 able by ten years’ non-user (Dig. bk. 1. t. xi. Be 
 Hundinis, 1. 1), and the dealing at which wa.s 
 invested with certain privileges (Code, bk. iv. 
 t. lx.). Fairs, it may be observed, were often 
 held on saints’ days, though St. Basil in his 
 Liber Regularum condemns the practice; thus 
 there was a fair in Lucania on the birth-day of 
 St. Cyprian, a 30-days’ fair free of toll in Edessa 
 at the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle, &c. (Mu- 
 ratori, Antiquitates Medti Aevi, vol. ii. Diss. .30). 
 
 Notwithstanding the low estimation in which 
 trade was held, it seems clear that until Justi¬ 
 nian’s time at least it was not held civilly in¬ 
 compatible with the clerical office. The J kilo- 
 sop’iuinena of Hippolytus (beginning of the 3rJ 
 century) show us the future pope Callistus set 
 up by Carpophoru.s as a banker, holding his bank 
 in the “ Piscina Publica,” and receiving dej)osits 
 from widows and brethren (ix. 12). A law of 
 Constantine and Julian indeed, A.D. 357 (Code, 
 bk. i. t. ii. 1. 2, which exempted the clergy from 
 “ prestations ” levied from merchants), sought to 
 compel trader-clerics (amongst others) to devote 
 their gains to charitable uses: “ If by saving, oi 
 forethought, or honourable trading they have 
 got money together, it should be ministered for 
 the use of the poor and needy.” The next pas¬ 
 sage indicates a custom still more strange to us 
 —that of workshops and even taverns being kept 
 for the benefit of the Church : “Or that which 
 may have been acquired and collected from their 
 workshops or taverns, let them deem it when 
 collected the gain of religion and the privileges 
 of the clergy are mostly extended to their men 
 who are occupied in trade (lb.) Another law ot 
 
410 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 the same emperor, a.d. 361, which however does ’ 
 not seem to have been retained in his Code by 
 Justinian (^Cod. Theod. bk. xvi. t. ii. 1. 15), ex¬ 
 empted clerics from “sordid offices” as well as 
 from the imposition of the collatio, “ if by very 
 small trade they acquire to themselves poor food 
 and clothing;” but others, whose names are on 
 the register of merchants, at the time when 
 the collutio takes place, “ must acknowledge the 
 duties and payments of merchants.” We see 
 thus that trader-clerics were of all degrees, from 
 the humblest traffickers to considerable mer¬ 
 chants. 
 
 The 43rd Novel “ De officinis sive tabernis 
 Constantiuopolitanae urbis,” &c., and the 59th, 
 
 “ De debita impeusd in exequiis defunctorum,” in¬ 
 dicate to us the extent of the trade which was 
 carried on in the Eastern capital on behalf of the 
 Church, and the singular character of a portion 
 cf it. In consideration of the cathedral church 
 undertaking what in modern French parlance 
 would be termed the “ Pompes Funfebres ” of the 
 city, Constantine granted to it 980 ergasteria or 
 workshops, of the various trades (“ ex diversis 
 corporibus ”) of the city, to be held free of all tax ; 
 Anastasius added 150 more (Preface to Nov. 59). 
 The total number of these cathedral ergasteria or 
 officinae, as the 43rd novel terms them, seems 
 from the preface to the latter to have practically 
 sunk to 1100 (perhaps by failure of trade, see 
 nov. 59, 'c. ii., which saj's that even of the 
 reduced number “ plurima ceciderunt”), at which 
 figure it is fixed by both novels, the earlier one 
 being grounded on the complaints of the colle- 
 giati —say the guilds of the city—that the number 
 of tax-free establishments was ruining them. But 
 all other officinar of the 14 wards (“ regiones ”) 
 of the city, whether belonging to any church, 
 hospital, monastery, orphan-home, poor-house, or 
 to any other p>erson, were required to bear all 
 public impositions. And in speaking of these 
 ojp.cinae the word tavern occurs, not only as 
 above-shown in the title, but in the body of 
 the law (c. i. § 3). Strange therefore as may 
 seem to us the idea of a church or cathedral 
 bakery or pothouse, it is clear that in the 6th 
 century a very considerable amount of trade, 
 including the liquor-traffic, was carried on on 
 behalf of the Church and its charitable establish¬ 
 ments in the capital of the Eastern empire. 
 
 If we turn from the Roman to the barbarian 
 world, the barbarian codes till the tirne of 
 Charlemagne scarcely contain an allusion to 
 trade, excejd, perhaps, in reference to loans, 
 pledges, or debts-^see for instance the Wisi- 
 gothic laws, bk. v. tt. 5, 6. Under the rule of the 
 Ostrogoths in Italy, the Formulary of Cassio» 
 dorus indicates that the armourers were still 
 considered as a militia (“militibus to et fabris 
 armorum .... praefecimus,” pt. ii. c. 18, “de 
 armorum factoribus ”). Under the Lombards, 
 a law of Notharis (a.d. 638 or 643) refers to the 
 building trade in dealing with accidents among 
 masons, and uses a term (m-igistri Comacini) 
 which shows that this class of workmen were 
 then drawn mainly from the same locality (the 
 neighbourhood of Como), which mainly furnishes 
 them still to Northern Italy (c. 144, and foil.; and 
 see c. 152, as to accidents among other workmen). 
 Somewhat later again, the growth of trade and 
 industry under the Lombards is indicated by a 
 s.agular law of Luitprand (bk. iii. c. 4, a.d. 717), 
 
 ' enacting that if any man leave his wife for 
 trade or for the exercise of an art, and do not 
 return after three years, his wife may aj)ply to 
 the king for leave to re-marry. Foreign trade is 
 referred to by the Wisigothic code (bk. xi. t 3) 
 in a law “on traders from beyond the sea,” 
 which enacts that if such traders have a matter 
 between themselves, none of the king’s household 
 shall presume to hear them, but let them be 
 heard according to their own laws only oy their 
 toll-takers (“ apud telonarios suos ”). 
 
 The legislation of the Church bears much more 
 on commercial matters than that of the bar¬ 
 barian kingdoms, and we have now to consider 
 its history. 
 
 One form of trade, it may be observed, w'as 
 always forbidden by the church, that of earning 
 a livelihood by usury. [See Usury.] In other 
 respects it was long before trade was deemed by 
 the Church itself incompatible with clerical 
 functions; though the fathers might inveigh 
 against it as a form of w'orldliness; as w'hen 
 Cyprian in his work De Lapsis, written about 
 a.d. 251, speaks of those who “ watch like fowlers 
 for gainful markets.” (Comp. Ep. 15.) The 
 growth of .some general feeling on the subject 
 is, however, to be traced in the 18th canon of 
 the Council of Eliberis, a.d. 305, by which 
 bishops, priests, and deacons are forbidden to 
 depart from their places for the sake of trade, or 
 to go round the provinces seeking lucrative 
 markets. To obtain their livelihood they may 
 indeed send a son, a freedman, an agent {mercu- 
 rarium), a friend, or anyone else; and if they 
 wish to trade, let them trade within the pro¬ 
 vince—the main object of the canon being clearly 
 to preserve to their flocks the benefits of their 
 ministrations, not to put dishonour on trading 
 itself. 
 
 A collection of decrees of very doubtful au¬ 
 thority, attributed to the Nicene Council, which 
 will be found in Labbe and Mausi’s Councils, vol. 
 ii. p. 1029, and foil, under the title : “ Sauctiones 
 et decreta alia ex quatuor regularum ad Con- 
 stantinuro libris decerpta,” contains amongst 
 its “ statutes for priests ” (c. 14) a provision 
 that the priest shall not be a barber, a surgeon, 
 or a worker in iron {ferramentarius), the two 
 former prohibitions turning probably on blood¬ 
 letting in its most literal form, the latter on the 
 providing instruments for bloodshed. The 4th 
 Council of Carthage, 397, forbids clerics to go to 
 markets, except to buy, under pain of degra¬ 
 dation (c. 48), but at the same time enacts that 
 “ a cleric, hoAvever learned in the w'ord of God, 
 shall seek his livelihood by means of a handi¬ 
 craft, artifeio” (c. 51), that “a cleric shall 
 )rovide for himself food and clothing by a 
 landicraft or by agriculture, without detri¬ 
 ment to his office ” (c. 52), and that “ all clerics 
 who have strength to work should learn both 
 handicrafts (artijiciola') and letters ” (c. 53) ; 
 provisions all nearly equivalent and which con¬ 
 firm the opinion that the canons of this and 
 other Carthaginian Councils represent rather 
 the whole collection of rules by which the 
 African churcdi was governed at their respective 
 dates than specific enactments of those dates. 
 They appear, Indeed, to indicate that, at all 
 events in this quarter of the church, a distinc¬ 
 tion was being taken between trade and handi- 
 [ crafts, and that the exercise of the former by 
 
COMMERCE 
 
 411 
 
 COMMERCE 
 
 clerics was restrained, whilst the latter was 
 enjoined. 
 
 By the time of tlie Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 
 451) the line between “secular” and “reli¬ 
 gious ” employments appears to have become 
 much more sharply marked. The 3rd canon 
 speaks of clerics who for filthy lucre carry on 
 secular business, and forbids them to do so,—a 
 prohibition which would seem to include every 
 shape of trade, but which cannot have been so 
 considered, since the Council of Chalcedon is 
 expressly named as one of the four to whose 
 canons force of law is given by Justinian’s Code, 
 A.D. 533 (bk. i. 1. i. c. 7, § 4), which yet, as 
 has been seen above, expressly recognises both 
 clerical ti'adiug and trading on behalf of the 
 church. 
 
 In the west, however, it seems clear that the 
 feeling against clerical trading became always 
 stronger; a letter (ix.) of Pope Gelasius I. (a.d. 
 4f>2--(') to the bishops of Lucania speaks (c. 15) 
 of his having heard from Picenum that very 
 many clerics there are occupied with dishonour¬ 
 able business and filthy lucre, and enjoins them 
 to abstain from unworthy gain, and from every 
 device or desire of business of any kind, or else 
 from the fulfilment of clerical functions—expres¬ 
 sions which, in the light of altered feeling on 
 the subject, we may also take to apply to trade 
 generally. The Council of Tarragona (a.d. 516) 
 enacts that “ whosoever will be in the clergy, let 
 him not be careful to buy too cheap or sell too 
 dear,or let him be removed from the clergy” (c. 2). 
 If a cleric lends a solidus in time of need, in order 
 to receive it back in wine or wheat which it is 
 intended to sell at a fixed time for the sake of 
 traffic, if the actual thing be not needed by him, 
 let him receive what he gave without any in¬ 
 crease (c. 3)—a prohibition both of trade and 
 of usury. The 3rd Council of Orleans, a.d. 538, 
 in like manner, forbius clerics from the rank of 
 deacons upwards to carry on business like public 
 traders, or to carry on a forbidden bu.‘i less under 
 another’s name (c. 27). In spite of f; ese enact¬ 
 ments, we find in the letters of Giegory the 
 Gieat (a.d. 590-603) mention made of a ship¬ 
 building bishop in Campania (see Labbe and 
 Mansi’s Counci s, vol. x. p. 559). 
 
 That the enactments of the African Councils no 
 longer satisfied the temper even of the English 
 church may be judged from the Excerpta of 
 Ecgbert, archbishoj) of 7ork (latter half of 8th 
 century), the 3rd book of which (2ud .series) 
 contains a prohibition to priests anti deacons to 
 be occupied “in any worldly affairs,” except 
 those for which they are a.ssigned {intitulati, c. 8). 
 A canon of the Council of Calchyth (that is, Chel¬ 
 sea), A.D. 787, in favour of honesty in weights 
 and measures, may also be quoted (c. 17). 
 
 The capitularies of Charlemagne (mostly, if 
 not always, invested with the sanction of the 
 church), deal repeatedly with the subject of 
 trade. The ecclesiastical capitulary of 789 
 enacts that measures and weights be equal and 
 just, “ whether in cities or whether in monas¬ 
 teries, whether for giving or whether for re¬ 
 ceiving ” (c. 73. and see the “ Capitula minora” 
 added to the Salic law, A.D. 803, c. viii.; Canon 
 15 of the 6th Council of Arles ; and c. 45 of the 
 3rd Council of Tours, same year). The Frankfort 
 Ciipitulary of 794 is one of .several which attempt 
 to fix the prices of victuals (c. 4; Ca^^itulary of 
 
 Xoyon, A.D. 808, c. 5). The pitch of actual cruelty 
 is reached in the “ Capitula de Judaeis,” where 
 every Jew is forbidden to have money in his 
 house, to sell wine, victuals, or any other thing, 
 under pain of confiscation of all his goods and 
 imprisonment till he come into the imperial 
 presence (c. 3). The utter absence of all notion 
 of a possible right to freedom in trading is well 
 expressed in one of the Capitula published by 
 the imperial missi, A.D. 803 : “ That no man 
 presume to sell or buy or measure otherwise 
 than as the lord emperor has commanded ” (c. 
 10 ). 
 
 Markets are not to be held on the Lord’s Day 
 (Excerpts from the Canons, added to the Ca¬ 
 pitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle of A.D. 813, c. 15 
 and see General Collection, bk. i. c. 139 ; Oth 
 Council of Arles, a.d. 813, c. 16; 3rd Council of 
 Tours, A.D. 813, c. 40), except where they have 
 been held of old and lawfully (Capitulary of 
 Aix-la-Chapelle of 809, c. 9); a Lombard Capi¬ 
 tulary of 779 seems however to enact generally 
 that “ markets are nowhere to be held except 
 where they have been held of old lawfully” 
 (o. 52, taking no notice of the Sunday). Ford- 
 stalling for covetousness’ sake is forbidden 
 (Capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle of 809, c. 12). 
 The Council of Friuli, A.D. 791, even forbad 
 generally the carrying on of secular business to 
 an immoderate extent. 
 
 Presbyters were by one capitulary forbidden 
 to trade, or gather riches in anywise by filthy 
 lucre (Capitula pi-esbyterorum, a.d. 806). On 
 the other hand the Council of Mayence, A.D. 813, 
 more guardedly forbids clerics and monks to have 
 unjust weights or measures, or to carry on an 
 unjust trade ; “ neverthele.ss a just trade is not 
 to be forbidden, on account of divers nece.ssities • 
 for we read that the holy apostles traded ” (ne¬ 
 gotiates esse),— the rule of St. Benedict being 
 referred to as a further authority (c. 14, see Ad- 
 ditio 4fa, c. 46). Trade was, however, forbidden 
 to penitents, “ because it is difficult that between 
 the dealing of seller and buyer sin should not 
 intervene ” {General Collection, bk. vii. c. 62; 
 perhaps of later date). 
 
 The exact meaning of some of the later texts 
 above referred to is rendered somewhat doubtful 
 through the gradual narrowing of the term 
 negotium and its derivatives, from the sense of 
 business in its widest meaning to the specific one 
 of trade, as in its modern French offspring le ne'joce, 
 negooiant. They sufficiently show, however, that 
 whilst the avocations of the early apostles were 
 still remembered, and the rule of St. Benedict 
 had raised the dignity of labour itself, the 
 growing Judaistic distinction between “secular’’ 
 and “religious” acts and matters, so foreign to 
 the spirit of a faith which is founded on the 
 abrogation of all distinctions except those 
 between good and evil, light and darkness, life 
 and death, in which the recognition that in 
 meats “ there is nothing unclean of itself,” but 
 “ all things indeed are pure ” (Rom. xiv. 14, 20), 
 that “ every creature of God is good, and nothing 
 to be refused, if it be received with thanks¬ 
 giving ” (1 Tim. iv. 4), was only the type of the 
 breaking down of “ the middle wall of partition ” 
 between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. ii. 14; Acts x. 
 10-15, 28), had by the Oth century begun to 
 render the very idea of trade incompatible with 
 the clerical calling, not so much as in early 
 
412 
 
 COMMINATION 
 
 times, by reason of its distracting the minister 
 from his sacred functions, as on account of a 
 supposed inherent dishonour attached to it. 
 That the distinction is in itself a result of the 
 secularizing of the church may be inferred from 
 a comparison with civil legislation. The ultra- 
 refined ofiTicialism of the later Roman empire, 
 which made the sovereign the only source of 
 honour, and excluded the independent trader (one 
 specially rich class excepted), even from the 
 merely civil militia, let alone the military 
 service itself, on the one hand—the rude savagery 
 of the barbarian on the other, which looked upon 
 war and warlike sports as the only employments 
 worthy of a man, and almost utterly ignored in 
 legislation the very existence of the trader— 
 must both, whatever phenomena to the con¬ 
 trary may present themselves in Justinian’s 
 Code, have reacted profoundly upon the spirit 
 of the church. The service of God, which soon 
 claimed the title of a militia, must have the 
 exclusiveness of one, whether the term were 
 used in the Roman official sense or in the 
 W’arlike barbarian one; whatever was incom¬ 
 patible with the dignity of the functionary of 
 an earthly sovereign, of the soldier of an earthly 
 chief, must be incompatible also with that of a 
 minister of God, a soldier in His host. At the 
 same time, the influence of this distinction had 
 not gone so far as to exclude the whole realm 
 of trade from church solicitude, and it is remark¬ 
 able to observe in the canons of French Councils 
 of the begiuiiiiig of the 9th century similar 
 enactments against dishonesty in trade to those 
 of the Pentateuch. [See Dkbtor, Covetous¬ 
 ness, Usury.] [J. M. L.] 
 
 COMIMINATION. The “ denunciation of 
 God’s anger and judgments against sinners” 
 used in the Anglican church on Ash-Wednesday. 
 
 The ejection of penitents from the church on 
 the first day of Lent, with prayer that they may 
 bring forth fruits meet for repentance, seems to 
 be a practice of considerable antiquity (Martene, 
 De Lit. Eccl. Ant. lib. iv. c. 17), although the 
 canon of the Council of Agde which is sometimes 
 cited in proof of it rests on no earlier authority 
 than that of Gratian (Bingham, Antiq. bk. xviii. 
 c. 2, § 2). But the particular practice of the 
 English church, of reciting “ God’s cursing 
 against impenitent sinners” on Ash-Wednesday 
 seems to be a continuation of the use of the 
 “ articles of the sentence of cursing ” which 
 were read in parish churches three or four times 
 a year in the Middle Ages. (Wheatley, On the 
 Common Prayer, p. 605, ed. Corrie.) [See Peni¬ 
 tence.] [C.] 
 
 COMMUNICALES. A term used to desig¬ 
 nate the vessels used in Holy Communion, which 
 on certain days were carried in procession at 
 Rome. The Liber I’onOficalis (p. 122, ed. Mura- 
 tori) tells us that Leo HI. (fSlG) made commu- 
 nion-vessel.s (communicales) in the several regions 
 of Ronie, which were to be carried in procession ; 
 by acolytes on stationary days; these were [ 
 twenty-four in number. [C.] 
 
 COMMUNICATIVE LIFE. [Monasti- 
 
 CISM.] 
 
 COMMUNIO. (1) An anthem in the Roman j 
 and cognate missals, said by the celebrant after [ 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 he has taken the ablutions. It is so called, be¬ 
 cause it w’as originally appointed to be sung 
 during the communion of the people, and was 
 sung antiphonally after each verse of a psalm, 
 which w'as continued till the priest gave the 
 signal for the Gloria, when the communion of 
 the people was ended {Ordo Pom. iii. 18). “ De¬ 
 
 bent omnes communicare interim cum Antiphona 
 cantatur, quae de Communione nomen mutuavit, 
 cui et Psalmus subjungendus est cum <iloria 
 Patri, si necesse fuerit ” {Microl.de Keel. Observ. 
 cap. 18). Afterw'ards the Cornnvinio was looked 
 upon more as an act of thanksgiving, to be .said 
 after the commnnion. It varies with the day. 
 That for the Missa in nocte Nat. Dom. is“ In 
 splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum 
 genui te.” 
 
 (2) An anthem in the Mozarabic mi.ssal sung 
 by the choir after the communion has taken 
 place. There are only two forms; one used in 
 Lent, the other during the rest of the vear. 
 This latter is: “ Refecti corpore et sanguine te 
 Laudamus Domiue. All: All: All:” [11. J. H.] 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY. The present article 
 does not treat of the whole of what in England 
 is generally called the Commnnion Office or Ser¬ 
 vice [see Liturgy], but of that portion of it 
 which immediately relates to the distribution 
 and reception of the con.secrated elements in the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 Names. — Koivuvla, reev fiv(rTripi(av Koivuvia 
 (Chrysostom); fivari^piop or koivw- 
 
 vias, BeapxiK^ Koivcavia (Dionysius Areop.); 
 fieTd\r]ipis ayia(TixdTu:v, evx^pKTTias, yvaTT}- 
 pio}V‘, ayia or fiver ik)) fit-Ta\'r}\f/is. Tlie verb 
 Koivu'vuv is used absolutely to describe partici¬ 
 pation of the Eucharist (Basil, Chrysostom), 
 and also with a substantive descriptive of 
 the sacred feast, as fiveriKris KoivuvLiv dve'ias 
 (Philostorgius). So fierexfir foxapterias (Cone. 
 Nic. 1. c. 13); and fiera\afi0di'eip, absolutely 
 (Theophylact), or with a substantive, as axpdp- 
 rov Ovfiaros fi€Ta\a0e?y (Philostorg ), rov Aee- 
 TTOTiKov ed'fiaros Kal alfiaros fifraXap^avfiv 
 (Theodoret). 
 
 Communio, commnnicatio; they wffio partake 
 of the consecrated elements are said commimi- 
 care, absolutely {e.g. IV. Cone. Tolet. c. 18). 
 The leading notion implied in the use of these 
 wmi’ds is expressed by Isidore of Pelusiwm (Ep. 
 228) thus: “ quia nobis conjunctionem cum Deo 
 conciliat, nosque regni ipsius consortes ac parti- 
 cipes reddit;” by Papias (in Ducange, s. v 
 Communio'), thus : “ Communio dicitur spiritualis 
 esca, quia in commune ad vivificandas animas a 
 cunctis percipitur dignis.” Other terms are 
 perceptio Cot'poris et Sanguinis, participatio. 
 The word accipere is used to designate the act 
 of taking the bread or the chalice into the 
 hands ; surnere or consumere, the act of eating or 
 drinking the particle or the wine. 
 
 The wmrd comm'inicare is also used actively, to 
 denote the act of presenting the consecrated 
 j Bread ; the deacons following with the cup are 
 said confrmare Sanguine Domit ico, or coujrmare 
 simply : “ Episcopi communicant populum ; post 
 eos diaconi confirmant; ” “ subdiaconus regio- 
 narius . . . confirmat populum” (Oido Pom. 1. 
 c. 20). The w'ord is used no doubt to signify 
 j the completing or perfecting of the act of om- 
 [ munion {Micrologus, c. 19). 
 
COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 General Account of Holy Communion. 
 
 The earliest extant description of Holy Com¬ 
 munion is the well-known passage of Justin 
 Martyr {Apol. I. c. 65), already quoted under 
 Canon (p. 267). No description is here giA-en of 
 posture or gesture, Avhether of ministrants or 
 recipients, or of any Avords accompanying admi¬ 
 nistration; Justin tells us only that after the 
 et-Xapio-Tta, “ those whom Ave call deacons giA'e 
 to each of those present to partake of the bread 
 and of the wine and AA’^ater OA^er which thanks 
 haA'e been giA^en* (too €vxapi(TTT]Q4vros &pTov 
 Ka\ oXuov Ka\ oSaro?), and carry aAvay to those 
 who are not present.” He repeats substan¬ 
 tially the same account in c. 67, using the AVords 
 5td8o(rts and /ieTaA7ji|/js for distribution and 
 reception. 
 
 From Tertullian aa'C learn that in the African 
 Church of the 2ud century the Eucharist Avas 
 administered to all Avho Avere present; for he 
 recommends (^l)e Oratione, c. 14) those who 
 hesitated to be present at the celebration on 
 stationary days [Static] for fear of breaking 
 their fast, to be present indeed, but to reserve 
 the portion Avhich they received. This applies 
 to the Bread only; it Avas consecrated bread, 
 which some Avere in the habit of putting to 
 their lips before an ordinary meal (Ac? Uxot'em, 
 ii. 5). The Eucharist Avas received, not at the 
 usual meal-time, as the Lord’s command seemed 
 to require (et in tempore Auctus et omnibus 
 mandatum a Domino), but in assemblies before 
 daAvn and from no other hands than those of the 
 presidents (praesidentium); it was giA^en into 
 the hands; for Tertullian laments the impiety 
 of those idol-makers Avho—Avhether as clerics or 
 laics -touched the Lord’s Body with hands so 
 contaminated (Z>e IdA c. 7); and Christians 
 felt an anxious dread lest any portion of the 
 bread or the wine should fall to the ground 
 (Z>e Corona^ c. 3), for the Holy Communion 
 was administered, ordinarily at least, under 
 both kinds. Tertullian has also a probable 
 allusion to the Amen of the recipient in response 
 to the Avords of administration (J)e Spectac. 
 c. 25). 
 
 From Cyprian Ave learn (besides much as to 
 the worthiness of communicants) that the deacon 
 presented the cup after consecration to those Avho 
 Avere present, probably in a certain order {De 
 Lapsis, c. 25); the bread Avas received into the 
 right hand {Ep. 58, c. 9, Hartel), and AA^as not 
 unfrequently carried home in a casket (De Lapsis, 
 c. 26). Compare Arca. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (Strom, i. c. 1, p. 318 
 Potter), speaking of the necessity of men trying 
 and examining themseh'es, illustrates his posi¬ 
 tion by a reference to the Eucharist, “ in distri¬ 
 buting Avhich according to custom some permit 
 each seA’ei’al person in the congregation to take 
 his portion.” There is no reason for supposing 
 (Probst, Lit. der Drei Ersten Jahr/idte.) that 
 these rivfs Avere schismatics; and the passage 
 seems to imply that there Avere churches Avhere 
 the ministers, in distributing the elements, per¬ 
 mitted all Avho Avere present to partake if they 
 
 • This is the translation usually given of €vxa.pi(TTr)- 
 BivTo<: (see Alzog’s Patrologie, p. 711: but it may per¬ 
 haps be interpreted “ the bread presented as a thank- 
 offering." (See Euch.vkist.) 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 413 
 
 Avould ; and other churches where they judged 
 Avho among the congregation Avere or Avere not 
 Avorthy. 
 
 The directions of the second book of the Apo¬ 
 stolical Constitutions are as folloAvs (c. 57, § 14): 
 “ After the sacrifice has been made, let eacii 
 rank (ranis') seA'erally partake of the Lord’s 
 Body and of the precious Blood, aj)i)roaching in 
 rank Avith reA’erence and godly fear as to the 
 body of a king ; and let the Avomeu draAv near 
 Avith veiled heads, as befits the rank of Avomcn. 
 And let the doors be AA'atched, lest any unbe¬ 
 lieving or uninitiated person entev.” . By 
 “ranks” Ave are no doubt to understand the 
 several orders of the clergy and ascetics, ac¬ 
 cording to dignity, then laymen, then Avomen. 
 
 The testimony of Origen (m Exodum, Horn. xi. 
 c. 7, p. 172 ; xiii. 3, 176) sheAvs that, alter the 
 sermon the people dreAV nigh to the marriage- 
 supper of the Lamb ; that not the priest alone, 
 but the faithful also Avho Avere preseift, re- 
 ceiA^ed the Sacrament; and that they Avere care¬ 
 ful that no particle of the consecrated elements 
 should fall to the ground, receiving the Bread 
 no doubt into their hands. His comment on 
 Psalm xxxiii. [xxxiv.] 9, perhaps alludes to the 
 use of TevoaoOi /cal fSere as an antiphon during 
 communion. 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria from 248- 
 266 (in Euseb. H. E. A'ii. 9), mentions the prin¬ 
 cipal ceremonies of communion, Avhen he speaks 
 of one Avho had long attended the Eucharistic 
 Seiwice, joined in responding Amen, stood by the 
 Table, stretched forth his hand to receive the 
 Holy Food and receiA^ed it, had partaken of 
 the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem describes the manner of 
 receiving in his time (c. A.D. 350) and country, 
 thus (Cidech. Afystug. v. 20-22); 
 
 After the Sancta Sanctis, “ye hear the 
 Amice of the chanter (toG if/dWorros) Avith diAune 
 melody inA'iting you to partake of the holy 
 mysteries, and saying, ‘O taste and see hoAV 
 gracious the Lord is.’ Permit not the bodily 
 palate - no, but faith unfeigned, to judge of 
 these things; for they Avho taste are bidden to 
 taste not of bread and Avine, but of the copy 
 (avTnvTTov) of the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 When you approach, then, draAv near not Avith 
 the Avrists straight out nor Avith the finders 
 spread, but making the left hand a throne for 
 the right, as for that Avhich is to receive a king; 
 and holloAving the palm, receiA'e the Body of 
 Christ, saying after reception the Amen. Then 
 after carefully halloAving thine eyes by the 
 touch of the Holy Body, partake of it (iJ.€Ta\d,u- 
 /Save), giving heed lest any portion of it fall 
 aside and be lost; for AvhatsoeA'er thou hast lost, 
 by so much hast thou suffered damage of thine 
 OAvn members . . . Then, after communicating 
 (Koivu}VTi(Tai) of the Body, draAv near also to the 
 Cup (iroTrjp'iCf}) of the Blood; not stretching 
 forth thy hands, but bending, and Avith an air 
 of adoration and reverence, saying the Amen, 
 sanctify thyself partaking also of the Blood of 
 Christ. Further, touching Avith thy hands the 
 moisture remaining on thy lips, sanctify both 
 thine eyes and thy forehead and the other 
 organs of the senses (aiad-qr-fipia). Then, Avhile 
 aAvaiting the pra)’ei, giA’c thanks unto God, 
 Avho hath thought thee Avorthy of so great 
 mystei’ies.” 
 
414 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 In the later J./;os<. Constitutions (viii. 14, § 3), 
 after the Sancta Sanctis, the directions proceed : 
 “ And after this let the bishop partake, then the 
 presbyters and the deacons, and subdeacons, and 
 i,he readers, and the chanters, and the ascetics; 
 and of the women’s side, the deaconesses and the 
 virgins and the widows; then the children, then 
 all the people, with reverence and godly fear, 
 without disturbance. And let the bishop minis¬ 
 ter the oblation (^Trpo(r<popav, i. e. the Bread) 
 saying, ‘The Body of Christ,’ and let him that 
 receiveth say Amen; and let the deacon hold the 
 cup, and say as he administers, ‘ The Blood of 
 Christ, the Cup of Life,’ and let him that 
 drinketh say Amen. And let the 33rd Psalm 
 [34th E.V.] be said while the rest are partaking 
 (fV Tw fj.eTaXap.Sdueiv '); and when all the men 
 and women have partaken, let the deacons take 
 what remains over and bear it into the sacristy 
 (ra Tr(i(TTo<p6pia).” Then followed thanksgiving, 
 prayer, benediction, and dismissal. 
 
 In the Liturgy of St. James, the Sancta Sanctis- 
 is followed by Fraction and Commixtion ; then the 
 priest, after saying the prayer before reception, 
 administers to the clergy; the antiphon “ O 
 taste and see ” is sung; when the deacons take 
 up the patens and the cups to administer to the 
 people, the priest utters an ascription of glory 
 to God : special forms of “ Gloria ” are also given 
 to accompany the placing of the sacred vessels 
 on the side-table or credence (^naparpclire^ov'), 
 for taking them up again, and for placing them 
 on the Holy Table ; but no formula of adminis¬ 
 tration is given either in the Greek or Syriac 
 form of the liturgy. 
 
 In the Liturgy of St. Mark, after the Sancta 
 Sanctis and Fraction, the priest communicates, 
 saying the prayer “According to Thy mercy,” 
 or “Like as the hart desireth the water-brooks.” 
 And when he administers the Bread to the 
 clergy, he says, “ The Holy Body ; ” on adminis¬ 
 tering the cup, “ The precious Blood of our Lord 
 and God and Saviour.” Then follow thanks¬ 
 giving, prayer, and dismissal. The form for the 
 communion of the people was in all probability 
 the same as that for the clergy. 
 
 In that of St. Basil, after the Sancta Sanctis 
 stands the rubric, “ Then the communion (^era- 
 X-ilif/eus) being completed, and the Holy Mys¬ 
 teries lifted from the Holy Table, the priest 
 prays; ” then follow thanksgiving, prayer, and 
 dismissal. 
 
 In the much more fully developed Byzantine 
 Liturgy (St. Chrysostom’s), the priest elevating 
 the Bread says the Sancta Sanctis, to which the 
 usual response is given, and the choir chants 
 the communion-antiphon of the day or the saint. 
 Then follow Fraction and Commixtion, and the 
 peculiar rite of pouidng a few drops of boiling 
 water into the chalice; then “ the Priest, taking 
 the Holy Bread, gives it to the deacon ; and the 
 deacon, saluting the hand that imparts it to 
 him, takes the Holy Bread, saying, ‘ Impart 
 (^fierdSos) to me, sii’, the precious and holy 
 Body of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ.’ And the Priest says, ‘ To N., sacred 
 deacon (^iepoSiaKoi'ce'), is imparted the precious 
 and holy and undefiled Body of our Lord and 
 God and Saviour Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of 
 sins and life eternal.’ And he passes behind 
 the Holy Table, bowing his head, and prays as 
 the priest does. In like manner the priest, 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 taking one particle of the Holy Bread, says, 
 ‘ The precious and all-holy Body of our Lord 
 and God and Saviour Jesus Christ is imparted to 
 me, N., priest, for forgiveness of sins and life 
 eternal.’ Then, bowing his head low, he prays.” 
 Then follow directions for replacing the vessels 
 on the Holy Table. Then the door of the sanc¬ 
 tuary (Srjixa), within which the actions pre¬ 
 viously described have taken place, is opened, 
 and the deacon standing in the doorwav elevates 
 the cup. This rubric follows : “ Be it known 
 that if there are any who desire to partake, the 
 ; priest takes the Holy Cup'* from the hands of 
 the deacon and imparts to them, saying: ‘ The 
 servant of God N. paidakes of the precious and 
 holy Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ for forgiveness of his sins and life 
 eternal.’ ” Then, after a blessing, the priest and 
 deacon return to the Holy Table, and rubrics 
 follow presci’ibing the various observances with 
 which the sacred vessels are carried to the 
 sacristy. 
 
 Of the Western rites, we will speak first of 
 the Roman. 
 
 After the Libera nos of the Canon follow the 
 Kiss of Peace and the breaking or Fraction 
 of the Host, during which the Agnus Dei was 
 said. 
 
 Then, in the ancient form of Papal Mass, a 
 deacon (or, according to the Ordines V. and VT., 
 an acolyth) bore the paten to the Pope’s seat, 
 west of the altar; the Pontift' awaited his 
 coming, standing up with folded hands ; he bit 
 a portion from the oblate on the paten, ffnd 
 placed the oblate in the chalice held by the 
 archdeacon; from this chalice he partook of 
 the Wine by means of a gold or silver pipe 
 [Fistula]. 
 
 When the Pontiff has communicated, the arch¬ 
 deacon draws near the horn of the altar (Ordo 
 Rom. I. c. 20; IT. c. 14)^ and pours a little of 
 the wine from the chalice which had been used 
 in consecration into the cup (scyphum) held by 
 an acolyth ; then the bishops approach to re¬ 
 ceive the communion from the hands of the 
 Pontiff; then the presbyters in like manner 
 (0. R. I. u. s.); according to the Ordo R. II. 
 the presbyters drew near not to the Papal seat 
 but to the altar to communicate. The Ordo V. 
 describes the manner of communicating with 
 more detail: “ let the presbyters also drawing 
 near communicate, to whom the bishop gives the 
 Holy Body into their hands, and lot them go to 
 the left-hand horn® of the altar and kiss it, and 
 communicate. In like manner after them let 
 the deacons communicate.” The Ordo IT. 
 makes the distinction that subdeacons ai’e to 
 receive the Body into their mouths, while the 
 higher orders receive it into their hands. 
 
 After the Pontiff had ministered the Bread, 
 the archdeacon ministered the Wine to the 
 clei-gy ; after which he poured the remainder of 
 
 *> It must be borne in mind that the cnp contains a 
 portion of the consecrated bread as well as the wine; and 
 that in nearly all the Eastern churches the sacred elements 
 have from ancient times been administered to the laity 
 with a spoon (Aa/3w). 
 
 « i.e. the north side. “ Right’' and “ left” in liturgical 
 language at present refer to the right and left hand of the 
 crucifix over the altar: but anciently they referred to the 
 right and left of a person standing with his face towards 
 the altar. [Horn.] 
 
COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 the wine from the chalice into the cup (scy- 
 phurn), from which the laity were to commu¬ 
 nicate by means of a tube, or pugillaris [Fistula]. 
 The wine in this cup was regarded as completely 
 consecrated by the infusion of the consecrated 
 Wine from the chalice (see Mabillon, CoDim. 
 Praevius in Ordines RR. p. xciii.). The Pope 
 delivered the bread to the principal persons pre¬ 
 sent, the archdeacon following with the cup; 
 meantime the choir sang the antiphon Ad Com- 
 munionem. When the principal persons in the 
 Senatokium had communicated, the bishops 
 ministei-ed the bread to the rest of the laity, and 
 the deacons the cup; or sometimes, at the bid¬ 
 ding of the Pontiff, presbyters administered both 
 the bread and the cup (^Ordo R. I. c. 20, and 11. 
 c. 14). As to the form of words accompanying 
 administration; Gregory the Great used the 
 following: “ Coi’pus Dom. N. J. Christi con- 
 servet animam tuam ” (Joann. Diac. Vita Greg. 
 ii. 41). The Missa Illyrici (in Bona, De Reb. 
 Lit. p. 554, ed. 1072) gives the following. For 
 the priest himself when he receives: “ Corpus 
 Domini Nostri Jesu Christi sit mihi remedium 
 sempiternum in vitam aeternam,” and “ Sanguis 
 D. N. J. Christi custodiat me in vitam aeter- 
 nam.” On delivering the Body into the hands 
 of priest or deacons, the form is “ Pax tecum. 
 R. Et cum spiritu tuo;”^ or “Verbum caro 
 factus est, et Labitavit in nobis: ” on delivering 
 the cup, in which a poi’tion of the consecrated 
 bread is immersed [Commixtion], “ Haec sacro- 
 sancta commixtio corporis et sanguinis D. N. 
 J. C. prosit tibi ad vitam aeternam.” For the 
 subdeacons and inferior oi’ders the form is: 
 “ Perceptio Corporis et Sanguinis D. N. J. C. 
 sanctifjcet corpus et animam tuam in vitam 
 aeternam. Amen.” F^or the laity : “ Corpus et 
 sanguis D. N. J. C. prosit tibi in remissionem 
 omnium peccatorum et ad vitam aeternam.” 
 About the time of Charles the Great, the follow¬ 
 ing was a common formula; “ Corpus D. N. J. C. 
 custodiat te in vitam aeternam ” (Krazer, de 
 Liturgiis, p. 561).® 
 
 In the Gallican Church, after the benediction 
 and the communion of the priest, the faithful, 
 men and women alike, drew near the altar and 
 received the Eucharist into their hands. 
 
 During the time of communicating, a psalm 
 or canticle was chanted. On this point Aurelian, 
 bishop of Orleans, gives the simple rule, “ Psal- 
 lendo omnes communicant ” (Regula). Germanus 
 of Paris, his contemporary, calls the canticle or 
 antiphon which was sung during communion 
 Trecanum, and says that it signified faith in the 
 Holy Trinity ; it was probably either the Gloria 
 Patri, cr something equivalent to the Unus 
 Pater, Unus Filius, Unus Spiritus Sanctus, of 
 the Eastern Church [Sancta Sanctis]. In the 
 Mozarabic liturgy, after the priestly benediction 
 and salutation, the choir chants the antiphon Ad 
 Accedentes, during which the people were to 
 draw near. After the antiphon, the priest takes 
 from the paten the particle Gloria [see Frac¬ 
 tion], saying inaudibly “ Panem coelestem de 
 
 d These words were no doubt used as appropriate to 
 the Kiss of Peace given by the mlnlstrant to the recipient, 
 as was occasionally done even as late as the 12th century. 
 (Innocent JII, De ilyst. Mifsae, vi. 9.) 
 
 * A good collection of such formulae may be found 
 in the work of Dominic Georgi, de Liturgia Rom. 
 Fontift 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 415 
 
 mensa Domini accipiam et nomen Domini invo- 
 cabo,” f and, holding it over the chalice, says 
 prayers for worthy recejttion; then consumes 
 the particle which he holds in his hand, and 
 then the remaining particles on the paten. Im¬ 
 mediately after he communicates the people. 
 He then uncovers the chalice and, after the 
 prayer “Ave in aevum coelestis potus,” and 
 “ Corpus et Sanguis D. N. J. Christi custodiat 
 corpus et animam meam in vitam aeternam, 
 Amen,” drinks thereof, and says prayer for bene¬ 
 fit from reception. The choir chants the Coai- 
 MUNio, or antiphon for communicating. No 
 direction is given for the communion of the 
 people further than that contained in the words 
 “ et statim populo communionem impertit.” 
 After the ablution of the chalice. Alleluia is 
 chanted, post-communion follows, salutation and 
 dismissal. 
 
 In the Ambrosian rite, after the Fraction and 
 the Kiss of Peace, the priest thrice strikes his 
 breast, saying, Domine non sum dignus ; on 
 taking the bread into his hand, he says. Quid 
 retribuam Domino ? and immediately before com¬ 
 municating, “ Corpus D. N. J. C. custodiat ani¬ 
 mam meam in vitam aeternam. Amen.’' On 
 taking the cup into his hand, he again says the 
 Quid retribuam, and before communicating, 
 “ Praesta, quaesumus, Domine, ut perceptio Cor¬ 
 poris et Sanguinis D. N. J. C. ad vitam nos per- 
 ducat aeternam ;” then if any are to commu¬ 
 nicate he administers to them before Purifica¬ 
 tion. The ancient form of administration we 
 learn from the Pseudo-Ambrosius de Sacramentis 
 (iv. 5); “ dicit tibi sacerdos. Corpus Christi, et 
 tu dicis, Amen, id est, verum,” which is identical 
 with the (Twya Xpiarov of Eastern ritual. The 
 form for the cup was probably similar. 
 
 The prayers which accompany communion 
 vary much in different copies of the Ambrosian 
 missal, and are probably all of comparatively 
 modern date. 
 
 All who were present communicated. —This is 
 contemplated in all the early accounts of Holy 
 Communion; hence the care taken to e.xclude 
 from the mysteries all who were not fit to par¬ 
 ticipate. The second canon of the Council of 
 Antioch (a.d. 344; compare Canon. Apost. c. 9 
 [10]) orders that those who came into the church 
 and heard the service, so far as the lections of 
 Scripture, but declined to partake in the prayers 
 of the people or to communicate, should be cast 
 out of the church until they should have con¬ 
 fessed and repented of their fault. This would 
 seem to imply that the practice of some of the 
 worshippers leaving the church before the more 
 solemn part of the liturgy (euxf?) was com¬ 
 menced, was already known (though censured) 
 in the 4th century ; for if they had remained 
 in the church, they could hardly have been de¬ 
 scribed as pA] KoivwvovvTas €VX7}S apa T<p Aaip. 
 Martin of Braga (a.d. 560) inserted this in his 
 Collectio Canonum (c. 83) for the use of the 
 Spanish Church. Gratian (Z>e Consccrat. Dist. 
 ii. c. 10) quotes a decree of Pope Auacletus, which 
 
 f In the printed missals, which are much Interpolated, 
 the direction follows in the rubric, “ et dIcat sacerdos 
 memento pro movtuis;" as to which Krazer (de Lit. p. 
 621) notes, “qui ritus, ut jam Ins-inuavimus, Gotho-IIis- 
 panus non est; bine et nulla in missali illius occurrit 
 formula.” 
 
416 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 distinctly orders all to communicate when con¬ 
 secration was completed, if they would not be 
 cast out of the church. The decree is of course 
 spurious ; but it is interesting as indicating what 
 was the law of the Roman Church at the time 
 of trie Isidorian forgeries (about 830), and also 
 probably that the practice of non-communicating 
 aCen lance had then begun ; for the decree would 
 not have been put forth without a purpose. 
 One class of persons only seems to have been 
 permitted in ancient times to be present at Holy 
 Communion without communicating—the con- 
 s-istentes ((Tvvi(TTafi(:Voi) or fourth class of peni¬ 
 tents, who were permitted to be present at the 
 whole service, but not to make oblation or to 
 communicate. See Cone. Hicae. c. 11; Ancyra, 
 c. 8; Basil, Ep. Canon, c. 56. 
 
 On the question of private and solitary masses, 
 see Mass. 
 
 Communion under both kinds. —That in the 
 solemn public administi’ation of the Lord’s 
 Supper the laity received under both kinds from 
 the foundation of the Church of Christ to the 
 12th century is admitted on all hands. (See Ma- 
 billon, Acta SS. Bened. Saec. III. praef. c. 75.) 
 The danger of spilling the consecrated wine led 
 to the adoption of a tube, or Fistula, through 
 which it might be drawn. 
 
 When this practice too was found to have its 
 peculiar disadvantages, the custom sprang up in 
 some churches, and continues in the East to this 
 day, of administering to the people the Eucha¬ 
 ristic Bread dipped in the consecrated wine, in 
 which case the particle was administered by 
 means of a SPOON, made for that purpose. This 
 practice seems to be alluded to in the first canon 
 of the 3rd Council of Braga (a.d. 675), which 
 condemns those who were acci;stomed “ intinc- 
 tam eucharistiam populis pro complemenio com- 
 munionis porrigere.” In this case, we are not 
 to undei'stand that the administration of the 
 immersed particle was over and above com¬ 
 munion proper, for the later portion of the 
 canon distinctly implies that this “ intincta 
 eucharistia ” was substituted for the evangelical 
 practice of administering separately the bread 
 and the cup. How this practice, which was 
 condemned in the West as schismatical and 
 against apostolic tradition, came to be so widely 
 spread in the East is difficult to say. That in 
 the time of Chrysostom the deacon still minis¬ 
 tered the cup to the people may be shown by 
 ' various passages in his works, which proves that 
 the administration of ‘‘ eucharistia intincta ” 
 had not then begun in the Byzantine Church. 
 Nor is it easy to say when it was introduced. 
 This manner of communicating was widely pre¬ 
 valent in ancient times in the case of sick pei- 
 sons [Sick, Communion of]. 
 
 Posture of Reception. —All the testimonies of 
 ancient writers adduced in this article, so far as 
 they detern’ine anything on the point, describe 
 the communicants as receiving standing. As 
 this was the usual posture of prayer and praise 
 oil every Lord’s Day and during the Easter solem¬ 
 nities, the faithful would naturally communicate 
 standing on such days. Nor are testimonies 
 wanting that the same was true of other days 
 also, though these concern rather the Eastern 
 than the Western Church (Bona, De Reb. Lit. 
 ii. c. 17, § 8; Yalesius on Euseb. H. E. vii. 9). 
 In a Pontifical Mass at Rome, the deacon still 
 
 communicates standing, a relic no doubt of the 
 ancient juactice. On other occasions, the cele¬ 
 brant alone communicates standing, the rest, 
 whether clergy or laity, kneeling. Dr. Neale 
 (^Eastern CIi. introd. p. 524) mentions a capital 
 at Rheims, probably of the 12th century, which 
 represents a standing communion. 
 
 Delivery of the Bread into the Hand. —There 
 is abundant proof, besides that already adduced, 
 that the Eucharistic bread was in ancient limes 
 delivered into the hands of communicants. Thus, 
 Ambrose (in Theodoret, Hi^t. Eccl. v. 17) asks 
 Theodosius, after the massacre of Thessalonica, 
 how he could venture to receive the Lord’s 
 Body with hands still dripping from the slaughter 
 of the innocent; and Augustine (c. Litt. Petiliani^ 
 ii. 23) speaks of a bishop in whose hands his 
 correspondent used to place the Eucharist, and 
 receive it into his own hands from him in turn ; 
 and Basil {Ep. 289) says that in the church 
 the priest delivers a portion of the Eucharist 
 into the hand, and the communicant carries it 
 to his mouth with his own hand. Chrysostom 
 (Horn. 20, ad Pop. Antioch, c. 7) speaks of the 
 need of having clean hands, considering what they 
 may bear. The narrative in Sozomen {H. E. 
 viii. 5) of a transaction of Chrysostom’s describes 
 a woman after receiving the bread into her 
 hand bowing her head as if to pray (iy cu- 
 lojLteVrj aTr€Kv\f/€), and passing on the particle 
 she had receiv'ed to her maid-servant. 
 
 The 101st canon of the Trullan Council (an. 
 692) reprehends a practice which had sprung up 
 of providing receptacles of gold or other precious 
 material for the reception of the Eucharist. 
 After insisting on the truth, that man is more 
 precious than fine gold, the canon proceeds : “ if 
 any man desires to partake of the immaculate 
 Body ... let him draw near, disposing his 
 hands in the form of a cross, and so receive the 
 communion of the divine grace; ” and priests 
 who gave the Eucharist into such receptacles 
 (Sox^ta) were to be excommunicated. John of 
 Damascus also (de Fid. Orthod. iv. 14) desires 
 Christians to dispose their hands in the form of 
 a cross to receive the body of the Crucified. His 
 contemporary Bede (Hist. Eccl. iv. 24) describes 
 Caedmon on his deathbed (about 680) as re¬ 
 ceiving the Eucharist into his hand. As he 
 mentions this without comment, it was no doubt 
 the practice of his own time also. 
 
 Before the end of the 6th century women 
 were forbidden to receive the Eucharist on the 
 naked hand, and were comjielled to receive it on 
 a napkin called Dominicale. See Cone. Antis- 
 siod. [Auxerre], canons 36 and 42. Caesarius 
 of Arles, in a sermon printed as St. Augus¬ 
 tine’s (Serm. 252, de Tempore'), exhorts the 
 women to have their hearts as clean as the 
 napkin which they brought to receive the Body 
 of Christ. The Greek Fathers however say no¬ 
 thing of any such practice, and the censure of 
 the Trullan Council would evidently apply as 
 well to linen as to other materials. 
 
 How long the custom of giving the Eucharist 
 into the hands of lay persons continued in the 
 Roman Church cannot be precisely determined. 
 Gregory the Great (Dialogus, iii. c. 3) asserts 
 indeed that Pope Agapetus (535-536) placed the 
 Eucharist in the mouth of a certain dumb and 
 lame person ; but from a case so peculiar nothing 
 can be concluded, except that the express men- 
 
COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 417 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 tion of the sacrament being placed in the mouth 
 of this person probably indicates that the general 
 practice was otherwise. At the time when the 
 Ordo R. VI. was drawn up (9th century ?), 
 the ancient custom had ceased at Rome, for 
 the form of reception which was not per¬ 
 mitted to subdeacons was certainly not permitted 
 to the laity. A council held at Rouen (probably 
 in the year 880) strictly prohibited presbyters 
 from placing the Eucharist in the hand of any 
 lay person, male or female, commanding them 
 to place it in their mouths. This practice, which 
 probably originated in a desire to protect that 
 which is holy from profane or superstitious uses, 
 gradually became the almost universal rule of 
 the Church. So in 1549, because the people 
 “ diversely abused ” the Sacrament “ to supei-- 
 stition and wickedness,” it was thought Con¬ 
 venient that the people commonly receive the 
 sacrament of Christ’s Body in their mouths 
 at the priest’s hand. (See the first Prayei*- 
 Book of Edward VI. in Keeling’s Litt. Britt. 
 p. 235.) 
 
 Responding Amen on Reception. —Besides the 
 instances already given of this practice, the 
 following may be cited : Jerome (^Ep. 62, ad 
 Theoph. Alex.') wonders how one could come to 
 the Eucharist, and answer Amen., when he 
 doubted of the charity of the ministrant. Au¬ 
 gustine (c. Faustum Manic,h. xii. 10) speaks of 
 the responding Amen on reception of the Blood 
 of Christ as a universal custom. 
 
 Place of Communicating. —The second synod of 
 Tours (a.d. 567), in the fourth canou (Bruns’s 
 Canones, ii. 226), prohibited lay persons from 
 standing in the space within the rails (cancelli) 
 reserved for the choir during the celebration of 
 the mysteries; but expressly allowed lay men 
 and women to enter the sanctuary (sancta 
 sanctorum) for the purpose of praying and com¬ 
 municating, as had been the custom in times 
 past. The existence of this custom is further 
 proved by the story told by Gregory of Tours 
 {de Mirac. S. Martini, ii. c. 14) of the paralytic 
 girl, who, being rruraculously healed, approached 
 the altar to communicate without help. 
 
 Yet at nearly the same time the 1st Council 
 of Braga (a.d. 563) in Spain, in the canon (13) 
 headed “ Ubi omnes communicant,” ordered that 
 no lay person should approach within the sanc¬ 
 tuary of the altar to communicate, but only 
 clerics, as is provided in the ancient canons. 
 
 We have already seen, that in the liturgy 
 of St. Chrysostom the priests and deacons com¬ 
 municated within the sanctuary, the lay people 
 outside; and some distinction of this kind pro¬ 
 bably became general from about the 6th century. 
 The di.stinction between the communion of the 
 clergy and that of the laity always tended in 
 fact to become broader, and as differences in¬ 
 creased not only in respect of precedence, but in 
 respect of the manner and place of communi¬ 
 cating, the degradation of a clerk to lay com¬ 
 munion became a more marked punishment 
 [Degradation]. 
 
 Conditions of Admission to Holy 
 Communion. 
 
 1. Communicants must be baptized persons, not 
 under censure. —None could be admitted to Holy 
 Communion but baptized persons (ooSels ajSaTr- 
 riaros fieraXafi^dyei, Theophylact on Matt. 14), 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 lying under no censure [Excommunication]. 
 The competency of ordinary members of any 
 church would be known as a matter of course to 
 the clergy administering the sacrament. Persons 
 from a distance were required to produce cer¬ 
 tificates from their own bishops (^ypaixpara 
 KoivuiviKa, literae communicatoriae, formatae; 
 see Commendatory Letters) that they were 
 in the peace of the Church, before they could 
 be admitted to Holy Communion {Cone. Car- 
 thag. i. c. 5; Eliberit cc. 25, 58; Arles, i. c. 
 9; Agde, c. 52). Some have thought that t+ie 
 expression commnnio peregrina designates the 
 state of those strangers who, being unprovided 
 with such letters, were admitted to be present 
 at divine service, but not to communicate (see 
 Bona, De Reb. Lit. ii. c. 19, §§ 5, 6 ; Bingham, 
 Antiq. XVII. iii. 7). 
 
 2. It seems also that, in some Cases at least, 
 within the first eight centuries. Private Con¬ 
 fession was enjoined before communicating. In 
 the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore (about 
 A.D; 700) in the chapter De Communione Eucha- 
 ristiae (I. xii. 7) is the provision, “Confessio 
 autem Deo soli agatur licebit, si necesse est;” 
 to which is added in some MSS. the note of a 
 transcriber of perhaps a century later, “ et hoc 
 necessarium.” The same provision is repeated in 
 the Penitential of Cumineus, the work almost 
 certainly of the later Cumineus, an Irish monk 
 who lived and wrote near Bobbio, in the early 
 part of the 8th century. The purport of the 
 rule seems to be, that confession to a pidest was 
 the ordinary practice, but that it might be dis¬ 
 pensed with in case of necessity. 
 
 That confession to a priest was a usual, though 
 not a necessary, preliminary to Holy Commu¬ 
 nion is perhaps implied in the narrative of 
 Adamnan {Vita 8. Columhae, i. 17, 20, 30, 41, 
 50) and of Bede {Hist. Eccl. iv. 25, 27). The 
 whole subject is discussed in Ussher’s Religion 
 of the Ancient Irish, c. 5; and in Lanigan’s 
 History of the Irish Church, iv. 67. Compare 
 Penitence. 
 
 In the case of reconciliation of penitents after 
 excommunication and penance, the intervention of 
 the bishop—or of a priest in his absence—was of 
 course necessary (Theodore’s Penit. I. xiii. 2, 3); 
 and clergy ordained by Scotch or British bishops 
 were not admitted to communion in the Anglican 
 church until they had “ confessed ” their desire 
 to be restored to unity {Ib. I. ix. 3). 
 
 On the Communion of Children see Infant 
 Communion. 
 
 3. Fasting Reception of Holy Communion. —So 
 long as Holy Communion accompanied or followed 
 an Agape, or common meal, it is evident that 
 it was not received fasting. But as, in course of 
 time, the tone of thought in the Church was 
 altered, and the rite it.self received a different 
 colouring and different accessories, it came to be 
 regarded as essential that both the celebrant and 
 the recipients should be fasting at the time of 
 communion. Something of this feeling probably 
 underlies Tertullian’s words, when he contrasts 
 the Lord’s own practice with that of his own 
 time in the passage {De Corona, c. 3) quoted 
 above, and on stationary days {De Orat. c. 14), 
 
 , he clearly contemplates the fa.st being continued 
 I until reception. Cyprian too {Ep. 63, cc. 15 
 ! .and 16, quoted above) insists on the greater 
 ’ worthiness of the morning compared with the 
 
418 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 evening communion. 
 
 But the necessity of com- ' 
 municating fasting does nut appear to be dis¬ 
 tinctly recognised before the 4th century. Tiien 
 we find Basil (//om. ii. De Jejunio, p. 13) laying 
 it down that no one would venture to celebrate 
 the mysteries otherwise than fasting; and 
 Chrysostom (in 1 Cor. Horn. 27, p. 231) insisting 
 on fasting as a necessary preliminary to worthy 
 communion; and again (^Ad pop. Antioch. Serm. 
 9, p. 103) exhorting even those who were not 
 fasting to come to church, not indeed to commu¬ 
 nicate but to hear the sermon ; and again {Ep. 
 125, p. 683) complaining that his calumniators 
 accuse 1 him of having admitted to communion 
 persons who were not fasting, a charge which he 
 denies with the strongest asseverations. We 
 have already seen that Ambrose recommended 
 the faithful to fast even until evening, when the 
 communion was late. A remarkable passage of 
 Augustine {Ep. 118, c. 6; p. 191, ed. Cologne, 
 1616) is conclusive as to the practice of his own 
 time. “It is beyond dispute,” he says, “that 
 when the discijiles first received the Body and 
 Blood of the Lord, they did not receive fasting. 
 Are we therefore to blame the whole Church 
 because every one does receive fasting ? No; 
 for it pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honour of 
 so mighty a sacrament, the Body of the Lord 
 should pass the Christian’s lips before other 
 food; for it is on that account that that custom 
 ■is observed throughout the whole world . . . 
 The Lord did not prescribe in what order it 
 should be received, that He might reserve this 
 privilege for the Apostles, through whom He 
 was to regulate the churches; for if He had 
 recommended that it should always be received 
 after other food, I suppose that no one would 
 have deviated from that practice.” With re¬ 
 spect to his correspondent’s question, as to the 
 custom to be followed on the Thursday in Holy 
 Week with regard to morning or evening com¬ 
 munion, or both, he admits that the practice of 
 the Church did not condemn communion on that 
 day after the evening meal. 
 
 This rule, however, was not quite invariable. 
 In Augustine’s lifetime —as appears from the 
 epistle just quoted—the custom prevailed that 
 on the Thursday in Holy Week, the anniversary 
 of the institixtion, the faithful receiv^ed Holy 
 Communion in the evening and after eating. So 
 the Codex Canoyiurn Eccl. Afric. (canon 41 ; = 
 HI. Cone. Cai'th. c. 29) provides, “ ut sacramenta 
 altaris nonnisi a jejunis hominibus celebrentur, 
 excepto uno die anniversario quo Coena Domini 
 celebretur.” A canon of Laodicea (c. 50) which 
 is sometimes quoted as dii’ected against this 
 custom, simply refers to the habit into which 
 some had fallen of breaking their Lent-fast on 
 the Thursday in the last week, not specially to 
 non-fasting communion; but the Council in 
 I'rullo (can. 29), in the year 680, did expressly 
 forbid the celebration of the mysteries even on 
 this Thursday by any but fasting men. 
 
 Socrates (^Hist. Eccl. v. 22, p. 295) expressly 
 states that the inhabitants of that part of Egypt 
 which borders on Alexandria and of the Thebaid 
 had a celebration of the Eucharist on Saturday, 
 as others had ; but that, contrary to the general 
 custom, they communicated after taking their 
 evening meal without stint. 
 
 Regulations intended to check the practice of 
 con-fasting communion were made in Gaul in the 
 
 6th century. The council of Auxene (can. 19 ; 
 Bruns’s Can. ii. 239) enjoined that no presbyter, 
 deacon, or subdeacon should venture to take 
 part in the office of the ma.ss, or to stand in the 
 church while mass was said, after taking food or 
 wine. The reason for the latter clause was no 
 doubt that clerics who were present at mass always 
 in those days communicated. The 2nd Council 
 of M'-icon in the year 585 (Cone. Matisconense ii. 
 can. 9; in Bruns’s Canoncs, ii. 251) expressly 
 forbade any presbyter full of food or under the 
 infiuence of wine (crapulatus vino) to handle the 
 sacrifice or celebrate mass; referring to the 
 African canon already quoted. In Spain decrees 
 on this subject were made by the 1st Council 
 of Braga (can. 16), and the second (can. 10) in 
 the years 563 and 572 respectively (Bruns, ii. 
 32 and 42). The first of these anathematizes 
 those who, instead of celebrating mass fasting in 
 the church at three in the afternoon of Maundy 
 Thursday, celebrated on that day masses for the 
 dead at nine in the morning without fasting, 
 after the Priscillianist fashion. The second, by 
 occasion of those who consecrated masses for the 
 dead after having taken wine, condemns those 
 who ventured to consecrate after having taken 
 any food whatever. Walafrid Strabo (de Off. 
 Bivinis, c. 19), referring to the first of these, 
 rightly infers that if non-fasting communion was 
 not permitted on a day when the practice of the 
 law and a certain degree of precedent might be 
 pleaded, it was not permitted on other days. 
 The abuse censured by the second council pro¬ 
 bably arose from the late hour at which masses 
 for the dead were held and the presence of the 
 priest at the funeral-feast. The Codex Eccl. 
 Afy 'ic. (can. 41 = ///. Carth. c. 29) had already 
 provided that services for the dead held in the 
 afternoon should consist of prayers only, without 
 sacrifice, if the clerics who performed the service 
 were found to have taken food. Gratian (under 
 Presbyter, dist. 91, quoted by Bona, E. L. i. c. 
 21, § 2) refers to a council of Nantes or Agde, 
 which enjoined priests to remain fasting until 
 the hour fixed, in order that they might be able 
 to take part in the funeral-mass. 
 
 In two cases only non-fasting communion is 
 expressly permitted. The fii*st is, when the neces¬ 
 sity suddenly arises of administering the Viati¬ 
 cum to one in the article of death; in which 
 case it is sanctioned, says Cardinal Bona (/?. L. i, 
 21, 2), by the practice of the whole Church. The 
 second is, when the celebrating priest, from 
 sudden sickness, is unable to finish the office; in 
 which case, if the elements have been consecrated, 
 another priest, even though he be not fasting, 
 may complete it. See the second canon of the 
 7th Council of Toledo (Bruns’s Can. i. 262) 
 of the year 646, which at the same time enjoins 
 most earnestly that neither shall a priest resign 
 the unfinished service nor a non-fasting priest 
 take it up without the most absolute necessity. 
 And to prevent such cases, the 11th Council 
 of Toledo (a.d. 675) ordered (can. 2, p. 315) 
 that wherever it was possible the priest saying 
 mass should be attended by another, fasting, who 
 might take up the service in case of need. 
 
 Time of Communion. 
 
 1. Bays. —Tlie well-known passage in the Acts 
 of the Apostles (ii. 46) is commonly held to 
 prove that the “ breaking of bread ” for Holy 
 
C0:MMUNION. HOLY 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 CoiDmuiiion took place daily in the primitive 
 Church. In the only case in which a particular 
 day is mentioned in the Acts on which bread was 
 broken solemnly (xx. 7), the day is the Lord’s 
 Day, the first day of the week; and it seems 
 probable that St. Paul, when he prescribed the 
 laying by for the poor on the first day of the week, 
 designed to associate almsgiving with the Eucha¬ 
 rist. The Bithynian Christians (Pliny, Ep. x. 
 97) met on a fixed day for worship and com¬ 
 munion ; the expression “ stato die,” which de¬ 
 termines nothing as to the particular day of the 
 week, shows plainly that communion was not 
 daily (see Mosheim, fnstitutiones Majorcs, p. 
 378 f.). Justin Martyr {Apol. /. c. 67) dis¬ 
 tinctly mentions Sunday K^yopevr] 
 r)iJ.fpa) as the day of Christian Communion; the 
 day on which God made the light and on which 
 Christ rose from the dead. There is, in tact, no 
 reason to doubt that from the first “Lord’s Day” 
 to the present time Christians have met on the 
 first day of the week to “break bread” as the 
 Lord commanded. 
 
 The days which next appear as dedicated to 
 Holy Communion are the fourth and sixth days 
 of the week, the Eies Stationum [Static]. These 
 days appear as days of special observance and 
 administration of Holy Communion in the time 
 of TertuIlian (De Oratione, c. 14). Basil (^Ep. 
 289) adds to these days the Sabbath, or seventh 
 day of the week, which has always been a day of 
 special observance in the Eastern Church. “We 
 communicate,” he says, “ four times in the week, 
 on the Lord’s Day, the fourth day, the Prepara¬ 
 tion Day \i.e. Friday], and the Sabbath.” But 
 this was not a universal custom; for Epiphanius 
 (Expnsitio Fidel, c. 22, p. 1104) speaks as if the 
 celebrations (a-wd^eis) of the Wednesday, Friday, 
 and Sunday were alone usual in his time and 
 within his knowledge, which included a large 
 part of the East during the latter portion of the 
 4th century. The Synod of Laodicea, about 
 A.D. 320 [al. 372], enjoins that bread should not 
 be offered in Lent, except on the Sabbath and on 
 the Lord’svDay; the Sabbath being in the East a 
 festival approaching in joyfulness to the Lord’s 
 Day. In the West, where the Sabbath was 
 generally a day of humiliation, there is no trace 
 of its being prefeiTed for the celebration of Holy 
 Communion. 
 
 When Christianitv became the recognised reli- 
 gion of the empire, daily celebration of the 
 Eucharist soon became usual. For the Church 
 of Constantinople this is proved by the testimony 
 of Chrysostom, who (m Ephes. Horn. iii. p. 23) 
 complains of the rarity of communicants at the 
 daily offering. St. Augustine testifies {Ep. 
 98, c. 9) that in Africa, in his time, Christ was 
 sacrificed (immolari) every day for the people; 
 yet he also proves (Ep. 118 ad Januarium) 
 that this was by no means a universal custom, 
 saying, “ in some places no day passes without 
 an offering; in others offering is made on the 
 Sabbath only and the Lord’s Day; in others on 
 the Lord’s Day only.” That the daily sacrifice 
 was observed in the Spanish Church at the end 
 of the 4th century we have the testimony of the 
 1st Council of Toledo (circ. 398), which enjoins 
 (canon 5) all clerics to be present in church at 
 tlie time of the daily sacrifice. With regard to 
 the Roman Church, Jerome, widting to Lucinius 
 (Ep. 71) refers to a question which his correspon- 
 
 419 
 
 dent had asked, whether the Eucharist were to 
 be received daily, “ according to the custom 
 which the Churches of Rome and Spain are said 
 to observe.” Although the expression used 
 is not absolutely decisive, Jerome seems to 
 write as if the custom of Rome was in fact 
 the same as that of Spain, where, as we have 
 seen, the daily sacrifice was customary at the 
 time when he wrote. Yet Socrates (Hist. Egcl. 
 V. 22, p. 295) assures us that, at Alexandria and 
 Rome, ancient tradition still forbade to celebrate 
 the joyful feast of the Eucharist on the Sabbath, 
 as was, the universal custom elsewhere. Atha¬ 
 nasius, it is true, if the treatise in question 
 be his (On the Parable of the Sower, 0pp. iv. 
 45), says that Christians met together on the 
 Sabbath to adore Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath; 
 but this proves nothing as to the celebration of 
 the Eucharist, and consequently docs not invali¬ 
 date Socrates’ testimony. Socrates also (1. c.) 
 mentions as a peculiar custom, that at Alex¬ 
 andria, on Wednesday and Friday, the Scriptures 
 are read and the teachers interpret them, and 
 all is done that pertains to a meeting of the 
 congregation, short of the celebration of the mys¬ 
 teries (nduTa TO. awd^coos yiyveTai 8lx^ 
 p,v(rTT]piwu TeXeTTjs'). The words of Innocent I. 
 (ad Decentium, c. 4), that on the Friday and the 
 Sabbath in the Holy Week no sacraments were 
 to be celebrated, because those two days of the 
 first Holy Week were spent by the Apostles in 
 grief and terror, probably imply that in ordinary 
 weeks the sacraments were celebrated on the 
 Sabbath as on other days; and in the so-called 
 Comes Hieronymi Epistles and Gospels are given 
 for Sabbaths as well as other days (see Quesnel, 
 De Jejunio Sabbathi Romae celebratd). On the 
 want of proper offices in the ancient Sacramen- 
 taries for the Sundays following the Ember-days, 
 for the Thursdays in Lent, and for the Saturday 
 before Palm Sunday, see Krazer, de Liturgiis, 
 pp. 646 ff. Cf. Static. 
 
 2. Hours. —There can be little doubt that in the 
 apostolic age Holy Communion was at the time of 
 the evening meal (bSiirvov, coena), as even Baronius 
 admits (ad ann. 34, c. 61). Indeed, it is almost 
 certain from the nature of the case that in days 
 when Christianity was an illicit religion, the 
 peculiar rite of Christian communion must have 
 been celebrated in such a way as to attract the 
 least possible attention. St. Paul’s “breaking of 
 bread ” in the Troad (Acts xx. 7, 8) was after 
 nightfall, and the service was not over at mid¬ 
 night. Pliny (Ep. x. 97) sa 5 ’’s that the Chris¬ 
 tians were accustomed to meet before dawn. 
 The heathen calumnies mentioned b)-- Justin 
 Martyr (Dial. c. I’ryphone, c. 10) show that the 
 meeting of Christians took place after nightfall ; 
 and the same custom earned them the epithets 
 of “ latebrosa et lucifuga natio,” which Minu- 
 cius Felix (O^tarAus, c. 8) tells us were bestowed 
 upon them. Origen too (c. Celsum, i . 3, p. 5, 
 Spencer) tells his opponent that it was to avoid 
 the death with which they were threatened that 
 Christians commonly held their meetings in 
 secrecy and darkness. And still in the 3rd 
 century we find Tertullian, Cyprian, and others 
 speaking of “ coetus antelucani,” “ coiivocationes 
 nocturiiae,” of “ sacrificiuni matutinum et ves- 
 pertinuni.” See, for instance, Tertullian ad Uxo- 
 rem, ii. 4 ; de Corona Mil. c. 3, in the latter of 
 whicl^passagcs it seems to be implied, that Chris- 
 
 2. E 
 
420 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 tians communicated at the evening meal, as well 
 as in assemblies before dawn. Cyprian {fid Caeci- 
 liuin, Ep. 63, cc. 15, 16) refers to some who 
 in the morning sacrifice used water only in the 
 chalice, lest the odour of wine should betray 
 them to their heathen neighbours; and warns 
 such not to salve their conscience with the reflec¬ 
 tion that they complied with Christ’s command 
 ii^ offering the mixed chalice when they came 
 together for the evening meal (ad coenandum) 
 at which the rite had been originally instituted. 
 This no doubt implies some kind of communion 
 both morning and evening ; but that in the even¬ 
 ing seems to have been rather a domestic than a 
 public rite ; for Cyprian expressly says that at 
 this the whole congregation (plebs) could not be 
 called together, so as to make the rite—what it 
 oTiglit to be—a visible token to all of their 
 brotherhood in Christ. And he goes on to say, 
 that though it was no doubt fitting that Christ 
 should offer at eventide, as foreshadowing the 
 evening of the world and being the antitype of 
 the evening passover-sacrifice (Exod. xii. 6); yet 
 that Christians celebrated in the morninfj the 
 resurrection of the Lord. In short, he clearly 
 regards the morning as the proper time for 
 })ublic and solemn communion. 
 
 When the Church received its freedom, set 
 hours began to be appointed for Holy Communion. 
 The third hour of the day (about nine o’clock), 
 the hour when the Holy Spirit descended on the 
 apostles, was fixed at an early date as the hour 
 of morning sacrifice on Sundays and festivals. 
 The Liber Pontificalis attributes to Pope Teles- 
 phorus (127-138) the decree, “ ut nullus ante 
 horam tertiam sacrificium offerre praesumeret; ” 
 and this statement is repeated by Amalarius {de 
 Eccl. Off. iii. 42) and others. It is almost need¬ 
 less to say the decree is one of the well-known 
 forgeries. The same regulation is attributed by 
 the spurious Gesta Damasi (see Bona, de Beh. Lit. 
 i. 21, §5) to Pope Damasus (366-384); but here 
 too no weight can be attached to the authority. 
 More satisfactory testimonies are the following. 
 Sidonius Apollinaris, who died a.d. 489, says 
 {Ep. V. 17) that priests held divine service at 
 the third hour ; and Gregory of Tours in the 
 6 th century speaks ( Vita Nicetii) of the third 
 as the hour when the people came together to 
 ma.ss; Gregory the Great {in Evang. Horn. 37) 
 speaks of one who came to offer the sacrifice at 
 the third hour ; and Theodulph of Orleans (ob. 
 821) orders {Capit dare, c. 45) that private masses 
 should not be said on the Lord’s Day with so 
 much publicity as to attract the people from the 
 high or ])ublic mass, which was canonically cele¬ 
 brated at the third hour. That on ordinary or 
 ferial days mass was said at the sixth hour 
 (twelve o’clock) as late as the 12th century 
 we have the testimony of Honorius of Autun 
 {Gemma Animie, i. c. 113); but this practice 
 seems to have been matter of custom rather than 
 of canonical prescription. On fast-days the 
 liturgical hour was the ninth, probably because 
 the ancient Church was unwilling to introduce 
 the joyful eucharistic feast into the early hours 
 of a fast-day, and because on such a day it was 
 not thought too onerous to continue fasting until 
 three o’clock in the afternoon (Martene, de Bit. 
 Anti]. 1 . p. 108). Epiphanius (.E.cjoosjY/o c. 
 22 ) testifies to the fact that throughout the 
 year on Wednesday and Ih-iday the litui»gy was 
 
 COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 said at the ninth hour; excepting in the fifty 
 days between Ea.ster and Pentecost, and on the 
 Epiphany when it fell on Wednesday or Friday; 
 on these days, as on the Lord’s Day, there was 
 no fasting, and the liturgy was said at an early 
 hour in the morning {aff" ewdei/). 
 
 The Council of Ment^j, quoted by Ivo of Chartres 
 (pt. 4, c. 35), desires all men on the Ember-days 
 to come to church at the ninth hour to mass. 
 The same reasons which cau.sed the mass to be 
 deferred at other fasting-sea.sous applied also to 
 Lent; hence Ambrose, preaching in Lent, begs 
 the faithful to defer eating until after the time 
 of the heavenly banquet; if they had to wait 
 until evening, the time was not so very long ; 
 on most days the oblation was at noon (on P.salm 
 118 pl9], Perm. 8, 0pp. iv. 656, ed. Basle, 1567); 
 and Theodulph ((7c</)i2M^are, c. 39) says that those 
 broke the Lenten fast who ventured to eat as 
 soon as they heard the bell at the ninth hour, 
 an hour at which he seems to imply that the 
 “ missarum solemnia,” as well as “ vespertina 
 officia,” were celebrated. 
 
 These prescriptions as to the hours of mass, as 
 well as of the ordinary offices, have long ceased 
 to be observed : in the Roman Church at least 
 mass may be said at any hour from dawn 
 (aurora) to noon. But a trace of the ancient 
 practice is found in the following rubric (xv. § 2) 
 of the Roman missal :—“ Missa autem Conven- 
 tualis et Solemnis sequent ordine dici debet. 
 In Festis duplicibus et semiduplicibus, in Domi- 
 nicis, et infra Oct., dicta in Choro hora tertia. 
 In Festis simplicibus et in Feriis per annum 
 dicta sexta. In Adventu, Quadragesima, Quatuor 
 Temporibus, etiam infra Octavam Pentecostes, 
 et Vigiliis quae jejunantur, quamvis sint dies 
 solemnes, Missa de Tempore debet cantari post 
 nonam.” 
 
 The celebration of Holy Communion in the 
 night-time, once—as we have seen —common in 
 the Church, ceased at an early date, except on 
 certain days of special observance. Of these the 
 principal is that on the night of the Lord’s 
 Nativity. A Coptic tradition (mentioned by 
 Bona, B.L. i. 21, 4) ascribes the institution of a 
 nocturnal communion at Christmas and Epiphany 
 to the Niceue Council; the fact may perhaps 
 have been, that when the celebration of the 
 Lord’s Nativity was transferred from the sixth of 
 January to the twenty-fifth of December 
 [Christmas], the nightly communion was con¬ 
 tinued on both days. In the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary (p. 5) besides the mass for the Vigil of 
 the Nativity, said at the ninth hour, is one In 
 Vigilia Domini in node, that is, to be said in the 
 nio^ht between Christmas Eve and Christmas 
 Day. 
 
 A nightly communion was usual in ancient 
 times on the night of the “ Sabbatum Sanctum ” 
 or Easter Eve. It is probably to this custom 
 that Tertullian alludes when {ad Uxorem, ii. 4) 
 he says that a heathen husband would not per¬ 
 mit a Christian wife to pass the night from home 
 on the Paschal solemnities; Jerome {on St. 
 Matt. XXV.) mentions that it was an apostolic 
 tradition on Easter Eve not to dismiss the con¬ 
 gregation before midnight; and Theodore Bal- 
 samon (on the Council in TruBo, can. 90) writes 
 that persons of especial piety were accustomed 
 to remain in the churches the whole of that 
 Saturday, to communicate at midnight, and at 
 
COMMUNION, HOLY 
 
 one o’clock in the morning to begin Matins. 
 The Ordo Romanus Vulgatus also orders that the 
 people should not be dismissed before midnight, 
 and that at dawn of day they should return to 
 the churches; in monasteries it enjoins the bells 
 to be rung as soon as a star was seen in the sky, 
 a litany to be chanted, and then the mass to 
 follow. The same custom is mentioned by Ama- 
 larius (de Divin. Off. iv. c. 20; cf. c. 40), who 
 says that all continue fasting until night, when 
 the mass of the Lord’s Resurrection is celebrated. 
 Durandus (^Rationale, vi. c. 76) says that the 
 ancient rite was observed in some churches at 
 the time when he wrote, in the latter part of the 
 13th century. In modern times the mass of 
 Easter Eve is said at midday, but the unchanged 
 collects still testify to the fact that it was for¬ 
 merly said at night. 
 
 A nocturnal celebration anciently took place 
 also in the night between the Vigil and the day 
 of Pentecost; hence in the prayer Communi- 
 cantes on that day we have the words, “diem 
 sacratissimam Pentecostes praevenientes ” (Gre- 
 gorii Sacram. p. 97; see Menard, note 393). 
 .The Ordo Romanus provides that at the eighth 
 hour of the eve the vigil service or mass should 
 begin, and should be finished before the end of 
 the ninth hour. 
 
 Four times in the year, on the Saturdays of 
 the Ember weeks, was a nightly mass, or rather 
 one on the morning of the succeeding day, Avhich 
 was reckoned to belong to the Saturday; hence, 
 as the Micrologus (c. 29) observes, the Sundays 
 which tollow the Ember-days have no proper 
 offices in the ancient sacramentaries, but are 
 called Dominicae vacantes; for the mass which 
 was celebrated late on the Saturday served for 
 the Sunday also. So the Council of Clermont 
 (a.d. 1095) ordered (can. 24) that the fast, if 
 possible, should be prolonged through the Satur¬ 
 day night, that the mass might be brought as 
 near as possible to the Sunday morning. 
 
 In some cases, when we read of missae vesper- 
 tinae (e. g. Cone. Agath. c. 30; HI. Au, el. c. 29), 
 we must bear in mind that the word missa does 
 not in all cases imply the celebration of the 
 mysteries of the altar, but was applied also to 
 the hour-offices. Cf. Mass : MAU^jDY Thurs¬ 
 day : and p. 416. 
 
 Frequency of Communion. 
 
 An ancient rule of the Church is expressed in 
 the 21st canon of the Council of Eliberis (about 
 A.D. 305), that if any one dwelling in a town 
 should absent himself on three Sundays from 
 church, he should be for a time suspended from 
 communion. As at that time in a city having 
 a bishop Holy Communion was administered at 
 least every Sunday, and non-communicating at¬ 
 tendance was unknown, we infer that weekly 
 communion was the rule of the Chuixh, to fail 
 in which was to be unworthy of its privileges. 
 Theodoi-e of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, 
 testifies (about A.D. 688 ) that in his time this 
 was still the rule of the East. In the West, 
 signs of a relaxation of this rule appear at a 
 comparatively early period. Thus the Council 
 of Agde [Agathense] in the year 506 laid down 
 the rule (can. 18) that if a layman did not com¬ 
 municate at least at Christmas, Easter, and Whit- 
 fiuntide, he should no longer be reputed a Catho¬ 
 lic. To the same effect are the 14th canon of 
 
 COMPENDIENSE CONCILIUM 421 
 
 the Council of Autun (a.d. 670), and the 38th 
 of the Excerpta attributed to Egbert of York 
 (A.D. 740). Bede {Ep. ad Eabert. p. 311, ed. 1722) 
 desires his correspondent to Insist strongly on the 
 wholesome practice of daily communion, accord¬ 
 ing to the custom of the churches of Italy, Gaul, 
 Africa, Greece, and the whole East. But this, he 
 says, in consequence of defective teaching, is so 
 far from being the custom of English laymeh, 
 that even the more religious among them do not 
 presume to communicate except at Christmas, 
 Epiphany, and Easter ; though countless innocent 
 boys and girls, young men and maidens, old men 
 I and old women, do not scruple to communicate 
 every Lord’s Day, and perhaps on the days of 
 Apostles and Martyrs besides, as Egbert himself 
 had witnessed, in the Roman and Apostolic 
 Church. 
 
 The 3rd Council of Tours, in the year 813, laid 
 down (can. 50) a rule nearly identical with that 
 of Agde; that all laymen, not disqualified by 
 heinous sin, should communicate at least three 
 times in the year. The Council of Ai.x-la-Cha- 
 pelle had previously (a.d. 788) re-enacted (^c. 70) 
 the decree of the Council of Antioch (c. 2) which 
 ordered all who came to church at the time of 
 service but declined reception to be suspended 
 from communion until they should amend ; and 
 it was probably the failure of this attempt to 
 revive the primitive practice which led to the 
 much looser rule of Aix-la-Chapelle. 
 
 If the Pseudo-Ambrosius (de Sacram. v. 25) 
 is to be trusted, some Christians at least of the 
 East in the 4th century communicated only once 
 a year, and he complains that this practice had 
 extended to his own community, recommending 
 himself the practice of daily communion. [C.j 
 
 COMMUNION BOOKS. [Liturgical 
 Books.] 
 
 COMMUNION OF CHILDREN. [Infant 
 Communion.] 
 
 COMMUNION OF THE SICK [Sick, 
 Visitation of.] 
 
 COMMUNITY OF GOODS. [Monasti- 
 
 CISM.] 
 
 COMMISTIO or COMMIXTIO. In the 
 Roman missal, after the breaking of the Host 
 [Fraction], the priest places a particle in the 
 chalice, saying secreto : “ Haec commistio et con- 
 secratio corporis et sanguinis D. N. J. C. fiat 
 accipientil'us nobis in vitam aeternam.” And 
 this practice cf placing a particle of the Host in 
 the cup appears to be an ancient one, and to be 
 considered as a kind of consecration [Consecra¬ 
 tion]. It is found in the liturgy of St. James 
 (Neale’s I'etralogia, p. 177), where the priest, 
 after breaking the bread, places the portion 
 which he holds in his right hand in the chalice, 
 saying, “ The union (ej/wais) of the all-holy 
 Body and precious Blood of our Lord and God 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ.” 
 
 The 4th Council of Toledo (A.D. 633), 
 canon 18, orders the commixtion (conjunctionem 
 panis et calicis) to take place between the Lord’s 
 Prayer and the Benediction. [C.] 
 
 COMPATRES AND COMMATRES. 
 
 [Stonsors.] 
 
 COMPENDIENSE CONCILIUM. [Com- 
 
 piegne.] 
 
422 COMPETENTES 
 
 COMPETENTES. [Catechumexs.] 
 COMPIKGNE, COUNCIT.S OF. [Com- 
 
 PENDIENSE.] (1) A.D. 756, held in Pipin’s palace, 
 passed canons respecting marriage, degrees of 
 consanguinity, &c. (Labb. Cone. vi. 1694-). (2) 
 
 A.I). 757 (Eginliard), or 758 (Ado), an fx-sembly 
 or “ placitum ” in the same place, but rather 
 civil than ecclesiastical, its purpose being to re¬ 
 ceive the homage of Tassilo, duke of the Ba¬ 
 varians, and of his subjects (ib. 1884). [A. W. H.] 
 
 COMPLETOEIUM. (1) The last of the 
 Canonical hours of prayer [Hours of Prayer]. 
 
 (2) An anthem in the Ambrosian rite, said 
 at Laud and Vespers. Sundays have two at 
 Lauds, and four at Vespers ; and week days one, 
 varying with the day, at Lauds, and one, \m- 
 changing, at Vespers. The first at Lauds on 
 Sunday is “ Dominus in caelo, paravit sedem 
 suam : et regnum ejus omnium dominabitur. 
 Kyr. Kyr. Kyr.” They are all of the same 
 type. On Festivals the number varies with the 
 office. [H. J. H.] 
 
 COMPLINE. [Hours of Prayer.] 
 COMPUTUS. [Calendar.] 
 
 CONCORDIA, nurse of St. Hippolytus, 
 martyr at Rome, Aug. 13 (Mart. Bedae, Usu- 
 ardi). [C.] 
 
 CONCORDIUS, presbyter, martyr at Spo- 
 leto under Antoninus, Jan. 1 (^Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CONCUBINAGE.—The relation between 
 the sexes which was denoted by this word had, 
 under the legal system with which the early 
 Church was brought into contact, a twofold cha¬ 
 racter. There was (1) the connexion, temporary, 
 depending on caprice only, involving no obliga¬ 
 tions, concubinage in the modern sense, not dis¬ 
 tinguishable ethically from fornication. But 
 there was also (2) a concubinatus recognised by 
 Roman law, as in the Lex Julia et Papia Pop- 
 paea, which had a very different character. 
 Here the cohabitation was permanent, and in¬ 
 volved therefore reciprocal obligations, and, 
 although it did not stand on the same level as 
 a connubium, and did not entitle the issue of the 
 union to inherit as legitimate, it was yet re¬ 
 garded, somewhat as a morganatic marriage is 
 in Germany, as involving no moral degrada¬ 
 tion. In dealing with this last form, Christian 
 feeling was divided between the fear of recog¬ 
 nising what might seem a half-marriage only 
 on the one hand, and the desire to sanction any 
 union which fulfilled the primary condition of 
 marriage on the other. The question was com¬ 
 plicated by the fact that, for the mo.st part, 
 these unions were contracted with women who 
 were slaves or foreigners, and therefore not 
 ingenuae^ and that consequently to have placed 
 them on a level with connuhia, would have been 
 to introduce a mesalliance into the succession of 
 respectable or noble fiimilies. Cases where the 
 man who kept the concubina had a wife living, 
 though sanctioned by the lax morality of Roman 
 society, admitted, of course, of no question, and 
 were denounced as adultery (August. Perm. 224). 
 Where the man was unmarried the case was dif¬ 
 ferent. The Apostolical Constitutions, on the one 
 hand (viii. 32), authorised the admission to bap- 
 
 CONFESSIO 
 
 tism of such a slave-concubine belonging to an 
 unbeliever, if she were faithful to the one man 
 with whom she lived. If Marcia, the concubine, 
 first of Quadratu.s, and afterwards of Commodus, 
 who is known to have favoured the Christians, 
 had ever been one of them, it must have been by 
 Virtue of some such rule. The case of a Chris¬ 
 tian who had a concubine was somewhat more 
 difficult, and the equity of the Church’s judg¬ 
 ment was disturbed by considerations of social 
 expediency. If she was a slave he was to get 
 rid of her, apparently without being bound to 
 make any provision for her maintenance. If she 
 were a free woman, he was either to marry or 
 dismiss her (^Apost. Constt. viii. 32). So, too, at 
 a later date, we find Leo the Great treating this 
 dismissal of a mistress followed by a legal mar¬ 
 riage, not as a “ duplicatio conjugii,” but a “ pro- 
 fectus honestatis ” (^Epist. 92 ; ad Rustic., c. 5).® 
 In other instances, however, we trace the influence 
 of the wish to look upon every permanent union 
 of man or woman as possessing the character or 
 a marriage in the eyes of God, and therefore in 
 the judgment of the Church. Thus Augustine, 
 speaking of a concubine who promises a life-long 
 fidelity, even should he cast her oft', to the man 
 with whom she lived, says that “ merito duhitatur 
 utrum ad percipiendum baptismum non debeat 
 adrnittP^ (j)e Fide et Oper. c. 19).*’ The first 
 Council of Toledo went even farther, and while 
 it excluded from communion a married man who 
 kept a concubine, admitted one who, being un¬ 
 married, continued faithful to the one woman 
 with whom he thus lived (1 C. Tolet. c. 17). 
 The special law forbidding a Jew to have a 
 Christian wife or concubine (3 C. Tolet. c. 14), 
 implying, as it does, the legitimacy of the latter 
 relation, where both parties were Christians, 
 shows, in like manner, that it was thought of as 
 ethically, though not legally, on the same level 
 as a connubium. 
 
 The use of the word concubina as a term ot 
 reproach for the wh'es of the clergy who were 
 manded, was, of course, a logical deduction from 
 the laws which forbade that marriage, but the 
 unsparing use made of it, as by Peter Damiani and 
 Hildebrand, belongs to a somewhat later date 
 than that which comes within the limits of this 
 book. [E. H. P.] 
 
 CONFESSIO. Originally the place where a 
 saint or martyr who had “ witnessed a good con¬ 
 fession ” for Christ was buried, and thence the 
 altar raised over his grave, and subsequently 
 the chapel or basilica erected on the hallowed 
 spot. From its subterranean position such an 
 altar was known as Kard^aais (Theophan. p. 
 362) or descensus. Of these subterranean con- 
 fessiones we have examples in Rome in the 
 churches of St. Prisca, St. Martino ai Monti, St. 
 
 » It may be questioned, however, which class of concu¬ 
 bines, the illicit or the legalised, are here contemplated. 
 
 It is interesting to note, in this lenity of judgment, 
 the Influence of a tender recollection of one with whom 
 A ugustine, before his conversion, had lived in this rela¬ 
 tion, and who on parting from him made a declaration 
 that she would live with no one else. (Conff. vi. 15.) 
 She was apparently a Christian (“ vovens tibi,” sc. Deo) 
 and Monica, though she wished her son to marry and settle 
 respectably, does not seem to have condemned the union 
 as sinful, and adopted Adeodatus, the issue of the con¬ 
 nexion, into her warmest affections. 
 
COXFESSIO 
 
 Loi’enzo fuori le Mura, &c., and above all in 
 tne basilica of St. Peter’s. Not unfrequently 
 they were merely imitative, and not confessiones 
 in the original sense, as at St. Maria -Maggiore, 
 and in the crypts of our early churches in 
 England. Confessio was also used for the altar 
 in the upper church, placed immediately above 
 that built over the martyr’s grave, sometimes 
 covered with silver plates (Anastas. §§ 65-69, 
 79 , 80, 198), and its ciboriutn, or canopy (j6 . 
 § 65). 
 
 Other synonymous terms were concilia mar- 
 tyrum, memoriae martyrum, and martyria. 
 
 Concilia martyrum is applied to the burial 
 places of the martyrs in the catacombs, e.g., 
 “ Hie (Damasus) martyrum . . . concilia ver- 
 sibus ornavit” (Anast. § 54; cf. Baron, ad ann. 
 259, no. 24). Jerome speaks of the graves the 
 young Nepotian had been in the habit of de¬ 
 corating with flowers as martyrum conciliabula 
 (Ep. ad Helvet. iii.; cf. Aug. de Civ. Dei, 22, 8). 
 The analogous Greek term was avyd^eis rwu 
 fj-apTvpwu (Concil. Gangr. Can. 20). 
 
 Memoriae martyrum is a term of constant 
 occurrence in early Christian wu'itings for the 
 memorial chapel of a saint or martyr, also called 
 ceila (August, de Civ. Dei, xxii. 7, 10; cont. 
 Faustin. xx. c. 21; Serm. de Diver sis, 101; Op- 
 tatus cont. Farmen. ii. 32). The correspond¬ 
 ing Greek term was martyrium, yapropiov 
 (Euseb. de Vit. Const, iii. 48; Soc. iv. 18 [the 
 martyrium of St. Thomas at Edessa]; ib. 23 
 [the martyria of St. Peter and St. Paul at 
 Pome]). The church of St. Euphemia, where 
 she lay buried, in which the Council of Chal- 
 cedou was held, is styled in the acts of that 
 council papTupiov Eucbriylas (cf. Soc. vi. 6); and 
 that erected by Constantine over our Lord’s 
 sepulchre on Calvary, paprepiov SuTjjpos, hua- 
 o-Tctcrews, &c. (Euseb. iv. de Vit. Const. 40-49, 
 &c. Cf. Concil. Laod. canon 8.) The word 
 tropaea, rd rpSiraia twv diroardKov, is used by 
 Caius, apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 25, for the tombs 
 of SS. IVter and Paul in the Roman cemeteries. 
 [Cella Memoriae.] 
 
 The Cod. Theod. (^De Sepulchro violate, lex vii) 
 contains an express sanction for the erection 
 of a “ martyrium ” in memory of a saint, and 
 the addition of such buildings as might be 
 desired. [E. V.] 
 
 CONFESSION, LITURGICAL {Confessio, 
 
 Apologia, baoKoyia). 
 
 The acknowledgment of sin made publicly in 
 certain services of the Church. 
 
 I. The Confession preceding the celebration of 
 the Eucharist. —It is so natural to confess sin 
 and unworthiness before engaging in so solemn 
 an act as the consecration of the Eucharist, that 
 we scarcely need to search for precedent; yet it 
 has been supposed by some that the Christian 
 presbyters borrowed the custom of confessing sin 
 before the Eucharistic celebration from the 
 Jewish pi'iests, who before sacrificing confessed 
 their sin in such terms as these: “Verily, 0 
 Lord, I have sinned, I have done amiss and dealt 
 wickedly; I repent and am ashamed of my 
 doings, nor will I ever return unto them.” See 
 Morinus de Poenitent. lib. ix. ii. c. 21, § 4; Bux- 
 torf de Synag. Jtidaica, c. 20. 
 
 W hether the precedent of the Jewish sacri- 
 ficing priest were followed or not, no doubt 
 
 CONFESSION, LITURGICAL 423 
 
 the same feeling which prompted the use of 
 the Psalm Judica [26th] in the early part of the 
 liturgy caused also the use of a public general 
 confession by the priest and ministers before the 
 altar. 
 
 In many Greek liturgies some acknowledg¬ 
 ment of sin and unworthiness forms part of the 
 office of the prothesis, said in the sacristy before 
 entering the sanctuary: in the liturgy of St. 
 James, for instance, the priest adopts the words 
 of the publican, “ God be merciful to me a sin- 
 , ner,” and of the prodigal, “ I have sinned against 
 I Heaven and in Thy sight.” The words of the 
 prodigal are also adopted at greater length in 
 : the opening of the Mozai’abic liturgy. 
 
 For the West, many forms of the liturgical 
 confession, or apologia, of the priest about to 
 celebrate are given by Menard (on the Gregorian 
 Sacramentary, p. 242); and by Bona {de Peb. 
 Lit. ii. c. 1, § 1). Menard states that these were 
 formerly used before the offertory, with which 
 the Missa Fidelium began; but in the Missa 
 Illyrici and some others, these apologiae arc 
 directed to be said immediately before the Introit, 
 while the Gloria in Excelsis and the Gradual 
 are chanted by the choir. But the ancient for¬ 
 mularies of the Roman Church contain no trace 
 of a confession in a set form to be made publicly 
 at the beginning of mass. The ancient Ordines 
 Pomani only testify that the celebrant after pay¬ 
 ing his devotions before the altar in a low voice, 
 with bowed head besought God’s pardon for his 
 own sins. It is an error, therefore, to attribute 
 the introduction of this rite to Pope Pontianus or 
 Pope Damasus. The very diversity of the form 
 and manner in saying the confession in difl'erent 
 churches shows that no form was prescribed by 
 any central authority, but that the several 
 churches followed independent usages. 
 
 The usual place for the liturgical confession 
 before mass is the lowest step of the altar ; but 
 there was anciently considerable diversity of 
 practice ; for the confession was sometimes made 
 (as in the East) in the sacristy, sometimes by 
 the side of the altar, sometimes in the middle of 
 the presbytery. A peculiar custom, probably 
 derived from ancient times, was long maintained 
 in the church of St. Martin at Tours, that the 
 celebrant should make his confession at the 
 tomb of St. Martin (Martene de Pitibus Feel. 
 lib. i.'c. 4, art. 2). 
 
 II. In the Matin office. —Something of the 
 nature of confession of sin appears to have formed 
 part of the matin office from very early times. 
 This custom is thought by some to have been 
 inherited from the synagogue, which has, in the 
 ancient “ Eighteen Prayers,” the form, “ Have 
 mercy upon us, 0 our Father, for we have trans¬ 
 gressed ; pardon us, for we have sinned. Look, 
 we beseech Thee, on our aftlictions; heal, O 
 Lord, our infirmities.” Very similarly, the 
 Greek matin office has, “ 0 most Holy Trinity, 
 have mercy on us; purify us from our ini¬ 
 quities, and pardon our sins. Look down upon 
 us, 0 Holy One; heal our infirmities.” (Free¬ 
 man, Principles of Divine Service, i. 64 ff.). 
 
 It is at least certain that in the 4th century 
 the early matin office of many Eastern churches 
 began with a confession; for St. Basil {Ep. 63, 
 p. 843, ed. Paris 1618) describes the early 
 matins of the church of Neo-Caesarea in the fol ■ 
 lowing manner. The people, he says, at early 
 
424 
 
 CONFESSOR 
 
 CONFIRMATION 
 
 dawn seek the house of prayer, and, after con¬ 
 fession made with sighing and tears to God, 
 rising at length from their prayer pass to 
 the chanting of the Psalms. It appears then 
 that a public liturgical confession commenced 
 the matin office in the days of St. Basil, and he 
 expressly states that this practice was consonant 
 with that of other churches known to him. 
 
 In the Western matin office the confession is 
 made in the form called Confiteor (q. v.) from 
 its first word. 
 
 III. Confession of past sins formed also one of 
 the preliminaries of baptism, as we learn from 
 Tertullian, de Baptismo^ c. 20. See Baptism. 
 
 IV. An instance of a profession of faith, com¬ 
 monly called a confession, is the following :— 
 
 In all liturgies of the Alexandrine family, and 
 in many other Oriental liturgies there is found. 
 Immediately before communion, a confession, or 
 declaration of faith by the recipient, that the 
 bread and wine are now really and truly the 
 Body and Blood of Christ. For instance, in 
 the Coptic St. Basil (Renaudot, Litt. Orient, i. 
 23), the priest, holding the elements, says, “ The 
 Holy Body and precious, pure, true Blood of 
 Jesus Christ the Son of our God. Amen. This 
 IS in very truth the Body and Blood of Emmanuel 
 our God. Annen.” Compare the Coptic St. 
 Gregory (Ren. i. 36); the Greek St. Basil (i. 83); 
 St. Gregory (i. 122), and other passages. [C.] 
 
 CONFESSOR. [Penitentiary.J 
 
 CONFESSOR. ('O^oAoyrjT^s.) 
 
 1. One who has confessed Christ by suffering 
 death for Him. [Martyr.] Thus, St. Ambrose 
 (ad Gratianum, ii. p. 63, ed. Basil, 1567) speaks 
 of the deaths of confessors. 
 
 2. One who has borne for Christ suffering 
 short of death. Pseudo-Cyprian (de Duplici Mar¬ 
 ty rio, G. 31) says that the Church martyres 
 appellat eos qui violenta morte decesserunt, con- 
 fessores qui constanter in cruciatibus ac minis 
 mortis professi sunt nomen Domini Jesu.” In 
 this sense Celerinus (Cypriani Epist. 21, c. 4, ed. 
 Hartel) speaks of Severianus and all the confessors 
 who had passed from Carthage to Rome; and 
 Sozomen (H. E. i. 10) speaks of the number of 
 confessors (opoKoy-yTui/) who, after the cessation 
 of persecution, adorned the churches, as Hosius 
 of Cordova and Paphnutius of Egypt. 
 
 3. The word confessor is used in a more general 
 sense for one who shews the spirit of Christ in 
 his ordinary life, “ qui pacifica et bona et justa 
 secundum praeceptum Christi loquitur, Christum 
 cottidie confitetur” (Cyprian, Epist. 13, c. 5). 
 So Theodore Balsamon (on Can. Apostol. 62, p. 
 265) says that the Church desires all its ortho¬ 
 dox members to be confessors (dfw\oyriTds) of 
 the faith. Hence, in later times it came to desig¬ 
 nate persons of distinguished holiness, who had 
 passed to their rest without violence or torture. 
 Pseudo-Egbert ( Excerptiones, c. 28 ; a work not 
 earlier than the 9th century) speaks of “ sancti 
 Patres, quos Confessores nuncupavimus, id est, 
 episcopi, presbyteri qui in castitate servierunt 
 Deo” (Ducange s. v. Confessor; Suicer s. v. 
 bpo\oyi]Ti)s). 
 
 4. In the Gregorian Sacramentary, Feria iv. 
 post Palmas (p. 63, ed. Menard), we have the 
 following: “ Oremus et pro omnibus episcopis, 
 presbyteris, diaconibus, subdiaconibus, acolythis, 
 exorcistis, lectoribus, ostiariis, confessoribus, vir- 
 
 ginibus, viduis, et pro omni populo sancto Dei.” 
 The order of words shews that the confessors 
 here are persons of inferior dignity, and Menard 
 (ad locum) .supposes chanters to be intended who 
 confess God by singing His praise. See the first 
 council of Toledo, cc. 6 and 9, where the w'ord 
 ‘confessor’ seems to be used in a similar sense, 
 the latter canon forbidding a professed religious 
 woman to sing antiphons in her house with a 
 confessor or servant in the absence of bishop or 
 presbyter. (Menard u. s.) [C.] 
 
 CONFIRMATION. The rite now known 
 by this name presents a singular instance of the 
 continued use of a symbolic act in the midst of 
 almost every possible diversity of practice, be¬ 
 lief, and even terminology. The one common 
 element throughout has been the imposition of 
 hands, as the sign of the bestowal of some spiri¬ 
 tual gift. In all other respects it will be seen 
 there have been indefinite variations. 
 
 The history of the Apostolic Church brings 
 before us two special instances of the irrideais 
 Twv (Acts viii. 12-17, xix. 5, 6). In 
 
 both it follows upon baptism, is administered by 
 apostles, as distinguished fi’om presbyters or 
 deacons, and is followed by special supernatural 
 manifestations of spiritual gifts, perhaps by their 
 pei'manent possession. It was not directly con¬ 
 nected with any appointment to any office in the 
 Church, though office might follow upon the 
 exercise of the gift bestowed. It was therefore 
 distinct from the laying on of hands by which 
 such offices were conveyed (Acts vi. 6, xiii. 3), 
 as it was from that which was the medium of a 
 miraculous healing power applied to the diseases 
 of the body (Mark xvi. 18, Acts ix. 12, 17). 
 The act referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. 
 i. 6, seems to hover between the bestowal of a 
 charisma and the appointment to an office. The 
 position in which the “ laying on of hands” meets 
 us in Heb. vi. 2, leaves it open to take it in its 
 most generic, or in either of its specific senses, 
 with, perhaps, a slight balance in favour of con¬ 
 necting it with the act which always, or in some 
 cases, supervened on baptism. I'he absence of 
 any mention of it in the baptisms recorded in 
 Acts ii. 41, xvi. 15, 33, and elsewhere receives a 
 natural explanation in the fact that there the 
 baptizer was an apostle, and that it was accord¬ 
 ingly taken for granted. 
 
 Beyond this the N. T. gives us no infonnation. 
 The “ unction ” (xpcffpa) of 1 John ii. 27, the 
 “anointing” of 2 Cor. i. 21, the “sealing” of 2 
 Cor. i. 22, Eph. i. 13, iv. 30, can hardly be thought 
 of as referring to a ritual act, though such an 
 act may at a very early period have been brought 
 into use as a symbol of the thought which the 
 words themselves expressed. Even then it re¬ 
 mains doubtful whether the “ seal ” means bap¬ 
 tism itself or some rite that followed it. A like 
 uncertainty hangs over the use of the word 
 “ seal ” in the story quoted by Eusebius (II. E. 
 iii. 23), from Clement of Alexandria, and in the 
 Apostolical Constitutions (ii. c. 14). 
 
 When we pass to the age of Tertullian the case 
 is difiereut. A distinct mention is made (1) of 
 anointing, (2) of the laying on of hands, as fol¬ 
 lowing so close upon baptism as to seem almost 
 part of the same rite rather than a distinct one, 
 the latter act being accompanied by a special 
 prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tertull. 
 
CONFIKMATION 
 
 CONFIRMATION 
 
 425 
 
 de Bapt. c. 7 ; de Eesurr. Cam. c. 8). Cyprian, [ 
 in like mannei*, recognises the practice, contend¬ 
 ing that it follows rightly upon a valid baptism, 
 but is not enough, in the case of heretical, 
 and therefore invalid, baptism, to admit those 
 who received it to full communion with the 
 church. He applies to it, as to baptism, the word 
 “sacramentum,” but obviously not in the tech¬ 
 nical sense of a later theology (Epist. 72, ad 
 Stephan.'). In these passages, it will be observed, 
 no distinction is drawn between the baptizer and 
 the layer-on of hands. Both acts are spoken of 
 as if they were performed at the same time and 
 by the same person. In practice, of cour.se, the 
 usage of the 3rd, possibly of the 2nd, century, 
 which fixed on Easter as the great baptismal 
 season, allowing it at other times only in cases 
 of urgent nued, would make this combination 
 ordinarily a very practicable one. It was neces¬ 
 sary, however, to provide for the exceptions, and 
 this was done accordingly by the Council of Elvira 
 (c. 77), which ordered that, in the case of those 
 who had been baptized by a deacon, “ sine epi- 
 scopo vel presbytero,” the bishop “ per benedic- 
 tionem perficere debet.” ® Jerome, in like man¬ 
 ner, but with a more rigid limitation of the act 
 of impo.sition to the higher order, recognised it 
 as a long-standing usage of the church. Bishops 
 used to travel round their dioceses in order to lay 
 their hands, “ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus,” 
 on those who had been baptized only by a pres¬ 
 byter or deacon (c. Lucifer, c. 4). One or two 
 facts may be noted at this stage of expansion, 
 (1) that immediate supernatural results are no 
 longer looked upon as the ordinary sequel to the 
 act of imposition, but that it is still connected, 
 as in the apostolic age, with the thought of spi¬ 
 ritual gifts of some kind; (2) that while it is 
 still in theory a rite which may be administered 
 immediately after even infant baptism, its limi¬ 
 tation to the episcopal order tended to interpose 
 an interval of uncertain length between the two. 
 A Spanish council in A.D. 569((7. Bucens.) recog¬ 
 nises the fact that there were some churches 
 which the bishop could not possibly visit every 
 year. Gradually, especially in Western Europe, 
 the negligence or the secular engagements of the 
 bishop prolonged this interval. The East, how¬ 
 ever, with its characteristic reverence for anti¬ 
 quity, refused to separate what the primitive 
 Church had joined, and infant baptism, infant 
 confirmation, infant communion, follow, in its 
 practice, in immediate' sequence. Even in the 
 Roman Church the sacramentaries of Gelasius 
 and Gregory unite the first two ordinances. It 
 was not, even in the judgment of eminent ritual¬ 
 ists of that Church, till the 13th century, that 
 the two ordinances were permanently separated, 
 and a period of from seven to twelve years al¬ 
 lowed to intervene. Of what may be called the 
 modern, Protestant idea of confirmation, as the 
 ratification by the baptized child, when he has 
 attained an age capable of deliberate choice, of 
 the promises made for him by his sponsors, there 
 is not the slightest trace in Christian antiquity.** 
 
 » It is singular that the canon, strictly intetpreted, 
 seems to sanction the performance of the act implied in 
 the “perficere’' by a presbyter as well as by a bishop. 
 But tlie decrees of councils will seldom bear interpretation 
 v/ith the minuteness of a special plead-r. 
 
 The Apostolic Constitutions, it is true, sp'‘ak of the 
 sacred chrism as j3£/3ac<t>crif rij^ ofxoAoyias (iii, 17) ; but it 
 
 A special aspect of confirmation presents itself 
 in connection with the reception into the Church 
 of those who had been baptized by heretics. 
 With the exception, and that only for a time, of 
 the African, that baptism, if formally complete, 
 was recognised as valid. But the case was other¬ 
 wise with the laying on of hands. Only in the 
 Catholic Church could the gifts of the Spirit be 
 thus imparted (August, de Bapt. c. Donat ii. 
 16), and so, even if the heretical sect had its 
 bishops, and they administered the rite, it was 
 treated as null and void. When those who had 
 been memiiers of such a community returned to 
 their allegiance to the Church, confirmation, 
 including the anointing as well as the laying on 
 of hands, was at once theoretically indispensable, 
 in its sacramental aspect, and became practically 
 conspicuous as the formal act of admission 
 (2 C. Constant, c. 7 ; 1 C. Araus. c. 8; Siriciu.s, 
 Epist. i. 1 ; Leo, Epist. 37, c. 2). It follows, 
 from all that has been said, that, according to 
 the general practice, and yet more, the ideal, of 
 the Church of the first six centuries, the office 
 of confirming was pre-eminently an episcopal 
 one. But it deserves to be noticed that it was not 
 so exclusively. It did not depend for its validity 
 upon episcopal administration. As baptism was 
 valid, though administered by a layman, so the 
 laying on of hands, in case of urgency, was 
 valid, though administered by a priest. In the 
 Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 22), at least one part 
 of the rite, the anointing, is assigned to either 
 priest or bishop, and the practice was retained 
 by the whole Eastern Church. In the West, the 
 exception was recognised as legitimate in cases of 
 necessity, as e.g. in that of a possessed or dying 
 person (1 C. Araus. c. 2; Innocent, Epist. 1 ad 
 Decent .; C. Epaon. c. 86). In these instances, 
 however, for the most part, a special delegation 
 of authority was either required or implied. 
 The letters of Leo (A/i. 88 ad Gall.) and Gelasius 
 {^Epist. 9 ad Episc. Lucan.), forbidding the prac¬ 
 tice, “ per impositiones manuum fidelibus bap- 
 tizandis, vel conversis ex haeresi Paracletum 
 Sanctum Spiritum t rad ere ” (Leo 1. c.) may be 
 received as evidence that the practice was be¬ 
 coming more or less common, even without that 
 authority, and that it was necessary, in the inte¬ 
 rest of the episcopal order, to restrain it. 
 
 Lastly, it may be noticed, that a ti'ace of the 
 old combination at one time and place of the two 
 ceremonies, baptism and the imposition of hands, 
 which were afterwards separated, may be found 
 in the fact that the anointing, which was origi¬ 
 nally the connecting link between the two, was, 
 at a later period, attached to each. Innocent, 
 in the letter already quoted {ad Decent, c. 3), 
 marks out the limits within which the priest 
 might act. In the absence, or even in the presence 
 of the bishop, he might anoint the baptized child 
 with the holy chrism, provided always that the 
 chrism itself had been consecrated by a bishop, 
 but he was not to sign him on the forehead. 
 That was reserved for the bishops, when, by im- 
 jiosition of hands, they bestowed the gift of the 
 Spirit. [E. H. ?.] 
 
 is questionable whether this moans, as Bingham asserts 
 (xii. 3), a continuation on man’s part of the compacts made 
 wl h God in baptism. 'I'he analogous use of the word 
 o-<f>payt? (Covstt. Apost. vii. 22) would seem to imply that 
 it was the seal, the confirmation of God’s promises: 
 
426 
 
 COXFITEOR 
 
 COXSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 COXFITEOR. The f'oi-m of general con¬ 
 fession of sins made in the offices of the Church, 
 so called from its first word. This is prescribed- 
 
 (1) At the beginning of the mass when tne 
 priest says it standing at the steps of the altar, 
 “ profuude inclinatus.” 
 
 (2) At the administration of the Holy Com¬ 
 munion at other times. 
 
 (3) At the administration of Extreme Unction. 
 
 (4) Previous- to the absolution “ in articulo 
 mortis.” 
 
 (5) In the daily office at Compline ; and at 
 Prime when the office is not double. 
 
 Sacramental confession is also directed to begin 
 with the opening words of the “ Confiteor.” 
 
 It is prefaced by the versicle “ Deus in adju- 
 torium,” &c., and is said alternately by the priest 
 and congregation, who each respond with a 
 prayer for the forgiveness of the other, called 
 “ Misereatur,” from its first word ; in addition 
 to which the priest pronounces li short formula 
 of absolution, similarly called “ ludulgentiam,” 
 over the people. This act is sometimes called in 
 rubrics “giving the absolution.” 
 
 Clear traces of it appear in the Penitential of 
 Egbert of York, a.d. 730, who prescribes a form 
 of words closely resembling the “ Confiteor,” 
 as introductory to .sacramental confession ; and 
 the “ Benedictio super poeuitentem ” is only a 
 slightly different version of the “ Misereatur.” 
 A similar form is given by- Chi-odegang, bishop 
 of Metz A.D. 742, who describes the order in 
 which Prime was to be said, to the following 
 efi'ect. When the clerks come together to sing 
 Prime in the church, the office itself being com¬ 
 pleted, let them give their confessions before the 
 50th [51st] Psalm, saying in turn, “ Confiteor 
 Domino et tibi, frater, quod peccavi in cogita- 
 tione et in locutione et in opere : propterea precor 
 te, ora pro me.” To which the response is given, 
 “Misereatur tibi omnipotens Deus, indulgeat 
 tibi peccata tua, liberet te ab omni malo, con- 
 servet te in omni bono, et perducat te ad vitam 
 aeteruam ; ” to which the other answers. Amen. 
 In Micrologus de Eccl. Observ. [probably about 
 1080] a form still more closely resembling the 
 present is given, and the 3rd Council of Ravenna, 
 A.D. 1314, orders that throughout the province 
 of Ravenna the “Confiteor ” shall be said in the 
 form used at the present time. Since the pub¬ 
 lication of the missal of Pius V. there has been 
 comjilete uniformity in this respect throughout 
 the Roman obedience. For examples of early 
 forms of confession see Bona, de Eeb. Lit.; Mar- 
 tene, de Ant. Eccl. Pit. lib. i. &c. Compare 
 CONFESSIOX. [H. J. H.] 
 
 CONFRACTORIUM. An anthem in the 
 
 Ambrosian missal at the breaking of the Host. 
 It usually has some i-eference to the Gospel of 
 the day. [H. J. H.] 
 
 COXOX, martyr at Iconium under Aure- 
 lian, May 29 {Mart. Usuardi); March 5 {Ca'. 
 Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES {Con- 
 
 secratio, Dedicatio; Gr. a(pi4pcccris, Euseb. Vit. 
 
 Const, iv. 60 ; hyKaivia, ib. iv. 43 ; cf. areOriKeu, 
 Procop. de Aedif. Justiniani, i. 3). 
 
 The essential idea of consecration is expressed 
 in the following paragraphs : — “ Consecratio 
 Ecclesiae est dedicatio ejusdem ad cultum divi- 
 num speciali j-itu facta a legitimo ministro, ad 
 
 hoc ut populus fidelis opera religionis in el rite 
 exeicere possit ” (Ferraris’ Promta Bibliothec t, 
 iii. 157). “ When we sanctify or hallow 
 
 ch'jrches, that which we do is to testify that we 
 make them places of public resort, that we 
 invest God Himself with them, that we sever 
 them from common uses ” (Hooker, Ecc. P. 
 v. 16). “By the consecration of a church, the 
 ancients always mean the devoting or sett inj 
 it apart for Divine service ” (Bingham, Antig. 
 viii. 9). Compare Bexedictiox. 
 
 It seems almost a necessity to men to have 
 their places of common worship recognizeu and 
 accustomed. That those places should not onlv 
 ac(juire sacredness of association by use, bu^ 
 should previously have imparted to them m 
 some sort a sacredness of object, seems also 
 consonant with natural religion. The fornor 
 more clearly, and yet the latter also, implicitly, 
 is found in all ages, a feature of all religions, 
 rude and civilized, the same with all classes, of 
 diverse nations, however widely separated; as 
 exemplified in groves, sacred stones, pillars, 
 altars, temples, pagodas. It seems the dictate 
 of natural piety that we should express thanks 
 to God on the first use of anything. Greeks, 
 Romans, Jews, had their consecrations of houses, 
 cities, and walls, not by words only, but with 
 symbolical actions and sacred rites. (See Deut. 
 XX. 5; Psalm xxx. Title, A Psalm and Song 
 at the Dedication of the House of David; Xch. 
 xii. 27 ; Du Cange, Constantviopolis Christiana, 
 i. 3, “ Urbis Encaenia;” Lewis, Historical Essay 
 upon the Consecration of Churches, London 1719, 
 c. iii.) 
 
 From the expressions “before the Lord,” “ the 
 presence of the Lord ” (Gen. iv.), it has been 
 reasonably inferred that “ the patriarchs had 
 places set apart for the worship of God, con¬ 
 secrated, as it w-ere, to His service.” (Blunt’s 
 Script. Coinc. p. 8.) Something like a form 
 of consecration is indicated in Gen. xxi. 33, 
 xxviii. 16, 17, 18, where the Vulgate rendering 
 “ titulum ” has given rise to the use of the 
 term, as equivalent to ‘ church,’ common in early 
 Christian writers. The consecration of the 
 tabernacle is narrated, Exod. xl., and given with 
 further details in Josephus iii. 9. The dedica¬ 
 tion of the Temple of Solomon is contained in 
 1 Kings viii.; wffiich furnishes Hooker {Eccl. 
 Pol. V. 12-16) w’ith seA-eral of his arguments for 
 the consecration of Christian churches. The 
 dedication of the second temple by Zerubbabel is 
 told in Ezra vi. 16; the purification and re- 
 dedication of the same by Judas Maccabaeus. iu 
 1 Macc. iv. 41-44, 54, 56, 57, 59. The dedica¬ 
 tion of Herod’s beautiful temple is narrated by 
 Josephus XV. 14. Less magnificent than these, 
 but still recognized and allowed to possess a 
 sacred character, were certiiin “ high places ” in 
 the ante-Babylonish history of the Jew-s, known 
 in later times as Trpocrevxai, and the numerous 
 synagogues in Palestine and elsewhere. 
 
 Christianity rose out of Judaism, supplanting 
 onlv what was peculiar to that system, and 
 inheriting all that was of natural piety. The 
 Divine Founfler of Christianity set the example 
 to all His followers iu His constant attendance 
 at the acknowledged places of worship, and es¬ 
 pecially in His going up to Jerusalem at the 
 feast of the Dedication. The apostles used the 
 consecrated temple as long jvs it was permitted 
 
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 them to do so, and everywhere else they found 
 the synagogues or churches made ready to their 
 hands, needing no new consecration. Ti'aces in 
 the N. T. of a fxed place of worship as a feature 
 of an organized church are presented by Prof. 
 Blunt {Parish Priest, sect. ix. p. 281), who 
 quotes Acts i. 13; St. Luke xxii. 12; St. John 
 XX. 19, 26 ; Acts ii. 2; Rom. xvi. 3; 1 Cor. xi. 
 22, xvi. 19. 
 
 That the pi'imitive Christians, i.e. before the 
 time of Constantine, not only had churches to 
 worship in, but regarded them as distinct in 
 character from other buildings, has indeed been 
 doubted or denied, but is allowed by even Hos- 
 pinian (cfe Origine et Progressu Consecrationum 
 et Dedicationum Templorum, Tiguri, 1603, fol.) 
 and August! {Denkwiirdigkeiten aus der Christ- 
 licheii Archdologie, xi. 317, &c.), and has been 
 sutficieutly settled in the affirmative by Petrus 
 Cluniacensis, a.d. 1147 (quoted in Hooker, E. P. 
 v. 12, 5), Bona, Tillemont, Mede, Lewis, Chan¬ 
 cellor Harington {The Object, Importance, and 
 Antiquity of the Rite of Consecration of Churches, 
 Rivingtons, 1847), and Professor Blunt. We 
 dismiss spurious testimonies and dubious allega¬ 
 tions ; e.g. the affirmation of Radul})hus adduced 
 by Gavanti ( Thesaur. tom. i. p. iv. tit. xvi.), that 
 “ dedication is of apostolic authority the Cle¬ 
 mentines {Ep. ''ad Jacobum) “ Build churches 
 in suitable places, which you ought to consecrate 
 by divine prayersthe Decretals, quoted from 
 Linus, Cletus, Evaristus, Hyginus, «Sic. by Gratian 
 and Goar {Euchol. p. 807); the assumption in 
 Duranti and Cardinal Bona, as quoted in Bingham 
 {Antig. viii. 9, 2); and others given by Martene 
 {Bit. Eccl. Ant. ii. 13). Yet we may collect 
 from the very earliest times a succession of 
 allusions and statements which warrant us in 
 the conclusion that places and buildings, of 
 whatever humble sort they might be, were 
 always recognized and set apart for common 
 worship, the fact of their consecration appearing 
 first, and then the accompaniments and rites 
 of it. 
 
 The very titles by which these buildings were 
 known indicated this; e.g. Kopidur], i.e. oluia, 
 Dominica, &c., discussed in August! {Denkw. xi. 
 320, &c.). St. Ambrose, in his letter to his 
 sister Marcellina {Ep. 22), calls the rite of 
 dedication of churches a most ancient and uni¬ 
 versal custom. St. Gregory Nazianzen in an 
 oration (43) on the consecration of a new church, 
 says, “ that it was an old law, and very excel¬ 
 lently constituted, to do honour to churches by 
 the feasts of their dedication.” And Daniel 
 {Cod. Liturg. i. 355) confirms the conclusion of 
 Binterim {Denkuurd. iv. i. 27) that this cere¬ 
 mony is deeply rooted in the earliest age of the 
 Church. Mede, and others after him, argue 
 this existence of churches from passages in 
 Clemens Romanus {ad Cor. i. 41 ; see Blunt’s 
 Parish Priest, lect. ix.); Ignatius {Ep. ad 
 Magncs. 7); Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 67); Ter- 
 tullian {De Idolol. 7); Cyprian {de Op. et Eleem. 
 12); Lucian {Philop). p. 1126); and many others. 
 The Coenaculum at Jerusalem, to which, as to a 
 known place, the disciples, after the ascension of 
 tlie Lord, returned for common prayer, is said to 
 have been adapted and dedicated to Christian 
 service long before the time of Constantine. 
 “The upper room,” says Bede (tom. ix. de 
 Locis Sanctis'), “ was enclosed afterwards with a 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 427 
 
 beautiful church, founded by the holy apostles, 
 because in that place they had received the 
 Holy Ghost.” To this, as being already an 
 acknowledged use, St. Cyril of Jerusalem refers 
 {Cat. lect. xvi. 4); “Here, in Jerusalem, in the 
 upper church of the apostles . . . the Holy 
 Ghost came down from heaven. And, in truth, 
 it is most fitting that ... we should speak 
 concerning the Holy Ghost in the upper church ” 
 (cf. Niceph. ii. 3). 
 
 “There exist,” says Eusebius {Hist. Erd. 
 viii. 1), “ the imperial edicts by which the 
 churches were to be pulled down to the ground.” 
 These must have been actual edifices. [Ciiuucii.] 
 Then came the persecution of Diocletian, when 
 “ the houses of prayer were pulled down from 
 the top to the bottom, and their foundations 
 overturned ” {ib. viii. 2). “ After these things 
 
 a spectacle earnestly prayed for and much de¬ 
 sired by us all appeared, viz. the solemnization 
 of the festival of the dedication of churches 
 throughout every city, and the consecration of 
 the newly-built oratories. . . . Indeed, the cere¬ 
 monies of the bishops were most entire, the 
 presbyters’ performance of service most exact, 
 the rites of the Church decent and majestic. 
 On the one hand was a place for the singers of 
 psalms, and for the rest of the auditors of the 
 expressions sent from God ; on the other was a 
 place for those who performed the divine and 
 mystical services. There were also delivered 
 the mystical symbols of our SaAuour’s passion. 
 And now people of all ages and sexes, men and 
 women, with the utmost xigour of their minds, 
 with joyful hearts and souls, by prayer and 
 thanksgiving, worshipped God, the Author of 
 all good. All the prelates then present made 
 public orations, every one as well as he was able, 
 endeavouring to set forward the praises of those 
 assembled ” {ih. x. 3). In x. 5 Eusebius gives 
 the decrees of Licinius and Constantins for re¬ 
 storing the churches to the Christians, as build¬ 
 ings not private, to which there had been an 
 established title. Even the Magdeburg Ceu- 
 turiators, who are wont to disparage the im¬ 
 portance of the ceremony of conseci-ation, writing- 
 on the 4th century, admit that it had been in 
 existence earlier : “ Usitatae omnino magis quam 
 superioribus saeculis templorum fuerunt dedica- 
 tiones, seu consecrationes, et quidem festivae.” 
 The church of Tyre was one of those destroyed 
 in the persecution of Diocletian, and rebuilt at 
 the revival described above. From the pane¬ 
 gyric spoken by Eusebius on the occasion to 
 Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, we gather that the 
 earlier church, a very noble one, had been con¬ 
 secrated before at its first erection, and that 
 churches built on old foundations were conse¬ 
 crated again. 
 
 We owe to the courtly pages of Eusebius full 
 accounts of the consecration of the churches 
 built by Constantine at Jerusalem,Constantinople, 
 and Antioch. He undertook to build a church 
 over the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem ( Vit. 
 Const, iii. 25), called the “ Martyrium,” of 
 which the beauty and several parts are de¬ 
 scribed (i6. iii. 29). Wlien all was ready, a.d. 335, 
 he wrote a letter of invitation to the numerous 
 bishops then assembled in council at Tyre, urging 
 them that they should first compose their in¬ 
 ternal diil'erences, because concord of priests 
 befitted such a ceremony ( Vit. Const, iv. 43 ; 
 
428 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 Sozom. Eccl. Hist. i. 2G). From all parts of the 
 East, accordingly, eminent bishops assembled, 
 followed by an innumerable company of people 
 out of all the provinces. “But the ministers of 
 God,” proceeds Eusebius, “adorned the festival 
 ])artly with their prayers, and partly with their 
 discourses. For some of them with praises 
 celebrated the benignity of the religious em¬ 
 peror towards the univ^ersal Saviour, and in 
 their orations -set forth the magnificence of the 
 Martyrium; others entertained their hearers 
 with theological discourses upon the divine dog- 
 wafa, fitted to the present solemnity; others 
 /nterpreted the lessons of the divine volumes, 
 and disclosed the mystic meanings. But such 
 as were unable to arrive at these things ap¬ 
 peased the Deity with unbloody sacrifices and 
 mystic immolations, humbly offering up their 
 prayers to God. ... At which place we our¬ 
 selves also honoured the solemnity with various 
 discoui'ses uttered in public; sometimes making 
 descriptions in writing of the stateliness and 
 magnificence of the royal fabric; at others, 
 explaining the meaning of the prophetic visions 
 in a manner befitting' the present symbols 
 and figures. There was the feast of dedication 
 celebrated with the greatest joy imaginable.” 
 One discourse by Eusebius (de Laudi'ms Con- 
 stantini) is given in full (iv. 45), where it is 
 observed that Constantine’s churches were much 
 larger and handsomer than those before. The 
 consecration took place on Sept. 13th, a Satur¬ 
 day. 
 
 Theodoret (Eccl. Hist. i. 31) says that many 
 churches of Constantine were dedicated by the 
 assembled bishops at the same time. 
 
 To the dedication of the magnificent basilica 
 at Antioch, called Dominicum Aureum, A.D. 341, 
 begun by Constantine dnd finished by his son 
 Constantins, there came ninety-seven bishops, 
 on the invitation of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who 
 had usurped the see of Constantinople (Socr. ii. 
 
 8 ; Sozom. iii. 5). 
 
 A synod of bishops (Socr. ii, 39) assembled at 
 the dedication of St. Sophia in Constantinople, 
 A.D. 360, thirty-four years after the foundation 
 of the church by Constantine. Eudoxius had 
 lately been inaugurated as archbishop. He 
 “made sacred prayers” (Du Cange, Constanti- 
 nop. Christ, iii, 2). “ It was consecrated with 
 
 prayers and votive offerings” (Niceph. viii. 
 26). Ciampini (de Aedif. Constantini, pp. 165 
 sqq.) gives a summary of the dedication of 
 this celebrated church from the Alexandrian 
 Chronicle, it is also referred to by the author of 
 the Life of St, Athanasius in Photius (Du Cange, 
 u.s ). As Constantine’s church had been de¬ 
 stroyed by earthquake, so was this of his son’s 
 burnt with fii'e, A.D. 404, and wholly destroyed 
 in the sedition of A.D. 532. 
 
 Further light is thrown on the rite of con¬ 
 secration by a story of Athanasius. In his 
 Apology to the emperor Constantine, A.D. 335, 
 he defends himself from the serious charge of 
 using an undedicated church. He allows the 
 truth of the fact. He said they had certainly 
 kept no day of dedication, which would have 
 been unlawful to keep without orders from the 
 emi»eror. The building was not yet complete. 
 He grounds his apology on the great concourse I 
 of people in Lent, the grievous want of church j 
 room elsewhere, the pressure of all to hear ] 
 
 Athanasius, the increa.sed mass of the crowd on 
 Easter Day (when the undedicated church was 
 used), the precedents of the Jews after the 
 captivity, and of buildings so used in Alexandria, 
 Treves, Aquileia, the reasonableness of worship¬ 
 ping in a building already called “the Lord’s 
 hou.se ” from the very time of laying the founda¬ 
 tions (Apol. ad Const. 17-21). “There was 
 no dedication, but only an assembly for the sake 
 of prayer. You, at least, I am sure, as a lover 
 of God, will approve of the people’s zeal, and 
 will pardon me for being unwilling to hinder 
 the prayers of so great a multitude.” “ May 
 you,” he adds, “most religious Augustus, live 
 through the course of many years to come, and 
 celebrate the dedication of the church. The 
 place is ready, having been already sanctified by 
 the prayers which have been offered in it, and 
 requires only the pi-esence of your piety.” (lb. 
 24, 25.) 
 
 The first dedication of a new church by Jus¬ 
 tinian is briefly described by Du Cange (Con¬ 
 stant. Chr. iii. 5), who .says, “The procession 
 started from St. Anastasia, the patriarch Mennas 
 sitting in the chariot of the emperor, and the 
 emperor himself going among the common 
 people.” The “ dedicationis apparatus et cele- 
 britas ” is given in Codinus (Orig. Constant.), 
 who says that Justinian w^ent in solemn pro¬ 
 cession from the palace to the Augustaeura (a 
 sort of large forum, or TrpoavXiov, before the 
 church of St. Sophia), together with the patri¬ 
 arch, to the church built V)y himself, and broke 
 out into these words: “ Glory to God, who has 
 counted me worthy to fulfil so great a w'ork. 
 1 have surpassed thee, 0 Solomon.” A series of 
 earthquakes de.stroyed the dome, altar, ambo, 
 &:c., and the same emperor, whose passion for 
 building was the ruling feature of his life, cele¬ 
 brated the second consecration twenty-four 
 years later, of which an account is given by Du 
 Cange (ih. iii. 6) after Theophanes. “Nightly 
 vigils preceded in the church of St. Plato; 
 thence the procession adx'anced with prayers, the 
 emperor himself being present; the patriarch 
 Eutychius, boime in a chariot, and dressed in 
 apostolical habit, holding the holy gospels in his 
 hands; all the people chanting ‘ Lift up your 
 heads,’ ” &c. Then came the dvpavoi^'ia and the 
 (pwTodpSpos, i.e. that part of the ceremony of 
 the Encaenia, where in the circuit of the build¬ 
 ing the lights are lighted on the walls, and 
 twelve cro.sses are anointed with chrism by the 
 bishop. Paul the Silentiary, in his poem on the 
 occasion, adds, “ After thou hadst celebrated 
 the festival, as was proper, forthwith the whole 
 people, the senate, and the middle and better 
 classe.s, demanded an extension of the days of 
 celebration. Thou grantedst it: they flocked 
 in: again they demanded : again thou grantedst 
 it, w'hich things being often repeated, thou 
 celebratedst the festivity magnificently.” Pro¬ 
 bably for seven days. 
 
 Of other churches in Constantinople, Du 
 Cange (ib. iv. 5) relates the dedication of the 
 Church of the Apostles. This church, after its 
 demolition, was rebuilt by Justinian. The dedi¬ 
 cation is described as celebrated by the deposi¬ 
 tion in it of the relics of Andrew, Luke, and 
 I Tim.othy, w'hich had been in the earlier church. 
 
 I Theophanes says, that the bishop Mennas, with the 
 j holy relics, sitting in the royal chariot, gilt and 
 
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 studded with gems, carrying upon his knees the 
 three shrines of the holy apostles, in such wise 
 celebrated the dedication. Procopius speaks of 
 the same particulars. i 
 
 The last-named writer (de Aedif. Justin. I. v.) 
 mentions the saci'ed buildings at Ephesixs, Con¬ 
 stantinople, Jerusalem, which Justinian dedi¬ 
 cated (avedrjKi'). | 
 
 \Ve gather from Bede (^Eccl. Hist. i. 6) that 
 while Diocletian was persecuting in the East, | 
 Maximian was doing the same in the West, | 
 for ten years, by burning the churches, &c., 
 and that after the cessation of the persecution 
 the Britons renewed the churches which had 
 been razed to the ground, and founded and 
 finished basilicas to the holy martyrs (ib. i. 8). : 
 Later on, we read that Gregory instructed j 
 Augustine and his companions not to destroy 
 the idol temples, but to destroy the idols in ^ 
 them, and then to prepare holy water, and ^ 
 sprinkle it, to build altars and deposit relics, and 
 to make suitable provision for rendering the day ^ 
 of dedication attractive {ib. i. 30); that Augus¬ 
 tine “ consecrated a church in the name of the 
 Saviour, our God and Lord Jesus Christand ^ 
 Laurentius “ consecrated the church of the. 
 blessed apostles Peter and Paul ” {ib. i. 33) ; that 
 the body of Augustine (after a very early cus- j 
 tom) was laid near this church, as it was not ^ 
 yet dedicated, but as soon as it was dedicated it 
 was brought in and laid in the north porch {ib. 
 ii. 3); that, on Chad’s visit to Northumbria, 
 after being in East Anglia, the son of the king 
 gave him land to build a monastery or church; : 
 to purify the spot he craved leave to spend the 
 forty days of Lent (except the Lord’s day) in | 
 prayer and fasting, as he said it was always 
 the custom he had learned, first to consecrate 
 the locality by prayer and fasting to the Lord. ^ 
 Then he built a monastery, and set it on foot 
 according to the rites of the Lindisfarnians, ' 
 with whom he was educated {ib. iii. 23); that 
 the Abbot Ceolfrid sent to the king of the Piets, 
 A.D. 710, architects to build for him a stone 
 church after the manner of the Romans, he 
 having promised to dedicate it in honour of the 
 blessed chief of the apostles {ib. v. 21). Bede 
 tells a story of Bishop John of Beverley, how, j 
 after having dedicated a church for the Earl 
 Puch, he sent to his countess, who was bed¬ 
 ridden, some of the holy water which he had 
 consecrated for the dedication of the church by 
 one of the brethren, charging him to give her 
 some to taste, and that he should wash her with ' 
 the same water wherever he learnt her pain 
 was the greatest. The woman recovered {ib. v. 
 4). A detailed account is given of the consecra¬ 
 tion of the church of Ripon by St. Wilfred 
 (a.d. 665) in his life. The 47th chapter of 
 the Penitential of Archbishop Theodore, speaking ' 
 of a building in which heathens had been buried, ' 
 but now proposed for a church, adds: “If it 
 seems fit for consecration, let the bodies be 
 removed, and it shall be sanctified, if not con¬ 
 secrated befoi’e.” In the same chapter mention 
 is made of that part of the office of consecra¬ 
 tion in which it is said, “ Locus a Deo iste 
 factus est.” 
 
 2. Canons and decrees v:hich relate to the con¬ 
 secration of churches. —The 4th canon of the 
 General Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 (Bruns’s 
 Canonos, i. 26), provides that “ no one shall any- 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 429 
 
 where build or establish a monastery, or house of 
 prayer, without the consent of the local bishop.” 
 The canons of Felix IV. and Gregory 1. {de Consecr. 
 distinct, i. c. 17) are referred to by Gavanti 
 {Thesaurus Sacr. Rii. tom. i. p. iv. tit. xvi. p. 
 529). The 23rd canon of an Irish Council under 
 Patrick, a.d. 450 (Bruns’s Can. ii. 303), directs 
 “that a presbytei’, though he build a church, 
 shall not offer the oblation in it before he brings 
 his bishop to consecrate it, because this was 
 regular and decent.” Of Columbanu.s, howevei-, 
 though not a bishop, Walafrid Strabo writes 
 {Mart. ii. 13, 6), “He ordered water to be 
 brought, blessed it, sprinkled the temple with it, 
 and while they went, round singing, dedicated 
 the church. Then he called on the Name of the 
 Lord, anointed the altar, placed in it the relics 
 of St. Aurelia, vested it, and said mass.” The 
 1st Council of Orange, a.d. 441, can. 10 (Bruns’s 
 Canones, ii. 123), forbids a bishop to consecrate a 
 church out of his own diocese, even if it has been 
 built by himself. So the 2nd Council of Arles 
 (about 451), can. 37. The 3rd Council of Or¬ 
 leans, a.d. 538, can. 15 (Bruns’s Can. ii. 196), 
 makes the same provision about altars. The 
 3rd canon of the 2nd Council of Saragossa. A.D. 
 592 (Bruns’s Can. ii. 65), enacts that “ if Arian 
 bishops, who are converted, shall consecrate 
 chui'ches before they have received the bene¬ 
 diction, such shall be consecrated anew by a 
 Catholic bishop.” The Theodosian Code pre¬ 
 scribes how existing buildings should be claimed 
 and dedicated for the service of the Christian 
 religion: “ conlocatione venerandi religionis 
 christianae signi expiari praecipimus” (lib. xvi. 
 tit. 10). The same rite was prescribed by Justi¬ 
 nian at the beginning of any erection of a church 
 {Novell, cxxxi., quoted by Bingham, Antiq. viii. 
 9, 5). See more instances in Augusti {Denkw. 
 xi. 355). Avitus, bishop of V'ienne in the 6th 
 century, promises his brother Apollinaids to be 
 present at the consecration of a church, and 
 commands the gifts that were designed for the 
 poor at the dedication feast. The 2nd Council 
 of Nice, A.D. 787, can. 7, orders that no bishop 
 should consecrate any church or altar, on pain 
 of deposition, unless relics were placed under it, 
 “ ut qui ecclesia.sticas traditiones transgressus 
 est.” The famous Council of Cealchythe {i. e. 
 Chelsea), presided over by Archbishop Wil¬ 
 fred, A.D. 816, can. 2, decrees, “ when a church 
 is built, let it be consecrated by a bishop of its 
 own diocese: let the water be blessed, and 
 sprinkled by himself, and all things fulfilled 
 in oi-der, according to the service book. Then let 
 the Eucharist, which is consecrated by the bishop 
 after the same form, be deposited with the other 
 relics in a chest, and kept in the same church. 
 And if he cannot bring other relics, at least he 
 can do this chief thing, because it is the Body 
 and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And we 
 charge every bishop that he have it painted on 
 the wall of the oratory, or on a table, as also 
 on the altars, to what .saints both of them are 
 dedicated.” The 141st of the Excerpts of Arch¬ 
 bishop Egbert, circ. A.D. 750, provides when a 
 church will need recon.secration. The Council of 
 Worms, A.D. 868, forbids bishops to exact any fee 
 or present for the consecration of a church, and 
 also forbids them to con.secrate any church 
 except thei'e be a writing under the hand of the 
 I founder confirming the foundation, and signifying 
 
430 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 what endowment he has given for the ministers 
 and for the lights. 
 
 A decree is quoted from Gelasius, a.d. 492 (cf. 
 Socr. Eccl. Hist. ii. 8), to the effect that no 
 bishop consecrate a church without the leave of 
 the Apostolical see. Gregory the Great wrote 
 official letters, whence we may gather the form 
 in which, as bishop of Rome, he was accustomed 
 to issue his license to his suffragans for dedication 
 of a church or chapel, e.g., that “they take good 
 heed that no dead body were buried in the place ” 
 (^Epist. i. 52; v. 22; xii. 10); “if a bishop con¬ 
 secrated an oratory in another diocese, what he 
 had done was null and void ” {EjAst. xi. 2). He 
 would not have a new church consecrated unless 
 it were endowed with sufficient revenue for main¬ 
 taining divine service and the clergy (see C<jrp. 
 Jur. Can. i. 457-461), Martene allows that 
 Gelasius and Gregory were both intending to 
 prescribe for Italy alone. 
 
 3, Ritual of Consecration. —It was customary, 
 as we have seen, to deliver sermons at the time 
 of consecration. There is one extant by St. 
 Ambrose, preached at the dedication of a church 
 built by Vitalianus and Majanus, a.d. 380; the 
 sermon is entitled “ De Dedicatione Basilicae,” 
 from the text in St. Luke, “He loveth our 
 nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.” 
 Gaudentius, bishop of Bresse in Italy, early in 
 the 5th century, has left sermons “ Die dedica- 
 tionis basilicae sanctorum quadraginta marty- 
 rum ” (^Max. Bibl. Patrum, tom. v. ; Migne’s 
 Patrol. XX.), St. Augustine’s works (tom. v.) 
 contain sermons of the same class, Perm. 256, 
 de tempore, al. 336-338, and in App. Perm. 229- 
 231, considered to be those of Caesarius. 
 
 Of other rites and ceremonies we find occasional 
 notices. Thus of the vigil kept the night pre¬ 
 ceding the dedication, St. Ambrose writes (^Ep. 
 22) to his sister Marcelliiia and Gregory of 
 Tours, de Gloria Confessorum; of the translation 
 and deposition of relics, we read in the same 
 epistle of St. Ambrose, “ When I wished to 
 dedicate the basilica, they began to interrupt me 
 as it were with one mouth, saying. You should 
 dedicate the basilica, as in the case of a Roman 
 one. I answered, I will do so, if I find relics of 
 martyrs.” The same custom is mentioned by 
 St. Basil, Epist. 49 (iii. 142), by St. Paulinus, 
 Epist. ad Peverum (Max. Bibl. Patr. tom. vi. 193, 
 &c.), by St. Greg. M. lib. i. c. 10, See in 
 IMartene, The relics were often not the bodies 
 themselves, but what had been simply in contact 
 with them [Brandeum], The custom was at 
 first peculiar to Rome, and was then extended 
 and made obligatory by the 2nd Nicene Council. 
 Ancient forms, given by Martene, prescribe that 
 “ the Body of the Lord be deposited.” On 
 dedication, Hooker (E. P. v. 13) and Bingham 
 (Antiq. viii. 9, 8) both quote St. Augustine (de 
 C vit. Dei, vm. 27; xxii. 10; contra Faust, xx. 
 21; contra Maxim, i.; de Vera Relig. c. 55) as 
 showing how, and with what interest and limi¬ 
 tation, the original custom of dedicating churches 
 to the Lord only was afterwards extended to 
 their dedication under the name, or as me¬ 
 morials of saints and martyrs, or by the title of 
 virtues, especially of wisdom, as was the case in 
 the chief cities of the empire. Augustine in 
 writing against Maximinus grounds an argument 
 for the deitv of the Holy Ghost upon this dis¬ 
 tinction ; “ that He must be God, because 
 
 temples were built and dedicated to Him, which 
 it would be sacrilege to do to any other creature.” 
 The custom of lighting twelve candles is alluded 
 to in the Pseudo-Augustine, Pei-m. 338 (al. 3), 
 in Dedic. Ecclesiae. “ This lesson occurs suitably, 
 when the candelabra are blessed, that he who 
 works is as a light placed on a candlestick.” The 
 very ancient rite of inscribing either the whole 
 alphabets both Greek and Latin, or some letters 
 of them, or one alphabet, is spoken of by Gregory 
 in his Liber Pacrameutorum: “ Then let the 
 bishop begin from the left-hand corner at the 
 east, writing on the pavement with his pastoral 
 start’ A. B. C., to the right corner of the west; 
 again beginning from the corner at the east he 
 writes A. B. C. and so on to the left corner of the 
 church.” Gregory says that some bi.shops added 
 the Hebrew alphabet. The inscription was 
 called the A. B. C. darium. See more on the 
 custom in Martene (ii. 13, who gives a.d. 980 as 
 the inferior date for it), and in Maskell, Monum. 
 Pit. i. 173 n. 
 
 It is difficult, however, from the few and 
 scattered notices in primitive writers, to con¬ 
 struct the probable course of the ritual of conse¬ 
 cration in early times. We may say with 
 Bingham, “ that the manner and ceremony of 
 doing this was not always exactly one and the 
 same, thei’efore we are chiefly to regard the 
 substance of the thing, which was the separation 
 of any building from common use to a religious 
 service. Whatever ceremony this was performed 
 with, the first act of initiating and appropriating 
 it to a divine use was its consecration; and 
 therefore, in allusion to this, the first beginning 
 of anything is many times called its dedication. 
 Whether churches had any other cei’emony 
 besides this in their dedication for the first three 
 ages is not certain, though it is highly probable 
 they might have a solemn thanksgiving and 
 pra)’er for a sanctified use of them also, over and 
 besides the usual liturgy of the Church, because 
 this was in use. among the Jews ” (Antiq. viii. 
 9, 1). So also Lewis (Historical Essay) remarks 
 upon the difficulty of discovering the use of this 
 rite in its particular parts, because the custom 
 of those early times was obscure, yet “ he hopes 
 to shew some remains of the footsteps of this 
 ceremony ” (p. 29), and gathers them together 
 (p. 105), as traced in the several instances above 
 given. 
 
 Of the various forms printed from MSS., the 
 Ordo Romanus for the building and consecration 
 of a church, &c., said to be of the 8th century, is 
 given in the Max. Bibl. Patr. (tom. xiii. p. 715, 
 &c.). Goar (Euch. Graecorum) gives the custo¬ 
 mary order in laying the foundation of a church, 
 and the prayer to be said on the occasion, which 
 some call the cross-fixing; and the order for 
 fixing the cross after the church is finished, by 
 the patriarch, under which head there are certain 
 prayers attributed to Callixtus on the dedication 
 of a temple, and a very prolix rd^is ual olko- 
 Xovd'ia eirt KadiepdxTfi vaou (p. 606, See., and p. 
 846). Martene (iiCcL Pit. ii. 13, p. 244 &c.) has 
 printed eleven forms, of which the oldest are (1) 
 from the Book of Gellone in Italy about a.d. 800, 
 (2) from the pontifical of Egbert, archbishop of 
 York, A.D. 750, (3) from the Anglican pontifical 
 in the monastery of Jumifeges, a.d. 800, (4) from 
 the pontifical of St. Dunstan of Canterbury, (5) 
 from a codex of St. Mary’s, Rheims, a.d. 900, (6) 
 
CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 . CONSECRATIOiS 
 
 CHURCHES 431 
 
 from a pontifical of the Church of Noyon, A.D. 
 900. Maskell prints from the Sarum Pontifcal 
 the Ordo “ De Ecciesiae dedicatione, seu conse- 
 cratione ” {Monurnen. Bit. i. 162-203), and 
 has some remarks on the subject in his pre¬ 
 liminary dissertation, pp. cclxv.-cclxxv. Daniel 
 (Cod. Liturg.i. 355-384,) prints the rite “Ex 
 Pontificali Romano,” with notes of collation 
 from other rituals. He holds that in the most 
 ancient times it vsras not the mass only that was 
 sufficient at the consecration of new churches 
 (which Binterim had argued), but that it was the 
 mass proper for dedication, together with addi¬ 
 tions of certain forms of benediction. Both 
 these writers allow that the ritual of present use 
 scarcely reaches the 8th century. 
 
 4. Anniversaries of consecrations of churches 
 have their natural origin in the feast of dedica¬ 
 tion of the temple, attended by our Lord (St. 
 John X. 22, 23) in conformity with 1 Macc. iv. 
 56-59 ; St. Gregory Nazian. (Orat. 43, ets r^u 
 Kvpio.KT)v init.) speaks of it as an ancient custom 
 “ to honour churches by the feasts of their 
 dedication ; and that not for once only, but upon 
 the annual return of the day of their consecra¬ 
 tions, that good things become not forgotten 
 through lapse of time.” It is doubtful who 
 initiated the custom. Some make it date from 
 the consecration of the church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre at Jerusalem, on Sept. 13 [Ana- 
 stasis]. (See Sozom. H. E. i. 26; Niceph. viii. 
 50.) Felix IV., A.D. 526, put out a decree “ that 
 the solemnities of the dedications of churches are 
 to be celebrated every year.’’ Gregory the 
 Great confirmed the practice, and it was adopted 
 by Augustine in Britain, together with the 
 custom of building booths round the church, and 
 Folding common festivities (Bede, Eccl. Hist. i. 
 30). The memory of the dedication of St. 
 Sophia at Constantinople was kept up every 
 Dec. 22 (Du Cange, Const. Chr. iii. 6). Gavanti 
 (ii. 250, &c.), de Commimi Dedicationis Ec¬ 
 ciesiae, has rules and remarks on this class of 
 festival and its concurrence with others. 
 
 The Sninbolisin of the rite of consecration may 
 be said to uppear in the earliest titles given to 
 churches (see above), and in the essential idea of 
 consecration as expressed by Hooker, E. P. v. 12, 
 13 ; Bingham, Antiq. viii. 9, 8 ; Lewis, p. 98. 
 Alcuin, de Coena Domini, says, “ Churches are 
 consecrated that the coming of angels into them 
 may be invited, and that men entering into them 
 may be restrained from mean thoughts.” St. 
 Thomas Aquin. {Surnma, part iii. Quaest, 85,* 
 art. 3) says, “ A church is consecrated because 
 the Church is the spouse of Christ; and when the 
 octave is celebrated for denoting the glorious 
 resurrection of the Church which is to come.” 
 Remigius of Auxerre, in the 10th century, has a 
 Treatise on the mystical signification of the whole 
 rite. Cf. the reference to this and other writers 
 in INIaskell (^Monum. Bit. i. 162, 3). The same 
 subject is elaborately drawn out by Durandus, 
 Rationale Div. Off. ; St. Bruno Astensis, Episc. 
 Signiensium (Max. Bibl. Pair. xx. 1725), of the 
 12th century, &c. 
 
 5. Consecration of Altars. — Bingham (AnL 
 viii. 9, 10) says that the consecration of altars 
 seems to have begun first of all in the 6th 
 century ; he quotes the Council of Agde, A.D. 
 506, can. 14 (Bruns’s Can. ii. 145), as enacting 
 that “ altars are to be consecrated not only by 
 
 the chrism, but with the sacerdotal benediction,” 
 and the Council of Epone, A.D. 517, can. 26 (ib. 
 ii. 170), that “none but stone altars are to be 
 consecrated with the unction of the chrism.” 
 Gregory of Tour.s, in the 6th century, in his 
 De Gloria Confessorum, c. xx. (Migne, i’afro^. 71, 
 p. 842), describes the dedication of an oratory at 
 Tours, a veiy beautiful cell, heretofore used as a 
 salt cellar : “ The altar was placed in its future 
 position; the night was spent in vigil at the 
 basilica ; in the morning they went to the cell 
 and consecrated the altar, then returned to the 
 basilica, and thence took the relics. There were 
 present a very large choir of priests and deacons, 
 and a distinguished body of honourable citizens, 
 with a large assembly of people. On arrival at 
 the door a miracle of splendour took place,” 
 which Gregory describes. 
 
 Literature. —Besides the several works and 
 special treatises mentioned in the course of this 
 article, reference may be made to Cardinal Bona, 
 de Beh. Liturg. i. 19, 20 (Antwerp 1677, 4to); 
 Fabric! us (John), de Templis Christianorum 
 (Helmstadii 1704, foL); Augusti’s List of the 
 Literature of Holy Places (xi. 317), Schmid, 
 LAturgik, Knltus der Ckrist-Katholische Kirche 
 (vol. iii.), LAber diurnus Pontif. Bom. (Migne’s 
 Patrol, vol. 105), cap. v. p. 89, &c., “ Index 
 Generalis Materiarum ” in Mar. Bibl. Patrum 
 (tom. i.) under the head “ Ecclesia, 16, Do 
 Material! Ecclesia, seu Templo, ejusque dedi¬ 
 catione,” where some dedication sermons and 
 mystical expositions and vindications of the rite 
 of consecration may be found of the 12th and 
 13th centuries. [H. B-y.] 
 
 6. Summary. —It will be seen in the instances 
 given above that there are two distinct 
 periods in the history of the conseci'ation of 
 churches. In the early ages, certainly as late as 
 the time of Constantine, a church was inaugu¬ 
 rated by solemn ceremonial, and dedicated to the 
 service of God with prayer. Then, as churches 
 built over the tombs of martyrs came to be 
 regarded as endowed with peculiar sanctity, the 
 posses.sion of the relics of some saint came to be 
 looked upon as absolutely essential to the sacred¬ 
 ness of the building, and the deposition of such 
 relics in or below the altar henceforward formed 
 the central portion of the consecration-rite. All 
 the essentials of such a rite are found in the 
 description of the consecration of an oratory, 
 quoted above from Gregory of Tours. [Compare 
 Altar.] 
 
 To the second phase belong all the ancient 
 rituals of consecration now extant, whether in 
 East or West. We may take, as a summary of 
 the rites above referred to, the service for the 
 consecration of churches given in Egbert’s 
 Pontifical (pp. 26-58, ed. Surtees Soc.), whic’» 
 differs in no essential point from that of the 
 G re g ori a n sa era m e n ta ry. 
 
 The relics were to be watched the night before 
 in some church already consecrated. In the 
 morning the bishop and clergy came in procession 
 to the church to be consecrated; candles are 
 lighted, the clerks in procession pa.ss round the 
 church outside. The door of the church is 
 opened with appropriate chants and ceremony. 
 Prayer is said in the midst of the church, and 
 the procession, with litany, .solemnly apiiroaches 
 the altar with pi-ostration. Then follows the 
 A. B. C. darium (see above). Holy water is 
 
432 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES 
 
 blessed and sprinkled about the church and the 
 altar; the altar is censed and anointed with oil 
 and chrism; the slab is to be laid on the altar, 
 the linen coverings, the fittings (ornamenta) of 
 the church, and the vessels to be used in divine 
 service are blessed. Then the relics are brought 
 in solemn procession from the place where they 
 had been deposited. When they come before the 
 altar a curtain is drawn between the clerks and 
 the people; the bishop makes the sign of the 
 cross with chrism inside the confessio or cavity 
 where the relics are to be placed, and at the four 
 corners of the altar. After the relics have been 
 placed in the confessio, the slab is laid on the 
 top and fixed with mortar. The bishop says a 
 prayer. The altar is then covered and decked, 
 and the paten and chalice are blessed. 
 
 The clerks then enter the vestry and put on 
 other vestments. Meantime the church is made 
 ready, and the bishop and clergy on their return 
 say the mass In Dedicatione Ecclesiae. 
 
 Forms are also given in the Pontifical (p. 57) 
 for the “ Reconciliation ” of an altar or holy 
 place where blood has been shed or homicide 
 perpetrated. 
 
 For other ceremonies of dedication see Font, 
 Cemetery. 
 
 7. fnscriptions. —Bianchini on the Liber Pontif. 
 (s. 35, i. p. 74, ed. Migue) quotes the following 
 inscription as pi'oving the consecration of a 
 church at Rome in the 4th century by Damasus 
 or Damasius :— 
 
 T . I . X . N . EGO DAMASI 
 VS VRB ROME EPS AN 
 C DOMV COSECRAVI 
 
 . . . N.R.Q.S.M.S.S.PA.S.PE. 
 
 i.e. Tihdus in Christi nomine. Ego Damasius 
 urbis Romae Episcopus hanc domum consecravi. 
 The interpretation of the i-emaining portion of 
 the inscription is doubtful, but S . PA . S . PE . 
 seem to designate Sanctus. Paulus, Sanctus 
 Petrus. On the reverse of the stone is engraved, 
 
 [/Ac rcJQVIESCIT CAPVT 
 SCI CRESCENTINI M. 
 
 ET RELIQIE S.SVPANT. 
 
 The Abbe Martigny (^Dictionnaire, p. 227) has 
 acutely remarked, that the epithet sanctus is 
 not known to be used in this way so early as 
 the 4th century, and that the inscription is 
 
 E robably of a later date than the time of Pope' 
 'amasus. There is, in fact, probably no inscrip¬ 
 tion testifying to the consecration of a church 
 of so early a date as the time of St. Ambrose, 
 \vhen we know that a dedication-rite similar 
 in essentials to that of later times was coming 
 into use. [C.] 
 
 8. Effect of Consecration. —Churches and their 
 sites, once consecrated, wei’e to be reserved 
 exclusively for the offices of religion. Eating 
 and drinking in them Avas forbidden after the 
 love-feasts had been abolished: and w^earing 
 arms in them was never allowed. In virtue 
 of the 2ad of these rules they speedily became 
 asylums or places of refuge for all threatened 
 with violence : still they could only be used as 
 such for a limited duration in virtue of the first. 
 “ Pateant summi Dei templa timentibus,” said 
 one law in the Theodosian code, not merely con¬ 
 
 firming this pu’ivilege, but extending it to the 
 various surroundings of a church where meals 
 might be taken and sleeping quarters esta¬ 
 blished for any length of time; by another law, 
 however, it was modified, by excluding public 
 debtors, slaves, and Jews, from benefiting by it 
 in future (lib. ix. tit. 49); and Justinian after¬ 
 wards excluded malefactors (^Novel. 17). Some 
 interesting remarks on these constitutions may 
 be read in a letter of Alcuiu (Ep. clvii. ed. 
 Migne) to his two disciples, Candidus and Na¬ 
 thanael : modified indeed by the important let¬ 
 ter of Charlemagne which follows it; and in 
 accordance with which the rights of sanctuary 
 are upheld in the Frank capitularies of the 8th 
 century. 
 
 Property given to the Church might never be 
 alienated from it, exce 2 )t under special circum¬ 
 stances defined by the canons : much more there¬ 
 fore buildings that had been solemnly conse¬ 
 crated. The canons forbidding alienation are 
 numerous from the 15th Ancyran, A.D. 315 
 downwards; and the 31st and three following, 
 with the 65th Apostolical, may be still earlier. 
 Justinian has numerous regulations to the same 
 effect in his Code (lib. ii. tit. 2) and 7th Novel. 
 In all these church property seems to be consi¬ 
 dered inalienable, rather as being in trust for 
 others than upon higher grounds : at ail CA'ents, 
 none of them actually discuss consecrated sites 
 and buildings as such. Charlemagne was more 
 explicit in one of his capitularies (a.d. 802, c. 34, 
 ed. Migne) : “ Ut loca quae semel Deo dedicata 
 sunt ut monasteria sint, maneant perpetuo mo- 
 nasteria, nec possint ultra fieri saecularia habi- 
 tacula.” This was generalized subsequently, till 
 it appeared as a maxim in the “ Regulae Juris,” 
 appended to the 6th book of the Decretals, in 
 these words : “ Semel Deo dicatum non est ad 
 usus humanos ulterius transferendum ” (No. 51). 
 Even the wood and stones used in building a 
 church were considered to have shared its con¬ 
 secration, and could not afterwards be removed 
 to subserve structures purely secular, though 
 they might be burnt. Events in this respect 
 have long since proved stronger than the De¬ 
 cretals : and there are some remarkable words on 
 record of Jehovah Himself in taking possession 
 of the first building ever dedicated to His service, 
 shewing that His acceptance of it was condi¬ 
 tional, and might not, under circumstances which 
 actually took place, be permanent: “ Now have 
 I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name 
 may be there for ever. . . . But if ye turn away 
 and forsake my statutes and my commandments 
 which I have set before you . . . this house which 
 I have sanctified for my name will I cast out of 
 my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and 
 a by-word among all nations” (2 Chron. vii. 19, 
 20). Canonists have forgotten these words alto¬ 
 gether in estimating the “ effects of consecration.” 
 Comp, particularly Lequeux’s ^lauual. Tract, de 
 Rebus Sao'is, 1. xci. and cxxvi.-xxxix. A larger 
 work is Gibert’s Corp. Jur. Canon, vol. ii. Tract, 
 de Eccl. tit. xv. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 CONSECRATION (Eucharistic). {Conse- 
 cratio, Sanctificatio, de^iepoaris, aytaap-ds.) For 
 the distinction betw'een consecration and bene¬ 
 diction, .see Benediction. The general con¬ 
 sideration of the doctrine of Eucharistic consecra¬ 
 tion belongs to theology, and the question is 
 
CONSECEATION 
 
 considered here only in its relation to the 
 liturgy. 
 
 1. The principal formulae of consecration are 
 given under Canon of the Liturgy. It will 
 be seen in that article that the most noteworthy 
 difference between the forms of consecration used 
 in the Eastern and the Western churches respec¬ 
 tively consists in this, that in the Eastern Clmrch 
 the Holy Spirit is invoked, after the recitation 
 of the words of institution, to descend upon the 
 elements, and make them the Body and Blood 
 of Christ [Epiclesis] ; and this invocation is 
 commonly thought to imply, that consecration 
 would be imperfect without it. This seems also 
 to be distinctly implied in the weli-known pass¬ 
 age of Cyril of Jerusalem {Catech. Mi/stag. v. 
 c. 7), which speaks of the hallowing and changing j 
 influence of the Holy Spirit [Canon of the 
 Liturgy, p. 269]. On the other hand, in the 
 Western churches, the invocation of the Holy 
 Spirit at this part of the liturgy is generally 
 wanting, and the whole consecrating virtue is 
 attributed by Western ritualists to the recitation 
 of the words of institution, accompanied by the 
 fitting gestures. In the Mozarabic liturgy, how¬ 
 ever, the variable prayer which fellows the 
 Secreta frequently contains an invocation of the 
 Holy Spirit upon the elements; and such an 
 invocation is almost certainly an ancient rite 
 which the Latin Church has lost, not an innova¬ 
 tion of the Orientals. Ample information on the 
 points of difference in this respect between East 
 and West may be found in Bona (de Reb. Lit. 
 ii. c. 13, §§ 4, .5), Renaudot (Lit. Orient, i. 196), 
 Toutt^ (note on Cyril, Cat. M^st. v. 7), Le 
 Brun (Ce'rem. de la Messe, tom. iii.), and Neale 
 (Eastern Ch. Introd. pp. 492 ff.). 
 
 2. In the Ordo Ronianus ILL. c. 16, the fol¬ 
 lowing rubrical directions are given. “After 
 the Pope has communicated of the cup, which 
 is held by the archdeacon, the latter pours a 
 portion of the remaining wine into the larger 
 chalice from which the people is to v'ommunicate ; 
 for wine not consecrated but mingled with the 
 Lord’s Blood is completely sanctified (sancti- 
 ficatur per omuem modum).” The reason of 
 this custom probably was that in a very large 
 congi'egation it was difficult to consecrate exactly 
 the quantity of wine required. A small quantity 
 was therefore consecrated in the first instance, 
 and amplified according to the number of com¬ 
 municants by pouring in fresh wine. The whole 
 of the wine in the cup was held to be completely 
 consecrated by mingling with that which had 
 been originally consecrated. The same practice 
 is enjoined in the Ccremoniale of St. Benignus 
 at Dijon, in the Cistercian Statutes, in the 
 Statutes of the Abbey of St. Victor at Paris, 
 and in Lyndwood’s Constitut. Provinc. See Ma- 
 billon (Comm. Praevius in Ord. Rom. pp. Ixii. 
 xcii.). 
 
 3. The placing a particle of the consecrated 
 bread in the chalice is sometimes called “ con¬ 
 secration.” In the Missa Lllyrici (Bona, de Reb. 
 Lit. p. 553) the petition occurs, “ Fiat commistio 
 et consecratio corporis et sanguinis D. N. I. C. 
 omnibus accipientibus nobis in vitam aeternam ; ” 
 and the 17th canon of the 1st Council of Orange 
 directs, “ Cum capsa et calix offerendus est, et 
 admixtione eucharistiae consecrandus.” Com- 
 nare Commistio. 
 
 4. On certain days it is an ancient custom not 
 
 CHRIST’. ANT. 
 
 CONSENT TO MARItTAGE 433 
 
 to consecrate the sacred elements. See Prae- 
 SANCTIFIED, LiTURGY OF. [C.] 
 
 CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS [Bishop : 
 Ordination.] 
 
 CONSENT TO MARRIAGE. The mar¬ 
 riage-law of all countries turns upon one or 
 other of two principles. Either marriage is 
 viewed as a union between persons, or as the 
 disposal of a property. In the former case, 
 the consent of the parties themselv'es is the main 
 element in it; in the latter, that of some other 
 person or persons. Still, in legislations founded 
 upon the former principle, the element of consent 
 by others conies in as a salutary clieck upon rash 
 self-disposal by the young; in those founded 
 upon the latter, the recognition of a right of 
 self-sale in the adult may equally check the too 
 authoritative interference of others. 
 
 The Jewish law is in its inception essentially 
 personal. Christ needed but to refer to the first 
 chapter of the Jewish Scriptures in order to 
 bring out the full spirituality of the marriage 
 relation (Matt. xix. 4; Mark x. 6). In Genesis, 
 the woman is at once brought before us as the 
 one “ helpmeet ” for the m.an. At the outset of 
 the Adamic history, there is no question of 
 selling or buying, no exercise of any third will 
 between the two. God simply brings the woman 
 to the man, who at once recognises her as bone 
 of his bones, and flesh of his flesh (c. ii. vv^ 20, 
 22, 23). As the history proceeds, hovv’^ever, 
 other elements develope themselves. Slavery 
 makes its appeai’ance, and the slave-owner is 
 exhibited as giving the slave in marriage (Gen. 
 xvi. 3 ; XXX. 4). 
 
 Throughout the patriarchal history fGen. xxiv., 
 xxix., xxxiv.; Ex. ii. 21), under the Law (Fx. 
 xxi. 4, 7, 8; xxii. 17; Deut. xxii. 16), in the 
 time of the Judges (Josh. xv. 16, 17; Judg. i. 
 12; XV. 1, 2; xxi. 1, 7, 8; Ruth iv. 10), under 
 the Monarchy (1 Sam. xvii. 25 ; xviii. 19, 21, 27 ; 
 2 Sam. xiii. 13; 1 Kings ii. 17), after the Cap¬ 
 tivity (Nehem. xiii. 25), in our Lord’s time (Matt. 
 xxiv^ 38 ; Luke xvii. 27), in the Apostolic Church 
 (1 Cor. vii. 38), the right of the father to give 
 his daughter in marriage, of the king to give one 
 who was under his control, is either assumed or 
 asserted. 
 
 It is nev'ertheless certain, as may be seen in 
 Selden’s treatise de Uxore Ebraicd, and as has 
 been stated above under the head Betrothal, 
 that among the Jews the power of self-disposal 
 in marriage was singularly wide for either sex, 
 the man being held of full age, and capable of 
 marrying at his will in the last day of his 15th 
 year, the woman in the second half of her 12th, 
 whilst if betrothed under that age by their 
 fathers, girls could repudiate the engagement 
 at ten. Yet, strange to say, the forms used in 
 Jewish practice belong to the material, and not 
 to the spiritual view of marriage. The pro¬ 
 minence given to the Arrha or earnest [see 
 Arrha], and the necessity for its being given to 
 the woman herself either in money or money’s 
 worth, shew clearly that the grand spirituality 
 of marriage, as exhibited in the second chapter of 
 Genesis, had been lost sight of, that it had come 
 to be viewed essentially as an act of wife-buying , 
 and yet the fact that the woman, from earliest 
 puberty, was reckoned as having the sole right 
 of self-sale, preserved an amount of Ireedoiu iu 
 
434 CONSENT TO MARRIAGE 
 
 CONSENT TO MARRIAGE 
 
 the contract which would otherwise seem to 
 belong only to that view of it which the prac¬ 
 tice contradicts. 
 
 The Roman law exhibits to us a precisely 
 opposite development; it starts from the ma¬ 
 terial view to grow more and more into the 
 spiritual one. Originally the father’s potestas, 
 scarcely to be distinguished from absolute owner¬ 
 ship, overshadows all the domestic relations, 
 extending equally to the wife and to the children 
 of both sexes.' Eventually, so far as marriage is 
 concerned, the potestas resolves itself simply 
 into a right of consent.’ And consent is made 
 the very essence of marriage. “ Nuptias non 
 concubitus, sed consensus facit,” are the words 
 of Ulpian {Dig. bk. 1. t. xvii. 1. 30). The vali¬ 
 dity of marriages contracted by mere consent 
 was admitted in a constitution of Theodosius 
 and Valentinian, A.D. 449, {Code, bk. v. t. xvii. 
 1 . 8 ). 
 
 This consent, moreover, must be at once that 
 of the parties themselves, and of those in whose 
 potestas they are (Paulus, Dig. bk. xxiii. t. ii. 
 1. 2). As to slaves, indeed, unlike the Jewish 
 law, the Roman law never recognised such 
 a thing as their marriage, and the unions be¬ 
 tween men and women slaves, which might be 
 permitted and eA'en respected by their masters, 
 were of no more legal value than the coupling 
 of domestic animals, although, as may be seen 
 hereafter, they might be recognised by the supe¬ 
 rior morality of the church. Where, indeed, a 
 master gave away, or allowed another to give 
 away, his slave girl in marriage to a freeman, 
 or constituted a dos upon her, Justinian ruled 
 (as will be further shewn hereafter under the 
 head Contract) that this should amount to 
 an enfranchisement {Code, bk. vii. t. vi. 1. 9; 
 22nd Nov. c. 11). But this of itself shows 
 that marriage and slavery were held to be 
 incompatible. 
 
 The principle of the freedom of marriage, and 
 of its resting mainly on the consent of the 
 parties, stands generally recognised in Justi¬ 
 nian’s Code, and is indeed further carried out 
 in it. “ None,” says a constitution of Diocle¬ 
 tian and Maximin, “ can be compelled either to 
 marry, or to be reconciled after divorce ” {Code, 
 bk. V. t. iv. 1. 14; and see 1. 12, as to the flius 
 familias). 
 
 On the other hand, several enactments of 
 Justinian’s Code shew that the law looked rather 
 upon marriage, from the woman’s point of view, 
 as the choice of a husband for Tier, and there¬ 
 fore held that in the determination of that 
 choice, the counsel or even the jxidgment of 
 third persons might be called in {Code, bk. v. 
 t. iv. 1. 1, 20). 
 
 The influx of the barbarian nations into the 
 empire may be said to have in great measure 
 restored, under other names, those stricter views 
 of paternal authority which had belonged to 
 Rome’s earlier ages, at least as respects women. 
 In the Edict of Theodoric we And a provision 
 that “a father shall not be compelled against 
 his will to give his family in marriage to any ” 
 (c. 93). In the Lombai’d laws the mnndium 
 recalls the Roman potestas, but under a purely 
 pecuniary form, and instead of being conflned 
 to Ihe ascending line, seems to have belonged to 
 the nearest male relation. Thus by a law of 
 Rotharis (638 or 643), if after two years’ be- 
 
 ■ trothal the man does not claim his bride, “ the 
 father or brother or he who has her mnndiam ” 
 j may prosecute the surety till he pays her meta 
 or jointure, after which “they may give her to 
 another husband, being a freeman” (c. 178), 
 A widow indeed has power, if she choose, to go 
 'to another husband, being a freeman (c. 182). 
 
 I And the woman’s consent, whether girl or 
 widow, has always great weight in tl)e eyes of 
 the law. Thus it takes account of the cases of a 
 man marrying a girl or widow betrothed to 
 another, “yet with her consent” (c. 190), and 
 in like manner of his ravishing either with her 
 consent—the term apparently meaning here, 
 carrying away without marriage (c. 191). 
 
 Where indeed a slave married a freewoman 
 with her consent, her parents might kill her, 
 or sell her out of the province (c. 222). The 
 laws of Luitprand, A.D, 717, enact penalties 
 against those who betroth to them.seives, or 
 marry, girls under twelve, but a father or 
 brother may give or betroth his daughter or 
 sister at any age (bk. ii. c. 6). And it seems 
 to be admitted that a girl of twelve may “go 
 to a hu.sband ” without the will of her parents 
 (bk. vi. c. 61, and see c. 66; a.d. 724). The 
 mnndium, it may be obseiwed, appears also in 
 ' the law of the Allamans, latter half of 8th 
 century. , 
 
 I Under the law of the Saxons, a man who 
 j wished to marry had to give 300 solidi to the 
 girl’s parents (t. iv. 1), but if he did so against 
 the parent’s will, she consenting, twice that 
 amount (1. 2). If he wished to marry a widow, 
 he must offer the price of her purchase to her 
 guardian (apparently a Latinized expression for 
 the mundoald, or mundxald, holder of the mnn¬ 
 dium'), her relatives consenting thereto (t. vii. 
 1. 3). If her guardian refused the money, he 
 must turn to her next of kin, and by their 
 consent he might have her, but he must have 
 300 solidi ready to give to the guardian (1. 4). 
 Here a power of consent in the kinsmen 
 generally, over and above the specific powers of 
 the holder of the mnndium, is clearly admitted. 
 
 I The Burgundian law (originally of the begin¬ 
 ning of the 6th century) recognizes also some 
 freedom of choice in the woman, especially if a 
 widow. Where a girl of her own accord has 
 sought a man, he has to pay only three times 
 the “ price of marriage ” (nuptiale pretium) 
 instead of six times, which he would have to 
 pay if he had carried her off against her will 
 (t. xii. cc. 1, 3; see also t. cxc.). A widow 
 wishing to remarry within the year of her 
 husband’s death, is said to have “free power” 
 to do so (t. xlii. c. 2 ; law of A.D. 517). But in 
 a later law, a power of consent in parents seems 
 to be indicated (t. lii.). 
 
 The Visigothic law, which has always been 
 held to bear peculiar marks of clerical inspiration, 
 is especially restrictive of the woman’s self dis¬ 
 posal. A law of Receswind, allowing for the 
 first time intermarriage between Goths and 
 Romans, enacts that a freeman may marry a 
 freewoman with the solemn consent of the 
 ascendants (“ prosapiae ”), and the permission of 
 the court (bk. iii. t. i. c. 1). If a man has 
 betrothed to himself a girl “with the will of 
 her father or the other near relatives to whom 
 by law this power is given,” the girl may not 
 marry another against the will of her rela- 
 
CONSENT TO MARRIAGE 
 
 tives, but both she and her husband shall be ' 
 handed over to the power of the man who had 
 betrothed her with the will of her relatives.” i 
 The same course is to be followed if the father j 
 has settled for the marriage of his daughter, and , 
 agreed upon the price; and if the father dies 
 before the marriage, the girl is to be given to 
 him to whom she has been promised by her 
 father “ or her mothe'r ” (t. 2), the last words 
 implying seemingly a power of consent through¬ 
 out in the mother. 
 
 The consent of the parties is not, however, 
 altogether overlooked, especially after betrothal, [ 
 when neither can change his or her will if the 
 other will not consent (c. 3; law of Chindas- I 
 winth). Where girls of full age are betrothed 
 to male infants, if either party appears to object, ' 
 the betrothal cannot stand good. Two years (as ' 
 in the Roman law) is the period beyond which 
 the fulfilment of the betrothal contract cannot 
 be enforced, unless by the honest and projier 
 consent of jiarents or relatives, or of the be¬ 
 trothed if of full age (c. 4). And a girl’s 
 actual marriage without her parents’ consent 
 holds good, though she forfeits her share in their 
 succession (t. ii. c. 8 ; and see also t. iv. c. 7). 
 And the law admits that a woman may be in a 
 jiosition to dispose of herself— in suo arbitrio 
 (t. iv. c. 2). 
 
 The Salic law hardly shows with sufficient 
 clearness the early Frankish view as to consent 
 to marriage. Towards the latter half of the 
 6th century, however, a general constitution of 
 King Clothar, recorded by Labbe and Mansi, 
 apparently as possessing ecclesiastical authority 
 (^Councils, vol. ix. p. 761) enacts that “ none by 
 our authority shall presume to seek in marriage 
 a widow or a girl without their own will.” 
 Two centuries later the Capitulary of Compibgne 
 (a.,0. 757) enacts in a particular case that “ if any 
 man have given his step-daughter, being a Frank, 
 against her will and that of her mother and 
 relatives lO a freeman, slave, or cleric, and she 
 will not have him and leaves him, her relatives 
 have power to give her another husband ” (c. 4). 
 The implication contained in the above text, that 
 marriage of a freewoman with a slave might by 
 the woman’s own consent hold good, will be 
 r<»marked. j 
 
 Substantially, with an exception to be pre¬ 
 sently noticed, the Church did little else than 
 follow the municipal law on the subject of con¬ 
 sent, eventually adopting the Roman civil law as 
 the basis of her own. If we except a canon of 
 doubtful authority, to be found in Gratian (12th 
 century), attributed either to the 4th or 5th 
 Council of Arles (a.d. 524 or 554), and enacting 
 that widows, before professing continence, may 
 marry whom they will,—that virgins may do the 
 same,—and that none should be forced to accept 
 a husband without the will of their parents,— 
 the earliest Church enactments seem to belong 
 to our own British Isles. An Irish synod of un¬ 
 certain date, presided over by St. Patrick, speaks 
 thus: “ What the father wills, that let the girl j 
 do, for the head of the woman is the man. But 
 the will of the girl is to be inquired of the ' 
 father ” (c. 27). In the so-called Excerpta of 
 Egbert, archbishop of York, in the 8th century, 
 it is written : “ Parents ought to give women to 
 be united to men in marriage, unless the woman 
 absolutely refuse, in which case she may enter a 
 
 CONSENT TO MARRIAGE 435 
 
 convent” (bk. ii. c. 20); not a very wide stretch 
 of female freedom. Further on, a singular provi¬ 
 sion allows the husband whose wife has deserted 
 him, and refused for five years to make peace 
 with him, to marry another woman, “ with the 
 bishop’s consent ” (c. 26). 
 
 The Council of Friuli (a.d. 791) forbad the 
 marriage of infants, requiring parity of age and 
 mutual consent. The Carlovingian capitularies, 
 which have a sort of mixed clerical and civil 
 authority, enact amongst other things that none 
 shall marry a widow “ without the consent of 
 her priest ” (bk. vi. 1. 408); a provision which 
 I’ecalls one already noticed from the Visigothic 
 law, that marriage shall not be lawful unless 
 the wife be sought for at the hands of those who 
 appear to have power over the woman, and under 
 whose protection she is (bk. vii. 1. 463); an enact¬ 
 ment which is either the original or a slightly 
 varied replica of a supposed letter by Pope Eva- 
 ristus (a.d. 112-21), the spuriousness of which 
 has been shown under the head Benediction. 
 It is however also enacted that women are not 
 to be compelled to marry, under penalty of treble 
 ban, and public penance; or, in default of means, 
 of prison or banishment (1. 470). Lastly, it may 
 be mentioned that the edict of Charlemagne in 
 814 requii'ed inquiry to be made, amongst other 
 things, as to men who had wives “ against the 
 will of their parents.” 
 
 On one point, indeed, we may trace from an 
 early period a marked divergence between the 
 practice of the Church and the Roman law. On 
 the subject of slave-marriages, the Apostolical 
 Constitutions breathe the spirit of the Jewish 
 law, not of the Roman. Not only are slave- 
 marriages recognized, but it is treated as an 
 offence in a Christian master if he does not 
 “ give ” a wife to his man-slave (bk. viii. c. 32 ; 
 compare Exod. xxi. 4). Again, in a work which 
 perhaps does not greatly differ in date from the 
 later portions of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 St. Basil’s first Canonical Epistle, addressed to 
 Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, the writer, 
 treating evidently of slaA^e-marriages, says: “A 
 woman who has given herself to a man against 
 her master’s will has committed adultery ” (c. 40). 
 And again more generall)^: “ Marriages without 
 the will of those who have authority (Sveu rStv 
 Kparovi/Twv) are adulteries ; and therefore during 
 the life of the father or master (Setm-oToo) they 
 cannot be free from impeachment until the assent 
 of such ” [termed here Kvpioi, lords] “ be ob¬ 
 tained ; for then does the marriage acquire firm¬ 
 ness ” (c. 42). Harsh as is the tone of these 
 passages towards the victims of slavery, it is 
 clear that for Basil the relation of the slave to 
 the master is not the heathen one of the thing 
 to ito owner, but one exactly analogous to that 
 of the child to its father. Father and master 
 have indeed alike the quasi-sovereign power of a 
 Kvpios ; the marriage of those under their 
 authority is void without their assent, but it is 
 firm (Be/Satos) with it. 
 
 Somewhat less than two centuries later (a.d. 
 541), the 24th canon of the Council of Orleans 
 requires slaves who flee for sanctuary to churches 
 in order to marry to be returned to their masters 
 and separated, unless their parents and masters 
 will let them marry. This is again a harsh- 
 toned enactment, but one which really indicates 
 a nse in the slave’s condition. Hitherto the 
 
 2 F 
 
436 
 
 CONSIGNATORIUM 
 
 inastex’’s consent has been the sole condition of 
 validity for the slave’s marriage ; Basil himself 
 assimilated his authority over the slave to that ■ 
 of a father. Now the existence of a parental 
 authority is recognized in the slave himself to¬ 
 wards his own olfspring, and the slave-parent’s 
 consent is placed on a level with that of the 
 master. 
 
 Towards the end of the 6th century, again | 
 (a.d. 581), a .canon (iO) of the 1st Council of 
 Macon expressly enacts that if two slaves inter¬ 
 marry with their master’s consent, after the 
 enfi’anchisement of either the marriage is not 
 dissolved, though the other be not redeemable ; 
 a step in advance of anything to be found in the 
 records of American slavery in modern times. 
 And in the Carlovingian era, the marriage of 
 slaves with the master’s consent obtains civil 
 as well as ecclesiastical validity. A capitulary 
 annexed to the Lombard laws enacts “ That the 
 marriages of slaves be not dissolved, if they have 
 had different masters, .... but so nevertheless 
 that the marriage itself be legal, and by the will 
 of their masters ” (c. 129). The 30th canon of 
 the 2nd Council of Chalons, A.D. 813, is pre¬ 
 cisely to the same effect. 
 
 On the whole it may be said that, except so 
 far as relates to the marriage of slaves, the rule 
 of the Church in respect of the consents necessary 
 to the validity of marriage became hardly settled 
 during the period which occupies us. The 
 necessity for the free consent of the parties 
 them.selves was never entirely lost sight of; but 
 in outlying regions, and under the pressure of 
 barbarian feelings in certain races, the authority 
 of the father over a daughter was almost acknow¬ 
 ledged as absolute; whilst elsewhere a claim of 
 the family at large to interfere was at least 
 tacitly admitted. Towards the end of the 
 period, indeed, in two instances the priest or 
 bishop himself was made a consenting party. In 
 no instance however is marriage when actually 
 contracted (except as between slaves) treated 
 as void or voidable for want of the consent of 
 a thii-d person. As to consents to Betrothal, 
 see that word. See also generally Contract of 
 Marriage. [J. M. L.] 
 
 CONSIGNATORIUM. To bless bv the use 
 of the sign of the cross, as in confirmation, is 
 termed consignmre ; hence the word consigna- 
 torium is occasionally used to designate the place 
 set apart for that rite. John the Deacon of Naples 
 (^Chronicon Episc. Neap.') says that Bishop John 
 (about 616) erected a beautiful building, called 
 consignntorium ablut07'um, so arranged that the 
 newly baptized should pass in on one side, be 
 presented to the bishop who sat in the midst, 
 and then pass out by the other side. This 
 arrangement was probably somewhat ])eculiar; 
 the Pseudo-Alcuin at least (DeEiv.Off.c. 19), 
 describing the ceremonies of Easter-Kve, says 
 that the newly baptized were confirmed in the 
 sacrarinm. (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. ‘ Consig- 
 natorium.’) [C.] 
 
 CONSISTENTES. [Penitence.] 
 
 CONSTANTIA, martyr at Nuceria under 
 Nero, Sept. 19 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CONSTANTINE, bishop, deposition at Gap in 
 France, April 12 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, Emperor. 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 Con.stantiue and his mother Helena, IcraTrScrTo- 
 Koi, are commemorated May 21 {Cal. Byzant.)', 
 June 18 {Cal. Arrncn.)', Magabit 28 = March 
 24 {Cal. Etkiop.). Constantine is sepirately 
 commemorated on Nov. 16 in the Giorgian 
 Calendar. [C.] 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF. 
 
 (1) A.D. 336 (Mansi, ii. 1167-70) held by the 
 Eusebians under Eusebius of Nicomedia, at which 
 St. Athanasius was exiled to Treves, Marcellus 
 of Ancyra, with several other bishops depo.scd, 
 and Aldus ordered to be received into communion 
 by the Alexandrine Church. According to Ruf- 
 finus {Hist. i. 12), it was convened by order of 
 the emperor, viz., Constantine the Great, and 
 according to Ensebius the historian {cont. Marcel. 
 i. 4), it was exclusively gathered together from 
 the upper provinces of Asia Minor, from Thrace, 
 and the parts beyond it; in other words, the 
 neighbourhood of the capital. It .seems to have 
 met in February, and not separated till the end 
 of July, so that its proceedings spread over nearly 
 six months. 
 
 (2) A.D. 339, or according to Pagi, 340, by 
 order of the Emperor Constantius, to depo.se 
 Paul, the newly elected bishop there, whose 
 orthodoxy displeased him, and translate Eusebius, 
 his favourite, from Nicomedia to the imperial 
 see (Mansi, ii. 1275). 
 
 (3) A.D. 360 (Mansi, iii. 325-36), composed of 
 deputies from the council of Seleucia, just over, 
 with some bishops summoned from Bithynia, to 
 meet them, about fifty in all (Soc. ii. 41 and seq.). 
 Most of the former were partisans of the metro¬ 
 politan of Caesarea, whose name was Acacius, 
 and Semi-Arians. A creed was published by 
 them, being the 9th, says Socrate.s, that had 
 come out since that of Nicaea. It was, in fact, 
 what had been rehearsed at Rimini, with tho 
 further declaration that neither substance nor 
 hypostasis wei’e permissible terms in speaking of 
 God. The Son was pronounced to be like the 
 Father according to the Scriptures, and Aetius, 
 who maintained the contrary opinion, Avas con¬ 
 demned. A synodical epistle to George, bishop 
 of Alexandria, who.se presbyter he was, conveyed 
 the sentence passed upon him and his followers. 
 Several bishops were deposed at the same time; 
 among whom were Macedonius, bishop of Constan¬ 
 tinople, Eleusius of Cyzicum, Basilius of Ancyra, 
 and last, but not least, St. Cyril of Jerusalem— 
 all for various causes. Ten bishops,who declined 
 subscribing to these depositions, were to consider 
 themselves deposed till they subscribed. Ulphilas, 
 bishop of the Goths, who had hitherto profes.sed 
 the Nicene faith, was one of those present, and 
 joined in their creed. Eudoxius managed to slip 
 from Antioch into the vacancy created by the 
 deposition of Macedonius. On the other hand, 
 Eustathius of Sebaste was not allowed CA'en a 
 hearing, as having been previously deposed at 
 the synod of Caesarea, in Asia Minor, under his 
 own father, Eulalius. 
 
 (4) The 2nd general, met in May, A.D. 381, 
 to re-asserable the following year, for reasons 
 explained by the bishops in their synodical letter 
 of that date (Mansi, iii. 583, note). Owing to 
 this circumstance, and to the fact that its acts 
 have been lost, its proceedings are not easy to 
 unravel. Socrates begins his account of it by 
 saying that the Emperor Theodosius convened a 
 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 council of bishops of the same faith as himself, 
 in order that the faith settled at Nicaea might 
 prevail, and a bishop be appointed to the see of 
 Constantinople (v. 8). That the bishops met at 
 his bidding is testified by themselves in their 
 short address to him subsequ'ently, to confirm 
 what they had decreed (Mansi, ib. 557), to say 
 nothing of other proofs, for which see Beveridge 
 (^Sipiod. ii. 89). Whether they re-assembled at 
 his bidding we are not told. Of their number 
 there has never been any dispute, this council 
 having in fact gone by the name of that of “ the 
 150 (pt^) fathers” ever since. There were 36 
 bishops of the Macedonian party likewise invited, 
 but they quitted Constantinople in a body when 
 they found that it was the faith of the Nicene 
 fathers to which they would be called upon to 
 subscribe. Of those present, Timothy, bishop of 
 Alexandria, St. Meletius of Antioch, who presided 
 at first, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Ascholius, bishop 
 of Thessalonica, St. Amphilochius of Iconium, ^ 
 with the twoGregories of Nazianzum and Nyssa, 
 were the most considerable, Nectarius and Fla¬ 
 vian being added to their number before they 
 separated. Dionysius Exiguus (Mansi, iii. 568- 
 72) has presei’ved the names of all who sub¬ 
 scribed. Seven canons and a creed would appear 
 at first sight to have been submitted to the em¬ 
 peror by the assembled fathers for confirmation 
 at the close of their labours. John Scholasticus, 
 however, the Greek collector of canons in the 
 6th century, contemporary with Dionysius Exi¬ 
 guus, reckons only six (ap. Justell. Uibl. Jur. 
 Canon, ii. 502). Dionysius himself only three; 
 but then he has appended the 4th to the 2nd. 
 The creed follows in his version as in the Greek. 
 Isidore Mercator makes six canons out of his 
 three, and numbers the creed as a 7th. 
 Another Latin version given in Mansi makes five 
 canons out of his three, and omits the creed. 
 The Arabic paraphrase (ib.') makes four in all, 
 without the creed; but, in addition to his three, 
 setting down as a fourth canon 6 of the Greek 
 version. Whether any canons have been lost 
 seems to admit of some doubt. Socrates, as is 
 well known, speaks of the establishment of 
 patriarchs as one of the things done by this 
 council: and the Arabic paraphrase, under a 
 separate heading, “concerning the order of the 
 prelates, and their rank and place,” explains this 
 as follows: “ Honour besides, and the primacy, 
 was granted in this council to the bishop of Rome, 
 and he was made first, the bishop of Constanti¬ 
 nople second, the bishop of Alexandria third, the 
 bishop of Antioch fourth, and the bishop of 
 Jerusalem fifth”—which is the more remarkable 
 as neither it nor Socrates omit the canon ordain¬ 
 ing special prerogatives for new Rome. As 
 Beveridge well remarks, it is one difficulty con¬ 
 nected with these canons (Synod, ii. 98), that in 
 all probability they were not all passed at the 
 same council. This, and a good deal more bear¬ 
 ing upon the history of the council, will come 
 out as we examine them. Canon 1 confirms the 
 doctrine of the 318 Nicene Fathers, condemning 
 in particular the errors of the Eunornians or 
 Anomaeans—in other words, the extreme Arians 
 —the Eudoxians or Arians pure, and the Semi- 
 Arians or Pneumatomachi—fighters against the 
 Holy Spirit—with the followers of Sabellius, 
 Marcellus, Photinus, and Apollinaris. Of these 
 the Semi-Arians engaged most attention by 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 437 
 
 far here, from the further error into which they 
 had fallen of late respecting the Divinity of the 
 Holy Ghost. All, in short, that was ruled by 
 this council on doctrine was directed against 
 them exclusively. But, as such, they were more 
 properly termed Macedonians than Semi-Arian.s, 
 from Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, de¬ 
 posed at the synod held there A.D. 360, for 
 various crimes, and afterwards founder of the 
 sect called “ Pneumatomachi.” For obvious 
 reasons they are not designated here from the 
 name of their founder. What their errors were we 
 shall see presently. Canon 2 confines each bishop 
 to his own diocese, in particular the bishop of 
 Alexandria is restricted to Egypt, the bishops of 
 the East to the East alone, the privileges of the 
 Church of Antioch, in conformity with the 
 Nicene canons, being maintained: the bishops of 
 Asia, that is, Asia Minor, to the South-West, 
 Pontus and Thrace, similarly to their respective 
 limits. By the word “ diocese ” is meant, as 
 Beveridge shows (p. 93), a tract embracing seve¬ 
 ral provinces. The events which had led to this 
 enactment require some notice. Immediately on 
 the death of Valens (Clinton’s Fasti F. a.d. 379, 
 col. 4), St. Gregory Nazianzen appeared at Con¬ 
 stantinople, whither he was invited by the ortho¬ 
 dox party refusing obedience to Deinophilus, the 
 Arian bishop in possession. He was consecrated 
 by St. Meletius of Antioch, who thus went out 
 of his diocese to ordain him. Peter, bishop of 
 Alexandria—then reckoned the second see in the 
 world after Rome—not to be outdone, nominated 
 Maximus the cynic, as he was called from his 
 philosophical antecedents, to the post, and de¬ 
 puted three bishops from Egypt to carry out his 
 consecration on the spot. Maximus had pre¬ 
 viously seemed to take part with Gregory, and 
 Theodosius rejected him, when he appeared as 
 his rival (Clinton, ib. and Vales, ad Soz. vii. 9). 
 This conflict of the two sees, howev'er, terminated 
 in the resignation of Gregory, soon after the 
 meeting of the council, though he was declared 
 bishop there, and all that related to Maximu's 
 annulled in a special canon—the 4th. 
 
 Most probably, the 3rd canon, ordaining that 
 in future the see of Constantinople should take 
 honorary precedence (ra irpea^da 'lys riyi^s) 
 next after Rome, was intended to prevent the 
 bishops of Antioch and Alexandria from ever 
 attempting to take such liberties with it again. 
 
 Another event had occurred meanwhile (Clin¬ 
 ton, ib. col. 4), which may be supposed to ac¬ 
 count for the .salvo to the privileges of the 
 Church of Antioch, exnressed in the 2nd canon. 
 St. Meletius of Antioch had died “during the 
 session between May and July.” The funeral 
 oration pronounced over him by St. Gregory ot 
 Nyssa is still extant, but it contains no historical 
 allusions. There had been a compact entered 
 into between his party and that of St. Paulinus 
 at Antioch two years before—where they were 
 rival bishops—that both parties, whenever either 
 of the bishops died, should unite under the sur- 
 A'ivor of them. In spite of this understanding, 
 Flavian, who had been one of the chief j)romoters 
 of it among the supporters of St. Meletius, w'as 
 unanimously appointed bishop in his stead by 
 the council (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 277 and 364). 
 This act not merely re-opened the schism at 
 Antioch, but produced heart-burnings elsewhere, 
 the Western and Egyptian bishops pronouncing 
 
438 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 more strongly than ever in favour of St.Paulinus, ' 
 and the disapj)robation shown for Flavian by St. 
 Gregory, tending to alienate numbers of his own 
 friends from liim amongst the Easterns. It was, 
 in fact, one of the principal causes of his retire¬ 
 ment. The appointment of his successor, Nec- 
 tarius, at the instance of the emperor, was pro¬ 
 bably the last act of tne council of this year— 
 and a strong act it was, as Nectarius had to be 
 baptised before he could be consecrated (Soz. vii. 
 8). Dionysius Exiguus, as has been said, ends 
 his canons of this council with the 4th. As 
 Beveridge, too, remarks (ib. p. 98), traces of a 
 new series commence with the 5th. It runs as 
 follows:—“ Concerning the tome of the Westerns, 
 we, too, have received those who professed 
 their belief, at Antioch, in one Godhead of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” What was this 
 tome of the Westerns? Beveridge considers it 
 to have been the synodical epistle received from 
 Pope Damasus by the Easterns at their second 
 meeting, A.D. 382, to which they wrote their 
 own in reply. De Marca, Cave, and others pre¬ 
 fer to consider it a synodical letter of Pope Da¬ 
 masus, addressed to the synod of Antioch A.D. 
 378 or 9. Baronius, another of his to St. Pauli- 
 nus of Antioch some years before. May it not 
 be that the first tome of the kind was the 
 letter sent by St. Athanasius in the name of his 
 synod at Alexandria, A.D. 362, to the Church of 
 Antioch, which he calls “ a tome ” himself, to 
 which St. Paulinus is expres.sly said to have sub¬ 
 scribed, and in which the indivisibility of the 
 Holy Ghost from the substance both of the 
 Father and the Son is as distinctly set forth as 
 it ever was afterwards (Mansi, iii. 353-4). 
 Through Eusebius of Vercelli, to whom it was 
 addressed, and by whom it was in due time sub¬ 
 scribed, it would find its way into the West and 
 to Rome, as the rallying point of the orthodox, and 
 a bond of union, under existing circumstances, 
 between the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and 
 Rome, whose acceptance of its doctrine can scarce 
 have become known to each other before Mace- 
 donius, the ex-patriarch of Constantinople, com¬ 
 menced assailing the Divinity of the third person 
 in the Godhead. On this, it would immediately 
 give rise to, and be the foundation of, a series of 
 “ tomes ” or epistles of the same kind between 
 them, in which Constantinople, being in Arian 
 hands, would take no part, nor Alexandria much, 
 owing to the banishment of its orthodox prelate, 
 Peter, from A.D. 373 to 378, under Valens. St. 
 Meletius had also been d.’dven from Antioch a 
 year earlier; but then we are told expressly by 
 Sozomen (vi. 7), his orthodox rival, St. Paulinus 
 was allowed to remain; and this would account 
 for the correspondence that v/ent on between 
 him and Pope Damasus uninterruptedly while 
 St. Meletius was away, and of which the promi¬ 
 nent topic was the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 
 Now, as Mansi points out (iii. 463-8), the synods 
 of Antioch and Rome are confusedly given about 
 this time. There are traces of a synod of An¬ 
 tioch, as well as of another at Rome, A.D. 372; 
 but the acts of both have not hitherto been dis¬ 
 tinguished from those of two later synods at 
 Rome, A.D. 377, and at Antioch, the year or two 
 years following, under St. Meletius, on the re¬ 
 turn of the exiles. And one thing may well be 
 thought to have been agreed upon at the first of 
 these synods of Antioch, and possibly Rome too, 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 which was afterwards confirmed in the 2nd, and 
 is evidently referred to by the Constantinopolitan 
 fathers in their synodical letter, namely, the 
 creed in its enlarged form. And for this reason 
 —St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, 
 was another of the orthodox bishops who was 
 not disturbed in his see; and his see, whether 
 subject to Antioch or not, then, must have 
 brought him into frequent communication with 
 it, even if he had not been a personal friend of 
 St. Paulinus, or was not present at the synod 
 held there A.D. 372. Now, in c. 119 of his woi'k 
 called Ancoratus, of which he fixes the date him¬ 
 self in the next c., viz., a.d. 373, what was 
 rehearsed afterwards at the council of Chalcedon 
 as the creed of the 150 fathers, that is, of this 
 council of Constantinople, is set down word for 
 woj’d, so far as its new clauses are concerned, and 
 called that of Nicaea by him. Admit this form 
 to have been agreed upon at the synod of Antioch, 
 in conjunction, or not, with that of Rome, A.D. 
 372, and his own use of it the year following, as 
 the authorised creed of the Church, is explained 
 at once, nor is there any reason why St. Gregory 
 Nyssen, if he comjjosed it at all—as stated by 
 Nicephorus alone (xii. 13) — should not have 
 composed it there. But Valens coming to 
 Antioch in April (Clinton, a.d. 372, col. 2), to 
 persecute the orthodox, the probability would 
 be that this synod was hastily broken up, and 
 remained in abeyance till A.D. 378 or 9, when 
 its proceedings were resumed under St. Meletius, 
 and confirmed by 163 bishops, and with its pro¬ 
 ceedings this creed. All at the same time then 
 and there .subscribed to the Western tome or 
 letter of Pope Damasus. Hence, both the lan¬ 
 guage of the 5th Constantinopolitan canon above 
 mentioned, and of the fathers who framed it, in 
 their synodical letter, where they say that 
 “ this, their faith, which they had professed 
 there summarily, might be learnt more fully 
 by their Western brethren, on their being so 
 good as to refer to ‘ the tome ’ that emanated 
 from the synod of Antioch, and that set forth by 
 the oecumenical council of Constantinople the 
 year before, in which documents they had pro¬ 
 fessed their faith at greater length.” Now', 
 what they had set forth themselves w'as their 
 adherence to the Nicene faith and reprobation 
 of the heresies enumerated in their first canon; 
 what they had received from Antioch and ac¬ 
 cepted must have been the creed which has since 
 gone by their name, but was certainly not their 
 composition ; and w'hatever else was confirmed 
 there, A.D. 378, including the Western tome. 
 Which of the letters of Pope Damasus is here 
 specified comes out as plainly. His letter to St. 
 Paulinus was written A.D. 372, W'hen there was 
 nobody left at Antioch but St. Paulinus to write 
 to. The letter addre.ssed in his owm name and 
 that of the 93 bishops with him, “ to the 
 Catholic bishops of the East,” was “ the tome ” 
 received by the synod at Antioch a.d. 378-9 
 (Mansi, ib. p. 459-62); to which they replied 
 the same year (/6. p. 511-15). Both letters 
 being on the same subject—as were the synods 
 of 372 and 378-9—it was easy to confuse them. 
 Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, held a synod 
 and wrote on the same subject about the same 
 time (i6. p. 503—8). 
 
 We are now in a position to deal with the 
 synodical letter of the reassembled council 
 
COxVSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 of Constantinople A.D. 382, and their pro¬ 
 ceedings generally. Finding there were still 
 ecclesiastical matters of urgent importance to be 
 settled, most of the bishops who had met at 
 Constantinople A.D. 381, returned thither, as 
 Theodoret relates, the following summer (Mansi 
 ad Baron. A.D. 382, n. 3). One of their number, 
 indeed, Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, and 
 SS. Epiphanius and Jerome with him, had gone 
 meanwhile to Rome. Being at Constantinople, 
 they received a synodical letter from the West, 
 inviting them to Rome, where a large gathering 
 was in contemplation. This letter having been 
 lost, we can only guess at its contents from what 
 they say in reply to it, coupled with their 5th 
 canon, which was evidently framed in conse¬ 
 quence. The affairs of the East being in immi¬ 
 nent peril and confusion, they beg to be excused 
 going away so far from their sees. They had 
 come to Constantinople on account of what had 
 been written by the West after the synod of 
 Aquileia the year before to the Emperor Theo¬ 
 dosius—evidently the letter in which the conse¬ 
 crations of Flavian and Nectarius are mentioned 
 disapprovingly (Mansi, ib. p. 631-2)—but had 
 made no preparations for going further from 
 home. The most they could do would be to send 
 deputies into the VVest. Cyriacus, Eusebius, 
 and Priscian are named, to explain their pro¬ 
 ceedings, which they then epitomise, commencing 
 with what has been anticipated above about their 
 faith, and ending with the statement that Nec¬ 
 tarius and Flavian had been appointed canonically 
 to their respective sees, while St. Cyril was 
 recognised by them as bishop of Jerusalem for 
 the same reason. Thus this letter explains the 
 framing of their 5th canon, and attests its date. 
 The same date is assigned by Beveridge to 
 canon 6, restricting tho manner of instituting 
 proceedings against bishops, and reprobating 
 appeals to tho secular power. But canon 7, 
 prescribing the distinctions to be observed in 
 adm.itting heretics into communion, is shown by 
 him not to belong to this council at all. It is 
 almost identical with the 95th Trullan canon 
 (Bev. ad 1.). Of the ereed, little moi-e need be 
 added to what has been said. It was in existence 
 A.D. 373, having been probably framed at 
 Antioch, in conformity with the synodical letter 
 of St. Athanasius, A.D. 372, where it was doubt¬ 
 less confirmed A.D. 378-9, and received more 
 probably by the 5th canon of this council A.D. 
 382, than promulgated separately by the council 
 of the year preceding. Possibly this may have 
 been the creed called by Cassian (^De Tncarn. vi. 
 3 and 6) as late as A.D. 430, “ peculiarly tbe 
 creed of the city and Church of Antioch.” From 
 the portion of it given by him it is as likely to have 
 been this, as that of A.D. 363 (for which see 
 Soc. iii. 25), or any' other between them. That 
 there is a family likeness between it and the 
 creed of the Church of Jerusalem commented on 
 by St. Cyril will be seen on comparing them 
 (Heurtley’s De Fide et S. p. 9-13). On this 
 hypothesis alone we can understand why no 
 notice should have been taken of it at the 
 council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and in the African 
 code, namely, because it had originated with a 
 provincial, and only been as yet received by a 
 general council. It was promulgated as identical 
 with that of Nicaea for the first time by the 
 fathers of the 4th council. 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 439 
 
 No more remains but to observe that the dog¬ 
 matic professions of the council of 381 were con¬ 
 firmed by Theodosius in a constitution dated 
 July 30 of the same year, and addressed to 
 Antonius, proconsul of Asia, by which the 
 churches are ordered to be handed over to the 
 bishops in communion with Nectarius and others 
 who composed it, the Eunomians, Arians, and 
 Antians having been deprived of their churches 
 by a constitution issued ten days earlier (CW. 
 Theod. xvi. tit. 1, 1. 3, and tit. 5, 1. 8). And it 
 was received by Pope Damasus, and has been 
 regarded in the West ever since, so far, as oecu¬ 
 menical. Its first four canons, in the same way, 
 have been always admitted into Western collec¬ 
 tions. But what pas.sed at the supplemental 
 council of 382 never seems to have been con¬ 
 firmed or received equally. It was in declining 
 to come to this last council that St. Gregory 
 Nazianzen said, in his epistle to Procopius (cxxx. 
 ed. Migne), “ that he had come to the resolution 
 of avoiding every meeting of bishops, for that he 
 had never seen any synod end well, or assuage 
 rather than aggravate disorders.” His cele¬ 
 brated oration (i6. xlii.), known as his “farewell” 
 to the council of 381, is inspired by a very 
 different spirit. 
 
 Lastly, there was a third meeting of bishops 
 held at Constantinople, by command of Theo¬ 
 dosius, A.D. 383, Under Nectarius, to devise 
 remedies for the confusion created by so manv 
 sees passing out of the hands of the heterodox 
 into those of the orthodox party (Soc. v. 10). 
 The Arian, Eunomian, and Macedonian bishops 
 were required to attend there with confessions 
 of their faith, which the emperor, after examin¬ 
 ing carefully, rejected in favour of Nicaea. The 
 Novatians alone, receiving this, were placed by 
 him upon equal terms with the orthodox. Of 
 the heterodox professions, that of Eunomius is 
 extant, and not without interest. It may be 
 seen in Cave (^Hist. Lit. i. 210). It is said to 
 have been on this occasion that Ampbilochius, 
 bishop of Iconium, on entering the palace, made 
 the usual obeisance to Theodosius, but took no 
 notice of Arcadius, his son, standing at his side. 
 When the emperor reproved him for this, “ You 
 see, sire,” said the bishop, “ how impatient you 
 are that your own son should be slighted; much 
 more will God punish those who refuse due 
 honour to his only begotten Son” (Theod. v. 16). 
 
 (6) A.D. 394—reckoning that of 383 as the 
 5th. Among those present were Nectarius of 
 Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandila, Flavian 
 of Antioch, &c. What called them together, in 
 all probability, was the dedication of a new 
 church in honour of SS. Peter and Paul: which 
 done, they sat in judgment on a controversy 
 between two rival bishops of Bo.stra, Bagadius, 
 and Agapius; against the former of whom it 
 was pleaded that he had been deposed by two 
 bishops, since dead. The council decreed that, 
 in future, not even three, much less two, bishops 
 should have the power of deposing another, but 
 that, in conformity with the apostolic canons 
 (and this express reference to them in such an 
 assemblage is most noteworthy), it should be 
 held to belong to a larger synod, and the bishops 
 of the province (Mansi, iii. 851—4). 
 
 (7) A.D. 399, of 22 bishops under St. Chry¬ 
 sostom, to enquire into seven capital charges 
 brought against Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus, 
 
440 CONSTANTINOrLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 As he died before the witnesses could be exa¬ 
 mined, St. Chrysostom, at the request of the 
 Ephesine clergy, went over thither, and, at the 
 head of 70 bishops, appointed Heraclides a deacon 
 in his place, and deposed b bishops that had been 
 simoniacally ordained by him. Their proceedings 
 are of some interest, and contain a reference to 
 the canons of the African Church (Mansi, iii. 
 991-6). Strictly speaking, this last was a synod 
 of Ephesus. 
 
 (8) A.D. 404, to sit in judgment on St. Chry¬ 
 sostom, who had been recalled from exile by the 
 emperor and retaken possession of his see, from 
 which he had been deposed by “the Synod of the 
 Oak.” Theophilus of Alexandria was not present 
 on this occasion, having had to fly Constan¬ 
 tinople on the return of his rival. Still he was 
 not unrepresented; and St. Chrysostom had by 
 this time provoked another enemy (Clinton, A.D. 
 404, col. 4) in the Empress Eudoxia, whose statue 
 he had denounced from the games and revels 
 permitted to be held round it in offensive prox¬ 
 imity to his church. At this synod he seems to 
 have given attendance (vi. 18) when the question 
 of his former deposition was argued. Thirty-six 
 bishops had condemned him: but sixty-five 
 bishops, he rejoined, had, by communicating 
 with him, voted in his favour (Vales, ad 1.). It 
 is not implied in these words, as some seem to 
 have supposed, that a synod was actually sitting 
 in his favour now, any more than during the 
 Synod of the Oak, the deputies from which 
 found him surrounded, but not synodically, by 
 forty bishops, in his own palace. The 4th or 
 12th canon of the Council of Antioch was 
 alleged by his opponents : his defence was that 
 it was framed by the Arians (Reading, i6.). 
 As quoted by his opponents, indeed, it was 
 differently worded from what either the 4th 
 or 12th are now ; so that possibly there may 
 have been an Arian version of these canons, 
 against which his objection held good. The 
 synod, however, decided against him, and his 
 banishment to Comana, on the Black Sea, says 
 Socrates—to Cucusus, in Armenia, say others 
 —followed, where he died. 
 
 (9) A.D. 426, on the last day of February, 
 when Sisinnius was consecrated bishop there, in 
 the room of Atticus. Afterwards, the errors of 
 the Massalians, or Euchites, were condemned, at 
 the instance of the Bishops of Iconium and Sida, 
 as we learn from the 7th action of the Council 
 of Ephesus. A severe sentence was passed on 
 any charged with holding them after this denun¬ 
 ciation (Mansi, iv. 541-2). 
 
 ( 10 ) A.D. 428, on the death of Sisinnius, when 
 the well-known Nestorius was consecrated 
 (Mansi, iv. 543-4). 
 
 ( 11 ) A.D. 431, October 25, four months after 
 Nestorius had been deposed, to consecrate Max- 
 imian in his place (Mansi, v. 1045). This done, 
 Maximian presided, and joined in a synodical 
 letter, enclosing that of the Council of Ephesus, 
 with its first six canons, as they are called, to 
 the bishops of ancient Epirus, whom attempts 
 had been made to detach from orthodoxy (*6. 
 257). Letters were written likewise by him 
 and by the emperor to Pope Celestine, St. Cyril, 
 and other bishops, to acquaint them with his 
 elevation, at which all expressed themselves well 
 pleased (j6. 257-92). Another synod appears to 
 have been held by him the year following, for 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OP 
 
 restoring peace between his own Church and that 
 of Antioch {ib. 1049-50). 
 
 ( 12 ) A.D. 443, probably (Mansi, vi. 463-6, 
 comp. Cave, i. 479) to consider the case of 
 Athanasius, bishop of Perrhe, on the Euphrates, 
 afterwards deposed at Antioch under Domnus. 
 Here he seems to have got letters in his favour 
 from Proclus (comp. Cone. Hierap. A.D. 445). 
 
 ( 13 ) A.D. 448, NoA'ember 8, under Flavian, to 
 enquire into a dispute between Florentius, 
 metropolitan of Sardis, and two of his suffragans: 
 but while sitting, it was called upon by Eusebius, 
 bishop of Dorylaeum, one of its members, and 
 who had, as a layman, denounced Nestorius, to 
 summon Eutyches, archimandrite of a convent 
 of three hundred monks, and as resolute an op¬ 
 ponent of Nestorius as himself, on a charge that 
 he felt obliged to press against him. The charge 
 was that he recognised but one nature in Chri.st. 
 Messengers were despatched to invite Eutyches 
 to peruse what Eusebius had alleged against him. 
 Meanwhile, two letters of St. Cyril—his second 
 to Ne.storius, recited and approved at the Council 
 of Ephe.sus, and his letter to John of Antioch, 
 on their reconciliation—were read out, and pro¬ 
 nounced orthodox by all. A reply was brought 
 subsequently from Eutyches, that he refused to 
 quit his monastery. A 2nd and 3rd citation 
 followed in succession. Then he promised at¬ 
 tendance within a week. While waiting for 
 him, the council listened to some minutes of a 
 conversation between him and the two presbyters 
 charged with his 2nd citation, w'hen they said 
 he expressly denied two natures in Christ. At 
 last he appeared, made profession of his faith, 
 and was condemned — thirty-two bishops and 
 twenty-three archimandrites subscribing to his 
 deposition from the jjriesthood and monastic 
 dignity. Proceedings occupied altogether seven 
 sessions—the last of which was held November 22. 
 Its acts were recited in a subsequent council of 
 the year following at Constantinople; at Ephesus, 
 also, the year following, under Dioscorus; and 
 again, in the 1st session of the Council of Chal- 
 cedon, where they may be read still (Mansi, vi. 
 495-6, and then 649-754). 
 
 ( 14 ) A.D. 449, April 8, of thirty bishops under 
 Thalassius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cajipadocia, 
 held by order of the emperor, to re-consider the 
 sentence passed on Eutyches by the council under 
 Flavian, on a representation from the former 
 that its acts had been falsified. This, however, 
 was proved untrue. Another session was held 
 April 27, on a second petition from Eutyches, to 
 have the statement of Magnus—the official or 
 silentiary, who had accompanied him to the 
 council under Flavian—taken down, which was 
 done. This officer declared to having seen the 
 instrument containing his deposition, before the 
 session was held at which it was resolved on. 
 The acts of this council are likewise preserved in 
 the first session of that of Chalcedon (Mansi, vi. 
 503-4, and then 753-828). 
 
 ( 15 ) A.D. 450, at which Anatolius was ordained 
 bishop ; and then, some months afterwards, at 
 the head of his suffragans and clergy, made pro¬ 
 fession of his faith and subscribed to the cele¬ 
 brated letter of St. Leo to his predecessor 
 Flavian, in the presence of four legates from 
 Rome, charged to obtain proofs of his orthodoxy 
 (Mansi, vi. 509-14, with ep. Ixix. of St. Leo, 
 ib. 83-5). 
 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 141 
 
 (16) A.D. 457, under Anatolius by order of 
 the Emperor Leo, whom he had just crowned, to 
 take cognisance of the petitions that had arrived 
 from Alexandria for and against Timothy Aelurus, 
 who, on the murder of St. Proterius, had been in¬ 
 stalled bishop there by the opponents of the Coun¬ 
 cil of Chalcedon, and to consider what could be 
 done to restore peace. The council anathema¬ 
 tised Aelurus and his party (Mansi, vii. 521-2 
 & 869-70). 
 
 (17) A.D. 459, under Gennadius. Eighty-one 
 bishops subscribed to its synodical letter still 
 extant, in which the 2nd canon of the Council 
 of Chalcedon is cited with approval against some 
 simouiacal ordinations recently brought to light 
 in Galatia (Mansi, vii. 911-20). 
 
 (18) A.D. 478, under Acacius, in which Peter, 
 Bishop of Antioch, surnamed the Fuller, Paul of 
 E])hesus, and John of Apamea, were condemned : 
 and a letter addressed to Simplicius, bishop of 
 Rome, to acquaint him with, and request him to 
 concur in, their condemnation (Mansi, vii. 1017- 
 22, comp. Vales. Obsero. in Evag. i. 2). A letter 
 was addressed at the same time by Acacius to 
 Peter the Fuller himself, rebuking him for having 
 introduced the clause “ Who was crucified for 
 us ” into the Trisagion or hymn to the Trinity. 
 Hitherto this letter has been printed as if it had 
 issued from a synod five years later, when in 
 fact there was no such synod (IHansi, ib. 1119- 
 24). 
 
 (19) A.D. 492, under Euphemius : in favour of 
 the Council of Chalcedon ; but as he declined 
 removing the name of his predecessor Acacius 
 from the sacred diptychs, he was not recognised 
 as bishop by popes Felix and Gelasius, to whom 
 he transmitted its acts, though his orthodoxy 
 was allowed (Mansi, vii. 1175-80). 
 
 ( 20 ) A.D. 496, by order of the Emperor Ana- 
 stasius I., in which the Henoticon of Zeno was 
 confirmed, Euphemius, bishop of Constantinople 
 deposed ; and Macedonius, the second of that name 
 who had presided there, substituted for him 
 (Mansi, viii. 186-7). 
 
 (21) A.D. 498, by order of the emperor Ana- 
 stasius I., in which Flavian, the second bishop of 
 Antioch of that name, and Philoxenus of Hiera- 
 polis, took the lead : condemning the Council of 
 Chalcedon and all who opposed the Monophysite 
 doctrine, or would not acce^jt the interpolated 
 clause “ Who was crucified for us ” in the Tris¬ 
 agion. But it seems probable that this council 
 took place a year later; and that another had 
 met a year earlier, under Macedonius, less hostile 
 to the Council of Chalcedon than this, and of 
 which this was the reaction (Mansi, viii. 197- 
 200 ). 
 
 ( 22 ) A.D. 518, July 20, by order of the em¬ 
 peror Justin, at which the names of the Councils 
 of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalce¬ 
 don : of St. Leo of Rome, Avith Euphemius and 
 Macedonivxs of Constantinople, were restored in 
 the sacred diptychs: and Severus and all other 
 opponents of the 4th council anathemati.sed. 
 Its synodical letter signed by forty bishops and 
 addressed to the Constantinopolitan bishop, John 
 IL, praying his assent to its acts, is preserved in 
 the 5th action of the council under Mennas, A.D. 
 536, as are his letters informing the Eastern 
 bishops of what had been done there. Count 
 Gratus Avas despatched to Rome by the emperor 
 with letters fi-om himself and the patriarch to pope 
 
 Hormisda.s, hoping that peace might under these 
 circumstances be restored between them. The 
 ansAvers of Hoimisdas, his instructions to the 
 legates despatched by him to Constantinople, 
 their accounts of their reception* there, the pro¬ 
 fession signed by the patriarch, and subsequent 
 correspondence betAveen him and the pope, may 
 all be read amongst the epistles of the latter 
 (Mansi, A’iii. 435—65). The Easterns had to ana- 
 themati.se Acacius of Constantinople by name, 
 and to erase his, and the names of all others, 
 Euphemius and Macedonius included, Avho had 
 not erased his previously, from the sacred 
 diptychs, before the pope Avould readmit them to 
 his communion (76. 573-8). 
 
 (23) A.D. 531, under Epiphanius, Avho Avas 
 then patriarch, to enquire into the consecration 
 of Stephen, Metropolitan of Larissa, Avithin the 
 diocese of Thi-ace, which, contrary to the 28th 
 canon of Chalcedon, had been made Avithout 
 consulting him. Stephen, having been deposed 
 by him on these grounds, appealed to Rome ; but 
 the acts of the synod held there to consider his 
 appeal are defecti\^e, so that it is not known Avith 
 Avhat success (Mansi, viii. 739-40). 
 
 (24) A.D. 536. According to some, three 
 synods Avere held there this year : 1. in which 
 pope Agapetus presided and deposed Anthimus, 
 patriarch of Constantinople: but this, as Mansi 
 sheAvs (viii. 871-2), the emperor Justinian had 
 already done, besides confirming the election of 
 Mennas in his stead, at the instance of the clergy 
 and people of the city. Agapetus, who had 
 come thither on a mission from Theodatus, king 
 of the Goths, having previously refused his 
 communion, had unquestionably procured his 
 ejection: and he afterwards consecrated Mennas, 
 as Theophilus of Alexandria had St. John Chry¬ 
 sostom, at the request of the emperor. 2. in 
 Avhich a number of Eastern bishops met to draAV 
 up a petition to the pope requesting him to call 
 upon Anthimus, SAibsequently to his deposition 
 but previously to his going back to Trebizond 
 from which he had been translated, for a retrac¬ 
 tation of his denial of tAA'o natures in Christ: 
 but this can hardly be called a council; and the 
 death of the pope stopped any definitive action 
 on his part (76.). 3. under Mennas, after the 
 death of the pope, consisting of five actions, the 
 first of which took place. May 2, in a church 
 dedicated to St. Mary near the great church, 
 Mennas presiding, and having on his right, 
 among others, five Italian bishops, Avho had come 
 to Constantinople from the late pope, and re¬ 
 mained there with him on his arrival. The 
 first thing brought before the council Avas a 
 petition from A'arious monastic bodies in Con¬ 
 stantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Mount 
 Sinai to the emperor, begging that the sentence, 
 stayed only by the death of the pope, against An¬ 
 thimus, might be carried out; a general account 
 of Avhat had passed betAveen them and the pope 
 followed, their petition to him Avas produced by 
 the Italian bishops present and recited ; after it 
 another petition to him from some Eastern 
 bishops on the same subject; and his own letter 
 to Peter, bishop of Jerusalem in reply. Desirous 
 of following out his decision, the council sent de¬ 
 puties to acquaint Anthimus Avith its proceedings, 
 and bid him appear there Avithin three days. 
 The second and third actions passed in sending 
 him similar summonses, but all his hiding-]ila,os 
 
442 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 having been searched repeatedly without finding 
 him, his condemnation and deposition was at 
 length decreed in the fourth action by the coun¬ 
 cil and its president, and signed by seventy-two 
 bishops or their representatives, and two deacons 
 of the Roman Church. At the fifth and last 
 action a number of documents were recited. 1. 
 A petition of the bishop of Apamea and other 
 Syrian bishops to the emperor against Anthimus, 
 Sever us, and others of the Monophysite party. 
 2. Another petition to him from some monks of 
 Palestine and Syria to the same effect. 3. A 
 similar petition from the same monks to this 
 council. 4. Two letters of pope Hormisdas, 
 one dated A.D. 518, and relating to the Constan- 
 tinopolitan synod of that year; the other ad¬ 
 dressed to Epii>hauius, patriarch of Constanti¬ 
 nople three years later, requesting him to act, 
 and directing him how to act, in his stead in re¬ 
 ceiving converts from the Monophysites. 5. 
 A petition from the clergy and monks of Antioch 
 to the patriarch John and synod of Constantino¬ 
 ple, A.D. 518, against Severus. 6. An address of 
 the same synod to the patriarch John. 7. A 
 petition of the monastic bodies in Constantinople 
 to * the same synod, with a narrative of the 
 acclamations amidst which its decisions had been 
 carried out by John. 8. His letters to the 
 patriarch of Jerusalem and bishop of Tyre 
 thereon, and their replies to him, with another 
 narrative showing how rapturously the church 
 of Tyre had received them. 9. A similar letter 
 from the bi.shops of Syria secunda to the same 
 patriarch of Constantinople, with a narrative of 
 proceedings against Peter, bishop of Apamea, for 
 his Monophysite sayings : and a petition pi’esented 
 to them by the monks of his diocese against him 
 and Severus. All which having been read, an 
 anathema was passed upon him, Severus and 
 Zoaras, one of their followers, by the council 
 now sitting—this is ine.xcusably left by Mansi 
 (viii. 1137-8) with its corrupt heading uncor¬ 
 rected, ascribing it to a former synod—and then 
 by ]\Iennas, its president ; according to the order 
 observed in the 4th action in passing sentence 
 upon Anthimus. Eighty-eight bishops or their 
 representatives, and two deacons of the Roman 
 church as before, subscribed on this occasion. 
 A constitution of the emperor addressed to 
 Mennas confirmed their sentence (Mansi, viii. 
 869-1162). 
 
 (25) A.D. 538, says Valesius, 541 Cave, 543 
 ^lansi, under Mennas by order of the emperor 
 Justinian, in support of his edict against the 
 errors of Origen, denounced to him in a petition 
 from four monks of Jerusalem, placed in his 
 hands, says Liberatus (Bt'ev. 23) by Pelagius, a 
 Roman envoy, whom he had sent thither on a 
 different errand, with the e.\press object of 
 injuring Theodore, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappa¬ 
 docia, surnamed Ascidas, who defended Origen. 
 .His edict, which is in the form of a book against 
 Origen and addressed to Mennas, is given at 
 length by Mansi (ix. 487-588). It was commu¬ 
 nicated to the other patriarchs and to pope Vigi- 
 lius. The council backed it by 15 anathemas 
 against Origen and his errors, usually placed at 
 the end of the acts of the 5th general council 
 (Mansi, ib. 395—400) with which this council 
 came to be subsequently confu.'<eJ, in consequence, 
 says Cave, of their respective acts having formed 
 one volume (Mansi, ib. 121-4; and also 703-8). 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 (26) A.D. 546, according to Gamier (7)tss. orl 
 Liberat. c. iv.) under Mennas to as.sent to the 
 Ist edict, now lost, of the emperor Justinian 
 against the three chapters the year before. Both 
 Cave and Mansi pass over this council, and sub¬ 
 stitute for it another, supposed to have been 
 held by pope Vigilius the year following, after 
 his arrival in February (Clinton, A.D. 547, col. 
 4), at which it was decided to refer passing sen¬ 
 tence upon the three chapters to the meeting of 
 the general council about to take place (Mansi, 
 ix. 125-8). 
 
 (27) A.D. 553, the 5th general, held by order 
 of the Emperor Justinian, and composed of 165 
 bishops, with Eutychius, patriarch of Constanti¬ 
 nople, for their president: Pope Vigilius being, 
 on the spot all the time, but declining to attend ; 
 indeed, he was not even represented there. As 
 far back as his election, a d. 537, according to 
 Victor of Tunis, he had been secretly pledged 
 to the Empress Theodora, who favoured the 
 Monophysite party, to assent to the copdemna- 
 tion of the three chapters (Garn. ad Lib. Breviar. 
 c. 22); and this step, according to Liberatus {ib. 
 c. 24), had been pressed upon the emperor all the 
 more warmly since then, in consequence of the 
 condemnation of the Origenists in a council under 
 Mennas the year following. Theodore, bishop of 
 Caesarea, a devoted Origenist and friend of the 
 empress, pointed it out in fact as a means of blung¬ 
 ing back a large section of the Monophysites 
 to the church. Their opposition to the 4th gene¬ 
 ral council, he averred, lay in the countenance 
 supposed to be given by it to these writings—1. 
 The works of Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia; 
 2. The letter of Ibas, bishop of Edessa, to Maris; 
 and 3, what Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, had 
 published against St. Cyril: the third, however, 
 he forbore to name ; all held to be tainted with 
 Nestorianism. By condemning them, he seems 
 to have calculated the authority of the council 
 that had treated their authors at least so favour¬ 
 ably, would be undermined. Justinian, acting 
 on his advice, had already condemned them twice, 
 A.D. 545 and 551 (Gieseler, i. 325 ; Cunningham’s 
 Tr., no date is assigned to the two pieces given 
 in Mansi, ix. 537-82, and 589-616); and the 
 first time had been followed by Vigilius, whose 
 “ Judicatum,” published at Constantinople, a.d. 
 548, is quoted in part by the emperor in his 
 address .to this council (Mansi, ix. 178-86, and 
 again, 582-8) on its assembling. But Vigilius 
 had, A.D. 547, declared against coming to any 
 decision on the subject till it had been disci;s.sed 
 in a general council ; and to this he went back 
 on ascertaining what indignation his “Judi¬ 
 catum ” had caused in Africa and in the West, 
 and excommunicated Mennas and Theodore for 
 having gone further (Mansi, 58—61). Accord- 
 ingly, the emperor decided on summoning this 
 council to examine and pronounce upon them ; 
 and Eutychius, the Constantinopolitan patriarch, 
 addressed a letter to Vigilius, which was read 
 out at its first session. May 5, requesting him 
 to come and preside over its deliberations. Vigi¬ 
 lius assented to thier joint examination by him¬ 
 self aud the council, but was silent about his 
 attendance. Three patriarchs and a number of 
 bishops accosted him personally with no better 
 success. At the 2nd session, or collation, a second 
 interview with him was reported, in which he 
 detinitively declined attending; and even on n 
 
_ CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 message from the emperor he would not under¬ 
 take to do more than examine tlie chapters 
 by himself, and tiansmit his opinion on them, 
 not tO’ the council, but to him. This pro¬ 
 bably was contained in his Constitutum (Mansi, 
 ih. p. 61 and seq.); the date assigned to which 
 indicates that it came out between the 5th 
 and 6th collations. Some bishops of Africa 
 and Illyria excused themselves equally to the 
 deputation sent to invite their attendance. At 
 the 3rd collation the fathers commenced the 
 real business for which they had been convened 
 with a preface well worth remembering for its 
 soundness and moderation. They pledged them¬ 
 selves to the exact doctrine ami discipline laid 
 down in the four general councils, each and all, 
 preceding their own; one and the same confes¬ 
 sion of faith had sufficed for them in spite of ail 
 the heresies they had met to condemn, and should 
 suffice now. All things in harmony with it 
 should be received ; and all things at variance 
 with it rejected. Having thus pledged them¬ 
 selves to the 4th council among the rest, the 
 fathers proceeded to the examination of the three 
 chapters in their 4th collation. This was on 
 May 12 : extracts having accordingly been read 
 out from various works of Theodore, both he 
 and they were judged worthy of condemnation. 
 The next day, or the 5th collation, passages for 
 or against Theodore, for St. Cyril and others, 
 were produced and weighed; and authorities, 
 particularly St. Augustine, cited in favour of 
 condemning heretics although dead. Enquiry 
 having been made when the name of Theodore 
 ceased to be commemorated in the sacred dip- 
 tychs of his church, it was discovered that the 
 name of St. Cyril had long been substituted 
 there for his. At the close of the sitting, 
 extracts from the writings of Theodoret against 
 St. Cyril were recited ; on which the fathers 
 remarked that the 4th council had acted wisely 
 in not receiving him till he had anathematised 
 Nestorius. Six days intervened before the 6th 
 collation took place. May 19. During this in¬ 
 terval Vigilius issued his “ Constitutum,” dated 
 May 14, in the form of a synodical letter addressed 
 to the emperor (Mansi, ix. 61-106), answering 
 and condemning a number of the positions of 
 Theodore, but pleading for Theodoret and Ibas, 
 as having been acquitted by the 4th council. 
 However, the council at its 6th collation found 
 the letter of Ibas in question contrary to the 
 Chalcedonian definition, and anathematised it 
 accordingly, the principal speaker against it being 
 Theodore, bishop of Cappadocia ; but its author 
 escaped. At the 7th collation. May 26 or 30, 
 for the reading is doubtful, a communication 
 was read from the empei’or in deprecation of 
 the “ Constitutum ” addressed to him by the 
 Pope, May 14, and on which there had been a 
 good many messages between them in vain since. 
 First, no less than six documents were recited 
 proving Vigilius to have expressly condemned 
 the three chapters as many times: 1, a letter 
 from him to the emperor; 2, to the empress, in 
 both which the words “ imam operationem ” 
 were declared at the 6th council by the legates 
 of Agatho to have been a later insertion of the 
 Monothelite party (Baluz. ap. Mansi, ix. 163-72); 
 3, to his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian, con¬ 
 demning them for the false stories they had 
 spread about him; 4, to the bishop of Kiew, in 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 443 
 
 Russia; 5, to the bishop of Arles; and 6, a 
 deposition signed by Theodore, bishop of Caesarea, 
 and a lay dignitary, to the effect that Vigilius 
 had sworn to the emperor in their presence to 
 do all he could for the condemnation of the three 
 chapters, and never say a word in their favour. 
 Next, an enquiry, by order of the emperor, re¬ 
 specting a picture or statue of Theodoret said to 
 have been carried about at Cyrus in procession, 
 was reported. And, lastly, the imperial man¬ 
 date, which ordained that the name of Vigilius 
 should be removed from the sacred diptychs for his 
 tergiversations on the subject of the three chap¬ 
 ters, “ Non enim patiebamur, nec ab eo, nec ab 
 alio quocunque,” says the emperor, “ inviolatam 
 communionem suscipere, qui non istam impie- 
 tatem condemnat . . . . ne eo modo inveniamnr 
 Nestorii et Theodori impietati communicantes ” 
 (Mansi, tb. 366-7). Unity with the apostolic 
 see would not, he adds, be thereby dissolved, 
 inasmuch as neither Vigilius nor any other indi¬ 
 vidual could, by his own change for the worse, 
 mar the peace of the Church. To all which the 
 council agreed. Finally, reviewing at its 8th 
 collation, June 2, in a singularly well-written 
 compendium all that it had done previously, 
 and vindicating the course about to be pui-sued, 
 it formally condemned the three chapters, and 
 with them the author of the first of them—• 
 Theodore—promulgating its definitive sentence 
 in 14 anathemas, almost identical with those 
 of the emperor- (Mansi, ib. 557-64), and in 
 which the heresies and heresiarchs thus con¬ 
 demned are specified : Origen among the number 
 in the eleventh, though not in the corresponding 
 one of the emperor. He had been previously 
 condemned in the council under Mennas, A.D. 
 538, as we have seen. Of these anathemas the 
 Greek version is .still extant: of almost every 
 other record of its proceedings the Latin version 
 alone remains. Vigilius, after taking some time 
 to consider, announced his assent to them in two 
 formal documents: the first a decretal epistle, 
 dated Dec. 8 of the same year, and addressed to 
 the Constantinopolitan patriarch (Mansi, ib. 413- 
 32, with the notes of De Marca), in which, as 
 he says, after the manner of St. Augustine, he 
 retracts all that he had ever written differently ; 
 and the second, another Constitutum of great 
 length, dated Feb. 23 of the year following 
 (Clinton, A.D. 554, c. 4), but without any head¬ 
 ing or subscription in its present form (i\Iansi, 
 ib. 457-88). He died on his way home, and 
 Pelagius, the Roman envoy who had been instru¬ 
 mental in condemning Oi’igen, had thus, on be¬ 
 coming pope, to vindicate the condemnation of 
 the three chapters by this council in the West, 
 where they had been defended all but unani¬ 
 mously, and were upheld obstinately by more 
 than three parts of Italy still. The 2nd Pela¬ 
 gius, twenty-five years later, in his third letter 
 to the bishops of Istria, said to have been written 
 by St. Gregory the Great, then his deacon 
 (Mansi, ib. 433-54, and see Migne’s ed.), apolo¬ 
 gised as follows for the conduct of his })rede- 
 cessors and his own therein. Referring to the 
 occasion on which St. Peter was reproved by 
 St. Paul (Gal. ii. 11), he asks, “Nunquid Petro 
 apostolorum principi sibi dissimilia docenti, de- 
 buit ad haec verba responder! ? ” “ Haec quae 
 
 dicis, audire non possumus, quia aliud ante 
 praedicasti ? Si igitur in trium capitulorura 
 
CONSTANTINOPLE. COL’NCILS OF 
 
 444 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 negotio, aliud cum veritas quaereretur, aliud I 
 autein inventa veritate, dictum est ; cur mutatio 
 Ecntentiae huic sedi in crimine objicitur, quae ' 
 a cuncta ecclehia humiliter in ejus auctore vene- 
 ratur? Non euim mutatio sententiae, sed incon- 
 stantia sensus in culpa est.” St. Gregory, when 
 pope, settled the matter by affirming that he 
 venerated the 5th council equally with the four 
 preceding (Mansi, ib. 454). No canons seem to 
 have been passed in it; but though two elabo¬ 
 rate dissertations have been written on it (Garn. 
 ad Liberat. and H. de Noris, Op. P. ii.), many 
 })oiiits connected with it are still doubtful ; and 
 the documents published by Mansi (ix. 151-651) 
 as belonging to it, greatly need re-arranging. 
 
 (28) A.D. 565, at which the emperor Justinian 
 endeavoured to get the errors of Julian of Hali¬ 
 carnassus, a well-known Monophysite, who main¬ 
 tained the incorruptibility of the Body of Christ 
 antecedently to his resurrection, approved, by 
 banishing those who opposed them (Mansi, ix. 
 765-8). 
 
 (29) A.D. 587, at which a foul charge brought 
 against Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, by a banker 
 of his diocese, was examined. He was honourably 
 acquitted and his accuser punished (Evag. vi. 7). 
 Mansi thinks this must have been the synod 
 summoned as a general one by the Constantino- 
 politan patriarch John, in virtue of his assumed 
 title of oecumenical patriarch, and for which he 
 was so severely taken to task by pope Pelagius II. 
 —but for this no direct proof is adduced either 
 by him or Pagi (ix. 971-4). It is supplied, 
 however, in a letter of St. Gregory the Great to 
 that patriarch {ib. 1217-18), and a further 
 letter of his some time later, when Cyriacus 
 was patriarch, whose plan of holding another 
 synod for the same purpose he would seem to 
 have anticipated {ib. x. 159). Mansi (/6. p. 
 481-2) conceives this synod to have been held 
 A.D. 598. 
 
 (30) A.D. 626, under Sergius, to consider the 
 question raised by Paul, a Monophysite of Phasis, 
 in Lazica, and Cyrus, its metropolitan—after¬ 
 wards translated to Alexandria—before the em¬ 
 peror Heraclius, whether one or two wills and 
 opei’atious were to be ascribed to Chi-ist. Sei'- 
 gius, on the authority of a discourse ascribed by 
 him to his well-known predecessor Mennas, and 
 other testimonies which he abstains from naming, 
 pronounced in favour of one operation and one 
 will; thereby founding the heresy called Mono- 
 thelism (Mansi, x. 585-8). Clinton (ii. 171) 
 doubts whether the question did not originate 
 with Athanasius, patriarch of the Jacobites in 
 Syria, on his promotion to the see of Antioch by 
 Heraclius four years later. The discourse which 
 Sergius ascribed to Mennas was proved a forgery 
 to the 6th council at its third session. 
 
 (31) A.D. 639, under Sergius, and continued— 
 unless there were two distinct councils this year 
 —under Pyrrhus, his successor, at which the 
 “Ecthesis” or exposition of faith by the em¬ 
 peror Heraclius, favourable to Monothelism, was 
 confirmed (!Mansi, x. 673-4). Parts of its acts, 
 with the ecthesis in full, were recited in the 
 third sitting of the Lateran under Martin I. 
 A.D. 649 {ib. 991-1004). 
 
 (32) A.D. 665, by order of the emperor Con- 
 staun II., at whi(‘h St. Maximu.s, the great oppo^ 
 nent of the IMonothelites, was condemned (Mansi, 
 xi. 73-4). 
 
 (33) A.D. 636, under Peter, patriarch of 
 Constantinople, and attended by Macedonius of 
 Antioch and the vicar of the patriarch of Alex¬ 
 andria, at which St. Maximus was condemned 
 a second time with his disciples (Maiisi, xi. 
 73-6). 
 
 ( 34 ) T he 6th general, held in the banqueting 
 hall of the palace, called Trullus from its domed 
 roof (Du Fresne, Constant. Christ, ii. 4, § 19-20), 
 and lasting from November 7, A.D. 680, to Sep¬ 
 tember 16 of the ensuing year. 
 
 It was convened by the emperor Constantine 
 Pogonatus, as stated in his epistle to Pope Bonus, 
 in consequence of a request made to him by the 
 patriarchs of Constantiiiojjle to permit their 
 removing from the sacred diptychs the name of 
 Pope Vitalian, lately deceased, while they were for 
 retaining that of Honorius (Mansi, xi. 199-200). 
 In short, they wished to commemorate none of 
 the popes after Honorius till some disputes that 
 had arisen between their own sees and his had 
 been settled, and some newly-coined words ex¬ 
 plained. The allusion is probably to the ‘/ufa 
 OcavbpiKT) ir4pyeid’ attributed to Christ by the 
 Monothelite patriarch and synod of Alexandria, 
 A.D. 633 {ib. 565), when Honorius was pope. 
 Bonus dying before this letter could reach Rome, 
 it was complied with at once by his successor 
 Agatho, who sent three bishops, on behalf of his 
 synod, and two presbyters, and one deacon named 
 John—who subsequently became pope as John V.. 
 in his own name—to Constantinojde, “ to bring 
 about the union of the holy Churches of God,” 
 as it is said in his life {ib. 165). On hearing 
 from the “oecumenical pope,”as he styles him, to 
 that effect, the Emperor issued his summons tc 
 George, patriarch of Constantinople—whom he 
 styles oecumenical patriaich—and through him 
 to the patriarch of Antioch, to get ready to come 
 to the council with their respective bishops and 
 metropolitans {ib. 201). Mansuetus, metro¬ 
 politan of Milan, who had formed part of the 
 Roman synod under Agatho, sent a synodical 
 letter and profession of faith on behalf of his 
 own synod {ib. 203-8), and Theodore, bishop or 
 archbishop of Ravenna, who had formed part of 
 the same synod, a presbyter, to represent him 
 personally. The number of bishops actually 
 present, according to Cave, was 289, though the 
 extant subscriptions are under 180. Thirteen 
 officers of the court were there likewise by com¬ 
 mand of the emperor, who attended in person, 
 and were ranged round him—on his left were 
 the representatives of the pope and his synod, of 
 the archbishop of Ravenna, and of the patriarch 
 of Jerusalem, then Basil, bishop of Gortyna, in 
 Crete, and the remaining bishops “subject to 
 Rome”—his right being occupied by the i)atri- 
 archs of Constantinople and Antioch, a j))esbyter 
 representing the patriarch of Alexandria, the 
 bishop of Ephesus, and “ the remaining bishops 
 subject to Constantinople.” The business of the 
 council was concluded in 18 actions or sessions, 
 as follows:— 
 
 1. The legates of Agatho having complained 
 of the novel teaching of four patriarchs of Con- 
 stantino])le—Seigius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter 
 —of Cyrus, of Alexandria, and Theodore, bishop 
 of Pharan, that had for 46 years or more 
 troubled the whole Church, in attributing one 
 will and operation to the Incarnate Word, 
 Macarius, patriarch of Antioch, and two suffragans 
 
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 445 
 
 of the see of Constantinople favourable to this 
 dogma, briefly replied that they had put out no 
 new terms but only believed and taught what 
 they had received fi'om general councils and from 
 the holy fathers on the point in question, par¬ 
 ticularly the patriarchs of Constantinople and 
 Alexandria, named by their opponents, and 
 Honorius, formerly pope of elder Rome. Where¬ 
 upon the chartophylax, or keeper of the archives 
 of the great Church, was ordered by the emperor 
 to fetch the books of the oecumenical councils 
 from the library of the patriarch. As nothing 
 was said of the acts of the 1st and 2nd councils 
 on this occasion, we must infer they had been 
 lost previously. The chartophylax was told 
 to produce what he had got; and immediately 
 two volumes of the acts of the 3rd council were 
 recited by Stephen, a presbyter of Antioch in 
 waiting on Macarius, who forthwith contended 
 that some of St. CyriTs expressions made for 
 him. 
 
 2. Two volumes of the acts of the 4th council 
 were read, when the legates of Agatho pointed 
 out that two operations were attributed to 
 Christ by St. Leo. 
 
 3. Two volumes of the acts of the 5th council 
 were read, when the legates protested that two 
 letters of Pope Vigilius, contained in the second 
 volume, had been interpolated, and that a dis¬ 
 course attributed in the fii'st to Menuas, patri¬ 
 arch of Constantinople, was spurious. This last 
 having been proved on the spot from internal 
 evidence, its recital was stopped, the emperor 
 directing further enquiry to be made respecting 
 the lettei’s of the pope. 
 
 4. Two letters from Agatho were recited— 
 one to the emperor, in his own name, the other 
 to the council, in his own name and that of a 
 synod of 125 bishops, with Wilfrid, bishop of 
 York, among them, for Britain, assembled under 
 him at Rome, previously to the departure of his 
 legates. The burden of both is the same, namely, 
 that what had been defined as of faith by the 
 five genei'al councils preceding, it was the sum¬ 
 mit of his ambition to keep inviolate—without 
 change, diminution, or addition, either in word 
 or thought (Mansi, ib. 235). Mr. Renouf, 
 indeed, in his second pamphlet on “ Pope 
 Honorius ” (p. 46-7), has pointed out several 
 passages in the Latin version of these letters 
 on the prerogatives of the Church of Rome, 
 which are not found in the Greek. Either, 
 therefore, they have been interpolated in the 
 one, or suppressed in the other. The decree of 
 the Council of Florence supplies a parallel of the 
 same kind. But that Agatho wrote these letters 
 in Greek, and that the Latin version of the 
 entire acts of this council that we have cannot 
 possibly be the one made by order of the next 
 pope, soon after the council dispersed, are two 
 points which Mr. R. seems to have assumed 
 without pi’oving. 
 
 5. Two papers were exhibited by Macarius, 
 and recited: of which the first was headed “ Tes¬ 
 timonies from the holy Fathers confirmatory of 
 there being one will in Christ, which is also that 
 of the Father and the Holy Ghost.” 
 
 6. A third paper from Macarius, to the same 
 effect as the other two, having been read, the 
 sealing of all three was commanded by the em¬ 
 peror, and entrusted to his own officials and 
 those belonging to the sees of Rome and Con¬ 
 
 stantinople. On the legates affirming that the 
 quotations contained in them had not been fairly 
 made, authentic copies of the works cited weje 
 ordered to be brought from the patriarchal 
 library to compare with them. 
 
 7. A paper headed “Testimonies from the 
 holy Fathers demonstrating two wills and opera¬ 
 tions in Christ,” was pi’oduced by the legates, 
 and read. Appended to it were ])assages from 
 the writings of heretics, in which but one will 
 and opei-ation was taught. This paper was 
 ordered to be sealed, like those of Macarius, by 
 the emperor. 
 
 8. The passages adduced by Agatho from th*e 
 Fathers, and by his synod, in favour of two wills 
 and operations, having been examined and con¬ 
 firmed, were pronounced conclusive by all 
 present except Macarius; and the petition to 
 have the name of Vitalian erased from the dip- 
 tychs was withdrawn by George, the existing 
 patriarch of Constantinople, amid great applause. 
 Macarius being then called upon to make his 
 profession, proved himself a Monothelite; and 
 was convicted of having quoted unfairly from 
 the Fathers in his papers to support his views. 
 
 9. Examination of the papers of Macarius 
 having been completed, he and his presbyter 
 Stephen were formally deposed as heretics by 
 the council. 
 
 10. The paper exhibited by the legates was 
 taken in hand: and after a m'ost interesting 
 comparison, passage by^ passage, between it and 
 the authentic works in the patriarchal library, 
 was declared thoroughly correct in its citations : 
 a profession of faith was received from the bishop 
 of Nicomedia and some others, in which Mono- 
 thelism Avas abjured. 
 
 11. A long and remarkable profession of fiiith, 
 contained in a synodical letter of Sophronius, 
 late patriarch of Jerusalem, and the first to 
 oppose Monothelism, was recited : and after it, 
 at the request of the legates, some more writings 
 of Macarius, since come to hand, that proved full 
 of heresy. 
 
 12. Several more documents belonging to 
 Macarius having been received from the emperor 
 through one of his officers, which he professed 
 not to haA'e read himself, some were looked 
 through and pronounced irrelevant, but three 
 letters w'ere recited at length : one from Sergius 
 patriarch of Constantinople to Cyrus, then bishop 
 of Phasis ; another from him to Pope Honorius ; 
 the third being the answer of Honorius to him. 
 Again the patriarchal archives were searched, 
 and the two first of these letters compared witn 
 the authentic copies of them found there ; while 
 the original letter of Honorius in Latin having 
 been brought from thence was compared by John 
 bishop of Poi'to, the only delegate from the 
 Roman synod then present, with the copy just 
 read, and the genuineness of all three placed 
 beyond doubt. A suggestion brought from the 
 emperor that Macarius should be restored in the 
 event of his recanting, was peremptorily declined 
 by the council. 
 
 13. Both the letters of Sergius before men¬ 
 tioned and that of Honorius to him were de¬ 
 clared heterodox; and he and his successors, 
 Pyrrhus, Peter, and Paul, Cyrus of Alexandria, 
 and Theodore, bishop of Pharan—on all of whom 
 Agatho had passed sentence previously—with 
 Honorius, w'hom Agatho had passed over, were 
 
44G CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 definitively cast out of the Church —the only 
 seuteuce of the kiml ever decreed against any 
 j)ojie. The letter of Soj)hvonius, on the other 
 hand, was j)ronounced oi'thodox. Finally, search 
 having been made for all other works of the 
 same kind in the archives, all that could be 
 found were brought out and reciteil. The list 
 uududed two letters from Cyrus to Sergius, the 
 latest of them having been written from Alex¬ 
 andria, with a copy of the terms of agreement 
 come to between him and the Theodosians, a 
 Monophysite sect, enclosed in it; works by 
 Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and 
 Peter, patriarchs of Constantinoj)le ; a second 
 letter of Ilonorius to Sergius ; and a dogmatic 
 letter of Pyrrhus to Pope John IV., discovered 
 in a volume of dogmatic letters by the Charto- 
 phylax, George. All these were pronounced 
 heretical, and burnt as such. Ix'tters of Thomas, 
 John, and Constantine, patriarchs of Constan- 
 tinoi)le, were read likewise, but their orthodoxy 
 was allowed. 
 
 14. Returning to the letters of Pope Vigilius 
 that had been called in question, it was ascer¬ 
 tained by curious enquiry that each of the 
 volumes of the 5th council had been tampered 
 with ; in one case by inserting the pa})er attri¬ 
 buted to Mennas, in the other by interpolating 
 the letters of Vigilius, in support of heresy. 
 The council ordered both falsifications to be can¬ 
 celled, besides anathematising them and their 
 authors. A sermon of St. Athanasius was pro¬ 
 duced by the bishops of Cyprus, in which the 
 doctrine of two wills in Christ was clearly laid 
 down. At this sitting Theophanes, the new 
 patriarch of Antioch, is first named among those 
 present. 
 
 15. Polychronius, a presbyter, undertaking to 
 raise a dead man to life in support of his here¬ 
 tical views, and failing, was condemned as an 
 impostor, and deposed. 
 
 16. Constantine, another presbyter, affecting 
 to have devised seme formula calculated to 
 reconcile Monothelism with orthodoxy, was 
 proved in agreement with Macarius, and simi¬ 
 larly condemned. In conclusion, all who had 
 been condemned were anathematised, one after 
 the other by name, amidst cheers for the 
 orthodox. 
 
 17. The previous acts of the council were read 
 over; and its definition of faith published for 
 the first time. 
 
 18. The definition having been once more pub¬ 
 lished, was signed by all present; and received 
 the assent of the emperor on the spot amid the 
 usual acclamations and reprobations. It con¬ 
 sisted of three parts :—I. An introduction pro¬ 
 claiming entire agreement on the part of the 
 .ouncil with the five previous councils, and 
 acceptance of the two creeds promulgated by 
 them as one. II. Recital of the two creeds of 
 Kicaea and Constantinople in their pristine forms. 
 III. Its own definition, enumerating all pre¬ 
 viously condemned for Monothelism once more 
 by name; and mentioning with approbation the 
 declaration of pope Agatho and his synod against 
 them, and in favour of the true doctrine, which 
 it proceeded to unfold in course : then reiterating 
 the decree passed by ])revious councils against 
 the framers and upholdei's of a faith or creed 
 other than the two forms already specified ; ami 
 including finallv in the same condemnation the 
 
 inventors and disseminators of any novel terms 
 subversive of its own rulings. 
 
 Proceedings terminated in a remarkable ad¬ 
 dress to the emperor on behalf of all jneseut, 
 which was read out, showing that the doctrine 
 of the Trinity had been defined by the two first 
 councils ; and that of the Incarnation in the four 
 next, of which this was the last: and a still 
 more remarkable request was appended to it, 
 —that he would forward the definition signed 
 by himself to the five patriarchal sees of Rome, 
 Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru¬ 
 salem ; which we are told expressly was done 
 (Mansi, ih. 681-4). In conclusion, a letter was 
 despatched to the pope in the name of the coun¬ 
 cil, informing him that he would receive a copy 
 of its acts through his legates, and begging that 
 he would confirm them in his reply. The em¬ 
 peror on his part exhorted all to receive them in 
 a special edict; and as he had promised, ad¬ 
 dressed a letter in his own name to the Roman 
 synod, dated Dec. 23, A.D. 681—Agatho dying, 
 according to Cave, ‘Dec. 1—and another to 
 Leo II., soon after his accession, the year follow¬ 
 ing, bespeaking their acceptance. This the new 
 })ope granted without hesitation in the fullest 
 manner, even to the condemnation of Honorius 
 as having betrayed the faith ; all which he 
 repeated to the bishops of Spain in sending them 
 a Latin translation of the acts of this council 
 (Mansi, ih. 1049-53). Solely from hence the 
 genuineness of both epistles has been denied 
 (comp. Mr. Renouf’s Fope Honorius ; Professor 
 Botalla’s reply to it; and Mr. R.’s rejoinder), 
 and even the integrity of the acts of the council 
 themselves in their present state was once 
 questioned (Pagi ad Baron., A.D. 681, n. 9-12), 
 Two versions of them are giA^en by Mansi (xi. 
 189-922) ; in both the arrangement of the con¬ 
 cluding documents is chronologically defective. 
 It is admitted on all hands that no canons were 
 pas. ed. Several anecdotes of this coiincil found 
 their way into the West. Bede tells us, for 
 instance (He Temp. Rat. A.D. 688), that such 
 was the honour accorded there to the legates of 
 Agatho that one of them, the bishop of Porto, 
 celebrated the Eucharist in Latin on Low-Sundav, 
 in the church of St. Sophia, before the emperor 
 and patriarch. Cardinal Humbert asserts it was 
 then explained to the emperor that unleavened 
 bread was enjoined by the Latin rite (ap. Cani.s. 
 Thes. p, 318). But the two striking incidents 
 of this council were : 1. The arrangement of the 
 “ bishops subject to Rome,” and those “ subject 
 to Constantinople ” on opposite sides; and, 2. 
 The anathemas passed on pope and patriarch 
 alike. Coming events are said to cast their 
 shadows before them. 
 
 (35) A.D. 691, as Pagi shows (ad Baron. A n. 
 692 n. 3-7) from the emended reading of the 
 date given in its 3rd canon and rightly inter¬ 
 preted, in or not earlier than September. The 
 fathers composing it, in their address to the em¬ 
 peror Justinian 11. or Rhinotmetus, as he was 
 afterwards surnamed from what betel him, sav 
 that they had met at his bidding to pass some 
 canons that had long been needed, owing to the 
 omission of the 5th and 6th councils, contrary 
 to the precedent of the four first to pass .anv, 
 whence this council has been commonly stvled 
 the ()uini-sext, or a suj'jilement to both. It is 
 indeed best known as the Trulian, from the hull 
 
• CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, COLTNCILS OF 447 
 
 of the palace in which it was held, although the 
 6th council had met there no less. The number 
 of bishops subscribing to its canons was 213, of 
 whom 43 had been present at the 6th council 
 (Mansi xi. 927); and at their head, instead of 
 after them as at the 6th council, the emperor, 
 wlio signs however differently from the rest, as 
 accepting and assenting to merely what had been 
 defined by them. A blank is left immediately 
 after his name for that of the pope, showing 
 clearly that the pope was not represented tjiere ; 
 and blanks are subsequently left for the bishops 
 of Thessalonica, Heraclea, Sardinia, Ravenna, 
 and Corinth, who might, had they been present, 
 have been supposed acting for him : Basil, indeed, 
 bishop of Gortyna in Crete, is set down as sub¬ 
 scribing on behalf of the whole synod of the 
 Roman church ; but then he is similarly set down 
 among the subscriptions to the 6th council, not 
 having been one of the three deputies sent 
 thither from Rome (t6. pp. 642 and 70), and 
 afterwards in the letter addressed to Agatho by 
 the council, only signing for himself and his own 
 synod (ib. p. 690). Hence there seems little 
 ground for supposing him to have represented 
 Rome there in any sense, though Pagi and others 
 are willing to believe he may have been acting 
 as apocrisarius at the time of the council (ad 
 Baron, ib. n. 9-13). Certainly, Anastasius, in 
 his life of Sergius L, who was then Pope, says 
 that the legates of the apostolic see were present, 
 and deluded into subscribing; but there is no¬ 
 thing else in the subscriptions to confirm this; 
 and of the acts nothing further has been pre¬ 
 served. Great controA^ersy prevails as to the 
 extent to which this council has been received 
 in the West: Oecumenical it has never been 
 accounted there, in spite of its own claim to be 
 so: and Avhen its 102 canons were sent in six 
 tomes to Sergius, himself a native of Antioch, 
 for subscription, he said he Avould die sooner 
 than assent to the erroneous innov^ations which 
 they contained. John VII., the next pope but 
 one, was requested by the emperor to confirm all 
 that he could, and reject the rest; but he sent 
 back the tomes untouched—Lupus (2>fss. de Syn. 
 TrulL, op. Tom. iii. 168-73), whom Pagi (a.d. 
 710, n. 2) follows is of opinion that Constantine 
 was the first pope to confirm any of them : but 
 this is inferred solely from the honourable re¬ 
 ception given to him at Constantinople by Justi¬ 
 nian, which may haA'e been dictated by other 
 motives. What Adrian I. says in his epistle to 
 St. Tarasius, read out at the 7th council, is ex¬ 
 plicit enough : “ I too receive the same six holy 
 councils with all the rules constitutionally and 
 divinely promulgated by them ; among which is 
 contained ” what turns out to be the 82nd of 
 these canons, for he quotes it at full length. 
 And the first canon of the 7th council confirmed 
 by him is substantially to the same effect. 
 
 But the exact truth is probably told by Ana¬ 
 stasius, the librarian, in the preface to his transla¬ 
 tion of the acts of the 7th council dedicated to 
 John VIII., whom he credits Avith haA'ing ac¬ 
 cepted all the apostolical canons under the same 
 reserve. “ At the 7th council,” he says, “ the 
 principal see so far admits the rules said by the 
 Greeks to have been framed at the 6th council, 
 as to reject in the same breath Avhichever of 
 them should proA'c to be opposed to formep 
 canons, or the decrees of its own holy pontiffs, 
 
 or to good manners.” All of them, indeed, he 
 contends had been unknoAvn to the Latins entirely 
 till then, neA'^er having been translated: neither 
 AA’ere they to be found even in the archives of the 
 other patriarchal sees, Avhere Greek Avas spoken, 
 none of Avhose occupants had been present to 
 concur or assist in their promulgation, although 
 the Greeks attributed their promulgation to 
 those fathers Avho formed the 6th council, a 
 statement for Avhich he avers they Avere unable 
 to bring any decisiA’e proof. This shows how 
 little he liked these canons himself: nor can it 
 be denied that some of them were dictated by a 
 spirit hostile to the West. The 3rd and 13th, 
 for instance, deliberately propose to alter Avhat 
 had been the law and practice of the Roman 
 church for upAvards of 300 years respecting those 
 Avho became presbyters, deacons, or sub-deacons, 
 as married men : and make the rule substituted 
 for it in each case binding upon all. The 55th 
 on the authority of one of the apostolical canons 
 not received by Rome, interdicts the custom of 
 fasting on Saturdays Avhich had preA'ailed in the 
 Roman church from time immemorial. And the 
 56th lays doAvn a rule to be kept by all churches 
 in observing the Lenten fast. Canons 32, 33, 
 and 99 are specially levelled against the Arme¬ 
 nians. Of the rest, canon 1 confirms the doc¬ 
 trine of the 6th general council preceding, and 
 insists in the strongest terms upon its unalter¬ 
 ableness. Canon 2 renews all the canons con¬ 
 firmed by them, Avith the Sardican and Afidcan 
 m addition, besides the canons of SS. Dionysius 
 and Peter of Alexandria ; of St. Gregory Thauma- 
 turgus, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory 
 Nyssen; the canonical answers of Timothy Avith 
 the canons of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria 
 and two canonical letters of St. Cyril : the 
 canon of Scripture by St. Gregory Nazianzen, and 
 another by St. Amphilochius, bishop '•f Iconium 
 in Lycaonia, with a circular of Gennadius, pa¬ 
 triarch of Constantinople, against simoniacal 
 ordinations. In conclusion, it receiA’-es all thj 
 apostolical canons, eighty-flA’e in number, though 
 at that time but fifty Avere received in the Roman 
 church, as Ave learn from Anasta.sius, but rejects 
 the apostolical constitutions as having been in¬ 
 terpolated, and containing many spurious things. 
 By this canon accordingly the code of the 
 Eastern church AA'as authoratiA'ely settled, apart 
 of course fi'om the 102 canons noAV added to it, 
 Avhich were formally receiA’ed themseh^es, as Ave 
 have seen, by the 2nd Council of Nicaea, and 
 reckoned ever afteiuvards as the canons of the 
 6th council. As such they are quoted by Pho- 
 tius in his Syntagma canonum, and his Nomo~ 
 canon (Migne’s Pat. Gr. ciA\ 431-1218), and 
 continue to be quoted still (^Orthod x and Non- 
 Jurors, by Rev. G. Williams, p. 74). Their 
 general character is thoroughly Oriental, but 
 without disparagement to their practical A'alue 
 (Mansi, xi. 921-1024, and xii. 47-56; BcA’er. II. 
 126-64). 
 
 (36) A.D. 712, in the short-liA'ed reign of 
 Philippicus or Bardanes, and under the Mono- 
 thelite patriarch of his appointment, John VI. ; 
 at which the 6th council Avas repudiated and 
 condemned. The copy of its acts belonging to 
 the palace Avas likewise burnt by his order, aa 
 we learn from the deacon Avho transcribed them ; 
 and the picture of it that hung there, remoA'ed. 
 On the death of the tyrant indeed John addressed 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 448 CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF 
 
 a letter to Pope Constantine to apologise for 
 what had been done ; but its tone is not assuring. 
 He testifies, however, to the authentic tomes of 
 tne 6th council being safe still in his archives 
 (Mansi, xii. 187-208); and Pagi can see some 
 excuse for his conduct (ad Baron, a.d. 712, 
 n. 2-6). 
 
 ( 37 ) A.D. 715, Aug. 11, at which the transla¬ 
 tion of St. Germanus from the see of Cyricus to 
 that of Constantinople was authorised. He had 
 been a party to the Monothelite synod under 
 John three years before ; but immediately after 
 his ti'auslation he held a synod—most probably 
 this one continued—in which he condemned 
 Monothelism (Mansi, xii. 255-8). 
 
 ( 38 ) A.D. 730, or rather a meeting in the 
 imperial palace, at which the Emperor Leo III., 
 better known as the Isaurian, called upon St. 
 Germanus the aged patriai’ch to declare for the 
 demolition of images, which he had just ordered 
 himself in a second edict against them. The 
 patriarch replied by resigning his pall (Mansi, 
 xii. 269-70, and Pagi, ad Baron., a.d. 730, n. 
 1-4). 
 
 ( 39 ) A.D. 754, from Feb. 10 to Aug. 8, held 
 by order of the Emperor Constantine Copron)'- 
 mus, and styling itself Oecumenical, or the 7th 
 council, though its claim to both titles has since 
 been set aside in favour of the second council of 
 Nicaea, in which its decrees were reversed. 
 Unfortunately, there is no record of its acts 
 extant, but what is to be found in the 6th 
 session of that council, where they were cited 
 only to be condemned. As many as 338 bishops 
 attended it, but the chief see represented there 
 was that of Ephesus. Their proceedings are 
 given in six tomes, as follows : 1. They deduce 
 the origin of all creature-worship from the devil, 
 to abolish which God sent His Son in the flesh ; 
 2. Christianity being established, the devil, they 
 say, was undone to bring about a combination 
 between it and idolatry; but the emperors had 
 opposed themselves to his designs. Already six 
 councils had met, and the present one following 
 in their steps declai'ed all pictorial representa¬ 
 tions unlawful and subversive of the faith which 
 they professed ; 3. Two natures being united in 
 Christ, no one picture or statue could represent 
 Christ as He is, besides His only proper repre¬ 
 sentation is in the Eucharistic sacrifice of His own 
 institution ; 4. There was no prayer in use for 
 consecrating images, nor were representations of 
 the saints to be tolerated any more than of 
 Christ, for Holy Scripture was distinctly against 
 both ; 5. The fathers, beginning with St. Epi- 
 phanius, having been cited at some length to the 
 same purpose, the council decreed unanimously 
 that all likenesses of whatsoever colour and 
 material were to be taken away, and utterly dis¬ 
 used in Christian churches ; 6. All clergy setting 
 up or exhibiting reverence to images in church 
 or at home were to be deposed; monks and lay¬ 
 men anathematised. Vessels and A'estments be¬ 
 longing to the sanctuary were never to be turned 
 to any purpose in connexion with them. A series 
 of anathemas was directed against all who upheld 
 them in any sense, or contravened the decrees of 
 this council. St. Germanus, the late patriarch 
 of Constantinople, George of Cyprus, and St. 
 John of Damascus, or Mansur, as he was called 
 by the Saracens, were specially denounced as 
 image-worshippers. The usual acclamations to 
 
 the emperor followed. Before the council,sepa¬ 
 rated, Constantine the new j)atriarch was pre¬ 
 sented to it and approved. It was then sitting 
 ' in the church of St. Mary, ad Blachernas, within 
 the city; its earlier sittings had been held in a 
 palace of the emperor, called Hieraeon, on the 
 opposite shore (Mansi, xii. 575-8, and xiii. 203- 
 350 ; Cave, i. 646-7). [E. S. F.] 
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE. (1) The birth (yc 
 v40\ia) of Constantinople is placed by the Cal. 
 Byzant. on May 11. The dedication (iyKaivia) 
 is said to have been performed by the Holy Fathers 
 of the 1st Council of Nicaea in the year 325. 
 
 (2) The Council of Constantinople is commemo¬ 
 rated in the Ar)nenian Calendar on Feb. 16. fC.] 
 
 CONTAKION (KovraKiov). A short ode 
 or hymn which occurs in the Greek offices. The 
 name has been variously derived. The expla¬ 
 nation most generally received is that it signifies 
 a short hymn, from the word Kovrhs, little; 
 because it contains in a short space the praises 
 of some saint or festival (Goar, not. 31 in oif. 
 Laud.). It has also been derived from Kovrhs. 
 a dart or javelin ; so that Contakion would mean 
 an ejaculatory prayer, or a short pointed hymn 
 after the model of an antiphon. Some, again, 
 have considered the word to be a corruption of 
 Canticum, Romaninus, a deacon of Emesa, who 
 flourished about 500 A.D., is said to be the 
 author of Coidakia. They frequently occur in 
 the canons and other parts of the office, and 
 vary with the day. [Canox of Odes.] In the 
 list of the officials of the church of Constanti¬ 
 nople we have 6 twv KovraKlcou, named 
 
 among the offices appropiaate to priests (to 
 o<p<piKia TOis Upev(Ti KpocrrjKOPTa). 
 
 The word “ Contakion ” is also used of the 
 volume containing the liturgies of St. Basil, St. 
 Chrysostom, and of the praesanctified alone, in 
 distinction to the complete missal. In this sense 
 the word is usually derived from Kovrhs, a dart, 
 i.e. the wooden roll round which the MS. was 
 rolled, “ Kovra^ est parvus contus .... Inde et 
 KopraKiov, Scapus chartarum, vel volumen ad 
 instar baculi” (Salmas. Exerc. Plin.'). Goar, how¬ 
 ever, prefers the derivation from koSIkiop, 
 “ quasi brevis codex.” In the ordination of a 
 priest, after the ceremonies of ordination are 
 completed, the newly-ordained priest is directed 
 to take his place among the other priests, dra- 
 yiypuKTKwp rh KOPraKiop (t. e. his book of the 
 liturgy). [H. J. H.] 
 
 CONTRA VOTLTM. A formula frequent in 
 epitaphs, expressing the regret of survivors at a 
 loss suftered against their wishes and prayers. 
 It is of pagan origin, and does not appear to 
 have been adopted by Christians before the 5th 
 century. The earliest example of the formula 
 given by De Rossi is of the commencement of 
 that century, and runs as follows : “ Parentis 
 POSVERUNT TETVLVM CONTRA VOTVM ET DOLO 
 svo.” It is not confined, as has sometimes been 
 supposed, to epitaphs placed by parents for their 
 children; husbands use it of wives and wives of 
 husbands, brothers and sisters of each other; 
 and in fact it is very generally used to express 
 the longing felt by the survivor for the departed. 
 It is most common in Northern Italy. (Martiguy, 
 Eict. des Antiq. Chret. 175.) [C.] 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE. This ex- 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 449 
 
 pression may be considei’ed in two different 
 senses, according as it refers to the agreement for 
 marriage in the abstract, or, according to later 
 continental usage, to its written evidence answer¬ 
 ing to our marriage settlement. We shall consider 
 it separately under these two heads. 
 
 I. The law of the church on the subject of 
 the contract of marriage is, as on many other 
 points, compounded of the Jewish and Roman 
 laws, under the influence of New Testament 
 leaching. It is derived mainly, in its general 
 features, from the* latter system of legislation, 
 especially in regard to the marriage of the laity ; 
 from the former mainly in regard to that of 
 the clergy. 
 
 The validity of the marriage contract generally 
 depends, it may be said, on two points, (1) the 
 inherent capacity of the parties to enter into the 
 contract ; (2) the limitations which may be 
 placed upon the exercise of that capacity. 
 
 1. Strictly speaking, the inherent capacity of 
 the parties for marriage turns only upon three 
 points, (a) sufficient age; (6) sufficient reason ; 
 (c) sufficient freedom of will. On the first point, 
 it may be observed that the old Roman, like the 
 old Jewish law, attached the capacity for mar¬ 
 riage by ago to the physical fact of puberty 
 {frist. bk. i. t. X. § 1); and the same principle is 
 pi’actically followed in all systems of legislation 
 which take notice of age at all in this matter, 
 although it is generally found convenient in the 
 long run to fix an age of legal puberty, without 
 reference to the specific fact. Thus already in 
 the Digest it is provided that the marriage con¬ 
 tract is only valid on the part of the wife when 
 she has completed her 12th year, even though she 
 be already married and living with her husband 
 (bk. xxiii. t. ii. 1. 4). And Justinian himself in 
 his rnstitutes professes to have fixed, on grounds 
 of decency, the age of puberty for the male at 14 
 (bk. i. t. xxii.); both which periods have very 
 generally been adopted in modern legislation. 
 
 Strange as it may seem, the earlier Roman 
 legislation seems to have even fixed an asre be- 
 yond which a woman could not marry, since we 
 find Justinian in the Code abolishing all pro¬ 
 hibitions of the Lex Julia vel Papia against 
 marriages between men and women above or below 
 60 ami 50 (^Code, bk. v. t. iv. 1. 27; and see bk. 
 vi. t. Iviii. 1. 12). Nothing of this kind is to be 
 found in later systems of legislation, although 
 disparity of age in marriage, as we shall pre¬ 
 sently see, has sometimes been sought to be sup¬ 
 pressed. 
 
 It may here be observed that physical in¬ 
 capacity in persons of full age has never been 
 held to produce actual inability to enter into the 
 marriage contract, but simply to render the 
 marriage voidable when the fact is ascertained 
 (see Code, bk. v. t. xvii. 1. 10; Nov. 22, c. 6; 
 Nov. 117, c. 12). Nor is the fact one of im¬ 
 portance in reference to the marriage relation, 
 except where divorce is put under restrictions 
 (see Dig. bk. xxiv. t. i. 11. 60, 61, 62). 
 
 (6.) As respects the second point: Defect of 
 reason, it may be said, in reference to the mar¬ 
 riage. contract, acts inversely to defect of age. 
 Thus, under the Roman law, followed generally 
 by modern legislation, madness was fatal to the 
 validity of the contract, but did not dissolve it 
 when afterward^ supervening (D/^. bk. xxxii. t. ii. 
 1. 16, § 2; and see Jul. Paul. Recept. Sent. bk. 
 
 ClIUIST. ANT. 
 
 ii. t. xix. § 4). (c.) The freedom of will of the 
 
 parties, on the other hand, can only be testified 
 by their consent to the marriage [as to which 
 see Consent]; but it may also be indirectly 
 secured by limitations of a protective character 
 placed on the exercise of the capacity to contract 
 marriage, which will be considered presently. 
 It may be sufficient here to observe that accord¬ 
 ing to the jurists of the Digest a man might 
 marry a woman by letters or by proxy if she 
 were brought to his house, but this privilege did 
 not belong to the woman (bk. xxiii. t. ii. 1. 5 ; 
 and see Jul. Paul. Recept. Sent. bk. ii. t. xix. 
 §5). 
 
 There was, moreover, one large class of persons 
 in whom there was held to be no freedom of will, 
 and, consequently, no capacity to contract mar¬ 
 riage. It is important to insist on this point, 
 since Gibbon in the second chapter of his great 
 work speaks of the Romans as having “ in their 
 numerous families, and particularly in their 
 country estates . . . encouraged the marriage of 
 their slaves.” A falser statement was probably 
 never put forth by a historian, unless for mar¬ 
 riage we read, in plain English, breeding. Mar¬ 
 riage is simply impossible where the persons of 
 slaves of both sexes are subject, absolutely with¬ 
 out limit, to the lusts, natural or unnatural, of a 
 master (see, for instance, Horace, Sat. i. 2, 116). 
 The slave, his master’s thing, can have no will 
 but his master’s; in respect of the civil law pro¬ 
 perly so-called, i. e. the law made for citizens, 
 he does not exist; (Ulpian, Dig. bk. 1. t. xvii. 
 1. 32), or as the same jurist in his grand lan¬ 
 guage elsewhere expresses it, his condition is 
 almost equivalent to death itself (ibid. 1. 209). 
 Thus, according to the logic of the Roman law, 
 connections between slaves obtain not so much 
 as a mention by either the jurists of the Digest, 
 or the Emperors in the constitutions of the Code. 
 Connections between slaves and serfs, i. e. the 
 so-called adscriptitii glehae, are indeed mentioned 
 (Code, bk. xi. t. xlvii. c. 21), but without the 
 name of marriage, and only to determine the con¬ 
 dition of the offspring, which is fixed by that of 
 the mother. Rustici, a class of peasants who 
 seem to have been of higher status than the 
 adscriptitii, could contract marriage inter se, and 
 the 157th Novel is directed against the land- 
 owners of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene, who sought 
 to forbid their peasants to marry out of their own 
 estates, and if they did so, were in the habit of 
 breaking up their marriages and families. 
 
 Wherever, therefore, we find slaves’ marriages 
 mentioned, we must seek another origin for the 
 recognition of them than in the Roman law'. 
 That origin seems unquestionably to be in the 
 Jewish law. Although only “ Hehi’ew ” servants 
 are mentioned in the passage of Exodus on this 
 subject (c. xxi. vv. 3, 4, 5, 6), it is clear that 
 the Pentateuch recognized the marriage of per¬ 
 sons in a servile condition. And with the 
 sweeping away by the Christian dispensation of 
 all distinction between Jew and Gentile it is 
 but natural to suppose that the right of marriage 
 would be extended from the Hebrew slave to 
 the whole slave class. Such right, indeed, was 
 not absolute, as will have been observed, but 
 flowed from the master’s will, and was subject to 
 his rights. The master gave a wife to his slave ; 
 the wife and her children remained his, even 
 when the slave himself obtained his freedom. 
 
450 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 The B;u‘bari;in Codes do not materially vai*y 
 from the Roman as respects the marriage con¬ 
 tract, so far as res])ects the conditions of age 
 and reason. It is clear, however, that, in Italy, 
 especially under the Lombards, and under the 
 Visigoths of Spain, habits of early marriage 
 prevailed which had to be checked by law. A 
 law of King Luitprand, A.D. 724, enacts that 
 girls shall only be maindageable at the exj)iration 
 of their T2th' year (bk. vi. c. 59). An earlier 
 law of the same king, A.D. 717, has been already 
 referred to under the head Biotkotiial (bk. ii. 
 c. 6). Although 18 was fixed as the age of ma¬ 
 jority for male infant.s, yet they might befoi’e 
 this age contract either betrothal or marriage, 
 and had full power of settling proj)erty (bk. vi. 
 c. 64 ; A.D. 724). A Lombard capitulary of Charle¬ 
 magne’s (a.d. 779) prohibits generally the marry¬ 
 ing. of a boy or girl under the age of puberty, 
 where there is disparity of age, but allows them to 
 marry when of equal age and consenting (c. 145). 
 The same prohibition is contained in the Capi¬ 
 tulary of Tessiuo (Pertz), A.D. 801, also added 
 to the Lombard law. 
 
 The Vi.sigothic law seems less equal towards 
 the sexes. A law of King Chindaswinth (bk. iii. 
 t. 4) forbids on the one hand women of full age 
 from marrying males under age, but on the other 
 enacts that girls under age are only to marry 
 husbands of full age. It is not however clear 
 whether the age referred to is that of puberty or 
 general majority. 
 
 As respects the marriage of slaves, we find a 
 formula on the subject among tho.se collected by 
 Mabillon (No. 44). They appear clearly to have 
 been recognized both by the state and the 
 church in the reign of Charlemagne, as will be 
 presently shewn. 
 
 2. If we turn now to what we may term the 
 extrinsic conditions of the capacity for marriage, 
 in other words to the limitations placed upon the 
 exercise of that capacity, we find these to have 
 been very various. Some are purely or mainly 
 moral ones; the leading one of this cla.ss, that of 
 the amount of consanguinity which the law of 
 different nations has held to be a bar to the 
 validity of the nuptial contract, will be found 
 treated of under the heads of Cousins-German, 
 Marriage. Another—singular, because exactly 
 opposite feelings on the subject have prevailed 
 in different countrie.s—is to be found in the pro¬ 
 hibition by the later Roman law of marriages 
 between ravishers and their victims, under severe 
 penalties, both for the parties themseh^es, and 
 the parents who consented to it (Justinian, Cod. 
 b. ix. t. xiii. § 1, Nov. 143, 150). 
 
 A directly contrary rule prevailed under Theo- 
 doric in the Ostrogothic kingdom. The 59th chap¬ 
 ter of his Edict compels the ravisher of a free¬ 
 born woman, if of suitable fortune and noble 
 birth, as well as single, to marry her, and to 
 endow her wdth l-5th of his property. Tlie 
 Lombard law does not seem to provide expressly 
 for the case; but the “Lex Romana” of the 
 Roman population in Italy must have followed 
 it in its departure from the legislation of the 
 cmi)erors, where, after enacting death as the 
 penalty of rape, it provides that if no accusation 
 be brought for five years, “ the marriage will 
 afterwards be valid and its issue legitimate ” 
 (bk. ix. t. xviii.). Death was also the punish¬ 
 ment of rape among the Franks ; but Marculf’s 
 
 formulae .show that marriages between ravisher 
 and ravished were allowed (bk. ii. f. 16). A 
 Lombard cajiitulary of Charlemagne’s, however, 
 A.D. 779, forbids a ravished bride to marry her 
 ravisher, even if her betrothed refuses to take 
 her back (c. 124). The law of the Alamans (t. lii ) 
 is to the same erfect. The Saxon law on the con¬ 
 trary (t. x.) requires the ravisher to “ buy ” the 
 woman for 300 solidi. 
 
 It seems doubtful whether a canon of the 
 Council of lliberis in 305, bearing that “ virgins 
 who have not kept their virginity, if they have 
 married and kept as husbands tiieir violators,” are 
 to be admitted to communion after a year without 
 penance, apjdies really to what we should term 
 violation, or to seduction only. But at any rate 
 the Visigothic law is sevex'est of all the barbaric 
 codes against marriages between ravishers and 
 ravished. Whilst enacting that the ravisher with 
 all his property is to be handed over as a slave to 
 the woman to whom he has done violence, and to 
 receive 200 lashes publicly, it imposes the jie- 
 nalty of death on both if they intermarry, unless 
 they should flee to the altar, when they are to 
 be separated and given to the parents of the 
 woman (bk. iii. t. iii. 11. 1, 2). Closely allied to 
 these enactments is one of the Burgundian law, 
 forbidding marriages between widows and their 
 paramours (t. xliv.). It may perhaps be inferred 
 from the above that the tendency of the bar¬ 
 barian races had originally been to favour such 
 marriages, but that the influence of the oi)posite 
 Roman feeling, kept up no doubt traditionally by 
 the clergy, generally prex^ailed in the long run in 
 the barbarian codes. 
 
 There were indeed certain moral enormities 
 which in some legislations were made a bar to 
 all subsequent marriage. By the Visigothic law, 
 a freeman guilty of rape on a married woman, 
 after receiving a hundred lashes, was to become 
 slave to his victim, and never to m.’fry again 
 (bk. ii. t. iv. 1. 14). But it is the Carlovingian 
 capitularies which apply most largely this kind 
 of prohibition. By a capitulary of King Pepin at 
 Vermerie, A.D. 753, if a man committed adultery 
 with his step-daughter, with his step-mother, or 
 with his wife’s sister or cousin, neither could ever 
 marry again (cc. 2, 10, 11, 12); nor a wife who 
 had been dismissed by her husband for conspiring 
 against his life (c. 5). The Capitulary of Com- 
 piegne, A.D. 757, extends the prohibition to a 
 brother committing adultery with his sister-in- 
 law, a father seducing his son’s betrothed, and 
 to their respective paramours (cc. 11, 13); to a 
 man living in adultery with a mother and 
 daughter, or with two sisters, but to the women, 
 in such case, only if they were aware of the in¬ 
 cestuous connexion (cc. 17, 18). A capitulary 
 of the 7th book of the general collection forbids 
 also a woman who has had connexion with two 
 brothers ever to marry again (c. 381; and see 
 bk. v. c. 168). 
 
 Another limitation on the marriage contract, 
 which must be considered rather of a political 
 nature, and which pi’evails more or less still in 
 the military code of almost every modern nation, 
 was that on the marriage of soldiers. Under the 
 early Roman polity, marriage was absolutely for¬ 
 bidden to soldiers ; but the Emperor Claudius 
 allowed them the jus connubii, and it seems cer¬ 
 tain that there were married soldiers under Galba 
 and Domitian (Mur. T/ies. Inscr. i. p. 306; Gon, 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 451 
 
 Tnscr. Antiq. iii. p. 144). Severus seems how¬ 
 ever to have been the first to allow sol liers to 
 live with their wives (Herod, iii. 229). The 
 Philips, on the other hand, seem to have re¬ 
 stricted the jtis connubii for soldier to a first 
 marriage (Mur. Thes. Tnscr. i. 3(32). Under Jus¬ 
 tinian’s Code, the marriage of soldiei s and other 
 persons in the militia, from the caligt his miles to 
 the protector, was made free without solemnities 
 of any sort, so long as the wife was free-born 
 (^Constitution of Theodosius aiid Valentinian, Code, 
 bk. v. t. iv. 1. 21). There having been no re¬ 
 gular armies among the barbarian races, nothing 
 answering to the prohibition is to be found in 
 their codes. 
 
 We pass now to those restrictions on marriage 
 which must be considered to be mainly of a pro¬ 
 tective character, and intended to secure the real 
 freedom, as well as the wisdom of choice. To 
 these, in the highest view of the subject, belong 
 those which turn upon the consent of parents 
 [see Consent] ; although indeed this restriction 
 seems generally to have had its historic oidgin in 
 a much lower sphere of feeling,— that of the 
 social dependence and slavery or quasi-slavery 
 of children to their parents. Next come the 
 interdictions placed by the Roman law on the 
 marriage of guardians or curators, or their issue, 
 with their female wards. This occupies a large 
 space in the Corpus Juris; see Dig. bk. xxiii. 
 t. ii. 11. 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67 ; Code, bk. v. t. vi. 
 
 Lastly come the interdictions on the marriage 
 of officials within their jurisdictions, which, as 
 Papinian remarks, are analogous in principle to 
 those on the marriage of guardians with their 
 wards (Dig. bk. xxiii. t. ii. 1. 63). No official 
 could marry (though he might betroth to him- 
 .self) a wife born or domiciled within the province 
 in which he held office, unless be had been be¬ 
 trothed to her before ; and if he betrothed a 
 woman, she could, after his giving up office, ter¬ 
 minate the engagement, on returning the earnest- 
 money ; but he could give his daughters in mar¬ 
 riage within the province (1. 38). The marriage 
 of an official contracted against this interdiction 
 seems to have been considered by Papinian abso¬ 
 lutely void (1. 63). 
 
 Under the Code, a well-known con.stitution of 
 Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosiu.s, A.D. 380, 
 known by its title as “ Si rector Provinciae ” 
 (referred to supra under Arrhae), whilst de¬ 
 priving of all binding force betrothals between 
 persons holding authority in any province, their 
 kinsmen and dependents, and women of the pro¬ 
 vince, allows the marriage nevertheless to be 
 afterwards carried out with the consent of the 
 betrothed women (bk. t. ii.). And a previous 
 constitution of Gordian had provided that if the 
 marriage were contracted against the law with 
 the woman’s consent, and after her hu.sband laid 
 down his office she remained of the same mind, 
 the marriage became legal, and the issue legi¬ 
 timate (t. iv. 1. 6). By another constitution, 
 known as “ Si quacumque praeditus potestate,” 
 a fine of 10. lbs. of gold was enacted against offi- 
 rials who should .seek to coerce women into 
 marriages, even though these should not be 
 carried out (law of Gratian, Valentinian, and 
 Theodo.sius, a.d. 380; ih. t. vii.). 
 
 We do not find anything answering to these 
 provisions in the Barbarian Codes, but only in 
 the work called the Lex Romana supposed to 
 
 have represented the personal law of the Romans 
 under the Lombard kings. Here, in barbarous 
 Latin, some of the provisions of the Code are 
 reproduced, whilst others are widely departed 
 from. For instance, in place of the protective 
 provisions against the marriage of guardians with 
 their wards, we have coarser ones providing 
 against the seduction of wards by their guar¬ 
 dians, under penalty of exile an I confiscation 
 (bk. ix. t. V.). 
 
 I Another class of restrictions on marriage may 
 I be termed social ones, as depending chiefly on 
 i di.sparity of social condition. The most promi¬ 
 nent disparity of condition in the whole ancient 
 I world, as it remains still in much of the modern 
 world, was that between freeman and slave. 
 According to the Roman law, there could be abso¬ 
 lutely no marriage between the two, but only what 
 was termed a contuhernium (.Jul. Paul, liecept. 
 Sent. bk. ii. t. 19, § 3). Yet the .sense of human 
 equality was so strong, that a senatus-consultum 
 had to be issued under the Emperor Claudius 
 against the marriage of freewomen with slaves; 
 reducing the former to slavery itself, if the act 
 were done without the knowledge of the master, 
 —to the condition of freedwomen if with his con¬ 
 sent (Tacitus, Ann. bk. xii. c. 53; a.d. 53). 
 Although this law does not appear in the Corpus 
 Juris —perhaps because it might seem indirectly 
 to recognize slaves’ marriages—it is clear that 
 neither under the Digest nor under the Code could 
 there be any marri.age between free and slave. 
 
 I “ With slave-girls there can be no connubium,” 
 says a constitution of Constantine (bk. v. t. v. 
 1. 3); “/or from this contubernium slaves are 
 ^ born” It affords indeed a strange picture of the 
 ^ more than servile condition of the Roman muni- 
 ! cipal functionaries, even at this period of the 
 j Empire, that the avowed object of the constitu- 
 j tion which opens with this enunciation of a 
 principle, is to prevent decurions, through the 
 
 passions of slave girls. 
 
 finding 
 
 a refuge in the 
 
 bosom of the most powerful families. The secret 
 marriage of a decurion with a slave was to be 
 punished by sending the woman to the mines, 
 the decurion, himself to exile on some island, 
 
 I whilst his property passed, as if he were dead, 
 to his family, or in default of such to the city of 
 I which he w'as a curial; local officials who were 
 privy to the offence, or left it unpunished, were 
 in like manner to be sent to the mines. If it 
 took place in the countiy, by perrni.ssion of the 
 girl’s master, the estate where it occurred, with 
 all slaves and live and dead stock, was to be con¬ 
 fiscated ; if in a city the master forfeited the 
 half of all his goods. That decurions, however, 
 were not the only per.sons likely to marry slaves 
 is evident from a constitution of Valentinian and 
 Marcian, A.D. 428 (f6. 1. 7), which enumerates 
 j “ the slave-girl, the daughter of a slave-girl,” 
 'first amongst those persons whom senators may 
 not marry. 
 
 I If any man married a slave, believing her to 
 I be free, the ma.(riage was void ab initio (22nd 
 I Nov. c. 10). But if a master married his slave- 
 : girl to a freeman, or constituted a dos upon her, 
 j which was considered to be the privilege of the 
 free, a constitution of Justinian’s enacted that 
 this should not onlv enfranchise her, but confer 
 on her the rights of Roman citizen.'^hip (Code, 
 bk. vii. t. vi. 1. 9). In the 22nd Novel (c. 11) 
 the same emperor went further still and enactnd, 
 
 2 G 
 
452 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 that when a master either himself gave away his 
 slave-girl in marriage, whether with or without 
 dotal iustrumonts, or knowingly allowed another 
 to give her away, as a freewoman, to a man ignor¬ 
 ant of her condition, this should amount to a 
 tacit enfranchisement, and the marriage should 
 be valid; and again (c. 12), a fortiori, that if a 
 master had long deserted either a male or female 
 slave in a state of bodily weakness {lawfuentes), 
 or shown no care to lu-eserve his rights over 
 them, they, as derelicts, resuming possession of 
 themselves, were no longer to be troubled by him, 
 so that the marriages of such as free men or 
 women would be lawful. Finally, the 78th Novel 
 provided that where a man had had children by 
 his slave-girl, and constituted a dos upon her 
 (which had the etlect of marriage), this of itself 
 had the effect of manumitting the issue born in 
 slavery, and rendering them liberi, and no longer 
 merely fHii, to the father (c. 4). 
 
 Closely analogous to the condition of the slaA'e 
 was that of the adscriptitius glebae. The mar¬ 
 riage of a freeman with an adscriptitia does not 
 however seem to have been void, but the children 
 retained their mother’s condition. On the other 
 hand, the marriage of a freewoman with an 
 adscriptitius was declared to be absolutely void ; 
 they were to be separated, and the man punished 
 (Code, bk. xi. t. xlvii. 1. 24; 22nd Nov. c. 17; 
 but see 54th Nov. preface). Nor do we find the 
 same mitigations of the law in favour of an ad¬ 
 scriptitia as of a slave (supra'). As respects the 
 next higher class, that of the rustici, we find that 
 whilst marriages between them and free pei’sons 
 seem to have been recognized, the issue of such 
 marriages was divided in point of condition, the 
 first, third, fifth child, &c., following that of the 
 mother (“ quod impar est, habebit venter,” 
 156th Novel). 
 
 The Barbarian Codes deal more frequently with 
 the subject of these marriages, and in some of 
 them we trace distinctly the threefold condition 
 of freeman, serf or villain, and slave, the second 
 becoming more and more superior to the third. 
 The intermarriage of man or woman belonging 
 to either of the fii’st two classes involves, under 
 the Lombard laws (a.d. 638) of Rotharis (c. 218), 
 and Luitprand (a.d. 721) (bk. iv. c. 6), penalties 
 of greater or less severity. In the Lex liomana, 
 supposed to represent the personal law of the 
 Roman population in Italy in Lombard times, we 
 find a provision, that if a freewoman marries her 
 own slave, she shall be put to death and the slave 
 burnt alive (bk. ix. t. vi.). 
 
 Similar provisions are found in the Alamannic 
 law (circ. A.D. 750) (c. 2, and foil.), in the Bava¬ 
 rian (Append, de popul. leg. c. 9) and the Frisian 
 (t. xviii.), while the Visigothic is yet more cruelly 
 severe, condemning all such unions, according to 
 their varying circumstances, to the penalties of 
 loss of freedom, scourging, death by burning 
 (bk. iii. t. ii. c. 2). 
 
 Finally, a law of King Gaba is addressed to 
 what seems to have been a peculiar form of semi¬ 
 slavery in the service of the Church. Its title is, 
 “That those who are enfranchised, retaining ser¬ 
 vice to the Church, should not dare approach the 
 marriage of free persons.” It enacts that a church- 
 slave absolutely freed may marry a freewoman ; 
 but if still bound to the obsequiutn, he is to re¬ 
 ceive three stripes and be separated from his 
 wife; otherwise both are to be in slavery with 
 
 their issue, the ; roperty of the freewoman going 
 to her heirs. And the same rule is enacted as to 
 such women marrying freemen (bk. iv. c. 7). 
 
 Notwithstanding the har.->hness of many of the 
 above enactments, it must be inferred from them 
 that marriages between free and slaves were in¬ 
 creasing in frequency. Indirectly, moreover, 
 those which provide that a fieew'oman choosing 
 to remain with her slave-husband becomes a .slave 
 herself, seem to imply, like the senatus-consult 
 under Claudius before quoted, which was not 
 admitted into the Code, a recognition of marriages 
 between slaves, since the mere living with a slave 
 would not (except under the Visigothic law) 
 affect the condition of the freewoman. There is 
 moreover evidence that, even' in the latter class 
 of cases, custom was often milder than the law. 
 Marculf’s Foy-mularies, which are considered to 
 have been put together about a.d. 660, contain a 
 “ charta de agnatione, si servus ingenuam trahit,” 
 by which a mistress grants the freedom of a frec- 
 woman’s children by her slave (f. 29; and see 
 Appendix, f. 18). The ultimate relaxations of the 
 law itself under the Carlovingians will be best 
 treated of in connexion with the ecclesiastical 
 history of the subject. 
 
 Vast as was the gap betw'een free and slave in 
 the ancient world, that between the free born 
 and the freed was still considerable,—especially 
 as between male slaves enfranchised and their 
 former mistresses, or the female relatives of a 
 former master. According to the jurist Paul, 
 a freedman aspiring to marriage with hxspatrona, 
 or the wdfe or daughter of his patronus, was, 
 according to the dignity of the person, to be 
 punished either by being sent to the mines, or 
 put upon public works (Jul. Paul. P.ecept. Sentent. 
 bk. ii. t. xix. § 6); unless indeed the condition 
 of the patrona was so low' as to make such a 
 marriage suitable for her (Dig. bk. xxiii. t. ii. 
 1. 13). On the other hand, the Lex Papia 
 allow'ed all freeborn males, except senators and 
 their children (i" which case the marriage w'as 
 void), to marry freedw'omen (ib. 1. 23), from 
 w'hich class seem however to have been excej'ted 
 those of brothel-keepers, probably as presumably 
 being prostitutes themselves (Ulpian’s Fragments, 
 t. xiii. § 27). The marriage of a master with 
 his fi'eedw'oman w'as by no means looked upon in 
 the same light as that of a mistress w'ith her 
 freedman ; and the patronus w'as restrained fi om 
 marrying his freedw'oman without her will 
 (ib. 1. 28). 
 
 The social restrictions on marriage w'ere, in 
 this as in other re.spects, relaxed by the later 
 emperors. The marriage to a freedwoman of a 
 man w'ho afterwards became a senator was de¬ 
 clared by Justinian to remain valid, as well as 
 that of a private person’s daughter to a freed¬ 
 man, w'hen her lather was raised to the .^enate 
 (Code, bk. V. t. iv. 1. 28). He removed the dis¬ 
 ability to marriage which seems to have been 
 considered to exist between a man and a girl 
 whom he had brought up (alumna) and en¬ 
 franchised (1. 26). And by the 78th Novel he 
 allow’ed persons “of whatever dignity” to marry 
 freedwomen, provided “ nuptial documents” were 
 drawn up (c. 3). 
 
 There were moreover certain conditions of life 
 which were assimilated by their ignominy to the 
 servile one. A free-born man could not marry a 
 procuress, a w'oman taken in adultery, one con- 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 453 
 
 dcmned by public judgment, or a stage-player; 
 nor, according to Mauricianus, one condemned 
 by the senate (Ulpian’s Fragments, t. xiii.). A 
 senator was subject to the same resti'ictions 
 (^Dig. bk. xxiii. t. ii. 1. 44, § 8; and see 1. 43, 
 §§ 10, 12); the Lex Julia et Papia imposing, 
 moreover, a special prohibition on the marriage 
 of either senators or their issue with stage-jdaycrs 
 or the children of such (1. 44). Under Valenti- 
 nian and Marcian, A.D. 454, the “ low and abject” 
 women who were forbidden to marry senators 
 were declared to be slaves and their daughters, 
 freedwomen and their daughters, players and 
 their daughters, tavern-keepers and their daugh¬ 
 ters, the daughters of lenones and gladiators, and 
 women who had publicly kept shops (^Code, bk. v. 
 t. V. 1. 7). If indeed a senator’s daughter should 
 prostitute herself, go on the stage, or be con¬ 
 demned by public judgment, her dignity being 
 lost, she might many a freedman with impunity 
 (Pig. bk. xxiii. t. ii. 1. 47). 
 
 Thanks, no doubt, to Theodora’s influence, 
 much greater indulgence was shewn under Jus¬ 
 tinian to actresses. Such women, if they had 
 left their calling and led a respectable life, were 
 enabled to intermarry with persons of any rank, 
 and their children were relieved from disabi¬ 
 lities (bk. V. t. iv. 1. 27, § 1). By another 
 constitution (1. 29), women who had been forced 
 to mount the stage, or who wished to abandon 
 it, were rendered capable of marrying persons 
 of the highest rank, without the imperial per¬ 
 mission. 
 
 The jurists of the Digest had however gone 
 beyond all specific restrictions on marriage. 
 Modestinus had laid down that “ in marriages 
 one should not only consider what is lawful, but 
 what is honourable.” And generally there seems 
 to have grown up a feeling against unequal mar¬ 
 riages, such as is indicated in a before-quoted 
 constitution of Valentinian and Marcian (Code, 
 bk. V. t. V. 1. 7; A.i). 454), which provides that 
 “ a woman is not to be deemed vile or abject 
 who, although poor, is of free descentand 
 declares lawful the marriage of such persons, 
 however poor, with senators or persons of the 
 highest rank. And as it seemed to have been 
 inferred, from a constitution of Theodosius a^d 
 Valentinian, A.D. 418, which abolished the neces¬ 
 sity for all formalities between persons of equal 
 condition (Code, bk. v. t. iv. 1. 22), that without 
 dotal instruments such marriages between per¬ 
 sons of unequal condition were not valid, Jus¬ 
 tinian abolished all restrictions on unequal mar¬ 
 riages, provided the wife were free and of free 
 descent, and there was no suspicion of incest or 
 aught nefarious (1. 23, § 7). 
 
 We do not And much in the barbarian codes 
 on this branch of the subject. The Roman law 
 against the intermarriage of freedmen or their 
 issue with the posterity of their patrons re¬ 
 appears in the Wisigothic code (bk. v. t. vii. e. 17), 
 the penalty being reinslavement. Among the 
 Wisigoths there seems to hare been an old 
 law forbidding the intermarriage of Goths and 
 Romans, which was repealed by Rueswinth 
 (Lex Wisig. bk. iii. t. i.), who allowed any free¬ 
 man to marry any freewoman,” with the solemn 
 consent other family, an! the permission of the 
 court.” The same law must have prevailed in 
 Italy under the Lombards, though we miss it 
 from the Lombard code, since the Lex Romaua 
 
 forbids intermarriage between Romans and Bar¬ 
 barians under pain of death (bk. iii. t. xiv.). 
 This restriction is however one rather of a poli¬ 
 tical nature. 
 
 Lastly, certain restrictions on' the marriage 
 contract are of a religious character, an<l will be 
 best referred to when we consider the rules of 
 the Church itself upon the subject, which we 
 shall now proceed to do. 
 
 That marriage generally was a civil contract, 
 subject to the laws of the state, seems to have 
 been the received doctrine of the early Church; 
 whilst at the same time it claime<^i also power 
 to regulate it in the spirit of the Gospel, as is 
 shewn, for instance, in the strictness of our Lord 
 and His apostles against divorce, altheugh freely 
 allowed both by the Jewish and the Roman law. 
 Hence Pagan betrothals and marriages were, as 
 Selden observes, held valid by the Christians 
 (Uxor Ebraica, bk. ii. c. 24). The validity of 
 non-Christian marriages seems to be implied in 
 such passages as 1 Cor. vii. 12-16, referring to 
 the cases of a convert husband and an uncon¬ 
 verted wife, a convert wife and an unconverted 
 husband; in the latter of which cases at least 
 the form of marriage must be supposed to have 
 been one unsanctified by the Church ; whilst both 
 would seem to include the hypothesis of a con- 
 A'ersion of either party after such a marriage. 
 It must moreover be observed that, with one 
 exception, the forms of marriage in use in the 
 Roman world were purely civil ones. The only 
 religious maridage was that by confarreatio, 
 which remarkably enough was indissoluble, 
 except perhaps by disfarrentio, a practice of 
 which the reality is doubted. But it is clear 
 from Tacitus (Ann. bk. iv. c. 16) that by the 
 time of Tiberius, i.e. the beginning of the Chris¬ 
 tian era, the use of the ceremony had become 
 very rare. When therefoi-e the author of tne 
 Epistle to the Hebrews wrote that “ marriage is 
 honourable in all ” (c. xiii, 4), and his Epistle was 
 admitted as authoritative in the Gentile as well 
 as the Jewish churches, the inference is that 
 the honour he speaks of was felt to rest as 
 well on the ordinary civil contract of the Gentile 
 as on any form in use among the Jews. Again, 
 the Apostolical Constitutions (with an exception 
 as to- the clergy to be hereafter noticed) speak 
 simply of “ lawful ” and “ unlawful” marriage. 
 Thus, in a sort of summary of the faith con¬ 
 tained in the 6th book (c. 11), it is said: 
 “ Every union which is against the law we abhor 
 as iniquitous and unholy,” Again : “ Marriage 
 should be lawful; for such a marriage is blame¬ 
 less ” (ib. c. 14); the expression “ lawful con¬ 
 nexion” (vSiuLifios occurring repeatedly in 
 
 later constitutions (bk. vi, cc. 27, 29). The 
 only consideration which may Cf^st a doubt 
 upon the application of the idea of “ law ” in 
 such passages as the above, as referring to the 
 municipal law, arises from the circumstance, 
 to be presently adverted to, that the same 
 expressions are used in reference to unions 
 which were not recognized by the Roman la;v. 
 But the most valuable testimony to the feeling 
 of the early Church on this subject as late 
 as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, is supplied by 
 Tertullian (a.d. 150-226), a writer whose Chris¬ 
 tian zeal ran always in the direction of ultra¬ 
 strictness. In his treatise on Idolatry, distin¬ 
 guishing between those solemnities which a 
 
154 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 Christian man may lawfully attend and those 
 which he may not, he enumerates marriage 
 among such as are free from “ any breath of 
 idolatry,” “ pure by themselves.” “ The con¬ 
 jugal union,” he says, does not flow “ from the 
 worship of any idol.” “ God no more forbids 
 the solemnizing of marriages than the giving of 
 a name ” (c. Iti). 
 
 As a rule, then, the Church has followed the 
 municipal law in reference to the validity of the 
 contract of marriage, and has thus not had occa¬ 
 sion to dwell much in its legislation on the legal 
 iiici lents of the contract. The validity of heathen 
 niarriage is implied in the judgments and deci¬ 
 sions of various popes and councils (some perhaps 
 antedated) as to pre-baptismal marriages, which, 
 in spite of one or two weighty authorities to the 
 contrarv, were held binding, and on the express 
 ground that the issue of such marriages were 
 lawful (Jiberi). See the 2nd letter of Pope In¬ 
 nocent I., A.D. 402-17, to Victricius, c. 6 ; his 
 22nd letter, to the Macedonian bishops, c. 2; the 
 3rd Council of Rome, A.D. 531 ; and the letters 
 of Leo to Auastasius and to the bishops of llly- 
 ricum. The alleged decree of Pope Fabian, A.D. 
 238-52, in Gratian, embodying the Roman law 
 on the effect of madness on marriage, is a purely 
 superfluous forgery. Ecgbert, archbishop of 
 York, indeed, in the Excerptions attributed to 
 him, seems to place the age of puberty some¬ 
 what later than the Roman law, since he says 
 that a girl of 14 has power over her own body, 
 a boy of 15 over his (bk. ii. c. 27). A canon 
 of the Council of Friuli, A.D. 791 (c. 9), con¬ 
 tains the like prohibition as a previous capitu¬ 
 lary before referred to against marriages with 
 children. 
 
 It has already been observed, under the head 
 “ COXSEXT,” that on one point indeed a marked 
 divergence is to be traced between the practice 
 of the Church and the Roman law. Slave-mar¬ 
 riages are recognized, at least in the later por¬ 
 tions of the Apostolical Constitutions. And 
 masters who refused to sanction them were to 
 be excommunicated (viii. 23). A free man, on 
 the other hand, is to dismiss, not to marry, a 
 slave-concubine with whom he may have lived. 
 {Ibid.) 
 
 Consistent with the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 the first canonical epistle of St. Basil (a.d. 326- 
 379), to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, treats 
 slave-marriages as adulterous when contracted 
 without the master’s will, but as “ firm ” when 
 contracted with his consent; assimilating them 
 to the marriages of minors, and using the same 
 word {KvpioL) to express the authority both of 
 the father and of the master. A work of doubt¬ 
 ful character, which claims authorship from the 
 Nicene fathers, the SaiiCtio7ies et decreta alia, 
 which in the collection of councils by Labbe' and 
 Mansi will be found appended to the canons of 
 the Council or Nicaca (vol. ii. p. 1029, and foil.), 
 but which are evidently of much later date, 
 declares that “ marriage with slaves, male or 
 female, is not allowed to Christians, unless after 
 emancipation ; whicii being done, let them con¬ 
 tract by the law of marriage and freely, a dos 
 beius: assigned, according to the constitution of 
 the country which they inhabit (bk. i. c. 4). 
 One of the alleged canons of the Nicene council 
 from the Arabic, on the other hand, implies the 
 practice of intermaiTiage with slaves even 
 
 among.st the clergy, in condemning as bigamous 
 those priests or deacons who having dismissed 
 their wives, or even without di.smi.ssing them, 
 marry others, whether free or slave (can. 66, or 
 71 of the Kulullensian version). But these 
 canons are also evidently of much later date 
 than that ascribed to them, though very likelv 
 rejtresenting the practice of the Arabian church. 
 If we mention here two alleged decrees of Pope 
 Juliu.s 1. a.d. 336-52, the one against separating 
 slaves once married, the other allowing a master 
 to marry his enfranchised slave-girl (Gratian, 
 cc. 4, lU), it is only on account of their profe.ssci 
 date. 
 
 There are indeed not wanting Indications of a 
 narrower spirit among the leaders of the Church. 
 A letter of Pope Leo the Great (167), a.d. 458 
 or 9, addressed to Rusticus, bi.shop of Nai'bonue, 
 seems to imply the nullity of slaves’ marriages, 
 and reproduces, on Old-Testament grounds, the 
 strictest views of the Roman law against unequal 
 marriage. “ Every woman united to a man i.s 
 not a wife, since neither is every son his father’s 
 heir. The bonds of marriage are lawful between 
 the free and between equals; the Lord establish¬ 
 ing this long before the commencement of the 
 Roman law existed. Therefore a wife is one 
 thing, a concubine another; as also a bondmaid 
 is one thing, a freewoman another” (quoting 
 Gen. xxi. 10). [Coxcubixes.] Suspicion is 
 indeed cast upon this text by its use of the 
 word ingenuus, free-born, as simply synony¬ 
 mous with liber, free, a mistake which never 
 occurs in the Code or Novels, though nearly a 
 century later in date, and (though it may be said 
 that a pope was not bound to be strictly accurate 
 in his law-language) it is not impo.ssible that it 
 may be a forgery of the Carlovingian era, in¬ 
 vented to support a caj^itulary to the same 
 eflect, to be pre.sently noticed. 
 
 The 24th canon of the 4th Council of Orleans, 
 A.D. 541, enacts that slaves fleeing to the pre¬ 
 cincts (“ septa ”) of churches in order to marry 
 are not to be allowed, nor are clerics to defend 
 such unions, but they are to be returned to their 
 masters and separated, unless their parents and 
 masters will let them marrv;—a remarkable 
 enactment, as shewing a recognition of jxirental 
 Imthority in a slave. 
 
 Another canon of the same Council, forbidding 
 marriages between Jews and Christian slave girls, 
 seems to imply the intrinsic validity of marriages 
 between free and slave (c. 31). Another is re¬ 
 markable as repeating, with the severer penalty 
 of excommunication, the enactments of the Roman 
 law against the marriage of officials within their 
 provinces (c. 22). 
 
 A case in which a slav'e-inarriage is recognised 
 occurs in a letter of Pope Pelagius (a.d. 555-66) 
 to the sub-deacen Melleus. (Labbe' and Mansi’s 
 Councils, vol. ix. p. 737.) 
 
 On the other hand, Gregory the Great implies 
 the invalidity of a marriage between slave and 
 free in a letter to Fortunatus, bishop of Naples 
 (bk. vi. ep. 1), in fav'our of a woman whom her 
 husband had dismissed as being of servile condi¬ 
 tion ; but who, being now prov'ed free, was 
 without delay to be received back by him. The 
 same pope however in another letter—to Mon¬ 
 tana and Thomas, slaves whom he enfranchised 
 with the privileges of Romau citizenshij*—implies 
 the practice of slave-ma’ viages, since he speak? 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 455 
 
 of the “ betrothal gifts ” (sponsalia) which the 
 priest Gaudiosus had given in writing (con- 
 scripserat) to “thy mother” (bk. v. ep. 12). 
 
 The 1st Council of Macon, A.D. 581, declares 
 indissoluble the intermarriage of two slaves with 
 their master’s consent, alter the enfranchisement 
 of either (c. 10). The 30th canon of the English 
 council held under Archbishop Theodore of Can¬ 
 terbury, towards the end of the 7tli century, 
 bears that “ the free (or free-born) must marry 
 with the free.” Pope Stephen (a.d. 754) in his 
 replies to various consultations at Bienz, follows 
 Leo as to the dismissal of the ancillasand marry¬ 
 ing a free woman. It seems dilHcult to ascribe a 
 specific origin to a prescription found among 
 some “ excerpta de libris Romanorum et Fran- 
 corum,” appended to a collection of fresh canons, 
 probably of the beginning of the 8th century, 
 which bears that “ if any one chooses to have 
 his slave-girl in marriage, and has power over 
 his property, if afterwards he would sell her, he 
 cannot do so; he is himself to be condemned, and 
 the woman handed over to the priest ” (c. 60). 
 Perhaps however we have only here a far-oft' echo 
 of E.vod. XXi. 8, or Deut. xxi. 14. 
 
 The subject indeed both of slave-marriages 
 and of intermarriage between slave and free 
 seems to have been greatly considered under the 
 Carlovingians; and both the civil and ecclesias¬ 
 tical law (which indeed at this period blend 
 almost undistingiiishably together) settle down 
 into the recognition of such marriages and inter- 
 mariiatres as binding under certain conditions. 
 As respects the former. King Pepin’s capitulary 
 of Vermerie, a.d. 753, enacts that if a slave hus¬ 
 band and wife have been separated by sale, “ they 
 are to be exhorted so to remain, if we cannot 
 reunite them ” (c. 19); a text at least strongly 
 tending to the indissolubility of such unions. 
 A more singular one provides that if a slave have 
 his slave-girl for concubine, he may dismiss her 
 and accept “ his compeer, his master’s slave-girl 
 (comparem siaam anciilam domini sui accipere); 
 but it is better that he keep his own slave-girl ” 
 (c. 7). In both texts we see already visibly the hand 
 of the Church endeavouring to restrain the abuses 
 of slavery. It is moreover enacted that if a car- 
 tellurius —apparently a slave freed by charter—op 
 receiving his freedom dismisses his slave partner 
 to take another woman, he must leave the latter 
 (c. 20). Fifty years later, the validity of slave 
 marriages is again implied in some “ Capitula 
 misso cuidam data ” of the year 803, published 
 by Pertz, and to be presently i-eferred to. And 
 ten years later still, a capitulary added in some 
 Codices to the Lombard law (c. 5), as well as the 
 30th canon of the 2nd Council of Chalons (both 
 of A.D. 813), enact the indissolubleness of slaves’ 
 marriages, even when belonging to different 
 masters, provided their marriage be legal, and 
 by the will of their masters. Lastly, to the 
 Carlovingian period should also perhaps be re¬ 
 ferred the two alleged decrees in Gratian of 
 Pope Julius I. (supra). It is almost needle.ss to 
 dwell on the momentous influence of the change 
 of view indicated by the above enactments on 
 the condition of the slave. Evidently, from the 
 moment a slave could lawfully marry, he was 
 no longer a thing, but a person. It might almost 
 be said that from this period slavery properly so 
 c:ille<l exists no longer within the Carlovingian 
 world • serfdom, or a condition of dependence, 
 
 it might be absolute, of one man on another, 
 has replaced it. 
 
 As respects inter-marriages between slave and 
 free. King Pepin’s capitulary of Vermerie, of a.d. 
 753, enacts that where a free-man knowingly 
 marries a slave-girl, he shall always after live 
 with her (c. 13). The king does not even treat 
 such marriages as absolutely void, when con¬ 
 tracted in ignorance, allowing the free person to 
 leave his or her slave-partner and marry another 
 only if such slave cannot be redeeme<l (c. 6). The 
 contemporary Council of Vermerie recognized the 
 validity of marriage between a freewoman and a 
 slave, when contracted knowingly on her part, on 
 the ground that there should be one law to the 
 man and to the woman, and that “ we have all 
 one Father in the heavens.” The capitulary of 
 Compi^gne, 757, enacts that if a freewoman 
 marries a slave, knowing him to be such, he 
 shall have her whilst he lives (c. 8). On the 
 other hand, “if a Frankish man has taken a 
 woman and hopes that she is free,” and after¬ 
 wards finds that she is not, he may dismiss her 
 and take another; and so of a woman (c. 5, 
 otherwise 7), 
 
 The validity of such unions is also implied 
 in an enactment, placing marriage with a free¬ 
 man, a slave, or a cleric, on exactly the same 
 footing (c. 4). Similarly, a Bavarian council at 
 Dilgelfind, 772, enacted that where a slave mar¬ 
 ried a woman of noble birth who was ignorant 
 of his condition, she should leave him and be 
 free (c. 10). The same rule was enacted in the 
 case of a freeborn Bavarian woman marrying a 
 serf of the Church (“ de popularibus legibus,” 
 c. 9). 
 
 Among the specially religious restrictions 
 which were sought to be placed on the marriage 
 contract in the early ages of the Church, the one 
 which would first claim our attention is that oh 
 the marriage of Christians with Gentiles, or even¬ 
 tually also with Jews and heretics. This how¬ 
 ever will not be specially treated of here. The 
 next is that connected with the monkish profes¬ 
 sion, which must be distinguished from the early 
 vow of virginity in the female sex, and from the 
 institution of the Church-virgins. The vow of 
 virginity, which for many centuries now has been 
 considered an essential prerequisite of the mo¬ 
 nastic profession, was not so by any means in the 
 early heroic days of monachism. St. Basil in 
 the 4th century, after dwelling upon the pro¬ 
 fession of virginity by women, says expressly : 
 “ As to professions of men, we know nothing of 
 them, except that if any have joined them.selv€s 
 to the monastic order, they appear, without 
 word spoken, to have thereby adopted celibacy ” 
 (2nd Can. Ep. c. 19). In the 5th century 
 however. Pope Leo the Great treats the marriage 
 of monks as a punishable offence, but not appa¬ 
 rently as void in itself. Writing to Rusticus, 
 bishop of Narbonne, about a.d. 458 or 459, he 
 places on the same footing the entering by monks 
 into the militia (a term probably equivalent at 
 this time to the service of the state, whether 
 militai’y or civil) and their marriage. Those 
 who, leaving the mona.stic profession, turn to the 
 militia or to marriage, are to purge themselves 
 by the satisfaction of public penance ; for al¬ 
 though the militia may he innocent and marriage 
 honourable, to have abandoned the better choice 
 is a transgression (Ep. 167, c. 14). The con« 
 
456 COXTBACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 temporary Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, in like 
 manner excommunicated alike the monk and the 
 virgin devoted to God who enter into marriage, 
 but allows the local bishop to shew indulgence 
 (c. 1 ()). And the ecclesiastical validity of a 
 monk’s marriage at the beginning of the 6th 
 century is implied in the 21st canon of the 
 2ud Council of Orleans, A.D. 511, which enacts 
 that a monk who marries shall be incapable of 
 holding any ecclesiastical office. Later still in 
 the East (.V..D. 535), the 6th Novel only forbids 
 marriage to monks who have received the cle¬ 
 rical ordination, reducing them to the rank of 
 private persons (c. 8) In the West, however, 
 the 2nd Council of Tours, a.d. 567, not only dis¬ 
 tinctly prohibited the marriage of monks under 
 penalty of excommunication, but invoked the aid 
 of “ the judge ” to separate them from their 
 wives, under penalty of excommunication for 
 himself if he refused it (c. 15); an evident 
 attempt to enforce by spiritual terrors what the 
 state still refused to erect into law. 
 
 This is indeed the period when monks, at first 
 mere laymen, were beginning to be viewed, in 
 the West at least, as partaking of the clerical 
 chai'ucter. The Council of Arles in 554 had de¬ 
 creed that monasteries both of men and women 
 should be subjected to episcopal jurisdiction. So 
 far as this view prevailed (for we must not forget 
 that the monks themselves long struggled against 
 it), the prohibition of the marriage of monks will 
 have been considered as implied in that of the 
 marriage of clerics generally, though such mar¬ 
 riages are sometimes specifically referred to. 
 Towards the end of the century, the 6th General 
 Couucdl, the 3rd of Constantinople, in 'I'niUo, 
 a.d. 692, enacted that a monk who should marry 
 was to be punished as a fornicator (c. 44). In 
 the West, in the first part of the 8th century, 
 Gregory the 2nd, a.d. 714-750, in his letter to 
 liishop Boniface, going further than any of his 
 predecessoi's, would not allow those who as chil- 
 di’cn have been shut up by their parents in 
 monasteries after puberty to leave such monas¬ 
 teries and marry (^Ep. 13, c. 7). The marriage 
 of monks was again condemned by Pope Zacharias, 
 A.D. 741-51, in his 7th letter, addressed to Pepin 
 as mayor of the palace (c. 26). About the same 
 period the canons “ de remediis peccatorum ” of 
 Egbert, archbishop of York, place the monk on 
 the same footing as to marriage with the priest 
 or deacon ; requiring one of such who takes a 
 wife to be ‘‘ depo.sed ” in conscientid populi^' i. e. 
 apparently, with the full knowledge of the people 
 (c. 7). It may be added that the Council of Con¬ 
 stantinople in 814 in like manner excommuni¬ 
 cated a monk who should mai-ry, and required 
 him against his will to be clothed in the monastic 
 robe and shut up in the monastery (c. 35). All 
 such prohibitions indeed bear witness to the 
 existence of the practices which they denounce; 
 and indeed a letter of Pope Hadrian II. (a.d. 
 772-95) to Charlemagne contains a complaint 
 against the marriage of monks—apparently in 
 Lombardy—and asks the emperor to punish 
 them. 
 
 It is somewhat ditficult for a long time to 
 di.stinguish in reference to this subject, so far as 
 women are concerned, the woman under vow' of 
 virginity or celibacy (as to whom see. De VOX A), 
 and the nun (see hea'ding Nun). In France, a 
 general constitution of KingClothar I, a.d. 560, 
 
 forbids (c. 8) all persons to marry “ sanctirao 
 niales.” Another of King Clothar II., a.d. 614, 
 forbids any even “ by our precept ” to marj-y 
 religious girls and widows, or nuns who have 
 v'owed themselves to God, as well tho.se wiio 
 dwell in their own hou.ses Jis those who arc 
 placed in monasteries. That such marriages 
 however occurred in Italy still, is apparent 
 from a letter of Pope Gregory I. the Great 
 (a.d. 590-603) to Bishop Januarius (bk. iii. ep. 
 24). Distinguishing between “ veiled virgins ” 
 and nuns, he says that as respects women who 
 have gone from monasteries to lay life and mar¬ 
 ried, “ Those who hav'e exceeded against such 
 women ” (i. e. their husbands), “ and are now 
 suspended from communion, if penitent, may be 
 readmitted.” It is difficult in many instances to 
 define how far the meaning of the terms “ sacrae ” 
 or “ sacratae virgines ” is to be extended or 
 restricted. By the 8th century, indeed, the 
 church-virgin and the private decota seem for 
 all practical purposes to have merged in the nun. 
 Indeed the Excerpta of Egbert, archbishop of 
 York, treat a private vow of celibacy by man or 
 woman as “ foolish and impossible,” and its breach 
 by maiTiage as only to be punished oy three 
 wintei's’ fasting (bk. ii. c. 19). The 1st Council 
 of Rome in 721, “ against illicit marriages,” 
 expressly anathematizes one who marries “ mo- 
 nacham quam Dei ancillam appellamus ” (c. 3). 
 The before-(^uoted Excerpta of Egbert con¬ 
 tain tlie like anathema, using the expre.ssiou 
 “ monialem, quae Dei spousa vocatur ” (bk. ii. 
 c. 18); the parties are to be separated, and 
 condemned to perpetual penance. Among the 
 “ answers ” of Pope Stephen II. from Bierzy to 
 “ various consultations” (a.d. 754) is one, that 
 it is “ not lawful for a virgin who has conse¬ 
 crated herself to God, likewise for a monk, to 
 marry : ” either is to be excommunicated ; but the 
 bishop “ may shew humanity and mercy ’’ (c. 7). 
 The Synod of Metz, in 753, includes marriages 
 with a woman consecrated to God among incests 
 (c. 1); as does also the Council of CalcLuyth 
 (i.e. Chelsea), a.d. 787, using the term “sancti- 
 monialis” (c. 15). See also similar prohibitions 
 against the marriage of nuns by the Bavarian 
 Council of Dingelfind, A.D. 772 (c. 4); and by 
 the Council of Friuli, a.d. 791 (c. 11), which 
 requires girls and widows who have vowed vir¬ 
 ginity or continence, and have been “ emanci¬ 
 pated to God,” if afterwards they marry, to be 
 subjected “ by secular judgment to fit bodily 
 chastisement ” before undergoing their spiritual 
 punishment. 
 
 The prohibition against the marriage of monks 
 and religious women by degrees found its waj'' 
 into the civil law of several of the barbarian 
 kingdoms besides Franco. Among the laws of 
 King Luitprand of Lombardy, a.d. 721, or later, 
 we find one of this kind as to women, in which 
 their position when they have a.ssumed the reli¬ 
 gious habit is assimilated to that of girls be¬ 
 trothed under the civil law, whose marriage 
 entails a penalty of 500 solidi (bk. v. c. 1). In 
 the Wisigothic code, a law of Recarode inflicts 
 “ on incestuous marriages and adulteries, or on 
 sacred virgins and widows and penitents defiled 
 with lay vesture or marriage ” the penalties of 
 exile, separation, and forfeiture of property (bk. 
 iii. t. V. c. 2). 
 
 By the time of the Carlovingians, the civil and 
 
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 ecclesiastical law almost wholly coalesce. King 
 Pepin’s capitulary of Soissons in 744 forbids mar¬ 
 riage with holy women together with incestuous 
 marriages and bigamy (c. 9). In tlie 6th book 
 of the Capitularies we find one (c. 411) almost in 
 the same terms with the law of Recarede above 
 quoted, declaring that marriage with a virgin de¬ 
 voted to God, a person under the religious habit, 
 or professing the continence of widowhood, is not 
 a true marriage, and requiring the parties to 
 be separated by either the priest or the judge, 
 without even any accusation being lodged with 
 him, the penalty being still perpetual exile. 
 (Comp, also Capit. 414, 424, bk. vii. c. 338.) 
 In the East, on the contrary, about the end of 
 the 8th century, it is noted as one of the features 
 of Constantine Copronymus’ tyranny, that he 
 compelled monks to marry. 
 
 We shall now deal, though we do not propose 
 to do so at full length in this place, with the 
 contract of marriage as i-espects the clergy pro¬ 
 perly so called. It need hardly be observed that, 
 so far as such contract might be recognized as 
 valid, all the restraints upon it in the case of 
 laymen would apply also to clerics. Sometimes 
 indeed these had to be specifically enacted. Thus 
 the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, provided that 
 no cleric should take a heretic, Jew, or pagan, to 
 wife, unless he should jiromise to convert her, 
 under pain of canonical punishment (c. 14). But 
 the Church had also restraints of its own in the 
 latter instance. We have said that, as respects 
 the clergy, the practice of the Church in respect 
 to marriage was mainly founded on the Jewish 
 law. The marriage of priests was by the Penta- 
 teiicli surrounded with peculiar restrictions. The 
 priest was not to marry a harlot or “ profane ” 
 woman, or one divorced, or a widow, but a virgin 
 only (Lev. xxi. 7,13,14). [According to Selden, 
 indeed, the proliibition to take a widow or person 
 who had lost her virginity only applied to the 
 high-priest; but he was also held debarred from 
 marriage with proselytes or freed women ; Uxoi' 
 Hehraica, bk. i. c. 7.] The Pastoral Epistles, in 
 requiring bishops or deacons to be “ husbands of 
 one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; Tit. i. 6), instead 
 of being considered as substituting a new rule 
 for existing Jewish prescriptions, seem only to 
 have been viewed as adding to these a further 
 one against Digamy. What will have to be said 
 on this latter head need not here be anticipated. 
 As a rule, however, we may say that wherever it 
 is laid down that the bishop or deacon shall be 
 the husband of one wife, it is also provided that 
 such wife shall answer to the Levitical prescrip¬ 
 tions. £. g. The Apostolical ConstitutionSy bk. ii. 
 c. 2, require the bishop not only to be the hus¬ 
 band of one woman once married, but to have, 
 or to have had, a “ respectable ((Tf/j.vijp') and 
 faithful wifein the 6th bk. c. 17 (a later 
 constitution), both requires all the clergy to be 
 monogamists, and forbids them all to marry 
 either a harlot (the term seems rather too strong 
 as a translation of the Greek eraipa, albeit ren¬ 
 dered nu’retrix in the Latin versions), a slave, a 
 widow, or a divorced woman, “ as the law also 
 saithalthough the Pentateuch does not forbid 
 the priest’s marriage with a slave, and the re¬ 
 striction is one evidently borrowed from the 
 Roman law. Lastly, the Apostolical Canons ex¬ 
 clude from admi.ssion to the clergy those who 
 have married “ a widow, or divorced person, or 
 
 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 457 
 
 harlot, or slave, or one of those on the stage ” 
 (c. 14, otherwise reckoned 17 or 18); this last 
 restriction being also adojited from the Roman 
 law, as has been shewn already. 
 
 In respect of the marriage of the clergy indeed, 
 the restraint which occupies most space in the 
 church legislation of the period which occupies 
 us is th^t on digamous or quasi-digamous mar¬ 
 riages, which will be considered under the head of 
 Digamy. Meanwhile however there was grow¬ 
 ing up a feeling against all marriage of the clergy 
 whilst in orders, tending to their absolute celi¬ 
 bacy, the history of which has been treated or 
 under that head. [See Cklibacy.] The notices 
 which occur of other restraints upon clerical mar¬ 
 riages are comparatively few and unimportant. 
 
 The “ Sanctions and Decrees ” attributed to 
 the Nicene fathers — which, though extant in 
 Latin, seem evidently to embody Greek practice, 
 though no doubt of a much later date than the 
 one ascribed to them — require, with something 
 of a plethora of words, the priest not to be 
 one who has married a slave-girl, an adulteress 
 or immodest woman (c. 14). The Council of 
 Tarragona, A.D. 516, requires readei's and ostiarii 
 who wish to marry or live with adulterous women 
 either to withdraw or to be held excluded from 
 the clergy (c. 9). A letter of Gregory the Great 
 (A.D. 590—603) to John, bishop of Palermo, implies 
 the invalidity of a deacon’s marriage with a woman 
 who did not come to him a virgin (bk. xi. ep. 62). 
 An alleged canon of the same Pope forbids the or¬ 
 dination, amongst others, of one who had married 
 a harlot (c. 4). Yet the 4th Council of Toledo, 
 A.D. 633, seems to imply that such marriages 
 might be legalized by episcopal permission, since 
 it excommunicates those clerks who, “ without 
 consulting their bishop, have married a widow, 
 a divorced woman, or a harlot ” (c. 44). And 
 an “ allocution of the priests to the peo})le on 
 unlawful marriages,” appended to the records of 
 the Council of Leptines in 743, provides that a 
 future priest is not to marry a divorced woman, 
 harlot, or widow. 
 
 To pass now from the ecclesiastical to the 
 civil law, it must be observed that by the time 
 of Justinian the Roman law professes only to 
 follow the “ sacred canons ” as respects the mar¬ 
 riage of the clergy, and gives force of law to the 
 prohibitions contained in them. The children of 
 clerics by women “ to whom they cannot be 
 united according to sacerdotal censures ” are de¬ 
 clared incapable of inheriting or receiving dona¬ 
 tions from their fathers {Code, bk. i. 7, iii. 1. 45; 
 A.D. 530). The 6th novel requires the bishop to 
 be either a chaste unmarried man, or the hus¬ 
 band of a woman who came to him a virgin, 
 “ not a widow, nor divorced, nor a concubine " 
 (the last term apparently corresponding to the 
 eraipo of the Apost. Constitutions, and indi¬ 
 cating a milder interpretation than that of the 
 Latin translators); but requires the bishop not to 
 live with his wife, and without inquiring into the 
 position of tho.se who have been already long 
 married, forbids in future the episcopal ordi¬ 
 nation of married men. Taken in conjunction 
 with this enactment, the rJ.Jrd novel may bo 
 considered as finally establishing as a rule of 
 civil law that priucij)le of episcopal celibacy, 
 which still obtains in the Greek church. The 
 same rules are substantially applied to the rest 
 of the clergy (c. v.). The 123rd Novel forbidi 
 
458 CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE 
 
 COPE 
 
 the oi'daining of a bishop vvlio either does not 
 live chastely, or has not had a “ wife, his only 
 and first, neither a widow', nor divorced from her 
 husband, nor otherwise forbidden by the laws or 
 the sacred canons (c. i.)- Other clerics may be 
 ordained having a legitimate wife of the same 
 description (c. xiii.). And the reader contracting 
 a second marriage, or marrying any other than 
 such a wife as above described, wais not to rise to 
 any higher office (c. xiv.). It hardly appears, 
 however, that up to this })eriod tlie contract of 
 marriage itself was made void if entered into 
 against the prohibitions of the law' ; unless the 
 declaring their children bastards (sjnirii) may be 
 taken to imply this {Code, bk. i. 7 ; iii. 1. 45). 
 Among the barbarian codes, the only one which 
 appears to pi-ohibit clerical marriage is that of 
 the Wisigoths, drawn up under clerical influence, 
 A law of Recarede forbids the marriage or adul¬ 
 tery of ,a priest, deacon, or sub-deacon, with a 
 “ widow vow'ed to God, a penitent, or any secular 
 virgin or w'oman,” under pain of separation and 
 punishment according to the canon, the woman 
 to receive 100 lashes (bk. ii. 7; iv. c. 18). Nor 
 is it amiss to remark that in spite of various 
 attempts by councils to enforce the absolute 
 celibacy of the clergy, the validity of clerical 
 marriage is recognized by the civil law under 
 Charlemagne himself. In a capitulary, “ De 
 regulis clericorum ” (bk. vii. c. 652), it is 
 enacted that clerics “ should also endeavour to 
 preserve perpetually the chastity of an unpolluted 
 body, or certainly to be united in the bond of a 
 single marriage.” 
 
 II. We have now to say a few words on the 
 subject of the contract of marriage in the sense 
 in which the expression is still used in France 
 (“ contrat de mariage ” = marriage settlement), 
 of the written evidence of the contract itself as 
 between the parties. 
 
 The marriage conti-act among the Romans was 
 habitually certified in w'riting on waxen tablets, 
 termed nuptiales tabulae,, which, however, might 
 also be used after marriage ; e. g., on the birth 
 of a child. The tabulae w'ere signed both by the 
 parties and by witnesses (Tac. Ann. bk. xi. c. 27 ; 
 Juv. Sat. ii. V. 119; ix. vv. 75, 76), and the 
 breaking of them was held to be at least a 
 symbol of the dissolution of marriage, if it had 
 not the actual effect of dissolving it; see Tacitus 
 as to the bigamous marriage between Messalina 
 and Silius {Ann. bk. xi. c. 30; and Juv. u. s.'). 
 Under the Code however, by a constitution of 
 the Emperor Probus, the drawing up of such 
 tabulae was enacted not to be necessai-y to estab¬ 
 lish the validity of the marriage, or the father’s 
 potestas over his oftspring (bk. v. t. iv. 1. 9). 
 They were perhaps not necessarily, though 
 usually, identical with the “ dotal tablets ” 
 {tabulae dotales), “ dotal instruments ” {instru^ 
 menta dotalia), or “ dotal documents ” {docu- 
 menta dotalki), specifically so-called (the expres¬ 
 sions nuptialia instrumenta, dotalia instmmenta, 
 seem to be used quite synonymously in the 70th 
 Novel), but must have been comprised with them 
 at least under the general terms instrumenta or 
 documenta; as to which it is provided, by a 
 constitution of Diocletian and Maximin {Code, 
 bk. V. 7; iv. 7, iv. 1. 13), that where there is no 
 marriage, “ instruments ” made to prove mar¬ 
 riage are invalid, but that where there are none, 
 a marriage law'fully contracted is not void; nor 
 
 could the want of signature to such bv the 
 father invalidate his consent {ib. 1. 2; law of 
 Severus and Antonine). Nu])tial instiuments 
 were by Justinian made necessary in the case of 
 the marriage of scenicae or stage-players (1. 29). 
 Under the 74th novel, indeed, all persons exer¬ 
 cising honourable offices, businesses and pro¬ 
 fessions, short of the highest functions in the 
 state, were required, if they wished to marry 
 without nuptial instruments, to appear in some 
 “ house of prayer and declare their intentions 
 before the defensor Ecclesiae’* who in the pre¬ 
 sence of three or four of the clerks of the church 
 was to draw up an attestation of the marriage,- 
 with names and dates, and this was then to be 
 subscribed by the parties, the defensor Ecclcsiae 
 and the three others, or as many more as the 
 parties wished, and if not required by them, to 
 be laid up, so signed, by the defensor in the 
 archives of the church, i. e. where the holy 
 vases were kept; and without this the parties 
 were not held to have come together nuptiali 
 affectu. But this was only necessary where 
 there was no document fixing a dos or ante¬ 
 nuptial donation ; nor was it required as to agri¬ 
 culturists, persons of mean condition, or common 
 soldiers. It will be obvious that we have in the 
 above the original of our marriage certificates. 
 (See further Dowry, Marriage.) [J. M. L.] 
 
 CONVERSI. One of the many designations 
 of monks. Just as, through a popular feeling of 
 reverence for asceticism, the word “ religio ” 
 came in the 3rd and 4th centuries to mean not 
 Christianity but the life monastic, so “ conversi,’ 
 though applied also to those who embraced 
 Christianity, or who took upon themselves any 
 especial obligations, as of celibacy or of ordination 
 (Du Cange, s. v.), was ordinarily restricted to 
 monks (Bened. Reg. c. 1; Fructuosi Reg. c. 13, 
 Greg. M. Dial. ii. 18; Salv. Eccl. Cathol. iv.; 
 Isidore De Conversis. cf. Bened. Anian. Cone. Reg, 
 iii.). But the “ conversi ” were properly those 
 who became monks as adults, not those who were 
 trained in a monastery from their tender years 
 {Cone. Aurel. i. c. 2). About the 11th century, 
 according to Mabillon, “conversi” came to mean 
 the lay brothers, the “ oblati ” or “donati,” the 
 “ fr^res convers,” who from piety or for gain, 
 or, probably, most often from mixed motives, 
 attached themselves to monasteries, as “ associ¬ 
 ates” (to use a modern phrase) and attended to 
 the business of the monastery outside its wall. 
 (Mab. Ann. iii. 8; Martene ad S. Bened. Reg. c. 
 3; Mab. Act. SS. 0. S. B. Saec. III. i. 21). The 
 “ Conversi Barbati ” are classed with monks 
 rather than with the laity (Petr. Ven. Staiut. 
 24). [I. G. S.] 
 
 COPE. {Cappa or Capa ; Fr. Chape.') From 
 being used as an out-door dress for defence 
 against rain, the cope was also called Pluviale, 
 whence It. Piviale; and from the cowl or hood 
 with which it was furnished it was known as 
 Cuculla. Such, probably, was the “cuculla vil- 
 losa ” spoken of by St. Benedict in his Regula 
 (Migne, Patrol. Ixvi. 777). “Vestimenta fratri- 
 bus secundum locorum qualitatem . . . dentur. 
 Mediocribus locis sulficere credimus monachis 
 per singulos cucullam et tunicam; cucullam in 
 hieme villosam, in aestate puram aut vetustam, 
 et scanulare propter opera . . . Sufficit monacho 
 duas tunicas et duas cucullas habei'e, propter 
 
COPIATAE 
 
 noctes et propter lavare ipsas res.” So Smaragdus 
 (t820) says expressly in his Commentary on the 
 liegula of St. Benedict, apud Migne, Patrol. 
 cii. “Cucullam dicit ille quod nos modo di- 
 cimus cappam.” And to the same effect Theo- 
 demarus, writing from Italy to Charlemagne, 
 and speaking of the dress worn by the monks of 
 Monte Cassino (Ducange, in voc. Capa): “ Illud 
 indumentum, quod a Gallis mouachis cuculla 
 dicitur, nos capam vocamus.” Like other gar¬ 
 ments originally designed for practical use rather 
 than for ornament, the copes worn on occasions 
 of state or by the higher clergy received greater 
 enrichments from time to time, whether in re¬ 
 gard of the materials or of accessory ornaments, 
 particularly the “ morse,” or clasp by which they 
 were fastened in front. From what we know to 
 have been the shape of the cope in all later times 
 vre may infer that in the earlier period, up to 
 800 A.D., with which we are here primarily 
 concerned, the cappa was shaped like a modern 
 cloak, open in front, and attached only at the 
 neck. For full details concerning the later copes 
 of ecclesiastical use, see Bock, Lit. Gew. ii. 287 ; 
 Keck, Church of our Fathers, ii. 23; Marriott, 
 Vestiarium Christian an, p. 224; Pugin, Glossary, 
 ID voc. [W. B. M.] 
 
 COPIATAE. The name given by Constantine 
 in the Theodosian Code, to certain Church officers 
 whose business it was to take care of funerals 
 and provide for the decent interment of the 
 dead. The etymology of the name is doubtful 
 —Gothofred derives it from Kond(€ir to rest— 
 others from KOTrerhs, mourning: more gene¬ 
 rally, it is referred to kowos, labour : whence 
 they have sometimes been called laborantes. 
 Another name for them is fossarii, or grave¬ 
 diggers—and in Justinian’s novels, they are 
 mentioned as lecticarii —as carrying the corpse 
 or bier at funerals. They are reckoned in the 
 Theodosian Code among the inferior clerical 
 orders, e.g. lib. 13. tit. 1. de Lustrali Coll at. 
 Leg. I, “ Clericos excipi tantum, qui Copiatae 
 appellantur,” &c. 
 
 The foundation of this Order is attributed to 
 Constantine, before whose time the care of in¬ 
 terring the dead was only a charitable office, for 
 which every Christian made himself responsible 
 as occasion required. The order of Copiatae, as 
 first constituted by the emperor for this service 
 in the city of Constantinople amounted to 1100 
 men. and from this example they probably took 
 their rise in other populous cities. In Constan¬ 
 tinople, however, they formed a collegium, with 
 certain privileges and exemptions, which may 
 not have been extended to the order in the less 
 important Churches. 
 
 The office of the Copiatae was to take the 
 whole care of funerals upon themselves, and to 
 see that all persons had a decent and honourable 
 interment. Especially they were obliged to per¬ 
 form this last office to the poorer sort, without 
 charge to their relations. At Constantinople 
 certain lands were set apart for their mainte¬ 
 nance ; but in other Churches it is more probable 
 that they were supported partly out of the com¬ 
 mon funds of the Church, and partly by their 
 own labour and traffic, which for their encou¬ 
 ragement were generally exempted from paying 
 custom or tribute (Bingham, B. iii. c. 8 ; Kiddle ; 
 Martigny). [D. B.] 
 
 CORONA 
 
 459 
 
 COQUUS, in the monastery. [Hebdoma- 
 
 DARIUS.] 
 
 CORBONA ECCLESIAE. [Alms.] 
 
 CORDOVA, COUNCIL OF, a.d. 348, under 
 Hosius, to accept the determinations of the Coun¬ 
 cil of Sardica (Labb. Cone. ii. 98). [A. \V. IL] 
 
 ! CORN, ALLOWANCE OF. This particu¬ 
 lar provision for the maintenance of the clergy 
 deserves a special notice, from its connection 
 with the early stages of the recognition of Chris¬ 
 tianity by the empire. Constantine, in his zeal 
 for his new creed, ordered the magistrates of each 
 j)rovince to supply an annual allowance of corn 
 (eTTjo-ta (TiT7]p(<Tiaj, not only to the clergy, but 
 to the widows and virgins of the Church (Theo- 
 doret, i. 11). When Julian succeeded, he trans¬ 
 ferred the grant to the ministers of the heathen 
 cultus which he revived (Sozom. v. 5 ; Philostorg. 
 
 I vii. 4). Jovian restored it, but on the lower 
 j scale of one-third of the amount fixed under 
 Constantine. The payment continued, and was 
 declared permanent by Justinian (Coe?, i. tit. ii. 
 de SS. Eccles.). [E. H. ?.] 
 
 CORN, EARS OF. Corn is not so often 
 used in early Christian art as might be sup- 
 po.sed. [Loaves.] The thoughts of early ico- 
 nographers seem to have gone always to the 
 Bread of Life with sacramental allusion, as 
 Bottari, tav. clxiii. vol. iii. et alibi. In Bottari, 
 vol. i. tav. xlviii., the corn and reaper are re¬ 
 presented in a compartment of a vault in the 
 cemetery of Pontianus. Again, in vol. ii. tav. Iv., 
 the harvest corn is oppccid to the vine and 
 cornucopia of fruit (Callixtine catacomb). 
 
 The more evidently religious use of the ears 
 of corn is in various representations of the Fall 
 of Man. On the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus 
 (supp. A.D. 358), Bottari, \ml. i. tav. xv. 9, Adam 
 and Eve are carved ; the former bearing the 
 corn, in token of his labour on the earth, and the 
 latter a lamb, indicating woman’s work, .spinning. 
 The connection of this with Jack Cade’s proverbial 
 line, “ When Adam delved and Eve span,” seems 
 probable. See again vol. ii. tav. Ixxxix. Mar- 
 tigny gives a copy (s. v. Dieu,”) of a bas-relief 
 in Bottari, vol. iii. tav. xxxvii., from the cemetery 
 of St. Agnes, where two human forms, apparently 
 both male, are standing before a sitting figure, 
 whom Martigny .supposes to represent the First 
 Person of the Trinity. It may represent the 
 offering of Cain and Abel; at all events the 
 corn-ears and lamb are either being received or 
 pre.sented by the standing figures. See also 
 Bottari, taw. Ixxxiv. Ixxxvii. Ixxxix. As these 
 figures are of no more than mature (sometimes 
 of youthful) appearance, the Second Person may 
 be supposed to be intended by them. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CORNELIUS. (1) The centurion, bishop of 
 Caesarea, is commemorated Feb. 2 {Mart. Horn. 
 Vet., Bsuardi) ; Dec. 10 {Cal. Armen.). 
 
 (2) Pope, martyr at Rome under Decius, Sept. 
 14 {Mart. Bedae, Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CORNU. [Altar.] 
 
 CORONA, martyr in Syria, with Victor, 
 under Antoninus, May 14 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae, 
 Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CORONA. [Tonsure.] 
 
COr.ONA LUCIS 
 
 COKONA LUCIS 
 
 400 
 
 COIIOXA LUCIS. A lamp or chandelier. 
 In the early agc.s of Chi istiaiiity it was by no 
 means unusual for sovereigns and other royal 
 personages, following an instinct of natural piety 
 of which we have exam}»les in prae Christian 
 times (cf. Pliny, Hist. Hot. xvi. c. 4) to dedicate 
 their crowns to the use of the Church. The 
 gifts thus devoted were known as Donaria, and 
 were suspended by chains attached to their 
 upper rim, above an altar or shrine, or in some 
 consjncuous part of the church. Other chains 
 were attached to the lower rim, supporting a 
 li'.mp, from which usually depended a jewelled 
 cross. The crowned cross thus suspended above 
 the altar was felt to be an appropriate symbol of 
 the triumphs of Christianity, and its use became 
 almost universal. We have several allusions to 
 it in the writings of St. Paulinus of Nola in the 
 fifth century, e.g. 
 
 "Crucem corona lucido cingit globo.” 
 
 Ep. 32 ad Severum. 
 
 “ Pavva corona subest variis circumdata gemmis, 
 
 Haec quoqne crux Domini tanquam diademate cincta 
 Emicat.” Nat. xi. v. 679 sq. 
 
 “ In cruce consertam socia compage corouam.” 
 
 Ib. V. 692. 
 
 Be la (Je Locis Sanctis, cap. 2) in his description of 
 Calvary, specifies a large silver cross hanging 
 above the Holy Grave, with a bra.ss circlet and 
 lamps “ aenea rota cum lampadibus” attached to 
 it. In this manner the crowns of Theodelinda, 
 queen of the Lombards, and of her second hus¬ 
 band Agilulf, at the beginning of the 7th 
 century, were dedicated to St. John the Baptist 
 in the cathedral of Monza, as stated in the in¬ 
 scription borne by the latter before its destruc¬ 
 tion, and there is little reasonable doubt that the 
 celebrated iron crown of Lombardy, preserved in 
 the same cathedral, was at one time emplo)'^ed 
 for the same purpose (Frisi, Jfenwr. della Chiesa 
 Monzese, Dissert, ii. p. G7 ; Pacciaudi, de Cult. 
 Joann. Bapt. Dissert, vi. cap. 10, p. 266). At a 
 much earlier period, according to Constantine 
 Porjdiyrogenitus and Nicetas, Constantine the 
 Great had dedicated his crown to the service of 
 the Church. In the time of these writers, a 
 crown of remarkable beauty “prae caeteris et 
 operis elegantia, et lapillorum pretio conspicua ” 
 (Ducange, Constantinop. Christ, iii. § 43), hang¬ 
 ing with others above the Holy Table, was pointed 
 out as having been otl'ercd to God by the first 
 Christian emperor.® With one of these votive 
 crowns, the lamp and chains being removed, in 
 the time of Const. Porjihyr., the new emperor of 
 the Last received his inauguration (Ducange, 
 Const nt. Christ, u. s.). According to the not 
 very trustworthy catalogue preserved in Anasta- 
 sius (S. Silvest. xxxiv. § 36) the Lateran basilica 
 and that of St. Peter’s were also enriched by 
 Constantine with large chandeliers of pure gold. 
 Clovis also, at the suggestion of St. Remigius 
 early in the 6th century, sent to St. Peter’s 
 
 coronam auream cum gemmis, quae Regnum 
 ap])ellari solet ” (Hincmar, 17L S. Remig.; 
 Anastas. S. Hormisd. liv. § 85). The very re¬ 
 markable series of crowns discovered near Toledo 
 (see below, Ckowns) were, as the inscriptions | 
 borne by some of them testify, a solemn offering i 
 
 * Tradition ventured to assert that he had received it 
 by the hands of an angel as a present from Heaven. 
 
 to some Spanish church, at the hands of the king 
 and queen and royal family. No lamps were 
 attached to them when they were discovered, 
 but these appendages, as encumbrances of small 
 value, may have been removed when the regalia 
 were buried to conceal them from the Saracen 
 spoiler. 
 
 This custom for sovereigns to dedicate their 
 actual crowns to the Church’s use led to the con¬ 
 struction of imitative 
 crowns, formed for vo¬ 
 tive purposes alone. Of 
 this usage we find re¬ 
 peated notices in the 
 Liber Pontificalis, which 
 bears the name of Ana- 
 stasius Bibliothecarius; 
 as well as in ancient 
 chronicles and docu¬ 
 ments. They are usually 
 described as havinof been 
 suspended over the altar, 
 and very frequently 
 
 mention is made of pengUe Cro^n from the “ Pal- 
 jewelled crosses append- Uotto," St. Ambrogio, auiaa. 
 
 ed to them. Small votive 
 
 crowns of this nature are seen suspended over 
 the altar in several ancient representations. 
 One compartment of the celebrated palliotto of 
 the church of Sant’ Ambrogio of Milan, which 
 depicts the trance of St. Ambrose in which he 
 celebrated mass at Toui's, represents one such 
 jewelled crown hanging over the altar at which 
 
 Pensile Crowns from Bas-relief, Cathedral of Monza. 
 
 ; the saint is officiating (Ferrario, Meniorie di 
 I Sant* Anibrog.'). A ba.s-relief, now in the S. tran- 
 I sept of Monza cathedral, representing a corona¬ 
 tion, exhibits several crowns suspended over the 
 altar. Another bas-relief in the tympanum of 
 the west portal of the same cathedral, on which 
 
CORONA LUCIS 
 
 are o.arved the various gifts of Theodelinda to 
 the church, shews us four crowns, three sus¬ 
 pended, and the fourth being the celebrated iron 
 crown. Macer in his Hiei'olexicon reters to a 
 similar representation in the church of San Cle¬ 
 mente at Rome, to the left of the entrance. 
 
 Among the mosaic decorations of Sant’ Apolli- 
 nare Nuovo at Ravenna, we find above the 
 upper tier of windows a succession of pictures 
 of the conchs of apses, in each of which a crown 
 appears hanging by chains over the altar. These 
 suspended crowns are exactly similar to those 
 held by the female saints as votive otterings in 
 the mosaic frieze below. 
 
 lUo^iaic, St. A2x>Uiiiai'e Nuuvo, liaveima. 
 
 The convenience of the form of these donative 
 crowns for the suspension of lamps doubtless gave 
 rise to the custom of constructing large chande¬ 
 liers after the same model. In these pensile 
 luminaries the shape and character of the royal 
 circle was preserved, but frequently in much 
 larger proportions. Notices of the presentation 
 of light-bearing circles of this nature occur re- 
 peatedly in Anastasius and other ancient autho¬ 
 rities. Besides the more ordinary name of 
 corona, the primary royal origin of these lumi¬ 
 naries was indicated by the designation regnuin, 
 which is of constant occurrence (cf. Anastas. 
 Leo in. xcviii. § 393, “ fecit regnum aureum cum 
 gemmis pretiosissimis; ” Leo IV. cv. § 540, “ fecit 
 . . . regnum ex auro purissimo unum pendens 
 super altare maju.s, cum catenulis similiter 
 aureis, sculptilem habens in medio crucem au- 
 ream habentem gemmas quatuordecim, ex quibus 
 quinque in eadem cruce fixos, et alias qua ibidem 
 pendent novem ”). 
 
 Many of these coronae mentioned by Anastasius 
 are described as having been adorned with 
 dolphins (Anastas. S. Silvester xxxiv. § 36, “ co¬ 
 ronas quatuor cum delphinis; ” ib. § 38, “ co- 
 ronam auream cum delphinis quinquaginta,” § 
 43; St. Zachar. xciii. § 219; St. Adrian, xcvii. 
 § 348; St. Leo, iv. cv. § 531). Others were 
 decorated with diminutive towers, and (as we 
 see in the relief in the transept of Monza) with 
 fleurs-de-lis (Greg. M. Ep. lib. i. ep. 66, “ Co¬ 
 ronas cum delphinis duo, et de aliis coronis 
 lilios;” Anastas. St. Hilar, xlviii. § 70, “tur- 
 rem argenteam cum delphinis.”) Leo, cardinal 
 of Ostia, in his Chronicon Cassinense thus describes 
 a corona executed for that lover of art the abbot 
 Desiderius: “ He had a pharus made, that is a 
 silver crown weighing 100 lbs. and 20 spans in 
 circumference. On were 12 towers, and 36 
 lamps hung from it.” Bells were also sometimes 
 suspended from the lower rim. 
 
 Other names by which these chandeliers were 
 known in early writers are Lhaims, Pharocantha- 
 
 CORONATI QUATUOR 461 
 
 rus, Spanoclystum = 4irauwK\(i<rr6v, Gabhatha, 
 and Rota. 
 
 The name Pharus, though sometimes, a.s we 
 have seen, used for a corona, was more proj)erly 
 a standing candelabrum supporting lamp.s or 
 candles, which from their number of spreading 
 branches were, according to Ducange, sometimes 
 called arbores, trees. Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. xxxiv. 
 c. 3, speaks of “ lychnuchi—arborum mode mala 
 ferentium lucentes,” and Paul us Silentiarius 
 yDescript. S. Soph, part 2) thus describes can¬ 
 delabra in that basilica— 
 
 Keiva yap t) Kiovolaiv bpt,rpe<f>eea<Tiv bp.oia 
 
 SevSpea ns KaKeatuu. 
 
 The most magnificent example of an ancient 
 corona, though long after our date, is that still 
 to be seen suspended in the cathedral at Aix-la- 
 Chapelle, over the crypt in which the body of 
 Charlemagne was deposited. This corona was 
 the oft'ering of the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, 
 by whom the tomb was opened in 1165. A very 
 valuable treatise on this corona, embracing full 
 details of the form, arrangements, and history of 
 coronae generally, has been published by Dr. Fr. 
 Bock (^Der Kronleuclder Kaisers Fried. Barbarossa 
 zu Aachen, Leipzig, Weigel, 1864). The Melanges 
 d’Archeologie of Cahier and JVartin, Par. 1853, 
 vol. iii. may be referred to, article Couronne de 
 lumiere, for representations of suspensory crowns 
 from MSS. and painted glass. See also Ciampini, 
 vol. ii. c. xii. p. 89 sq. Migne, Kncyclope'die Theol. 
 Dictionnaire d’ Orfe'vrerie, v. Couronnes. Justi Fon- 
 tanini Dissertatio de Corona Fcrrea (Rom. 1719, 
 pp. 91-97). Macer, Hierolexicon. 
 
 CORONATI DIES. [Festival.] 
 
 CORONATI QUATUOR (Legend and 
 Festival of). The abov.e title is given to four 
 martyrs, Severus, Severianus, Cai-pophorus, and 
 Victorinus, who suftcred martyrdom at Rome in 
 the reign of Diocletian. 3'he tradition respecting 
 them is to the effect that they refused to sacrifice 
 to idols, and were then at the command of the 
 emperor beaten to death before the statue of 
 Aesculapius with scourges loaded with lead 
 (ictibus plumbatarum). The bodies having lain 
 where they died for five days, were then depo¬ 
 sited by pious Christians in a sandpit on the 
 V'^ia Lavicana, three miles from the city, near 
 the bodies of five who had sufl'ered martyrdom 
 on the same day two years before, Clamlius, 
 Nicostratus, Symphonianus,* Castorius, and Sim¬ 
 plicius. See, e.g. the Martyrology of Ado, No¬ 
 vember 8 (^Patrol, cxxiii. 392), who gives the 
 legend more fully than others. 
 
 It is stated by Anastasius Bibliothecarius 
 ( Vitae Pontificum, Honorius : Patrol, cxxviii. 699) 
 that Pope Honorius I.'* (ob. 638 a.d.) built a 
 church in Rome in their honour (“ eodem tem- 
 
 » In the case of this name considerable di versity of sp' l'.- 
 ing exists:—Symphonianus, (irtg. Saar.; Simphroniauus. 
 Cd. Rhem. ; Simphorianus, Cdd. Ratnldi and RtKlnidi ; 
 Sympronlus, Mart. I/ir.ron. ; Syn)pronianus. Usuardus ; 
 and Symphronianiis, Ado. 
 
 •> Before this time, however, the Coronati Quatuor had 
 given their name to one ot the titidi of the city of Rome; 
 for in the subscriptions to sundry dtcrets of On gory the 
 Great the last signature is “ Fertunatns rpn‘sbyter titulij 
 SS. iv. Cor.’’ (Gngorii Decnta: l atrol. Ixxvil. 1339; 
 formerly Epp. lib. iv., Indict. 13, c. 44.) See also Ducaug^ 
 Glossarium, s. v, titulua. 
 
4G2 CORONATI QUATUOR CORONATI QIIATUOR 
 
 pore fecit ecclesiam beatorum martyrum iv. Cor., 
 quam et dedicavit et donum obtulit”). To this 
 church the remains of the martyrs were subse¬ 
 quently transferred by Pope Leo IV. (ob. 855 
 A.D.), who had been its officiating priest (op. cit. 
 Leo IV., ib. 1305), and who, finding it in a very 
 ruinous condition on his accession to the ponti¬ 
 ficate, restored it with much splendour, and 
 bestowed upon it many gifts (ib. 1315). This 
 church was situated on the ridge of the Coelian 
 hill, between the Coliseum and the Lateran ; and 
 on its site the present church of the Santi QvAxttro 
 Incoronati was built by Pope Paschal II. 
 
 As to the appointment of the festival of these 
 martyrs on November 8, which is said to be due 
 to Pope Melchiades (ob. 314 a.d.), a curious dif¬ 
 ficulty has arisen. Thus in the notice of the 
 festival in the editions of the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary (for the words would apjiear to be 
 wanting in MS. authority), the remark is made 
 that it being found impossible to ascertain the 
 natal day of the four martyrs (‘‘ quonim (bes 
 natalis per incuriam neglectus minime reperiri 
 poterat ”), it was appointed that in their church 
 the natal day of the five other saints, near to 
 whose bodies theirs had been buried, should be 
 celebrated, that both might have their memory 
 recorded together (Patrol. Ixxviii. 147). 
 
 Others, however, make this forgetfulness to 
 be of the names of the martyrs. Thus the Mar- 
 tyrologium Romanum, after speaking of Claudius, 
 &c., proceeds: “ Et ipso die iA\ Coronatorum 
 Sei'eri, Severiani, Carpophori, Victorini, quorum 
 festivitatem statuit Melchiades papa sub nomi¬ 
 nibus quinque martyrum celebrari, quia nomiua 
 eorum non reperiebantur, sed intercurrentibus 
 annis cuidam sancto viro revelata sunt” (Patrol. 
 cxxiii. 173). See also the Martyrology of 
 Usuardus (ib. cxxiv. 669). 
 
 If however the institution of the festival be 
 rightly assigned to Melchiades, Avho was pontiff 
 during the reign of Diocletian, it is strange how 
 this ignorance could have existed, seeing that 
 many Christians must have been living who had 
 known them personally. In Alcuin (De Div. Off. 
 31; Patrol, ci. 2230) this strange idea assumes 
 still another form, in that the forgetfulness now 
 includes both the day and the names : (“ quorum 
 nomina et dies natalis per incuriam neglectus.” 
 The look of the Latin however points strongly 
 to the conclusion that the words nomina et are 
 a later addition). 
 
 No trace however of this forgetfulness is to 
 be found in the Martyrologium Hieronymi, where 
 the notice is merely “ vi. Id. Nov. Romae natalis 
 Sanctorum Simplicii . . . et Sanctorum Quatuor 
 Coronatorum Severi . . . . ” (Patrol, xxx. 481). 
 
 A difficulty of another sort is that Anastasius 
 Bibliothecarius (1. c.) seems to distinguish the 
 Coronati Quatuor from Severus, &c.; for after 
 describing how Leo IV. restored their chui-ch at 
 Rome, he adds “ et ad laudem Dei eorum sacra- 
 tissima corpora cum Claudio ...., necnon Severo 
 . . . . quatuor fratribus collocavit.” Doubtless 
 however the last words ai-e spurious. It will 
 be obsei’ved also that Anastasius speaks of the 
 Coronati as brothers, the only ancient authority, 
 so far as we have observed, who does so. 
 
 Another curious point is that, in the Martyr¬ 
 ology of Notker for July 7, the five saints, whom 
 we hav'e seen associated with the Coronati 
 Quatuor, seem to bo commemorated on that Jay : 
 
 “ Romae, passio beatorum martyrum Ni(.ostrati 
 primiscrinii, Claudii cominentariensis, Castorii 
 sive Castuli, Victorini, Symphoriani vel sicut in 
 libro Sacramentorum continetur Semproniani; 
 quorum natalem sexta die Iduum Novembris 
 eatenus nos celebrari credidiinus, donee venera- 
 bilis pater Ado alios et alios pro eis nobi.s 
 honorandos insinuaret: de quihus in suo loco 
 vita comite commodius di.sseretur ” (Patrol. 
 cxxxi. 111,5). We cannot tell however how this 
 last promise was redeemed, for the Martyrology 
 of Notker is wanting after Oct. 26. The ^lar- 
 tyrology of Usuardus akso connects with July 7 
 the names of the five above-mentioned saints 
 (Patrol, cxxiv. 233, where see the note). 
 
 In the Martyrology of Rabanus Maurus all 
 notice for Nov. 7 and 8 is wanting. In that of 
 Wandelbert (Patrol, exxi. 617), Nov. 8 is thus 
 marked ;— 
 
 “ Senas ornantes idus merito atque cruore, 
 
 Claudi Castori Siniplici Symphoriane, 
 
 Et Nicostrate pari fulgetis 4uce coronae 
 
 (al. Semproniane), where it Avill be seen that 
 there is no allusion to the Coronati thernselve.s, 
 unless indeed there be an implied reference in 
 the last word of the third line. 
 
 In the Martyrology of Bede the Coronati are 
 mentioned, but under the names of the five saints ; 
 thus, “ vi. Id. No\'. natale iA*. Coronatorum, Ch, N., 
 Symphoriani, Castoris, Simplicii ” (Patrol. xciA'. 
 1097). 
 
 We find the festiA^al marked in the Leonine 
 Calendar, “ v. (A’el au.) Id. Noa". natale SS. iv. Co¬ 
 ronatorum ” (ib. Ixxiv. 880); and the former day 
 (Noa'. 7) in the calendar of Bucherins (ib. 879) 
 as “ dementis, Semproniani, Claudii, NiCostrati, 
 in comitatum.” We find the names again varied 
 in the Gelasian Sacramentary (ib. 1179), Avhiclj 
 cites four of the names of the fiA^e saints : “ In 
 natal. SS. ia'. Coronatorum, Costiani, Claudii, 
 Castori, Semproniani.” 
 
 We have already referred to the presence of 
 this festival in the Gi'egorian Sacramentary; 
 see also the Antiphonary (Patrol. IxxA'iii. 707). 
 The collect in the Saci’amentary runs thus: 
 “ Praesta quaesumus omnipotens Deus ut qui 
 gloriosos martyres Claudium, Nicostratum . . . , 
 fortes in sua confessione cognovimus, pios apud 
 te in nostra intercessione sentiamus;” Avhere it 
 Avill be noticed that only the names of the fiA’e 
 saints, and not of the Coronati, are given. 
 
 The Mozarabic Missal mentions the festiA’al 
 (Patrol. IxxxA'. 398); but has no special office 
 for it, employing for this day as Avell as for others 
 a missa plurimorum martyrum. This Avould 
 appear to point to the fact of the festiwal being a 
 late addition to the Missal. 
 
 It may be added that several ancient calendars 
 mark Noa\ 8 as the festiAu\l of the four Coronati ; 
 but except the first, Avhich is English, they are 
 all Italian (Patrol. Ixxii. 624, Ixxx. 420, ci. 826, 
 cxxxviii. 1188, 1192, 1202, 1208, &c.). Doubt¬ 
 less therefore the festiA’al is to be viewed as 
 essentially one of the Italian church, and as one 
 Avhich never gained any special notoriety beyond 
 the bounds of that church. There are Acta of the 
 Coronati Quatuor, not ap))yrently of any s})ecial 
 value, which Avere published in Mombritius’ 
 Sanctuarium, a’oI. i. ff. 162, sqq. 
 
 In addition to authorities cite.l in this 
 article, special reference should be made to 
 
CORONATION 
 
 463 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 Menard’s notes to the Gregorian Sacramentnry 
 (in loc.). 
 
 CORONATION. The Coronation of kings 
 and emperors, the most august ceremony ot 
 Christian national life, allords a striking example 
 of the manner in which Christianity breathed a 
 new spirit into already existing ceremonies, and 
 elevated them to a higher and purer atmosphere. 
 Under her inspiration a new life animated the 
 old form : heathen accessories gradually dropt 
 off; fresh and appropriate observances were de¬ 
 veloped ; and the whole ceremonial assumed a 
 character in harmony with the changed faith of 
 those who were its subjects. 
 
 It has been remarked by Dean Stanley (J/c- 
 morvds of VVVs^. Abbey, p. 42) that the rite of 
 coronation, as it appears in the later part ot 
 the period to v/hich our investigation is limited, 
 represents two opposite aspects of European 
 monarchy. It was (1) a symbol of the ancient 
 usage of the choice of the leaders by popular j 
 election, and of the emperor by the Imperial j 
 Guard, derived from the practice of the Gaulish 
 and Teutonic nations, and (2) a solemn consecra¬ 
 tion of the new sovereign to his office by unction 
 with holy oil, and the placing of a crown or 
 diadem on his head by one of the chief ministers 
 of religion, after the example of the ancient 
 Jewish Church. 
 
 These two parts of the ceremonial, though 
 united in the same ritual, have a different origin, 
 and it will be convenient to treat them sepa¬ 
 rately. 
 
 (1) Among the Teutonic and Gothic tribes the 
 custom prevailed of elevating the chief or king 
 on whom the popular election had fallen on a 
 large shield or buckler, borne by the leading 
 men of the tribe. Standing on this he was ex- 
 posed to the view of the soldiers and people, 
 who by their acclamations testified their joy at 
 his accession, and accepted him as their sove¬ 
 reign and head. The “ chairing,” or carrying 
 round through the assembled crowd, “ gyratio,” 
 usually three times repeated, followed. Tacitus 
 describes this ceremonial in the case of Brinno, 
 chief of the Batavian tribe of Canninefates 
 “ impositus scuto, more gentis, et sustinentium 
 humeris vibratus, dux deligitur” (Hist. iv. 15). 
 The German soldiers of the Imperial Guard intro¬ 
 duced this custom to the Romans, and we find 
 the later emperors inaugurated in this mannei’. 
 Thus Gordian the vounger A.D. 238 was “ lifted 
 up ” as emperor by the Praetorian Guards: 
 “ retractans, elevatus est et imperatorem se ap- 
 pellari permisit ” (Capitolinus in Gordian', Hero- 
 dian, lib. viii. c. 21). Julian, when before the 
 death of Constantins the enthusiasm of his troops 
 forced him at Paris unwillingly to assume the 
 imperial dignity (April A.D. 360), submitted to 
 the same ceremonial, “ impositus scuto pedestri 
 et sublatius eminens Augustus renuntiatur ” 
 (Amm. Marcell. lib. xx. c. 4) ; iiri rivos aairidos 
 fi^reupop &paPT€s aj/T€?7rdv re 'S.efiaarhv Avro- 
 Kpdropa (Zosimus, lib. iii. 9. 4). Valeutinian 
 was desired to name a colleague A.D. 364, kot ’ 
 avT^v rv,v avayopeuaiv eiri ttjs acririSos (Philo- 
 storg. viii. 8), to which Nicephorus significantly 
 adds, us edos. The poet Claudiaa, writing of the 
 inauguration of the young Honorius as Augustus 
 A.D. 393, refers to the same custom— 
 
 So completely was this custom identified with 
 the inauguration of a sovereign that the verb 
 eraipeiv came into use as the regular term for 
 the recognition of a new emperor. Thus we find 
 Euseb. Epitome temp, of Marcian A.D. 450, avrip 
 rep erei iirfipdr] MapKiavhs ACyovaros, and of 
 Maximus A.D. 455 (cf. Suidas sab voce eiraipeip'). 
 Zonaras, writing of Hypatius set up by a sedition 
 as a rival to Justinian, says M aairiSos /uerdp- 
 aiop dpavres dvayopevovai fiacriAea (Zonar. xiv. 
 6). It took its place as a recognised portion of 
 the ritual of a coronation in the Eastern Empire; 
 e.y. the coronation of Justin the younger in St. 
 Soidiia’s as described by Corippus, de Laudibus 
 Jnstini Augusti Minoris (lib. ii. 137-178). A 
 shield was held up by four young men. On this 
 the emperor stood erect, like the letter I, with 
 which his name and that of his two immediate 
 predecessors commenced. 
 
 “ Quatuor ingentem clypei sublimius orbem 
 Altollunt lecti juvenes, nianibusque levatua, 
 
 Ipse ministrorum supra stetit, ut sua rectus 
 Littera, quae signo stabili non flectitur unquam 
 Nominibus sacrata trlbus." 
 
 We also find it in the elaborate rituals drawn 
 up by Joannes Cantacuzenus (c. 1330; Hist. i. 
 c. 41, printed by Martene ii. 204; and Habertus 
 Po7itifc. Graec. p. 604 sq.) and Georgius Codinus, 
 Curopaletes (d. 1460; de Officio et Officiaiibiis 
 Aulae Constant, c. 17). The only change is that 
 the emperor no longer stands on the slippery 
 surface of the buckler, but ado])ts the much 
 securer position of sitting, “ sessitans.” The risk 
 of a dangerous and indecorous fall during the 
 ceremony of “ gyratio,” is prov'ed by the example 
 of Gunbald, king of Burgundy (a.d. 500), who 
 on his third circuit “ cum tertio gyrarent ” fell, 
 and was w'ith difficulty held up by the people 
 (Grego. Turonens. Hist. lib. vii. c. 10). Accord¬ 
 ing to George Codinus, who may be taken as a 
 probable evidence of the ritual prevailing several 
 centuries before his time in the unchanging East, 
 this ‘‘ levatio ” took place outside the Church 
 of St. Sophia, into which the new emperor was 
 borne to receive the sacred rites of unction and 
 crowning at the hands of the patriarch. It was 
 the rule that the shield should be supported in 
 front by the empei’or (wffien the choice of a 
 successor was made in his lifetime), the father of 
 the newly created monarch if alive, and the 
 patriarch, the other highest dignitaries of the 
 State supporting it behind. 
 
 The origin of this custom being Teutonic, it 
 was naturally continued by the sovereigns of the 
 Frankish race. The long-haired Pharamond was 
 thus inaugui'ated A.D. 420 : “ levaverunt super 
 se regem crinitum ” (Gesta Regum Francorum 
 apud Dom. Bouquet, ii. 543). Clovis received his 
 recognition as king by the same token, “ clipeo 
 impositum super .se Regem constituunt” A.D. 
 509 (Gregor. Turon. lib. ii. c. 40). Sigebert, son 
 of Clotaire I. a.d. 575, when “more gentis, im¬ 
 positus clipeo rex coustitutus” (Adonis Chro~ 
 nicon; Gregor. Tur. Hist. Fraii. iv. c. 52), was 
 stabbed by the assassins of Queen Fredegonde. 
 A century later, A.D. 744, w'e read of Hilde¬ 
 brand, grandson of Luitprand king of the Lom¬ 
 bards, “ in regem levaverunt ” (Paulus Diaconus, 
 vi. 55), of Pippin (a.d. 751 “rex elevatus est” 
 Annal. Guelferb.'). And to clo.se the series, Otho 
 “ sublimatus est ” at Milan a.d. 961. [Cf. Grimm, 
 Rechtsaltei'thiimer, p. 234.] 
 
 "Sed mox cum solita miles te voce Itvassef.” 
 
464 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 The ceremonial is depicted in an illumination 
 of the 10th century engraved by Montfaucon 
 (^Moimmens, tom. i. p. xvi.)* representing the pro¬ 
 clamation of David as king. He stands on a 
 round shield, borne aloft by four young men. 
 
 From a passage in Constant. Porphyr. (jle Ad- 
 minist. Imper. c. 38) this custom appears to 
 have prevailed among the Turks. It is not found 
 in the early Spanish annals, but it was certainly 
 in use in the kingdom of Arragon at a later 
 period (Ambi’os. Morales, lib. xiii. c, 11), and 
 traces of it are found in that of Castile, in Legi- 
 bus Partitarum, leg. iii. tit. xxii. part. iii. There 
 is no evidence of its ever having been adopted in 
 England. 
 
 Among the Frankish and Lombard nations an 
 additional ceremony was the delivery of a spear 
 to the newly-made monarch. We find this in 
 the case of Hildebrand a.d. 744 (Paul. Diac. vi. 
 55); Childeric a.d. 456 (Chifletius in Anastas, 
 cvii. p. 96); Childebert II. A.D. 585 (Greg. Turon. 
 vii. 33; Aimionus, ii. 69). Martene (^de Pit, ii. 
 212) writes of the Frankish kings “tradita in 
 manum hasta pro sceptro, excelso in solio hono- 
 rifice imponunt.” 
 
 (2) The second aspect in which a corona¬ 
 tion was viewed was the religious one. As 
 soon as the Bible became known, the practice 
 of the Jewish nation to consecrate their kings 
 to their high office by the hands of the chief 
 minister of religion became an authority from 
 which there was no appeal. Of the two cere¬ 
 monies specially characterizing the Jewish rite, 
 unction and the imposition of a crown,' the 
 former alone was strange to the Western nations. 
 From a very early period, as we shall see, the 
 crown or dhdem was known as the symbol of 
 royalty. The only change was that of the person 
 by whose hands it was placed on the monarch’s 
 head. Unction appears to have been entirely 
 unknown as a part of the ritual, and to have 
 come into use with the conversion of the em¬ 
 perors to the Christian fiiith. 
 
 (a) To speak first of the imposition of the 
 
 cjKrtcn or diadem. For the sake of clearness, while 
 referring to dictionaries of classical antiquities 
 for fuller details, it may be desirable to remind 
 our readers that the crown, corona, ar4<pavos, 
 was a head circlet, wreath, or garland of leaves, 
 flowers, twigs, grass, &c., and, as luxury increased, 
 of the precious metals, chiefly gold; while the dia¬ 
 dem, 5idSi]fia, “taenia” or “ fascia” (Q. Curtius, 
 iii. 3), as its name implies, was originally nothing 
 more than a linen band or silken ribbon, tied 
 round the temples, with the loose ends hanging 
 down be’nind. This ribbon Eastern magnificence 
 afterwards adorned with pearls and precious 
 stones. The nature of the diadem may be illus- 
 
 » “ Discours preliminaire, de I’inauguration des pre¬ 
 miers rois de France.” 
 
 trated from some historical facts. Thus Alex¬ 
 ander took off his diadem to bind up the wound 
 of Lysimachus (Justin, lib. xv. c. 3). Pornpey’s 
 enemies made it a charge against him that he 
 had bound up an ulcer on his leg with a white 
 cloth like a diadem, it mattering not on what 
 part of the body the royal insignia was placed 
 
 (Amm. Marcell. xvii.). Monima, the wife of Mi- 
 thridates, attempted to hang herself with her 
 diadem (Plutarch, Lucullus. c. 18). 
 
 Though the words corona and diadema have not 
 unfrequently been used interchangeably, the dis¬ 
 tinction between them is very precise.** “How¬ 
 ever” (writes Selden, Titles of Honour, c. 8, §2), 
 “ these names have been from antient times con¬ 
 founded, yet the diadem strictly was a very diffe¬ 
 rent thing from what a crown now is or was ; and 
 it was no other then than only a fillet of silk, linen, 
 or some such thing. Xor appears it that any 
 other kind of crown was u.sed for a royal ensign, 
 except only in some kingdoms of Asia, but this 
 kind of fillet, until the beginning of Christianity 
 in the Roman empire.” The “ diadema,” not the 
 “ corona ” was the emblem and sign of royalty. 
 It is styled by Lucian ^aaiXdas yvcttpiafia (Pise. 
 35; cf. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 3. 13); and TrepiTi- 
 OHai Siddvya is of frequent use to indicate the 
 assumption of royal dignity (Polyb. v. 57. 4; Jo¬ 
 sephus, A7it. xii. 10. 1); as in Latin “diadema” 
 is identified bv Tacitus with the “iusigne regium ” 
 (^Annal. xv. 29). The diadem was of Eastern 
 origin, and was introduced to the Romans through 
 their Oriental campaigns and intercourse with 
 Asiatic nations. When first seen at Rome it 
 caused great offence. Though they submitted to 
 the reality of sovereign power, their susceptible 
 minds could not endure its outward symbols. The 
 golden “corona” had raised no alarm. Caligula 
 and Domitian wore it at the public games without 
 objection, and it appears on their coins. Au¬ 
 gustus, Claudius, Trajan, and many others are 
 represented with rayed or “ stellate ” crowns, 
 imitating the majesty of the sun. Julius Caesar, 
 rightly interpreting public opinion, refused the 
 tempting offer of a di.adem at Antony’s hands, 
 though half-veiled in a laurel wreath fSidS-qua 
 aTe(pdvci} Sdcbrrjs TrepLTreirXeyuei'o;^^ and had it 
 laid up in the Capitol (Plutarch, J. Caes. 61 ; 
 Sueton. i. § 79). Caligula when about to a.^sume 
 the diadem was warned by friendly counsellors 
 of the danger of thus exceeding “ principum et 
 regum fastigium ” (Sueton. iv'. c. 22). Titus pro¬ 
 voked suspicion of affecting the throne of the 
 Ea.st by wearing the diadem, though according 
 to the established ritual, when consecrating the 
 Apis ox at Memphis (Sueton. xi. c. 5). The effe- 
 
 “A1 ud est corona, aliud diadema. Corona simplex cst 
 circu'us aureus quo utuntur rf’gt-s iii minoribus solemni- 
 tatibus. Diadema est quasi duplex co’ona quum ipsi 
 conuuie quasi alius oirculus gcnmiis siipi.-rpn.siius super- 
 addiiur ”—Peter of Piois, i^'criun. >ix. vol. iii. p. 11. 
 
CORONATION 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 4G5 
 
 minate Elagab.ilus adv^anced a step further and 
 wore it in private, “ diademate gemniato usus ' 
 est domi ” (Lanipridius); and Aurelian, who ^ 
 had been familiar with its use in his Eastern 
 campaign, and the attire of his captive Zenohia | 
 (Trc.bell. Poll. c. xxix.), first ventured to present 
 himself to the public gaze with his temples j 
 adorned with this badge of sovereignty, and his 
 person glittering with magnificent attire a.d. | 
 270: “Iste primus apud Romanos diadema capiti 
 
 It has been erroneously asserted by Martene {dc 
 Ritibus, ii. 201-237, ed. Bassano 1788) and'Md- 
 nard (Notes to the Sacrainentart/of !'t. Grcijorif, 
 p. 397 sq.), and repeated by Catalani and many 
 subsequent writers, including Maskell, thatTijeo- 
 dosius II. (a.d. 439) is the first whom we know to 
 have been crowned by a bishop. Theoplianes (p. 
 59) informs us that Theodosius the younger sent 
 crowns, (rrecpawovs 0a(ri\iKous, to V alentinian II. 
 at Rome, c. 383, but nothing is anywhere said 
 
 innexuit, gemmisque et aurata omni veste, quod 
 adhuc fere incognitum Romanis moribus vise- 
 batur, usus est ” (Aurel. Viet. Epitom. c. xxxv.). 
 The diadem once intro'duced was never dropped, 
 and became a recognized mark of imperial dig¬ 
 nity ; but it seems to have been chiefly worn on 
 state occasions. Constantine was the first to adopt 
 it as a portion of his ordinary attire—“ caput ex- 
 ornans perpetuo diademate ” (Aurel. Viet. Epit. 
 cxli.), and his successors continued the usage. 
 As soon as the emperors had become Christian, 
 it naturally followed that their inauguration to 
 sovereignty should be accompanied by sacred rites, 
 and receive the blessing of the chief minister of 
 religion, who speedily became also the recognized 
 agent in setting apart the sovereign to his regal j 
 office by the ceremonies of the imposition of the 
 crown, and at a later period, of unction, borrowed 
 from the rites of the Jewish Church. Originally 
 the crown was put on by those who had the 
 power of giving it. The Imperial Guard who 
 chose the emperor crowned him. When Julian 
 had been suddenly chosen by his troops as their 
 emperor at Paris (April a.d. 360), and had been 
 raised on the shield by the soldiers, it was they 
 who forcibly put the token of power on his un¬ 
 willing head: iTr(6e(Tau avv /3ia SidSTj/^a xp 
 (Zosim. Hist. iii. 9. 4). The circum¬ 
 stances of this coronation deserve mention from 
 their picturesqueness. There being no real dia¬ 
 dem at hand, the troops demanded that he should j 
 use his wife’s head-ribbon. Julian refused, deem- j 
 ing a woman’s ornament unworthy of the imperial 
 dignity. Still more peremptorily did he reject 
 the horse’s headband they then proposed. At 
 last one of his standard-bearers took off the 
 gold torque from his neck, and with that Julian 
 was crowned (Amm. Marcell. xx. 4). This mean 
 crown “ vilis corona ” was laid aside at Vienne for 
 a more ambitious diadem, glittering with jewels— 
 ‘‘ ambitioso diademate utebatur lapidum fulgore 
 distiucto ” (Amm. Marcell. xxi. 1; Zonaras, xiii. 
 10). His successor Jovian was also proclaimed 
 king, crowned and vested in the royal robe by 
 the army who chose him A.D. 363, ttjv aXovp- 
 yida eydus koI rh SiaSrifia TT€pid4/x€vos (Zosim. 
 iii. 30; Theodoret, iv. 1 ; Theophan. p. 36); and 
 Valentinian A.D. 364, “ principali habitu cir- 
 cumdatus et corona, Augustu.sque nuncupatus ” 
 (Amm. Marc. xxvi. 2). When Valentinian as¬ 
 sociated his son Gratian with him in the em¬ 
 pire, he invested him with the purple and crown 
 (Amm. Marcell, xxvii. 7). In none of these cases 
 is there any reference to a bishop or minister of 
 religion as perfi rming the ceremony of corona¬ 
 tion ; nor can we say with any certainty when 
 this custom arose. The first hint at such a cus¬ 
 tom that we meet with is in the dream of Theo¬ 
 dosius before his admission to a share of the 
 imperial dignity, c. 379 (?), in which he saw 
 Meletius, bishop of Antioch, putting on iiim a 
 crown and the royal robe (Theodoret, If. E. v. (>). 
 
 CIlRISI. ANT. 
 
 of his own coronation. The passage ipioted by 
 Martene from Theodorus Lector, (lib. ii. c. 65,) 
 speaks of the coronation, not of Theodosius II. 
 but of Leo L, a.d. 457, by Anatolius the patri¬ 
 arch: (rre(pde\s vnh tow uvtou TraTptdpxov. In 
 this case the new emperor, a rude Thracian sol¬ 
 dier, had been a military tribune and chief 
 steward of the household of Aspai-, the Arian 
 patrician, by whose influence he was raised to 
 the throne. It is not improbable that episcopal 
 benediction might be regarded as a valuable 
 support to a feeble title, and that Leo felt a 
 special satisfaction in having the imperial crown 
 imposed on his brows by the head of the Byzan¬ 
 tine hierarchy. But previous allusions to coro¬ 
 nation at the hands of a bishop would lead us 
 to question the accuracy of Gibbon’s assertion 
 (chap, xxxvi.) that “ this appears to be the first 
 origin of a ceremony which all the Christian 
 princes of the world have since adopted,” and it 
 would certainly be very unsafe to assert that it 
 was the first time that this ceremony was per¬ 
 formed by episcopal hands. The next recorded 
 instance of episcopal coronation is that of Jus¬ 
 tin I. This emperor was crowned twice : first 
 by John II., patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 518 
 (Theophan. Ckronograj h. p. 162 ; cf. the patri¬ 
 arch’s letter to Pope Hormisdas, apud Barouii 
 Annul, anno 519, no. lx.: “ Ideo coronam (aliter 
 cornu) gratiae super enm coelitus declinavit, ut 
 affluenter in sacrum ejus caput misericordia 
 funderetur: omnique annuntiationis ejus tem¬ 
 pore cum magna voce Deum omnium principem 
 glorificaverunt quoniam talem verticem meis 
 manibus tali corona decoravit”); and secondly, 
 “ pietatis ergo,” by Pope John 11. on his visit to 
 Constantinople, a.d. 525 (Anastas. Bibliothec. p. 
 95, ed. Blanchini, Rom. 1718; Aimionus, lib. ii. 
 c. 1). His successor Justinian received the dia¬ 
 dem primarily from his uncle’s hands (Zonaras lib. 
 xiv. c. 5), in compliance with a practice subse¬ 
 quently prevailing in the Eastern empire, by which 
 the symbol of royalty was originally l estowed by 
 the emperor himself on those whom he wished to 
 succeed him: the ceremony being probably re¬ 
 peated by the bishop or patriarch. Thus Verina 
 crowmed her brother Basiliscits, a.d. 474. Tibe¬ 
 rius II. his wdfe Anastasia, A.D. 578 (Theophanes, 
 Chton.). But the sanction of religion had be¬ 
 come essential to the recognition of a new sove¬ 
 reign by his subjects, and Justinian w'as inaugu¬ 
 rated by the imposition of the hands of the 
 patriai’ch Epiphauius (Cyril. Scythopol. TVfii 
 Sabae Archimundritne). From this tiTue corona¬ 
 tion at the hands of the patriarch was an esta¬ 
 blished rule. Justin II., a.d. 565, was crowned 
 by John Scholasticus; Tiberius II. by Eutychius, 
 Sept. 26, 578, ten days before Justin’s death and 
 by his order. His succe.ssor Maurice and his 
 wife were crowned by John the F.istcr, a.d. 582, 
 on the day of their marriage (Theophyl. Simo- 
 catta, lib. i. c. 10), and their .son Theodosius, 
 
406 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 when four years old (Theoplian. p. 179). He-’ 
 radius, with his wife Eudoda, was crowned by 
 Sergius, Oct. 7, 610, and in the tiiird year bf 
 lus reign his son Hei-adius and his daugliter Kpi- 
 pliania were also crowned. It is unnece.s.sary to 
 give later examples. In the time of .Justinian’s 
 successor Justin II. the ceremonial of coronation 
 seems to have received the form and religious 
 sanction it maintained, on the whole, till the fall 
 of the empire. The ritual is elaborately de¬ 
 scribed by Corippus. The ceremony took place 
 at break of day. After his elevation on the 
 shield (see above), the emperor was carried into 
 St. Sophia’.s, where he received the patriarch’s 
 benediction, and the imperial diadem was impo.sed 
 by his hands. He was then recognized as emiieror 
 by acclamation fii’st of the “ patres ” and then 
 of the “clientes.” Wearing his diadem he took 
 his seat on the throne, and after making the 
 sign of the cross he made an harangue to his 
 assembled subjects:— 
 
 “ Postquam cuncta vldet ritu perfecta pviorum, 
 Pontificum summus plenaque aetate venustus, 
 Adstantem benedixit eum, caelique potentem 
 Exorans Dominum sacro diademate jussit 
 Augustum sancire caput, summoque coronam 
 Imponens apici ‘ Feliciter accipe ’ dixit.” 
 
 Corippus de Laud. Justin, ii. 9, v. 179 sq. 
 
 With the addition of the important ceremony 
 of unction., and a considerable elaboration of 
 ritual, the coronation office, as given by Joannes 
 Cautacuzenus, afterwards emperor (c. 1330), and 
 a century later, by Georgius Codinus (d. 1453), 
 corresponds with that described by Corippus in 
 all essential particulars. 
 
 Of the Occidental use we know little or 
 nothing. We may reasonably suppose that there 
 was no essential difference beween it and the 
 Eastern ritual. But the Western empire had 
 ceased before the eaidiest record of any religious 
 ceremony accompanying the rite in the East, 
 and when it revived in the person of the em¬ 
 peror Charles the Great, coronation at the hands 
 of a bishop had long been a recognized custom 
 among the Frankish nations. Martene (ii. 212) 
 acknowledges that the coronation of Pippin, the 
 father of Charles, is the earliest exami^le he can 
 discover. Pippin was crowned twice—first by 
 iSt. Boniface, archbishop of Mentz, papal legate, 
 <it Soissons, A.D. 752 ; secondly, together with 
 Ids sons Charles and Carlomaun and his wife 
 Bertha, by Pope Stephen at St. Denis, Sunday, 
 .July 28, 754 (Pagius, Brev. Gesta Rom. Pont.). 
 Charles the Great was also crowned episcopally 
 more than once. In addition to his boyish coro¬ 
 nation he was solemnly crowned in St. Peter’s at 
 Rome by Pope Leo. 'This coronation took place 
 on Christmas Day, A.D. 800. It forms one of the 
 great epochs in history, as by this the Frankish 
 king was recognized by the Vicar of Christ as 
 the representative of the emperors of Rome and 
 inheritor of their rights and privileges. 
 
 The ceremony is thus described by Const. Ma- 
 nasses in Chron. Synops .:— 
 
 eurivffey a/iiei^ofieuos KdpovWou 6 Xeoiv 
 avayopeuei Kpdropa iroAaiOTepa? 
 
 KaX o’TeT/jo? nepiTiOrja’iu <I>s ot 'Pwp.aiun' v6p,oi. 
 
 It h as been repeatedly asserted that, previous 
 to his coronation at Rome, Charles had been 
 crowned with the so-called iron crown at Monza : 
 but the fact is not recorded in any early autho¬ 
 rities, and it IS probably a story of later growth. 
 
 Ilis infant son Pipi)in was crowne I king of Italy 
 by Adrian I. on Easter Dav, 801, the day after 
 his birth.<^ 
 
 One of the very earliest instances on record of 
 a royal coronation by an ecclesiastic in Western 
 Europe is tliat of Aidan, king of Scotland, by 
 St. Columba in Iona, A.D. .574.'* It may perhaps 
 be reasonably questioned whether this picturesque 
 narrative is to be received as historical. But it 
 is accepted by some of the latest and best au¬ 
 thorities (e.ij. Montalembert and Burton); and 
 the kernel of the story is probably authentic. 
 According to the tale, an angel was sent to 
 command Columba to consecrate Aidan. He 
 reminded the saint that “ he had in his hands 
 the crystal-covered book of the Ordination of 
 Kings which, be it remarked, presupposes the 
 existence of such a ceremony. St. Columba hesi¬ 
 tated, preferring for sovereign Aidan’s brother 
 logen. The angelic messenger appeared again 
 and again, becoming more and more peremp¬ 
 tory, until on the third visit he struck the re¬ 
 fractory saint with a scourge, leaving a weal 
 which remained on his side all the rest of his 
 life. On this Columba consented, and Aidan 
 was made king by him on the celebrated Stone 
 of Destiny, taken afterwards from Iona to Dun- 
 staffnage, and thence to Scone, whence it was 
 transferred by Edward I., as a symbol of con¬ 
 quest, to Westminster. The words of Adamnan 
 are simply, “ in regem ordinavit imponensque 
 manum super caput ejus ordinans benedixit.” 
 No mention is made either of the crown or 
 unction (Adam nanus, de S. Columh. Scoto Confes- 
 sore, t. iii. c. 5 ; Montalembert, Monks of the 
 West; T. Hill Burton, Hist, of Scotland, i. 319). 
 Almost contemporaneous with this are the records 
 of the same rite in Spain. Leovigild, king of 
 the Visigoths, A.D. 572, according to Isidore, 
 Hist. Gothorum, vii. 124, was the first of those 
 sovereigns to assume the crown, sceptre, and 
 royal robe: “ Nam ante eum et habitus et con- 
 sessus communis ut genti ita et regibus erat.” 
 Of Recared also, Leovigild’s successor, A.D. 586, 
 we read, “ regno est coronatus ” (ib.). 
 
 (b) Another essential portion of the coronation of 
 a Christian monarch was unction at the hands of a 
 bishop or other chief minister. This rite clothed 
 the person of the king with inviolable sanctity. 
 It was considered to partake of the nature of a 
 sacrament (August, adv. Petilium, lib. ii. c. 112), 
 and to be indelible; to convey spiritual jurisdic¬ 
 tion, as the delivery of the crown conferred tem¬ 
 poral power; and it gave the chief significance to 
 the formula “ Rex Dei gratia,” which according 
 to Selden ( Titles of Honour, p. 92) could not from 
 
 0 The notion, once so widely received, that the Western 
 emperors were crowned in three different places, with 
 crowns of three different materials— gold at Rome denoting 
 excellence, silver at Alx-la-Chapelle denoting purity, and 
 iron at Monza or Milan denoting strength—is a mere myth 
 of an editor of the Fortifcale Romanum, deservedly ridi¬ 
 culed by Aeneas Sylvius (Pope Julius II.), Hist. Aust. 
 lib. iv., and refuted by Muratori, de Cor. Ferr. p. 9. 
 
 d It is stated in the Introduction to the Roxburgh Club 
 edition of the “Liber Regalis,” 1871, that “the earliest 
 coronation of a Christian prince within the limits of 
 Great Britain and Ireland is generally supposed to be that 
 of Dermot or Diarmid, supreme monarch of Ireland, by 
 his relative. Columba," circa 560: but this is merely an 
 inference from the close relation between the two parties^ 
 not an ascertained historical fact. 
 
CORONATION 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 4G7 
 
 :ts sacred chara-cter, be applied to any oilier lav 
 person. Thus Gregory the Great writes, “qnia 
 ipsa unctio sacranientum est, is qui promovetnr 
 foris ungitur si intus virtute sacranienti robo- 
 retur ” (Ecpos. lih. i. llctjum, c. x.). Kex unctiis 
 non rnera persona laica sed mixta” (Lyndwood, lib. 
 iii. tit. 2). Anointing, it is well known, was the 
 chief and divinely appointed ceremony by which 
 ’the kings among the chosen people of God were 
 inaugurated to tlieir office. As early as the time 
 of the Judges the idea was familiar; for in 
 Jotham’s jiarable the trees propose to anoint a 
 king OA'er them. This shews that it must have 
 been in use among other nations with whom 
 the Jewish people had intercourse, and that 
 St. Augustine goes too far in asserting that it 
 was a rite peculiar to the people of God, and was 
 never adojited by heathen nations. “ Nec in aliquo 
 alibi ungebantur reges et sacerdotes nisi in illo 
 regno ubi Christus prophetabatur et ungebatur 
 et unde venturus erat Christi nomen. Nusquam 
 alibi omnino in nulla gente, in nullo regno” 
 (^Enarrat. in Ps. uliv. § 10). 
 
 The earlie.st authentic instances of the cere- 
 monv of unction forming an essential element 
 in Christian coronations appear in the annals 
 of the Spanish kingdoms. The rite is mentioned 
 in the Acts of the 6th Council of Toledo, a.d. 636. 
 Wamba on his coronation (a.d. 673) was anointed 
 by Quirigo, archbishop of Toledo : “ Deinde cur- 
 vatis genibus oleum benedictionis per sacri Qui- 
 rici pontificis. manus vertici ejus infunditur” 
 (Julius Toletanus, § 4; cf. Rodericus Santius, 
 quoted by SelJen, Titles of Honour^ p. 155). 
 But the rite was evidently anterior to this. The 
 language used evidences that the unction was an 
 established custom, and that it took place at 
 Toledo. Wamba’s is simply the first unction on 
 record. This is confirmed by the Acts of the 
 12th Council of Toledo, which state of Hervigiu.s, 
 Wamba’s successor, A.D. 680, that he “ regnandi 
 per sacrosanctam unctionem succeperit potesta- 
 tem ” (Labbe, Cone. vi. 1225, canon i.). 
 
 Passing by the language of Gildas {de Excid. 
 Prit. § 21), “ ungchaiitxir reges et non per Deum, 
 &c.,” as more oratorical than historical, and the 
 uncertain reference to unction in Ina’s designation 
 of himself, “by God’s grace, king of the West 
 Saxons,” in the opening sentence of his laws 
 A.D. 690, we come down to the form of coro¬ 
 nation contained in the Pontificale of Egbert, 
 archbishop of York A.D. 732-767, of which Mr. 
 hlaskell says, “ it is probably not only the most 
 ancient English use, but the most ancient extant 
 in the world” {fMonum. Pit. iii. 74—81). The 
 ritual, together with other ceremonies, expressly 
 includes the anointing of the king’s head with 
 oil. “ Benedictio super regem noviter electum. 
 Hie verget oleum cum cornu super caput ipsius 
 cum antiphone ‘ unxerunt Salomonem ’ et Psaimo 
 ‘ Domine in virtute tua.’ Unus ex jioutificibus 
 dicat orationem et alii unguant.” 
 
 The 12th canon of the Council of Cealcyth 
 \.D. 787, “ de ordinationc et honore regum,” 
 contains a valuable incidental mention of unction ' 
 as an essential element of the kingly office, in 
 the w'ords, “ Nec Christus Domini esse valet nec 
 rex totius regni qui ox legitiino non fuerit coii- 
 nubio generatus.” Of Egferth, son of Otfa, who 
 was crowned at this council as his father’s col¬ 
 league, the language ofthe Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 
 in which this is the earliest coronation men¬ 
 
 tioned, “hallowed to king” (#o cyningc gchahjod) 
 can onl}' be intorpi'etcd of unction, and so Wil¬ 
 liam of IMalmesljurv has understood it, “ in 
 regem inunctum.” Eardwulf, king of North¬ 
 umberland, is recorded to have been consecrated 
 (gcbletsod) and elevated to his throne (to his cinc- 
 stole ahofen) by Archbishop Eanbald and three 
 bishops (Anglo-Sax. Chron. A.D. 795). And finally 
 of Alfred, the same chronicle say.s, a.d. 854, that 
 w'hen Pope Leo IV. heard of the death of Ethel- 
 wulf he consecrated him king (hletsode Alured 
 to cin;e'). The rhyming Chronicle of Robert of 
 Gloucester, quoted by Selden (Titles of Honour, 
 
 р. 150), in describing this coronation uses the 
 remarkable phrase “ he oiled (elcde) him to be 
 king: ”— 
 
 “ Erst he adde at Rome ybe, and vor is gret wisdomo 
 
 The pope I,eon him blessede, tho he ihuder come, 
 
 And the king is croune of this lond, yt in this lond 
 yat is: 
 
 And elede him to be king, ere he were king y\\ i?. 
 
 And he was king of Kngelond, of all that there come 
 
 That verst thus yeled was of the Pope of Rome. 
 
 And sutthe other after him of the erchebissop eehon. 
 
 So that biuore him tliur king was ther n-m.” 
 
 From England the custom of unction seems to 
 have passed into France, where Pippin’s anoint¬ 
 ing by Boniface, archbishop of Mentz, at Soissons 
 A.D. 752, is acknow’ledged by Martene (de Pit. 
 Eccl. ii. 212; cf. Selden, u.s. p. 113) to have 
 been the first regal unction the testimony for 
 which is worthy of credit.® According to Chif- 
 letius, p. 30 (apud Maskell u. s.), the rite was 
 more than once repeated: “ Pipinus omnium 
 Franciae regum primus, imitatus Judaeorum 
 reges, ut se sacra unctione venerabiiiorem au- 
 gustioremque faceret, semel atque iterum ungi 
 voluit.” This second unction is probably that 
 mentioned by Baronius, July 28, A.D. 754, wdien 
 Pippin received anointing from Stephen II. to¬ 
 gether with his sons Charles and Carlomann. 
 
 The custom of unction was firmly established 
 in the West by the close of the 8th century. 
 When Charles the Great w^as crowned in Rome 
 by Leo I. he was anointed with oil from head 
 to foot:— 
 
 KoX fiYjv aWa xp‘' 7 <rd,u.ei' 0 ? Koi vofjLOii ’lovSalitir, 
 eK K€<f)a\ris e\aUp rovror XpCei. 
 
 Const. Manass. in Chron. Synops. 
 
 The East followed the West in the adoption of 
 unction. It has been carried back to the time 
 of Ju.stin and Justinian, i. e. to the middle of 
 the 6th century (Onuphrius, Comit. Finperator. 
 
 с. 2); but Goar (Eucholog. p. 928) affirms that 
 “ the emperors of the East were not anointed 
 before that Charles the Great was crowned in 
 the West” (cf. Selden, v, s. p. 146). 
 
 In the earliest ritual anointing on the head 
 alone sufficed. That of the whole person, adopted 
 in the case of Charles the Great, was quite ex¬ 
 ceptional. The unction is thus limited In the 
 Pontificale of Egbert. In the Greek ritual, given 
 by Codinus, tlie head was anointed in the shape of 
 1 the cross (o'Tavpoeidws'). The mediaeval English 
 rite is peculiar in anointing the head, breast, and 
 
 * The ridiculous fable of the sancta ampulla, conveye<l 
 from heaven by an angel with oil for the coronation rites 
 of Clovis, A.D. 481, was not heard of till four hundred years 
 after the date of the supposed event, .and then in conn''xion 
 with his baptism and confirmation. (Hincmar, Tifa.S’. Retr. 
 ap Suriam, Jan. 13.) 
 
 2 H . 
 
408 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 CORONATION 
 
 arms, denoting g^ory, sanctity, and strength, j 
 The k'ngs of Franco were anointed in nine places 
 —tlie head, breast, between the shoulders, the 
 shoulders themselves, the arms, and the hands. 
 I>ut this was a later development of the rite. 
 Tlie head alone was anointed in three places, the 
 right ear, the forehead round to the left ear, 
 anil the crown of the head, when Charles the 
 Bald was crowned by Hiucmar, A.D. 809 (Hinc- 
 mai', ()/>c’ra, i. 745). 
 
 (c) The delivery of the sceptre and staff, which 
 appears in the English ritual of the Pontificale 
 of Egbert, is evidently derived from the custom 
 prevailing among the Lombards, Franks, and 
 other early nations, to which we have already 
 referred, of delivering a spear to the newly 
 elected sovereign. 
 
 (rf) The proft.ssion of faith, which in later times 
 formed part of the ritual of an imperial coro¬ 
 nation, preceding the episcopal benediction, is 
 not mentioned in the more ancient authorities. 
 The instances given by Martene {de Ritibus) in 
 proof of its early date are quite inconclusive. 
 Jovian’s declaration of Christian faith on his 
 election as emperor by the soldiers of his army, 
 was evidently entirely voluntary (Theodoret, 
 //. E. iv. 1). The demand made of Anastasius 
 (A.D. 491) by the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 Euphomius, that as the price of the episcopal 
 sanction to his election to the imperial dignity, 
 he would sign a document declaring his adhesion 
 to the orthodox faith, was quite exceptional 
 (Evagr. IL E. iii. 32 ; Theod. Lect. iii.), while 
 the profession of orthodoxy required by Cyriac 
 of Phocas A.D. 602, and unhesitatingly given by 
 that base and sanguinary usurper to purchase 
 the patriarch’s recognition, can scarcely be 
 pressed into a precedent. In the Gothic king¬ 
 dom of Spain an oath that he would defend 
 the Catholic faith, and preserve the realm from 
 the contamination of Jewish unbelievers, was very 
 early exacted of the .sovereign. Such a pledge 
 is declared essential in the Acts of the 6th 
 Council of Toledo, A.D. 636 (act iii. Labbe, 
 Coacil. V. p. 1743), and in the later councils held 
 at the same place. It is expressly declared of 
 Wamba A.D. 673 that before the ceremony of 
 unction and after the assumption of the royal 
 attire, “ regio jam cultu conspicuus ante altare 
 divinum consistens ex more fidem populis red¬ 
 didit” (Jul. Tolet. § 4). The oath of King 
 Egica is given in the Acts of the 15th Council 
 of Toledo A.D. 688. No such oath or profession 
 of faith appears in the form of coronation in 
 the Pontificale of Egbert. We are unable to 
 state when it was introduced into the ritual of 
 the Eastern empire. But according to Georgius 
 Codinus (ca}). xvii. §§ 1-7), the newly recognized 
 emperor had to give a written jwofession of 
 faith before his coronation, to be publicly read 
 in St. So]ihia’s. 
 
 (e) Leontius (Vita Sancti Joan. Alex. Episc. c. 
 
 17) mentions a remarkable custom prevailing in the 
 coronations of the Eastern empire in the 6th cen¬ 
 tury as an iulmonition of the transitoriness of all 
 earthly greatness. After his coronation the archi¬ 
 tects of the impori.il monuments approached the 
 emperor and presented specimens of four or five 
 marbles of dili'erent colours, with the inquiry 
 which he would choose for the construction of 
 his own monument. The analogous ceremony de¬ 
 scribed by I’eter Ihunianus (^Litt. lib. i. 17), 
 
 though belonging to a later period, may be men-, 
 tioned here. The emperor having taken his seat 
 on his throne, with his diadem on his head and 
 his sceptre in his hand, and his nobles standing 
 around, was approached by a man carrying 
 a box full of dead men’s bones and dust in one 
 hand, and in the other a wisp of flax which—as 
 in the papal enthronization—was lighted and 
 burnt before his eyes. 
 
 (/) This article may be fittingly closed by an 
 epitome of the ritual prescribed in the Pontificale 
 of Egbert, A.D. 732-767, already repeatedly 
 referred to as the eai liest extant form of corona¬ 
 tion. 
 
 The title of this coronation service is “ Missa 
 pro regibus in die Benedictionis ejus.” It com¬ 
 mences with the Anti])hon “Justus es Domine, 
 &c.” (Ps. cxix. 137), and the Psalm “ Beati im- 
 maculati (Ps. cxix. 1). Then succeeds a Lesson 
 from Leviticus, “ Haec dicit Dominus” (Lev. 
 xxvi. 6-9); the gradual, “ Salvum fac, &c.,” and 
 the verse, “Auribus percipe ” and “Alleluia,” 
 the Psalm “Magnus Dominus” (Ps. xlviii.), or 
 “ Domine in virtute ” (Ps. xxi.), and a sequenco 
 from St. Matthew, “In illo tempore” (Matt. xxii. 
 15). Then follows the “ BenedL io super regem 
 noviter electum,” and three collects, “ Te invo- 
 camus Domine sancte,” “ Deus qui populis tuis” 
 (both of which are found in the Liber Reqalis\ 
 and “ In diebus ejus oriatur omnibus aequitas.” 
 The unction follows, according to the form al¬ 
 ready given. After the collect, “ Deus electorum 
 fortitude,” succeeds the delivery of the sceptre. 
 The rubric is, “ Hie omnes pontifices cum princi- 
 pibus dant ei sceptrum in manu.” Fifteen Preces 
 follow. After this there is the delivery’ of the staff 
 (“Hie datur ei baculum in manu sua ”), with the 
 prayer, “Omnipotens det tibi Deus de rore coeli,” 
 &c., and imposition of the crown (the rubric is, 
 “Hie omnes pontifices sumant galerum et ponant 
 super caput ipsius ”), with the prayer, “ Bcnedic 
 Domine fortitudinem regis principis, &c.” This 
 is succeeded by the recognition of the people, 
 and the kiss. The rubric runs, “ Et dicat omnis 
 populus tribus vicibus cum episcopis et presby- 
 teris Vivat rex E. in sempiternum. Tunc con- 
 firmabitur cum benedictione omnis populus ” (Loo- 
 fric Missal, “ omni populo in solio regni ”) “ et 
 osculandum principem in sempiternum dicit. 
 Amen, Amen, Amen.” The seventh “oratio” is 
 said over the king, and the mass follows, avith 
 appropriate Offertory, Preface, kc. The whole 
 terminate-s with the three roy'al pi'ecepts, to 
 preserve the peace of the Church, to restrain 
 all ra 2 )acity’ and injustice, and to maintain justice 
 and mei'cy in all judicial proceedings. 
 
 Authorities. — Maskell, Momimenta Pitnalia 
 Ecclesiae Anylicanae, iii. 1-142. Martene. Pe 
 Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, ii. 201-237. Selden, 
 Titles of Honour, part i. ch. vii. Habertus, 
 Pontific. Graec. pp. 627 sq. Catalani, Comment, 
 in Pontific. Ronmn. i. 369-418. Menin, Traite' 
 dll Sacre et Couronnement des Rois et Reines de 
 France. Goar, Eucholoyium, pp. 924-9;)0. ^le 
 nard. Notes to Sacramentary of Gregory, p. 397. 
 Arthur Taylor, Ghn-y of Regality. Montfauoon, 
 Afonumens de VHistoire de France, tom. i. p. xvi. sq. 
 Discours preliminaire de I'inauguration dec pre~ 
 miers Rois de France. Codinus Curopalata, De 
 Officiis et Officialibus Curiae et Ecclesiae Constanti- 
 nopolitanae. c. xvii. Grimm, Pechtsalte thih'ier, 
 p. 234 sq. 
 
CORPORAL 
 
 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 469 
 
 CORPORAL {Corporale, Palla Corporah's, 
 Falla DominiccC). The cloth on which the ele¬ 
 ments are consecrated in the Eucharist. 
 
 It is probable from the nature of the case that 
 from the most ancient times the table on which 
 the Lord’s Supper was celebrated was covered 
 with a cloth. [See Altar-cloths.] In process 
 of time, the cloth which ordinarily covered the 
 table was itself covered, when the sacred ele¬ 
 ments were to be consecrated, by another cloth 
 called a Corporal. The Liber Pontificalis (p. 
 105, ed. Muratori) asserts that Pope Sylvester 
 (t 335) decreed that the sacrifice of the altar 
 should be consecrated not on silk or on any kind 
 of dyed cloth, but only on pure white linen, as 
 the Lord’s Body was buried in linen. The de¬ 
 crees of popes of that age lie, as is well known, 
 under.a good deal of suspicion; but at a some¬ 
 what later date Isidore of Pelusium (Epist. i. 
 123) lays down precisely the same rule as that 
 attributed to Sylvester. Germanus of Paris 
 (Expositio Brevis, p. 93, Migne) also lays down 
 that the corporal must be of linen, for the same 
 reason as that alleged by the preceding authori¬ 
 ties, and adds that it should be woven through¬ 
 out, like the seamless coat of the Lord. Regino 
 (De Discip. Eccl. c. 118) quotes a council of 
 Rheims to the following effect. The corporal on 
 which the immolation is made must be of the 
 finest and purest linen, without admixture of 
 any other material whatever. It must not re¬ 
 main on the altar except in time of mass, but 
 must either be placed in the sacramentary or 
 shut up with the chalice and paten in a place 
 kept delicately clean. When it is washed, it 
 must first be rinsed in the church itself, and in 
 a vessel kept for the purpose by a priest, deacon, 
 or subdeacon. 
 
 The corporal appears anciently to have co¬ 
 vered the whole surface of the altar. Hence, 
 according to the Ordo Pomanus TL c. 9, it re¬ 
 quired the services of two deacons to spread and 
 refold it. So the Ordo horn. /. c. 11. It was 
 necessary, in fact, that it should be sufficiently 
 larse to admit of the bread for a great number 
 of communicants being placed upon it, and to 
 allow a portion to be turned up so as to cover 
 the elements. But when, about the 11th century, 
 it ceased to be usual for the people to communi¬ 
 cate, and the bi’ead came to be made in the wafer 
 form, the corporal was made smaller, and a 
 separate cloth or covering was placed over the 
 chalice (Innocent III. De Myst. Miss ie, ii. 56). 
 This was often stiffened with rich material. 
 Many churches, however, especially those of the 
 Carthusians, retained the more ancient use of 
 the corporal even in modern times, as we are 
 informed by De Mauleon in his Her Liturg. pp. 
 57, 60, 200, 268. (Krazer, De Liiurgiis, pp. 
 175 ff.) 
 
 For the corporals of the Eastern Church, see 
 Antimexsium. [C.] 
 
 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. Corporal 
 punishment in almost every form was evidently 
 allowed by the lex talionis of the Pentateuch : 
 “ Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, 
 foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for 
 wound, stripe for stripe ” (Exod. xxi. 24, 25). It 
 was also allowed to be used by the master upon 
 his slave to an almost unlimited extent; if in¬ 
 deed he smote his servant or his maid with a 
 
 rod, and they died under his hand, he was to be 
 punished, but not if they “continued a day or 
 two” («6, 20, 21) ; the slave, however, obtaining 
 his freedom if his master blinded him of an eye, 
 or knocked a tooth out (vv. 26, 27). The judicial 
 bastinado (L e. for a freeman) was not to exceed 
 40 strij)es, lest “ thy brother should seem vile 
 unto thee ” (Dent. xxv. 3). That the use of per¬ 
 sonal chastisement remained prevalent, is evident 
 from the whole of the Old Testament, and espe¬ 
 cially from the Book of Proverbs; though it is 
 somewhat dillicult to see by whose hand the 
 “rod” or “stripes” which Solomon so zealously 
 eulogises as the due reward of fools could well 
 be applied. Not less zealously, it is well known, 
 does he inculcate the use of them for the instruc¬ 
 tion of children. 
 
 It seems hardly necessary to point out how 
 much milder is the tone of the New Testament 
 in these respects. Fathers were not to “ provoke 
 their children to wrath ” (Eph. vi. 4, and see Col. 
 iii. 21); masters were to “ forbear threatening” 
 with their slaves (Eph. -vn. 9). At the same time 
 the judicial use of corporal punishment is fre¬ 
 quently mentioned, and only indirectly censured 
 when in violation of an established privilege. 
 By the old Roman law indeed a citizen could 
 only be beaten with a vine-branch, not with, rods 
 (Justes) or with the scourge {flagellum'), which 
 privilege was extended by Caius Gracchus to the 
 Latins; hence St. Paul’s twice-recoHed protest 
 (Acts XAU. 37 ; xxii. 25) against being “ beaten ” 
 or “ scoui’ged,” being “ a Roman.” It is certain 
 however that in the Roman army a terrible pu¬ 
 nishment existed, called fustuarium, beginning 
 with a stroke of the centurion’s vine-branch (the 
 symbol of his authority), and seldom ending but 
 with death. And as the status of the freeman 
 became gradually lowered, it is clear that the 
 use of the rod became more prevalent, till we 
 find the jurists of the period extending from Se- 
 verus to the Gordians, such as Callistratus and 
 Macer (end of the 2nd to nearly middle of the 3rd 
 century), speaking of the fustes as the punish¬ 
 ment of the free, in cases where the slave would 
 bo flogged with the flagellum, or terming the 
 application of the former a mere “ admonition,” 
 but that of the latter a castigation {Dig. bk. xlviii. 
 t. xix. 11. 10, 7). 
 
 A constitution ofSeverus and Antonine forbade 
 the chastising with the fustes either decemvirs 
 or their sons {Code, bk. ii. tit. xii. 1. 5. A,D. 199); 
 The ignominy, however, arose from the sentence, 
 if for an oft'ence deserving by law such punish¬ 
 ment, not from the mere act; e. g. if inflicted 
 by way of torture, before sentence, it did not 
 dishonour {Dig. bk. iii. t. ii. 1. 22; Code, bk 
 ii. t. xii. 1. 14; law of Gordian, A. D. 239); 
 though the torturing of decemvirs under any 
 circumstances was eventually forbidden (bk. x. 
 t. xxxi. 1. 33; Const, of Giatian, Valentinian, 
 and Theodosius, A.D. 381). But a man was in¬ 
 famous after being whipped and told by the 
 praeco, “Thou hast calumniated” (bk. ii. 1. 16, 
 AD. 241). An extract from the jurist Callis¬ 
 tratus in the Digest (bk. 1. t. ii. 1. 12) brings out 
 in a striking way the conflict between the old 
 civic pride of Rome and the debasement of muni¬ 
 cipal government during her decay. Traders, he 
 says, though liable to be flogged by the aediles, 
 are not to be set aside as vile. They are not 
 forbidden to solicit the decurionate or other 
 
470 CORPORAL PUNISn:\IENT 
 
 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 
 
 honours in tho city of their birthplace. But it 
 does not seem to him honourable to admit to the 
 d.ecurion order persons who have been subject 
 to such chastisement, especially in those cities 
 which have an abundance of honourable men, 
 for it IS the paucity of those who should fulfil 
 municipal offices which necessarily invites such 
 ])ersons, if wealthy, to municipal honours. And 
 the 45th Novel, whilst subjecting Jews, Sama¬ 
 ritans, and hercdics, to all the charges of the 
 decurionate, deprived them of its privileges, “as 
 that of not being scourged.” 
 
 It will thus be seen that during the five cen¬ 
 turies which separate Justinian from St. Paul, 
 the idea of corporal punishment under its most 
 usual forms as a social degradation subsisted, 
 yet the liability to it had been greatly extended. 
 The equality before the law which might have 
 been reached through the extension of Roman 
 citizenship itself had been by no means attained, 
 but the character of that citizenship itself had be¬ 
 come debased, and the exemption from corporal 
 punishment which still fluttered, like a last rag 
 of the toga, on the shoulders of the civic officers, 
 had been ah’eady blown off for some. There were 
 decurions who had been flogged, and decurions 
 who could be flogged. Such exemption was 
 indeed growing to be a privilege attached to the 
 mere possession of wealth. Thus delation if 
 proved false, or where the delator did not perse¬ 
 vere, should he be of mean fortune, which he did 
 not care to lose, was to be punished with the 
 sharpest flogging (gravissimis verberibus. Code, 
 bk. X. t. xi. 1. 7 ; law of Gratian, Valentinian 
 and Theodosius, end of 4th century). 
 
 Among the offences w'hich entailed corporal 
 punishment, besides the one last mentioned, may 
 be named false witness {Code, bk. iv. t. xx. 1. 13, 
 constitution of Zeno, end of 5th century). The 
 use of it multiplied indeed as the character of 
 the people became lowered, and the Novels 
 are comparatively full of it. The 8th enacts 
 flogging and torture against the taking of 
 money by judges (c. 8); the 123rd punishes 
 with “ bodily torments” those persons, especially 
 stage-players and harlots, who should assume 
 the monastic dress, or imitate or make a mock 
 of Church usages (c. 44); the 134th enacts cor¬ 
 poral punishment against those who detained 
 debtors’ children as responsible for their fiither’s 
 debt (c. 7), or who abetted illegal divorces (c. 11), 
 and requires the adulterous wufe to be scourged 
 to the quick—so we must probably understand 
 the words “ competentibus vulneribus subactam” 
 (c. 10; and see c. 12). On the other hand, a 
 husband chastising his wife with either the 
 fustes or flagellum, otherwise than for conduct 
 for which he might lawfully divorce her, was by 
 the 117th Novel made liable to pay to her, during 
 coverture, the amount of l-3rd of the ante-nup¬ 
 tial gift (c. 14). The last chapti r of the 134th 
 Novel indeed {De poenarum omnium moderatione, 
 c. 13) professes to inculcate moderation in pu¬ 
 nishment, and enacts that from henceforth there 
 shall be no other penal mutilation than the cut¬ 
 ting off of one hand, and that thieves shall only 
 be flogged. Already under Constantine it had 
 been enacted {Code, bk. ix. t. xlvii. 1. 17, A.D. 
 315) that branding should not be in the face, as 
 figuring “ the heavenly beauty,”—a law in which 
 file influence of Christian feeling upon the first 
 Christian emperor is strikingly displayed. 
 
 Passing from the legislation of the East to that 
 of the West, we find on the whole a very similar 
 course of things. Among the ancient Germans, 
 according to the account of Tacitus, corporal 
 punishment was rare. He notes as a singularity 
 that in war none but the priest w'as allowed to 
 punish, bind, or even strike (ne verberare quidem) 
 a soldier {De Mor. Germ. c. vii.). A husband 
 might indeed flog his adulterous wife naked 
 through the streets (c. xix.); but otherwise even 
 slaves were rarely beaten (c. xxv.). 
 
 In the barbaric codes, corporal punishment is 
 in like-manner primarily a .social degradation. 
 We find it inflicted on a slave, as an alternative 
 for compensation. Under the Salic law, a slave 
 stealing to the value of 2 denarii was to receive 
 120 blows (ictus) or to pay three solid! {Cactus 
 vulgod. antiq. t. xiii.), the solidus being equiva¬ 
 lent to 40 denarii. The same punishment was 
 inflicted on a slave committing adultery with a 
 slave-girl (rape indeed seems meant) where she 
 did not die of it (t. xxix.). Where a slave was 
 accused of theft, corporal punishment was applied 
 by way of torture. Stretched on a bench (super 
 scamnum tensus) as the really older but so- 
 called recentior text has it, he received 120 
 blows {ictus, or as the other text has it, 121 co- 
 laphos). If he confessed under torture, as already 
 mentioned under the head “ Mutilation of the 
 Bouv,” the penalty was castration if a male, 
 but for a woman 240 strokes with a scourge, or 
 6 solidi. A Constitution of King Childebert 
 (middle of 6th century), contained in Labbe 
 and Mansi’s Councils, enacts in certain cases of 
 sacrilege that a “servile person” shall receive 
 100 lashes. Under the Burgundian law (in force 
 from the beginning of the 6th until at least 813, 
 when it was still recognised) bodily punishment 
 without the option of composition was enacted 
 for the slave, where the freeman might com¬ 
 pound. Thus for the theft of a hog, sheep, goat, 
 or of bees, the slave receiA'ed 300 strokes with 
 the rod, and fustigation is in the like manner 
 enacted for other offences by slaves (t. v. &c.). 
 A Lombard law of A.D. 724 (bk. vi. c. 88) has a 
 singular enactment, punishing with shaving and 
 whipping those women whom their husbands 
 send out upon men of small courage (super ho¬ 
 mines qui minorem habebant virtutem), a text 
 which gives a high idea of the vigour of Lombard 
 women. 
 
 The Wisigothic laws exhibit to us before any 
 others the breaking down of the previous free¬ 
 man’s privilege (analogous to that of the Roman 
 citizen) of exemption from corporal punishment. 
 The corrupt or unjust judge, if unable to make 
 due restitution and amends was to receive jO 
 strokes with the scourge publicly (publicc ox- 
 tensus, Bk. ii. c. 20). The use (or abuse) of cor¬ 
 poral punishment is indeed most conspicuous in 
 this code. If a free woman married or com¬ 
 mitted adultery with her own slave or freedman, 
 the puni.shm.ent was death, after the public flagel¬ 
 lation of both (bk. iii. t. ii. 1. 2). If she com¬ 
 mitted adultery with another’s slave, each was 
 to i-eceive 100 lashes (1. 3). A ravisher being a 
 freeman, besides being handed over as a slave to 
 the ravished, was to receive 200 lashes in the 
 sight of all (bk. iii. t. iii. 1. 1). The brother 
 who forced a sister to marry against her will 
 was to receive 50 lashes {ibid. 1. 4). The slave 
 ravishing a freewoman received 300 lashes, 
 
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 
 
 with decalvation, i. e. arcordiug to the meaning 
 of the word at this period, scalping; 2()0 and 
 decalvation for ravishing a slave-woman. Acces¬ 
 saries to rape, if free, 50 lashes, it slaves, 100 
 (11. 8-12). So again for the various grades of 
 adultery. A freeman committing adultery with 
 a goodly (idonea) slave-girl in her master’s house 
 vVas to receive 100 strokes without infamy (ap¬ 
 parently inflicted in private, and with a stick 
 only),—if with an inferior one, 50 only ; a slave 
 receiving for the like offence 150 lashes, and the 
 punishment increasing if violence were used (t. 
 iv. 11. 1-1—16). By a law of Recared (ib. 17), 
 public flogging was also made the punishment 
 for prostitution, with some remarkable provi¬ 
 sions; thus when pi'actised by. a freewoman with 
 the knowledge or for the benefit of her parents, 
 each was to receive 100 lashes; and when by a 
 slave for her master’s benefit, he was to receive 
 the same number of lashes as were to be given 
 to her, and 50 in any case where after being 
 flosrsced and “decalvated” she returned to the 
 streets. And 100 lashes awaited the w'oman, 
 religious or secular, who either married or com¬ 
 mitted adultery with a jiriest (1. 18, also of 
 Recared). By a law of Chindasuinth (t. A'i. 1. 2) 
 a husband remarrying after divorce w'as to receive 
 200 lashes publicly, with decalvation. Another 
 law of the same king (bk. iv. t. v.) enacted 50 
 lashes against a child striking a parent or in va¬ 
 rious other ways misbehaving against him. Flog¬ 
 ging, with or without decalvation is again the 
 punishment for consulting a soothsayer on the 
 health of a man (bk. vi. t. ii. 1. 1),—that of sor¬ 
 cerers, storm-rai.sers, invokers of and sacrificers 
 to demons and those who consult them (1. 3); 
 of judges or others who consult diviners or apply 
 themselves to auguries (1, 5) ; of slave-women 
 and slaves causing abortion (t. iii. 11. 1, 5, 6) ; 
 generally for wounds and personal injuries by 
 slaves, and to some e.xtent by freemen (t. iv.); 
 for thefts, either of goods or slaves (bk. vii. t. ii. 
 t. iii.), with again the remarkable provisions that 
 if a master stole wdth his slave, or the slaA’e by 
 his master’s order, the master was to receive 
 100 lashes (besides compounding), the slave to 
 be exempt from punishment (t. ii. 1. 5, t. iii. 1. 
 5) ; for certain forgeries (t. v. 1. 2) ; for gathering 
 a crowd to commit murder (bk. viii. t. i. 1. 3); 
 for violently shutting up a person within his house 
 (1. 4) ; for soliciting others to I’ob or robbing on 
 the line of march, the offence in the tw'O latter 
 cases being however for freemen alternative with 
 composition (11. 6, 9, 10, 11); for setting fire to 
 woods (t. ii. 1. 2); in the case of persons of infe¬ 
 rior condition, for destroying crops (t. iii. 1. 6), 
 sending animals into crops or vines (1. 10); also 
 for breaking mills or dams and leaving them 
 unrepaired for 30 days (1. 30), &c. &c. Nowhere 
 however is the abuse of cor])oral punishment 
 more terrible than in the case of offences against 
 religion. Blasphemers of the Trinity, Jews with¬ 
 drawing themselves, their children or servants 
 from baptism, celebrating the PassoA'er, obserA’’- 
 ing the Sabbath or other festiA'als of their creed, 
 . Avorking on the Lord’s day and on Christian 
 feast days, making distinctions of meats, marry¬ 
 ing Avithin the 6th degree, reading Jewish books 
 against the faith, &c., AA-ere to receiA’e 100 lashes 
 with decalvation, and Avith or without exile and 
 elaA'ery (bk. xii. t. iii. 11. 2, 8, 11). For marry¬ 
 ing without priestly benediction, or in anywise 
 
 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 471 
 
 exceeding the 'hav as to dowry, tlie JcAvi.sh hus¬ 
 band, his Avife ani her jairents, Avere to receive 
 100 lashes, or compound Avith 100 solidi, A laAV 
 of Recare,1 confirming the Council of Toledo 
 punislied Avith 50 bloAvs (Avithout infamy) any 
 person Avho disobeyed the enactments of the 
 Council and had no money to lose (t. i. 1. 3). 
 
 In the ferocity of j)miishment under this Code, 
 Ave must not hoAvever lose sight of the fact 
 already jtointed out elscAvliere in these pages 
 [Body, ]\1i:tii,atiox of tiik], that the enactment 
 of any fixed punishment constitutes an enormous 
 ste)A in advance on the mere composition of the 
 earlier barbaric Codes, Avhilst in vaiaous of the 
 enactments, such as those exempting slaves from 
 punishment Avhere they onlv act as the tools of 
 their master-s, Ave find a striving toAvards a higher 
 and more discriminating standard of justice than 
 that Avhich measures other contemporary legis¬ 
 lation, Avhich equally bears testimony to the 
 infiuence of the clergy on Wisigothic legislation— 
 an infiuence, indeed, of Avhich Ave see the darker 
 side in the atrociou.s laAvs against the JeAA’s. 
 
 Amongst our Anglo-Saxon forefathers, corporal 
 punishment seems in general to haA'e been con¬ 
 fined to shiA'es, as an alternative for compensation, 
 AvhereAvith the slaA'e “ redeemed ” or “ paid the 
 price of his skin,” as it is expressed ; e.g. for 
 sacrificing to devils (hiAvs of Wihtraal, Kent, a.d. 
 691-725), for Avorking on Sundays (laAvs of Ina^ 
 A'.D. 688-728, iii.). In certain cases of theft the 
 accuser himself Avas alloAved to flog the culprit 
 (xxAuii.). A foreigner or stranger wandering out 
 of the Avay through the Avoods, who neither 
 shouted nor bleAV the horn, Avas to be deemed 
 a thief, and to be flogged or redeem himself 
 (xviii.). 
 
 Capital punishment is again prominent in the 
 Capitularies. The first Capitulary of Carlomau, 
 A.D. 742 (c. 6), imposes two years’ imprisonment 
 on a fornicating priest, after he has been scourged 
 to the quick (flagellatus el scorticatus). The Capi¬ 
 tulary of Metz, 755, following a synod held at the 
 same place, enacts that for incest a slave or freed- 
 man shall be beaten Avith many stripes, as also any 
 “minor” cleric guilty of the like offence. The 
 same enactment, confined to the case of marrying 
 a cousin, and in slightly different language, occurs 
 elseAvhere in the general collection. A saA^age one 
 on conspiracies (a.d. 805, c. 10) is added to the 
 Salic law, enacting that Avhere conspiracies have 
 been made Avith an oath—the principals suffering 
 death—the accessaries are to flog each other and 
 cut each other’s noses oft’; even if no mischief 
 shall haA^e been done, to shaA'e and flog each 
 other. For conspiracies, without an oath, the 
 shvA'e only Avas to be flogged, the freeman clearing 
 himself by oath or compounding. The same laAv 
 occurs in the General Capitularies (bk. iii. 9). 
 Another laAV of the 7th book (c. 123) enacts 
 public flagellation and decah’ation for the slave 
 marrying Avithiu the 7th degree of consanguinitv, 
 and the 4th Addition embodies much of the 
 rigorous Wisigothic Code as toAvards the JeAvs, 
 who are to be decah'ated and receiA'e 100 lashes 
 publicly if they marry Avithin the prohibited 
 degrees (c. 2). And the Wisigothic j)rovisiou 
 against marrying Avithout priestly benedictions, 
 or exceeding in anyAvise the laAvs as to doAvry, is 
 by this extended to JeAvs as well as Christians. 
 
 There remains only to shcAV corporal punish¬ 
 ment as either the subject or as forming part of 
 
472 CORPOKAL PUNISHMENT 
 
 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 
 
 the discipline of the church itself. Here, indeed, 
 we find at first a much higher standard than that . 
 of the civil law. Among the j)ersons whose offer- ^ 
 ings the Apostolic Constitutions reijuire to be re¬ 
 jected are such as “ use their slaves wickedly, with 
 stripes, or hunger, or hard service” (bk. iv. c. 0). ^ 
 Soon however a harsher law must have j)revailed. • 
 'The Council of Eliberis, a.d. 305, enacted (c. 5) 
 tiiat if a mistress, inflamed by jedlousy, should ^ 
 .so flog her handmaid that she should die within 
 three days, she is only to be admitted to com- j 
 munion after seven years’ ])enance (unless in case 
 of dangerous illness) if the act were done wilfully, 
 or after fine if death were not intended—a pro¬ 
 vision which speaks volumes indeed of the bitter- | 
 ness of Spanish slavery at this period, but which | 
 nevertheless shews the church taking cognizance 
 of the slave-owner’s excesses, and endeavouring j 
 to moderate them by its discipline, at least in the 
 case of women. On the other hand, the right of 
 ])ersonal chastisement was often arrogated by the 
 clergy themselves, since the Apostolic Canons 
 enact that a bishop, priest, or deacon, striking 
 the faithful who have sinned, or the unfaithful 
 Avho have done wrong, seeking thereby to make 
 himself feared, is to be deposed (c. 19, otherwise 
 ,26 or 28), and Augustine clearly testifies to the 
 fact of corporal punishment being judicially 
 inflicted by bishops, in that painful letter of his 
 to the Prefect Marcellus, in which, whilst ex¬ 
 horting him not to be too severe in punishing 
 the Donatists, he praises him at the same time 
 for having drawn out the confession of crimes so 
 great by whipping with rods (virgarum verberi- 
 bus), inasmuch as this “ mode of coercion is wont 
 to be applied by the masters of liberal arts, by 
 jiarents themselves, and often even by bishops in 
 their judgments ” (Ajo. 133, otherwise 159). 
 
 Corporal punishment seems moreover to have 
 formed from an early period, if not from the 
 first, a part of the monastic discipline. The rule 
 of St. Pachomius, translated into Latin by Je¬ 
 rome (art. 87), imposes the penalty of thirty-nine 
 lashes, to be inflicted before the gates of the 
 monastery (besides fasting), after three warnings, 
 on a monk who persists in the “ most evil custom” 
 of talking, as well as for theft (art. 121). The 
 same punishment may also be implied in the 
 term “ corripere ” used in other articles, as “ cor- 
 ripientur juxta ordinem,” “ corripietur ordine 
 monasterii,” &c. But the word might also apply 
 to mere verbal correction, since by art. 97 chil¬ 
 dren who could not be brought to think of God’s 
 judgment “ et correpti verbo non emendaverint,” 
 are to be flogged till they receive instruction and 
 fear. In the 4th book of Cassian’s work, ‘ De 
 coenobiorum institutis ’ (end of 4th or begin¬ 
 ning of 5tb ceatury), flogging is placed on the 
 same line with expulsion as a punishment for the 
 graver offences against monastic discipline (some 
 of which indeed may appear to us very slight), 
 as “ open reproaches, manifest acts of contemjjt, 
 swelling words of contradiction, a free and un¬ 
 restrained gait, familiarity with women, anger, 
 fighting's, rivalries, quarrels, the presumption to 
 do some special work, the contagion of money 
 loving, the affecting and possessing of things 
 superfluous, which other brethren have not, 
 extraordinary and furtive refections, and the 
 like” (c. 16). In the rule of St. Benedict (a.d. 
 528) corporal punishment seems implied in the 
 “major eraendatio.” And “if a brother for any 
 
 the slightest cause is corrected (corripitur) in 
 any way by the abbot or any prior, or if he 
 lightly feel that the mind of any prior is wroth 
 or moved against him, however moderately, with¬ 
 out delay let him lie prostrate on the earth at 
 his feet, doing .satisfaction until that emotion be 
 healed. But if any scorn to do this, let him be 
 either subjected to corporal punishment, or it 
 contumacious, expelled from the monastery” 
 (c. 71). Here, it will be seen, corporal punish¬ 
 ment is viewed as a lighter penalty than ex¬ 
 pulsion. 
 
 We need not dwell on a supposed Canon of the 
 above-referred to Council of Eliberis, to be found 
 in Gratian and others (ex cap. ix.), allowing 
 bi.shops and their ministers to scourge coloiii 
 with rods for their crimes. But in the letters of 
 Gregory I. the Great, 590-603, the right of 
 inflicting, or at least ordering personal chastise¬ 
 ment is evidently assumed to belong to tho 
 clergy. In a letter to Pantaleo the Notary (bk. 
 ii. Ft. ii. Ep. 40), on the subject of a deacon’s 
 daughter who had been seduced by a bishop’s 
 nephew, he required either that the offender 
 should marry her, executing the due nuptial 
 instruments, or be “ corporally chastised ” and 
 put to penance in a monastery, and the Pope 
 renews this injunction in a letter (42) to the 
 uncle. Bishop Felix, himself. Bishop Andreas of 
 Tarentum, who had had a woman on the roll 
 of the church (de matriculis) cruelly whipped 
 with rods, against the order of the priesthood, 
 so that she died after eight months, was never¬ 
 theless only punished by this really great Pope 
 with two months’ suspension from saying mass 
 (jepp. 44, 45). Sometimes, indeed, corporal punish¬ 
 ment was inflicted actually in the church, as we 
 see in another letter of the same Pope to the 
 Bishop of Constantinople, complaining that an 
 Isaurian monk and priest had been thus beaten 
 with rods, “ a new and unheard of mode of 
 preaching ” (ep. 52). But the same Gregory 
 deemed it fitting that slaves, guilty of idolatry 
 or following sorcerers, should be chastised w'ith 
 stripes and tortures for their amendment (bk. vii. 
 pt. ii. ep. 67, to Januarius, Bishop of Calaris). 
 Elsewhere the flogging of penitent thieves seems 
 to be implied (bk. xii. ep. 31, c. iv.). 
 
 Towards the end of the same century, the 
 16th Council of Toledo, A.D. 693, enacted that 
 100 lashes and shameful decalvatio should be the 
 punishment of unnatural offences. With this 
 and a few other exceptions, however, the enact¬ 
 ments of the church as to corporal punishment 
 chiefly refer to clerics or monks. The Council of 
 Vannes in 465 had indeed already enacted that 
 a cleric proved to have been drunk should 
 either be kept thirty days out of communion, 
 or subjected to corporal punishment (c. 13). 
 The 1st Council of Orleans in 511 had enacted 
 that if the relict of a priest or deacon were to 
 marry again, she and her hu.sband were after 
 “castigation” to be separated, or excommu¬ 
 nicated if they persisted in living together (c. 3). 
 Towmrds the end of the 7th century, the Council 
 of Autun (about 670), enacted that any monk who 
 w^ent against its decrees should either be beaten 
 with rods, or suspended for three years from com¬ 
 munion (c. 15). In the next century, Gregory III. 
 (731-41), in his Excerpt from the Fathers and 
 the Canons, assigns stripes as the punishment for 
 thefts of holy things, and inserts the Canon of 
 
CORSICUS 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 473 
 
 the Counril ol Elibc-ris as to the penance of a 
 mistress flogging her slave girl to death (cc. 2, 
 3). The Synod of Metz, 753, in a canon already 
 quoted in part above as a capitulary, enacted 
 that a slave or fi*eedman without money, com¬ 
 mitting' incest with a consecrated woman, a 
 gossip, a cousin, was to be beaten with many 
 stripes, and that clerics committing the like 
 ortence, if minor ones, were to be beaten or im¬ 
 prisoned (c. i.)- We might, indeed, refer the 
 reader under this head to all that is said above 
 as to the Capitularies, the civil and ecclesiastical 
 legislation of this period being almost absolutely 
 undistiuguishable. 
 
 The practice of the church on this subject was 
 therefore in the main accordant with civil legis¬ 
 lation, which it seems nevertheless to have 
 humanised to some degree in favour of the slave. 
 On the other hand, the mischiefs of clerical influ¬ 
 ence show fearfully in the enactments of the 
 Wisigothic law against the Jews and others, and 
 in the Carlovingian legislation on the subject of 
 marriage within the prohibited degrees. 
 
 [X.B.—Bingham’s references on this head are 
 more than once misleading.] [J. M. L.] 
 
 CORSICUS, presbyter, martyr in Africa, 
 June 30 (^Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 COSMAS. (1) Martyr at Aegea, with Da¬ 
 mian, under Diocletian, Sept. 27 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Bedae, PiOm. Vet.., Usuardi) ; as “ wonder-workers 
 and unmercenary,” Nov. 1 {Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (2) ayio-noXiT-qs Kal Troiyrys, Oct. 14 {Cal. 
 Byzant.^, [0.] 
 
 COTTCDUS, or QUOTTIDIUS, deacon, 
 
 martvr in Cappadocia, Sept. 6 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 COUNCIL \Concilium, as early as Tertull. 
 De Jejun. xiii., De Pudic. x., and 'Zvvohos {=■ 
 “ assembly,” in LXX., and in the translation of 
 Symmachus), in Apost. Canons, xxxvi. al. xxxvii. 
 (and again in Euseb. H. E. v. 23, &c.), but the 
 latter term still used also at the same period for 
 any Christian assembly, e. g Apost. Constit. v. 20 : 
 in late medieval times, Lyndwood {Provinc. II. 
 tit. vii. p. 115) appropriates “council” to pro¬ 
 vincial, and “ synod ” to diocesan assemblies— 
 “ episcopi in suis dioecesibus faciunt synodos, 
 nietropolitani vero concilia P—Conciliubulum ap¬ 
 propriated to the “ conventicula haereticorum,” 
 as early as Cone. Cartk. IV. c. 70, a.d. 398, and 
 so also ^'eudo-o'vt'odos, and ''Vevdo-crvWoyos, in 
 the Theodos. Code :] = an assembly of either a 
 part or (as far as possible) the whole of the 
 Christian Church, for either elective, judicial, or 
 legislative purposes, or else to elicit the testimony 
 of the collective Church upon emergent doctrinal 
 questions,— suggested by Apostolic })recedent, 
 and by obvious reason, and grounding itself also 
 (as time went on) upon the promise of our Lord 
 to be present where any are gathered together in 
 His name (e. g. Cone. Chalced., Epist. ad Leon., 
 A.D. 451; Cone. Constantin. Act. xvii. a.d. 681; 
 Cone. Tolet. III. a.d. 527 ; Facund. Herm., Dcf. 
 Trium Capitul. c. vii.; &c.), and upon His in¬ 
 junction to “ tell the Church.” 
 
 Such councils are usually classified somewhat 
 as follows—in an order wfiich also tallies with 
 the chronological order in which each class came 
 to exist:— 
 
 1. A council of a single “parochia,” or (m the 
 
 ! modern sense) diocese, consisting of the bishop 
 and j)resbyters, but with the deacons and people 
 assisting; which will be here called Dioci:sax 
 (called also A7?jsco/)a/, and in later [Frank] times, 
 
 ! Civile = of one city or see). Of such synods there 
 1 is no distinct mention until the 3rd centuj-v. 
 but it is obvious that, either in a formal or an 
 unformal way, they must have been part of the 
 ordinary organization of the Church, at a time 
 when each diocese consisted of the Christians of 
 a single city in which bishop and clergy dwelt, 
 with a few country congregations only, gradually 
 growing up,— i. e. from the very beginning ; and 
 that they would be recognized in canons, only 
 when the extent of dioceses, and other like causes, 
 rendered canons on the subject necessary. 
 
 2. A council of the bishops of several dioceses, 
 i. e. a Provincial Council, held (when metro¬ 
 politan organization came to exist) under the 
 metropolitan of the province, viz. from about 
 the latter half of the 2nd century, and from that 
 time considered a “ perfect ” (xeAela) synod of 
 the kind, only if the metropolitan were present 
 {fj (TvixTTa.pi(TTL Kul 6 T^s /.trjTpoTToAewx, Cone. 
 Antioch, a.d. 341, can. 16, and, much later. 
 Cone. Bracar. II. a.d. 572, can. 9). And such 
 councils were (with the diocesan synods) the 
 essential framework, as it were, and bond of union 
 and of good government in the Church ; and be¬ 
 came part of its ordinary machinery early in the 
 2nd century, and probably from the very begin¬ 
 ning, but are first mentioned, of the East, by 
 Firmilianus of Caesarea in Cappadocia {Epist. lb 
 ad Cyprian, earlier half of 3rd century), when 
 they regularly and of necessity (“ necessario ”) 
 recurred in Asia once a year, for purposes of di.s- 
 cipline, and of the West, by St. Cyprian, at the 
 same period. The “ Councils of the Churches,” 
 however, are mentioned by Tertullian {De Pudic. 
 X.) as if in his time an ordinary church tribunal, 
 which determined among other things against the 
 canonicity of the Shepherd of Hernias. 
 
 3. A council of the bishops of a patriarchate, 
 or primacy, or exarchate, i.e. of a diocese in the 
 ancient sense of the term ; as, e.g. a council tvs 
 'AvaToXiKrjs bioiK-qaeas ordained Flavian of An 
 tioch. Cone. Constant., ap. Theodor, H. E. v. 9; 
 called (as by St, Augustin, De Bapt. c. Donat. 
 i. 7, ii. 3) “ Regionis,” or national, or again 
 Plenarium, and Universale (e. g. Cone. 
 Tolet. in. A.D, 527, c. 18), and in Africa 
 in the 4th century Universale Anniver- 
 SARiUM (e.g. in Cone. Carth. III. c. 7); and 
 by Pope Symmachus, speaking of a Roman 
 Council of the kind, Generale. And under 
 this head may be reckoned also; — i. The 
 early councils, assembled incidentally and upon 
 emergencies, and consisting of as many bisho]>s 
 of neighbouring provinces gathered together 
 as circumstances allowed, such as t, ose which 
 Tertullian mentions : “ Aguntur praecepta per 
 Graecias illas certis in locis concilia ex universis 
 e'-clesiis,” &c., De .lejun. xiii. (implying that 
 hitherto there had been no councils of the kiml 
 in the West) ; or again, the councils in Asia Minor 
 and at Auchialus, against the Montanists, in the 
 middle of the 2nd century (Hefele), mentioned 
 by Eusebius, II. E. v. 16 ; or tl e various coun¬ 
 cils respecting Easter in both East and West in 
 the latter part of the same century (Euseb. 
 H. E. V. 24); which are the earliest councils 
 upon record, ii. The councils of the Eastero 
 
i74 COUNCIL 
 
 Church by itself, or of the Woslcru Church by 
 itself, as m the 4th century. And both these 
 classes were extraordinary, and for jjarticular 
 emergencies, iii. The regular annual jndinatial 
 councils (see Cone. Constantin. A.ix 881, can. 8), 
 as, e. g. of Antioch, or more remarkably, of 
 Africa: the latter of which, acc. to Cone. 
 Carthag. Til. a.d. 898, cans. 2, 7, 41, 48, was 
 to consist of three bishops as legates from each 
 African province, except that of Tripoli, which 
 was to send only one, as having few bishojjs, 
 thus admitting the princij)le of re))resentation 
 under pressure of circumstances ; while subse¬ 
 quent councils permitted a “ vicar ” instead of 
 the bishop in person in case of absolute necessity 
 {Cone. Carthag. I V. can. 21), and enacted a divi¬ 
 sion of the bishops into “ duo vel tres turmae,” 
 each “turma” to attend in turn {Cone. Carthag. V. 
 can. 10); and, lastly, altered the “yearly” 
 meeting into one only “quoties exegerit causa 
 communis” {Cone. Milevit. H. A.D. 410, can. 9, 
 Cod. Can. Afrie. xcv.). Like councils were (less 
 regularly) held at Rome in the 5th century, as 
 e.g. when three delegates from the Sicilian bishops 
 were directed by Pope Leo the Great {Epist. iv. 
 c. 71) to attend the autumnal synod of the two 
 to be annually held at Rome. And occasionally 
 elsewhere also, as in Spain and in Gaul. National 
 councils, in later times (6th century onwards), 
 e.g. in France, in Saxon England, and above all 
 in Spain, belong, xvhere they were purely eccle¬ 
 siastical, to the same class. 
 
 4. A council of (as far as possible) the bishops 
 of the whole Church, Oecumenical (first so 
 called in Euseb. V. Constant, iii. 6, and again in 
 Con.c. Constantin. A.D. 381), not intentionally 
 limited to specially the Roman world, but in¬ 
 cluding all Christians everywhere, although at 
 that period the Christian Church w^as nearly in¬ 
 cluded in the naiTower meaning ;—“ totius orbis ” 
 (St. Aug. Ee Bapt. e. Donat, i. 7), “ ex totoorhe ” 
 (Sulp. Sev. ii.), ‘•‘■plenarium universae eeelesiae” 
 (St. Aug. Epist. 102), '•‘■plenarium ex universo orbe 
 Christiano” as distinguished from (not only 
 “ provinciarum,” but) “ regionum concilia ” (Id. 
 De Bapt. e. Donat, ii. 3). So Tertullian (as above 
 cited) speaks of “ representatio totius Christiani 
 nomiuis.” And Augustin {De Bapt. e. Donat. 
 vii. 58) distinguishes “ regionale ” from “ple¬ 
 narium concilium,” and rests the certainty of the 
 latter on the “ universalis ecclesiae consensio.” 
 And this \vas regarded as an extraordinary re¬ 
 medy for an extraordinary emergency, to be 
 resorted to as seldom as possible; and even when 
 necessary, yet an evil for the time, as throwing 
 everything into disturbance,—as bad as a tempest 
 (“procella,” St. Hilar. De Synod is). And as it 
 was first possible, so does it appear to have been 
 first thought of, in the time of Constantine the 
 Great. 
 
 To these must be added, as matter of history, 
 although all moi’e or less abnormal :— 
 
 5. The SuyoSot’EySTjqoCfTat, at Constantinople, 
 from the 4th century, and again at the various 
 cities where the Roman emjierors dwelt, as at 
 Rome, and in one case (under Maximus) at Treves, 
 and again the Concilia Palatina under the Carlo- 
 vlngian emperors, held “ in regum palatiis;” 
 consisting in each case of the bishops who hap- 
 })ened to be at court. 
 
 6. The mixed national councils of the Euro¬ 
 pean Kingdoms, after the conversion of the 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 Franks, Saxons, Spaniards, &c.; P(aci^a, Witena- 
 gemots, &c. 
 
 The so-called Council of the Apostles (in Acts 
 XV.) is a distinct precedent, in principle, for 
 Church councils; as sanctioning the decision of 
 emergent controversies and matters of discipline 
 by common consultation of the whole Church 
 under the guidance and leadership of the 
 “apostles and elders,”the bishops and pres¬ 
 byters. It is “ the apostles and elders ” who 
 come together to consider the matter(Acts xv. 6). 
 Yet TTULP tS TrXijOos are present {ib. 12), but as 
 listening. It is “ the apostles and elders, vcit/i 
 the whole Church,” who make the decree {ib. 22). 
 And the best MSS. make that decree run in the 
 name of “ the apostles and elders” only, although 
 the reading is no doubt uncertain {ib. 23, read¬ 
 ing 01 aTTocTToAot Kal ol Trp€(T^vT€poi a5e\(poi). 
 The formal deliberation and the decree, then, 
 emanate from the apostles and the elders, but the 
 whole Church, i.e. the laity also, are consulted. 
 In the same way, in other cases, we find, e.g. 
 the “prophets and teachers” at Antioch sending 
 St. Paul and Barnabas on their mission ; yet St. 
 Paul and Barnabas report {h.vi\yyii\av) to an 
 “ assembly of the Church ” of Antioch what 
 “ God had done with them ” (Acts xiii. 1, xiv. 27); 
 St. Paul howev'er at a later time reporting pri¬ 
 vately, for obvious reasons, to James and the 
 elders {ib. xxi. 18). And the same two were 
 formally sent to the council at Jerusalem by 
 the Church of Antioch {npoiT^p.cpdevTes v-nb rys 
 iuKKrialas), which plainly had also appointed 
 them {era^au, Acts xv. 2, 3). In 1 Cor. v. 4, 
 the Church of Corinth is represented as “ gathered 
 together ” to exercise discipline. That St. James 
 presided at Jerusalem naturally follow’ed from his 
 office of Bishop of Jerusalem. Strictly speaking, 
 the assembly over which he presided w'as an 
 assembly of the Church of Jerusalem only, to 
 receive a deputation from the Church of Antioch. 
 And it differed from the Church councils also in 
 the actual presence in it of apostles. But this 
 difference only strengthens the case as a pre¬ 
 cedent for mutual deliberation on the part of the 
 Church collectively : eSo^ev rjfuu yepofievois 
 bfxoQvixahov (Acts xv. 25). Other assemblies in 
 apostolical times, mentioned in the Acts—viz. 
 Acts i. 15, to appoint an apostle in the place of 
 Judas; vi. 2, to establish the diaconate; ix. 27, 
 to receive St. Paul—have been miscalled Apo¬ 
 stolic Councils, by an obvious straining of the 
 term. 
 
 It will be convenient to speak, successively, 
 of— 
 
 A. The ORDER of holding Ecclesiastical Coun¬ 
 cils ; 
 
 B. The CONSTITUENT MEMBERS of Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Councils; 
 
 C. The AUTHORITV assigned to such Councils. 
 And, lastly, to add a few words respecting 
 
 D. Irregular and abnormal assemblies akin 
 to Councils. 
 
 A. Linder the head of the order of holdins: 
 a council, we have to consider,— 
 
 I, By K-hom couneils were stunmoned. 
 
 Diocesan and Provincial Councils were sum¬ 
 moned respectively by the bishop of the diocese 
 and by the metropolitan of the province (see 
 authorities in Bingham), and this after the time 
 of Constantine, as well as before it. A council 
 of two or more provinces together wouid natu* 
 
COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 475 
 
 rally be summoned by the senior metropolitan; 
 the earlier councils of neighbouring bishops, 
 prior to the organization of the metro])olitan 
 system, by the leading bishops of the locality, as, 
 e.fj. that at Antioch, which condemned Paul of 
 Samosata; those of a patriarchate or primacy, 
 as e.g. of Africa, by the patriarch or primate. 
 The (TvyoSoL ivSr)iJ.ov<rai of Constantinople were 
 summoned by the Patriarch of Constantinojile; 
 the Concilia J^alatina by the BT’ank kings and 
 emiierovs; the national councils of the European 
 kingdoms, which were as much civil as ecclesi¬ 
 astical, by the resjiective kings. And in these 
 last-named cases the royal permission or com¬ 
 mand to hold them is frequently mentioned, 
 Oocumenical Councils, consisting in the first in¬ 
 stance almost wholly of bishops of the Roman 
 empire, were summoned by the Roman emperors 
 until the 9th century (see Socrates, lib. v. ZVoom.), 
 although, naturally, upon consultation with the 
 chief bishops of the Church herself. After that 
 period, those that have been so called have been 
 summoned by the popes in the Western Church. 
 The great Council of Nice was summoned by 
 Constantine (by rifirjTiKa ypdiJ./jiara [Euseb., V. 
 Constant, iii. 6, and cf. Socrat. i. 9, Theodoret, i. 
 9], which purport to be given in a Syriac version 
 in B. H. Cowper’s Analecta Hicaena, pp, 21-29), 
 but “e.v sententia sacerdotum ” (Rufin, H. E. i. 
 1); ahd chiefly, as is plain, by the accounts of 
 Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozomen, upon the advice 
 of Hosius, bishop of Cordova. Later documents, 
 of no value in such a point, viz. the Liber Da- 
 masi and the Cone. Constantin. A.D. 680, put 
 forward Pope Sylvester as the adviser. The 
 Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, was sum¬ 
 moned by the Emperor Theodosius (Labb. iv. 
 1123, 1124); that of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Kara, 
 rb ypapLixa, or e/c 6€aTrL(rp.aTos, of Theodosius II. 
 and Valentinian III. (AcZ. in Mansi, iv. 1111); 
 Pope Damasus concurring in the former, but 
 Eastern patriarchs (Meletius of Antioch, Gregory, 
 and his successor Nectarius, of Constantinople) 
 really ‘‘assembling” it (even according to the Cone. 
 Constant, of A.D. 680, and see Vales, ad Theodoret. 
 H. E. V. 9); while Pope Celestine similarly con¬ 
 curred in the latter, but (as is evident by his 
 own letters) did not summon it (Aefs of the 
 Council and Letters in Mansi, iv. 1226, 1283, 
 1291). The case of the Council of Chalcedon, 
 A.D. 451, so far differs from its predecessors, that 
 the pope, Leo the Great, suggested and requested 
 it (desiring, however, to have it in Italy), yet 
 subsequently, and when too late, desired its 
 postponement (Leo M. Epist. 44, 54-58, 69, 73, 
 76, 89-95). The application was originally 
 made to Theodosius II. and Valentinian Ill., but 
 the council was actually summoned by Marcian, 
 “ e.x decreto piissimorum Imperatorum Valen- 
 tiniani et Marciani,” in the words of the council 
 itself (Labb. iv. 77), or in those of Leo, “ex 
 praecepto Christianorum principiim et consensu 
 Apostolicae Sedis ” (Leon. M. Epist. 114), and 
 again, in Marcian’s words to Leo (inter Leon. 
 Epist. “ te auctore.” The 2nd Council of 
 Constantinople, A.D. 553, was convoked by 
 Justinian (Labb. v. 4) after consultation with 
 Pope V’igilius and with Mennas patriarch of 
 Constantinople. But Vigilius after a time put 
 liMiiself in direct antagonism with the council, 
 and upon May 26, 553 was actually struck out 
 of the diptychs by it; although, afte>' its termi¬ 
 
 nation, he retracted, and in the end of A.D. 55.3, 
 and by a Constituium of February 23, A.D. 554, 
 accepted its decrees. The 3rd Council of Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 680, was convoked by the 
 “piissima jussio” of the Emperor Constantine 
 Pogonatus (Labb. vi. 608, 631), Pojie Agatho only 
 sending legates when requested, and with them his 
 own exposition of the faith, and a pi-ofessiou of 
 his rea(line.ss to pay “ promptam obedientiam ” to 
 the emjieror. The 5th of Constantinople, A.D. 
 754 (in Cave’s reckoning, the 8th oecumenical), 
 which condemned images, was summoned by 
 Constantine Coiironymus and Leo (Labb. vii. 
 397). The 2nd of Nice, A.D. 787, was convoked 
 by the Empress Irene and her son Constantine 
 (Labb. vii. 661), at the I'equest of Tarasius, 
 patriarch of Constantinople, with the acquiescence 
 of Pope Adrian 1.; the latter, however, speaking 
 afterwards of the council (in his letter to Charle¬ 
 magne) as summoned “secundum nostram ordi- 
 nationem.” And, lastly, the Emperor Basil, the 
 Macedonian, called together the 4th of Constan¬ 
 tinople, A.D. 869 (not acknowledged, however, 
 by the Eastern Church, which puts in its place 
 that of A.D. 879), after an embassy, sent to Pope 
 Nicholas L, but received and answered by his 
 successor Adrian 11. (Labb. viii. 1313). The 
 Council of Sardica, intended to be oecumenical, 
 was summoned by the Emperoi’s Constantins and 
 Constans (Socr. ii. 20; Sozom. iii. 2; St.Athanas. 
 Hist. Ariayi. § 36), And the numberless smaller 
 councils about Arianism were likewise sum¬ 
 moned by the emperors. See the summary of 
 the whole case in Andrewes (^liight and Lower 
 of calling A'semblies, Sermons, v. 160-165, and 
 Tortu'-a Torti, pp. 193, 422, sq.). The case of 
 the 1st Council of Arles, A.D. 314, is a pecu¬ 
 liar one. It was not a regular council of any 
 portion of the Church, but rather a selected 
 ecclesiastical tribunal, of which the members 
 were specially chosen and summoned by the 
 Emperor Constantine, and mainly from Gaul 
 (Euseb. IL E. x. 5; Optat. Hist. Donat, p. 181, 
 Dupin), intended to be oecumenical (the Emperor 
 “assembling there a large number of bishops from 
 different and almost innumerable parts of the 
 empire,” Euseb. ib.'), and actually called 
 “ plenarium,” and “ universae ecclesiae,” by 
 St. Augustine, but not so really, as neither 
 including all bishops nor any Eastern bishops. 
 And its object was to revise the decision of a 
 tribunal of fewer bishops held at Rome under 
 the Pope Melchiades in the previous year, 
 with which the Donatists were not content. 
 It was simply an instance, therefore, of that 
 which afterwards became a rule, viz. of the 
 Emperor’s assigning episcopal judges to decide 
 an ecclesiastical case. Much like it is the 
 summoning of the Roman councils about Pope 
 Symmachus, two centuries later, by King Theo- 
 doric. 
 
 The regular title for the bishop’s or metro¬ 
 politan’s letters of summons was Sgnodicae or 
 Tractoriae (St. Aug. Epist. 217 ad I VcZo/’ai.) ; 
 for the Emperor’s like letters, Sacrae. 
 
 From the summons, we go on to— 
 
 IL The time when, and the ocoisions upon 
 which, councils were summoned. Speaking first 
 of those councils which recurred, or were meant 
 to recur, regularly, we find the chief stress of 
 the canons to be directed to provincial councils, 
 as being no doubt more dilHcult to enforce, and 
 
476 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 idso in tlis interest of justice, such councils being 
 the court of appeal from the decisions of indi¬ 
 vidual bishoits. In the time of Kirmilian and of 
 Cyprian, as said above, these were habitually 
 held once a year; Firmilian’s words being a))])a- 
 rently determined to mean provincial, not dio¬ 
 cesan, councils, by the mention of “seniores et 
 prae])ositi,” “ j)resbyters and bisho])s ” (in the 
 plural). The great Council of Nice (can. .5) 
 increased them to twice in the vea.r, once before 
 Lent, once in autumn. And so also the Apostolic 
 Canon 37, s})ecifying, however, the 4th week 
 after Easter and the 12th of 'TTrepySeperaTo?, i.e. 
 October. And twice a year, accordingly, became 
 thenceforward the rule of what ought to be, 
 although in actual fact, and by repeated con¬ 
 cessions of councils, finally rela.xed into once. 
 So Cone. Antioch, A.D. 341, can. 20 (slightly 
 vaiying the days). Cone. Chalccd. a.d. 451, can. 
 19; and for Africa, Cone. Carthag. Ifl.A.n. 397, 
 can. 2, and V. can. 7 (fixing October 21), and Cod. 
 Can. Afric. c. 18 ; for Spain, Cone. Tolet. III. a.d. 
 589, can. 18, IV. A.D. 633, can. 3 (fixing May 20), 
 XI. A.D. 675, can. 15, XVII. a.d. 742, can. 1; 
 Emerit. a.d. 666, can. 7 ; for France, Cone. 
 Eegiens. a.d. 439, can. 8 (twice a year), A ansic. I. 
 A.D. 441, can. 89, Aarel. II. a.d. 533, can. 2, 
 Altissiod. A.D. 578, can. 7; and for England, 
 Cone. Calchgth. a.d. 787, can. 3 (the title of 
 which, however, seems to refer it to diocesan 
 councils), and before it. Cone. Hendf. a.d. 673, 
 can. 7, ordering a synod twice in the year, but 
 in the next sentence limiting the number to once, 
 viz. upon August 1, at Clovesho, bn the ground 
 of unavoidable hindrances. Once a year became, 
 indeed, the recognized practice (but as an un- 
 canonical concession to necessity), and is admitted 
 by Gratian {I)ist. xviii. c. 16, 189, 2 c.), and in 
 England by Lyndwood {Provinc. lih. i. tit. 14); 
 as it had been allowed much earlier by the 
 council in Trullo, can. 8, and by Cone. Nicaen. H. 
 can. 6. And similarly, Gregory the Great, 
 enjoining once a year in Sicily {Epist. i. 1), and 
 in Gaul {ib. ix. 106), adds in the latter case that 
 it ought to be twice; and enjoins twice in Sar¬ 
 dinia Qb. iv. 9), possibly as being an island of no 
 great extent; while in yet another case (<6. v. 
 54) he orders such synods whenever needed. 
 Leo the Great, likewise, a.d. 446, commands 
 synods twice a year at Thessalonica (^Epid. xiv.), 
 but A.D. 447, only once a year at Rome, yet with 
 the addition that it ought to be twice (ih. xvi.). 
 See also Avitus Vienn. (E/rist. 80—“ It ought to 
 be twice in a year, would that it were once in two 
 years ! ”) and Pope Hormisdas (Epist. 25—“ If not 
 two, at least one”). Finally, Pij)in, a.d. 755 (in 
 Cone, ^ crn. i)ref. cans. 2, 4), renewed the in¬ 
 junction of two a year, naming for them March 1 
 and October 1, but the second of them to be 
 attended only by the metropolitans and certain 
 selected clergy. Yet, a century after, the Cone. 
 Tull. A.D. 859, can. 7, is again compelled to sup¬ 
 plicate that they might be held once in the year. 
 
 Dioce.san synods are assumed, in the 11th 
 century (^Modiis tenendi Sgnodos, in Wilk. Cone. 
 iv. 784), to be also held twice a year. And 
 Herai'diis of Tours (^Capit. c. 91) similarly com¬ 
 mands them to be held twice, and each time not 
 to last moi'e than 15 days. But here, also, 
 earlier rules speak of once. Cone. Liptin. A.D. 743, 
 c. 1 (attributed also to Cone. Tolet. XVIf. can. 1), 
 Suession. a.d. 744, c. 2, St. Boniface {^Ejyist. 105), 
 
 Capit. Car. M. VII. 108; of which autnoriti(j, 
 however, the last is busied not so much with a 
 synod as with ordering the clergy to give account 
 of their acts and receive instructions, and bids 
 them go “ ))er turmas et per hebdomadas ” to 
 the bishop (i6. vi. 163). It was the office of such 
 synod.s, among other things, to ju'omulgate to the 
 dioce.se the decrees of the j)rovincial synod.s; and 
 accordingly we find a provision, in Cone. 'Polet. 
 XVI. A.D. 693, can. 7 (and cf. also Counc. of Clove¬ 
 sho, A.D. 747 can. 25, and the nearly contemporary 
 German Council under St. Boniface, can. 6,ia Had- 
 danaml Stubbs, iii. 371, 377), that a diocesan synod 
 should be held within six months after the jno- 
 vincial one. We find also abbats and jiresbyters 
 summoned to an annual synod, sometimes to¬ 
 gether, sometimes separately (Cone. Oscens. A.D. 
 598, c. 1, for Spain ; Altissiod. a.d. 578, can. 7, for 
 Gaul). Diocesan synods were at that time 
 commonly summoned about Lent. In ear¬ 
 lier times still, e,g. that of St. Cyprian, such 
 councils would seem to have been held whenever 
 needed. 
 
 The primatial or patriarchal synods were in¬ 
 tended to be annual, and that of Africa was com¬ 
 monly called Universale Anniversarinin. But 
 the usual difficulty of procuring attendance was 
 at once testified, and in attempt remedied, by 
 the provisions for representation mentioned 
 already. Pope Hilary {Epist. 3) also orders 
 such synods once a year in Gaul. And Leo the 
 Great summons the Sicilian bishops to attend by 
 representation at one of two such synods annually 
 in Rome {Epist. iv.). But circumstances must 
 have speedily rendered such regular synods im¬ 
 possible. The Council of Agde, a.d. 506, can. 71, 
 seems to renew the annual rule. But the 2nd 
 of Macon, A.D. 585, can. 20, made it triennial 
 (“ post trietericum tempus omnes conveniant ”) 
 for Gaul. And this is the Trideutiue rule in 
 later times. The Co-ncilia Palatina were at first 
 occasional, as the kings or emperors summoned 
 them. Pipin, as above said, A.D. 755, called 
 ! some council of the kind twice in the year; but 
 the actual practice remained irregular. And 
 Cone. Tull. A.D. 859, can. 7, asking for a pro¬ 
 vincial council once a year, asked also for a pala¬ 
 tine council once in every two years. Hincmar, 
 how'ever, speaks of twdee a year as customary 
 (“ consuetudo tunc temporis erat,” speaking of 
 “Placita,” 0pp. II. 211, sq.). 
 
 All these kinds of councils \vere parts of the 
 ordinary constitution of the Church, even the 
 Palatine councils being mixed up with ecclesias¬ 
 tical matters. And those of them that were 
 ])roper Church councils were needed at regular 
 times ; as required (according to Cone. Carth. III. 
 can. 2), “propter causas ecclesiasticas, quae ad 
 perniciem plebium saepe veterascunt,” although 
 their functions were not restricted to cases of 
 discipline only. Other kinds of councils were 
 only occasional remedies for special emergencies, 
 and were held therefore when needed. Of the 
 six grounds usually enumerated {e.g. by Hefele) 
 for holding oecumenical councils, setting aside 
 all those that belong to medieval time.5. as, e.g. 
 the deciding betw'een rival popes, &c., there re¬ 
 mains, for earlier times, only one, which is both 
 historically the ground upon which the great 
 oecumenical councils were actually summoned, 
 and that assigned by the Apostolical canon {37) 
 for councils at all —'AraKoiyhuaay aWrjAois 
 
COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 477 
 
 [oi imaKOiroi] rh hSyfxara rrjs eixre^eias, Ka\ 
 TCLS i/xTriiTTOvcras iKK\7i(Tia(TTiKas apTiXoy'ias 
 5ia\v€Tci}<Tav. 
 
 III. The place in which councils were held, 
 when purely church councils, was commonly the 
 church or some building attached to the church ; 
 3 . g. the Secretarium or AiaKoviK'bv attached often 
 to large churches (Liberat. Breciar. xiii.), in 
 which kind of building the 3rd to the 6th Coun¬ 
 cils of Carthage were held, and others also (Du 
 Cange in v. Secretariuin) ; or the baptistery or 
 ^ujTKTT'npiou, wherein the Council of Chalcedon, 
 for instance, A.D. 451, met (Labb. Cone. iv. 235, 
 and see Suicer in v. (fyuTio-Tripiov)’, or the church 
 ' itself, as in the Council of Toledo IV. A.D. 633 ; 
 or again in much later times (as A.D. 879 and 
 1165, at Constantinople), the galleries or Karg- 
 XovpLiva of the church (Bingh. VIII. v. 7). The 
 great Council of Nice met, according to Euse¬ 
 bius (F. Constant, iii. 7) in an oTkov evKT'fjpios, 
 or as he words it elsewhere (i6. 10), iv rep pea-ai- 
 rdrep o’lKcp tu>v ^acriXelcov. Theodoret (i. 7) and 
 Sozomen (i. 19) determine this to mean a royal 
 palace. Valesius, on the contrary (adloc. Euseb.), 
 argues that it must mean a church. The words 
 of e.g. Sozomen appear really to show, that the 
 bishops met during their first sessions in a 
 chui’ch, but that when the day of decision arrived, 
 and Constantine in person intended to be present, 
 then they removed to his palace ; Avhich was 
 oIkos piyicrros, and where the bishops sat on 
 seats along the wall, and the emperor on a 
 throne in the middle. The next four Oecume¬ 
 nical Councils were certainly held in a church or 
 in a building attached to a church, respectively 
 at Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and 
 again Constantinople (Jo. Damasc. Be Sac. Irri/ig. 
 tract, iii., St. Cyril. Alex, ad Theodos. in Acit. 
 Cone. Ephes., Evagr. H. E. ii. 3, «&:c.). The 
 Council of Constantinople, A.D. 680, and the 
 supplemental Trullau Council of A.D. 692, were 
 held in the secretarium of the Imperial palace, 
 called Trullus. The Council of Constantinople 
 against images, A.D. 754, was held, first in the 
 imperial palace of Hiera on the shore opposite 
 Byzantium, and then in a church in Constanti¬ 
 nople itself. Palatine councils and mixed national 
 councils were commonly and naturally held in 
 royal palaces. In Ciampini (Yet. Mon. I. tab. 
 xxxvii.) is figured a mosaic of the 5th century, 
 indicating a council, and with a sugjestus and 
 tlie open Gospels thereon in the middle, from the 
 Baptistery at Ravenna. 
 
 Diocesan and provincial councils were held 
 naturally and ordinarily in the cathedral and 
 metropolitan cities respectively. Why Clovesho 
 was selected for the provincial councils of Saxon 
 England, it is impossible to say, in the absence of 
 any certainty as to where Clovesho was. Pos¬ 
 sibly it was a central spot, which Canterbury 
 was not. The outgoing council sometimes named 
 the place for that which was to come next; as 
 e.g. Cone. Tolet. IV. a.d. 633, can. 4, enacts that 
 it shall do. So also the place for the first of 
 Pipin’s two annual councils was fixed by him¬ 
 self, but that first council determined the loca¬ 
 lity of the second. Cone. Arausic. /. a.d. 441, 
 can. 29, forbids any council to be dissolved “ sine 
 alterius conventus denyntiatione.” Cone. Emerit. 
 A.D. 666, c. 7, and Cone. Told,, iv. a.d. 633, 
 can. 3, leave’ it to the metropolitan to deter¬ 
 mine the place, which was the usual rule. The 
 
 palace where king or emperor happened to be, 
 commonly decided the locality of the Concilia 
 Balatina, as e.g. Clichy, Braine, Aix-la-Chapelle, 
 &c. The localities of the Oecumenical Gouncils 
 were determined by the circumstances of the 
 case, and the convenience of the emperors. 
 Nicaea, e.g. was close to the emperor’s palace at 
 Nicomedia. Ephesus was a convenient seaport, 
 with great facilities of access on account of its 
 trading importance, and accessible by land 
 thiough the great road bv Iconium to the Eu- 
 phrates (see Howson and Conybeare’s St. J^aul, 
 vol. ii., pp. 80, sq. 8vo. edit.). Chalcedon was 
 close to Constantinople, yet apart from it. And 
 Sardica again was chosen, in A.D. 347, as a place 
 most convenient for East and West to meet in. 
 
 IV. Provision at the publie expense, was also 
 made, both for the conveyance of the bishops to 
 the place of meeting, and for their entertainment 
 during the sessions, at any rate during the period 
 of the councils against the Arians. The former 
 was ordered by Constantine in the cases of the 
 Councils of Arles I. and Nice (Euseb. H. E. x. 
 5, and F. Constant, iv. 6-9, &c.) ; and is bitterly 
 complained of, somewhat later, by Ammianus 
 Marcellinus (//^s^. xxi. fin.), as interfering with 
 the public system of conveyance to the detriment 
 of public business and convenience; while ])ope 
 Liberius endeaA'oured to obtain a council from the 
 emperor by (among other motives) offering that 
 the bishops would waive the privilege and travel 
 at their own expense (Sozom. iv. 11). Of the latter 
 we read at the Council of Ariminum, a.d. 359, 
 where only three of the British bishops accepted 
 it, the others, with the bishops of Gaul and 
 Aquitaine, declining it as interfering with their 
 independence (Snip. Sev. ii. 55). 
 
 V. The eeremonial of a council is described in 
 respect to a pi’ovincial council, by an order of 
 Cone. To’et. TV. a.d. 633, can. 4, quoted and 
 abridged, but not quite accurately, by Hefele (I. 
 65, Engl. Tr.'), thus:—“ Before sunset on the 
 day appointed, all those who are in the church 
 must come out; and all the doors must be shut, 
 except the one by which the bishops enter; and 
 at this door all the ostiarii will station them¬ 
 selves. The bishops will then come, and take 
 their places according to the times of their ordi¬ 
 nation. When they have taken their places, the 
 elected priests, and after them the deacons, 
 [‘ probabiles, quos ordo poposcerit interesse,’] 
 will come in their turn to take their ])laces. The 
 priests sit behin 1 the bishops, the deacons [stand] 
 in front, and all are arranged in the form of a 
 circle. Last of all, those laity are inti-oduced, 
 whom the Council by their election have judged 
 worthy of the favour. The notaries, who are 
 necessary, are also introduced. [And the doors 
 are barred.] All keep silence. When the arch¬ 
 deacon says, Orate, all prostrate themselves upon 
 the ground. After several moments, one of the 
 oldest bishops rises and recites a prayer in a loud 
 voice, during which all the rest remain vipon 
 their knees. The prayer having ’oeen recited, 
 all answer. Amen ; and they rise when the arch¬ 
 deacon .says, Erigite cos. While all keep silent, 
 a deacon, clad in a white alb, brings into the 
 midst the book of the canons, and reads the rules 
 for the holding of councils. When this is ended, 
 the metropolitan gives an address, and calls on 
 those present to bring forward their complaints. 
 If a priest, a deacon, or a layman, has any com- 
 
478 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 plaint to make, he makes it known to the arch¬ 
 deacon of the metropolitan church; and the 
 latter, in his turn, will bring it to the knowledge 
 of the council. No bishop is to withdraw with¬ 
 out the rest; and no one is to pronounce the 
 council dissolved, before all the business is ended.” 
 The synod concluded with a ceremony similar to 
 that of the opening; the metropolitan then pro¬ 
 claimed the time of celebrating Easter (i6. can. 
 5), and that of the meeting of the next synod, 
 such synods being annual by can. 3. 
 
 Proliably councils elsewhere followed a like 
 practice to those of Spain. The deacons, how¬ 
 ever, at all times, did not sit but stood (Cone. 
 Illiberit. in prooem.. Cone. Tolet. Bracar. //., 
 several early Roman Councils in Bingh. ii. xix. 
 12, and St. Cyprian’s African Councils), unless 
 they appeared as representing their respective 
 bishops. 
 
 A ‘■‘'Modus tenendi Synodos in Ayxglia” (11th 
 cent. Cott. MSS. Cleop. C. viii. fol. 35, printed in 
 Wilkins’ Concilia iv. 784-786), supplies a like 
 although later account of a diocesan synod. 
 After commanding such synods twice annually, 
 anl suspending contumacious absentees for a 
 year, it proceeds to order the church to be cleared 
 of all people, and the doors closed, except one at 
 which the ostiarii are to be stationed. Then, at 
 an hour to be fixed by the bishop or his vicar, 
 and in solemn procession with crosses and litany, 
 a seat having been placed in the middle of the 
 church with relics lying upon it, and a “plena- 
 rium,” i.e. either a complete missal or a com¬ 
 plete copy of the gospels, and a stole, being 
 likewise placed thereon, the presbyters are to 
 take their seats according to the times of their 
 ordination : then the deacons are to be admitted, 
 but only those who are “ probabiles,” or “quos 
 ordo poposcerit interesse ; ” then chosen laity ; 
 lastly the bishop, or at least his vicar. Forms 
 of prayer are then given, with benedictions and 
 lessons, for three days, which is assumed to be 
 the right limit of the duration of the synod. 
 
 From at least the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 
 431 (St. Cyril Alex, ad The^.dos. in Actt. Cone. 
 Ephcs.\ an open copy of the Gospels was cus¬ 
 tomarily placed in the midst on a throne covered 
 with rich stuffs; a precedent followed by other 
 Councils, e.g. by that of Hatfield under Abp. 
 Theodore, A.D. 680 (“prepositis sacrosanctis 
 evangeliis ”), down even to that of Basle (see also 
 the mosaic in Ciampini already referred to, 
 and Suicer in v. EvayyeALou). St. Cyprian 
 describes a council as “ considentibus Dei sa- 
 cerdotibus et altari posito” (h'pist. xlv.). In 
 the 8th century, an image of Our Lord is men¬ 
 tioned as placed in the midst, by Theodorus 
 Studita; and about the same time images of 
 saints likewise, by Gregory II. (a.d. 715-731, 
 Epist. IF. ad Leon. Isaur.). And in similar 
 times, or later, we find also relics so placed, 
 as in the Modus tenendi Synodos., above quoted. 
 Compare also the langiiage of Gregory the Great 
 (^Opj>. IF. 1288) in the 6th century, s]>eak- 
 lUg of a Roman provincial synod as assembled 
 ‘‘ coram sanctissimo beati Petri corpore,” Cone. 
 Tolet. xi. A.D. 675, can. 1, prohibited talking or 
 iaiigliing or disorder of any kind in a council. 
 Tli'j ordei’ of the Palatine Councils is given by 
 Adeihar-1, the Abbat of •'Corbey, and will be re- 
 fcj red to below (under D). 
 
 VT. The President of an ecclesiastical ccuncil 
 
 was of course, in provincial councils, the metro¬ 
 politan (such a council, as we have seen, was not 
 “ perfect ” without him, and his presence became 
 ordinarily necessary to the due consecration of a 
 bishop [Bishop]); in diocesan councils, the 
 bishop or (in later times) at least his vicar; in 
 primatial or patriarchal, the primate or patri¬ 
 arch ; the chief bishop ])resent, at those councils 
 which were made up from neighbouring pro¬ 
 vinces (e.g. Vitalis of Antioch, at Ancyra) ; the 
 patriarch of Constantinople, in his crvuoSoi 
 ivdrfjjLovcraL ; kings or emperors in the mixed 
 national' synods of later date. At Arles, in 
 A.D. 314, Marinus Bishop of Arles signs the 
 synodical letter first, and therefore probably 
 presided in the synod itself; and this probably 
 by appointment of the emperor, just as Mel- 
 chiades had presided in the previous year over 
 the abortive tribunal assembled at Rome. In 
 the Oecumenical synods, down to a.d. 869, the 
 emperor, either in person or by a representative, 
 exercised a kind of external presidency —irphs 
 evKocr/j.iai' is all that Leo the Great allows, in 
 his synodical letter to the Council of Chalcedon, 
 A.D. 451—in occupying the seat of honour when 
 present, and in regulating and enforcing external 
 order and the like. But the presidents or 
 Trp6e8poi, who are distinguished from the emperor 
 and from his representative, and who conducted 
 the real ecclesiastical business of the council, 
 were either the principal bishops or patriarchs, 
 or the legates of the patriarchs. At Nice, after 
 opening the proceedings in person, seated in the 
 place of honour, Constantine, who expressly dis¬ 
 claimed for himself the interfering with doctidne, 
 and called himself bishop only tcci/ cktos ryjs 
 iKK\riaias, but the bishops themselves, ru'V eicro}, 
 vapediSov rhv Koyov to7s ttjs ^vy68ou Trpo4~ 
 8pois (Euseb. V. Constant, v. 13). And these 
 iTp6e8poi, although not expressly named, may die 
 gathered from the list of chief members of the 
 council (Euseb. V. Constant, iii. 7, Socr. i. 13, 
 Sozom. i. 17, Theodoret, M. E. ii. 15), to have 
 been, first and above all, Hosius of Corduba,— 
 (employed by the emperor to manage the pre¬ 
 vious abortive council at Alexandria [Sozom. i. 
 16], present also at Elvira previously, and sub¬ 
 sequently president at Sardica; see St. Athanas. 
 Apol. de Fuga ; and that Hosius gave advice 
 to the emperor in the Donatist question also, 
 c. A. D. 316, St. Aug. c. F^armenion. i. 8, ix. 
 43), Alexander of Alexandida (styled Kvpios in 
 the council, by the Cone. Eicaen. itself), Eusta¬ 
 thius of Antioch (alleged by Theodoret to have 
 addressed the opening speech to the emperor, 
 which however Sozomen, and the title of c. 11 
 of Euseb. V. Const 'nt. iii., attribute to Eusebius 
 himself, and Theodore of Mopsuestia to Alex¬ 
 ander), Macarius of Jerusalem, and Vitus and 
 Vinceutius the presbyter-legates of the absent 
 Bishop of Rome. Such authorities also as John 
 of Antioch and Nicephorus (v. Tillemont, J/em. 
 Eceles. vi. 272), speak of Eustathius as presiding. 
 That Hosius presided as legate of the pope (>0 
 Gelas. Cyzic., ab. a.d. 476, is commonly said to 
 afiirm,but he really says that Hosius “occupied the 
 place of the Bishop of Rome at the council, with 
 Vitus and Vincentius” [en-txair rhv tottov tov 
 rrjs jj.eyl(TTr]S 'Pd!)/j.r]s 'ETriaitSirov 'S.iX^iarpov <tvp 
 irp€<r^vT€pois 'PJofarjS Birupt Ka\ BiKeyTtcp (Labb. 
 ii. 156)], which is not quite the same tning), is dis- 
 I tiuctly contradicted by the language of Eusebius, 
 
COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 479 
 
 Socrates, and Sozomen. At Constantinople, A.D. 
 381, the successive presidents were Meletius of 
 Antioch (no higher patriarch being at first ])rc- 
 sent), and on his death, Gregory of Nazianziiin 
 until his resignation, and then Nectarius, patri¬ 
 archs of Constantinople. At Ephesus, A.D. 431, 
 Candiilianus, comes sacrorum domesticorum,” 
 was the commissioner of the Emperor Theodosius ; 
 but every one, “ unless he was a bishop,” was 
 strictly forbidden by the emperor to intermeddle 
 Tofy iKK\r}(rLa(TTiKois (rK€/JtiJ.aaiu : and Cyril of 
 Ale.xandria, at first alone, afterwards with the 
 Pope’s legates, presided ecclesiastically, Candidian 
 indeed favouring the Nestorians. In A.D. 451, 
 at Chalcedon, the limits of imperatorial inter¬ 
 ference were less exactly kept. Paschasinus, 
 bishop of Libybaeum, the pope’s legate, is re¬ 
 peatedly said to have presided, and signs first, 
 and as “synodo praesidens.” But Marcian, in 
 person, presided over the sixth session, proposed 
 the questions, and conducted the business. And 
 his commissioners, generally, “ had the place of 
 honour in the midst before the altar-rails, are 
 first named in the minutes, took the votes, 
 arranged the order of the business, and closed 
 the sessions” (Hefele, from the Acts). At Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 553, neither Justinian nor Pope 
 Vigilius took a personal part, the latter expressly 
 refusing to join in it; and the actual president 
 was Eutychius of Constantinople. In A.D. 680, 
 Constantine Pogonatus interfered even more than 
 Marcian in 451; and he is moreover expressly 
 called the president. But the papal legates sign 
 first, and Constantine only fit the end of the 
 episcopal signatures, and with the phrase, “ Le- 
 gimus et consentimus.” At Nice, in A.D. 787, 
 Tarasius of Constantinople really conducted the 
 business of the council, but the papal legates 
 sign before him; and the Empress Irene and her 
 son were present as honorary presidents in the 
 eighth and last session, but signed finally after 
 the signatures of the bishops. Lastly, in A.D. 
 869, the papal legates with the Patriarch of 
 Constantinople and the representatives of the 
 other patriarchs, were practically the presidents, 
 but the legates alone are expressly so called ; 
 while in the sixth and following sessions the 
 Emperot Basil and his two sons acted as presi¬ 
 dents and are so called, although refusing to 
 sign except after the legates and patriarchs 
 above mentioned. Of other synods, Hosius pre¬ 
 sided at Sardica, A.D. 347 (St. Athanas. Hist. 
 Arian., Sozom., ii. 12, Theodoret, H. E. ii. 15, 
 and the Acts themselves), the two presbyter- 
 legates of Pope Julius. signing after him, and 
 then the Bishop of Sardica itself. At the 
 Latrocinium of Ephesus, A.D. 449, the Emperor 
 Theodosius gaA'^e the presidency to Dioscorus of 
 Alexandria, after refusing it to the papal legates. 
 It should be added, that objection was taken to 
 the emperor’s even sending a commissioner to the 
 Council of Tyre, A.D. 335 (St. Athanas. Apolorj. 
 c. Arian. n. viii.); and that the Council of Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 869, ruled that the emperor 
 not oulv need not but ought not to intervene in 
 provincial synods, &c., but only in such as were 
 oecumenical. But kings were present continu¬ 
 ally even in provincial synods in the West; as 
 e.g. at Toledo IV. and V., A.D. 633 and 636, at 
 the legatine councils in England, A.D. 787, in 
 Gaul continually, and at Frankfort A.D. 794. 
 And the king’s commi.ssaries were at the councils 
 
 of ^’olodo VIII. and IX.. A.D. 653, 655. 'I’he 
 remonstrance of Pn))o Julius to the Ea.stern 
 bishojis respecting the Council of Antioch, a.d. 
 341—that juh Se? napa yudo/xgi' tuu ’Ettj- 
 aKOTTov 'FaipL-qs Kavoui^nv ray f/f/cATjtriay (Socr. 
 ii. 13, Sozom. iii. 9) — might obviously have 
 been made by aiiy of the patriarchs, the 
 church not being truly rcpre.sented if any chief 
 bishop were passed over ; and reads rather like 
 a claim, which its maker felt it neces.sary to 
 press, there being no doubt about the like laglit 
 of the older and Eastern patriarchs. The second 
 Council of Nice, A.D. 787, requires all the patri¬ 
 archs (or their legates) for a really oecumenical 
 council (Labb. A’ii. 396). 
 
 VII. The order of Precedence, and of Signa¬ 
 tures, in a council, which commonly went to¬ 
 gether, followed ordinarily, in respect io Bishops, 
 the rule of priority of consecration (as e.g. in 
 Africa, Cod. Can. Afric. 86, Cone. Milev. cans. 
 13, 14; in Italy and Gaul, Greg. M. Epist. 
 vii. 112 [to Syagrius, Bishop of Autun], and so 
 also in Spain, Co7ic. Bracar. I. A.D. 563, can. 6, 
 and Co7ic. I’olet. IV. a.d. 633, c. 4, and [as 
 may be seen in the signatures to charters] 
 in England—see Cuunc. of Ilertfoi'd, A.D. 673, 
 can. 8 ; and Cone. Londin. A.D. 1075, in Wilk. 
 i. 363). Here and there, however, custom 
 gave precedence to a particular see, as in England 
 latterly to London, Durham, Winchester. And 
 in an oecumenical council, or indeed whereA^er 
 present, the bishops of the chief sees, Avho in 
 due time became patriarchs, took precedence of 
 all others; the order oeing fixed by the council 
 in TruUo, a.d. 692, as 1. Rome, 2. Constanti¬ 
 nople, 3. Alexandria, 4. Antioch, 5. Jerusalem; 
 the preceding general councils of Constantinople 
 (can. 3) and Chalcedon (can. 28), having i-aised 
 Constantinople from a subordinate place to haA^e 
 “ equal honours ” Avith Rome, but to count as 
 second (so also Justinian, Novel, cxxxi. c. 2). 
 Ephesus and Caesarea, as patriarchates in a 
 secondary sense, folloAved the chief patriarchs; 
 as e.g. in the 4th and 6th oecumenical councils. 
 Chorepiscopi, so long as that office existed as an 
 episcopal office, either in east or west—and again 
 the titular and monastic bishops of the 6th and 
 folloAving centuries (mainly in north-Avestern 
 Europe)—counted in a council as bishops. If 
 priests or deacons Avere present as vicars or 
 legates of their respective bishops, they signed, 
 in the East, in the order in which their own 
 bishop AAmuld haA^e signed, had he been present ; 
 in the West, usually after all the bishops pre¬ 
 sent. In the 1st council of Arles, howeA'er, the 
 priests and deacons, Avhom each bishop had leen 
 desired to bring Avith him, signed immediately 
 after their OAvn bishop ; and the Pope’s legates 
 signed after seA'eral of the bishops. In France 
 and England, and in the case of the archimand¬ 
 rites in Ea.stern councils, the a66;(fs, although lay¬ 
 men, signed betAveen the bishops and priests (if 
 any signatures occur of the last named). In Spaia 
 as laymen, they signed at first after the priests, but 
 afterAvards (becoming probably in many instances 
 })riests them.sel\'e.s) they signed, as elsewhere, 
 after the bishops and before the priests. Of lay 
 signatures, the emperor in the great oecumenical 
 councils signed after all the bi.shop.s, except in 
 A.D. 869, Avhen the emperor and his sons signed 
 after the great patriarchs but before all the 
 other bishops. Imperial commissioners also took 
 
480 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 precedence, in the council itself, immediately 
 after the patriarchs or their representatives, but 
 did not sign the acts at all. In the mixed 
 European synods, lay signatui’es also occur. 
 In England we have in order—king, archbishop, 
 bishops, dukes, abbats, nobles, presbyters, minis~ 
 h i ; sometimes abbesses also ; but, of course, in 
 mixed synods or rather witenagemots only; and 
 all this, not in the same order always, for some¬ 
 times not only presbyters but deacons sign before 
 the nobles, and abbats follow the pi-esbyters. At 
 Clovesho, A.D. 803, the bishop, abbats, and pres¬ 
 byters of each diocese, sign together, and in one 
 case (that of Canterbury) an archdeacon also. 
 The list of those present at the IstCouncil of Arles, 
 A.D. 314, as has been said, follows a like order. 
 At Nice the signatures, so far as they are pre¬ 
 served, are of name and see simply. At the 
 Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, and thenceforward, 
 the custom began of adding “ gratia Christi,” or 
 “ Dei miseratione,’’ or “ in Christ! nomine,” and 
 also of adding to the name such epithets as 
 minimus, peccator, indignus, humilis, &c. The 
 sees are omitted commonly, but not always, in 
 Anglo-Saxon, in Frank, and in Spanish coun¬ 
 cils. The chief exceptions in England are 
 the Councils of Calchyth, A.D. 787, and Clo¬ 
 vesho, A.D. 803, where the sees are certainly 
 given. They occur, however, more often in 
 France. But as the lists are commonly copies, 
 the scribes are as likely as not to have added 
 the sees in some instances, although this is 
 clearly not the case in many. The addition 
 of “ definiens (‘Spicras) subscripsi,” belonged to 
 bishops as such, and very often occurs, as e. g. 
 Cone. Chalced. a.d.451, from the 5th centuiy; 
 “ consentiens subscripsi,” or “ consensi et sub¬ 
 scripsi,” or “ subscripsi ” simply, being the form 
 for others as well as bishops. The Saxon “ pom- 
 positas ” varied the form in endless ways, as 
 may be seen in Kemble’s Codex Diphmaticus. 
 “ ProDuntians cum sancta synodo,” also occurs 
 in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. 
 
 VIII. The votes were taken no doubt by heads, 
 from the beginning. The plan of voting by nations, 
 the vote of each nation being determined by the 
 majority of individual votes within the nation 
 itself, was a device as late as the Council of Con¬ 
 stance, intended to prevent the swamping of the 
 council by Italian bishops, and was abandoned 
 again after the Council of Basle. The distinction 
 between vota decisiva and vota consultcdiva, the 
 former alone counting in the formal decisions of 
 the council, is of modern date also, so far as 
 the terms are concerned; but the presence at 
 councils of individuals, and of classes of persons, 
 for consultation but without a vote, is of very 
 early origin (see beloAv under B), and indeed 
 may be most probably said to date from Apo¬ 
 stolic times. 
 
 IX. Lastly, councils Avei’e confirmed, in the case 
 of the Oecumenical Councils, and so as to giA-’e 
 their decrees the force of huv, by the emperors ; 
 although, in foro conscienfiae, St. Athanasius’s 
 dictum holds good, — Trtire yap e’/f rov alwuos 
 ijKOvadn, TOiavra ; Trcire Kpiais iKKXga'ias irapa 
 fiaaiXitjos eo x^ Kvpos; (Hist. Arian. ad 
 Monach. § 52, 0}»p. i. 376). The decrees of the 
 Nicene Council Avere enforced as laAvs of the em¬ 
 pire by Constantine (Euseb. V. Constant, iii. 
 17-19; Socr. i. 9; Gelas. Cyzic. ii. 36, in 
 Mansi, ii. 919). Subscription to its creed Avas 
 
 enforced on pain of exile (Socr. i. 9; Rufin, IT. E. 
 i. 5). That of Constantinople, in A.D. 381, re¬ 
 quested and obtained the legal confirmation ol 
 Theodosius the Great (July 30, a.d. 381, Cod. 
 Theod. xvi. 1. 3). Theodosius II., after much 
 hesitation, confirmed the principal decision of 
 the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431 (Hefele), by 
 exiling Nestorius and ordering Nestorian Avritings 
 to be burnt (Mansi, v. 255, 41.3, 920). Mar- 
 cian’s edicts are extant of February 7, March 13, 
 July 6 and 28, A.D. 452, Avhich confirm the 
 decrees of the Council of Chalcedon of A.D. 451. 
 The next four councils (in the Latin reckoning) 
 of A.D. 553, 680, 787, 869, AA^ere either signed, or 
 (as in the 6th and 8th) also enforced by an edict, 
 by the emperors who respectiA'ely' summoned 
 them. Councils also Avere commonly held in 
 the various provinces to accept the decrees of a 
 General Council. And in this Avay the sanction 
 of the bishops of Rome Avas given after some 
 delay^to the second council of Constantinople, a.d. 
 381. Nothing is said of the pope in relation to the 
 great Council of Nice, except by documents of a 
 date and nature such as to make them Avorthless 
 (Hefele makes the best of them, but his OAA-n 
 statements are the best refutation of his conclu 
 sion). Leo the Great refused to assent to the 
 decree of Chalcedon respecting the patriarch of 
 Constantinople, Avhile accepting the rest. And 
 both that council (ap. Leon. M. Epist. Ixxxix.) 
 and Marcian (ih. Epist. cx.) recognize in terms 
 the necessity of obtaining the pope’s confirma¬ 
 tion ; although Avith special reference to the 
 canon affecting the dignity of the see of Rome. 
 Yet, in A.D. 553, Justinian compelled the sub¬ 
 mission of pope Yigilius to the Council of, Con¬ 
 stantinople. And the canons of the Trullan 
 Council, in A.D. 692, Avere in like manner forced 
 by the emperor upon pope Sergius. The General 
 Councils, so called, of A.D. 680, 787, and 869, 
 sought and receh’ed the papal confirmation. 
 For the legal authority attached at A^arioAis 
 periods to the canons of either oecumenical or 
 proAuncial councils, see Canon Laa\'. The 
 “ Canones Patrum,” i.e., probably the collection 
 of Dionysius Exiguus, were brought forAvard by 
 Theodore, and certain canons selected from them 
 accepted as specially needed for the Bhglish 
 Church, at the Council of Hertford, A.D. 673 
 (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 119). Charlemagne, 
 in his Capitularies, dealt with ecclesiastical 
 laAVS as Avell as civil, but consulted pope .Adrian, 
 and obtained a sort of enlarged Codex Canonum 
 from him, A.D. 774 ; as Pipin had done before 
 him, A.D. 747, with pope Zacharias. But the 
 royal authority gaA^e legal force to these laAvs— 
 “a vestx'a auctoritate firmentur” (Cone. J/o- 
 gunt. A.D. 813, in Praef. ; and so repeatedly); 
 as indeed had been the case with Prank and 
 Burgundian kings, &c., before Pipin also. 
 
 The Council of Calchyth, A.D. 816, can. 9, 
 enacts that a copy of decrees of councils should 
 be taken by each bishop, Avith date and names of 
 archbishop and bishops present ; and that 
 another copy should be given to any one aflected 
 by the decree. 
 
 B. Such being (so to say) the externals of a 
 council, the next question relates to its Consti¬ 
 tuent Memders, 
 
 1. To speak first of provincial councils, there 
 can be no question that bishops Avere essentially 
 their members. The Apostolic Canon (37) speaks 
 
COUNCIL COUNClli 481 
 
 of (Tvpo^oi Tuv 'F,Tri(rK6Trwv ] the 5th canon cf 
 Nice, of vav'Tcov T<Sv 'EirKTKSirwP ttjs eTraox^®^? 
 &c. ; and similarly Cone. Antioch, a.d. 341, 
 can. 20, and the 29th canon of Chalcedon, which 
 describes also such (rVvodoi reSv 'ETriaKSTrctiv as 
 K^Ko.vovi<T}i4vai", and the earliest known synods 
 of the kind (the earliest indeed of any kind), 
 those of Hierapolis and Anchialus against Monta- 
 nism, and those held by Polycrates about Easter, 
 respectively in the middle and towards the end 
 of the 2nd century, consisted of bishops, without 
 mentioning (yet certainly without in terms ex¬ 
 cluding) any one else (^Lihellus Synodicus, and 
 Euseb. V. 16, 24). See also St. Cyprian (Epist. 
 73), St. Hilary (^De Syn. Frooem.), St. Ambrose 
 {Epist. 32, “ audiant [presbyteri] cum populo”), 
 St. Jerome {Apol. c. Ruffin, lib. II.), &c. &c. 
 Moreover, from early times bishops but no 
 others were compelled to attend such synods, 
 under penalties (suspension for a year) for 
 absence, or even for coming late; and the being 
 present in them was a recognized and allowed 
 cause of non-residence in their dioceses: e. y. 
 Cone. Laodic. c. A.D. 365, can. 40 ; Chalced. a.d. 
 451, can. 19; Agath. a.d. 506, can. 35; Vasens. 
 ii. A.D. 529, Pref.; Tarracon. A.D. 516, can. 6 ; 
 Aurel. ii. A.D. 533, can. 1 ; Areern. i. a.d. 
 535, can. 1 ; Turon. ii. A.D. 567, can. 1 ; Eme- 
 rit. A.D. 666, can. 7 ; Tolet. xi. a.d. 675, can. 
 15: see also Leo M. Epist. vi. A.D. 444; and 
 Greg. M. Epist. V. 54 (allowing presbyters or 
 deacons as representatives, if unavoidable). In 
 the 3rd century, however, as in Apostolic times 
 (Acts XV.), it becomes evident that presbyters 
 also took part in such councils (“ seniores et 
 praepo.siti,” Firmilian, as befoi-e quoted, speaking 
 for Asia; ^t. Cyprian repeatedly for Africa; 
 Euseb. H.E. vii. 28, of the Council of Antioch 
 that condemned Paul of Samosata in A.D. 264 or 
 265, for Syria ; and the case of Origen, again, at 
 the Arabian synods respecting Beryllus ; &c.). 
 In the Council of Elvira (a.d. 305, Hefele) 
 twenty-six or twenty-four presbyters “ sat with” 
 the bishops. In that of Arles I., A.D. 314, each 
 bishop was directed to bring two presbyters with 
 him, ami some brought deacons also. A series 
 of Roman councils (a.d. 461, 487, 499, 502,715, 
 721) contained also presbyters, “ sitting with ” 
 the bishops, and in two cases “ subscribing ” with 
 them (Bingh. ii. xix. 12); and others might be 
 added, as e. g. under Gregory the Great {0pp. IT. 
 1288). “Gregorius Papa coram sanctissimo beati 
 Petri corpore, cum episcopis omnibus ac Romanae 
 Ecclesiae presbyteris residens, adstantibus dia- 
 conis et cuncto clero.” So again at Carthage, 
 A.D. 387, 389, 401 ; at Toledo, A.D. 400; at Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 443 ; at Braga, II. a.d. 572 ; and 
 the order of holding a council given above from 
 Cone. Tolct. iv. a.d. 633, as well as the later 
 English “ ordo,” also above mentioned, expressly 
 provide for the presence of presbyters. They 
 are present also at Calchyth, a.d. 787, and 
 Clovesho, A.D. 803. And later still, presbyters 
 subscribe at Lyons, a.d. 830. At the oecume¬ 
 nical councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon they 
 were present, but did not subscribe. Three, 
 however, subscribe in their own names at Con¬ 
 stantinople, A.D. 381 (Labb. ii. 957). But then 
 it mu.st be added, 1. That individual presbyters 
 (and deacons) were sometimes specially invited 
 to speak at such councils on account of their 
 personal eminence and talents : as, e. g. Malcbion, 
 CUHlSr ANT. 
 
 ! the priest of Antioch, in the council that con¬ 
 demned Paul of Samosata (Euseb. H. E. vii. 29); 
 and Origen at the Arabian synods that con¬ 
 demned Beryllus; and Barsumas the Archiman¬ 
 drite at the Latrocinium of PLj)hesus, invited by 
 the emperor Theodosius II. ; and St. Athanasius 
 the deacon at Nice ; and W^ilfrid, still a presbyter, 
 at Whitby. 2. That priests as well as deacons, 
 KoiX iravTas tovs vojxi^ovras, i.o., lay¬ 
 
 men also, are bid to be present at such synods 
 in order to bring forward complaints and obtain 
 justice {Cone. Antioch, a.d. 341, can. 20, and so 
 also in the “ ordo ” above quoted from Cone. 
 Tolet. of A.D. 633). 3. That St. Cyprian, for 
 
 instance, speaks of bishops only as the members 
 of the synod, and this where presbyters had 
 been present (Hefele), and of presbyters as 
 “ compresbyteri qui nobis assidebant; ” while 
 bishops only voted in the African council of 
 A.D. 256. 4. That in Cone. Constantin., a.d. 
 
 448, while the bishops signed with the formula 
 Sp'iaas vTTfypaij/a, the archimandrites omit the 
 bp'icras in their signatures. 5. That, having 
 regard to the judicial functions of such councils, 
 it seems impossible to suppose that any beside 
 bishops could have been appointed judges of 
 bishops. On the whole, then—setting aside the 
 well known practice whereby priests (or deacons) 
 signed and voted with the bishops as representa¬ 
 tives or vicars of their own (absent) bishops, and 
 reserving also the case of abbats—it would 
 seem that bishops were the propei', ordinary, and 
 essential members of a provincial council; but 
 that the presbyters as a body were consulted, as 
 of right, down to certainly the 3rd century, and 
 not only continued to be present, but were ad¬ 
 mitted to subscribe in several instances in later 
 centuries; but that it must remain doubtful 
 whether they ever actually voted in a division, 
 and that the apparent inference from the evi¬ 
 dence is rather against than for their having done 
 so. The presence of the metropolitan in a pro¬ 
 vincial synod, as aboA'9 said, was necessaiy to 
 render it a “ perfect ” synod. On the other hand, 
 the metropolitan could not act, excejit of course 
 in the exercise of his ordinary functions, apart 
 from his provincial synod. Chorepiscopi, during 
 the 4th century in the east, and during the 9th 
 in the west, in France, and the monastic and 
 titular bishops of north-Avestern Europe from the 
 6th century onwards, AA^ere treated as bishops. 
 But besides presbyters, deacons and laymen like¬ 
 wise took part in such synods. The usual 
 phrase, both in St. Cyprian and in the Roman 
 councils under Symmachus &c. just mentioned, 
 is, “ adstantibus diaconis, cum stantium plebe ” 
 (=rAvith the laity Avho had not lapsed, but Avere 
 in full communion); and in those Roman coun¬ 
 cils deacons subscribe, and in the same form Avith 
 the bishops and presbyters; and St. Cyprian 
 repeatedly states that he did nothing as bishop 
 without consulting all his clergy and laity too ; 
 and the order of a council, draAvn up at Toledo, 
 A.D. 633, specifying “ invited deacons ” and 
 ^'chosen laymen,” shoAvs that these Avere not 
 supjtosed to come merely to bring forAvard com¬ 
 plaints, but to join in consultation. “ Consi- 
 dentibus presbyteris, adstantibus diaconis cum 
 universe clero,” is the common ]dirase re¬ 
 specting councils of 5th century onAvards, but 
 without mention of laity as a rule. There were 
 laymen, hoAvever, at Toledo, a.d 653, as there 
 
482 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 had been at Tarragona, a.d. 51G, and at tlie 2nd 
 council of Orange, a.d. 529 ; and at this last 
 named council the lay members also signed, al¬ 
 though using the vaguer form, which, however, 
 the bishops also used at the same council, of 
 “consentiens subscripsi.” And lay signatures 
 occur in other instances also, as at the council 
 of Calchyth, a.d. 787. The “seniores plebis ” 
 also, who occur in Africa in the time of e.g. 
 Optatus (see Bingh. ii. xix. 19), may be men¬ 
 tioned in the same connection. On the other 
 hand, the archbishop of Lyons (Cone. Epaon. A.D. 
 817), “ permits ” the ])re.sence of laity, but it is, 
 “ ut quae a solis pontificibus ordinanda sunt, et 
 populus possit agnoscere.” At Lyons itself, 
 however, a.d. 830, we find not only presbyters, 
 but deacons, laymen, and a chorepiscopus. The 
 signatures of emperors indeed, or of their com¬ 
 missioners, to oecumenical synods ; the presence 
 of notaries at synods, who however had doubtless 
 no votes; the part taken by kings in mixed 
 national synods; the attendance of invited ex¬ 
 perts (so to say) as assessors, but without votes, 
 as of doctors of theology and of canon law in 
 later times, or of such individuals as Origen and 
 the others above mentioned, or, again, of the 
 “ magistri ecclesiae, qui canonica patrura sta- 
 tuta et diligerent et nossent,” at the council of 
 Hertford, A.D. 670 (Baed. H.E. iv. 5, and cf. also 
 Cone. Tat'racon. a.d. 516, c. 13, &c.),—are ob¬ 
 viously exceptional cases, which need no explana¬ 
 tion. But the language in which the subject in 
 general is mentioned, coupled with Apostolic pre¬ 
 cedent, establishes two things,—one, that deacons 
 and laity had a right from the beginning to a 
 certain status in councils; the other, that they 
 occupied a distinctly lower status there than the 
 bishops and presbyters did ;—and that while there 
 is distinct proof of both classes having been con¬ 
 sulted and their opinions taken (so to say) en 
 masse, no proof at all exists that the laity, and 
 no sufficient proof that the deacons, ever voted 
 individually in actual divisions. The fair infer¬ 
 ence from the evidence, as regards the general 
 question, seems to be, that, as in the election of 
 bishops, and in synods held for that purpose, so 
 in provincial synods likewise, the consent of all 
 orders in the Church—bishops, priests, deacons, 
 and laity—was at the first held needful, although 
 the bishops alone as a rule discussed and voted; 
 that, as the Church increased in numbers, the 
 presence of all, or nearly all, became impossible 
 as well as mischievous ; while no scheme of repre¬ 
 sentation was devisecLto meet the difficulty, except 
 partially in Africa (as already mentioned) in the 
 case of bishops ; and that, consequently, the pre¬ 
 sence of classes of members who did not take an 
 active part in the actual council naturally and 
 gradually ceased, and the bishops (or their vicars) 
 came to constitute provincial councils alone, even 
 pi-esbyters no longer appearing there. It is to 
 be added, that bishops were then in some fairly 
 real sense the representatives of the diocese, 
 which had indeed elected them bishops ; and that 
 (again in accordance with Apostolic precedent) 
 they are found sometimes giving account to their 
 dioceses of what they had done in councils, as, 
 c.g., Eusebius after the council of Nice at 
 Caesarea (cf. Schaff’s Hist, of Christ. Ch. i. 339). 
 Late medicAml English provincial councils, i. e., 
 convocations, which, it need hardly be said, in¬ 
 clude presbyters, are the result of an abortive 
 
 political scheme, dating from Edward I., for tax¬ 
 ing the clergy; the proper episcopal synod 
 gradually merging into the convention of clergy 
 then devi.sed (see a good account of this in 
 Blunt’s Theol. Dictionarg, art. Convocations). 
 But in Anglo-Saxon England, as in France and 
 Spain, the purely episcopal synod was (at any 
 rate at first) kej)t distinct from the Witenage- 
 mot or the Blacitum, even when held at the same 
 place and time (see Thoma.ssin, li. iii. c. 47, § 1 ; 
 and below, under D). The councils of Hertford 
 and of Hat*field under Theodore were of bi.ffiops 
 only, as actual members with votes. It is not 
 until A.D. 787, that we find laity also in purely 
 ecclesiastical councils in England. 
 
 The case of still remains. And here we 
 
 find, in the East, archimandrites, being pres¬ 
 byters, present and signing at the council of 
 Constantinople, A.D. 448. In the West, it' is 
 mentioned as a singular honour, that St. Benedict, 
 being a layman, was invited by St. Gregory the 
 Great to a seat in a Roman council. But from 
 the 6th century onwards in Spain, and a little 
 later in France, abbats formed a regular portion 
 of the councils, signing in the former countrv at 
 first after, and at a later time before, the priests. 
 They sign, also, in France. In England they 
 occur repeatedly, and sometimes abbesses also 
 (although Hilda at Whitby is a merely excep¬ 
 tional case, proving nothing), but it is either in 
 diocesan or in mixed synods [Abdat, Abbess], 
 until A.D. 787, at the legatine councils of Cal¬ 
 chyth and in Northumbria, which are signed by 
 abbats and lay nobles as well as bishops. So 
 also at Clovesho A.n. 803, bishops, abbats, pre.s- 
 byters, deacons, sign in that order, but by dio¬ 
 ceses (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 546, 547). a.d. 
 1075, Lanfranc (called by a blunder Dunstan in 
 Hefele, i. 23, Eng. tr.) puts them on an equality 
 with bishops in the privilege of addressing synods; 
 as was done also at the same time and place with 
 the archdeacons. In later times they sat and 
 voted, just as the bishops did, and are ruled to 
 have this right by e.g. the councils of Basle and 
 Trent. 
 
 II. The constituent members of a diocesan 
 council, were the Bishop and Presbyters, the 
 latter being bound by canon to attend such 
 councils, just as the bishops were bound to 
 attend the Provincial Svnod; but deacons and 
 laity originally had the right to be present and 
 to be consulted, all hough their actual right to a 
 formal and individual vote is questionable at all 
 times, and, if it ever existed, was certainly lost 
 very early. In later centuries, in Europe, 
 abbats also were summoned with the presbyters. 
 The assembly of the presbyters was indeed 
 the bishop’s standing council [Bishop, Priest] 
 from the beginning: see e.g. Pius I. Epist. H. ; 
 Constit. Apostol. II. 28; S. Ignatius passim; S. 
 Cyprian repeatedly (“ Placuit contrahi presby- 
 terium, ut . . . consensu omnium statueretur,” 
 Epist. 46 al. 49 : “ Cum statuerem . . nihil 
 sine consilio vestro [viz. of the clergy], et sine 
 consensu plebis, mea privata sententia gerere,” 
 Epist. 6, al. 14, &c., &c.); and so at Ephesus, at 
 Alexandria in the condemnation of Origen and of 
 Aldus, at Rome in that of Novatian (Bingh. II. 
 xix. 8); and Pope Siricius in condemning Jovinian 
 (Id. ib. 11): and for later times. Cone. Oscens. 
 A.D. 598, can. 1; Liptin. a.d. 743 (Labb. vi, 
 1544), Suess. A.D. 744, can. 4; Vsrn. A.D. 755, 
 
COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 483 
 
 can. 8; Arclat. vi. A.D. 813, can. 4; Capit. 
 'Theodulfth. c. 4; Laws of Korthurnbrian P^'iests^ 
 44; Eadgar's Canons, 3-6. Abbats were also 
 summoned, and a journey to the synod was an 
 allowable canon of absence from their monas¬ 
 teries [Ai3BAt]. Theodore enacts that no 
 bishop shall compel them to come (^Penitent. II. 
 ii. 3). In the Llandaff synods (Ze6. Landav., and 
 extracts in Haddan and Stubbs, vol. i.), the 
 bishop, the three great abbats of the diocese, and 
 the presbyters (in one case, electi ”), the deacons, 
 and all the c/enca, form the synod. But Spanish 
 and Frank councils, above quoted, require the at¬ 
 tendance of abbats. Laity and deacons were ob¬ 
 viously present and were consulted as a body both 
 in St. Cyprian’s time and later. Bishop Sage, who 
 argues most strongly for the negative, is plainly 
 arguing against facts. But there is always a 
 distinction drawn, even by St. Cyprian, between 
 the consilium of the clergy and the consensus of 
 the (see Moberly’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 
 
 119, 305). The gradual changes, no doubt, 
 which are found in respect to the people’s 
 interest in the election of Bishops [Bishops], 
 affected also their position in councils called 
 for other than elective purposes. 
 
 III. Of Oecumenical Councils, as of proAuncial 
 ones, bishops were clearly the proper and es.sen- 
 tial members; yet here too presbyters and even 
 deacons were sometimes present. At Nice, in 
 A.D. 325, presbyters and deacons were present, 
 and in great numbers; and one deacon cer¬ 
 tainly, St. Athanasius, spoke: but there is no 
 trace or probability of their having voted. At 
 Constantinople, A.D. 381, three presbyters occur 
 among the signatures, signing to all appearance 
 in their own names, and intermixed with the 
 bishops of the province from xv'hich they came. 
 But there are many other signatures in the list 
 of presbyters signing as representatives of bi¬ 
 shops. And since the list as it stands is the work 
 of a copyist, it is quite as likely as not that these 
 three also represented bishops, but that the few 
 words at the end of each name indicating the 
 fact have been accidentally omitted. At Con¬ 
 stantinople, in A.D. 448, presbyter-archimandrites 
 sign exactly' as if they had also voted; and this 
 council, although itself not oecumenical, is 
 embodied in that of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. At 
 Chalcedon itself one presbyter is noted to have 
 spoken; and at the 2nd of Nice, a.d. 787, one 
 presbyter signs, apparently in his own name 
 (Bingh. II. xix. 13, from Habert). But ex¬ 
 ceptions of this kind seem rather to prove the 
 rule, viz. that bishops, and bishops only, each 
 as representing his own church, wei'e the mem¬ 
 bers of Oecumenical Councils. 
 
 C. The AUTHORITY assigned to Oecumenical 
 Councils was hardly made the subject of formal 
 and sy'stematic treatment, until the end of the 
 great period of councils, viz. of the 4th century. 
 It was then limited in three ways. i. Their de¬ 
 crees were not unalterable, in matters of discipline, 
 by a further council; and required external obe¬ 
 dience but nothing more, as being those of the 
 highest church tribunal, ii. Their office, doctri- 
 nally, was not to enlarge the faith, but simply 
 to testify in express and distinct terms to that 
 which had been held implicitly before. “Quid 
 unquam aliud conciliorum decretis enisa est 
 [£cclesia], nisi ut quod antea simpliciter crede- 
 batur, hoc idem postea diligen ius crcderctur;” 
 
 and again, “ nisi ut quod prius a majoribus sola 
 traditione susceperat, hoc deinde posteris etiam 
 per scripturae chirographum consignaret . . . . 
 non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis pi-o- 
 prietate signando ” (Vincent. Lirin. Commonit. c. 
 xxiii.); and this, so as to be a “sedula et cauta 
 depositorum apud se dogmatum custos,” without 
 any the least change in them, of any kind what¬ 
 soever, whether of diminution or addition (Id. 
 iV). iii. They were not held to be formally in¬ 
 fallible, but to possess an authority proportioned 
 to their universality, to be -capable of being 
 amended by subsequent councils upon better in¬ 
 formation, and to be subordinate to Scripture. 
 Of that which is certainly written in the Bible, 
 says St. Augustin, speaking of a doctrinal ques¬ 
 tion, “ omniuo dubitari et disceptari non possit 
 utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit,” but coun¬ 
 cils may set aside Episcopal dicta [St. Cyprian is 
 the bishop specially intended], and national or 
 provincial councils must “ plenariorum concilio¬ 
 rum auctoritati, quae hunt ex universe orbe 
 Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere: ip.saque 
 plenaria saepc priora posterioribus emendari, 
 cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod 
 clausum erat, et cognoscitur quod latebat ” 
 (St. Aug. De Bapt. c. Donat. IT. 3, § 4). And 
 again, in Epist. 54, the same St. Augustin, set¬ 
 ting canonical Scripture first, places next in 
 order universal customs, “ non scripta sed tra- 
 dita,” which must be assumed to have been 
 enacted “vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenariis con- 
 ciliis, quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima aucto- 
 ritas,” instancing the observance of Good Friday, 
 Easter Day, Ascension Day, Pentecost; and then, 
 below these, mere national and local customs. 
 Again, in arguing against Maximin the Arian, 
 St. Augustin confines the decision to Scripture 
 testimonies, bidding his opponent waive the 
 Council of Ariminum, as he himself waives the 
 “ prejudication ” of that of Nice. So again, St. 
 Gregory the Great, saying repeatedly that he 
 “ quatuor Concilia suscipere et venerari sicut 
 sancti Evangelii quatuor libros,” and that 
 “quintum quoque Concilium ” (the last held up 
 to his time) “ pariter veneror ” {Epist. i. 25 ; 
 and see also, iii. 10, iv. 38, v. 51, 54), proceeds 
 to allege as his ground for doing so, that the}' 
 were “ univefsali constituta consensu.” St. 
 Augustin indeed seems to consider the decision of 
 a “ plenary council ” to be final, in a matter of 
 discipline, because it is the highest attainable— 
 “ultimum judicium Ecclesiae ” {Epist. 43, Ad 
 Glor. et Eleus.) ; and refers the Donatists to such 
 a council, as the remedy which “ adhuc resta- 
 bat,” to revise, and if needful reverse, the sen¬ 
 tence already delivered by the bishops at Rome 
 under the pope. The well-known passage in 
 St. Greg. Naz. {Epist. ad Procop. Iv.), denouncing 
 synods of bishops as doing more harm than good, 
 through ambition and lust of contention, is 
 simply an argument from the abuse of a thing 
 against its use; yet proves certainly, that a council 
 per se and a priori was not held to be infallible. 
 On the other hand, besides the general phrase 
 commonly prefixed to councils, “ Saiu to Spiritu 
 suggerente,” and the like, we find Socrates (i 9) 
 declaring that the Nicene fathers ovhapws olctto- 
 Xno^o .1 TTjs a\rj6('ias iSvvauTo, because they were 
 enlightened vnh too 0€oo koI Trjs too 
 
 ^Aylov HufV/jLaTos ; and St. Cyril {Dc Trin. I.) 
 calling their decrees a Divine oracle (and so 
 
 2 1 . 
 
484 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 COUNCIL 
 
 others, as e.(j. Isid. Pelus. iV. 90, Be6Q(V t/jLiruev 
 (rfleriTa); and St. Ambrose, declaring that “ neither 
 death nor the sword could sej)arate him from 
 the Nicene Council” {Epist. xxi.); and Leo the 
 Great declaring repeatedly, that the faith of 
 Nice and Chalcedon is a first principle, from 
 which neither himself nor any one else may 
 swerve {Epist. cv. cxiv. &c. A.i). 452, 453). 
 While .Justinian, who ordered all bishops to 
 subscribe to the faith of the first four councils, 
 lays down in his Novels (cxxxi.), that rciov 
 Trpoeipr}p.4v(t>v ayicou o'vi/ddcoi' (viz. the four) to 
 Soy para KaOdirep' ras 0€ias Vpacpds 
 Kai Tovs Kuvovas d-s pSpLOvs <pv\dTTOfx€i'. The 
 Council of Chalcedon again speaks of the Nicene 
 decrees as unalterable. And Leo the Great 
 speaks of the faith of Chalcedon itself as an 
 “ irretractabilis consensus.” And St. Ambrose, 
 of the decrees of general councils as “hereditary 
 seals which no rashness may break ” (Ee Fide 
 
 III. 15). In short, while no one asseids that 
 such councils were formally incapable of erring, 
 the entire current of church teaching assumed 
 that they had not erred ; and that it would be the 
 height of presumption and of folly in any part 
 of the church or any individual Christian to 
 contravene them; while both Vincent of Lerins, 
 and possibly Augustin, would allow to a succeed¬ 
 ing council power only to build doctrinally upon 
 the foundation already laid by its accepted pre¬ 
 decessors. The Provincial Councils “ began,” by 
 ventilating the question; the General Council 
 “ terminated ” the discussion, by sealing as it were 
 and formally expressing the decision which had 
 ripened to its proper and natural close ; and this, 
 on the assumption that such decision was ac¬ 
 cepted “ universali Ecclesiae consensione ” (“ In 
 Catholico regional! concilio coepta, plenario ter- 
 miuata,” and so “ universali Ecclesiae consen¬ 
 sione I’oborata,” St. Aug, De Bapt. c. Donat, vii. 
 53). And St. Vincent of Lerins, in requiring to 
 anything “vere proprieque Catholicum,” that 
 “ubique, semper, ab omnibus, creditum est ” 
 (^Commonit. c. 2), obviously rests the certainty of 
 conciliar decisions upon the acceptance, implicitly 
 or explicitly, of the whole church of all times 
 (see Hammond on Heresp, sect, vi, § 9, sq.); but 
 refuses to allow that any question so decided 
 can be re-opened. 
 
 The relative authority of the pope and of a 
 general council, did not emerge into a formal 
 question until long after our period; although 
 St. Augustin’s language about Pope Melchiades, 
 and about the dicta of St. Cyprian, sutficiently 
 shows what at any rate his decision would have 
 been, had it been possible that the question could 
 have been raised at that time. 
 
 Whether Provincial Councils could entertain 
 questions of doctrine, is also a question not for¬ 
 mally put until very late times indeed. That they 
 did so in point of fact in earlier times, may be seen 
 in a list of instances in Palmer, On the Church, 
 
 IV. xiii. 1 § 2. And upon St. Aifgustiu’s view 
 above quoted, it was their proper office to venti¬ 
 late such questions, and as it were ripen them 
 for the final determination of the Oecumenical 
 Council. Their authority, of course, like that 
 of diocesan synods, was in proportion to their 
 numbers and character, and to their subsequent 
 acceptance by the Church at large. 
 
 The Church, speaking generally, has accepted 
 absolutely the first six Oecumenical Councils,—of 
 
 Nice, A.D. 321; Constantinople. A,D. 381; E}«hesus, 
 A.D. 431 ; Chalcedon, A.D. 451; Constantinople, 
 A.D. 553 ; Constantinople again, A.D. G80. Where 
 the first four are spoken of especially, it is, com¬ 
 monly, either in order to parallel them with the 
 four Gospels (as e.(]. St. Gregory the Great, who 
 adds that he equally venerates the 5th, the last 
 then held), or because the Fathers or others who 
 speak of them lived before the 5th was held 
 (e.fj. Theodosius Coenobiarcha, in Baron, in an. 
 511, no. 33, from St. Cyril and Suidas,—“Si 
 quis quatuor sanctas'synodos non tanti es.se exis- 
 timat quanti quatuor evaugelia, sit anathema ”), 
 or, lastly, because the 5th and Gthare taken to be 
 as it wei’e supplementary to the 3rd and 4th. 
 So Co'nc. Lateran. a.d. G49, cans. 18, 19, accepts 
 the five councils already then held, as being all 
 there were. The Greek and Roman Churches 
 accept a 7th, viz. the Council of Nice in faA'our 
 of images, a.d. 787 (rejected by the Western 
 Council at Frankfort, a.d. 794, and by the 
 English Church of the same date;—see Haddan 
 and Stubbs, III. 468, 481); the Greek Church, 
 however, fluctuating considerably in the point, 
 accepting it A.D. 842, when the KvptaKrj 
 T^s 'OpdoSo^'ias was appointed to celebrate 
 the seven Oecumenical Councils, yet still hesi¬ 
 tating in A.D. 863, but finally recognizing it in 
 A.D. 879 (see Palmer, On the Church, P. IV. c. 
 X. § 4). Pope Adrian accepted it. The previous 
 Iconoclast Council of Constantinople, A.D. 754, 
 is called the 8 th Oecumenical by Cave, who 
 counts the Trullan or Quinisext Council of A.D. 
 692 as the 7th. An 8 th Oecumenical, viz. of 
 A.D. 869, at Constantinople, whicR deposed Pho- 
 tius, is accepted as the next by Roman Theolo¬ 
 gians. That of A.D. 879, which restored him, 
 is called the 8 th bv most of those of the East 
 (Cave). The subsequent Western (so called) 
 Oecumenical Councils do not fall within the 
 scope of the present work. It is to be observed, 
 however, that even in the 9th century, popes 
 still spoke of the six General Councils, as e.g. 
 Nicholas L, a.d. 859, an-d a.d. 863 or 866 ; 
 Adrian L, A.D. 871 (see Palmer as above). The 
 English Church accepted the first five, and also the 
 canons of the Lateran Council of A.D. 649, re¬ 
 specting the Monothelites, which likewise accepted 
 the five; and declared her own orthodoxv about 
 Monothelitism with a view to the 6 th Genei’al 
 Council of A.D. 680, then impending, at the Coun¬ 
 cil of Hatfield, a.d. 680 (Haddan and Stubbs HI. 
 141, sq.). And Wilfrid had similarly professed 
 orthodoxy in reference to Monothelite views at 
 Rome itself in the same 3 'ear, on behalf of Eng¬ 
 lish, Scots, and Piets (ib. 140). The legatine 
 Councils of Calchyth and in Northumbria, a.d. 
 787, accepted the six General Councils (can. i. 
 ih. 448). The canons of Aelfric, A.D. 957, ac¬ 
 cept the first four, as “ the four books of Christ,” 
 and as having extinguished heresy, but add that 
 “many synods had been held since, but these 
 were the chief” (can. 33, Wilk. I, 254). The 
 seventh General Council so called, of a.d. 787, 
 was, as above said, not accepted by the English 
 Church. 
 
 As a judicial bod\', the Provincial Council was 
 at first the ultimate tribunal. An appeal from 
 it to a larger council gradually became recog¬ 
 nized ; as at Cone. A7itioch. a.d. 341. The appeal 
 to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or to the 
 Patriarch of Rome, was of later date still 
 
COUNCIL 
 
 COUSINS-GERMAN 
 
 485 
 
 [Appeal]. Cone. Arvern. I. a.d. 535, can. 1, 
 enacts, that in such councils no bishop shall pre¬ 
 sume to introduce any business, until all causes 
 are determined which peidain “ad emendationem 
 vitae, ad severitatem regulae, ad animae remedia.” 
 
 For the office of diocesan and provincial synods 
 in the election of bishops, see Bishops. 
 
 D. Of IRREGULAR councils, a few words must 
 be said. And first of— 
 
 I. The (TvyoSoi ev^rjfxovcrai, as e.g. that of 
 Constantinople A.D. 536 under Mennas, which is 
 expressly so called, and at which also a letter was 
 read from a similar meeting— -rrap^ toSu cVStj- 
 jxovvTonv 'Y.Tri(TK6TTO}v —SC. fi'om the bishops ot 
 the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, who 
 ha])y)ened at the time to be at Constantinople. 
 Justinian, although passing a law against 
 bishops coming to Constantinople without the 
 emperor’s command or leave (De Episc. el Cleric, 
 lib. i. leg. 42), yet frequently consulted and em¬ 
 ployed such synods. Bishops only, however, 
 constituted them, and the Constantinopolitan 
 ])atriarchs summoned them. II. The Frank 
 Concilia Palatina, on the contrary, consisted of 
 both bishops and nobles, under the presidency 
 of king or emperor; as did also the Witenage- 
 mots on the English side of the channel. Yet 
 the “ synod ” of bishops is distinguished, as a se¬ 
 parate assembly for purely ecclesiastical matters, 
 from the “ placitum ” or “ conventus,” as e.g. 
 at Cone. Liptin. a.d. 743, the latter of the two 
 consisting of bishops, nobles, presbyters, and ab- 
 bats. So also in Spain: where e.g. Cone. Tolet. iv. 
 A.D. 633 can. 75, which was a national Spanish 
 Council, especially characterizes its decree, even 
 about the succession to the throne, as “ ponti- 
 ficale decrecum.” In England, while bishops 
 and nobles constituted the Witenagemot, Pro¬ 
 vincial Councils, as at Hertford and Hatfield, 
 consisted of the clergy only. The king came in 
 time to be usually present; and larger excep¬ 
 tions occur in later times,^as e.g. at the Council 
 of Calchyth, a.d. 787, at which lay nobles were 
 present as well as the king. In Carlovingian 
 France, the rule is laid down in terms in Abbot 
 Adelhard’s Ordo Palatii (ap. Hincmar. 0pp. ii. 
 214) :—“ Utraque autem seniorum susceptacula 
 [reception rooms for the various divisions of the 
 Palatine Councils] sic in duobus divisa erant, ut 
 primo omnes Episcopi, Abbates, vel hujusmodi 
 honorificentiores clerici, absque ulla laicorum 
 commixtione congregarentur: similiter comites 
 vel hujusmodi principes sibimet honorificabiliter a 
 cetera multitudine primo mane segregarentur, 
 quousque tempus sive praesente sive absente 
 Kege occurrei-ent: et tunc praedicti seniores 
 more solito, Clerici ad suam, Laici vero ad suam 
 constitutam curiam, subselliis similiter honorifi¬ 
 cabiliter praeparatis, convocarentur: qui cum 
 separati a ceteris essent, in eorum manebat potes- 
 tate, quando simul vel quando separati residerent, 
 prout eos tractandae causae qualitas docebat, 
 sive de spiritalibus sive de saecularibus seu 
 etiam commixtis: similiter si propter quamlibet 
 vescendi vel investigandi causam quemcuuque 
 convocare voluissent, et re comperta discederet, 
 in eoi'um voluntate manebat. Haec interim de 
 his que eis a Rege ad tractandunxproponebantui'.” 
 III. There occur, besides these, a few exceptional 
 cases, as e.^. the Conference at Whitby, a.d. 664, 
 which can hardly be called a council in the propel 
 sense. But these need not be here dwelt upon. 
 
 [Thomassin; Van Espen; Richei'ius, Ifxt. 
 Cone. General. ; the older collections, as Crabbe’.s ; 
 Labbe' and Cossart, Harduiu, Mansi; and in 
 each country, special writers upon their own na¬ 
 tional councils, as for England, Spelman, Wilkins, 
 Landon, Haddan and Stubbs; for Spain, Loaisa, 
 Catalani; for France, Sirmond ; for Germany, 
 Harzheim; Salmon, Etudes sur les ConcHes; 
 Hefele, Concilien-Geschichte ; Pusey, On the 
 Councils; Cave, Hist. Litt. ; Bingham; Mar- 
 tigny.] • A. W. H. 
 
 COURIER. [Cursor.] 
 
 COUSINS, MARRIAGE OF. [Cousins- 
 German : Marriage.] 
 
 COUSINS-GERMAN. No prohibition 
 against the intermarriage of cousins-gerrnan is 
 contained or implied in Leviticus xviii. or Deu¬ 
 teronomy xxvii., nor can any such be inferred 
 from any other passage of the Old Testament; a 
 direct sanction is, on the contrary, given to the 
 practice in the instance of the five daughters of 
 Zelophehad, who “ were married to their father’s 
 brother’s sons” (Numb, xxxvi. 11). Nor does 
 any such prohibition occur in the monuments of 
 early Christianity. If we take the so-called 
 Apostolical canons to represent the customs of 
 the Church prior to the Nicene Council, 325, 
 neither in the text, nor in the ancient version of 
 Dionysius Exiguus, as given in Cotelerius’ 
 “ Patres Apostolici,” is such a connection men¬ 
 tioned in the canon (c. 15, otherwise 10), which 
 forbids clerical orders to one who has married 
 two sisters, or a niece (dSeA^iSTji', rendered in 
 the Latin jiliarn frafris). But it must be ob¬ 
 served that in the version by Haloander, which 
 is usually included in the Corpus Juris, the same 
 canon (numbered 18) contains instead the larger 
 term consobrinam, usually rendered “ cousin ”—a 
 palpable tampering with the text to meet later 
 ecclesiastical usage. At any rate Martene 
 (^He ant. Eccles. Pit. bk. i. c. ix.) admits that, 
 till the end of the 4th century, marriages be¬ 
 tween cousins-gerrnan were allowed by the 
 Church. It is therefore to be inferred that the 
 disfavour with which the Church, especially the 
 Western one, came to look upon cousins’ marri¬ 
 ages was rather borrowed from Roman feeling 
 than from Jewish. It is certain that marriage 
 between cousins-gerrnan was not practised in 
 early times by the Romans, although, indeed, it 
 had become prevalent in the 1st century of the 
 empire, since we find Vitellius adducing the 
 fact of the change in public opinion in this 
 respect in order to justify the proposed mar¬ 
 riage between the emperor Claudius and his 
 niece, the younger Agrippina (Tac. A?m. bk. xii. 
 c. 6). The juriits of the Digest do not, however, 
 look upon first cousins’marriages with disfavour, 
 as appears by Paulus quoting, with approval, an 
 opinion of Poinponius, that if a man have a 
 grandson by one son and a granddaughter by 
 another, they may intermarry by his sole autho¬ 
 rity (Dig. xxiii. § ii. 1. 3). In the latter part of 
 the 4th century, indeed, Theodosius, by a law of 
 which the text is lost, forbad these unions, except 
 under special permission; and a letter of Am¬ 
 brose (who indeed is suspected to have advised 
 the prohibition) to Paternus, refers both to the 
 law and to its relaxations in special ca.ses (Ep. 66). 
 Augustine also, in hi.s City of God (bk. 15, c. 16) 
 
486 
 
 COUSINS-GERMAN 
 
 COUSINS-GERMAN 
 
 pays that such marriages, though not prohibited 
 by the Divine law, were rare by custom, even 
 when not yet prohibited by the human law; 
 “ but who can doubt that in our time the mar¬ 
 riages even of cousins were more fitly (honestius) 
 })X-ohibited ? ” And the law is likewise alluded 
 to by Libanius, in his oration on Purveyances 
 (Trepl Twy ayyapeiwy). A constitution of Arca- 
 dius and Houorius, A.D. 396 (Cod. Theod. bk. iii. 
 t. xii. 1. 3), confirms the law, assimilating the 
 marriage with a cousin to that with a niece, and 
 declaring that, though the man may retain his 
 fortune during his life, he is not to be considered 
 to have either wife or children, and can neither 
 give nor leave anything to them even through a 
 third person. If there be a cfos, it must go to 
 the imperial exchequer; it cannot be bequeathed 
 to strangei’s, but must go to the next of kin, 
 except such as may have taken part in or 
 advised the marriage. Another law, of the same 
 emperor, indeed (ih. t. x.), maintains the right 
 of praying for a dispensation (this is a text 
 Bingham has strangely misunderstood), and a 
 third one (a.d. 405), which took its place per¬ 
 manently in Justinian’s Code, swept the prohi¬ 
 bition away. Professing to “ revoke the autho¬ 
 rity of the old law,” it declares the marriage of 
 cousins-german, whether born of two brothers 
 or two sisters, or of a brother and sister, to be 
 lawful, and their issue to be capable of inherit¬ 
 ing (Code, bk. v. t. iv. 1. 19). 
 
 Narrower views, however, prevailed in the 
 West, and in Italy particularly, to that extent 
 that we might almost suppose the Theodosian 
 legislation to have remained unrevoked. In the 
 Formularium of Cassiodore, under the Ostro- 
 gothic King Theodoric (end of 5th century), we 
 find a text implying its subsistence, since it is 
 that of a state privilege legalizing such unions— 
 the 46 th Formula of the 2nd part being one “by 
 which a cousin may become a lawful wife.” And 
 the “ Lex Komana,” supposed to I’epresent the 
 laws of the Roman population under the Lom¬ 
 bard rule, expressly reckons marriage with a 
 cousin as incestuous (bk. iii. t. 12). Finally, a 
 capitulary of Arubis, Prince of Benevento, who 
 usurped the fief after the death of Desiderius, the 
 last Lombard king (a.d. 374), seems to prohibit 
 —as in the earliest constitution of Arcadius and 
 Honorius on the subject—all donations by a 
 father to his children by such a marriage (c. 8). 
 On the other hand, the Lombard laws themselves 
 exhibit no restraint on cousins’ marriages; and 
 it appears clear that, whether the Theodosian 
 legislation in the matter were inspired or not by 
 the clergy, it was by the clergy that its spirit 
 was preserved. 
 
 We need not indeed rely as an authority on an 
 alleged decree on consanguinity by Pope Fabian 
 (238-52), to be found in Gratian, allowing mar¬ 
 riages within the 5th degree, and leaving those 
 in the 4th undisturbed; nor on one of Pope 
 Julius I. (a.d. 336-52), in the same collection, 
 forbidding marriages within the 7th degree of 
 consanguinity; nor on an alleged canon to the 
 same effect of the 1st Council of Lyons, a.d. 517, 
 to be found in Bouchard (c. 10). But the Coun¬ 
 cil of Agde, in 506, declared incestuous the mar¬ 
 riage with an uncle’s daughter or any other 
 kinswoman, the parties to remain among the 
 catechumens till they had made amends, al¬ 
 though existing marriages were not to be dis¬ 
 
 solved (c. 61); an injunction repeated by the 
 Council of Epaone, 517 (c. 30), and substantially 
 by the 3rd Council of Orleams, § 38, and by the 
 Council of Auxerre, 578, which forbad even the 
 marriage of second cousins (c. 31); see also the 
 3rd Council of Paris, about 557, c. 4, and the 
 2 nd Council of Tours, 567, c. 51. We need, 
 again, lay no stress on an alleged canon without 
 a distinctive number, quoted by Ivo as from the 
 canons of the Council of Orleans, 511, imposing 
 for penance, in respect of such marriages, a 
 twelvemonth’s exclusion from church (during 
 which the parties are to feed only on bread, 
 water, and salt, except on Sundays and holidays), 
 abstinence during life, and a prohibition to marry 
 —a regulation sav'ouring altogether of the later 
 Carlovingian period. 
 
 Pope Gregory the Great (590-603), whilst 
 recognizing that the law of the Church was 
 upon this point in opposition with the civil law, 
 sought to base the prohibition, in part at least, 
 on a phy.siological reason. In an “ exposition of 
 diverse thing.s,” in answer to Augustine of Can¬ 
 terbury, which forms the 31st in the 12th book 
 of his collected letters—a most valuable repertory 
 of facts as well for the social as for the Church 
 history of the period—he says (c. 5) that “ some 
 earthly law in the Roman empire ” (he is {A’i- 
 dently alluding to the Constitution of Arcadius 
 and Honorius, before referred to) allows marriage 
 between the son and daughter of a brother and 
 sister or of two sisters [or brothers]; but “ we 
 have learnt by experience that from such a 
 mai’riage no issue can proceed; ” besides that, 
 the “holy law” forbids the uncovering of a 
 kinswoman’s nakednes.s. (See also Bede, Hist. 
 Eccles. i. 27.) A wide experience shows how rash 
 is the former assertion; whilst it is clear that so 
 far from the “ holy law ” of the Old Testament 
 forbidding generally intermarriage amongst kins¬ 
 men, the whole fabric of Jewish society, in its 
 separation from the heathen, in its distinction 
 between the tribes themselves, is based upon it. 
 Cousins’ marriages were, however, forbidden some 
 years after Gregory’s death, by the 5th Council 
 of Paris, A.D. 615 (c. 14). 
 
 In the latter half of the 7th century we find 
 marriagre with an uncle’s daughter condemned 
 by the Eastern Church itself at the Council of 
 Constantinople in Trullo, 691, and separation 
 of the parties ordered (c. 54). It is remarkable, 
 however, that in the canons of a council held in 
 Britain under Theodore, Archbishop of Canter¬ 
 bury (end of 7th century), it is stated that, 
 “according: to the Greeks, it is lawful to marr 7 
 in the 3rd degree, as it is written in the law— 
 in the 5th, according to the Romans—yet they 
 do not dissolve the marriage when it has taken 
 place” (c. 24, and see also 139), and the Roman 
 rule is enacted in a later canon (108), which 
 would seem to cast a doubt on the genuineness 
 of the Trullan canon, about the middle of the 
 8 th century. The Excerpta, attributed to Egbei-t 
 of York, make it the rule that marriages are 
 permitted in the 5th degree, the parties not to 
 be separated in the 4th, but to be separated 
 in the 3rd (bk. ii. c. 28). Substantially, first 
 cousins’ marriages seem for some considerable 
 time, when once solemnized, to have been 
 tolerated. Thus Gregory II. (714—30), in a long 
 letter (Ep. 13) to Boniface, replying to various 
 questions, whilst stating that he allows marriages 
 
COVETOUSNESS 
 
 COUSINS-GERMAN 
 
 after tlie 4th degree (c. i.), does not expressly 
 condemn those in the 4th. This, however, is 
 now repeatedly done by councils and by popes; 
 in the 1st Council of Rome against unlawful 
 marriages, 721 (c. 4) ; by Gregory III. 731-41, 
 in his excerpts from the fathers and the canons 
 fc. 11); in the Synod of Metz, 753 (c. 1), which, 
 for the first time enacts corporal punishment— 
 the guilty party, if without money, being a 
 slave or freed man, to be well beaten, and if an 
 ecclesiastical person of mean condition, to be 
 beaten or sent to jail: in the 6th Council of 
 Arles, 813 (c. 11); and that of Mayence in the 
 same year (c. 54). 
 
 We have now to see the influence of the cleri¬ 
 cal view on civil legislation in respect of first 
 cousins’ marriages after the barbaric invasions. 
 With the exception of Italy, the peculiarities of 
 whose legislation on this head have been pre¬ 
 viously noticed, the only barbaric code in which 
 we find a prohibition before the Carlovingian era 
 is the Wisigothic one, strongly clerical in spirit, 
 as must always be recollected. Here a law of 
 Recarede forbids generally all marriages with the 
 kindred of a father or mother, grandfather or 
 grandmother, to the sixth generation, unless con¬ 
 tracted by permission of the prince before the 
 passing of the law, the parties to be separated 
 and sent to monasteries (bk. iii. t. v. c. 1). In 
 the case of Jews indeed there was superadded to 
 separation the treble punishment of decalvation 
 (scalping), 100 lashes, and banishment (bk. xii. 
 7, iii. c. 8). With these exceptions, all other 
 enactments adverse to such marriages belong to 
 the Carlovingian rule or period. A capitulary of 
 king Pepin at Vermerie, A.D. 753, only absolutely 
 requires the dissolution of marriage in the 3rd de¬ 
 gree, allowing those in the 4th, once contracted, 
 to stand good under penance, but forbidding them 
 for the future (c. 1). The capitulary of Com- 
 pibgne A.D. 757 (see Pertz’s text) is to the same 
 effect (cc. 1, 2). On the other hand, the law of 
 the Allamans (t. 39) renewed under Duke Laut- 
 frid, supposed the 2nd (died 751), and the some¬ 
 what later law of the Bavarians (t. 6)—both 
 indeed thought to have been touched up under 
 Charlemagne—reckon all marriages between the 
 sons of brothers and sisters unlawful, and re¬ 
 quire them to be dissolved; all property of the 
 guilty parties to go to the public treasury, and 
 if they be “ mean persons ” (minores personae) 
 themselves to become slaves to it. The Carlo¬ 
 vingian capitularies proper, almost all of them 
 confirmed by Church synods, are scarcely to be 
 distinguished from ecclesiastical enactments. The 
 text of some of the earlier ones must have been 
 tampered with, since even King Pepin’s Compi- 
 egne capitulary above referred to is brought into 
 accordance with the far stricter rules of the 
 Synod of Metz. As the law stands in the general 
 collection of the capitularies, if a man marries 
 his cousin, he is not only to lose all settled 
 moneys, but if he will not amend his ways none 
 is to receive him or give him food; he is to 
 compound in 60 solidi, or be sent to gaol till he 
 pays. If he be slave or freedrnan, he is to be 
 well beaten, and his master to compound in 60 
 solidi. If he be an ecclesiastical person, he is to 
 lose any dignity he has, or if not honourable, 
 to be beaten or sent to gaol (A.D. 756-7, bk. vii. 
 oc. 9, 10). A capitulary of the 6th book (130) 
 forbids marriage to the 7 th degree. So does one 
 
 487 
 
 of the Additio tertia., c. 123, under pain of the 
 ban (at 60 solidi) and penance for a freeman ; but 
 for a slave, of public flagellation and decalvation, 
 and penance. If the offenders be disobedient, 
 they are to be kept in jail “ in much wretched¬ 
 ness ” (sub magna aerumna), nor touch any of 
 their fortune till they do penance; and whilst 
 living in crime (c. 124) are to be treated as gen¬ 
 tiles, catechumens or energumens. Jews mar- 
 rying within the prohibited degrees are to re¬ 
 ceive 100 lashes after having been publicly de- 
 calvated, to be exiled and do penance, with for¬ 
 feiture of their property either to their children 
 by any former marriage, not being Jews, or in 
 default of such to the prince (^Additio quarta^ 
 c. 2), a provision borrowed mainly from one of 
 the Wisigothic codes above referred to. See also 
 cc. 74, 75 of the Fourth Addition, anathematizing 
 the man who marries a cousin, and repeating the 
 prohibition against marriages within the 7th 
 generation. The various enactments requiring 
 inquiry to be made as to consanguinity before mar¬ 
 riage, bear also on this subject; as for instance 
 the Council of Frejus in 791, c. 6 ; Charlemagne’s 
 first capitulary of 802, c. 35; an inquiry which 
 by his Edict of 814 is even required to be made 
 after marriage, the 4th degree being expressly 
 specified as one of prohibited consanguinity. 
 
 On the whole, the course of Church practice 
 on the subject appears to have been this; the 
 traditional Roman prejudice against cousins’ mar¬ 
 riages, although quite uncountenanced by the 
 Jewish law or practice, commended itself in¬ 
 stinctively to the ascetic tendencies of the West¬ 
 ern fathers, and through them took root among 
 the Western clergy generally, embodying itself 
 indeed temporarily, towards the end of the 4th 
 century, in a general civil law for the Roman 
 empire. But whilst this law was abrogated in 
 the beginning of the 5th century, and in the 
 East such unions remained perfectly lawful both 
 in the Church and in the State throughout. 
 nearly the whole of the period which occupies ' 
 us, never being condemned by any Oecumenic 
 Council till that of Constantinople towards the 
 end of the 7th century, in the West the clergy ad¬ 
 hered to the harsher view ; Popes and local synods 
 sought to enforce it; wherever clerical influence 
 could be brought to bear on the barbaric legis¬ 
 lators it became apparent; till at last under the 
 Carlovingian princes it established itself as a 
 law alike of the State and of the Church. But 
 the history of this restraint upon marriage is 
 that of all othei’s not derived from Scripture 
 itself. Originating probably all of them in a 
 sincere though mistaken asceticism, they were 
 soon discovered to supply an almost inexhaustible 
 mine for the supply of the Church’s coffers, 
 through the grant of dispensations, prosecutions 
 in the Church Courts, compromises. The baleful 
 alliance between Carlovingian usurpation and 
 Romish priestcraft, in exchange for the subser¬ 
 viency of the clergy to the ambition and the 
 vices of the earlier despots, delivered over the 
 social morality of the people to them, it may be 
 said, as a prey, and the savageness of Carlo¬ 
 vingian civil legislation was placed at the service 
 of the new-fangled Church discipline of the 
 West. [J. M. L.] 
 
 COVETOUSNESS. The works of the 
 earliest Christian authorities are full of \wrnir.g5 
 
488 
 
 COVETOUSNESS 
 
 COVETOUSNESS 
 
 against the different forms of covetousness, e.q. 
 Clem, ad Corinth, bk, ii. cc. 5, 6 ; Hernias, bk. i. 
 vis. 1 , and bk. ii. mund. 12 ; Const. Apost., bk. i. 
 c. 1; ii. c. 46; iv. c. 4; vii. cc. 3, 4. The 
 Apostolical Constitutions follow St. Paul in treat¬ 
 ing covetousness as a disqualification for a bishop ; 
 bk. ii. c. 6 ; and in a later constitution also for a 
 I)riest or deacon ; bk. vii. c. 31. The covetous¬ 
 ness of some of the Church-widows is especially 
 denounced ; “ who deem gain their only work, 
 and by asking without shame and taking without 
 stint have already rendered most persons more 
 remiss in giving,” — who “running about to 
 knock at the doors of their neighbours, heap up 
 to themselves an abundance of goods, and lend at 
 bitter usury, and have mammon for their sole 
 oare; whose God is their purse,” &:c. (bk. iii. 
 c. 7). The oblations of the covetous were not to 
 be received (bk. iv. c. 6 ). With this may be 
 connected the canonical epistle of Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, archbishop of Neocaesarea (about 
 A.D. 262) which declares that it is impossible to 
 set forth in a single letter all the sacred writings 
 which proclaim not robbery alone to be a fearful 
 crime, but all covetousness, all grasping at others’ 
 goods for filthy lucre; the particular object of 
 his denunciation being apparently those persons 
 who had thought a late barbaric invasion to be 
 their opportunity for gain (can. 7 and foil.). 
 Others of the Fathers in like manner vigorously 
 denounced the existence of the vice among the 
 clergy. The covetousness of Pope Zephyrinus 
 (beginning of 3rd century) is denounced by 
 Hippolytus in his Philosophumena (bk. ix. c. 7, 
 §. 11). About the middle of the century, 
 Cyprian, in his book De lapsis, speaks of those 
 Christians who “ with an insatiable ardour 
 of covetousness pursued the increase of their 
 wealth.” Ambrose, in his 7th sermon, describes 
 a cleric who, “ not satisfied with the maintenance 
 he derives, by the Lord’s command, from the altar, 
 
 . . sells his intercessions, grasps willingly the 
 gifts of widows,” and yet flatters himself by say¬ 
 ing, ‘ no one charges me with robbery, no one 
 accuses me of violence ’—as if sometimes flattery 
 did not di’aw a larger booty from widows than 
 torture.” Jerome with bitter sarcasm speaks 
 of some, “ who are richer as monks than they 
 were as seculars,” and of “ clerics who possess 
 wealth under Christ the poor, which they had 
 not under the devil, rich and deceitful, so that 
 the Church sighs over those as wealthy, whom 
 the world before held for beggars.” And he 
 beseeches his correspondent to flee from the cleric 
 who from poor has become rich as from some 
 pestilence 0^p. 2, ad Nepotianum ; and see also Ep. 
 3, ad Heliodorum). In his long letter or treatise 
 addressed to Eustochius again {Ep. 22 ), he draws 
 a sharply satiric picture of an old cleric who 
 wants to force his way almost into the very bed¬ 
 chamber of a sleeper, and praise some piece of 
 furniture or other article till he at last rather 
 extorted than obtained it; contrasting with the 
 prevalent covetousness of Roman society the 
 story of the monk at Nitria, who at his death 
 was found to have saved 100 solidi which he had 
 earned by weaving linen. The monks consulted 
 v'hat to do; some were forgiving it to the poor, 
 some to the Church, some for handing it over to 
 the family of the deceased ; but Macarius, Pambo, 
 Isidore and the other fathers of the community 
 decidejJ that it should be buried with him. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, indeed, in his letter to 
 Letorius, observes that the fathers have affixed 
 no punishment to this sin, which he assimilates 
 to adultery; though it be very common in the 
 Church, none inquires of those who are brought 
 to be ordained if they be polluted with it. Theft, 
 A'iolation of graves, and sacrilege are, he says, the 
 only vices taken account of, although usury be 
 also prohibited by divine scripture, and the ac¬ 
 quiring by force the goods of others, even under 
 colour of business. Against this statement should 
 indeed be set if not a decree (1) from Gratian 
 ascribed to Pope Julius I. a.d. 336-52, which 
 denounces as filthy lucre the buying in time of 
 harvest or of A'intage, not of necessity but of 
 greed, victuals or wine, in order by buying to 
 sell at a higher price, at least the 17th canon of 
 the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), directed against 
 the love of filthy lucre and usury, and enacting 
 deposition as the punishment for the cleric. But 
 here, as in a parallel canon (6) of the Synod of 
 Seleucia, a.d. 410, it is perhaps to be inferred 
 that the vice was chiefly if not solely aimed at 
 under the concrete form of usury (as to which 
 see Usury) ; as also when St. Basil, in his ca¬ 
 nonical epistle to Bishop Amphilochius of Iconium, 
 writes that the usurer who spends his unjust 
 gains on the poor and frees himself from avarice 
 may be admitted to orders (c. 14). That covet¬ 
 ousness was as rife in the monastery as in the 
 world may be inferred from the fact that 
 Cassian’s work, De Coenobiorum institutis (end 
 of 4th or beginning of 5th century) contains 
 a whole book (the 7th) De Spiritu philargyriae. 
 
 The A’^ery doubtful “ Sanctions and Decrees of 
 the Nicene fathers,” of Greek origin aj)parently 
 (2nd A'olume of Labbe and Mansi’s Councils, pp. 
 1029 and foil.), require priests not to be giA^en 
 to heaping up riches, lest they should prefer them 
 to the ministry, and if they do accumulate 
 Avealth to do so moderately (c. 14). The 3rd 
 Council of Orleans, a.d. 538, ibrbids clerics, from 
 the diaconate upAvards, to carry on business as 
 public ti’aders for the greed of filthy lucre, or to 
 do so in another’s name. As the times wear on 
 indeed, coA'etousness seems often to be confounded 
 with aA^arice, and to be legislated against under 
 that name. The Code of Canons of the African 
 Church, ending Avith the Council of Carthage of 
 A.D. 419, has thus a canon “on avarice,” Avhich 
 it says is to be reprehended in a layman, but much 
 more in a priest (c. 5). So Avith the Carlovingian 
 Councils and Capitularies. That of Aix-la- 
 Chapelle in 789 forbids avaritia; no one is to 
 encroach on the boundaries of others nor pass his 
 father’s landmark (c. 32, and see also c. 64, 
 “de aA^aritia vel concupisceutia”). The Council 
 of Frankfort, A.D. 794, has a canon (34), and the 
 contemporary capitulary of Frankfort a section 
 (32 or 34), “ de aA^aritia et cupiditate.” The 
 capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle of 801, according to 
 one codex, enjoins priests to abstain from filthy 
 lucre and usury, and so to teach the people 
 (c. 25, and see also the Admonitio general is ” 
 of the same year, in Pertz). The first capitulary 
 of 802 requires monks and nuns not to be giA'en 
 to coA'etousness (cc. 17, 18), nor canons to filthy 
 lucre (c. 11). Some Additions to a Nimeguen 
 Capitulary in 806 (Pertz) treat at some length oi 
 “ cupiditas ”—which is said to be taken either in 
 good or bad part, “ in bad part of him Avho beyond 
 measure will desire any kind of thing,” (c. 3)— 
 
COWL 
 
 CREED 
 
 489 
 
 of “ avaritia,” which is “to desire the things of 
 others, and having acquired them to impart them 
 to none” (c. 4), and of “filthy lucre” (c. 5), of 
 which an instance is given in the buying at 
 harvest or vintage time, not of necessity, but for 
 covetousness, in order to sell at a higher price; 
 “ but if a man buy for necessity, that he may 
 have for himself and distribute to others, we call 
 it trade ” (c. 7). The Ecclesiastical Capitulary 
 of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809 again enjoins priests to 
 avoid all avarice and covetousness (c. 2). The 
 second Council of Kheims, 813, also enacted that 
 none (apparently of the clergy) were to follow 
 the evil of covetousness and avarice (c. 28). The 
 second Council of Chalons, in the same year, that 
 if clerics gather together the fruits of the earth 
 or certain revenues of the soil, they should not 
 do so to sell the dearer and gather treasures 
 together, but for the sake of the poor (c. 8 ). 
 
 One form of covetousness—the rapacity of 
 judges and other functionaries in exacting fees,— 
 would seem to fall better under the head of 
 Sportulae, by which name such fees were known 
 in the Roman world, and are designated in the 
 legislation of Justinian (Code, bk. iii. T. ii. Novs. 
 17, 83, 123). We may however quote a chapter 
 of the Wisigothic law (bk. ii. c. 25, amended by 
 Chindasuinth), which says: “We have known 
 many judges who by occasion of covetousness 
 overpassing the order of law, presume to take 
 to themselves one-third of the causes” {i.e. 
 amounts in dispute) ; and which limits the judge’s 
 fee to 5 per cent., requiring him to restore any 
 surplus beyond this proportion which he may 
 have taken, with an equal amount besides. 
 
 [See also Bribers, Commerce, Usury.] 
 
 [J. M. L.] 
 
 COWL. [CUCULLA.] 
 
 CRATON, martyr at Rome, Feb. 15 (^Mart. 
 Horn. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CREDENCE (Lat. credentia, Ital. credenza, 
 Gr. TraparpctTre^oi'). The table or slab on which 
 the vessels and elements for the Eucharist ax’e 
 placed before consecration. “ Credontiam appel¬ 
 lant niensam .... supra quam ad sacrificandum 
 necessaria continentur ” {Ceremoniale liomanum, 
 i. 3, quoted by Ducange, s. u.). It is doubtful 
 whether such a table or slab existed in the sanc¬ 
 tuary within our period, as it rather seems pro¬ 
 bable that the elements were brought from the 
 sacristy and placed at once on the altar, when 
 they' ceased to be taken from the ofi'erings of the 
 faithful. See Protuesis. [C.J 
 
 CREED, from the Latin credo. Hence the 
 title should be confined to such confessions of 
 our Christian Faith as commence with the words 
 I believe, or We believe, or, again, to any 
 interrogatories as may be addressed at baptism 
 or other occasions. Dost thou believe ? but, in 
 practice, it has been used in a more general 
 sense, and any document which has contained a 
 summary of the chief tenets of the Christian 
 Faith as held by any local or national Church, 
 has been called the Creed of that Church. 
 Thus the Rules of Faith, of which we find traces 
 in the earliest Christian writers, and which 
 were intended to guide teachers in the instruc¬ 
 tion which they conveyed, have been called 
 Creeds. So, also, have been designated the in¬ 
 structions which were prepared for candidates 
 for baptism. 
 
 Names.— (2.) For “ Creeds,” in this wider 
 sense, we find the following words used by early 
 Greek writers : 6 Tr/tTrews apxaias Kavwu, b Kavwv 
 TYis a\-q9eias, rh K^pvyju.a rh anoaTo\iK6y, y 
 fvayyeXixrj Kal airoaToXiKy ■jrapdSoo'is. So Ter- 
 tullian very frequently appeals to the regula fdei. 
 The creed of the Church, properly' so called, was 
 designated first as y tt'kttis or y napaSodfiaa 
 ypuv ayla Kal dnoaroXiK^ tt'kttis among the 
 Greeks, and as fdes, fdes apostolica among the 
 Latins. We find the word S'/mbolurn for the first 
 time in Cyprian, and after the title became pre¬ 
 valent among Latin writers it found its wav 
 among the Greek authors. But even in the 
 fifth century the Nicene Creed was commonly- 
 known as y tt'kttls. The words rh avfx^oKov rov 
 aTTOKeKapdai, found in Origen, denote, not the 
 Creed, but Baptism itself, or (possibly) “ the 
 outward and visible sign in Baptism.” And. 
 similarly, we must interpret a passage in Ter- 
 tullian : “ Testatio fidei et signaculum symboli.” 
 In a canon of the Laodicene council, however, 
 the word occu s once. In later years the words 
 (Tvjx^oXov, and syniholum or sijmbolus, became the 
 favorite designation of the baptismal Creed. Its 
 meaning will be discussed elsewherfe. 
 
 3. The words of our Lord in the institution 
 of Baptism undoubtedly gave the first form to 
 the Baptismal Creeds which we find prevailing 
 in the 3rd century. His injunction that His 
 apostles should “make disciples of all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” seemed 
 almost of necessity to call forth on the part of 
 the recipient of Baptism some avowal of belief 
 in God as thus revealed. The words which we 
 read in our English version of Acts viii. 37, con¬ 
 taining the appeal of Philiji to the Eunuch and the 
 reply- of the Eunuch, are not found in the best 
 extant MSS. of the Acts of the Apostles ; but 
 the incident thus recorded may be regarded as 
 not improbable ; and we find indications in the 
 pages of Irenaeus that it was believed by him to 
 have occurred. St. Paul reminds Timothy of 
 the good confession which he had made “ before 
 many witnesses.” This is generally believed to 
 have taken place at his baptism. Passing by 
 for the present, as scarcely applicable to our 
 immediate purpose, the passage of Justin Martyr 
 where he relates how “ they who are persuaded 
 and believe that the things are true which are 
 taught by us, are taken to some place where 
 there is water, and are there baptized,” and the 
 expression of Irenaeus regarding “the canon of 
 the truth which every one received at his bap¬ 
 tism,” we come to words of Tertullian, in which 
 he speaks of the Holy Spirit “sanctifying the 
 faith of those who believe in the Father and the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost.” [Baptism, p. 160.] 
 
 4. Thus are we led to infer that the primary 
 bapti.smal confession corresponded to the bap¬ 
 tismal formula; that as the convert was 
 “baptized into the name of the Father and the 
 Son and the Holy Spirit,” so was he called upon 
 to state that “ he believed in the Father and in 
 the Son and in the Holy Sj)irit.” And that our 
 inference is correct seems clear from iVagments 
 of liturgies which have come down to us from 
 various ages and different Churches. The 
 Aethiopic manuscidpt of the Apostolic Consti¬ 
 tutions (le.scribes the catechumen as declaiing at 
 the time of his baptism : “ I believe in the only 
 
490 
 
 CKEED 
 
 CREED 
 
 true God, the Father, the Almighty, and in Ilis 
 only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, our Lord an'l 
 Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit, the Life-giver.” 
 Other words follow. So the pseudo-Ambrose, 
 in his treatise on the Sacraments (book ii. c. 7 ; 
 Migne, xvi. 429), “Thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou 
 believe in God the Father Almighty?’ Thou 
 saidst, ‘ I believe,’ and thou wast immersed. 
 Again thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou believe also 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His cross?’ 
 Thou saidst again, ‘ 1 believe,’ and wast immersed. 
 For a third time thou wast asked, ‘ And dost 
 thou believe in the Holy Spirit?’ Thou didst 
 reply, ‘ I believe,’ and for a third time thou wast 
 immersed.” So, again, in the formula for bap¬ 
 tism found in an old Gallican missal and printed 
 by Martene (i. p. 51); in the old Roman Ritual 
 as given by Daniel (i. p. 173); and in the foi- 
 mula adopted by Boniface, for use among his 
 German converts (Migne, vol. Ixxxix. p. 810). 
 
 5. But although this Baptismal Formula 
 furnished the type of the Baptismal Confession, 
 we find that, even in Tertullian’s time, the Con¬ 
 fession embraced something not mentioned in the 
 words of Institution. “ The Catechumen,” says 
 the great African writer (de Corona militis, § 3), 
 “ was thrice immersed, answering something 
 more than the Lord commanded in His Gospel.” 
 From his treatise (dc Baptismo, § 11) we may 
 infer what that “ something ” was. “ Some 
 (Tertullian writes) would depreciate baptism, 
 because our Lord did not Himself baptize. But 
 
 His disciples baptized at His command. 
 
 And whereunto should He baptize ? To repent¬ 
 ance ?—wherefore, then. His forerunner ? To 
 remission of sins ?—which He gave by a word ! 
 Into Himself^ —whom in His humility He 
 was concealing ! Into the Holy Spirit ?—who 
 had not as yet descended from the Father! 
 Into the Church ?—which was not yet founded.” 
 From this passage Bishop Bull f.Judicium Eccl. 
 Catholicae, Works, vol. vi. p. 139) infers (and, we 
 think, is entitled to do &o) that in Tertullian’s 
 neighbourhood and epoch, at the time of baptism, 
 express mention was made, not only of the 
 Father and of the Holy Spirit, and of the Son of 
 God, but also of repentance, of remission of sins, 
 and of the Church. Thus we are induced to say 
 that at least these two articles may have been 
 mentioned in Tertullian’s Creed, viz. “ Repent¬ 
 ance unto the remission of sins ” and “ the 
 Church.” But in regard to “ the Church ” all 
 doubt is removed by referring to a later section 
 (§ 6 ) of the same treatise, where our author 
 explains the origin of its inti-oduction thus: 
 
 “ Where the Three are, there is the Church, the 
 Boiy of the Three: there the testatio fdei;” 
 this on the part of the baptized : “ there the 
 sponsio salutis ; ” this on the part of God. 
 
 6 . We purposely abstain from adducing pas¬ 
 sages bearing on the Rule of Faith to which 
 Tertullian continually appeals, because in our 
 judgment such Rule of Faith was so called as 
 being the guide of the believer and of the teacher, 
 and was of wider extent than the Baptismal 
 Creed. So we will proceed to ask what light do 
 the works of Cyprian which have come down 
 to us throw on the baptismal customs of his day ? 
 He followed Tertullian by a generation, being 
 bishop of Carthage from 248 to 258, and his 
 correspondence is in our present investigation 
 very important, as it contains several letters 
 
 on the subject of re-baptizing tho.se who had 
 been baptized by heretical teachers ; and these 
 letters of course contain allusions (though the\ 
 may be little more than allusions) to the cere¬ 
 mony of Baptism. 
 
 7. We will translate the most interesting. 
 “If any object that Novatianus holds the same 
 law of faith which the Catholic Church holds, 
 that he b.ip Jzes with the same symbol ” (the 
 first time the name occurs in Latin), “ knows 
 the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, 
 and may therefore avail himself of the power to 
 baptize, because in the baptismal interrogations 
 he seems not to differ from us: let such men 
 know that we and the schismatics have not the 
 same law of symbol, nor the same interrogations; 
 for when they say, ‘ Dost thou believe remission 
 of sins and eternal life through the Church ? ’ 
 in the question itself they speak falsely, because 
 they have not the Church.” This is found in 
 his letter to Magnus {Ep. 69, § vii.). A passage 
 somewhat similar is found in another letter (70, 
 § ii.), and in his epistle to Firmilianus (75, § x.), 
 he speaks of the “ usitata et legitima verba in- 
 terrogationis ” at baptism. From all this w'e 
 may safely conclude that this “ fixed and legal¬ 
 ised form of interrogation ” did not then contain 
 any reference to those points of doctrine on 
 which Novation went wrong : probably it called 
 forth little more than the expression of belief 
 in the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and in 
 remission of sins and eternal life, of which the 
 assurance was conveyed when one was rightly 
 admitted into the Church at Baptism. 
 
 8 . We must pass now to consider the usage in 
 regard to Ci’eeds in the Chui-ches of the East. 
 
 From the earliest years of the Christian era, 
 the Oriental Churches were more harassed by 
 strange teachings than were those of the Latin 
 race. It was the boast of Ruffinus that no 
 heresy took its rise within the Church of.Eome; 
 and of Ambrose that the Church of Rome had 
 preserved undefiled the symbol of the Apostles. 
 Thus the difference between the Eastern and 
 Western symbols may be learnt from the opening 
 clauses of their respective Creeds. In the former 
 (and among these we of course include the 
 “ canon ” of the Greek-speaking community of 
 Lyons) men professed their belief in one God; 
 in the latter, their belief in God. The growth of 
 the latter creeds we will consider hereafter; 
 for the present we confine ourselves to the 
 former. 
 
 9. The seventh book of the Apostolic Con¬ 
 stitutions is regarded by most critics as older 
 than the Nicene Council, and by many as repre¬ 
 senting the customs of Antioch, about the end of 
 the third century. Dr. Caspari assigns it to the 
 same period, though he considei*s it to have 
 belonged to the Syrian Chui'ches. Herein we 
 have a full account of the ceremonies which were 
 performed at baptism, and of the confession 
 which the catechumen made. He said : “ I re¬ 
 nounce Satan and his works,” . . . “ and after 
 his renunciation (proceeds the text) let him say, 
 
 ‘ I enrol myself under Christ, and I believe and 
 am baptized into one, unbegotten, only, true 
 God, Almighty, the Father of Christ, the Creator 
 and Maker of all things, of whom are all things; 
 and in the Loi’d Jesus the Christ, His only- 
 begotten Son, begotten before all creation, who 
 by the pleasure of the Father was before all 
 
CREED 
 
 CREED 
 
 491 
 
 worl Is; begotten, not made; through whom 
 all things were made which are in heaven and 
 on earth, both visible and invisible; who in the 
 last days came down from heaven and spsumed 
 flesh, of the Holy Virgin Mary being born, and 
 lived holily after the laws of His God and Father, 
 and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died 
 for us, and rose again from the dead, after his 
 suffering, on the third day, and ascended into 
 the heavens and sat down on the right hand of 
 the Father, and is coming again at the end of 
 the world with glory to judge quick and dead, 
 of whose kingdom there shall be no end. I am 
 baptized, too, into the Holy Spirit; that is, the 
 Paraclete, which wrought in all the saints since 
 the beginning of the world, and was afterwards 
 sent from the Father, according to the promise 
 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ; and, after 
 the Apostles, to all who believe in (eV) the holy 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church, in (ets) the resur¬ 
 rection of the flesh, and the remission of sins, 
 and the kingdom of heaven, and the life of the 
 world to come.’ ” Such is the Creed which con¬ 
 nects the rule of faith which may be found in 
 Irenaeus with the Creed which has received the 
 name of the Nicene. 
 
 10 . It is beyond the scope of the present 
 article to examine and enumerate the errors and 
 the heresies to which reference is made in this 
 long baptismal confession (^ofxoKoy'ia ^a-micr- 
 fxaTos'). The Confession of belief issued by the 
 Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and 
 those of Gregory of Neo-Caesarea and Lucian 
 the Martyr, and others, were not used in any 
 office of the Church; and they thus have the 
 character of an exposition of the Faith, rather 
 than that of a Creed proper. Only, we must 
 note in passing, that in the letter of Alexander 
 of Alexandria to his namesake at Constantinople, 
 we meet with the phrase, %u irvevfia ayiov 
 bfioKoyovfi^v, —we confess one Holy Spirit, and 
 doubtless the conception of confession we must 
 extend to other points named in the letter; and 
 thus we have further intimation that a custom 
 of confessing God prevailed, not only at baj»tism, 
 with the competentes, but amongst matured 
 members of the Churches. This doubtless was 
 made during some pai’t of their common wor¬ 
 ship; and in the same sense we may perhaps 
 understand his words, ravra SiSdaKO/xey, ravra 
 KT)pvrTOfj.^v (Migne, xviii. p. 549). 
 
 11 . Still the passages in which the Creed is 
 referred to speak almost exclusively of its use at 
 baptism. When Eusebius wrote to his flock his 
 interesting account of what had passed at the 
 Council of Nicaea, and transcribed for it the 
 Creed which he had recited as that used “ when 
 he had been a catechumen, and again when he was 
 baptized,” he makes no mention of its use at the 
 Eucharist. “ During his whole ministerial life, 
 both when he was a presbyter, and since he 
 became a bishop, he had believed it and had 
 taught it.” i&o, again, when the Nicene Creed 
 proper was referred to in the famous decree of 
 the Council of Ephesus, the great danger against 
 which the fathers were anxious to provide was 
 this: “ that no one should offer or exhibit any 
 but the accepted faith to such as wei’e willing to 
 turn to the knowledge of the truth from Hel¬ 
 lenism or Judaism.” No mention is made of the 
 introduction of the Creed into the other offices 
 of the Church. Eutyches recited the Nicene 
 
 symbol at the Robber Synod of Ephesus, and 
 stilted that “ in this faith he had been baptized 
 and sealed, and in it he had lived, and in it he 
 hoped to be perfected;” but no reference is 
 made to any other public use : and once more, 
 when at the second session of the Council of 
 Chalcedon, the deacon Aetius read out the Creed 
 of the holy Synod of Nicaea and the holy faith 
 which the 150 holy fathers put out at Constan¬ 
 tinople agreeing with it, whilst both creeds 
 met with the cry, “This is the faith of the Catho¬ 
 lics : this is the faith of all. We all believe 
 like this :” in I'egard to the Nicene symbol alone 
 they added, “ In this we have been baptized : 
 in this we baptize;” but not a word was said as 
 to the recitation of either at any other service 
 (Mansi, vi. 957), Only the same limited use 
 is mentioned by Epiphanius in the latter pages 
 of his Ancoratus; and in the Catechetical Lectures 
 of Cyril of Jerusalem. 
 
 12 . We must not, howevei*, omit to mention 
 that it was the custom for the bishops present 
 to subscribe to the Creed before they broke up 
 from the great councils: thus, at the conclusion 
 of the Council of Chalcedon, “ all the most reli¬ 
 gious bishops cried out, ‘This is our faith, let 
 our Metropolitans subscribe ; let them subscribe 
 at once in the presence of the magistrates: 
 things well defined admit of no delay : this is the 
 faith of the Apostles: by this we all walk : we 
 all thus think.’” 
 
 13. Let us now briefly trace the subsequent 
 history of the use of the symbols. Timotheus, 
 bishop of Constantinople A.D. 511, is stated by 
 Theodorus Lector (^Hist. Eccl. p. 563) to have 
 ordered “ that the creed should be recited /ca0’ 
 €Ka(TT^v (Tvva^iv, at every congregation ; whereas 
 previously it had been used only on the Thurs¬ 
 day before Eastei*, when the bishops catechized 
 the candidates for baptism.” As the avowed 
 object of Timotheus was to express the continued 
 abhorrence which the Church felt for the teach¬ 
 ing of Macedonius, it is clear that the exposition 
 of Constantinople was intended in the order, 
 even though it speaks of “ the Creed of the 318.”® 
 A similar direction had been given by Peter 
 the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (450 to 488). 
 Then it seems to have spread through the East, 
 and thus the Creeds seem to have found their 
 way into the liturgies which bear the names of 
 Chrysostom, Basil, and others. From the East 
 the custom came into the West. The 3rd Council 
 of Toledo, c. ii. (a.d. 589) directed that “ before 
 the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy, the creed of the 
 150 should be recited by the people through all 
 the cJiurches of Spain and Gallicia, according to 
 the form of the Oriental Churches.” 
 
 14. The words of Reccared’s confirming order 
 are so interesting, that we may be pardoned if 
 we recite them at length : “ Ut propter robor- 
 andam gentis nostrae novellam conversionem, 
 
 • By the Creed of the 318 is meant the Nicene Creed, 
 By the creed of the 150 the document as it is alleged to 
 have been expanded in the Council of Constantinople, 
 and as it was recited at the Council of Chalcedon. The 
 chief difference between them is that the former after 
 the words “and in the Holy Ghost,” proceeded to declare 
 the condemnation by the Church of all who maintained 
 Arian views of the Saviour: in the latter the subsequent 
 clauses were added as we now read them, save that the 
 words were, “ who proceedeth from the Father, who 
 will,” &c. 
 
492 
 
 CREED 
 
 CREED 
 
 omnes Hispaniarum et Galliae (Galliciae) cccle- 
 siae hauc rogulam servent, iit, omni sacrificii 
 tempore, ante communicatiouem corporis Christi 
 vel (O/’ et) sanguinis, juxta orientalium patrum 
 iiiorem, uiianimiter clara roce sanctissimum ndei 
 recenseant symholum, ut priinum populi quam 
 credulitatem teneant fatcantur, et sic corda fide 
 purificata ad Christi corpus et sangiiinem capien- 
 dum exhibeant” (Mansi, ix. 983). The priest 
 recited the creed whilst he held the consecrated 
 host in his hand (Mabillon, Liturg. Gall. 1685, 
 pp. 2 , 12, 450). [We should note that the po¬ 
 sition of the Creed in the Mozarabic Liturgy 
 answers to the directions of Reccared.] 
 
 15. Bui the disputes regarding the inteiqiolated 
 Filioque aiford us additional evidence of the use 
 of tlie Creed at Mass. Some monks of a Frank 
 convent on Mount Olivet complained to Leo Ill. 
 (about A.D. 806) that they had been “ accused 
 of heresy, and partially excluded from the 
 Church of the Nativity on Christmas Day, be¬ 
 cause they held that the Holy Spirit proceedeth 
 from the Father and the Son. Yea, they were 
 charged with reciting more tlian was held in the 
 Roman Church. Yet one of their number had 
 heard it so sung in the West, in the chapel of 
 the Emperor. What were they to do ? ” Other 
 complications followed : Charlemagne was 
 anxious to retain the clause; Leo to continue to 
 exclude it. An account of the interview between 
 the Pope and the emissaries of the Emperor may 
 be seen in Dr. Neale’s Historic of the Ilolg 
 Eastern Church (pp. 1164—1166). The Pope 
 recommended that the “ clause should be 
 omitted : if difficulty arose, let them give up 
 the custom of singing the creed in the palace of 
 the Emperor: it was not sung in the Holy Church 
 in Borne: thus the cause of contention would be 
 I’emoved, and peace would be restored.” (The 
 express mention of the singing indicates that the 
 laity Avould miss the words if they were 
 omitted.) And he begged again that the 
 Churches of Germany “ would say the symbolum 
 in the mysteries in accordance with the Roman 
 Ritual ” (see Martene, De Bitibus, p. 138 ; Bin- 
 terim, Denkwiird. p. 357). Charlemagne refused 
 to give way. 
 
 16. Thus it appears that in the time of Leo III. 
 some symbolum was said at Rome at the time of 
 the Sacrifice; whether the Roman Creed, as 
 appears from the Sacramentary of Gelasius, or 
 the original Nicene formula, or the uninter¬ 
 polated faith of the 150, is uncertain. But a few 
 )'ears later, i. e. between 847 and 858, as we 
 learn from Photius (de Spiritus hlystagogia, 
 Migne, vol. cii. p. 395), Leo IV. and his successor 
 Benedict III. directed that the Creed should be 
 recited in Greek, 'Iva /xt} rh (rr^vhv Trjs SiaXeKTov 
 Bh.a,(T(pr],a'ias napao'xv 'i^p6(pa(nv. The words 
 are ambiguous, but they seem to mean :—“ lest 
 the narrow character of the Latin language 
 should afford any pretext for evil speaking,” 
 on the part of the Greek Church. But the 
 Churches of the West continued to assert 
 their independence of Rome. Aeneas, bishop 
 of Paris, informs us (about 868 ) that “the 
 whole Galilean Church chanted the Creed at 
 the Mass every Sunday ” (apud Dacher. Spici- 
 legiuin, tom. i. p. 113, cxciii.): Walafrid Strabo 
 (Migne, cxiv. p. 947) notes that after the depo¬ 
 sition of the heretic Felix, the Creed (as inter¬ 
 polated) began to be more frequently used in the 
 
 office of the Mass, in the churches of Germany: 
 and Walter, bishop of Orleans, about the middle 
 of the 9th century, found it necessary to enact 
 that m his diocese the “Gloria Patri et Filio et 
 Si)iritui Sancto” and the symbol “Credo in unum 
 Deum ” should be sung by all at the same .seiwice 
 (Martene, lib. i. c. iv. art. vi. §§ x. and xi.; 
 Migne, cxix. p. 727). At length the popes gave 
 way, and under the pressure of the Emperor 
 Henry (a.d. 1014) Benedict VIII. consented to 
 sing the Creed and after the form which was 
 now universally received amongst the other 
 Churches of the West. 
 
 17. One point connected with the Creed of 
 Constantinople remains to be noticed—its use 
 in the baj)tlsmal service of the so-called Gelasian 
 Sacramentary. Dr. Caspari ( LYiyec? iic/.te Queien, 
 part i. p. 236) considers that in the Church of 
 Rome and some Churches of Gaul and Germany 
 this Creed appeared first in the baptismal rite. 
 The original Sacramentarv is dated about 494, 
 but we conceive that the rite which we are now 
 about to describe cannot be regarded as older than 
 the times of Leo IV. and Benedict HE, the Popes of 
 Rome who directed that the Creed should be recited 
 in Greek, or as more modern than 1014, the date 
 of the Emperor Henry’s triumph over Benedict 
 VlIl. The Sacramentary directs that at the time 
 of a baptism the priest shall address the elect on 
 the importance of the faith, and bid them to 
 I'eceive the “ sacramentum of the evangelical 
 symbol inspired by the apostles, whose words 
 indeed are few, but whose mysteries are great.” 
 The acolyth takes one of the children, a boy, and 
 holding his left arm places his own right hand 
 on the child’s head, and the presbyter enquires, 
 “ In what tongue do they confess our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ? ” The acolyth answers, “ In GreekJ’ 
 The presbyter says, “ State the faith as they be¬ 
 lieve it,” and the acolyth chants the Creed of 
 Constantinople in Greek: but, according to the 
 MSS. of the Sacramentarv, wdthout the clause 
 “ God of God ” and without the words “ and the 
 Son”» (Assemanni without any MS. authority 
 printed the words /col tou viov in his Codex 
 Liturg. tom. i. p. 12; see Dr. Heurtley, Harm. 
 Symbol, p. 158). The acolyth then takes a girl, 
 and the question being repeated as to the lan¬ 
 guage of the response, he answers “ in Latin.” 
 In the first instance the Creed is wudtten in 
 Greek and Latin interlinearly, the Greek in Latin 
 characters, thus— 
 
 Credo in unum Deum Patrem oninipotertem. 
 
 Pisteuo is hena theon pathera pantocratorein ; 
 
 in the latter in Latin only. Possibly it is to this 
 curious custom, possibl)' to a direct following out 
 of the rule of Benedict HI., that w'e owe three 
 interesting relics of the 10th or 11th centuries, of 
 which Dr. Caspari has given descriptions. The one 
 is a MS. in the library of St. Gall which contains 
 the interpolated Greek Ci-eed in Latin letters, 
 but with musical notes : the other two are MSS. 
 in the library at Dii-sseldorf and Vienna respec¬ 
 tively, w'hich contain the uninterpolated Greek 
 Creed, w'ritten in similar Latin characters. The 
 earlier named MS. doubtless repi'esents the Creed 
 as it w'as chanted at great festivals ; for Binterim 
 (Denkwii d. p. 363) assures us that in the 9th 
 century the Germans sang the Creed both in 
 Greek and Latin. 
 
 18. Turning now to the symbol w'hich for 
 
CKEED 
 
 CRESCENS 
 
 493 
 
 naany years has been called in the Western 
 Churches the Apostles’ Creed, our first remark 
 must be that the Eastern Churches denied all 
 knowledge of it at the Council of Florence. 
 Ephesius, one of the legates of the Oriental 
 Churches, is said to have there stated, T}fj.e7s of/re 
 OOT6 rh (Tvfj.^o\op tS>v p.'ivq(Tt6- 
 
 Kwv (Waterland, iii. p. 196, note r; Nicolas, Le 
 Symbole des Apotres, p. 270). Thus we must 
 look to the Western Churches alone for evidence 
 of the growth and usage of this Creed. 
 
 19. In his interesting volume on the Apostles’ 
 Creed, Dr. Heurtley traces its growth through 
 Ireuaeus and Tertullian and Cyprian: then we 
 must take a leap from Novatian, A.D. 260, to 
 Ruffinus, bishop of Aquileia, A.D. 390, the inter¬ 
 mediate space of 130 years affording only one 
 stepping-stone, furnished by the notes of the 
 Belief of Marcellus of Ancyra, which he left be¬ 
 hind him on his departure from Rome : he says 
 “ 1 learnt it and was taught it out of the holy 
 Scriptures.” This Belief resembles in great mea¬ 
 sure the Creed of the Church of Rome, as we 
 learn that Creed from the pages of Ruffinus ; but 
 Marcellus does not speak of its being used in 
 any liturgic office, except so far as his words 
 above quoted may show that he had received it 
 before he was baptized. 
 
 20. This surmise is upheld by the account of 
 Ruffinus. He describes the Creed of the Church 
 of Aquileia as resembling A^ery nearly that of 
 Rome ; he says that at neither Church had it 
 eA'er been pufc» into writing in a continuous form, 
 but adds that he regards the type as preserved 
 in the Church of Rome as probably of the 
 purest character, because there the ancient prac¬ 
 tice v:as preserved of the catechumen reciting the 
 Creed in the hearing of the faithful. He speaks of 
 this as an ancient custom. At Aquileia it Avould 
 appear that the baptism was a private service. 
 About the same time we find Ambrose describ¬ 
 ing to Marcellina (Migne, xA'i. 995) the riot at 
 Milan : from his account it would seem that at 
 that time the custom was to deliver the Creed 
 to the competcntes on any Lord’s Day after the 
 lessons and the sermon and the dismissal of the 
 catechumens: his Avords are, “ Sequente die, 
 erat autem L>ominica, post lectiones atque trac- 
 tatum demissisCatechumeniSjSymbolum aliquibus 
 competentibus in baptisteriis tradebam basilicae,” 
 when he A\'as called out to rescue an Arian. 
 
 21. The custom of preserving this symbolum 
 uuAvritten is referred to again and again by .Je¬ 
 rome and Augustine. It will be remembered 
 that the Faith of the Churches of the East Avas 
 treated Avith less reserve, although St. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem desired that his lectures should be 
 regarded as confidential documents. We are in¬ 
 clined to believe that the Creed must have been 
 committed to Avriting when it became customary 
 to recite it at the Mass. The Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentary (Avhich, even if interpolated, must de¬ 
 scribe the ritual of the Roman Church at some 
 epoch or other) contains it. Since the time of 
 Benedict VHI. as we have seen, the NiceneCi'eed 
 so called, i.e. the interpolated faith of the 150, 
 has been used at Rome in the Eucharistic service. 
 
 22. We have referi'ed from time to time to 
 the custom of repeating the creeds of the earlier 
 councils at an early session of each succeeding 
 assembly of a similar character. We haA^e one 
 interesting proof that the Apostles’ Creed was 
 
 deemed of sufficient importance to be so used 
 in a council of the West. Etherius, bishop of 
 Osma, and Beatus, presbyter of Astorga, recited 
 it in 785 as against the errors of Elipandus, 
 archbishop of Toledo. The account is note¬ 
 worthy : “Surgamus igitur,” they cried, “ cum 
 ipsis ajAostolis et fidei nostrae symbolum, quern 
 (sic) tradiderunt nobis brevi compendio, recite- 
 mus, quicunque unum Dominnm, unam fidem, 
 unum ba 2 )ti.sma habemus; et fidem in qua bajj- 
 tizati sumus in hac perversitate et duplicitate 
 haereticorum non negemus : sed sicut corde cre- 
 demus ore proprio proferamus publice et dicamus 
 Credo in Deum, «Sic.” The Creed recited, Ethe¬ 
 rius added, “ Ecce fidem apostolicam in qua 
 baptizati sumus, quam credemus et tenemus.” 
 It will be noticed that the Creed Avas here put 
 forth publicly. 
 
 23. Nor should the fact that there were creeds 
 thrown into an interrogatory form be entirely 
 passed over. Of these some Avere used from 
 an early period at baptism ; and others in later 
 years at the visitation of the sick. Dr. Heurtley 
 has collected several instances of the former 
 series; and the pages of MaHene contain many 
 extracts from old MSS. giving the order for the 
 latter. The earliest instance of such a use at 
 confession that we have found is in the rule of 
 Chrodegang (a.d. 750). [Migne, 89, p. 1070.] 
 
 24. The (so called) Athanasian Creed appears 
 to have been originally composed as an exposition 
 of the faith for the instruction of believers 
 [Cressy, Council of], and then it came to be 
 sung at the Church service as a Canticle. 
 Gieseler and others consider that it was this 
 Creed that was ordered to be learnt by heart 
 by the Council of Frankfort, 794, Avhen it 
 decreed, “ Ut fides catholica sanctae Trinitatis 
 et oratio Dominica atque Symbolum Fidei omni¬ 
 bus praedicatur et tradatur but it is more pro¬ 
 bable that the term fides catholica here is generic: 
 at all events Ave would refer to the creed con¬ 
 tained in Charlemagne’s letter to Elipandus 
 [Migne, xcviii. 899], which is assigned to the 
 same date (794) as being more probably the fides 
 catholica of the Canon. It seems to have been 
 recited at Prime on the Lord’s Day at Basle in 
 the 9th century: Ave hear that in 997 it Avas 
 sung in alternate choirs in France and in the 
 Church of England: in 1133 it Avas used daily 
 at Prime in the Church of Autun; from 1200 it 
 assumed the titles “Symbolum S. Athanasii ” 
 and “ Psalmus Quictinque vultf Avhich mark the 
 character it occupies in our serA'ices. It Avas 
 daily used at Prime in those English churches 
 which adopted the use of Sarum, but Avas always 
 folloAved by the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed : 
 as if the declaration of the Faith of the Avor- 
 shipper always folloAved on the instruction of the 
 Church as to what it was necessary to believe. 
 
 (^Books. — Great use has been made of Dr. 
 August Hahn’s Collection of Formulae : and Dr. 
 Caspari’s Programme. Dr. Hourtley’s Harmgnia 
 Symbolica has of course furnished important 
 assistance. To other works reference has been 
 made as requ-ired.) C. A. S. 
 
 CRESCENS. (1) Disciple of St. Paul, bishop 
 in Galatia, is commemorated June 27 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.., Usuardi); April 15 {Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 Thus the Apostles’ Creed was the bapilsniai c.reed ot 
 Spain. 
 
494 
 
 CRESCENTIA 
 
 CROSS 
 
 (2) One of the seven sons of St. Symphorosa, 
 martyr at Tivoli under Hadrian, July 21 
 Bedae); June 27 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Or Cricscentius, martyr at Tomi, Oct. 1 
 
 (^Ma t. Hieron., Horn. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CRESCENTIA, martyr in Sicily un<ler Dio¬ 
 cletian, June 15 (JMart. Hieron., Horn. Vet., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CRESCENTIANUS. (1) Mart>T in Sar¬ 
 dinia, May 31 {^Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Africa, June 13 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Campania, July 2 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Augustana, Aug. 12 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Rome under Maximian, Nov. 24 
 
 {Mart. Bedae, Usuardi); March 16 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.). [C.] 
 
 CRESCENTIO, or CRESCENTIUS, mar¬ 
 tyr at Rome, Sept. 17 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CRESSY, COUNCIL OF. [Christiacum.] 
 In Ponthieu, A.D. 676; but according to Labb. 
 (vi. 535), at Aufun, A.D. 670, the canons being 
 headed with the name of Leodegarius, bishop of 
 Autun : pmssed several canons, but among others, 
 one exacting, on pain of episcopal condemnation, 
 from every priest, deacon, subdeacon, or “ cle- 
 ricus,” assent to the “ Fides Sancti Athanasii 
 praesulis.” [A. W. H.] 
 
 CRISPIN A, martyr in Africa under Diocle¬ 
 tian, Dec. 5 {Cal. Carthag., Rom. Vet., Usuardi); 
 Dec. 3 {Mart. Hieron., in some MSS.). [C.] 
 
 CRISPINUS. (1) Martyr with Crispinianus 
 at Soissons under Diocletian, Oct. 25 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Bedae, Usuardi, Cal. Anglican.). 
 
 (2) Bishop, martyr at Astyagis, Nov. 19 
 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CRISPOLUS, or CRISPULUS, martyr in 
 Sardinia, May 30 {Mart. Hieron., Rom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CRISPUS. (1) Presbyter, martyr at Rome 
 under Diocletian, Aug. 18 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) The “ chief ruler of the synagogue,” 
 martyr at Corinth, Oct. 4 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CRISTETA, martyr in Spain, Oct. 27 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CROSIER. [Pastoral Staff.] 
 
 CROSS. The official or public use of the 
 cross as a symbol of our redemption begins with 
 Constantine, though it had doubtless been em¬ 
 ployed in private by all Christians at a much 
 earlier date. (See Guericke’s Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church, Morison’s tr., 1857, and Sin¬ 
 ter im’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, &c., with Molanus, 
 quoted below.) In the Catacombs, and all the 
 earliest records, it is constantly used in con¬ 
 nexion with the monogram of Christ; and this 
 may point to the probable fact of a double mean¬ 
 ing in the use of the symbol from the earliest 
 times. As derived from, or joined with, the 
 monogram, especially with the mono¬ 
 gram in its earliest or decussated form, 
 the cross is a general or short-hand 
 symbol for the name and person of 
 Christ. As used with the somewhat later or 
 
 transverse monogram, or when separated from 
 the monogram and used by itself, it 
 directs special attention to the sacrifice 
 and death of the Lord, and as it were 
 avows and glories in the manner of 
 His death. “ Le triomphe de la Christianisme 
 s’affichait bien plus ouvertement sur cet in- 
 .signe [the Labarum] au moyen du monogramme, 
 coinme exprimant le nom du Christ, que par 
 I’ide'e de la croix.” Its use as a symbol of 
 His person is of high antiquity; see Ciampini, 
 Vet. Mon. t. ii. pp. 81 and 82, tav. xxiv., and 
 c. viii. tav. xvii. D; although some discredit may 
 have fallen on it from the actual personification 
 of the symbol in later days, after the publication 
 of the Legend of the Cross, when churches were 
 dedicated to it, as St. Cross, or Holy Rood, 
 and it became an object of prayer.® [Sign op 
 THE Cross.] For the purely symbolic use of 
 the great Christian and in part human emblem, 
 Ciampini’s plate, a copy of the great “ Trans¬ 
 figuration ” in mosaic in St. Apollinaris at Ra¬ 
 venna, A.D. 545, may be here described as a 
 typical example. It covers the vault of an 
 arch. The presence of the Father is represented 
 by the ancient symbol of a Hand [see s. v.] 
 issuing from a cloud above all. Below it is a 
 cross of the Western form,, slightly widened at 
 the extremities, or tending to the Maltese, in¬ 
 scribed in a double circle or nimbus. At the 
 intersection is the Face of our Lord, scarcely dis¬ 
 tinguishable in Ciampini’s small engraving, but 
 visible in the now accessible photograph ; and 
 
 a Didron, Iconographie <1., vol. i. p. 367 ; Bohn; 
 “ Christ is embodied in the Cross, as He is in the Lamb, 
 or as the Holy Spirit in the Dove. ... In Christian Icono¬ 
 graphy, Christ is actually present under ihe- form and 
 semblance of the Cross. The Cross is our i;rucified Lord 
 in person,’' &c. In the 9th amtury the praises of the 
 Cross were sung, as men sing those of a god or a hero. 
 Rhaban Maur, who was Archbishop of Mayence in fe47, 
 wrote a poem in honour of the Cross, De Laudibus 
 Sanctae Cruris. See his complete works, fol., Coloniae 
 Agrippinae, 1626, vol. i. pp. 273-337. He further quotes 
 St. Jerome’s comparisons of “ species crucis forma qua- 
 drata mundi“ aves quando volant, ad aethera forniam 
 crucis assumant. .. homo natans, vel orans . . . navis per 
 maria antenna crucis similata. Tau littera signum salutia 
 et crucis describitur.”— (.omment. in Marcum. 
 
 The Pontifical, or bishop’s ofiBce-book, of Ecbert or 
 Egbert, brother of Eadbert, king of Northumbria, and 
 consecrated archbishop of York in 732, contains an office 
 for the dedication of a cross, which certainly makes no 
 mention of any human form thereon {v. Surtees Society, 
 1853, pp. 111-113). “ . . . . Quaesumus ut consecres Tibi 
 
 hoc signum cru 
 
 cis, quod tota mentis devotione 
 
 famuli tui religiosa fides constnixit trophaeum scilicet 
 victoriae tuae et redemptionls nostrae. . . . Radiet hie 
 Unigeniti Filii tui splendor divinltatis in auro, emicet 
 gloria passionis in ligno, in criiore rutilet nostrae mortis 
 redemptio, in spleiidore cristalli nostrae mortis redemptio: 
 sit suorum protectio, spei certa fiducia, eos simul cum 
 g nte et plebe fide confirmet, spe solidet, pace consociet: 
 augeat triurnphis, amplificet secundis, proficiat eis ad per- 
 petuitatem temporls, et ad vitam acternitatis,” &c. &c. 
 A curiously mingled state of thought or feeling is indi¬ 
 cated by this passage: the cross is a symbol of Christ 
 and a token of His victory; It is of material wood, gold, 
 jewels, &e.; but a sacramental power seems to be consi¬ 
 dered as adherent in the sjunbol; its consecration gives it 
 p<“rsonality; and it is to be addressed in prayer as if 
 possessed of actual powers. 
 
CROSS 
 
 CROSS 
 
 495 
 
 verified on the spot, as we understand, by M. 
 Grimoald de St. Laurent. (Didron’s Annales 
 ArcMologiques, vol. xxvi. p. 5.) This Face of the 
 Lord seems in a work of the 5th centui’y to im¬ 
 port no more than the name or monogram : but 
 it is found again on the oil-vessels of Monza. 
 (See Martigny, s. v. Crucifix, and Didron, Annales 
 Arch. vol. xxvi.) The A and w are at its right 
 and left, and the ground of the inner circle is sown 
 with stars; that of the outer with small oblong 
 spots in pairs, which probably indicate only va¬ 
 riations of colour in the mosaic. Further to 
 risht and left are Moses and Elias adoring the 
 cross, with St. Apollinaris below. The ascent of 
 the mountain is indicated by trees and birds, 
 among which are tlie universally present sheep. 
 The Holy Dove is not represented, the mosaic 
 having reference to the Transfiguration only. 
 Above the cross are the letters IMDVC, which 
 Ciampini interprets as “ Immolatio Domini Jesus 
 Christibelow it the words “ Salus Mundi.” 
 Didron, however {Christian Iconography, p. 396, 
 vol. i.), asserts on the authority of M. Lacroix, 
 who has given particular attention to the church 
 of S. Apolliuare in Classe, that these letters are 
 really IX0TC. The accession of Constantine 
 seems to have been an occasion of publicly 
 avowing to the Pagans, and therefore of more 
 vigorously enforcing on the Christian mind, the 
 sacrificial death of the Lord for man. The office 
 of Christ was distinguished from the person of 
 Christ: the cross was, so to speak, extricated 
 from the monogram; and its full import, long 
 understood and felt by all Christians, was now 
 made explicit. However long the change from 
 the symbolic cross to the realist or portrait 
 crucifix may have taken—with whatever long- 
 enduring awe and careful reverence the corporeal 
 suffering of the Lord may have been veiled in 
 symbol—the progress of a large part of the 
 Church to actual representation of the Lord in 
 the act of death seems to have been logically 
 certain from the time wdien His death as a male¬ 
 factor for all men was avo\fed and proclaimed to 
 the heathen. The gradual progress or transi¬ 
 tion from the symbol to the representation is 
 partly traced out s. v. Crucifix ; and as the words 
 “ cross ” and “ crucifix ” are to a great extent 
 confounded in their popular use in most European 
 languages, particularly in Roman Catholic coun¬ 
 tries, the following tentative distinction may 
 perhaps hold good,—that a cross with any symbol 
 or other representation of a victim attached to it, 
 or anyhow placed on it, passes into the cruci- 
 ficial category. 
 
 The usual threefold division of the form of the 
 cross into the Crux Decussata or St. Andrew’s 
 cross; the Crux Commissa, Tau, or Egyptian; 
 and the Immissa or upright four-armed cross, 
 seems most convenient. It would appear from 
 Ciampini’s plate above quoted, and is historically 
 probable, that the distinction between the Greek 
 and Latin crosses, by reason of the equal or 
 unequal length of the arms, is scarcely within 
 our province. Its earliest origin dates perhaps 
 from the time succeeding: the Iconoclastic con- 
 troversy (see Crucifix), when the Latin mind 
 continued to insist specially on the cross as the 
 instrument of the Lord’s death, and carefully 
 selected the most probable shape of the cross on 
 which He suffered. The symbol of the inter¬ 
 secting bars was enough for the Greek. As a 
 
 Christian emblem, the decussated cross may be 
 considered the most ancient: but all are of the 
 earliest age of Christian work : as are many 
 curious varieties of the cruciform figure. The 
 forms in the woodcuts are Christian adoptions of 
 pre-Christian crosses. They are sup])osed by 
 Martigny and others to be what he calls formes 
 dissimulees; or ancient symbols adopted by 
 Christians as sufficiently like the cross or tree 
 of punishment to convey to their minds the 
 associations of the Lord’s suffering, without pro¬ 
 claiming it in a manner which would shock 
 heathen prejudice unnecessarily. Constantine 
 appears to have felt that a time was come when 
 his authority could enforce a different feeling 
 with regard to the death of the Lord for men. 
 He used the cross or monogram privately and 
 publicly; impressed it on the arms of his soldiers ; 
 and erected large crosses on the Hippodrome and 
 elsewhere in Constantinople. His use of it on 
 his standards is well known. (Cf. Labarum, 
 Draconarius.) Euseb., Vit. Const, iii. 3, refers 
 to the Triumphal Cross made and set above the 
 Dragon by Constantine. For his vision and the 
 making of the Labartim, see ibid. pp. 28-39 ; 
 Bingham, Antiq. s. v. Crucifix. Of its use on 
 coins, which appears to begin with Yalentinian L, 
 A.D. 364—375, see coin of Valens in Angelo 
 
 Engraved stone of earliest epoch. ®idron„ ‘ Ic. Chr^tieune, 
 vol. i. p. 396.) 
 
 Rocca, infra. It seems as if Constantine really 
 hoped to use the Christian symbol as a token 
 of union for his vast empire, with that mix¬ 
 ture of sincere faith, superstition, and ability 
 which characterized most of his actions. The 
 frequent recuiTence of the rovrw vlki on 
 ancient crosses shows the importance which 
 he and others attached to his vision. Ter- 
 tullian’s words may suffice to express the 
 general use of the cross in private in his time 
 {De Cor. Mil. c. iii.): “ Ad omnem progressum 
 atque promotum; ad omnem aditum atque 
 exitum: ad calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, 
 ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia :—quaecunque 
 nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo 
 terimus.” This is paralleled by St. Chryso¬ 
 stom’s Trarraxov evpiaKecrdai (t. aravphv') — irapa 
 &,pX 0 V(ri, rrapa apxop-fvois, irapa yvvai^X, irapa 
 &u8pacn, . . . . eV ‘6ir\ois K. ev iraarTamu, iv 
 (TKevidiv apyupots, iu rolx<^>^ ypacpaTs. Julian 
 had derided the Christians as (Udras (rraupov 
 <TKiaypa<povvTfS ev TqS p-fTwirw, &c. They were 
 accused of worshipping it as a divinity or fetiche. 
 Seethe words of the pagan Caecilius, in Minucius 
 Felix Octav. cc. ix. and xxix.: Et qui hominem 
 
CROSS 
 
 CROSS 
 
 49r. 
 
 summo supijlicic pro facinore punitum, et crucis 
 Jigna feraiia eorum caeremoniis fabulantur, con- 
 gruentia porditis sceleratisque, .... ut id colant 
 q\iod merentur.” Ke is answered simply, “ Cruces 
 nec colimus nec optamus.” This is also referred 
 to by Molanus, I)c Ficiuris, c. v., with many 
 other passages. [See Sign of the Cross.] 
 
 The cross of course conveyed to earlier Chris¬ 
 tians, as to ourselves, the lesson of our own per¬ 
 sonal sacrifice or dedication to Christ, and the 
 thought of His command to take up the cross. 
 Hence doubtless its constant use in times of 
 actual or remembered persecution. But this use 
 of it would necessarily lead on from the thought 
 of His person to that of His sacrifice. See the 
 inscription by Paulinus of Nola, who made such 
 ample use of pictorial and other decorations, 
 placed under a cross at the entrance of his 
 church :— 
 
 “ Oorne coronatam Domini super atria Christi 
 Stare crucem, duro spondentem celsa labore 
 Praemia. Tolle crucem, qui vis auferre coronam." 
 
 (See Binterim, vol. iv. part i., and Molanus, 
 De Iinaginibus, c. v. De Picturis.) 
 
 The private use of crosses, or representations 
 of the cross, is highly uncertain before Constan¬ 
 tine, though Martigny refers to Ferret (Cata- 
 combes de Borne, iv. pi. xvi. 74) for certain stones, 
 apparently belonging to rings, on which the cross 
 is engraved, and which appear to be of date prior 
 to Constantine. It seems probable that the use 
 of the monogram prevailed before and during his 
 time, with sacrificial meaning attach¬ 
 ing more and more to the cruciform 
 in the Christian mind. (See Binterim, 
 vol. iv. part ii.) 
 
 The most interesting cross in existence of this 
 kind seems to be the pectoral cross or iyKSXiriov 
 in gold and niello, described last by M. St. Laurent 
 in Didron’s Annates Archeologiques. It is said to 
 contain a fragment of the wood of the cross, and 
 bears on its front EMANOVHA HOBISCVM 
 DEVS on the back, “ Crux est vita mihi; mors, 
 inimice, tibi,” in same characters. It must date 
 from near the time of the Empress Helena, when 
 many like crosses beVan to be worn. Compare 
 drawing of serpent below the monogram. 
 
 One example is given by Boldetti of a taii- 
 cross, dating A.D. 370 according to the consuls : 
 neither the Crux Immissa nor the Greek cross 
 appear by actual examples till the 5th century. 
 This question of date can hardly be decided in 
 the Catacombs, from the number of crosses in¬ 
 scribed there by pilgrims of all jieriods. 
 
 Theie is a passage from Severus Sanctus 
 Endeleohius or Entelechius, a Christian poet, pro¬ 
 bably of Aquitaine, in the latter part of the 4th 
 century, where a Christian shepherd has secured 
 his flock from disease by planting or marking 
 between their horns (“ signum mediis frontibus 
 additum ”) the cross of “ the God men worship in 
 great cities”:— 
 
 “ Signum, quod perhibent esse crucis Dei 
 Magnis qui colitur solus in urbibus, 
 
 Christus, perpetui gloria numinis,” &c. 
 
 De Rossi’s work, De Titulis Christianis Cartha- 
 gi7iiensibus, speaks of 4th century marbles beai-- 
 
 b For examples and discussion of this subject, see 
 Binterim, vol. iv. part L 
 
 ing the cross; ana It is possible that in distant 
 provinces the associations of shameful death may 
 not have clung to it so closely. M. Laurent 
 makes the obvious remark that the use of the 
 cross spread with a rapidity proportioned to the 
 advance of Christianity, and speaks of its earlier 
 and freer use in Africa, quoting De Rossi, D. T. C. 
 For Constantine’s golden cross on the tomb of 
 St. Peter, see Anastasius, Lib. Pordif., In Syl- 
 vesfro, p. 8, Scr. Byz. (Fabroti); also Eusebius, 
 Const. Vit. iii. 49. Two crosses from the Cata¬ 
 comb of vSt. Pontianus given by Bottari, tav. xliv.- 
 xlvd., richly adorned with jewels and metal-work, 
 one of which has the A w attached to it by 
 chains, may also date from the years imme¬ 
 diately preceding Constantine, if not works of 
 his time. The great Cross of the Lateran, so 
 called, is referred to his time, and apparently 
 accepted as of that date by Binterim, vol. iv. 
 part i. frontispiece. It is in mosaic, and though 
 restored by Nicolas IV., can hardly have been 
 altered. It is a plain cross, having a medallion 
 of the Lord’s baptism at its intersection. The 
 Holy Spirit, in form of a dove, with nimbus 
 hovers above; and from Him seems to proceed 
 the baptismal fountain, which at the cross-foot 
 becomes the source of the four rivers, Gihon, 
 Pison, Tigi'is, Euphrates. Between the rivers is 
 
 Lateran Cross. (Binterim, vol. iv. p. i.) 
 
 the Holy City of God, guarded by the archangel 
 Michael, behind whom springs up a palm-tree, 
 on which sits the Phoenix as a symbol of Christ. 
 [Phcenix.] Two stags below near the waters 
 represent the heathen, seeking baptism ; and 
 three sheep on each side stand, as usual, for the 
 Hebrew and Gentile Churches. Thi.s relic should 
 be compared with a similar one given by De Rossi 
 {De Titulis Carthaginiensibus'), where the cross 
 stands on a hill, and the four rivers spring trom 
 its foot, with stags, &c., as both have decided 
 reference to baptism, and illustrate the earliest 
 representative use of the cross as a symbol of 
 Christ, with special reference not to His death 
 but His baptism. Others even in later times 
 were made with this view, and indeed with 
 ornaments representing Old Testament types of 
 the Redeemer. (See Crucifix, accor.nt of the 
 station-cross of Mainz.) 
 
 The use of the Tau, patibulary. or Egyptian 
 
CROSS 
 
 CROSS 
 
 497 
 
 Cross,is general from perhaps the earliest 
 3 period. Some special difficulties appear 
 to be connected with it, as it is be¬ 
 yond doubt a pre-Christian emblem, 
 and as such connected in the minds 
 of those who used it with special, at least 
 pre-Christian, meanings. These meanings will 
 of course be of two classes : — Istly, the 
 interpretations of speculative minds in all ages 
 which connect the tau-cross with Egyptian 
 nature-worship through the Crux Ansata, and 
 which include all the Ophite and Gnostic 
 uses of the symbol, and its connexion with 
 the serpent, as a sign of strength, wisdom, 
 &c.; 2ndly, those of Hebrew origin, connected 
 as types with the Old Testament, and through 
 that with the Christian faith,—the wood borne by 
 Isaac, and the tau or cross on which the brazen 
 serpent was supported. Didron’s remark seems 
 appropriate here, that the tau is the anticipatory 
 cross of the Old Testament. We are not con¬ 
 cerned with it as such, and may refer for much 
 interesting and erudite speculation on the pre- 
 Christian cross, or decussated figure, to the text 
 and references of an article in the Edinburgh 
 Review of April, 1870. 
 
 The tau appears in the Callixtine Catacomb, in 
 a sepulchral inscription, referred to the 3rd cen¬ 
 
 tury, thus : IRE 
 
 r 
 
 NE. This frequently 
 
 occurs elsewhere (De Rossi, Bullet. 1863, p. 35); 
 and some of the crucifixes on the vessels of the 
 treasury of Monza are of the same shape. (See 
 Didron’s Annales Archeologiques, w. xxvi.-vii.) 
 Still in some of the earliest examples it may 
 possibly have been used, even by Christians, in 
 the pre-Christian sense, as a type of life in the 
 world to come. 
 
 In Boldetti, lib. ii. c. iii. p. 353, an Egyptian 
 cross of black marble mosaic is given, which may 
 probably be of later date than the catacomb in 
 which it was found; but the next page contains 
 an early iuscri))tion of the tau between A and co. 
 
 thus: A 
 
 He quotes the following 
 
 passage from Tertullian on this form of the cross, 
 who refers to Ezekiel thus: “ Pertransi medio 
 portae in mediam Jerusalem et da signum Tau 
 in frontibus virorum. Ipsa enim litera Grae¬ 
 corum Tau, nostra autem T, species crucis.”— 
 Adv. Marciun. lib. iii. 22. This form of cross is 
 specially appropriated to the thieves rather than 
 the Redeemer, in some crucifixions of earl}" medi¬ 
 aeval type. [Crucifix.] 
 
 Anchor-Cross. 
 
 (Didron’s * Annales Arch^ologiqaes,’ vol. xxvi. frontispiece.) 
 
 e In T.ipsins, De Cruce, i. 7, it is shown to be of 
 Phcenlcian origin. 
 
 CHRIST. AJNT. 
 
 Both Greek and Romau ci’0sse.s, and in parti¬ 
 cular cruciform churches,'^ sometimes posse.ss one 
 or even two additional cross limbs, shorter than 
 the main or central one. The upper additional 
 
 is supposed by Didron to stand for 
 
 the title over the head of the Crucified One. If 
 this be so, the lower may be taken to represent 
 the suppedaneum^ a support for His feet. In cases 
 where both the shorter limbs are placed above 
 the main cross-bar, as in the cross represented in 
 Boldetti, lib. i. c. ii. p. 271, they certainly re¬ 
 present the crosses of the malefactors. [Cru¬ 
 cifix.] See two coins of Valensand Antheinius, 
 Angelo Rocca, Bihl. Vaticana, vol. ii. p. 253 . 
 one, a nummus aereus, has the three crosses, the 
 other with two smaller cross-beams under the 
 large one. 
 
 The term “station-cross” is derived from the 
 
 On a single Tomb, Callbctine Catacomb. 
 (Boidetti, lib. ii. c. iii. p. 363.) 
 
 Roman military term statio, and applied to a 
 large cross on the chief altar, or in some prin¬ 
 cipal place of a church, but occasionally removed 
 or carried in procession to another place, and 
 then constituting a special place of prayer. (See 
 Bottari, tav. xlv., and illustration of Lateran . 
 Cross.) Processional crosses may be traced to the 
 use of the Labarum in Constantine’s army, and 
 also of his substitution of the Cross for the 
 Dragon, or placing it above the Dragon en 
 standards of cohorts, &c. (See the Church use 
 of the word Draconarius, standard-bearer.') 
 
 The distinction between the Cross of the Re¬ 
 surrection, or Triumphal Cross, and the Cross 
 of the Passion, is traceable to early times. In 
 Ciampini, V. M. tav. xvii. D (ch. viii.), our Lord 
 in glory stands by and suj^ports a large cross, 
 having the angels Michael and Gabriel on either 
 hand. The Lamb is also frequently represented 
 as bearing the lighter and longer triumphal cross. 
 (See Crucifix, and references to the Vatican Cross, 
 &c.) It is also borne by our Lord in reprcsent.i- 
 tions of the Descent info Hades. It is symbolic 
 
 I Constantine’s ancient church of St. I ctor, S. Paolo 
 fuori delle Mura, and Sta. Maria Mai 3 giore v\ ere ali ouilt 
 
 n 
 
 in the form of a cross. That of S. Paolo is a ' || ' 
 with projecting apse. 
 
498 
 
 CROSS 
 
 of the victory gained by the sufferings to which 
 the Passion-cross calls our special attention. 
 
 The drawing of the engraved stone or signct- 
 cioss at p. 495, with the motto “ Salus,” repre¬ 
 sents a device with the triumphal cross. The 
 monogram of the Lord is placed over the ser¬ 
 pent, which vainly tempts the doves, who look 
 to the symbol of their Lord. But see s. v. 
 Serpent. 
 
 The statement of Bede (Binterim, vol. iv. i. p. 
 501) relating to the four kinds of wood of which the 
 cross was made—the upright of cypress, the cross- 
 
 (A) 
 
 ii Cemetery of St. Agnes 
 
 (D) 
 
 i Cemetery of Domitia. 
 
 (Boldetti, lib. ii. c iiL p. 363.) 
 
 piece of cedar, the head-piece of fir, and the suppe- 
 daneum of box—departs from the Eastern tradi¬ 
 tion, which substitutes olive and palm for the two 
 latter varieties of wood. This forms part of the 
 legendary history of the cross, with which we are 
 not concerned. The only remarks to be made by 
 way of conclusion or summary appear to be these : 
 that a double, and indeed manifold, meaning 
 Attached to the cross from the earliest ages. 
 Derived as a Christian sign from the monogram, 
 and connected with traditions of ancient learning 
 by its Egyptian form, it may be said to have 
 stood for all things to all men. To the earliest 
 
 CROSS, ADORATION OF 
 
 members of the Church it represented their 
 Master, who was all in all to them; and thus in 
 their view, a somewhat wider and happier one 
 than in later days, it represented all the faith— 
 the person of Christ, His death for man, and the 
 life and death of man in Chri.st. The Lateran 
 and other crosses point to baptism and all its 
 train of Christian thought, without immediate 
 reference to the Lord’s sacidfice. [Lamr.] Con¬ 
 stantine indeed (.see Anastat. Vit. Fontif. in 
 Sylvestro) seems to have attached the symboho 
 Lamb to the Baptist and the .sacrament he ad¬ 
 ministered, as well as to the Lord’s Supper and 
 the showing forth of His death. The tendency 
 of Christian feeling towards special or exclusive 
 contemplation of the Lord’s sufferings and death 
 is matter of ecclesiastical history; and its effect 
 on Christian emotion, and therefore on Christian 
 art, is the transition from the cross into the 
 crucifix. (See s. v.) 
 
 An evidence of the feelings of subdued triumph 
 with which the cross was regarded in the earlie.st 
 times, as a symbol first of the Lord’s life and 
 death, then of the life and death of man, is 
 that it is so frequently wreathed, embossed, or 
 otherwise ornamented with flowers. Even as late 
 as the Monza vessels, it is represented as a living 
 and budding stem ; but the cross from St. Ponti- 
 anus, given by Bottari, xliv. is made to put forth 
 golden or silver flowers half-way up its stem. 
 
 Count Melchior de Vogue (Bevue Archdologique, 
 vol. vii. p. 201) gives a highly interesting ac¬ 
 count of the ruins, or rather the scarcely-injured 
 remains, of four ancient Christian towns, on the 
 left bank of the Orontes, between Antioch and 
 Aleppo. They contain many ancient crosses, and 
 were probably deserted at the same time, on the 
 first Mussulman invasion. “ On est transporte', ’ 
 he says, “ au milieu de la socie'te' chre'tienne . . . 
 non plus la vie cachee des catacombes, ni I’ex- 
 istence humiliee, timide, souffrante, mais une vie 
 large, opulente, artistique. .... Des croix, des 
 monogrammes du Christ sont sculptes en relief 
 sur la plupart des portes: le ton de ces inscrip¬ 
 tions indique une e'poque voisine du triomphe de 
 rEgii.se. . . . Le graffito d’un peintre obscur, qui, 
 de'corant un tombeau, a, pour essayer son pinceau, 
 trace' sur le paroi du rocher des monogrammes 
 du Christ, et dans son enthousiasme de Chretien 
 e'mancipe' e'crit, eii paraphra.sant le labarum, Tovto 
 viKa, Ceci triomphe.” [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CROSS, Adoration of. (Adoratio CrnciSj 
 
 T) Trpo(TKVVr)(TlS TOV (TTUUpoC.) 
 
 1. Adoration of the Cross from the heathen 
 point of view. —Christianity being a “religion of 
 the cross,” the cross being in every Christian 
 teacher’s mouth as the watchword of the new 
 faith, the action of signing with the cross [Sign 
 OF THE Cross] being believed in by the Chris¬ 
 tians as a preservative against all dangers bodily 
 and spiritual, what wonder is it that the heathen 
 should have seen in early Christianity but a 
 crravpoXaTpe'ia, and in the cross but a Christian 
 idol not less material than their own ? 
 
 Thus we find Tertullian feeling it necessary 
 carefully to combat this among divers false 
 views of Christian worship prevalent among the 
 heathen. His words, with the logic of which 
 we have nothing to do, are “ Sed et qui Crucis 
 nos religiosos putat, consecraneus erit noster — 
 Even if we did worship the cross, we should be 
 no worse than you, for the cross enters directly 
 
CROSS, ADORATION OF 
 
 or indirectly into your own objects erf worship ; 
 for example, as being the structure around 
 which the makers of images of the gods would 
 first erect the clay model, or as being the frame¬ 
 work of trophies reared in honour of victory 
 whom you adore as a deity (^Apol. c. IG ; and in 
 similar strain, Ad Nationes i. c. 12). 
 
 • We find references to the same heathen taunt 
 in the Octavius of Minucii^s Felix, as e.g. in c. 9, 
 where the heathen objector winds up his re¬ 
 marks “ ut id colant quod merenturand 
 again (c. 12), “ et jam non adorandae, sed sub- 
 euudae Cruces.” The writer in meeting this 
 attack speaks as Tertullian had done of the way 
 in which the cross entered into heathenism, and 
 adds (c. 29), “ Cruces etiam nec colimus, nec 
 optamus,” by which he seems to mean, We 
 Christians do not worship the cross so as to give 
 such adoration and honour to it as you heathen 
 to your idols. That this misconception on the 
 part of the heathen was not speedily overcome 
 may be seen from the case of so intelligent a 
 man as the Emperor Julian, who, a century 
 after Minucius had written, taunts the Chris¬ 
 tians, as the Caecilius of that writer had done, 
 with inconsistency, in that while they refused to 
 reverence (irpoa-KweTu) the sacred Ancile which 
 fell down from Jupiter and was preserved among 
 them as a pledge of the protection ever to be 
 shown to the city, they still reverenced the 
 wood of the cross, continually made the sign of 
 it on their foreheads, and engraved it before 
 their houses (Cyril Alex. Contra Julianxim, lib. 
 vi. Patrol. Gr. Ixxvi. 795). The gist of Cyril’s 
 answer is worthy of notice :—Since Christ the 
 Lord and Saviour of all divested Himself of His 
 Divine Majesty, and leaving His Father’s Throne 
 was willing to take upon Him the form of a 
 servant, and to be made in the likeness of man, 
 and to die the cruel and ignominious death of 
 the cross, therefore we being reminded of these 
 things by the sight of the cross, and taught that 
 One died thereon that we all might have life, 
 value the symbol as productive of thankful 
 remembrance of Him. 
 
 II. Point of vievj of early Christian writers .— 
 Having thus alluded to the adoration of the 
 cross as seen from the heathen point of view, we 
 shall next endeavour to trace the existence of 
 the idea among Christians of a modified form 
 of reverence to be paid to the cross. That idea 
 may be expressed roughly thus : No reverence 
 is paid to the material cross as such ; it is the 
 idea of the cross for which reverence is felt; but 
 it is the reverence or worship due to a most 
 holy or cherished thing, not that which is due 
 to God, TTpo(TKvvT](ris, not XarpCia. Certain it is 
 that in this modified sense of worship the early 
 Christians maintained the duty of reverence to 
 the sacred symbol of redemption (see especially 
 Le Nourry’s Dissertatio in Minuc. Pel. c. xii. 
 Art. 4 in Patrol, iii. 531). Thus Eusebius says 
 of Constantine, rhv viKoiroihv er'i/aa (Travp6v 
 [Vita Const, i. 31; cf. ib. ii. 16; iv. 21; and 
 Oratio de laudibus Const, c. 9; also Sozomen 
 i. 4, del ToC ^aaiXecas r)ye7(r6ai Kai TTpoaKwr)- 
 trecDS vevofjLicrTo irapa rSiv (TTpaTiuTtov). Cyril 
 of Jerusalem (Ep. ad Const, p. 247) speaks 
 of rh awTTjpiop TOO aravpov ^vKov. The 
 above-mentioned instances taken by themselves 
 might be viewed as due to a somewhat rhe¬ 
 torical way of speaking, but the real nature of 
 
 CROSS, ADORATION OF 499 
 
 the feeling is shown by the following moro 
 definite instances. 
 
 Ambrose {In ob. Theodosii, § 46) tells of the 
 Empress Helena’s adoration of the cross after her 
 discovery of Pilate’s superscription, and adds : 
 
 Begem adoravit, non lignum utique, quia hie 
 Gentilis est error et vanitas impiorum; sed 
 adoravit ilium qui pependit in ligno, scriptus 
 in Cruce.” Shortly afterwards he describes bow 
 the cross was placed upon kings by Helena, “ ut 
 in regibus adoretur.” 
 
 Jerome, again, in the Epitaphmm Paulae 
 Matris {Ep. 108 ad Eustochium, § 9, Patrol. 
 xxii. 883), says that “ Paula prostrata ante 
 Crucem quasi pendentem Domiuum cerneret, 
 adorabat.” 
 
 In the above instances Ambrose and Jerome 
 are referring to the cross said to be found by 
 Helena, but in the case of Minucius and others 
 anterior to the time of Constantine the allusion 
 is necessarily to crosses, viewed as signs and 
 images of the true cross; and the view which 
 is controverted is the belief of the heathen 
 world in the veneration paid by Christians to 
 the cross absolutely (see further, Origen, in 
 Celsum ii. 47). Cf. further the distinction as 
 drawn by Augustine {Tract, i. in Johannem., 
 § 16): “ Dicimus quidem lignum vitam, sed 
 secundum intellectum lignum Crucis unde acce- 
 pimus vitam.” The same line is taken in the 
 Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem (xxxix.: Patrol. 
 Gr. xxviii. 622), falsely attributed to Athanasius, 
 in answer to the question. Why, when God has 
 forbidden through His prophets the worship of 
 created things, do we oli'er adoration to images 
 and the cross ? Rusticus Diaconus, a writer of 
 the time of Pope Vigilius, carefully defines the 
 matter in the same way, for after maintaining 
 the adoration of the cross as leading on to that 
 of the Crucified, he adds, “ non tamen Crucem 
 coadorare dicimur Christo ” {Contra Acephedos : 
 Patrol. Ixvii. 1218). 
 
 John Damascenus (ob. circa 756 a.d.) is careful 
 exactly to define, as the above-mentioned writers 
 have done, the nature of the reverence paid by 
 Christians to the cross. He says {de fide ortho- 
 doxa iv. 11): Trpoo'Kvvovpep Se Kal rhv Tvnov 
 rod Tifiiov Kal ^caoiroiov aravpov . ... ov ttjp 
 vXrjv rip.5}vris {fx^ yepoiTo), aWa rhu tvttop 
 ws Xpiarov avjx^oXov. And hereon, he adds, 
 may our adoration of the cross rest, ivQa yao 
 txv ^ rh arj/xeiov, iKel Kal avrhs earai. 
 
 Further illustrations of the wide spread of the 
 feeling are to be found in numerous narratives of 
 the Fathers, of a more or less legendary cha¬ 
 racter, referring to the miraculous power in¬ 
 herent in the sacred symbol. Thus Sozomen 
 {Hist. Eccl. ii. 3) gives us an account of a certain 
 physician named Probianus who had been con¬ 
 verted to Christianity, but Avho would not ac¬ 
 cord honour to the cross as the sign of salva¬ 
 tion, until when suffering from a painful disease 
 of the feet he was taught by a vision [cf. Altar, 
 p. 66] to find in reverence of the cross a means 
 of relief, and thus was cured. [We again find 
 this story, cited from Sozomen, in the Ilistoria 
 Tripartita (ii. 19), compiled by Cassiodorus.] 
 
 A parallel incident is that related by Evagrius 
 (Eccl. Hist. iv. 26), to the effect that on the 
 burning of Antioch by Chosroes, the bishop of 
 Apamea consented to dis])lay the wood of the 
 cross to the adoration of the people, that their 
 
 2 K 
 
500 CROSS, ADORATION OF 
 
 last kiss of the sacred relic might be as it were 
 their viaticum to the other world. Jhe his¬ 
 torian mentions that he was present with his 
 parents, and describes the scene at some length, 
 and tells how, while the bishop made the circuit 
 of the church carrying the cross wcrTrep iu Ta7s 
 ic'jp'iais Twv TrpoaKvv'p'Tcwv 7]fj.€pais (Wktto, he 
 was followed by a large mass of flame, blazing 
 but not consuming : a token of the safety vouch¬ 
 safed to the city.. 
 
 Again, Bede (Hist. Eccl. iii. 2) tells us of 
 Oswald, a Saxon king (635 A.D.), who, being in 
 imminent danger in war, erected and otTered 
 adoration to a cross, by which victory was 
 secured. 
 
 One more illustration may suflice. In the 
 Trullan Synod held at Constantinople in 691 A.D., 
 it was ordained that since the cross shows to us 
 the way of salvation, and therefore we offer to 
 it in words and in thought our adoration, it 
 should be distinctly prohibited to engrave crosses 
 on the pavement, where they would be trodden 
 under foot, and that where these already existed 
 they should be erased (can. 73; Labbe, Con- 
 cilin, vi. 1175). 
 
 The above examples clearly prove the ex¬ 
 istence amongst the early Christians of a x'enera- 
 tion for the cross, combined with the feeling 
 of the necessity of excluding from this the idea 
 of absolute worship. The constant use of the 
 sign of the cross [Sign of the Cross] is a 
 further exemplification of this. 
 
 The special character of hymns is obviously 
 such as to admit of a less exact style of lan¬ 
 guage, but the tone of the early Christian poets 
 shows clearly the nature of their views, as to the 
 veneration of the cross. In a poem (/)<? Passione 
 Domini) attributed by some to Lactantius, it is 
 said (vv. 50 sqq.) :— 
 
 “ Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerahile adora 
 Flebilis, iimocuo terramque cruore mad< ntem 
 Ore petens hiiniili.” “ 
 
 Much again can be gathered from Prudentius 
 (405 A.D.) on this point. Thus we find (^Apo¬ 
 theosis 446)— 
 
 “ Jam purpura supplex 
 Sternitur Aeneadae rectoris ad atria Cliristi, 
 Vfxillumque Crucis summus doniinator adorat.” 
 
 Again in the description of Constantine’s victory 
 over Maxentius (Contra Symmachum i. 494), he 
 says— 
 
 “ Tunc ille senatus 
 
 JMilitiae ultricis tit'ilum, Christique verendum 
 Noiiien adoravit quod collucebat in armis.” 
 
 The allpsion here is to the cross and the mono¬ 
 gram on the labarum (cf. also Cath. vi. 129, and 
 Paulinus Nol. Poem. xxx. 97 sqq.). 
 
 Finally, we may cite the words of Sedulius 
 (Carmen Paschale, lib. v. 188; Patt'oL xix. 
 724)— 
 
 " Neve quis ignoret speclem Gruels esse colendam.” 
 
 a In the prolegomena to the Roman edition of Pru- 
 dentius (^Patral. lix. €69), the accusation is brought 
 against George Fabricius of tampering with the above, by 
 omitting, through doctrinal proclivities, the words “ lig- 
 numqne. . . . flebilisa proceeding justly reprehended 
 by John Albert Fabricius: “ Sane praestitisset G. Fa- 
 bricium .... passim, turn hie turn alibi, non ita fuisse in 
 alienis operibus quae edebat ingeuiosum” fBibl. Vet. Lat. 
 p. 70&, ed. 1712). 
 
 CROSS, ADORATION OP 
 
 III. Adoration of the Cross in ancient Litur~ 
 gies. —In the Western Church such a rite has 
 long been ob.served on Good Friday. The custom 
 is probably very ancient, and has possibly flowed 
 hither from the East, for the words of Paulinus 
 (Ep. 31, Patrol. Ixi. 329) with reference to the 
 observance of the like practice at Jerusalem, 
 will carry back the date to the 4th century :— 
 “ Quam episcopus urbis ejus quotannis, cum 
 Pascha Domini agitur, adorandam populo prin- 
 ceps ipse venerantium promit.” According to 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary (Patrol. Ixxviii. 86), 
 at Vespers on Good Friday a cro.ss is set up 
 in front of the altar; then—“ Venit Pontifex, 
 adoratam deosculatur Crucem. Deinde episcopi, 
 presbyteri, diaconi et caeteri per ordinem, deinde 
 populus: Pontifex A'ero redit in sedem usque 
 dum omnes salutent.” Whenever a salutation 
 is made (salutante pontifice vel populo) the 
 Antiphon Eoxe lignum Crucis is sung ; and then 
 when all have saluted, the pope descends to the 
 front of the altar and the service proceeds. 
 Sundry differences, but of no great moment, 
 occur in the form given in the Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentavy (Patrol. Ixxiv. 1103). A more elabo¬ 
 rate ritual, however, is to be found in the 
 Mozarabic Liturgy (/'ai/’o/. Ixxxv. 430; Ixxxvi. 
 609), iu which before Nones on Good Friday, 
 after the Lord’s Prayer, came the hymn Ad 
 Salutationem Ligni Domini, 
 
 “ Pauge lingua gloriosi 
 Proelium cerlaniinis,” &c. 
 
 This was followed by the prayer, “ 0 sancta Cru.x, 
 in qua salus nostra pepeudit, per te introeamus 
 ad Patrem, per te veniam mereamur, per te 
 apud Christum habeamus indulgentiam et 
 veniam;” and this again by three antiphons de 
 ligno Domini. Nothing further is added here in 
 the Breviary as to the adoration of the cross, pos¬ 
 sibly because the rest is to be found in the Missal. 
 
 From this we learn the nature of the cere¬ 
 mony of adoration as performed at the N.ones, 
 and this, as in the preceding instance, we shall 
 briefly describe. 
 
 Two priests hold before the altar a cross 
 draped in black, standing first at the left, then 
 at the right, and lastly at the middle of the altar. 
 As each position is occupied, the antiphons are 
 respectively chanted— I^opule mens quid feci tibi 
 . . . . Quia edaxi te ... . Quid ultra debui . . . ., 
 with its own response after each. At the end 
 of the third station the officiating priest receives 
 the cross from the hands of the two who are 
 holding it, and standing successively at the 
 right end, the left end, and the middle of the 
 altar, he uncovers at each station respectively 
 the right arm, the left arm, and the whole ot 
 the cross, saying on each occasion, with voice 
 growing louder each time, the antiphon Ecce 
 lignum Crucis, to which is responded. In qua 
 salus nostra pependit, it being ordered that as 
 each limb of the cross is unveiled, the people 
 should bend the knee. The priest having reve¬ 
 rently placed the cross in front of the altar 
 “ statim presbyteri cum suis ministris adorent 
 Crucem flectendo genua ter, cum summa re- 
 
 b Paulinus, it will be observed, speaks of this rite as 
 taking place on the " Paschabut there seems fair 
 ground from the contest for explaining this, with ilenard, 
 of the anniversary of our Lord’s crucifixion. (Notes to 
 G reg. Sacr. in Patrol. Ixxviii. 332.) 
 
CEOSS, ADORATION OF 
 
 vereutia et humilitate osculando tevram, et 
 oft’erant oblationem Cruci, ut aliis pi’aebeant 
 exemplum ; ” the rite is then concluded by an 
 oratio ad Crucem, in which, however, our Loi’d 
 is addressed distinctly, and by the antiphon 
 Crucem tuam adorurti’is Domine. 
 
 Alexander Leslie, the Jesuit editor, argues in 
 his note on the above passage for the identity 
 of the terms adoratio and salutatio as applied 
 to the cross, the former wol-d being that em¬ 
 ployed in the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramen- 
 taries and the Mozarabic Missal, the latter m 
 the Mozarabic Breviary; and Amalarius (^De 
 Eccl. Off. i. 14) cites the Ordines Romani, “ Prae- 
 paratur crux ante altare, quam salutant et oscu¬ 
 lant ur omnes.” 
 
 As Illustrating our present subject, we may 
 quote from the collect for the Festival of the 
 Exaltation of the Cross in the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary : “ Concede propitius ut qui ad adoran- 
 dam A'ivificam ejus Crucem adveniunt . . . 
 
 At the end of Mass on that day a cross was held 
 up by the pontitf for the adoration of the people 
 (cf. Alcuin, Adv. Elipantum, lib. ii. 9, who fur¬ 
 nishes us with a collect. Ad Elevationem Sanctae 
 Crucis); and a parallel instance is to be derived 
 from the Greek Menology for September 13, 
 Xa'ipois, 6 CwycpSpos Trjs euae^eias, rh (ztjtttjtoi/ 
 rpoTTaiov, 7] dvpa TrfS TrapaSeiaov, d twu TriaTcav 
 (TTifipiyiiSs . . . I^See also Exaltation and 
 Finding of the Cross.] 
 
 The season which in the Eastern Church has 
 been specially associated w'ith the adoration of 
 the cross is the third Sunday in Lent, with the 
 ensuing week. Numerous sermons are extant in 
 the writings of the Greek Fathers having re¬ 
 ference to this. Thus in one wrongly assigned 
 to Chrysostom, but apparently not long subse¬ 
 quent to his time, ejs Tyu TTpoffKvvycnv rov 
 Tlfxiov Kul ^WOTTOIOV (TTaVpOV TT) lx4(TlJ ifiSofluSl 
 
 Twv vrjffTiicou, the writer speaks of the day as 
 yearly appointed for adoration, and as though he 
 would imply the custom to be a well established 
 one :— 'Xiip.epov roiyapovv irpoa'Kvuija'ifj.os ypepa 
 Tov Ti/xiou aravpov KadeCTyKC. Again, in the 
 works of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, is a 
 sermon with the same title and occasion (^Oratio v. 
 Petrol. Gr. Ixxxvii. 3309). Again (^Oratio iv. in 
 Exaltationem S. Crucis), in describing the change 
 of the season of the Exaltation to a time subse¬ 
 quent to our Lord’s resurrection, he speaks of 
 erravpov Zahovxos wpoa'Kvvqcris. Sermons of the 
 same character are also extant by Theodorus 
 Studita {Patrol. Gr. xeix. 691), and by Theo- 
 phylact (ib. cxxxi. 113). For rubrical directions 
 concerning this fast, see Constantine Porphyro- 
 genitus, De Caerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae, i. 5, 
 24; and especially ii. 11 (pp. cit. cxii. 137, 
 196, 1017); and cf. also Suicer’s Thesaurus, and 
 Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. (XTavpoTTpo(TKvvT](Tis, by 
 which name and by Kupiau^ rris TTpo(rKvyri(reojs 
 the Greek Church knows the day. The Epistle and 
 Gospel for this day in that Church are Heb. iv. 
 14— V. 6, and Mark viii. 34—ix. 1. There is 
 also in the Greek Church a bringing about of 
 the cross for adoration on August 1 and there¬ 
 abouts, for which see Const. Porph. ii. 9 {Patrol. 
 Gr. c.xii. 1009). This latter day is marked in 
 the Menology thus: ets ttjv irpuryv y irpSobos 
 T<Sv TiixictiU rod rifiiov ^wotvoioi) (Traupou ; 
 
 and its importance is testified to by the fact 
 of its having its irpo^Spria or vigil. 
 
 CROSS, ADORATION OF 501 
 
 IV. Disputes among Christians as to the Adora~ 
 lion of the Cross. —At the Second Nicene General 
 Council (787 A.D.), in their fourth actio, among 
 the various testimonies read from the fathers in 
 support of the use of images in worship, was a 
 long extract from the fifth of the \6yoL vnep rrjs 
 Xpiariauwy airoKoyias Kara ’lovSaiwr Kal nepl 
 eiKSuwr Tuv ayiwv of Leontius, bishop of Neapolis 
 in Cyprus (oh. 620 or 630, a.d.). The general 
 tenour of his remarks (for which see Labbe', vii. 
 236) is as follows :—Christians are justified in 
 offering adoration to the cross, by way of remem¬ 
 brance of Him who died thereon, not with any 
 feeling of reverence for the mere material. Thus, 
 a decree sanctioned by the seal of the emperor 
 is reverentially treated, not on account of the 
 decree or the lead of the seal, but of him whom 
 the seal indicates; and so we Christians, in our 
 adoration of the cross, honour not its material, 
 but see in it a seal and signet of Christ Who was 
 crucified thereon, and Whom we salute and adore. 
 The further illustration may be taken of children 
 who cherish some memento of an absent father, 
 even as all things associated with our Lord are 
 for His sake to be loved and reverenced, orav 
 ovu, he concludes, ^S■ps Xpicrnai'ovs TvpoaKvvovvras 
 rhv araophy, yyu>6i '6ri rtp aravpwQivri Xpicrxip 
 ryv irpoaKovyaiv irpoadyovcri Kal ov rw 
 
 A counterblast to the views of the Nicene 
 Council is to be found in a capitulary of Charle¬ 
 magne, De Imaginibus (i. 13, Patrol, xcviii. 
 1034), where we find an attack on the argument 
 brought forward by the other party based on the 
 expression, “ Jacob . . . adoravit fastigium virgae 
 ejus” (Heb. xi. 21). The writer there insists on 
 the “ differentia crucis Christi et imaginum pic- 
 torum arte pictarum,” and promises to enter 
 upon the subject “ quanto mysterio Crux ima¬ 
 ginibus eminent, sive quomodo humanum genus 
 non per imagines, sed per Crucem Christi re- 
 demptum sit, quae duo illi vel paria vel aequalia 
 putant.” This promise is fulfilled subsequently 
 (ii. 28; op. cit. 1096), where the language, 
 though probably referring to adoration of the 
 cross, is to a certain extent vague: “Non sunt 
 imagines Cruci aequiparrandae, non adorandae, 
 non colendae, . . . et Tu solus adorandus, Tu solus 
 sequendus, Tu solus colendus es.” 
 
 The Clause of the adoration of the cross and 
 of images found a zealous champion in Theo¬ 
 dorus Studita, who expounds his views in his 
 Antirrhetici iii. ad Iconomachos, in the form of 
 a dialogue (see esp. Antirrh. i. 15 ; iii. 3; Patrol. 
 Gr. xeix. 345, 419). After an elaborate dis¬ 
 cussion, and after dwelling on the distinction 
 between PiKcav and etScoAov, in which he care¬ 
 fully repudiates any association of the adoration 
 of the cross or image with the latter term, 
 he sums up in a number of theses which main¬ 
 tain the importance of the adoration, but 
 again insists on the distinction referred to 
 above. Thus {ib. 349): “If any one boldly 
 calls the relative {ffx^'^^Kyv) worship of Christ 
 in the image, worship of the image and not 
 of Christ Himself .... he is a heretic.” For 
 further illustrations of the subject from ' the 
 writings of Theodorus, see op. cit. 691, 1757 ; cf. 
 also Nicephorus (Patriarch of Constantinople), 
 Antirrhet. iii. 7. Later notices of the subject 
 may be found in Photius, Epist. i. 1, Ad Eico~ 
 laiim Papam ; i. 8, 20, Ad Michael. Bulgur, 
 Principem. 
 
502 CROSS, ADORATION OF 
 
 A brief reference may here be made in passing 
 to the views on this subject of the Paulician 
 heretics, who first appeared towards the end 
 of the 7th century. They, generally speaking, 
 were strongly opposed to any adoration of the 
 cross or images. In regaj-d to the cross, they 
 maintained that the real cross was Christ Him¬ 
 self, not the wood on which He hung:— 
 Xeyoures, on (XTavphs 6 Xpi(rT6s ierriv, ov XPV 
 Se TzpocTKvviiaQai rh ^v\ov d)S KfKaT7]pa/xeyov 
 opyavop (Georgius Hamartolus, Chronicon iv. 
 238, in Patrol. Or. cx. 889). In accordance 
 with this is what we are told by Petrus Siculus 
 (^Ifist. Manichaeoj'um 29; ib. civ. 128-1-; and cf. 
 Photius, Contra Manich. i. 7; i'). cii. 25), to the 
 effect that a certain Timotheus of this sect was 
 sent by the Emperor Leo the Isauriau to the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople to be reasoned with ; 
 and on being asked, “ Why dost thou not believe 
 and worship the honoured cross?” answered, 
 ‘‘Anathema to him who does not do so.” But 
 by the cross he understood rhv Xpiarhy rfj 
 iKidaei reSv arauphu dTroreXovyra. The 
 
 above quoted Georgius Hamartolus tells us 
 (^Patrol. Or. cx. 892), with what truth is pei- 
 haps doubtful, that in cases of sickness they laid 
 a cross on the patient, which cross on his 
 recovery they dared even to break or burn (see 
 also Euthymius, PanopVa Dogmat. Tit. 24; op. 
 cit. exxx. il96 ; and cf. Photius, Bibliotheca 279; 
 ib. ciii. 524). 
 
 Much about this time there arose a contention 
 of like character in the West. The actual lite¬ 
 rary warfare in this case belongs to the early 
 part of the 9th century, but from its connection 
 with the earlier struggle in the Eastern Church, 
 and as throwing light on the tone of thought on 
 this subject in the Western Church durinsr the 
 preceding period, it is of too much importance 
 to be-passed over here. 
 
 The immediate cause of the outbreak was the 
 publication by Claudius, bishop of Turin (820 
 A.D.), of a fiei’ce attack on the doctrine of the 
 adoration of the cross and of images. Further 
 he ordered the removal of crosses from all the 
 'churches of his diocese. When urged by a letter 
 from a certain Abbot Theodemir to reconsider 
 his views, he retorted, in a long treatise, that 
 the Gauls and Germans were held in the nets 
 of superstition. This work Jona.s, bishop of 
 Orleans, answers in detail in his treatise Be 
 Cultu Imagin'im (^Patrol, cvi. 305), in which he 
 appeals largely to the writings of the Fathers 
 _ of the earlier centuries, and discusses the ob¬ 
 jections of Claudius seriatim. See especially 
 op. cit. 331, where he meets Claudius’s remarks 
 as to the superstition of the votaries of the 
 cross; “ Nos ob recordationem Salvatoris nostri 
 
 crucera pictam.veneramur atque 
 
 adoramus.” 
 
 Other writers of the time joined in the fray, 
 as Theodemir above mentioned; Eginhard, the 
 biographer of Charlemagne, in a work De Ado- 
 randa Cntcc not now extant; Wistremir, arch¬ 
 bishop of Toledo (cf. Pseudo-Liutprand, Chroni¬ 
 con;' Patrol, cxxxvi. 1103); and a priest 
 named Dungalus, who (about the year 828 A.D.) 
 wrote a treatise dedicated to Louis the Pious and 
 his son Lothaire: “ Pro cultu sacrarum imagi- 
 num adversus insauas blasphemasque naeuias 
 Claudii Taurinensis Episcopi ” (^Patrol, cv. 457 
 sqq.). [R. S.] 
 
 CROSS, EXALTATION OF 
 
 CROSS, ExALTATrox of (Exaltatio Cruets^ 
 ^ v\pcoa’is Tov aravoov). This festival, held on 
 September 14, most probably celebrates primarily 
 the consecration of the church of the Holy Se¬ 
 pulchre at Jerusalem by Bishop Macarius at the 
 command of Constantine (335 A.D.), although 
 some would see in it a commemoration of the 
 Vision of the Cross seen by the Emperor. 
 
 It is, however, to the victory of Heraclius 
 over the Persians and his subsequent restoration 
 of the Cross to its shrine at Jerusalem that the 
 renown of the festival is mainly due. 
 
 Still there are not wanting indications of its 
 observance before that event, in both the Eastern 
 and Western Churches. Thus in the Acta of the 
 Egyptian penitent Mary, whose death is referred 
 to 421 A.D., it is apparently recognized as a 
 thoroughly established festival at Jerusalem : 
 
 thus, c.g . TT)s v\f/cv<recos eVe/cei' tov npLiov 
 
 (TTavpov, T}Tis fiep oXlyas Tj/xepas elcode y'iyea6ai 
 (Acta S. Mariae Aepptpt. c. 19, in Acta Sanctorum. 
 for April 2; also in Patrol. Or. Ixxxvii. 3711). 
 
 In the life(c. 70) of the Patriarch Eutychius 
 (ob. 582 A.D.) by his chaplain Eustathius, this 
 festival is spoken of as celebrated in Constanti¬ 
 nople on September 14 (Acta Sancto-um for April 
 6 ); and in the 7th centui-y the Patriarch So- 
 phronius of Jerusalem refers to it as a feast then 
 widely known. He adds that the Festival of the 
 Exaltation had formerly (iraXai) preceded that 
 of the dvd<TTa(ns (that is, the annual comme¬ 
 moration on September 13 of the dedication of 
 the church at Jerusalem), but now the order 
 had been reversed (Oratio in Exaltati>/nem 
 S. Crucis in Gretser, Be Cruce, vol. ii. p. 90, 
 ed. 1608). 
 
 Again, an observance of the festival in the 
 Western Church prior to Heraclius’s victory may 
 be inferred from our finding it in the Gelasian 
 and Gregorian Sacramentaries, and from its de¬ 
 signation Minply as Exaltatio S. Crucis, without 
 any allusion to Heraclius, in the earlier Latin 
 Martyrologies, as in that attributed to Jerome 
 (Patrol, xw. Alb'): it may be added that this 
 is also the case with those of Bede and Rabani;s 
 Maiarus (ib. xciv. 1044, cx. 1168). 
 
 The circumstances attending the victory of 
 Heraclius are briefly these. In the year 614 
 Jerusalem was taken by the Persian king Chos- 
 roes IL, and after the slaughter of many thou¬ 
 sands of Christians, and the destruction, partially 
 at any rate, of the church of the Holy Sepulchre 
 by fire, a long train of captives was led away, 
 among whom was the Patriarch Zacharias,* and 
 with him the cross said to have been discovered 
 by Helena [Cross, fiXding of], which was 
 sealed up in a case by the patriarch himself. 
 After some years of uninterrupted success on 
 the part of the Persian king, during which the 
 empire was reduced to the very verge of disso¬ 
 lution, Heraclius at last declared war (622 A.D.), 
 and after three expeditions the boldness of which 
 Avas justified by their success, the tide was 
 turned and the Persian king Avorsted, until at 
 
 » Nicephorus(ii'd€ infra) styles the patriarch ilodestus, 
 though the othir historians unite in calling him Zachari.is. 
 The error, for such it probably is, has been explained by 
 supposing Modestus to have acted as dep ity for Zacharias 
 during his captivity (see Clinton, Fasti Romani, vol. il. 
 p. 170); or that the latter died shortly after his return to 
 Jerusalem, and was succeeded by the former (PetaAiua 
 in loc.). 
 
CEOSS, EXAI-TATION OF 
 
 last he was deposed and murdered by his son 
 Siroes (628 A.D.). 
 
 The new sovereign speedily concluded a peace 
 with the emperor, one of the conditions specially 
 insisted on by the latter being the restoration 
 of the cross, with which borne before him, as he 
 rode in a chariot drawn by four elephants, He- 
 raclius entered Constantinople. In the following 
 spring he made a pilgrimage with the recovered 
 cross to Jerusalem, where the patriarch recog¬ 
 nized his own unbroken seals on the case con¬ 
 taining the precious relic (ra ri/xia Kal ^woiroia 
 ^u\a, as Theophanes [vide infra] constantly styles 
 it), thus preserved it is said by Sira the wife of 
 Chosroes. Heraclius wished himself to carry the 
 cross to its shrine, but before treading on the 
 sacred ground he was bidden to divest himself of 
 his splendid array, that so barefoot and clad in 
 a common cloak he might more resemble the 
 humble guise of the Saviour. Some of the Mar- 
 tyrologies referred to below remark that the 
 emperor was held by some invisible power from 
 entering upon the sacred precincts till he had 
 so divested himself^ (cf. Theophanes, Chrono- 
 graphia, vul. i. pp. 503, 504, ed. Classen ; Nice- 
 phorus, Breviariurn, pp. 11 A, 15 A; Chronicon 
 Baschale, vol. i. p. 704, ed. Dindorf; and more 
 generally for the history of the period, Cedrenus, 
 vol. i. pp. 717 sqq. ed. Bekker; also Gibbon, De¬ 
 cline and Fall, ch. 46). 
 
 Thus was the cross once more “ exalted” into 
 its resting-place, and the festival of the “ Ex¬ 
 altation of the Cross ” obtained fresh renown. 
 Before long, possibly under Pope Honorius I. 
 (ob. 638 A.D.), September 14 came to be observed 
 as a festival with special memory of the restora¬ 
 tion of the cross bv Heraclius: the Eastern 
 Church, which has not strictly speaking a sepa¬ 
 rate festival of the Finding of the Cross, com¬ 
 memorates also on that day the original discovery 
 by the Empress Helena. 
 
 This festival is referred to more or less fully 
 by all Martyrologies under September 14. Of 
 those of Jerome, Bede, and Rabauus Maurus we 
 nave already spokeu. We may further specify 
 that of Wandelbert [deacon of monastery at 
 Trhves in the time of the Emperor Lothaire] 
 where we find [Patrol, exxi. 611) 
 
 “ Exaltata Crucis fulgent vexilla relatae, 
 
 Perside ab iudigna victor quam vexit Heraclius.” 
 
 In the Martvrologies of Ado and of Usuardus 
 we find a further addition : “ Sed et procurrenti- 
 bus annis, papa Sergius mirae magnitudinis por- 
 tionera ejusdem ligui in sacrario Beati Petri 
 Domino revelante repperit, quae annis omnibus 
 [“ in Basilica Salvatoris quae appellatur Con- 
 stantiniana.” Ado] ipso die Exaltationis ejus ab 
 Omni osculatur et adoratur populo ” [Patrol. 
 cxxiii. 170, 356; exxiv. 467). See also the Mar- 
 tyrology of Notker [ih. exxi. 1151), and for 
 various forms of ancient Western Calendars con¬ 
 taining a mention of this festiv.al, see Patrol. 
 cxxxviii. 1188, 1191, &c. Besides this, we may 
 again refer to the presence of this festival in 
 the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. The 
 
 >> It may be remarked that the historians of the reign 
 of Heraclius vary somewhat in the dates they assign to 
 the above events. We have followed those given by 
 Clinton, Fasti Fomdni, vol. ii. pp. 163, 170. The taking 
 of Jerusalem is referred to a later campaign by Theo- 
 phaae« [1. c.). 
 
 CROSS, FINDING OF 503 
 
 collect for the day in the latter of the.se has 
 been cited in the article on the Adoration of the 
 Cross, that in the former runs as follows :— 
 “ Deus qui nos hodierna die Exaltatione Sanctae 
 Crucis annua solemnitate laetificas, praesta ut 
 cujus mysterium in terra cognovimus, ejus re- 
 demptionis praemia consequamur.” 
 
 The Eastern Church, as we have already said, 
 includes in the festival of September 14 the two 
 festivals of the Finding and of the Exaltation of 
 the Cross. As in the Calendars of the Western 
 Churchy so also in those of the Eastern Church 
 is it invariably found. Thus in the Greek me¬ 
 trical calendar given by Papebroch in the Acta 
 Sanctorum (vol. i. of May), we find under Sep¬ 
 tember 13, fivfjfJLT] Tcau iyKaiviwu rrjs ay'ias tx>v 
 X pKTTov Kai Qeov rjfiur at'ao'rctfrecos kuI Trpoc6pTia 
 T^s v\pw(rea>s rov Ti/uioa Kal ^ujottoiov ffravpov ; 
 that is, as has been already explained, they cele¬ 
 brated the dedication of the Church built by the 
 Emperor Constantine to commemorate our Lord’s 
 resurrection. We further gather that the fes¬ 
 tival of the Exaltation had its irpoeopria or vigil. 
 The notice for September 14 is u\j/ca0r] Seicarp 
 (TTavpov IvXov 7;Se Teraprp ; and the fact is also 
 recognized in the pictorial Moscow Calendar ac¬ 
 companying the preceding. The Octave also of 
 the festival (September 21) is given in the Meno- 
 logy under that day, eV ravTr] rfj Tj/aspa anodi- 
 dorai ^ kopTT] rov ti/jlIov (Traupov. See also the 
 Calendar of the Arabian Church given by Selden 
 [De Synedriis Ehraeorum, iii. 376, ed. 1655), 
 where September 14 is marked “Festum Crucis 
 gloriosaeas also in those of the Ethiopic or 
 Abyssinian and of the Coptic Church given by 
 Ludolf (p. 3). We also learn from him that in 
 the case of the latter of these churches, the 
 festival extends over three days, September 
 13-15, marked respectively “Festum C. gl. 
 (primum, &c.).” 
 
 Further, the Ethiopic Church, as well as seve¬ 
 ral other branches of the Eastern Church, re¬ 
 cognizes in addition a festival of the Cross in 
 May, possibly having more or le.ss reference to 
 the “ Inventio Crucis ” of the Latin Church [op. 
 cit. p. 17; Gretser, vol. i. 232; see also several 
 Eastern Calendars in Neale, Holy Eastern Church, 
 Inti'od. pp. 775, 799, 813). The proper lessons for 
 this festival in the Syrian Church, as marked in 
 the Peshito, are, for Vespers, Matt. xxiv. 
 (possibly on account of verse 30); for Liturgy, 
 Luke xxi. 5 sqq.; and for Matins, Mark xii. 
 41 sqq. (Gretser, 1. c.). 
 
 In addition to the works named in this article, 
 reference should be made to Binterim, Denk- 
 uiirdigkeiten der Christ-Kathoi. Kirche, vol. v. 
 part 1, pp. 455 sqq. See also Ducange’s Glossary, 
 s. V. vxpucris. [R. S.] 
 
 CROSS, Finding of. [Inventio Crucis.) 
 
 I. Introduction. —By this name is to be un¬ 
 derstood the discovery which traditidn asserts 
 that the Empress Helena, the mother of Con¬ 
 stantine, made of the cross on which our Lord 
 suffered. The earliest account we have of the 
 exploration for the Holy Sepulchre is that given 
 by Eusebius ( Vita Const, iii. 26 sqq.), who relates 
 Constantine’s determination to remove the abomi¬ 
 nations that defiled the holy place and build 
 there a Christian shrine, as deLiiled in the em¬ 
 peror’s letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem 
 [pp. cit. 30; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 17; Theo- 
 
504 CROSS, FINDING OP 
 
 doret i. 18), but no allusion whatever is made 
 to a discovery of the cross. Some have ind(*ed 
 argued that an expression in Constantine’s letter 
 to Macarius is better suited to the discovery of the 
 cross than of the grave— rh yap yv<t}pi(Tixa rod 
 ayLcardrov eKeivov ntdOovs virh rfj yrj ivakai Kpv- 
 TTTSuevov ...; but a comparison with c. 26 would 
 sufficiently account for the above quoted lan¬ 
 guage, and it is hard to understand that Eusebius 
 should have lost so good an opportunity of glori¬ 
 fying Constantine, had a real or supposed dis¬ 
 covery of our Lord’s cross taken place under his 
 auspices.® The date of Helena’s visit to Palestine, 
 and consequently that of the alleged discovery, 
 IS 326 A.D. ; yet in the Itinemrium Bwdegalense, 
 the record of a journey to Jerusalem in 333 A.D., 
 only seven years after this date, there is no re¬ 
 ference to the finding of the cross, even in a 
 context where we might certainly have looked 
 for it: “ Crypta ubi corpus ejus positum fuit 
 et tertia die resurrexit; ibidem modo jussu Con- 
 stantini Imperatovis basilica facta est ” (^Patrol. 
 viii. 791). 
 
 The earliest mention we have of the Finding 
 of the Cross is in the Gatecheses of Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, delivered rather more than twenty 
 years after Helena’s alleged discovery; in which, 
 though he does not allude to the narrative 
 in the form given by subsequent writers, he 
 vet says that fragments cut off from the cross 
 wore spread over the whole world {Catech. iv. 10 ; 
 X. 19; xiii. 4 ; Patrol. Gr. xxxiii. 468, 685, 
 776), and he also alludes to the Finding of the 
 Cross in a letter written some years later to 
 »'!onstantius, the son of Constantine, on the occa¬ 
 sion of a luminous cross appearing in the sky 
 over Jerusalem (^Ep. ad Const, c. 3, op. cit. 
 1168). From the beginning of the 5th century 
 onw'ards all ecclesiastical writers take the truth 
 of the narrative in its main form for granted, 
 though sundry variations of detail occur. 
 
 II. Legend. — The general tenour of the tra¬ 
 dition is that an attempt had been made (by 
 Hadrian, or at any rate, in his time, according 
 to Jei'ome, Epist. 58, Patrol, xx. 321) to destroy 
 every trace of the site of the Holy Sepulchre, 
 that the ground had there been raised to a 
 considerable height, and temples and statues 
 to Jupiter and Venus erected thereon. On the 
 death of Licinius, whom Constantine charges 
 with the continuance of the evil, it was detei'- 
 mined to purify the sacred places, and this reso¬ 
 lution of the Emperor was carried out by his 
 mother Helena, who went in person to Jerusalem, 
 and by the Bishop Macarius. By the Divine 
 guidance (and by the aid of a Jew, one Judas, 
 afterwards baptized as Quiriacus, according to 
 Gregory of Tours and others, infra) the spot was 
 discovered, and the superimposed earth having 
 been removed, the sepulchre was seen with three 
 crosses i/r ig near, and separate from these the 
 superscription which Pilate had attached to that 
 
 » Montfaucon (Collectio Nova I’atrum, vol. i. p. viii. 
 ed. 1706) does indeed cite a passage of Eusebius as cer¬ 
 tainly referring to the cross: el Se ns rovy eTrto-rrjcreie 
 TOis rjfjLai to fii^fxa Kal to fiapTvpiov toO 
 
 24i)t^os eTTiTeXea-ffeicrc dav/aatrioiSi akr)9<ji<: elcrerai 
 
 oTTtos neTTAripioTai epyois to. Te6e<rntcrpieva. {Comm, in 
 Fsal. IxxxviiL 11). When, however, we find Eusebius 
 silent, wliere, if anywhere, he might be &pected to speak, 
 we cannot attach much weight to a passage of, at host, 
 most doubtful reference. 
 
 CROSS, FINDING OF 
 
 of our Lord. Not knowing which of the three 
 crosses was the one they sought, Macarius caused 
 them to be successively presented to the touch 
 of a noble lady of Jerusalem then lying at the 
 point of death. The first two crosses produced 
 no effect, but at the touch of the third the sick 
 woman rose up before them perfectly healed, 
 thus showing that it w'as upon this that the 
 Saviour had suffered. One part of the cross set 
 in silver was entrusted to Macarius to be care¬ 
 fully guarded in Jeru-salem, and the remainder, 
 together with the nails was forwarded to Con¬ 
 stantine. One of the nails was attached to his 
 helmet, and another to the bridle of his horse, in 
 fulfilment, according to sundry fathers, of the pro¬ 
 phecy of Zechariah xiv. 20 ** 
 
 For the above tradition, see Socrates (1. c.), 
 Theodoret ((. c.), Sozomen (ii. 1), Ambrose 
 {de obitu Theodosii, c. 46 ; Patrol, xvi. 1399), 
 Sulpicius Severus {Hist. Sacra, ii. 34; Patrol. 
 XX. 148), Rufinus (llist. i. 7, 8; Patrol, xxi. 
 1475), Paulinus of Nola {Ep. ad Severum 31; 
 Patrol. Ixi. 325), Gregory of Tours (^Liber 
 Miraculorum, i. 5 sqq.; Patrol. Ixxi. 709). Cyril 
 of Alexandria also (Comm, in Zech. in loc.; 
 Patrol. Gr. Ixxii. 271) refers to it as the 
 current history in his day. Chrysostom evi¬ 
 dently believed in the discovery of the cross, 
 and speaks of the practice of conveying small 
 portions of it about as amulets (Quod Christas 
 sit Ecus, c. 10 ; Patrol. Gr. xlviii. 826). 
 
 One or two further details may be added. 
 Socrates states that the portion of the cross sent 
 to Constantine was by him inclosed in his own 
 statue, which was placed on a column of por¬ 
 phyry in the so-called forum of Constantine in 
 Constantinople^ that thus the city might be 
 rendered impregnable by the possession of sc 
 glorious a relic. According to Sozomen, besides 
 the miracle wrought on the sick lady, a dead 
 man was instantly restored to life by the touch 
 of the cross; but Paulinus, while mentioning 
 this says nothing of the other miracle. In Am¬ 
 brose, spite of a protest to the contrary, we see 
 traces of the feeling in which respect for the 
 cross, as a token of Him who hung thereon, 
 drifted into an adoration of the cross itself. 
 Thus Helena is represented as saying, “ Ecce 
 locus pugnae, ubi est victoria? .... quomodo 
 me redemptam arbitroi*, si redemptio ipsa non 
 cernitur ? ” It ma}’^ be added that according to 
 Ambrose’s version of the history, the inscription 
 is found adhering to the cross it originally be- 
 lono-ed to. The occasion of the notice in Pau- 
 
 c5 
 
 linus is the sending of a piece of the cross to 
 Severus for a church about to be consecrated, 
 which affords him a natural opportunity for 
 relating the story: he adds, that however much 
 might thus be cut away from the cross, the 
 bulk of the wood miraculously remained undi¬ 
 minished. 
 
 III. Festival. —With the belief in the discovery 
 of the cross thus widely spread and thus che¬ 
 rished, it is only natural to expect that an 
 annual festival to commemorate it would soon 
 be established; though it is impossible from the 
 want of satisfactory evidence to speak with any 
 certainty as to the actual origin of such festival. 
 
 •> Jerome, however {Comm, in Zech. in loc.), speaks of 
 it as one might have expected, “nam seusu quidem pio 
 dictam sed ridiculam.” 
 
CROSS, FINDING OF CROSS, FINDING OF 605 
 
 An attempt has been made to assign its first 
 appointment to Pope Eusebius (ob. 310 A.D.), who, 
 in a letter “ Episcopis Tusciae et Campaniae,” is 
 made to say “ Crucis ei’go Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi, quae nuper nobis gubernacula Sanctae 
 Romanae Ecclesiae tenentibus quinto Nonas Maii 
 inrenta est, in praedicta Kaleudarum die Inven- 
 tiouis festum vobis solemniter celebrare man¬ 
 damus” (^Fat?'oL vii. 1114). 
 
 Of course the utter spuriousness of this letter 
 is shown, if by nothing else, by the fact that Pope 
 Eusebius died before Constantine had embraced 
 Christianity, and many years before the work of 
 restoration besan at Jerusalem at his command. 
 
 Nicephorus {Hist. Eccles. viii. 29) asserts that 
 a festival to commemorate the Finding of the 
 Cross was held at Jerusalem in Constantine’s 
 time, but appeals to no earlier authority in sup¬ 
 port of his statementand in the Chronicon of 
 Flavius Lucius Dexter, if the passage be genuine. 
 Pope Silvester 1. (ob. 335 A.D.) is claimed as the 
 originator of the festival: “Festum Inveutionis 
 S. Crucis a Silvestro institutum celebre multis 
 est ” {Patrol, xxxi. 563). It is not impossible 
 that there may have been a festival peculiar to 
 the Roman Church, before its observance had 
 become general. 
 
 Most Western Martyrologies and Calendars 
 mark May 3 as “ Inventio S. Crucis,” including 
 the ancient Martyrologium Hieronymi {Patrol. 
 XXX. 435) ; but there are grounds for doubting 
 the genuineness of the words here, more espe¬ 
 cially from the fact that they are absent from 
 the very ancient Cod. Epternacensis, as is pointed 
 out by Papebroch {Acta Sanctorum; May, vol. i. 
 p. 369). It is found in the Martyrologium Bi- 
 suntinum {Patrol. Ixxx. 415), the Mart. Romanum 
 Vetus {ib. cxxiii. 158), and those of Rabanus, Ado, 
 Usuardus, and Notker {ih. cx. 1142 ; cxxiii. 256 ; 
 exxiv. 15; cxxxi. 1075); also in a Gallican and 
 an English Martyrology {ib. Ixxii. 614, 620), the 
 Mozarabic and the Gothic Calendar (<6. Ixxxv. 
 98, Ixxxvi. 39), the Cal. Mutinense {ih. cvi. 821), 
 Floriacense {ih. cxxxviii. 1187). 
 
 There is a special office for this day in the 
 Gothogallic Missal {ib. Ixxii. 285), in the Moza- 
 rabic Breviary and Missal {ib. Ixxxv. 739, Ixxxvi. 
 1119),'in the Gelasian Sacramentaiy {ib. Ixxiv. 
 1162), in the Gregorian Sacramentary and Anti¬ 
 phonary {ib. Ixxviii. 101, 687). To this last we 
 shall again refer. 
 
 Some, however, omit the festival altogether, 
 and some give it a secondary place after the 
 names of the Martvrs who are commemorated on 
 this day. Thus there is no mention of it in the 
 Calendar of Leo (i6. Ixxiv. 878), in the metrical 
 Martyrology of Bede {ih. xciv. 604), in the Sacra- 
 mentarium Suaviciense {ib. cli. 823), and some 
 others (see in Leslie’s note to the Mozai’abic 
 Missal in loc.). Again in the Martyrology of 
 Bede given in the Acta Sanctorum (March, vol. 
 ii. p. xviii.). a long narrative of the Martyrs 
 commemorated on this day is followed by “ Ipso 
 die Inventio Sanctae Crucis.” So too runs the 
 metrical Martyrology of Wandelbert {Patrol. 
 exxi. 598):— 
 
 “Praesul Alexander quinas et Eventius ornant, 
 Theodolusque Ilei pariter pro nomine caesi, 
 
 His quoque celsa crucis radiant vexilla repertae." 
 
 The same is the case with an old English Calen¬ 
 dar, which reads “ Natale SS. Alexaudri. Event' 
 et Theodoli presbyteri, Inventio Crucis ” {ib 
 xciv. 1151). See also the Cal. Stabulense and 
 the Cal. Brixianum {ib. cxxx'fiii. 1196, 6270). 
 
 In the Gregorian Sacramentary also the men 
 tion of the Inventio Crucis follows that of the 
 Saints commemorated on this day (as also the 
 Antiphonary in the MSS.), and Me'uard (note in 
 loc.) states that in the most ancient MSS. this 
 festival is altogether wanting. 
 
 In the list of feasts to be observed given in the 
 Capitulare of Ahyto or Hatto (appointed Bishop 
 of Basle in 806 A.D.) there is no mention of the 
 Inventio Crucis {Patrol, cxv. 12), and in the Ca- 
 pi'iUla of Walter, bishop of Orleans (857 A.D.), 
 the festivals of the Inventio Crucis and Exaltatio 
 Crucis are appended to the end of cap. xvii,. 
 “ De Sanctorum festivitatibus indicendis et ob- 
 servandis ” (j 6. cxix. 742), as though they had 
 been introduced at a later date than the others 
 mentioned. 
 
 All this evidence seems, as far as it goes, to 
 point either to the fact that the festival w'as 
 established at a comparatively late date, or that 
 it was for some time of local rather than general 
 observance. Papebroch {Acta Sanctorum in loc. 
 c. iii.) suggests 720 A.D. as approximately the 
 date of the general recognition of the festival, 
 but the reference above to its absence in docu¬ 
 ments of even later date will incline us to look 
 upon the end of the 8th centuiy or the beginning 
 of the 9th as the earliest period we can safeh 
 fix on. 
 
 Attention may be called here to the fact that 
 sevei’al of the above mentioned authorities make 
 an error of at least half a century in the date of 
 Helena’s alleged discovery. Thus the Martyro¬ 
 logium Hieronymi speaks of it as “ post Passio- 
 nem Domini anno ducentesimo trigesimo tertio,” 
 in which it is follow'ed by Florus in the additions 
 to Bede’s Martyrology, by Rabanus and others.*^ 
 
 The Greek Church has not, properly speaking, 
 a separate festival for the Finding of the Cross, 
 but celebrates this event on the day of the 
 Exaltation of the Cross, September 14. Some 
 branches, how^ever, of the Eastern Church do 
 observe a festival of the Finding of the Cross 
 also. Thus in the Calendars of the Ethiopic 
 and Coptic Churches given by Ludolf {FasH 
 Sacri Ecclesiae Alexandrinae), March 6 is marked 
 “ Inventio S. Crucis ” (p. 22), and, in the case 
 of the former Church, May 4, “ Helena reperit 
 Crucem ” (p. 27). 
 
 Mention may be made here of wudtings on the 
 subject of the Finding of the Cross referred to 
 in the decrees of a council held at Rome under 
 the presidency of Gelasius: while allowed to be 
 read, their statements are to be received with 
 caution. “ Item [recipienda] scripta de Inven- 
 tione Crucis Dominicae, .... novellae quaedam 
 relationes sunt, et nonnulli eas Catholici legunt. 
 Sed cum haec ad Catholicorum manus perveuerint, 
 beati Pauli Apostoli praecedat .seiitentia, omnia 
 probate, quod bonurn est tenete” {Patrol, lix. 161). 
 Further, in the Acta Sayiotorum (IMay, vol. i. 
 p. 362), Papebroch adduces gi’ounds for believing 
 the unhistorical character of much of this writ¬ 
 ing,—among other things, the same error in tlio 
 
 e Tliis, however, is doubtless to be connected with the 
 feollval of the Exaltation of the Cross (vi/^wats). 
 
 <1 Theophanes {Chronogrophia) makes a similar mis¬ 
 take, and refers the discovery to the yur 317 a.u. 
 
CliO^VN 
 
 r)06 CROSS, APPARITION OF THE 
 
 date of the Finding, amounting to more than half 
 a century, into which we have already mentioned 
 that several of the late martyrologies have fallen. 
 These writings seem to have found their way to 
 the East and to have been translated into Syriac 
 (see Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis^ vol. i. p. 
 497). 
 
 In addition to the books already cited in this 
 article, reference may be made to Binterim, 
 Benka iirdigkeiten-, vol. v. part 1, pp. 368 scpp, to 
 Newman’s Essay on Miracles record<d in Ecclesi¬ 
 astical History, pp. cxliii. sqq., where the truth 
 of the legend is strongly argued for, as also in 
 Gretser, De Cruce Christi, vol. i. lib. 1, cc. 62-64. 
 
 [R. S.] 
 
 CROSS, THE Apparition of the, at Jeru¬ 
 salem, about the third hour of the day, in the 
 time of Constantins, in the year 346, is comme¬ 
 morated May 7 in the Byzantine and Ethiopic 
 Calendars. [C.] 
 
 CROSS, SIGN OF. [Sign of the Cross.] 
 
 CROWN. Referring to the article Corona¬ 
 tion for the distinction between the cronm or 
 garland, “corona,” (rrecpauos, and the diadem or 
 fillet, “ taenia,” “ fascia,” 5id5riiJ.a, and for fuller 
 details on both to the Dictionary of Classical 
 Antiquities, it is proposed in this article to fur¬ 
 nish some description of imperial and regal 
 crowns belonging to our period, the form and 
 ornamentation of which are known to us either 
 from contemporaneous representations or from 
 the crowns themselves having come dotvn to our 
 own time. 
 
 From the portraits on their coins it appears 
 that the early emperors adopted the diadem, 
 worn either simply or encircling the helmet 
 
 Constantine (rem medal, Heraclius, from 
 
 from Ferrario, ‘ Costumi.’ Ferrario, Costuini.’ 
 
 {galea diademata), cidaris or tiara, with which 
 their head was covered. The coins of Constan¬ 
 tine the Great depict him wearing diadems or 
 fillets of various kinds; some ornamented with 
 gems; some enriched with a double row of 
 pearls, with the loose ends of the fillet hanging 
 down over his shoulders. Sometimes he wears 
 a helmet surrounded by a diadem, with a cross 
 in front (Ferrario, Costumi, Europa, vol. I. part 
 2 — Appendice sulla Corona di Ferro). This 
 combination is also seen on the coins of Gratian, 
 Valentinian II., Theodosius, Leo the Great, and 
 Basil. In a drawing given by Ferrario {u.s. 
 No. 3), Heraclius, a.d. 610-641, wears a helmet 
 encircled by a gemmed diadem with pendent 
 ends, and a cross above the forehead. The com¬ 
 bination of the diadem with the cidaris or tiara 
 was borrowed firom the Orientals, among whom 
 it had been in use from ancient times (Xenoph. 
 Cyrop. viii. 3—13 : KCpos 6p6^v ridyau 
 
 Hal diddyga irepl rrj ridpa ; Anab, ii. 5; Herod, 
 vii. 61; Aesch, Per^. p. 668). It was worn by 
 
 Zenobia (Trebell. Poll. xxix.: “ad conciones gale- 
 ata process!t cum limbo purpureo gemmis depen- 
 dentibus per ultimam fimbnam”), and was 
 adopted by her conqueror, Aurelian. It is seen 
 in medals under the form of a peaked caji orna¬ 
 mented with gem.s, rising from a jewelled diadem 
 or fillet, tied behind. The cap in later times 
 assumed the popular name of tuphan, Tov(Pa, 
 the origin of the modern turban. Zonaras de- 
 
 Tuphan, from Ferrario. Arch at Rome. 
 
 scribes the Emperor Basilius, in the 9th century, 
 as ridpa raiviooOels opdla rov^pau naKel 6 
 dgpLcabgs Kai ttoXvs dvOpooiros. Its origin, and 
 the history of its adoption, is thus given by 
 Tzetzes, Chiliades, viii. 184:— 
 
 Ttdpa (TKeTTTj Ke<f>a\^s rrapa ITepcrai?, 
 
 vcTTcpoi/ €1/ Ttti? vLKai<; 6e htB-v ol (rT€<f>r)<}>6pot 
 K€<j)Oi\ai^ eneOePTO Ttapas tjtoi TV(f)as, 
 olav e(|)ur7ros ^opei 6 apSplag eKelpos 
 6 'lovaripidpeiof rov kLopo<; erdpo). 
 
 Another form of the imperial headgear was a low- 
 crowned cap, apparently destitute of diadem or an)' 
 special distinction of royalty. This was known as 
 Camelaucium (which see). Constantine appears 
 in this garb on his triumphal arch in Rome (Fer¬ 
 rario, u.s. pi. 30, No. 2), and in an illumination 
 from a MS. of the 9th century, representing 
 the Council of Nicaea, given by Agincourt {Pein- 
 tures, pi. 32). Justinian, m the mosaics of the 
 sanctuary of San Vitale at Ravenna, has his head 
 covered with a jewelled cap, while the Empress 
 Theodora wears a tiara surrounded with three 
 circlets of gems. Strings of pearls and other 
 gems hang down from each. These jewelled 
 tassels were known as Karaafiiard. (Const. 
 Porphyr. De Cueremon. i. 582; ii. 688.) 
 
 Jnatinian and Theodora, from mosaics at St. Vitalis, Ravenna. 
 
 The diadem in its original form of a linen or 
 silken riband or fillet gradually went out of use 
 from Justinian’s time (La Barte, Arts indust, 
 du Moyen Age, ii. 39), and was replaced by a flex¬ 
 ible baud of gold, <rT€/jL/j.(i, (rreepapos, sometimes 
 adorned with a band of pearls and precious 
 stones, representing the old SidSTj.uo. The name 
 areepavos was in use for the imperial symbol as 
 early as the time of Constantine. Cyril, Ep. 
 ad Const- (repot . . . d<t)’ wv exoixrt r^i> 
 
CROWN 
 
 CROWN 
 
 507 
 
 rifxlav (Tov -rroWaKi^ (TTe<t>apovert KeebaA^u, XP^~ 
 ffOKoWrjTovs (Treepdvovs \ldois SianyfOTaTois 
 ■netroiKiAfx^vQvs ‘KpoaKoixi^oures. This circlet 
 was closed by a cap of rich stuff decorated with 
 gems. From being shut m at the top it took the 
 name of itravdjKXfKXTos^ which appears in Ana- 
 stasius Bibl. and other authors in the perplexing 
 
 form of spanoclista (Anast. Bibl. Paschalis, 434, 
 &c.). Examples of this form of crown are given 
 in the annexed woodcuts of the Emperor Phocas, 
 A.D. 602-610, and the Empress Irene, wife of Leo 
 IV., A.D. 797-802. In the time of Const. Porphyr. 
 the royal treasury contained circlets or stemmata 
 of various colours, white, green, and blue, accord¬ 
 ing to the enamel with which they were coated. 
 These circlets decorated with gemS are mentioned 
 
 Pliocaa, irom a madid. 
 FeriartO; pJ. ;18, No. 5. 
 
 irenp, wife of I.eo IV. 
 from a medal. Ferrario, ib. 
 
 by Claudian in connection with the two sons of 
 Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius, towards the 
 end of the 4th century, “ Et vario lapidum dis- 
 tinctos igne coronas ” {In pr. Cons. Stilich, ii. 92.) 
 
 The most ancient examples of crowns are those 
 long preserved in the treasury of the cathedral 
 of Monza, in Lombardy, belonging to the early 
 part of the 7th century. These crowns were 
 three in number : (1) the so-called Iron Crown, 
 “Corona Ferrea;” (2) the crow'n of Agilulf, an«i 
 (3) that of Theodelinda. Agilulf’s crown was 
 taken to Paris as a prize of war by Napoleon I., 
 in 1804, by mistake for the Iron Crown, and 
 ■was stolen from the “ Cabinet des Me'dailles,” in 
 which it was deposited, and melted down. The 
 most celebrated of these crowns is— 
 
 (1) The Iron Crown of Lombardy, the reputed 
 gift of Queen Theodelinda, who died A.D. 628. 
 Tins crown is formed of six plates of gold, each 
 double, united by as many hinges of the same 
 metal. The face of each plate exhibits two 
 panels, divided by spiral threads; one long, and 
 .squarish, the other tall and narrow. The pla¬ 
 fond is covered with emerald-green semitrans¬ 
 parent enamel. The long panels contain a large 
 gem in the centre, surrounded by four gold roses, 
 or floral knobs, from which ramify small stalks 
 and flowers, in red, blue, and opaque-white ena¬ 
 mels. The taP narrows plaques contain three 
 gems set vertically. One plaque has only one 
 gem, and two rose.s. The two centre plafonds 
 meet without an intervening plaque. The number 
 
 of gems is 22; of gold roses, 26; and of enamels, 
 24. Within the golden circlet thus formed is 
 the iron ring, from which is derived the desig¬ 
 nation of the “ Iron Crown(which, however, 
 Ferrario asserts, is comparatively' modern, never 
 being found in the rituals of the churches of 
 Milan and Monza before the time of Otho IV., 
 A.D. 1175. Before this epoch even its advocate 
 Bellani allows it appears in the inventories as 
 Corona Aurea). This is a narrow iron band 
 •04 inch thick and ’4 inch broad, united at 
 the extremities by a small nail, and connected 
 with the articulated ]flates of the crown by little 
 pins. Bellani asserts that it was hammered into 
 shape, and bears no marks of the flle. Burges, 
 a more trustworthy authority, states that the 
 marks of the file are clearly visible. {Arch. 
 Journal, vol. xiv. p. 14.) This iron ring, as 
 is well-krown, is regarded as a relic of the 
 greatest sanctity, being reputed to have been 
 fashioned out of one of the nails of the true cross. 
 This belief cannot be traced further back than 
 the latter part of the 16th century. The exist¬ 
 ence of the band of iron is mentioned by Aeneas 
 Sylvius (Pope Julius II. d. 1464) in his Hist. 
 Aust. lib. iv., but simply as lamina quaedam 
 without a hint at'its supposed sanctity, and with 
 an expres.sion of contempt for the allegorical 
 meaning assigned to its employment in the coro¬ 
 nation of the emperors, as denoting streyvjth —• 
 “stultae interpretationi efficit locum.” Accord¬ 
 ing to Muratori {De Coron. Ferr. Comment. A.D. 
 1698), Bugatus is the first author who mentions 
 
 The Iron Grown of Lombanly, at Monza CathedraL 
 
 it {Addit. ad Hist. Univ. 1587). He was followed 
 by Zucchius {Hist. Cor. Ferr. 1613), whose vio¬ 
 lations of truth Muratori holds it charitable to 
 attribute to gross carelessness. Two years 
 before the publication of Bugatus’ book, A.D. 
 1585, a letter, sent from the archpriest of Monza 
 to Pope Sixtus Y., quoted by Muratori, speaks 
 of the Iron Crown as a most precious possession 
 of his church, as having been used from early 
 times for the coronation of the Roman emperors 
 (even this fact is doubtful), but distinguishes it 
 from the relics properly so called, and makes no 
 allusion to its having been wrought out of a nail 
 of the crucifixion. From the 16th century on¬ 
 wards the belief gained strength, but having been 
 discredited by the searching historical investi¬ 
 gations of Muratori in the treatise referred to 
 above, the worship of the crown as a sacred relic 
 was alternately suspended and re-enforced by 
 decrees and counter-decrees of the ecclesiastical 
 authorities, until in 1688 the matter was laid 
 before the Congregation of Relics at Rome. A 
 process was instituted, which lingered on till 
 1717, when a diplomatic sentence was pronounced, 
 leaving the chief point—the identity of the iron 
 ring with the nail—undecided, but sanctioning its 
 
508 
 
 CROWN 
 
 CROWN 
 
 exposed to the adoration of the faithful, and 
 carried in })rocessions. 
 
 The cliain of e\ddence connecting the Iron 
 Crown with the crucifixion nail is very pre¬ 
 carious, and shows some alarming gaps. Ac¬ 
 cording to the statement of Justus Fontaninus 
 (Archbishop of Ancyra, De Caron. Fcrr. 1719), 
 who wrote in defence of its genuineness, the 
 inner ring was believed to have been formed out 
 of one of the two nails given by the Empress 
 Helena, after her discovery of the true cross on 
 Calvary, to her son Constantine. One of these 
 was made into a bit for the emperor’s bridle (in 
 allusion to Zech. xiv. 20); the other was used 
 in a head-covering—a diadem, according to some 
 authorities (Ambros. De Obitu Theod. Magn.) ; a 
 helmet, according to others, and those the most 
 credible. Constantine’s idea seems indeed to have 
 been that so sacred an amulet affixed to his helmet 
 would be a protection to him in battle, “ galea 
 belli usibus aptum ” (Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. x. 8; 
 Socr. i. 17 ; Soz. ii, 1; Theod. i. 18; Cassiod. i. 
 18). The orthodox theory identifies the Monza 
 crown with the diadem supposed to have been pre¬ 
 sented b)^ Helena to Constantine, which passed, 
 no one knows when or how (it is needless to 
 enumerate the more or le.ss probable hypotheses), 
 from Constantinople to Rome, and is affirmed— 
 a fact of which there is absolutely no evidence— 
 to have been sent as a present by Gregory the 
 Great to Queen Theodelinda ; although it is in the 
 highest degree improbable that Gregory, who is 
 known to have been “ tenax reliquiarum,” should 
 have parted with a relic of such supreme sanctity, 
 while, if such a precious gift had been made, it 
 could not fail to have been mentioned by Gregory 
 when describing his donations (Greg. Mag. Ep. 
 xii. [vii.] lib. xiv. [xii.]). The view of Bellani 
 (canon of Monza, who wrote an elaborate treatise 
 (Milano, 1819) in answer to Ferrario’s Appendice 
 sulla Corona di Ferro, Costumi, Europa, vol. iii.) 
 is that the iron ring and the gold circlet were 
 originally distinct; that the former is the sacred 
 relic affixed to the helmet of Constantine, while 
 the latter was primarily a diadem, open behind, 
 and fastened to the head by clasps, the extremi¬ 
 ties of which were united in the present shape 
 when it was adapted to the iron ring. The view 
 of Muratori, which appears the most probable, 
 dissipates all notion of sacred interest attach¬ 
 ing to the ii'on ring, which he considers to have 
 been inserted within the gold circle, as in the 
 crown of Charlemagne (see post), simply for the 
 purpose of giving firmness to the articulated 
 plates. 
 
 However it may have reached Italy, the cha¬ 
 racter of the workmanship of the Iron Crown 
 proves its Byzantine origin. La Barte, who 
 holds this as an incontrovertible fact, remarks 
 that the art of working in enamel had not pene¬ 
 trated into Italy in the time of Theodelinda (^Les 
 Arts industrlels da Mogen Age, ii. 56 sq.). 
 
 The small size of the crown, barely large 
 enough for the head of a child of two years old, 
 the internal diameter being 6 inches (its height 
 is 2’4 inches), leads to the conclusion that it w^as 
 never intended for ordinary wearing, but was a 
 suspensory or votive crown, with a cross and 
 lamp usually depending from it, hung over the 
 altar, and employed temporarily, on the occasion 
 of coronations, for placing on the sovereign’s 
 head as a symbol of royalty, and then returned 
 
 again to its place. Such crowms are seen hang¬ 
 ing over the altar in a bas-relief of a coronation, 
 now in the S. transept of Monza cathedral (see 
 the woodcut p. 460), exactly resembling that 
 w'hich is being placed on the sovereign’s head. 
 In the church of St. Sophia, at Constantinople, 
 also, according to Codinus, the royal aTeiigara 
 w’ere suspended over the holy talile, and were 
 only worn on high festivals. Ducange (Consta d. 
 Christiana) also informs us that the Greek emjie- 
 rors were inaugurated with one of Jhe lamp¬ 
 bearing crowns ordinarily hanging over the altar 
 [Corona Lucis]. 
 
 (For the history of the Iron Crown, see 
 Mui-atori, De Coron. Ferr. Comment. Me liolan. et 
 Lips. 1719; also Anecdot. Latin, ii. 267 sq.; 
 Fontanini De Corona Ferrea, 1617; Frisi, J/--- 
 morie Storiche di Menza, ii. ; Zucchius, Hist. 
 Coron. Ferr. 1617 ; De Murr, Dissert, de Coron. 
 Reg. Ital. vulgo Ferrea dicta, 1810 ; Bellani, 
 La Corona Ferrea del Uegno d" Italia, 1819; 
 Ferrario, Costurni, Europa, iii. Appendice sulla 
 Corona di Ferro ,* La Barte, Les Arts industriels 
 du Aloyen Age, ii. 56 sq.). 
 
 (2) The Crown of Agilulf. —This hopelessly 
 lost treasui’e takes its name from Theodelinda’s 
 
 second husband, chosen by her A.D. 591, on the 
 death of Authar. From its .small .size, even less 
 than the Iron Crown, it is evident that it was 
 not intended for ordinary wear, but was a votive, 
 suspensory ci’own. This is also proved by the 
 inscription it bore: “ t Agilulf. Grat. D’i. vir. 
 glor. rex. totius, Ital. offeret. s'co Johanni. Baptist, 
 in. Eccl. Modiciaf* A gold cross de})ended from it, 
 with a large amethyst in the middle, two gems 
 in each arm and four large pearls. Seven little 
 chains with pendent acorns hung from the cross. 
 The crown itself was a circle of gold, decorated 
 with 15 arched niches of laurel boughs contain¬ 
 ing figures of our Lord seated between two 
 angels, and the Twelve apostles standing. It bore 
 a circle of emeralds, carbuocles, and pearls above. 
 
CROWN 
 
 509 
 
 CROWN 
 
 The in.scn})tion was in enamel. The clumsiness 
 of execution leads La Carte u. s. to the conclusion 
 that this and the following crown were of Lom¬ 
 bard, not Byzantine workmanship. 
 
 (3) The Croion of Theodelinda. —This is a plain 
 circlet, enriched with a vast quantity of gems of 
 more or less value, chiefly emeralds and pearls, 
 and a great many pieces of mother-of-pearl. 
 From it' depends a cross, also set with emeralds 
 and pearls. (For these crowns consult Muratori, 
 Ant. It. i. 460; Ferrario, u. s. iii. 70; Frisi, 
 
 Memorie di Monza, i. pi. vi. p. 42; vol. ii. 76; 
 Agincourt, Sculpture, pi. 26; La Carte, ii. 56, 
 Burges Arch. Journ. vol. xiv.) 
 
 (4) Crowns of Reccesvinthus, King of the 
 Spanish Visigoths, and his Queen and Family .— 
 These eight gold crowns belonging to the 7th 
 century, now in the museum of the Hotel de 
 Cluuy, were discovei’ed buried in the earth at 
 Fuente de Guarrazar in 1858, haAdng probably 
 been interred early in the 8th century on the 
 invasion of the Saracens. The whole of the crowns 
 found were evidently, from their form and dimen¬ 
 sions, votive crowns, probably dedicated by the 
 king and queen and chief officers of the court. 
 The crown of Reccesvinthus, who reigned A.D. 
 653-675, is one of the most gorgeous and remark¬ 
 able relics of its age, composed of a fillet jointed 
 and formed of a double plate of purest gold. It 
 measures about 9 inches in diameter, or 27 inches 
 in circumference. The hoop is about 4 inches 
 broad, and more than half an inch in thickness. 
 The rims of the hoop are formed of bands of inter¬ 
 secting circles in cloisonne work in red and green, 
 with incrustations of cornelian. It is enrichec 
 with thirty uncut sapphires of large size, alter¬ 
 nating with as many very large Oriental pearls, 
 forming three I’ows. The intervening spaces 
 are pierced with open work, and engraved so as to 
 represent foliage and flowers. To the lower 
 edge of this hoop is suspended by small chains a 
 very remarkable fringe of gold letters about 
 2 inches long, incrusted with gems, with a pen¬ 
 dant pearl and sapphire attached to each, forming 
 the inscription— 
 
 t RECCESVINTHVS REX OFFERET. 
 
 A little below the fringe of letters hangs a mas¬ 
 sive Latin cross mounted with six fine sapphires 
 
 and eight large pearls, with jewelled pendants 
 attached to its foot and limbs. To the upper 
 margins are attached four golden chains of 
 beautiful design, by which it might be suspended, 
 uniting in a foliated ornament, and surmounlel 
 by a knop of rock crystal, with sapphires hang¬ 
 ing round. 
 
 K second crown discovered in the same place 
 has been assigned with much probability to the 
 queen of Reccesvinthus. In form and arrange¬ 
 ment it corresponds to that of the king, but the 
 enrichments are less gorgeous. Like that, it is 
 formed in two pieces with a hinge, to adapt it 
 to the head of the wearer. The hoop is set with 
 fifty-four gems, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, and 
 
 Crown of Bocceavintbus. 
 
 opals. From the lower rim hang eight sapphires. 
 There is no inscription. The pendant cross is 
 covered with jewels, but less costly than those 
 on the former one. 
 
 The six smaller crowns are reasonably sup¬ 
 posed to have belonged to the younger members 
 of this royal family. Three of these arc gold 
 hoops without pendant crosses, jewelled, enriched 
 with repousse work and mother-of-pearl. One 
 is decorated with an arcade of little rouud-lieaded 
 arches, and has a fringe of rock crystal. The 
 other three are of a very singular construction. 
 They consist of a kind of open framework or 
 basketwork of gold, formed of three horizontal 
 
610 
 
 CROWN 
 
 CROWN 
 
 circlets, connected by numerous uprights, gems 
 ceing set at the points of intersection. Each 
 crown is rudely decorated with as many as fifty- 
 bur precious stones and })earls, and is terminated 
 with the fringe of sapphires and the pendant 
 cross. One of the crosses presents the dedicatory 
 inscription— 
 
 t IN DEI NOMINE OFFERET SONNICA 
 SANCTE MARIE IN SORBACES. 
 
 “ Few relics of the period,” writes Mr. Albert 
 Way, Archacol. Journal, xvi. 258, “ deserve com- 
 
 Crown of Bvi&tila. 
 
 parison with this precious regalia, both in bar¬ 
 baric magnificence of enrichment, and in the 
 impressive effect of so sumptuous a display of 
 natural gems remarkable for their dimensions 
 
 and lustrous brilliancy.” (Lasteyrie, Dcscrtpiion 
 du Tresor de Guarrazar, Paris, 1860, La Barter 
 Arts indust., i. 499 sq.) 
 
 (5) The Crown of SrAntila. —Svintila was king 
 of the Visigoths, a.d. 621-631. His crown, pre¬ 
 served in the royal armoury at Madrid, is of 
 massive gold enriched with sapphires and pearls 
 set rose fashion between two borders set with deli 
 cate stones. From the lower rim hangs a fringe of 
 open letters of gold, set with red glass, sus- 
 jiended by chains of double links, with pendant 
 pear-shaped sapphires. The letters form the 
 inscription, 
 
 SVINTILANVS REX OFFERT. 
 
 fProceedings of the Soc. of Antiq. ii. 11. Jos^ 
 Amador de los Rios, £Jl Arte Latiao-hizantino^ 
 Madrid, 1861.) 
 
 These Spanish crowns are considered by 
 La Barte to be of Spanish workmanship. Las 
 teyrie, on the other hand, assigns to them a 
 Gothic origin, and, with less probability, thinks 
 that they were brought into Spain by North 
 German barbarians. 
 
 The suspensory form of these crowns and the 
 inscriptions some of them present prove that 
 they were of a votive character, and were dedi 
 cated to God by the king and his family on 
 some memorable occasion, to be hung up over 
 the altar. But this does not preclude their 
 previous use as crowns for wearing. That such 
 was their primary destination is rendered almost 
 certain by the variation in diameter of the dif¬ 
 ferent circlets, and by the hinges and fastenings 
 which facilitated their being fitted to the wearer’s 
 head. The queen’s crown also has little loops, 
 above and below, for attaching a lining or cap 
 within the gold circlet, to prevent it from 
 galling the wearer’s brows. 
 
 (6) The Crown of Charlemagne. —This crown, 
 preserved in the treasury at Vienna, is evidently 
 made up of portions belonging to ditierent epochs. 
 It is composed or eight round-headed plaques of 
 gold; four larger, enriched with emeralds and 
 sapphires en cabochon, and four smaller, pre¬ 
 senting enamelled figures of David, Solomon, 
 Hezekiah, and Christ. Strength and unity are 
 imparted to the whole by the insertion of two 
 little circlets of iron. A jewelled cross rises 
 from the apex of the front plaque, from which 
 an enamelled arch stretches over the head to 
 the back, bearing the name of the Emperor 
 Conrad, a.d. 1138. The costumes of the figures 
 in the enamels are Byzantine. (Hangard- 
 Mange', Les Arts somptuaires, Paris, 1858, pi. 31, 
 vol. ii. p. 31.) 
 
 Authorities. —In addition to the treatises of 
 Muratori, Fontaninus, and Bellani, named above, 
 we may refer the student to the following:— 
 Bayer, De duob. Diadem, in Mus. Imp. Comment. 
 ,Acad. Scient. Imp. Petropol. viii. 1736. Agincourt, 
 Seroux d’. Art par les Monuments, Sculpture, Pein- 
 ture. W. Burges, “ On the Treasures at Monza,” 
 Archaeol. Journ. xiv. Ciampini, Vet. Monim. 
 cxiv. i. p. 107. Guenebault, Diction, iconogr. 
 des Monuments, Paris, 1843, and Glossaire litur- 
 gique in Annales de Philosophie chreticnne, xi. 
 Ferrario, Costume antico e moclerno TEuropa, vol. 
 i. pt. 1, vol. iii. pt. 1, Appen/Hce sulle Corona 
 Ferrea. vol. i. pt. 2, Hangard-Mange', Les 3r‘s 
 somptuaires, Paris, 1858. La Barte, I.es Arts 
 industriels. iMigne, Encycl. Theol. xxvii. Die- 
 
CROWNS FOR BRIDES 
 
 CRUCIFIX 511 
 
 tionmire d’Orfevrerie, 4'C. Montfaucon, Memoires 
 dd la Monarchic fran(^aise, i. Pasthalis, De Coro- 
 nis, Paris, 1610. Sommerard, du, Catalogue du 
 
 Musee de Clung, 
 Crowns of Guarrazar, 
 
 Paris, i8Gl. Way, “ Ou the 
 ” Arch. Journal, xvi. 
 
 [li. V.] 
 
 Crown of Charlemagne. 
 
 'CROWNS FOR BRIDES. 1 These two uses i 
 CROWNS FOE BURIALS.) of crowns oi- ; 
 wreaths, as connected u’ith Christian social life, j 
 seem to call for a separate notice. In each case 
 there was a custom belonging to a non-Christian 
 period. The bridal crown, of Greek origin, had 
 been adopted by the Romans, and was in uni- ; 
 versal use, sometimes worn by the bride alone, ’ 
 sometimes by the bridegroom also. The rigorous- 1 
 ness of early Christian feeling rejected the use of | 
 coronae generally, as connected either with the 
 excesses of heathen feasts, or the idolatry of 
 heathen worship. Christians were to avoid mar- j 
 riages with heathen women lest they should be 
 tempted to put the evil thing upon their brows | 
 (Tertull. de Corona, c. 13). Flowers might be 
 worn as a bouquet, or held in the hand, but not ^ 
 upon the head. It was not long, however, before 
 the natural beauty of the practice freed itself 
 fi'om the old associations and reasserted its claim. 
 It is probable that the objections to it were never 
 very widely entertained. In the time of Chry¬ 
 sostom it was again a common usage. Bridegroom 
 and bride were crowned as victors, assuming their 
 purity, over the temptations of the flesh. It 
 was a shock to Christian feeling when the wreaths 
 were worn by the impure (//ow. ix. in 1 Tim.). 
 The bridegroom’s wreath was for the most part 
 of myrtle (Sidon. Apollin. Carm. II. ad Anthem.), 
 the bride’s of verbena. The prominence of the 
 rite in the Eastern church has led the whole 
 marriage service to be described in the Greek ; 
 E.vxo\6yiQv as thj 'Ai€o\ov6ia tov arfcparw- I 
 
 fiaros ; and the ceremony itself, as probably 
 handed down from an early period, deserves 
 mention here. First, the bridegroom solemnly 
 crowns the bride in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost. Then the bride in like 
 manner crowns the bridegroom. Lastly, the 
 priest blesses them with the thrice-repeated 
 words, “ 0 Lord our God, crown them with 
 glory and honour.” 
 
 The use of wreaths for burials, common 
 among both Greeks and Romans, on the head of 
 the corpse, on the bier, on the tomb, was for 
 like reasons rejected by the more rigorous 
 teachers. The disciples of Christ were Lo seek 
 an incorruptible crown, the amaranth which 
 grows on no earthly soil (Clem. Alex. Pacdag. 
 ii. 8). To those who had been accustomed to 
 shew their honour to the dead by this outward 
 sign, this refusal seemed cruel and unfeeling; 
 and Christians had to defend themselves against 
 the charge, “Coronas etiam sepulcris denegatis” 
 (Minuo. Fel. c. 12), with the answer, “ Kec ad- 
 nectimus arescentem coronam, sed a Deo aeternis 
 floribus viridem sustinemus” (ibid. c. 37). Here 
 also, after a time, though less formally in the 
 case of the nuptial crown, the old practice was 
 I'evived with a higher significance. The crown 
 appears on tombs and paintings as the symbol 
 of martyrdom; and modern Christendom repro¬ 
 duces, without misgiving, the practice which 
 the ancient Church rejected. [E. H. P.] 
 
 CRUCIFIX and REPRESENTATIONS 
 OF THE CRUCIFIXION. It is n-icessary to 
 
612 
 
 CEUCIFIX 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 distingubh bet\reen the use of the crucifix as an 
 object or instrument of devotion, and that of 
 pictorial or other representations of the Cruci¬ 
 fixion as a scene. Every variety and combina¬ 
 tion of the arts of sculpture, mosaic, painting, 
 and engraving has been aj)plied to this great 
 subject from early times, and to all parts of 
 it; and this distinction is one of principle as 
 well as convenience. The modern crucifix and 
 its use of course form no part of the subject. 
 Within the limits of our period, all representa¬ 
 tions of the crucified Form of our Lord alone, as 
 well as pictures, reliefs, and mosaics, in which 
 that Form is the central ob ject of a scene, may 
 be considered alike symbolical, without historical 
 realism or artistic appeal to emotion. There is 
 doubtless a divergence in the direction of realism, 
 and appeal to feeling by actual representation is 
 begun, whenever the human figure is added to 
 the symbolic cross.* The use of the sculptured, 
 moulded, or enamelled crucifix or crucifixion in 
 early times, is a development of that of the cross, 
 and the transition between them may have been 
 r certainty from the first; but the rude efforts 
 of earlier days, with which alone we have to do, 
 can neither call on the imagination by vivid pre¬ 
 sentation of the actual event, nor awaken feeling 
 by appeal to the sense of beauty, nor distress by 
 painful details of bodily suffering. While the 
 primitive rules of representation were adhered 
 to, as they are to this day in the Greek Church, 
 the picture or icon dwells on the meaning of the 
 event rather than its resemblance, and shadows 
 forth, rather than represents, the God-Man in 
 the act of death for man. These rules were first 
 infringed by, or natm’ally collapsed in the pre¬ 
 sence of, increased artistic power. The paintings 
 ofCimabue and Giotto, and the reliefs ofN. Pisano, 
 brought the personality of the artist into every 
 work, and introduced human motive and treat¬ 
 ment, in the ai’tistic sense of the words. To 
 those whose minds are drawn to ascetic thought 
 and practice, it has always been natural to 
 meditate, and to communicate their thoughts 
 upon, the bodily sufferings of the Saviour of man¬ 
 kind. This was done by Angelico and others 
 naturally and freely before the Reformation; 
 since that period a somewhat polemical and arti¬ 
 ficial use has been made of this line of thought; 
 and painting and sculpture have been applied to 
 embody it accordingly in the Roman Catholic 
 Church. It may be remarked, before retiring 
 within our proper limits of time, that the use 
 of blood, by Giotto and his followers down to 
 Angelico, has doctrinal reference to the Holy 
 Communion, and to Scriptural promises of cleans¬ 
 ing by the blood of Christ.*’ Giotto is less in- 
 
 a I)e Rossi (vol. ii. tav. v. p. 35.5) gives a cro.ss, with 
 two lambs apparently contemplating it, below one of the 
 usual pictures of the Good Shepherd. Aringhi, Rom. Subt. 
 ii. 478: “Crux, cum Christo illi fixo, neuticiuam effigiari 
 olim solebat.” The Crucifixion he calls “ mysticis res co- 
 loribus adumbrata .... emblematicis figuratisque modis; 
 sub inniKui videlicet agni juxta crucis lignum placide 
 consistcntis typo.” SeeBottari, taw. xxi. xxii. See, how¬ 
 ever (ib., tav. cxcii.), the crucifix found in the tomb of 
 St. Julius and St. Valentine in the Catacombs; which so 
 much resembles the mosaic crucifix of John VII. that it 
 can hardly be of very early date. It is generally assigned 
 to Pope Adrian, about 880. 
 
 As in the Crucifixion over the door of the Convent of 
 St. Mark’.s, I’lorence, where the blood issues from the 
 
 dined to dwell for Terror’s sake on the bodily 
 ruifferings of the Passion, than to dwell with awe 
 on its mystery as a sacrifice for man. But the 
 rise of mediaeval asceticism, and its attribution 
 of sacramental efficacy to bodily pain, bore 
 painters with it as w’ell as other men. And in 
 later times, 5vhen Christian feeling on the subject 
 was lost, many men seem to have considered the 
 final scene of the Redemption of Man chiefly as a 
 good opportunity of displaying newly-acquired 
 powers of facial expression and knowledge of 
 anatomy. 
 
 If Hallam’s division of periods be accepted, 
 which makes the end of the .5th century the 
 beginning of the Middle Ages, the public repre¬ 
 sentation of the Crucifixion may be said to be a 
 mediaeval usage in point of time. Further, 
 Martigny (^Dict. des Antiq. Chretiennes, p. 190, 
 s. V.) claims for France the honour of having 
 possessed the first public crucifix-painting which 
 ever existed; for which he refers to Gregory of 
 Tours (De Glor. Martyr, i. 23), and which he says 
 must have been at least as old as the middle of 
 the 6th century. But he says above, probably 
 with great correctness, that all the mo.st eminent 
 Crucifixions known were objects of private de 
 votion, instancing the pectoral cro.ss of Queen 
 Theodolinda and the Syriac MS. of the Medicean 
 
 Tlieodolinda’s Crucifix. 
 
 Library at Florence, both hereafter to be de¬ 
 scribed. The official or public use of the cross 
 as a symbol of Redemption begins with Con.stan- 
 tine, though of course it had been variously 
 employed by all Christians at an earlier date. 
 [Cross.] 
 
 Crucifixes, according to Guericke, did not 
 appear in churches till after the 7th century. 
 Such images, probably, in the early days of the 
 Church, would produce too crude and painful an 
 effect in the Christian imagination, and to that 
 of the more hopeful Pagan they would be in¬ 
 tolerable ; not only because his feelings would 
 recoil from the thought of the punishment of 
 the cross, but from superstitious terror of con- 
 
 fcel, in a conventional form, as a crimson cord, which 
 is twined strangely beneath about a skull. (Ruskin, Mod. 
 P. vol. ii. p. 125.) 
 
CKUCIFIX 
 
 ncotmg the Infelix Ai’bor with a Divine Being. 
 The Graffito Blasf’emo of the Palatine illustrates 
 this (see woodcut): but Christian teachers may 
 have refrained from any addition to the cross, 
 as a symbol of divine humiliation and sufler- 
 ing, from purely charitable motives. The cross 
 itself may have been felt to be temporarily 
 unwelcome to persons in certain stages of con¬ 
 version 
 
 If we set aside the various monograms of His 
 name, and the emblematic fish, which is an ana¬ 
 gram of it, there are but two classes of repre¬ 
 sentations of our Lord,—those which point to His 
 divinity and lordship over all men, and those 
 which commemorate His humanity and suffer¬ 
 ings for all men. The earliest of the former 
 class is the Good Shepherd ; the earliest of the 
 latter the Lamb: and both are combined in the 
 painting given by De Rossi, vol. ii. tav. v. The 
 symbolic Lamb, as will be seen (Gen. iv. 4, 
 xxii. 8 ; Exod. xii. 3, xxix. 38 ; Is. xvi. 1 ; 1 Pet. 
 i. 18; Rev. xiii. 8), connects the Old Testament 
 with the New, and unites in itself all types and 
 shadowings of Christ’s sacrifice, from the death 
 of Abel to St. John’s vision of the slain victim. 
 It is well said by Martigny to be the crucifix of 
 the early times of persecution ; and its emble¬ 
 matic use grows more significant as time ad- 
 vances. The cross is first borne by the Lamb on 
 its head, in the monogrammatic form (Bottari, 
 Scu’ture e Pitture sagre estratte dai Cimiteri di 
 Roma, &c., Rom. 3 fol. 1737-54, tav. xxi. v. 1), 
 about the latter half of the 4th century. The 
 simple cross occurs thus in the 5th century (Bot¬ 
 tari, tav. xxii.). In the 6th century the Lamb 
 bears the cross (Aringhi, ii. lib. iv. p. 559, 
 Roma Suhterranea), and rests sometimes on a 
 book, sometimes at the foot of an altar (Ciam- 
 pini, Vetera Monumerda, vol. i. tab. xv. p. 26; 
 vol. ii. tab. xv. p. 58), above which is the cross; 
 and then it is represented “ as it were slain,” 
 with evident reference to the Paschal feast 
 (Ciampini, V. M. t. ii. t$ibb. xv. xlvi.). Towards 
 the end of the 6th century the Wounds of the 
 Cross are represented on the sides and feet of the 
 Lamb. In Ciampini {De Saods Aedificits, tab. 
 xiii.) the Lamb is raised on a throne at the foot 
 of an ornamented cross, the throne itself bearing 
 resemblance to an altar-table. 
 
 The famous Vatican Cross (for which, and for 
 the Cross of Velletri,® see Cardinal Borgia’s 
 monographs, Rome, 4to. 1779 and 1780) is the 
 6th century type of symbolic representation. A 
 medallion of the Lamb bearing the cross, and 
 with a nimbus, is placed at its central point of 
 intersection, and it is accompanied by two half- 
 length figures of our Lord, with the crucform 
 nimbus at the top and foot of the vertical limb. 
 Two others at the horizontal ends are supposed 
 to represent Justin II. and his Empress Sophia. 
 The upper half-length of the Lord holds a book 
 in the left hand, and blesses with the riglt; the 
 lower one holds a roll and a small cross. The 
 embossed lily-ornaments are of gi'eat beauty. 
 
 c The Cross of Velletri, which Borgia attributes to the 
 8th or IGih centni-y, contains the symbols of the four 
 Evang( li>ts. The Vatican Cross is photographed in M. 
 St. l.aurent’s paper in Didron’s llevue Archeologique (see 
 infra). The result reflects great credit on the accuracy 
 of Borgia’s illustration; and M. St. Laurent speaks higlily 
 of Ciampini and others. 
 
 CHUIST. A.NT. 
 
 CKUCIFIX 513 
 
 and there is an inscription on the back, which 
 Borgia reads thus :— 
 
 “ Ligno quo Chrlstus humanum subdidit hostem 
 I)at Roinae Justinus opern " 
 
 As it is impossible to determine which is the 
 eailie.st representation of the Crucifixion or 
 crucifix now in existence or on trustwoithy 
 record, a few of the oldest known may be briefly 
 
 Perpendicular of Vatican Cross. 
 
 described here. They wfill be found in woodcut 
 in Angelo Rocca, Thesaurus Pvntijiciarum Rcricm, 
 vol. i. p. 153, though the copies have been made 
 by a draughtsman skilled in anatomy, who has 
 quite deprived them of the stamp of antiquity, 
 which their originals undoubtedly possessed. The 
 first and second are saiil by Rocca to be the 
 workmanship of Nicodemus and St. Luke. The 
 
514 
 
 CEUOIFIX 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 first is evidently of the time of Charlemagne. 
 The Crucified is clothed in a long tunic, and Vjeai's 
 a crown of radiatory bars, closed at top, rising 
 from the circlet. A chalice is at its f^eet, and 
 A CO on the title overhead. 
 
 The head of the second, attributed to St. Luke, 
 is crowned, and surrounded by a nimbus. It is 
 almost entirely naked,—the waistcloth, at least, 
 seems to have been purposely contracted : this of 
 itself would place it at a late date. 
 
 The third examj^le is historical. It is called 
 the Crucifix of John VII., and represents a mosaic 
 in the old Basilica of St. Peter’s. Rocca dates it 
 706. It bears the cruciform nimbus with the 
 title INRI. It is clothed in a long tunic, the 
 form and folds of which are most graceful, 
 and bear a great resemblance to the painted 
 crucifix found in the Catacombs, assigned to 
 Pope Adrian III. 884. 
 
 The fourth is the celebra ted Crucifix of Charle¬ 
 magne, given to Leo III. and the Basilica of St. 
 Peter’s, and dated 815. It is clothed in an ample 
 waistcloth, the wound in the side is represented, 
 and the head surrounded by a cruciform nimbus. 
 Four nails are used in all these crucifixes. 
 
 A crucifix is described by the Rev. F. H. 
 Tozer, which, as he considers, has a decided 
 claim to be considered the most ancient in exist¬ 
 ence, and which he saw in the monastery of 
 Xeropotama at Mount Athos. It is a reputed 
 gift of the Empress Pulcheria (414-453), and 
 has been spared no doubt for tl|^,at reason. It is 
 a supposed fragment of the true cross, and con¬ 
 sists of one long piece of dark wood and two 
 cross-pieces, one above the other, the smaller 
 intended for the superscription. The small 
 figure of our Lord is of ivory or bone. Near 
 the foot is a representation of the Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre in gold plate, and set with dia¬ 
 monds and sapphires of extraordinary size and 
 beauty. Below that, the inscription Kcova-rav- 
 rivov Ev(ppo(Tvur}s Ka\ ruv t^kvcov. Another 
 exists at Ochrida in Western Macedonia, dis¬ 
 used, and of unknown history. Mr. Tozer con¬ 
 siders that it belonged to a disciple of Cyril and 
 Methodius, and may probably be connected with 
 the latter. He mentions a third, also probably 
 connected with the Apostle of Bohemia, in the 
 Museum at Prague (see Murray’s Handbook of 
 South Germany'), and another as existing in 
 Crete (see Pashley’s Travels). These are the 
 only crucifixes he knows of as existing in the 
 Greek Church. The Iconoclastic controversy, 
 he observes, took the same course with the cru¬ 
 cifix as with other representations, painted or 
 carved: and when it died away into compro¬ 
 mise on the distinction between icons and 
 images, the crucifix was treated as an image. 
 Tiiis does not necessarily apply to pictures in 
 MSS.; but the carved form may have been the 
 more easily dislodged in the Iconoclastic contro¬ 
 versy of 720, because it had not been long 
 introduced, since it did not exist till the 7th 
 century. “ To the keener perception of the 
 Greeks ” (says Milman, Latin Christianity, vi. 
 413) “ there may have arisen a feeling, that 
 in its more rigid and solid form the Ima^e was 
 nearer to the Idol. There was a tacit compro¬ 
 mise” (after the period of Iconoclasm); “nothing 
 appeared but painting, mosaics, engi-avings on 
 cup and chalice” (this of course accounts for 
 works like the Cross of Velletri, the Diptych of 
 
 Rambona, and others), “ and embroidery on vest¬ 
 ments. The renunciation of sculpture grew to 
 a rigid passionate aversion .... as of a Jew or 
 Mohammedan.” There can be no doubt that the 
 first step in a j)rogress which has frequently ended 
 in idolatry was made in the Quinisext Council, 
 or that in Trullo, at Constantinople in 091. It 
 is the challenge to Iconoclasm. It decrees (can. 
 82) that, as the antitype is better than type or 
 symbol in all representation, the literal repre¬ 
 sentation of the Lord shall take the place of the 
 symbolic Lamb on all emblems of His sacrifice, 
 and ordains thus : Thv rov aXpavTos T'pu a/aap- 
 riav K6(rp.ov 'Ayvov Xpiarov rov &eov rjuuiv, 
 Kara rhu avdpdoTTLVov xapaKrripa Ka\ iv rdis 
 (IkSo'iu airh rov vvu avrl rod TraKaiov ayvov 
 o.vao'riyKovcrQai bpi^oy^v.'^ [Compare AgnuS 
 Dei.] 
 
 A very early crucifix of the 6th century seems 
 to be mentioned in the following passage, which 
 is produced by Binteidm {Benhr.urdiyk. iv. part i. 
 48) without reference, but which he may have 
 seen in some unpublished record. He is speak¬ 
 ing of the church of Hoye in the bishopric of 
 Liege, destroyed by the Huns in the 4th century, 
 and restored A.D. 512, at the time of the first 
 synod of Orleans. This church “ a suis civibus 
 reedificatur, et in longura versus Orientem ex- 
 tenditur usque ad gradus Chori sub cnicifxo, 
 altari tameu antique semper remanente,” &c. 
 Further, he quotes Aegidius as stating that 
 Robert, Provost of Liege, “ sub crucifixo sepul- 
 tui'am accepit.” This only proves the existence 
 of crucifixes at the time of the writers, espe¬ 
 cially as the original altar is spoken of as re¬ 
 maining, without mention of cross or crucifix, 
 at the end of the choir which contained it. Had 
 the name or date of the author of the passage 
 quoted been known, it would have been of great 
 importance ; but it may be, and its Latin might 
 indicate that it is, from some late chronicler, 
 familiar with the appearance of the church, and 
 using the words as meaning no more than “ under 
 the present crucifix, or rood above the altar- 
 screen.” Dr. Binterim founds no argument on it 
 as to the date of the German change from cross 
 to crucifix, and the passage may be let pass. 
 The “Santo Volto,” “ Vultus de Luca,” or 
 Crucifix of Lucca (corrupted by William Rufus, 
 for imprecatory purposes, into the “ Face of St. 
 Luke”), is carved in cedar-wood, and is attri¬ 
 buted to Nicodemus, and supposed to have been 
 conveyed miraculously to Lucca in 782. It is 
 said to be of ther'Gth century, and is certainly 
 one of the earliest crucifixes in existence. It 
 bears the Lord crowned as king, and vested in a 
 long pontifical robe as priest, and thus combines 
 symbolic treatment wdth realism, perhaps in the 
 way afterwards intended by the Council in 
 Trullo. The idea is that of the Crucified King 
 of Men, and the work is an assertion of the com¬ 
 bined deity and humanity, and of the submis¬ 
 sion to death of the Lord of humanity. A cru¬ 
 cifix greatly resembling this was found during 
 some operations at Christchurch, Oxford, and is 
 now preserved in the Bodleian: it was probably 
 an outer ornament of some Evangeliarium. We 
 understand M. St. Laurent to consider these 
 
 d The author of this paper can remember no repre¬ 
 sentation of the Crucifixion as existing either at the Con¬ 
 vent of Mount Sinai or that of Mar Saba. 
 
CRUCIFIX 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 515 
 
 examples to date from the 12th century (T'ono- 
 graj.hie de la Croix et du Crucijix; Didron’s 
 Annales Archeolngiqucs, t. xxii. pp. 5, 137, 213, 
 357, and t. xxiii. pp. 5, 174, a most valuable 
 and exhaustive summary of our whole subject, 
 admirably illustrated). 
 
 The steps of the progress from symbolic to 
 literal representation will be noticed imme¬ 
 diately ; but two more Crucifixions of great and 
 undoubted antiquity (the first having a claim to 
 be considered the most ancient in existence) re¬ 
 main to be briefly noticed. Both confirm to a 
 certain extent the remark insisted on or sug¬ 
 gested by many Roman Catholic writers, that the 
 private use of the crucifix in devotion dates 
 from very early times. The first is the famous 
 Syriac Evangeliarium in the Medicean Library at 
 Florence, widely known for the probably unique 
 detail of the soldiers, not casting dice, but play¬ 
 ing at the world-old game of “ Mora ” on their 
 fingen, for the garment without seam. It is 
 represented in Assemanni’s Catalogus Bibl. Medic. 
 Florence, 1742, tav. xxiii. The whole MS. is 
 one of the most interesting documents in the 
 world; with many illuminations, performed with 
 that indescribable grimness of earnestness which 
 was the root of Eastern asceticism, and which still 
 lingers in the handy work of the stern Arcagnuoli, 
 
 Upper half of Crucifixion MS. of Habula. 
 
 or the brothers Orgagna. Assemauni calls it 
 “ vetusti.ssimus codex qui in eadem bibliotheca 
 extat,” and it is described by Prof. Westwood in 
 his Falaeographia Sacra, and dated 586 by its 
 writer, the monk Rabula. It is composed with 
 instinctive skill in two groups, upper and lower. 
 At the top are the sun and moon; one a face, the 
 other a crescent. The upper group, which is semi¬ 
 circular or rather cycloidal in its shape, consists 
 of the three crosses, supported on their right by 
 the Virgin Mother and another female figure, on 
 the left by three more women. The soldiers 
 with the spear and the sponge stand on each side 
 next to the central and largest cross. Over the 
 head of the former is the name AOriNOC. The 
 Lord wears the long robe, the thieves have waist- 
 cloths, and large drops of blood, in conventional 
 form, are falling from their hands. Four nails 
 are used in each. At the foot of the cross the 
 upper and lower group are joined by the soldiers 
 playing for the coat. In the centre, below the 
 cross, is a Holy Sepulchre (represented in all 
 early Byzantine and Italo- or Gothic-Byzantine 
 work as an upright structure of much the same 
 shape as a sentry’s box). It is supported on the 
 left by a woman, the Blessed Virgin, and an 
 angel; on the other by St. John, another apos¬ 
 tolic figure in the act of blessing, and other 
 
 adoring women. The base of the composition, as 
 it were, is formed by a group of soldiers, over¬ 
 thrown by the stroke of visible substantial rays 
 from the sepulchre ; the stone also lies on the 
 left. The designer seems to have thought much 
 of the fact of its being rolled away, and he has 
 accordingly drawn it as a disk like a grindstone. 
 Grotesque and archaic as it is, this work is com¬ 
 posed exactly like Orgagna’s or Michael Angelo’s 
 “Last Judgment,” Titian’s “Assumption,” or 
 Ratfaelle’s “ Transfiguration ”— i. e., of two great 
 upper and lower groups, tied together and sup¬ 
 ported on both sides ; nor could any work better 
 illu.strate the lingering of Byzantine tradition in 
 sacred subjects. A full description is given by 
 Professor Westwood in his Falaeographia Sacra, 
 also by Dom Gueranger, Inst. Liturgiques, vol. 
 iii. app. 
 
 Of the four Crucifixions given by Gori in vol. 
 
 Diptych of hambuna. 
 
 iii. of his Thesaurus Diptychorum (pp. 116, 128, 
 203, 216), that at p. 203, called the “Diptych of 
 Rambona in Picenum,” is the most ancient and 
 extraordinary. It contains a medallion of the 
 Fii'st Person of the Trinity above, with the sun 
 and moon below on the right and left of the cros.s, 
 personified as figures bearing torches. There are 
 two titles, EGO SUM IHS NAZARENUS in rude 
 Roman letters, with a smaller label, REX JU- 
 
516 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 DEORUM, over the cross. The nimbus is cruci¬ 
 form, the waistcloth reaches almost to the knees, 
 the navel is strangely formed into an eye. The 
 Virgin and St. John stand under the arms of 
 the cross. But the distinguishing detail is the 
 addition of the Roman wolf and twins below the 
 cross, with the words ROMVLVS ET REMVLVS 
 A LVPA NUTRITI. This wonderful ivory is now 
 in the Vatican Museum (see Murray’s Handbook), 
 and is in the most ancient style of what may be 
 called dark-age-Byzantine art, when all instruc¬ 
 tion and sense of heauty are departed, but so 
 vigorous a sense of the reality of the fact re¬ 
 mains, as to render the work highly impressive 
 —as also in the Medici MS. 
 
 Professor Westwood (Paf. Sac. pi. 18) enables 
 us to refer to a Crucifixion found in an Irish MS. 
 written about 800. It is in the Library of St. 
 John’s College, Cambridge, and is partly copied 
 from the Falaeo^raj hia by Mr. Ruskin (in The 
 Two Paths, p, 27), who selects one of the angels 
 above the cross as a specimen of absolutely dead 
 and degraded art. This is perfectly correct, and 
 the work is a painful object of contemplation, as 
 it displays the idiocy of a contemptible person 
 instructed in a decaying style, rather than the 
 roucrhness of a barbarian workman like the carver 
 
 O 
 
 of the diptych. The absurd interlacings and use 
 of dots, the sharpening of fingers into points, and 
 the treatment of the subject entirely as a matter 
 of penmanship, without either devotional sense of 
 its importance or artistic effort to realize it, make 
 the MS. most disagreeably interesting as far as 
 this miniature is concerned. 
 
 The plea or hypothesis of Roman Catholic 
 writers, that actual images of the crucified body 
 
 of the Lord may have been used in the very 
 earliest times for private devotion, is open to the 
 obvious remark that none of them can be pro¬ 
 duced, whereas symbolical memorials of the 
 Crucifixion are found in regular .succession, both 
 mural and in portable forms. Father Martigny 
 argues that the notorious Graffito of the Palace 
 of the Caesars may be a caricatured copy of some 
 undiscovered crucifix used for Chidstian worship. 
 Father Garrucci’s description of it, “ II Crocifisso 
 Graffito in casa dei Cesari,” is given by Canon 
 Liddon in his 7th Barnpton Lecture (p. 397); and 
 the remarks which accompany it are most im¬ 
 portant, as they show “the more intelligent and 
 
 bitter hostility of Paganism to the Church since 
 the apostolic mai'tyrdoms a century and a half 
 before, when converts had also been made in 
 Caesar’s household.” He shows also, incidentally, 
 that it can hardly have been derived from any 
 Christian emblem, as the ass’s head connects it 
 evidently with the Gnostic invective, which at¬ 
 tributed to the Jews the worship of an ass. This 
 Tacitus mentions (//tsL v. c. 4); and Tertullian 
 (^Apolog, 16) notices Tacitus’ confusion between 
 Jews and Christians, and appeals to his own ac¬ 
 count of the examination of the Jewish temple 
 by Pompey, who found “no image” in the temple. 
 For proof of the confusion of the early Christians 
 with the Jews by the pagan world. Dr. Liddon 
 refers to Dr. Pusey’s note on the above passage 
 in Tertullian, in the Oxford Library of the 
 Fathers. 
 
 The relics of the treasury of the Cathedral of 
 Monza, closely described and partly represented 
 in woodcut by M. Martigny, are valuable exam¬ 
 ples of the transition between symbolic and actual 
 representation of the Crucifixion. One of the 
 ampullae for sacred oil is said to have been pre¬ 
 sented by Gregory the Great to Theodelinda, wife 
 of Antharis king of Lombardy, probably some 
 time soon after 590, about a hundred years be¬ 
 fore the Council in Trullo. It is circular, and 
 the head of the Lord, with a cruciform nimbus, 
 is placed at the top. Below, to right and left, 
 are the two thieves, with extended arms, but 
 without crosses; and below them two figures are 
 kneeling by a cross which seems to be budding 
 into leaves. Two saints or angels are on the 
 extreme right and left, and the usual Holy Se¬ 
 pulchre below, with an angel watching it on the 
 right in the act of benediction, while St. John and 
 St. Mary Magdalene are (apparently) approach¬ 
 ing it on the other side. Another vessel bears a 
 figure of the Lord, clothed with a long robe, with 
 the nimbus and extended arms, but without the 
 cross. Finally, the reliquary of Theodelinda, so 
 called, has the crucified Form, with the nimbus 
 and inscription IC XC, clothed in the long tunic, 
 with the soldiers, two figures apparently mock¬ 
 ing Him, and the Virgin and St. John on the right 
 and left. The clothed figure indicates symbolical 
 treatment, since it must have been well known 
 that the Roman custom was to crucify naked ; 
 and Martigny argues that the Graffito, which is 
 clothed, must therefore have been copied from 
 some Christian picture. But from this time, or 
 from that of the Council of 691, the artistic or 
 ornamental treatment begins. The earliest Cruci¬ 
 fixions are narrative, not dramatic ; the Resur¬ 
 rection being so frequently introduced into the 
 same composition, as if without it the subject 
 would be altogether too painful for Christian 
 eyes. And, indeed, till the first efforts of Pisan 
 sculpture and Florentine painting, the import¬ 
 ance of the event represented withdrew all atten¬ 
 tion to the personality of the artist. In works 
 of after days the painter’s power is all. Their 
 range of excellence is as wide as the difference 
 between the tender asceticism of Fra Angelico, 
 and the mighty sorrow of Michael Angelo, and 
 the intense power, knowledge, and passion of the 
 great canvass of Tintoret in the Scuola di San 
 Rocco at V'enice. The treatment of this picture 
 resembles that of the most ancient works. All 
 its consummate science is directed to bringing 
 every detail of the scene into a great unity, while 
 
CRUCIFIX 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 617 
 
 attention is expressly withdrawn from the face ' 
 of the Lord, which is cast into deep shadow. ! 
 (See Ruskin, Modern Painters, vol. ii.) In ' 
 all ancient work the Lord’s face is abstracted | 
 and expressionless : any attempt to represent ! 
 bodily pain belongs to modern work of the 1 
 baser sort, which forms no part of our present 
 subject. 
 
 For the details and accessories of the Cruci¬ 
 fixion, whether things or persons, they have been 
 for the most part enumerated and described. The 
 nails are always four in number in ancient works, 
 two for the feet and two for the hands. The 
 crossed legs and single large nail or spike belong 
 to the artistic period. _^Iartigny refers to St. 
 Cyprian (^De Passion. Dni. inter Opusc. p. 83, 
 ed. Oxon.) as speaking of the nails which pierced 
 our Lord’s feet in the plural number. St. Cyprian, 
 he says, had seen the punishment of the cross. 
 The suppedaneum or rest for the feet occui-s in 
 the crosses of Leo III. and of Velletri, not in the 
 Diptych of Rambona. The Graffito indicates its 
 presence. It seems to have been occasionally 
 left out, in deference to those passages in Holy 
 Scripture which allude to the disgrace or curse 
 attaching to one “hanging” on the tree. The 
 title of the cross, which is given with slight dif¬ 
 ferences in St. Matt, xxvii. 37, Mark xv. 26, Luke 
 xxiii. 38, John xix. 9, varies greatly in different 
 representations. It is omitted in the crosses of 
 Lucca and Velletri. Early Greek painters re¬ 
 duce it to the name of Christ, Ic XC, or substitute 
 the A and o>. The sign 'i>C {(p^s) occurs, as well 
 as LVX MVNDI, frequently accompanied by the 
 symbols of the sun and the moon, as a red star 
 or face and crescent, or in the Rambona ivory 
 [see page 515] as mourning figures bearing 
 torches. They are introduced as emblematic of 
 the homage of all nature, or in remembrance of 
 the eclipse of the Crucifixion. 
 
 The Blessed Virgin and St. John appear in the 
 Medicean MS., and very frequently in ancient 
 works; the soldiers rather less so, though they 
 occur iu the above MS. and the reliquary of 
 Monza. The typical figure of the first Adam 
 rising from the earth as a symbol of the resur¬ 
 rection of the body, with the Hand of Blessing 
 above indicating the presence of God, is given in 
 Ciampiai (^De Sacr. Aedif. tab. xxiii. p. 75). 
 The skull, whether human or that of a lamb, 
 placed at the foot of the cross, either as an 
 emblem of sacrifice or in reference to the place 
 Golgotha, is of late use, and is almost the only 
 late addition of symbolic detail. 
 
 The rare addition of the soldiers casting lots is 
 said to be found in an ivory of the 8th century 
 from Cividule in Friuli (Mozzoni, Tavole crono- 
 
 logiclie della Chiesa universale, Venezia, 1856— 
 63). The only other representation of it is in 
 the Medici MS. The wolf and twins are in the 
 Rambona diptych alone. The types of the four 
 Evangelists are on the back of the Cross of Vel¬ 
 letri, in the Gospel of Egbert, of Trier, infra, 
 and on numerous crosses of later date. Some 
 additional inscriptions have been mentioned, as 
 well as the addition (in the Vatican Cross) of 
 medallion portraits. Cousiilerable liberty in this 
 matter seems to have been allowed in the earliest 
 times, as is indicated by Constantine’s introduc¬ 
 tion of the words of his Vision; and still more 
 strongly in an instance referred to by Borgia, in 
 Anastasius (tom. i. n. 2, ed. Vignolii), of a cross 
 given by Belisarius to St. Peter—“ per manus 
 Vigilii Papae”—of gold and jewels, weighing 
 100 lbs., “ in qua scripsit victorias suas.” 
 
 But even the Vatican Cross yields in interest 
 to two German relics of the same character, 
 lately described and well illustrated in No. 45 of 
 the Jdhrhucher des Vereins von Alterthums- 
 freunden im Rheinlande, p. 195, Bonn, 1868. The 
 first of these is the Station-Cross of Mainz. It 
 is of gilded bronze, of the Western form (Com- 
 missa), and rather more than one foot in height. 
 Herr Heinrich Otte refers it to the end of the 12th 
 century, a date far beyond our period. But its 
 interest is paramount, more particularly from 
 the evident intention of the designer to make it 
 embody a whole system of typical instruction, 
 and to leave it behind him as a kind of sculp¬ 
 tured document, or commentary, connecting the 
 Old and New Testaments. Thus, at the middle 
 or intersection of the arms of the cross, the 
 Lamb is represented in a medallion, his head 
 surrounded with a plain nimbus. On the back 
 of the cross in the same place there is a square 
 plate, with an engraved representation of Abra¬ 
 ham offering up Isaac, the angel, and the ram. 
 Round the latter is the beginning of a hexameter 
 line—fCui patriarcha suum—which is com¬ 
 pleted round the medallion of the Lamb iu front, 
 thus : t Pater offert in cruce natum. In like 
 manner, four engravings on each side at the 
 extremities of the cross refer to each other, 
 and are described by corresponding halves of 
 hexameters. The New Testament subjects are 
 all in front, with the Lamb in the centre, as 
 antitypes: the Old Testament or typical events 
 or persons are at the back. Thus on the spec¬ 
 tator’s left at the back of the cross is an engrav¬ 
 ing of Moses receiving the Tables of the Law on 
 Mount Sinai, with the words Qui Mogsi legem. 
 Corresponding to it on the right front is the 
 Descent of the Holy Spirit, with dat alumnis 
 Pneumatis ignem. The remainder as under— 
 
 Head. 
 
 Back.Elijah carried up to heaven. 
 
 Front.The Ascension. 
 
 Ba k (right hand of spectator) . Samson and gates of Gaza. 
 Front (left ditto).The descent into Hades. 
 
 Foot. 
 
 Back ..Jonah and the whale. 
 
 Front . ..Resurrection. 
 
 Motto. 
 
 f Qui levat Eliam 
 
 f propriam sublimat usiam {pvaCav). 
 •j- Que portas Gaze 
 f vis aufert claustra Jehenne. 
 
 f Qua redit absumptus 
 + Burgit vlrtute sepultus. 
 
 The decorative scrollwork is rather sparingly 
 disposed with great judgment, and on the s])ike, 
 ferule, or metal strap probably intended for 
 fixing the cross on a staff’ for processional or 
 other purposes [see Cross, DraconakmjsJ is an 
 engraving of the probable designer and donor. 
 
 THEODERIC ABBAS. The graphic power and 
 exceeding quaintness of the Scrij)tural engra¬ 
 vings is that of the finest miniatures of the 12th 
 or 13th century. 
 
 The second of these most interesting works, 
 inferior as a work of art from its barbaric wild- 
 
518 
 
 CRUCIFIX 
 
 CRYPTA 
 
 ness and the preference for ugliness so often 
 observed in Northern-Gothic grotesque, is of 
 even greater interest as a transitional cross, 
 esj'ecially when viewed in relation to the changes 
 eiit'orced by the decree of the Council in Trullo, 
 A.b. b'Jl. Tliis is the Station-Cross of Planig, 
 near Kreuznach ; of the same size and form 
 as that of Mainz, but referred by Otte to the 
 lOth century. The ancient symbol of the Lamb 
 is preserved on the back of this crucifix, which 
 displays the human form in front, as in many 
 other Romanesejue crosses of bronzed copper. 
 On this combination — perhaps a compromise 
 between the feeling of the older times and the 
 more modern spirit of the Quinisextine Council 
 —Otte quotes DurauJus, Rationale, lib. i. c. 3, 
 n. 6 : “ Non enim agnus Dei in cruce prin- 
 ci],>a!iter depingi debet; sed homine depicto, non 
 oldest agnum in j)arte inferiori vel posteriori 
 depingere.” He also gives the express words of 
 Adj’ian I., in his letter to Tarasius, Patriai-ch of 
 Constantinople, in 785 : “ Verum igitur agnum 
 Dominum nostrum J. C. secundum imaginem 
 humanam a modo etiam in imaginibus pro 
 veteri agno depingi jubemus.” (Z>e Consecr. 
 Dist. iii. c, 29; see Labbe, vi. 1177.) He refers 
 also to the splendid work on Rhenish antiqui¬ 
 ties called Kunstdenkmaler des christUchen Miitel- 
 alters, by Ernst aus’m Werth, Leipzig fWeigel), 
 1857, taf. xxiv.-vi., for the Essen ana other 
 roods, which much resemble those of Kreuznach 
 and Mainz, combining the Lamb with the human 
 form, and adding personifications of the sun and 
 moon which remind us of the Diptych of Ram- 
 boua, and the symbols of the four Evangelists, as 
 in the Crucifix of Velletri. Space forbids us to 
 give accounts of these most interesting relics, 
 but the subject appears to be treated with 
 exhaustive fulness and illustrated to perfection 
 in the two German works referred to. The 
 Planig-on-Nahe rood, however, is entitled to a 
 briefly-detailed description. In front is the 
 crucified form, severely archaic in treatment; 
 the long hair is carefully parted and carried 
 back ; the head is without nimbus; and the 
 limbs are long, stiff, and wasted, the ribs being 
 displayed, as is so commonly done in mediaeval 
 crucifixes, to complete the illustration of the 
 text, “ They pierced my hands and iny feet: 
 I may tell all my bones.” A triple serpentine 
 stream of blood runs from each hand, and also 
 from the feet, being there received in a cup 
 or chalice, the foot of which is a grotesque 
 lion’s head. The back of the cross bears on its 
 centre the Lamb with cruciform nimbus; below 
 it a medallion of the donor, “ Ruthardus Gus¬ 
 tos and four other bas-reliefs, now wanting, 
 occupied the four extremities of the arms, and 
 almost certainly represented the four Evange¬ 
 lists. As in the Diptych of Rambona, the navel 
 resembles an eye. Scarcely inferior to these is 
 the 10th century miniature of a single crucifix 
 with the title IHS NAZAREN REX lU- 
 DEORUM, and the sun and moon above the 
 cross-beam, within circles, and represented with 
 expressions of horror,—seated in chariots, one 
 drawn by horses, the other by oxen. And it is 
 impossible to omit the Crucifixion picture from 
 the Gospel of Bishop Egbert of Trier, 975-993 
 (in Mooyer’s Onomasticon C/ironographicon, Ilie- 
 rarcMa Gennanica, 8vo. Minden, 54), now in the 
 Stadtbibliothek there. Here the Lord is clad in 
 
 a long robe to the ankles; the robbers are also 
 clad in tunics so close to the form as to give the 
 appeai'ance of shirts and trowsers. Above are 
 tlie sun and moon, hiding their faces. The 
 cross has a second cross-piece at top, forming a 
 tau above the Western cross. The robbers are 
 on tau-crosses; suspended, but with unpierced 
 hands; the passage in the 22nd Psalm being 
 referred to the Redeemer alone. Their names, 
 Desmas the j>enitent, and Cesmas the obdurate, 
 are above their heads. The Virgin-Mother and 
 anotlier woman stand on the right of the cross, 
 St. John on the left. The soldier “Stephaton” 
 is presenting the sponge of vinegar :® two others 
 are casting lots below. This detail reminds us 
 of the great Florentine miniature of the monk 
 Rabula, excepting that the game of Mora is 
 thei'e substituted for dice. 
 
 These works are somewhat beyond our period ; 
 yet as a paper on Crucifixes must contain .some 
 account of the things whose name it bears, and 
 the first eight centuries supply us with so few 
 examples of what are popularly called cruci¬ 
 fixes, a short inroad into early mediaevalism 
 may be allowed. The Iconodulist transition 
 formally made at the Council in Trullo was well 
 suited to the Northern mind, and to the sacra¬ 
 mental theory of pain; but it fell in also with 
 that tendency to personification advancing on 
 symbolism, which the Western races inherit, 
 perhaps, from ancient Greece, and which Mr. 
 Ruskin, in his late Oxford Lectures, points out 
 as the idolatrous tendency of Greek art. With 
 Cimabue and Giotto, and from their days, artis¬ 
 tic skill and power over beauty are brought to 
 bear on the crucifix, as on other Christian re¬ 
 presentations, for good and for evil. Of the 
 cautious and gradual compromise of the Greek 
 Church we have already spoken. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 CRUET. [Ama: Ampulla.] 
 
 CRYPTA. In the well-known passage of 
 St. Jerome in which he describes the Sunday 
 visits he and bis schoolfellows at Rome paid to 
 the graves of the apostles and martyrs, he uses 
 the term cryptae to designate v/hat we now call 
 the catacombs. “ Dum essem Romae puer . . . 
 solebam .... diebus Dominicis sepulchra apo- 
 stolorum et martyrum circumire, crebroque 
 cryptas ingredi quae in terra profunda defossae 
 ex utraque parte ingredientium per parietes 
 habent corpora sepultorum.” Hieron. in Ezech. 
 c. xl. We find the word again used meta¬ 
 phorically in Jerome’s preface to Daniel, “Cum 
 et quasi per cryptam ambulans rarum desuper 
 lumen aspicerem.” The word is employed in 
 the same specific sense by Prudentius, Peristeph. 
 Hymn. ii.:— 
 
 " Hand procul extreme culta ad pomeria valla 
 Mersa latebrosls crypta latet foveis. 
 
 Hnjus in occultum gradibus via prona reflexis 
 Ire per anfractus luce latente docet.” 
 
 Tlie classical use of crypta for an underground 
 passage or chamber, whether the drain of a cloaca, 
 or a subterranean arcade, or a storehouse for fruit 
 or corn, or a tunnel, such as that of Pausilipo 
 at Naples, shews the appropriateness of the term. 
 (See for examples Facciolati, Lexicon.) Crypta 
 
 e “ Longinus” is always the lance-bearer. See Medici 
 (Laurentian) Crucifix, supra. 
 
CTESIPHON ON THE TIGEIS 
 
 CUBICULUM 
 
 519 
 
 seems to have been sometimes used in Christian 
 times as synonymous with coeineterium. Thus 
 we have in the church of St. Prassede an in¬ 
 scription commemorating the translation thither 
 from the catacombs of the relics of more than 
 two thousand saints, in which occur the words 
 “in coemeteriis seu cryptis.” We may, how¬ 
 ever, mark this distinction between the two 
 words that coemeterium is a word of wider signi¬ 
 fication, including open-air burial-grounds, while 
 crypta is strictly limited to those excaA^ated be¬ 
 neath the surface of the ground. Padre Marchi, 
 after an elaboi'ate investigation of the inscrip¬ 
 tions in which the word crypta occurs, endea¬ 
 vours to demonstrate that it was employed to 
 indicate a limited portion of a subterranean 
 cemetery, including seA'eral burial chapels or 
 cubicula, so that the relation of the cuhiculum to 
 the crypta^ and again of the crypta to the coeme¬ 
 terium, was that of a part to the whole. {MonU- 
 menti primitiv. pp. 156 sq., 168 sq.) His chief 
 authority for this conclusion is a passage of 
 Anastasius, Vita S. Marcellini, § 30, which 
 appears to draw this distinction between the 
 cuhiculum in which the body of Pope Marcellinus 
 was buried, and the crypta of which it formed 
 part. There are also inscriptions v/hich support 
 Marchi’s view that a crypta was a smaller divi¬ 
 sion of a coemeterium. One from that of Pris¬ 
 cilla records that Gregory lies “ in the eleventh 
 crypt,” “ in uudecima crypta Gregorius.” Others 
 speak of “ new crypts ” constructed in a ceme¬ 
 tery ; eg. an inscription now in the Vatican 
 “in cimiteriuni Balbinae in cripta noba one 
 from St. Cyriaca given by Boldetti, “ in crypta 
 noba retro sanctus.” But Mich. Stef, de Rossi 
 has shown satisfactorily, Rom. Soft. i. 23 sq. 
 that Marchi presses the supposed distinction too 
 far, and that it is very far from holding good 
 generally. The truth is that crypta Avas a 
 word of general meaning, and embraced eA^ery 
 kind of subterranean excavation, whether smaller 
 or more extensiA^e. 
 
 We sometimes meet with the expressions 
 cryptae arenarum, or cryptae arenariae, in con¬ 
 nection with tho interment of Christian martyrs. 
 Bosio, Rom. Soft. pp. 192, 186, 481, 300, &c. 
 These Avould seem to indicate the galleries of a 
 deserted pozzolana pit, as places of sepulture. But 
 it has been shewn in the article Catacombs that, 
 though the subterranean cemeteries very fre¬ 
 quently had a close connection Avith these quar¬ 
 ries, and were approached through their adits, 
 the sand-pits themselves were seldom or neA^er 
 used for interment, for which indeed they were 
 unfit without very extensiA'e alteration and adap¬ 
 tation. The passages referred to, which are 
 chiefly found in the not very trustworthy “ Acts 
 of the Martyrs,” have probably originated in a 
 confusion between the catacombs themseh'es and 
 the quarries Avith Avhich they Avere often so 
 closely connected. [E. V.] 
 
 CTESIPHON ON THE TIGRIS (Council 
 of), a.d. 420, under Taballaha, abp. of Seleucia, 
 on the opposite bank of the I’iA'er, where the 
 Nicene faith was received, and Avith it the canons 
 to Avhich the consent of the rest of the church 
 westwards had been given (Mansi iv. 441-2). 
 
 [E. S. F.] 
 
 CUBICULUM. In addition to the use of this 
 word to designate the family grave chambers in 
 
 the subterranean cemeteries at Rome (for which 
 see Catacombs, p. 310), avo find it employed to 
 denote Avhat Ave should now call the side chapels 
 of the uav^e of a church. The first instance of its 
 use in this sense is in the Avritings of Paulinus 
 ofNola. Writing to his friend Severus, A)?, xxxii. 
 § 12, he describes the church recently erected at 
 Nola, and particularizes these side chapels, which 
 were evidently novel features in church arrange¬ 
 ment. There were four on each side of the nave, 
 beyond the side aisles (portions), with two verses 
 inscribed over the entrance. Their object was to 
 furnish places of retirement for those Avho desired 
 to pray or meditate on the word of God, and for 
 the sepulchral memorials of the departed. The 
 passage is : “ Cubicula intra portions quaterna 
 longis basilicae lateribus inserta, secretis oran- 
 tium, A'^el in lege Domini meditantium, praeterea 
 memoriis religiosorum ac familiarium accommo- 
 datos ad pacis aeternae requiem locos praebent, 
 omne cubiculum binis per liminum frontes ver- 
 sibus praenotatur.” They diflered from the side 
 chapels of later ages in containing no altars, as 
 originally there Avas but one altar in a church. 
 (Remondini, tom. i. p. 412.) Paulinus also speaks 
 of these chapels under the name of cellae or 
 cellulae, e.g. when speaking of a thief who had 
 concealed himself in one of them all night, 
 he says : 
 
 “ Cellula de multis, quae per latera undique magnis, 
 Appositae tectis praebent secura sepulchris 
 Hospitia.”— Foema, xix. v. 478 sq. 
 
 Cubicula is also of frequent occurrence in the 
 Liber Pontijicalis of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 
 as. synonymous with oratoria. In the description 
 of various oratoria erected by Symmachus a.d. 
 498-514, we find, § 79, “ quae cubicula omnia a 
 fundamento perfecta construxit.” Of Sergius, 
 A.D. 687-701, we read, § 163, that he repaired 
 the decayed chapels around St. Peter’s. “ Hie 
 tectum et cubicula quae circumquaque ejusdem 
 basilicae quae per longa temporum stillicidiis et 
 ruderibus fuerant disrupta studiosius inuovavit 
 et reparavit.” And it is recorded of Leo III. 
 A.D. 795, that he also rebuilt the ruinous ctibi- 
 cula attached to the same basilica (§ 412). 
 Perhaps the earliest existing example in Rome 
 of such a chapel attached to the body of a church 
 is that of St. Zeno in the church of St. Prassede, 
 built by Pope Paschal I. about a.d. 817. In an 
 early description of the basilica of San Lorenzo 
 fuori le Mura, giA'en by De Rossi, Bullett. di Arch. 
 Crist. Giugno, 1864, p. 42, from a MS. in the 
 Vienna Library, Ave find the word used in a 
 similar sense: “ Est parvum cubiculum in por¬ 
 tion ad occidentem ubi pausat Herennius martyr.” 
 Paulinus also describes cubicula or cellae of this 
 nature in the porticos of the atrium of the 
 church of St. Felix. They were intended for 
 private prayer. The altar of the basilica could 
 be seen from them by means of windows. They 
 were ornamented Avith scriptural paintings : 
 
 " Mctanda bonis habitacula digne 
 Quos hue ad sancti justurn Felicis honorem, 
 
 Duxerat orandi studium non •nra bibendi.” 
 
 Foem. xxvi. v. 395 sq. 
 
 The last Avords quoted have reference to the 
 custom, the abuse of which, degenerating into 
 gross license, is severely inveighed against by 
 Paulinus, of holding feasts in the cubicula. Cf. 
 Paulin. Poema xxvi. De Felicis Natal, ii. v. 541. 
 
620 
 
 CUCUFAS 
 
 CUESUALES EQUI 
 
 The word oIk[<tkos was used in Greek in the 
 same sense. We have an example in a letter of 
 Nilus to Olympiodorus the prefect, relating to 
 the church he had built, iu de ry koiu^ diK(f) 
 TcoKKois kclL Siacpopois oIkIctkois 
 apxetcrdai, eKaarou Treir^ypLivcp (rraupcp. 
 
 From the use of cubiculum as a chapel, cubi- 
 cularii came to be employed in the sense of 
 chaplains. “ Hie [Leo I.] constituit et addidit 
 supra sepulchra apostolorum ex clero Romano 
 custodes qui dicuntur cubicularii quos modo 
 dicimus capellanos. Cubiculum enim idem erat 
 apud antiques quod hodie apud nos capella.” 
 Ciacconius, Vit. et Gest. Pont. Roman, i. p. 307. 
 
 [E. V.l 
 
 CUCUFAS, martyr at Barcelona, July 25 
 (^Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CUCULLA, cucuUus, cucullio, is one of the 
 few articles of the monastic dress specified by 
 the founder of the Benedictines (^Reg. c. 55) ; 
 and has commonly been considered the badge of 
 monks, e.g. in the old proverb, “ cuculla non tacit 
 monachum.” Benedict ordered the “ cuculla,” 
 or hood, to be shaggy for winter, and for summer 
 of lighter texture (cf. Cone. Reg. c. 62); and a 
 “scapulare” to be worn instead out of doors, as 
 more suitable for field-work, being open at the 
 sides. The “ cuculla ” protected the head and 
 shoulders, and, as being worn by infants and 
 peasants, was said to symbolise humility; or, 
 by another account, it was to keep the eyes from 
 glancing right or left (Cass. Inst. i. 5; Sozom. 
 Hist. Egg. iii. 13, 14). It was part of the dress 
 of nuns, as well as of monks (Ballad. Hist. Laus. 
 41), and was worn by the monks of Tabenna at 
 the mass (Pall. H. L. 38). If, as the words 
 seem to say, it was their only clothing on that 
 occasion, it must of course have been longer than 
 a hood or cape. Indeed, “ cuculla ” is often 
 taken as equivalent to “ casula ” (from “ casa ”), 
 a covering of the whole person ; in later writers 
 it means, not the hood' only (“ cucullus ”), but 
 the monastic robe, hood and all (“ vestis cucul- 
 lata,” Reg. Comm. S. Bened. c. 55, cf. Mab. Ann. 
 V. 17). These same monks of Tabenna or Pacho- 
 miani, like the Carthusians, drew their hoods 
 forwards at meal times, so as to hide their faces 
 from one another (Pall. 48; Ruff. Vit. Mon. 3). 
 The “ cappa ” (probably akin to our “ cape ”), in 
 Italy seems to correspond with the Gallic 
 “ cuculla,” and both were nearly identical, it is 
 thought, with the “ melotes ” or sheepskin of 
 the earliest ascetics (Cass. Instit. i. 8; Pall. 
 Hist. Laus. 28); and so with the “ pera ” (or 
 “ penula,” according to Al. Gazaeus, ad loo. 
 citat.), the “ pellis caprina dependens ab humeris 
 ad lumbos ” (Isidor. Orig. xix. 21, ap. Reg. Comm. 
 S. Bened.). Of course it is difficult to identify 
 precisely the technical names for dress in various 
 countries, and in a remote period. [I. G. S.] 
 
 CUCUMELLUM. A vessel mentioned among 
 those which Paul, bishop of Cirta, delivered up 
 to Felix (Baronius, Annales, an. 303, c. 12). 
 This cucumellum was of silver, and was probably 
 a cruet or flagon for use on the altar. Compare 
 A.ma. (Ducange’s Glossary, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 CULDEES. [CoLiDEi.] 
 
 CUNIBERT, bishop, deposition at Cologne 
 (about A.D. 663), Nov. 12 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 CUP. [Chalice ; Communion : Glass, 
 Christian.] 
 
 CUPELLA, a small loculus or sepulchral 
 recess. At present we have only one instance of 
 its use to adduce, which is given by Warchi 
 {Monumenti I'rhnit. p. 114). The inscription in 
 which it is found records the burial of her two 
 children, Secundina and Laurentius, by their 
 mother Secunda. The solecisms in grammar 
 and orthography with which it is full show that 
 Secunda was a person of humble rank. The 
 stone is pre.served in the Museum Kircherianum. 
 The inscription is as follows :—“ Ego Secunda 
 fcci cupella bone | mimorie filiem meem Secun | 
 dinem que recessit in fidem | cum fratrera suum 
 Lauren | tium in pace recesserund.” Cupella is 
 evidently the diminutive of cupa, explained by 
 Du Cange to mean urna, area sepulchralis. This 
 sense is a derivative one from its classical mean¬ 
 ing of a large cask, butt, or vat (Caes. Bell. Civ. 
 c. 11; Lucan, lib. iv. v. 420; Varro apud Non. 
 c. ii. No. 113). It appears in pagan inscription.s 
 but rarely : e.g., “ D. Apuleius lonicus fecit Eu- 
 tychiae sorori suae et Eutycheti filio ejus. In 
 hac cupa mater et filius positi sunt ” (Gruter, 
 Inscr. p. 845, No. Id); “ D. M. Olus Publicius 
 Polytijmus Tutor Titi Flavi A|gathangeli 
 pupilli sui Matri | Sexetae Fortunatae defu| 
 nctae locum emit, massam | calcavit cupam aedi- 
 ficavit de bon [is ejus omnibus consumat.” (Doni 
 class. 11, No. 6). The use of the word survived 
 till later times, and Du Cange quotes from a 
 monkish writer “ in alia Cuba juxta orientem 
 sepulchrum SS. Victoris, &c.” The idea has 
 been propounded by the Rev. J. W. Burgon 
 {Letters from Rome, p. 206), that we may find 
 in cupella, as a place of Christian burial, the 
 etymology of the word capella, chapel, which has 
 so long perplexed philologists, and of which no 
 satisfactory derivation has ever yet been dis¬ 
 covered. The architectural term cupola is another 
 form of the same root. [E. V.] 
 
 CURCODEMUS, deacon, martyr at Auxerre, 
 May 4 {Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CURIA ROMANA. [Appeal: Council.] 
 CURSE. [Anathema : Excommunication.] 
 
 CURSUALES EQUI, post-horses, i.e. horses 
 belonging to the cui'sus publicus, called also for 
 shortness cursus, Gr. dpopos. The Roman posting 
 or postal system—the distinction between the 
 two belongs to a late stage of civilization—was 
 established by Augustus. According to the 
 “ Secret History ” of Procopius (c. 30), the 
 day’s journey consisted of eight posts, some¬ 
 times fewer, but never less than fi^’e. Each 
 stable had 40 horses, and as many stablemen or 
 stabularii (who seem elsewhere to be called hip- 
 pocomi. Code, bk. xii. T. li. 1. 13). Bingham 
 gives a quite incorrect idea of the system in 
 describing the cursuales equi as being simply im¬ 
 pressed for the army and exchequer. A constitu¬ 
 tion of the Emperor Constantine, A.D. 326, ex- 
 jiressly enacts that no one but the Prefect has 
 the right to go by any other road than that 
 which has a “ cursus,” shewing that no mere 
 occasional impressment is meant (sed nec per 
 aliam viam eundi quisquam habeat facultatem, 
 nisi per quam cursus publicus stare dignoscitiir; 
 Code. bk. xii. T. li. 1. 2). But Bingham, with 
 his almost habitual inaccuracy, seems to have cou- 
 
CURTAIN 
 
 521 
 
 CURSUALES EQUI 
 
 fo'.inded the cursus publicus with the evectio or 
 rij^ht of gratuitously using it, which was connned 
 to officials, to envoys, and under certain circum¬ 
 stances to senators (Code, m.s., 1. 6, and see also 
 11. 11, 16), and which did in such case resemble 
 a right of impressment, though the true equiva¬ 
 lent for impressment seems to be found in the 
 angariae or parangariae. The cost of providing 
 both the horses and fodder for them was sujjplied 
 by the State, i.e. as it appears, by the provinces 
 (the duty being deemed one which belonged to 
 the land and not to the person. Code, bk. x. 1. 4, 
 law of Valerian and Gallienus), but it would 
 seem that they were not bound to maintain post- 
 candages (paravereda) or horses for tliem, since a 
 law of Arcadius and Honorius, a.d. 403, enjoins 
 the rectors of the provinces to see that the curials 
 or provincials were not compelled to provide 
 animals which they did not owe to the post 
 (ib. 1. 19). Through the roguery of the officers 
 employed the cost of fodder was, it seems, often 
 exaggerated, whilst the animals were starved. 
 (Code, u.s. 1.18 ; constitution of Arcadius and Ho¬ 
 norius, A.D. 400, and see also 11. 2, 7,19.) By way 
 of compensation, the stable manure was left to the 
 provinces (1. 7, of Valentinian, Valens, and Gra- 
 tian). The sale of the public horses was forbidden 
 (1.10); those who used more horses than they were 
 entitled to had to pay, according to circumstances, 
 four times the price of the horses, or a pound of 
 gold for each (11. 15, 20). A curious constitution 
 of the Emperor Constantine, a.d. 316, which is to 
 be found at length in the Theodosian Code, bk. 
 viii. T. V. 1. 66, but of which only a brief extract 
 remains in that of Justinian (bk. xii. T. li. 1. 1)— 
 anticipating the labour's of “ the Society for the 
 Prevention of Cruelty towards Animals ”—enacts 
 that “Forasmuch as many with knotted and 
 very thick sticks (nodosis et validissimis fustibus) 
 at the very outset of a stage compel the public 
 animals to exhaust whatever strength they have, 
 placet that none in driving should use a stick but 
 either a rod or a whip, with a short goad (aculeus) 
 infixed to the point, which may admonish their 
 idle limbs with a harmless tickle (innocuo 
 titillo), without exacting what their strength 
 cannot compass ”—the punishment varying from 
 loss of rank to exile according to the original 
 Constitution ; but the extract in Justinian’s Code 
 simply threatens punishment generally (poena 
 non defutura). 
 
 It seems to be considered that the clergy were 
 exempt from the obligation to pay tax for the 
 horses of the cursus, under their general exemp¬ 
 tion from sordida munera, extraordinary charges, 
 the “ parangarian prestation,” or the translatio, 
 or obligation to carry goods (see Code, bk. iv. 
 T. iii. 1. 2, of Constantine, a.d. 357 ; T. ii. 1. 5, of 
 Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, a.d. 412; 
 Nov. 131, c. 5). It seems, however, ditlicult to 
 identify the ordinary contribution for the cursus 
 p-u'nicits with one of these. The opinion has pro¬ 
 bably arisen from confounding it with the lia¬ 
 bility to the “ parangaria praestatio,” which, as 
 above intimated, seems rather to relate to oc¬ 
 casional impressment. Certain it is that as one 
 of the duties belonging to the land, which were 
 to be borne by all (munera, quae patrimouiis 
 publicae utilitatis gratia iudicuntur, ab omnibus 
 subeunda sunt. Code, bk. x. t. xli. 1. 1, of Anto- 
 nine) it does not seem by its nature to have been 
 one from which the clergy would be exemjit, and 
 
 wc have proof from the story of St. Augustine 
 having declined to accejit for the Church an 
 estate charged with the patrimonial munus termed 
 the “ navicularian,” i.e. that relating to the trans¬ 
 port of corn from Africa, lest the Church should 
 have to undertake such a duty, that no ecclesias¬ 
 tical immunity obtained in a precisely similar 
 case (the Digest classes together as patrimonial 
 munera those “ rei vehicularis, item navicularis ;” 
 bk. 1. T. iv. 1. 1). [J. M. L.] 
 
 CURSOR. (1) In the days when it was 
 dangerous for Christians to make known publicly 
 the times and places of their assemblies, the 
 faithful were frequently summoned by a mes¬ 
 senger going from house to house, who was 
 called cursor orpraeco. To this custom Tertullian 
 seems to allude when (^De Fuga in Persecutione, 
 c. 14) he says, speaking of the difficulty of holding 
 assemblies, “ Non potes discurrere j)er singulos ?” 
 An epitaph published by Brower, UiiSACius Cur¬ 
 sor Dominicus (^Annal. IVevirens. i. 53), is gener¬ 
 ally referred to an official of this kind ; but this 
 Ursacius may have been an ordinary letter-carrier 
 of the church. (See Ducange, s. v. Cyrsor.) A.s- 
 semblies seem to have been, at least in some in¬ 
 stances, announced in this way in the 4th century ; 
 for Jerome, writing to Eustochium (Fpist. 22), 
 speaks of a praeco giving notice of the Agape; 
 and Eusebius of Alexandria (quoted by Binterim, 
 Denkwurd. iv. 1, 281) speaks of the unreadiness 
 of many to go to church when the herald called. 
 
 (2) An official to whom was specially com¬ 
 mitted the task of circulating letters of popes 
 or other bishops; see Baronins, Annales, an. 
 58, § 102. “ Romae adhuc duraut Pajme cur- 
 
 sores, qui deferunt ejus ordiues ac pontificias 
 bullas publicant.” (Macri llierolexicon, s. v. 
 Cursor. ) [O'] 
 
 CURSUS. The divine office, or series of 
 prayers, psalms, hymns, and versicles said daily 
 by the clergy in churches. Eor instance, the 
 seventh canon of the council of Chelsea [Calchut.] 
 is, “ Ut omnes ecclesiae publice canonicis horis 
 cursum suum cum reverentia habeant ” (Haddan 
 and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 451). See Hours of 
 Prayer ; Office, the Divine. [C.] 
 
 CURTAIN (cortina, aulaeum, velum, ^riKov, 
 TrapatTiTaaixa, KaraTTiraaixa, afxcp'idvpov). Cur¬ 
 tains were used in ancient churches for the fol¬ 
 lowing purposes. 1. J'o hang over the outer 
 doorway of the church. 2. To close the doorway 
 between the nave of the church and the sanc¬ 
 tuary, or perhaps rather to fill the open panels 
 or Cancelli of the door, during the time of the 
 consecration of the Eucharist. 3. To fill the 
 space between the pillars of the ciborium, or 
 canopy of the altar. 4. Curtains were also used 
 in baptisteries. 
 
 1. The Paschal Chronicle (p. 294) mentions 
 curtains embroidered with gold, for the doors, 
 in enumerating the gifts of Constantine to the 
 church at Constantinople. St. Jerome {Epitaph. 
 Nepot. Epist. ad Ileliod.') praises the priest Ne- 
 potianus for the care with which he provided 
 curtains for the doors of his church : “ Erat sol- 
 licitus.... si vela semper in ostiis.” ' We find 
 again indications of this custom in Epi})hauius; 
 and Paulinus of Nola tells us {Poem, xviii. 30) 
 that those surpassed him in magnificence who 
 offered rich curtains (vela foribus) for the doors, 
 brilliant in the purity of linen, or ornamente*! 
 
522 
 
 CUKTAIN 
 
 CYPiilANUS 
 
 with coloured patterns woven into their sub¬ 
 stance. He is yet more precise in speaking of 
 his own church of St. Felix at Nola (JPoetn. xiv'. ; 
 98), where he says, “ the golden doorways are ■ 
 ornamented with curtains white as snow.” 
 Such curtains were suspended by iron or bronze 
 rings, the remains of which are still to be dis¬ 
 covered in some ancient Roman basilicas, for 
 example in those of St. Clement, St. Mary in 
 Cosmedin, St. Laurence, St. George in V'elabro, 
 &c. The office, of raising these curtains befoi-e 
 the priests and other dignified persons was as¬ 
 signed to the inferior clerks {Coacil. Narbon. 
 can. xiii. a.d. 589); the subdeacon as well as 
 the ostiarius is to raise the door-curtains (vela 
 ad ostia) before the elders (senioribus). They 
 w^ere sometimes adorned with figures of saints or 
 with crosses, or flow'ers, arranged in patterns, and 
 with various purple ornaments. 
 
 2. It is probable that from the time of Con¬ 
 
 stantine curtains were used to enclose the sanc¬ 
 tuary, or to fill the apertures in the rails or 
 grating [Cancelli] which surrounded it. Atha¬ 
 nasius {Epist. ad Solit., opp. i. 847, ed. Paris, 
 1627), speaking of an outrage committed by the 
 Arians, says that they carried out and burned 
 the benches, the throne, the table, and the cur¬ 
 tains (to /3^Aa) of the church, where the context 
 certainly suggests that these were the curtains 
 of the sanctuary. Theodoret (Hist. Eccl.^ tells 
 us that St. Basil invited the Emperor Valens to 
 enter into the enclosure of the sacred curtains 
 where he was himself seated; that is, into the 
 sanctuary of his church, which was enclosed by 
 these curtains. And St. Chrysostom, in a pas¬ 
 sage containing much information as to the 
 manner of celebrating the eucharist in his time, 
 says, “ when the sacrifice is borne forth . . . 
 when thou seest the curtains (to. afx^ldvpa) 
 drawn back, then think that the sky above us 
 opens, and angels descend” (In Ephes. Horn. 3, § 5, 
 p. 23). Here the curtains are clearly those 
 which closed the doorway of the sanctuary, which 
 were drawn back after consecration, when the 
 people communicated. Evagrius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 
 21) says that Chosroes, after his victory over 
 Bahram (a.d. 590) sent to Gregory bishop of 
 Antioch, among other presents, '■*' kfjicplQvpov ovv- 
 viKov K€Ko(TiJ.r]fx4uoi' ” that is, according 
 
 to the most probable interpretation, a curtain 
 of rich Hunnish work for the door of the sanc¬ 
 tuary. See Ducange (s. v. Hunniscu<), who cites 
 the word ILmniscus from a letter of Charles the 
 Great to Offa king of Mei'cia (Haddan and Stubbs, 
 iii. 498), and believes it to be equivalent to the 
 “ Sarmaticum ” of Gregory of Toui’s (De Vit. 
 Pair. c. 8). Cyril of Alexandria (Catena in 
 Joann, on c. ii. v. 24) bids the guardians of the 
 divine mysteries not to admit the uninitiated 
 within the sacred curtains (rSru lepiv Kararre- 
 Taa/xarwu), nor to permit neophytes tu draw 
 near the Holy Table. In this case the curtain 
 or “ veil ” of the sanctuary is clearly intended; 
 the term itself is adopted from the Jewish 
 Temple. Germanus of Constantinople (Hist. 
 Eccl. p. 153, ed. Paris, 1560) says that the cur¬ 
 tain symbolized the stone which was rolled to 
 the door of the sepulchre. 
 
 3. Curtains were also fixed to the ciborium in 
 such a manner as to surround the Altar [Altar, 
 p. 65] upon certain occasions. The tet aveia, or 
 pets of four curtains, which are frequently men¬ 
 
 tioned in the Liber Pontificalis among the gifts 
 of the popes to certain Roman churches were no 
 doubt intended for this use. See, for in.stance. 
 the life of Sergius I. (p. 150 B, ed. Muratori), who 
 is said to have given to surround the altar of 
 a church eight tetravela, four white, four scarlet. 
 Similar presents are attributed by the same au¬ 
 thority to Leo III. Some have thought that the 
 Rugae presented by various popes to Roman 
 churches were curtains, but this does not seem 
 probable. 
 
 4. They were also used in baptisteries, as may 
 be seen in a very ancient mosaic at Ravenna 
 (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. II. plate xxiii.); and see 
 Baptism, p. 161. 
 
 (Ducange’s Glossaries and Descriptio S. So- 
 phiae ; Suicer’s Thesaurus ; Martigny’s Diet, des 
 Antiq. Chr€t.') [C.] 
 
 CUSTODES ECCLESIAE. Either door¬ 
 keepers, otherwise called Ostiarii, one of the in¬ 
 ferior orders in the ancient Church, or, more 
 probably perhaps, the same officers who are 
 sometimes distinguished as Seniores Ecclesiae^ 
 and whose duties corresponded in certain points 
 with tho.se of the modern churchwarden. [Sec 
 Churchwarden.] Bingham, iii. 13, 2. [D. B.] 
 
 CUSTODES LOCOEUM SAXCTORUM. 
 The keepers of the holy places of Palestine, so 
 called because of their I'elation to our Lord’s 
 earthly history: e.g. Bethlehem, Mount Gol¬ 
 gotha, the Holy Sepulchre, Mount Olivet. Such 
 an office was probably occasioned by the custom 
 which arose among (Christians in early times of 
 visiting these places for purposes of piety and 
 devotion ; and that the function of these custodes 
 was accounted a religious service appears from 
 their having been exempted, by a statute of 
 Theodosius, in the same manner as ecclesiastics 
 generally, from personal tribute, in regard to 
 this their special employment (Bingham, iii. 
 13, 2). [D. B.] 
 
 GUSTOS ARCAE. A name given to the 
 archdeacon, as having charge of the treasury of 
 the Church, and the care of dispensing the obla¬ 
 tions of the people. In this capacity Caecilian 
 was accused by the Donatists of having prohi¬ 
 bited the deacons from carrying any provision 
 to the martyrs in prison. And the 4th Council 
 of Carthage (c. 17) directs the bishop not to con¬ 
 cern himself personally in the care and govern¬ 
 ment of widows, orphans, and strangers, but to 
 commit the duty to his archpresbyter or arch¬ 
 deacon (Bingham, ii. c. 21). [D. B.] 
 
 CUTHBERT, presbyter, abbat of Lindis- 
 farne, March 20 (Mart. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi) ; 
 ti’anslation to Durham, Sept. 4 (some MSS. of 
 Mart. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CYCLUS ANXI. [Calendar.] 
 
 CYCLES PASCHALIS. [Easter.] 
 
 CYMBAL. The word cymbalum seems occa¬ 
 sionally to be used for a bell, or some sonoroiu' 
 instrument used instead of a bell. Thus Gregory 
 the Great (Dialo :us i. 9) speaks of a cymbalum 
 being struck by way of passing-bell; and Duran- 
 dus (R dionale, i. 4, § 2) of monks being called 
 to the refecto+’y by the sound of a cymbalum 
 which hung in the cloister. [C.] 
 
 CYPRIANUS. (1) The famous bishop of 
 Carthage, martyr under Valerian, A.D. 258 
 
CYPiiUS 
 
 DALMATIC 
 
 523 
 
 5ept. 14 (^Gal. Cco-th., Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron,, 
 Bodae, Usuardi); Oct. 2 (^Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (2) Bishop, martyi’ with Justina, Sept. 26 
 (^Mai't. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Africa under Hunneric, Oct. 12 
 (^Mart. Rom. Vet., UsuartK). 
 
 (4) Abbat of Perigord, commemorated Dec. 9 
 
 (^Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [C.J 
 
 CYPRUS (Council of), a.d. 401, as Pagi 
 shews (ad Baron, ib. n. 20) under St. Epipha- 
 nius, at the instigation of Theophilus of Alex¬ 
 andria, prohibiting the reading of the works of 
 Origen. [E. S. F.] 
 
 CYRIACA, martyr, a.d. 282, is comme¬ 
 morated July 7 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CYRIACUS. (1) Martyr in Achaia, Jan. 12 
 {Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (2) Deacon, martyr at Rome under Maximin, 
 March 16 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi); 
 again on Aug. 8 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Usuardi), supposed by some t(» be the day of his 
 translation by Pope Marcel)us (see Sollier’s note 
 on Usuard, Aug. 8); July l.b {Cal. Byzant.). 
 Sometimes written Cyricus or Cerycus. 
 
 (3) Martyr at Tomi, June 20 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Bedae). 
 
 (4) The Anchoret (a.d. 448-557), Sept. 29 
 
 {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 CYRICUS. (1) Martyr in the Hellespont, 
 Jan. 3 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Antioch, June 16 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Rom. Vet. Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 •CYRIL. (1) Bishop of Alexandria, is com- 
 memorafed Jan. 28 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi); 
 June 9 {Cal. Byzant.)’, with Athanasius, Jan. 18 
 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (2) Bishop of Jerusalem, March 18 {Cal. By¬ 
 zant., Ethiop.). 
 
 (3) Mai'tyr in Syria, March 20 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Bishop and martyr in Egypt (?), July 9 
 {Mart. Hieron., Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Philadelphia, Aug. 1 {Mart. 
 
 Rom. Vet., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CYRILLA, daughter of Decius, martyr under 
 Claudius, Oct. 28 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CYRINUS, or QUIRINUS. (1) Martyr at 
 Rome under Claudius, is commemorated March 25 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome under Diocletian, April 26 
 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Milan under Nero, June 12 
 
 {Mart. Bedae, Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CYRINUS. [Cyricus.] 
 
 CYRION”, presbyter, martyr, Feb. 14 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Usuardi). [C.] 
 
 CYRUS, martyr, A.D. 292, wonder-worker 
 and unmercenary, is commemorated Jan. 31 
 {Cal. Byzant.) ; translation, .lune 28 {ib.). [C.] 
 
 CYZTCUS (Council of), a.d. 376, according 
 to Mansi (iii. 469), being the meeting of semi- 
 Arians mentioned by St. Basil in his letter to 
 Patropliilus, and spoken of as a I’ecent occurrence 
 {Ep. ccxciv. al. Ixxxi.). “What else they did 
 there, I know not,” says he ; “ but thus much 
 1 hear, that having been reticent of the term 
 Uomomsion, they now give utterance to the term 
 
 Homoionsion, and join Eunomius in publishing 
 blasphemies against the Holy Ghost.” [E. S. F.] 
 
 CY^ZICUS, THE Martyrs of, are commemo¬ 
 rated April 29 [al. 28] {Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 D 
 
 DADAS, martyr with Maximus and Quintili 
 anus ; commemorated April 28 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 DAEMON. [Demon.] 
 
 DAFROSA, wife of Fabian the martyr, 
 martyr at Rome under Julian; commemorated, 
 Jan. 4 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usua»'di). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 DALMATIC. {AaXfiaTiK'fi [AeA.] ; Dalma- 
 tica, sc. tunica or vestis; the substantive, as in 
 the similar case of alba, is seldom expressed.) 
 
 The dalmatic, which derived its name from the 
 province where it was first manufactured, was a 
 species of long-sleeved white tunic, with a longi¬ 
 tudinal stripe {clavus) from either side of the 
 neck downwards. ( “ Dalmatica vestis primum 
 in Dalmatia provincia Graeciae texta est, tunica 
 sacerdotalis Candida cum clavis ex purpura.” 
 Isidore, Etymol. xix. 22.) 
 
 There are fair grounds, however, for believing 
 that in its original form the dalmatic, as worn 
 by men, was a short-sleeved or sleeveless tunic, 
 equivalent to the colobion {xircbv ax^‘pibwT6s, 
 Sozomen, iii. 14).“ This is shown by the way in 
 which the two words are used synonymously, as 
 in Epiphanius {Haer. xv. vol. i. p. 32, ed. Petavius), 
 AaKpaTiKcts, elrovv KuXo^icouas, ck TvXarvaiyxuiv 
 Sia TTopcpvpas aXovpyov(pe7s KaT€(rKeva(rfx4i'as. (So 
 too Joannes Damascenus, in Cotelier, Eccl. Graec. 
 Mon. Ined. i. 284.) Again, in a most important 
 early document, to which we shall subsequently 
 refer, the edict of Diocletian fixing the maximum 
 price of articles throughout the Roman empire, 
 the tw'O words are used as equivalents (Wad- 
 dington, L’e'dit de Biocletien, p. 38). Nor need 
 any difficulty be felt from the occurrence of 
 passages which speak of the substitution of the 
 dalmatic for the colobion. If the above theory 
 be correct, such passages will merely refer to 
 the adding of long sleeves to the previously 
 sleeveless tunic; and the change having been 
 once made, it would be natural to employ the 
 word colobion to denote that form of the gar¬ 
 ment iaiplied by the name, and to retain the 
 neutral word dalmatic to indicate the modified 
 form; and indeed a passage from the Life of 
 Silvester I. to which it will be necessary to 
 allude subsequently, seems to support the above 
 view, .... aXX* rh ruu Sp^x^ovuv yvp- 
 
 vhv ii(/4y6TO, AaXpariKa pavlKXeia paXXov 
 <tvv4^t\ ovopaadyvai (lirep (leg. ilirep) KoX6$ta 
 ( Vit. Silvestri, p. 266, ed. Combefis). It is of course 
 also Just possible that this term may have been 
 susceptible of slightly dilferent meanings in dif¬ 
 ferent countries. 
 
 We first meet with the dalmatic as a secular 
 dress, of a stately or luxurious character, worn 
 
 * Such was also the Levito [a\. Lebitori] or lento- 
 varium (words having no connection with Levite) of Uie 
 Egyptian monks. (See Binterim, Iv. 1. 214.) 
 
524 
 
 DALMATIC 
 
 DALMATIC 
 
 by persons in high position. Thus there would 
 necessarily be something exceptional in the use 
 of it, and then like other articles of Roman 
 secular dress it became adopted by the Church 
 as a dress for ecclesiastics. We shall cite first 
 sundry allusions to the dalmatic in the Historiae 
 Aujustae Scriptores. Lampridius charges Corn- 
 modus [ob. 192 A.D.] with unseemly behaviour *’ 
 in that he appeared in the streets in a dalmatic 
 {Vita Comm. c. 8; see also Capitolinus, Vita 
 Pert in. c. 8). Heliogabalus [ob. 222 A.o.] also 
 was fond of appearing abroad thus clad (Lam 
 pridius, Vita Jleliogab. c. 26). See also Trebellius 
 I’ollio, Vita Claudii, c. 17. 
 
 The edict of Diocletian already cited furnishes 
 us with much interesting information as to the 
 different A^arieties of this garment in use in the 
 Roman empire at the end of the 3rd century a.d. 
 It was made of various materials, wool, silk, 
 linen {\dcrios, bXocrripiKds, bOSi/t])] sometimes 
 the ornamental clavus was present (A. 
 vopcpvpas), sometimes absent {aarj/xos). Dalma¬ 
 tics both for men’s and women’s use are men¬ 
 tioned ; those for the former, as we have already 
 stated, bearing the title AaKpariKayv avSpeiwu 
 jjroL koXoI3lcov. Three different qualities ai’e given 
 for each sex, the price varying both according to 
 the quality and the place of manufacture, of 
 which Scythopolis, Tarsus, Byblos, Laodicea, &c. 
 are mentioned. 
 
 It may be not uninteresting to add that the 
 price of these various sorts varied from 10,000 
 to 1500 denarii; the denarius, it should be re¬ 
 membered, being of the debased currency of the 
 earlier part of Diocletian’s reign, and in value 
 about l^d. {op. cit. pp. 30, 37, &c.). 
 
 Three centuries later we find the dalmatic 
 worn as part of a senator’s dress in the case of 
 Gordian us the father of Gregory the Great, who 
 was of that order (Joannis Diaconi Vita S. Gre- 
 gorii, iv. 83) ; and the father and the son are 
 both spoken of as wearing the planeta and dal¬ 
 matic (cf. c. 81, Patrol. Ixxv. 229). 
 
 In later times the dalmatic has been a dress 
 worn by sovereigns at their coronation and on 
 other great occasions. [See Coronation.] 
 
 The ideas, then, of dignity and stateliness were 
 associated with the dalmatic as a secular dress. 
 The earliest notice of its ecclesiastical use is, if 
 the document be genuine, in the Acta Martgrii 
 of St. Cyprian, of whom it is said (c. 5) that 
 when led out to martyrdom “ se lacerna byrro 
 expoliavit. . . ., et cum se dalmatica exspoliasset 
 et diacouibus tradidisset in linea stetit.” Here 
 then, where the dress is evidently that ordinarily 
 used by the bishop (if indeed a distinction be¬ 
 tween the everyday dress of the Christian minis¬ 
 try and that used by them in divine service had 
 yet arisen), we find first the under linen garment 
 {linea), over this the dalmatic, and finally the 
 Birrus or cloak. 
 
 *> It is not quite clear in what the impropriety con¬ 
 sisted. If we are right in supposing that the dalmatic of 
 this time had short sleeves, there would be an obvious 
 unseemliness in a person of rank being seen abroad with¬ 
 out an upper garment. Others who hold that even then 
 the dalmatic was a long-sleeved dress, refer the cause of 
 the censure to the implied effeminacy of the wearer (cf. 
 Aulus Gellius, vii. 12, “Tunicis uti virum prolixis ultra 
 brachia, et usque in primores manus, ac prope in digitos 
 Romae utque omni in I^atio indecorum fuit ”); and others 
 to the foreign nature of the garb. 
 
 About fifty years later we come to somethir.g 
 more definite in the already cited order of Pope 
 Silvester I. [ob. 335 a.d.] that deacons should 
 fur the future wear dalmatics instead of colubia. 
 It is a matter of small moment whether this 
 means the substitution of one ve.stiuent for 
 another, or, as we have tried to show, a modi¬ 
 fication in the shape of the existing vestment: 
 in either ca.se the result i.s the same, the intro¬ 
 duction of a long-sleeved in jjlace of a short- 
 sleeved tunic.*-' Walafrid Strabo [ob. 849 A.D,] 
 tells us that “ Silvester appointed that deacons 
 should use dalmatics in the church, and that 
 their left hand should be covered with a cloth of 
 linen warj) {palli'nn linostimum). Now at first, 
 priests {sacrrdotes, that is doubtlessly bishops 
 and priests both) wore dalmatics before chasubles 
 were introduced, but afterwards when thev began 
 to use chasubles, they permitted dalmatics to 
 deacons. That even pontiff's, however, ought 
 to use them is obvious from the fact that Gre¬ 
 gory or other heads of the Roman see allowed 
 the use of them to some bishops and forbad it to 
 others. Hence it follows that at that time the 
 permission was not given to all to do what now 
 almost all bishops and some priests think they 
 may do; namely, wear a dalmatic under the 
 chasuble.” {De Pebus Ecclesiasticis, c. 24 ; cf. Ra- 
 banus Maurus, De Clericorum Institntione, i. 7, 
 20; Amalarius, De Eccl. Off. ii. 21; Pseudo 
 Alcuin, De Div. Off. c. 39 ; Anastasius, Vitae Pon- 
 tificum, Silvester I. p, 35.) 
 
 It will be seen here that the ordinance has 
 special reference to deacons, whether from the 
 higher orders of the ministry already wearing 
 the long-sleeved tunic, or, as Marriott {Vesti- 
 arium Christianum, p. Iviii.) suggests, with the 
 view of compensating for the absence of a super- 
 vestment among deacons. 
 
 Noticeable in the next place is the reference 
 to permission granted or withheld by the bishop 
 of Rome as to the Avearing of the dalmatic by 
 other bishops, so that as late as the middle of 
 the 9th century this dress Avas in some special 
 way as.sociated Avith the local Roman Church, 
 and considered the peculiar privilege of ecclesi¬ 
 astics of that Church, other’s being only allowed 
 to use it by special permission. Of this state of 
 things, doubtless originally due to the use of the 
 ve.stment at Rome by persons of high secular po¬ 
 sition, numei’ous illustrations can be given. Thus 
 in the life of Caesarius, bishop of Arles [ob. 542 
 A.D.], it is mentioned that on his visit to Rome, the 
 then Pope Symmachus granted him as a sjjecial 
 distinction the privilege of Avearing the jiallium 
 [Pallium], and to his deacons that of dalmatics 
 after the Roman fashion ( Vit. Cues. Arel. c. 4, 
 Patrol. Ixvii. 1016). 
 
 Another instance occurs in a letter of Gregory 
 the Great to Aregius, bishop of Va])inoum (the 
 modern Gap), in Avhich he accords to him and 
 his archdeacon the sought-for privilege of wear¬ 
 ing dalmatics {Epist. ix. 107). An allusion to 
 the same thing occurs in a letter ot Pope Zacha- 
 rias [ob. 752 a.d.] to Austrobert, archbishop of 
 Vienne {Petrol. Ixxxix. 956). The genuineness, 
 however, of this letter is doubtful. One or two 
 
 ® Reference may perhaps be made to Ariimianus Mar- 
 cellinus (xiv. 9), who, writing in the Latter part of the 
 4th century, still speaks of the short-sleeved tunic in con¬ 
 nection with deacons, showing that as yet the change had 
 not become wide-spread. 
 
DALMATIC 
 
 DANCING 
 
 525 
 
 instances more, in which the dalmatic is associ¬ 
 ated with the Roman Church, may suffice. Eu- 
 tychianus, bishop of Rome [ob. 283 A.D.], ordered 
 its use when a martyr was buried (Anastasius, 
 Vitae Pontificum, Eutychianus, p. 28). In the Gre¬ 
 gorian Sacramentary (p. 65), in the rubric for 
 Maundy Thursday, we find “ ingressi sacrarium 
 induunt dalmaticas, tarn pontifex quam omnes 
 diaconi,” where pontifex is doubtless the pope. 
 Gregory also refers in his dialogues to the dal¬ 
 matic of Paschasius, a deacon of Rome, as laid 
 on his bier (Dial. iv. 40), and from a decree of 
 the same pontiff, said to have been given at a 
 synod of Rome in 595 A.D., we find the same 
 custom prevailed in the case of popes, which 
 custom is here forbidden (Opp. p. 1336 Migne). 
 
 Indirect evidence pointing to the same result 
 may be gathered from tlie fact of the absence of 
 any mention of the dalmatic in the Acts of the 
 Fourth Council of Toledo [633 A.D.] among the 
 regulations as to the dress of the Christian 
 ministry (Concil. Tol. iv. can. 28, 40, 41 ; Labbe, 
 V. 1714, 1716), showing that this vestment was 
 not one then in use in Spain, as indeed might be 
 further inferred from the style of the one solitary 
 mention of it in the writings of Isidore, under 
 whose presidency the council was held. 
 
 It does not fall within the province of the 
 present article to discuss at length the regu¬ 
 lations of a later date as to the use of the dal¬ 
 matic by bishops and deacons, for the latter of 
 whom it was the distinctive vestment at the 
 Holy Communion (see e. g. the pontifical of Eg¬ 
 bert, archbishop of York [ob. 766 A.D.], where we 
 find “ diaconi dalmaticis vestiti ” in the form for 
 the celebration of a mass on Maundy Thursday; 
 p. 120, ed. Surtees Society). It still continued, 
 however, to be used by them on other occasions. 
 Thus Amalarius {De Eccl. Off. ii. 26) speaks of 
 the “ dalmatica diaconi et sui ministri [i.e. the 
 sub-deacon] quae est itineri habilis,” as emblem¬ 
 atic of the activity to be shown by them in good 
 deeds to others. 
 
 The dalmatic thus being a vestment which 
 even in the West had primarilg only a local 
 acceptance, we are prepared to find that in the 
 East there is nothing which strictly speaking 
 answers to it. The arixapiov or (TToix^piov, how¬ 
 ever, is the representative of the general type 
 of white tunic, which under whatever name we 
 know it, alb, dalmatic, or tunicle, is essentially 
 the same dress (Goar, Euchologion, p. 111). 
 
 mosaic in the Church of St. Vitniis, at ICaveuua. 
 
 One or two further remarks may be made in 
 conclusion as to the ornamental str/pes or clavi 
 [Clavus] of the dalmatic. As to the colour of 
 these it is stated by Marriott tliat he had met 
 with exclusively black clavi in all ancient i)ic- 
 tures of ecclesiastical dalmatics prior to the 
 year 600, as in the well-known Ravenna mosaic 
 (see woodcut), the earliest exception being a 
 mosaic of the date 640 (a coloured drawing of 
 which is in the Windsor collection) in which 
 the Apostles have red clavi on their tunics («6. 
 p. lix. n.). The red or purple clavi afterwards 
 became common (see the passage already cited 
 from Isidore, if iudeed the reference there be to 
 ecclesiastical dalmatics; also Rabanus JMaurus 
 /. c., Amalarius /. c., etc.), and the later writers 
 we have referred to (^e.g. Rabanus Maurus, 
 Amalarius, etc.) speak of these as worn back 
 and front, “ ante et retro desceudentes,” but 
 whether this was the case with the original typo 
 of the dress may perhaps be doubted. Further, 
 these ornamental stripes are found on the borders 
 of the sleeves; and on the left side in later 
 days was a border of fringe, for which various 
 writers have found appropriate symbolical reasons, 
 into which however there is no need to enter 
 here.*^ 
 
 For the matter of the foregoing article I am 
 mainly indebted to Marriott’s Vestiariwn Ckristi- 
 anum, to Hefele’s valuable essay. Die Liturgi- 
 schen Geicdnder in his Beitrdge zur Kirchenge- 
 schichte, Archdologie und Liturgib, ii. 203 sqq., 
 to the articles Dalmatica and Colobium in Du- 
 cange’s Glossary. The following books have also 
 been consulted with advantage : Ferrarius De Re 
 vestiaria, Padua, 1642; Binterim, Denkvmrdig- 
 keiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, vol. iv. 
 pt. i. pp. 213 sqq. [R. S.] 
 
 DALMATIUS. (1) Martyr in Italy under 
 Maximian ; commemorated Dec. 5 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Holy Father, A.D. 368: commemorated 
 Aug. 3 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DAMASUS, the pope; martyr at Rome 
 under Maximinus: Natale, Dec. 11 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi); dej)osition, Dec. 
 10 {Mart. Hieron.'). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DAMIANUS. (1) Martyr in Aegea with 
 Cosmas under Diocletian, A.D. 284: commemo¬ 
 rated Sept. 27 {Mart. Hieron., Bedae); with 
 Cosmas, Anthimus, Leontius, and Eujirepius, 
 Sept. 27 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi); 
 with Cosmas, “ QavjxaTovp'yoil Ka\ drapyupoiff 
 July 1 {Cal. Byzant.)', with Cosmas, and Theo- 
 dote their mother, Nov. 1. {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (2) In Africa, “ Passio sancti Damiaui militis” 
 {Mart. Adonis). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DANCING. Many passages in the fathers 
 and many decrees of councils censure and pro¬ 
 hibit promiscuous and lascivious dancing. St. 
 Ambrose thus describes the dancing of drunken 
 women in his time {De Elia et Jejnniis, c. 18), 
 “They lead up dances in the streets unbecoming 
 men, in the sight of intemperate youtlns, to.ssmg 
 their hair, dragging their unfastened garments, 
 with their arms uncovered, clapping their hands, 
 
 <1 The remark often made of the dalmatic ns r'cmg 
 "in modum cnicis facta” (see e.g. Rabanus Maurus, 1. c.) 
 refers of course to the apjjearauce presented by it when 
 the sleeves are stretched out. 
 
526 
 
 DANII^L 
 
 DEACON 
 
 dancing with their feet, loud and clamourrng in 
 their voices, imitating and provoking youthful 
 lusts by their theatrical motions, their wanton 
 eyes and unseemly antics.” And again, com¬ 
 menting on the words, “ We have piped unto 
 you and ye have not danced ” (Matt. xi. 17), he 
 cautions his readers that they must not suppose 
 that the “ dance ” of Christians implies any 
 immodest movement of the body; rather, it is 
 like the solemn movement of David before the 
 ark (Z)e Poenit. ii. 6). 
 
 St. Augustine declares (contra Parmenianum, 
 iii. c. ult.) that frivolous and lascivious dancing 
 was put down by the bishops of the church; and 
 the author of Sermo 215 Pe Tempore (in Augus¬ 
 tine’s Works') speaks sorrowfully of the revels 
 (balationes) and dances before the very doors of 
 the churches, which were relics of paganism. To 
 the same practice the 60th canon of the Codex 
 Eccl. Afric. refers, which prohibits the lascivious 
 dances which took place in the streets on fes¬ 
 tival days, to the great scandal of religion, and 
 annoyance of those who wished to worship. 
 
 St. Chrysostom also repeatedly and vehemently 
 pi’otests against it. He declares it to be one of 
 the pomps of Satan renounced in baptism ; he 
 says, “ the devil is present at dances, being called 
 thither by the songs of harlots, and obscene words 
 and diabolical pomps used on such occasions.” 
 And in another passage, speaking of the dancing 
 of Herodias’ daughter, he says, “ Christians do not 
 now deliver up half a kingdom nor another man’s 
 head but their own souls to inevitable destruc¬ 
 tion” (Horn. 47 in Julian. Mart. p. 613, Horn. 
 23 de Novilun. p. 264, ed. Paris, 1616). 
 
 The council of Laodicea, a.d. 366, forbids 
 wanton dancing ($a\\i(civ opxPioQai) at mar¬ 
 riage feasts (can. 53). 
 
 The third council of Toledo (a.d. 589) pro¬ 
 hibits dances with lascivious songs on solemn 
 festivals, the use of which they complain of as 
 an irreligious custom prevailing in Spain among 
 the common people, and order to be corrected 
 both by the ecclesiastical and secular judges 
 (can. 23). The Decree of Reccared (Bruns’s 
 C(nones, i. 394) confirming these canons, speaks 
 of these same dances as “ ballematiae ” or “ bal- 
 lemachiae ” “; words which recal the “ jSaAAi- 
 ^eiv ” of the Laodicean canon, and the “ bala¬ 
 tiones ” of the Pseudo-Augustine, and are per¬ 
 haps akin to the modern Ball and Ballet. 
 
 The council of Agde (a.d. 506) forbids the 
 clergy to be present at marriages where obscene 
 love songs were sung, and obscene motions of 
 the body used in dancing (Cone. Agathen. can. 
 39). 
 
 DANIEL. (1) The prophet; commemorated 
 Magabit 23 —March 19 (Cal. Ethiop.)'. July 21, 
 Natalc, (Mart. Bedae): with Ananias, Azarias, 
 and Misael, Dec. 17 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (2) Stylites, Holy Father, a.d. 467 ; comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 11 (Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DARIA, virgin, martyr at Rome under Nu- 
 merian; commemorated with Chrysantus and 
 “qui cum eis passi sunt,” Aug. 12 (AlaH. 
 Hieron.)‘, with Chrysantus and others, No\^ 29 
 (AJ trt. Ilieron.)', with Chrysantus, Dec. 1 (Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardi); with Chrysantus, Mariniauus. 
 “cum infinita multitudine martyrum,” Dec. 1 
 (Alart. Rom. Vet.). ' [W. F. G.] 
 
 “ There are several various readings. 
 
 DARIUS, martyr at Nicaea; commemorated 
 Dec. 19 (Alart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.j 
 
 DASIUS, martyr at Nicomedia, with Zoticus, 
 Gaius, and 12 soldiers; commemorated Oct. 21 
 (Alart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [VV. F. G.j 
 
 DATIVA, confessor in Africa; commemo¬ 
 rated Dec. 6, with seven others (Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 DATIVTJS. (1) Martyr in Africa, with 
 Saturninus, Felix, Apelius, and his companions; 
 commemorated Feb. 12 (Alart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr under Decius and V^alerian with 
 five others; commemorated Sept. 10 (Mart. Bom, 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [VVh F. G.] 
 
 DAVID, (1) “et tres pueri;” commemorated 
 June 25 (Cal. Armen.). 
 
 (2) of Thessalonica; commemorated June 26 
 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) King of Ethiopia ; commemorated Mas- 
 karram 10 = Sept. 7 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (4) King of the Jews; commemorated Sept. 30 
 ( Cal. Armen.) ; Taksas 23 = Dec. 19 ( Cal. E:hiop.) ; 
 Dec. 29 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (5) and Constantine; commemorated Oct. 2 
 (Cal. Georgiae). 
 
 (6) commemorated Dec. 23 (Cal. Armen.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 DAVID, Among the Egyptians, an archi¬ 
 mandrite, or any head of a monastery of what¬ 
 ever rank, was called David; so that when a 
 monastic head gave letters of commendation to 
 any one, he subscribed himself as '■‘■David illius 
 loci ” (Gratian De Formatis, quoted by Ducange, 
 s. V.) [C.] 
 
 DAYS, NAMES OF. [Week.] 
 
 DEACON. AkLkovos, diaconus; StaKwv (Du¬ 
 cange, Gloss, quoting Malaxus, Hist. Patriarch.) ; 
 diacones (Cyprian, Ep. ad Sucressnm, and repeat¬ 
 edly in the decrees of councils, e. g. Cone. E ib. 
 c. 18 and 76, f Arelat. c. 15, I Tolet. 1). 
 
 I. Names. —The first idea contained in the 
 woi’d appears to be that of service rendered in 
 an inferior capacity. It seems too as if some¬ 
 thing of a sacred character attached to the word 
 even before its use in the Scriptures, Thus we 
 find SiaKoufiv ydy-ov, “ metaphora sumpta ab 
 iis qui pocula aut victum ministrant egentibus 
 et petentibus ” (Steph. Tlies, in verb. SiaKoricc’, 
 comp. Buttmann’s Lexilogus, and Stanley, Apio- 
 stolic Age, p. 69). 
 
 In the New Testament Skxkovos is used : 1. In 
 the general sense of an agent or instrument. 
 Thus the sovereign power is called Qeov Siolko- 
 vos (Rom xiii. 4), and Timothy diaKouos 'lrj(7ov 
 XpKTTov (1 Tim. iv. 5). Sometimes “ bishops and 
 deacons” express all the offices of the Christian 
 ministry (avu iiriaKdirois Kal SiaK6pois, Phil, 
 i. 1). 2. But the word appears to have assumed 
 
 its distinctive ecclesiastical meaning at the ap¬ 
 pointment of the Seven to superintend the distri¬ 
 bution of the alm§.to the Hellenist widows, tV rp 
 biaKOvia rp /cuflp/iepivp (Acts,vi. 1—6), when the 
 diaKOuia twu Tpa’jre^cov became distinct from the 
 SiaKovla Tov Kdyou. These seven are nev'er called 
 deacons in the Acts of the Apostles. In the only 
 passage in which mention is made of them as a 
 body, Philip is described as one of “ the Seven ” 
 (Acts xxi. 8). It has therefore been contended 
 that the institution of the diaconate was not 
 
DEACON 
 
 DEACON 
 
 527 
 
 really connected with the appointment of the 
 Seven, One theory would identify the deacons 
 with the vewrepoi or pcavicTKoi elsewhere men¬ 
 tioned in the New Testament (Acts v. 6 and 10) 
 as performing certain subordinate offices in the 
 church. But this theory appears to be at vari¬ 
 ance with the account given in the Acts, where 
 it is distinctly said that, at the time of the ap¬ 
 pointment of the Seven, the distribution of the 
 alms, ri SiaKOp'ia rj Ko.6r]iJi€pivf}, was performed by 
 the apostles theraseh’es. 
 
 A theory something like this has been adopted 
 by later writers. In this case it is alleged that 
 the appointment of the Seven was merely to 
 meet a particular emergency, and “ had probably 
 no connection with the deacons in the later 
 period of the apostolic age,” though it is admitted 
 “ that they may possibly have borne the name,” 
 and that “ there was in some respects a likeness 
 between their respective duties ” (Stanley, IJssaj^s 
 on Apostolic Age, p. 62 ; comp. Vitringa, iii. 2, 5 ; 
 Liglitfoot, Essay on Christian Ministry, in Comm, 
 on PkiUppians, p. 186, note). A passage from 
 St. Chrysostom is brought forward in support of 
 this theory, in wliich he distinctly asserts that 
 the ordination (xetpoTOPia') of the Seven was 
 neither that of deacons, nor that of presbyters, 
 nor that of bishops {Horn, on Acts vi.). This 
 passage is incorporated into a decree of the 
 Council in Trullo (c. 16) which, referring to the 
 institution of the Seven “ deacons ” {p tSov wpd- 
 lirra SiaKdvovs virh tuv diroardKoiV 
 f aracTTTjvat vapadiSuo'ip'), expressly distinguishes 
 these ministers from the deacons proper who took 
 part in the sacred ministry of the altar (6 \6yos 
 avroTs ov wepl tup toTs pvarttplois SiaKOPovgepup 
 ^p apSpup, dWd Trepl Tr)y ip rats 
 Tpaire^cSp virovpyias). Compare Thomassin, Vet. 
 et Nov. Eccles. Disdplina, Part I. L. 1, c. 51, 
 
 § 11 , 12 . 
 
 On the other hand there is abundant testi¬ 
 mony that the early church in general consi¬ 
 dered the order of deacons to have originated in 
 the institution of the Seven. Irenaeus speaks of 
 “ Nicolaum unum ex septem qui primi ad diaco- 
 nium ab apostolis ordinati sunt ” \Haeres. i. 27). 
 Sozomen asserts that the church of Rome retained 
 the custom of only having seven deacons, in ac¬ 
 cordance witli the number of those ordained by 
 the apostles, of whom Stephen was first {H. E. 
 vii. 19), so Constitut. Apost. viii. 46 ; Hilary, 
 Comm, in 1 Tim. iii. 11, apud Ambrosii Opera; 
 Cyprian, Ep. 65, ad Rogatian.; Id. Ep. 68, ad 
 rieb. Leg.; Cone. Neocaes. c. 15; Epiphan. 
 JIaeres. I. De Tncarn. 4). 
 
 The name of deacon (/. e. servant or subordi¬ 
 nate) was given to the third order of the ministry 
 on account of the duties which they had to 
 perform, i^virripeTeiadai rep iiri(TK6Tr<p koX ro7s 
 Trpea^uTfpots, Tovriari diaKOPelp (^Constitut. 
 Apjst. iii. 20) ; tov iirtcTKoirov vTrrjperai clai 
 (Cone. Nic. c, 18). “ Diaconus ita se presbyteri 
 
 et episcoj)i miuistrum noverit ” (iv. Cone. Carth. 
 c. 37 ; comp. l. Cone. Turon. c. 1 ; Cone. Elib. title 
 of c. 18, and c. 33). In the last named canon, 
 however, the heading “ De Episcopis et Ministris” 
 includes the pre.sbyters and all other orders of ' 
 the clergy. 
 
 They are also continually called Levites, from 
 the analogy of the Mosaic Dispensation; oi 
 AeviTai vpup ot pvp hiaKOPOi (^Constitut. Apost. 
 ii. 25); Kevlrais iSiai diaxoplai iiriKtiprai (Clem. 
 
 ad Cor. i. 40). Jerome (^Epist. ad Evangelum) 
 compai’es the bishops, priests, and deacons with 
 Aaron, his sons, and the Levites respectively. 
 (Comp. I. Cone. 'Turon. c. 1, 2. Salvian, ad 
 Eccles. Cathol. ii. 394.) 
 
 II. Position of Deacons. — They are always 
 spoken of in conjunction with the bishops and 
 priests in the service of the church. The 
 canons of the councils are almost invariably 
 addressed to the bishops, priests, and deacons as 
 to the three orders of whom the clergy was 
 composed, and the same rule is observed in the 
 writings of the apostolic fathers (See Ign. Trail. 
 c. 3, Philadelph. c. 7 ; Polycarp. Philipp. 5 ; Mar¬ 
 tyr. Ignatii, 3). In the Constitutiones Aposto- 
 licae (viii. 46) they are said to be ordained in 
 the same manner as the priests and bishops; 
 and in another place (ii. 26, 28) a type of the 
 threefold operations of the Holy Trinity is found 
 in the distinctive offices of bishops, deacons, 
 and deaconesses. In many respects, indeed, 
 their position was put on a level with that of 
 the priests. The same rules apply to the mar¬ 
 ried deacons as to the married priests (i. Cone. 
 Tolet. 1, I. Cone. Turon. 2). In later days the 
 oath of purgation to be taken by a deacon was 
 the same as that of a priest, and differed from 
 that of the inferior orders of" clergy (Cone. Ber- 
 ghim. c. 18, 19). Their share of the first-fruits 
 (uTrapxal) offered at tlie agape was the same as 
 that of the presbyters, and was double that 
 allotted to the irpeo'jSoTiScs (^Constitut. Apost. 
 ii. 28). Of the Eulogiae which remained after 
 the administration of the Euchari.-t, the bishop 
 was to receive four portions, the presbyter three, 
 and the deacon two (^fbid. viii. 30, 31). In some 
 churches it would seem as if the emoluments of 
 the deacons were even greater than those of the 
 priests, since Jerome warns them against esti¬ 
 mating the dignity of their ecclesiastical position 
 by its pecuniary results : “ Presbyter noverit se 
 lucris minorem, sacerdotio esse majorem ” 
 (Hieronym. Ep. 85, ad Evang. comp. Comm, in 
 Ezek. c. xlviii.). 
 
 There are places also in which their office is 
 spoken of as sacerdotal in the general sense. 
 Thus Optatus speaks of it as the third grade * 
 “Quid commemorem diaconos in tertio? quid 
 presbytei-os in secundo sacerdotio institutos?” 
 (c. Donatist. lib. i. 35). Jerome speaks of their 
 ordination to a priesthood (sacerdotium) in com¬ 
 mon with the bLshops and priests (Hieron. Apolog. 
 Jovini), and St. Augustine (^Ep. 16) addresses 
 one Praesiduus as a fellow priest (consacerdos), of 
 whom Jerome, in the epistle that follows, speaks 
 as a deacon. 
 
 But notwithstanding such expressions as these 
 their right to be considered as in any way par¬ 
 takers in the office of the presbyter, or priest in 
 the narrower sense, is in many places emphatic¬ 
 ally denied. In the Quaestiones it is held impos¬ 
 sible that a deacon can in any case discharge the 
 duties of a priest (sacerdotis), since he is in no 
 degree a partaker of the priestly office (Quaest. 
 Vet. et Nov. Test inter Augustini Opera, N. T., 
 46); deacons are inferior to priests (Trpea^v- 
 ' repoi, i. Cone. Nic. c. 18); a deacon might be 
 ordained by one bishop only, because the ordina- 
 ' tion was only to a ministerial, not a priestly 
 office (non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium 
 consecratur, iv. Cone. Carth. 4); and deacons 
 distributed the consecrated elements, not as 
 
528 
 
 DEACON 
 
 DEACON 
 
 priests, but as the attendants ujiou priests j 
 (iep^vai, Curi'ititut. Apost. viii. 28); so Ainbrosi- j 
 aster, “ quanivis non sunt sacerdotes ” (^Comm. 
 Ep. Ephes. iv. 11). j 
 
 And this inferiority of office was marked by , 
 the position given them in the discharge of the 
 duties. While the bishops and the presbyters 
 were seated on their thrones in the church, the 
 deacons were to stand near them (^Constitut. Apost. 
 ii. 57). The first council of Nice (c. 18) strictly 
 forbade a deacon to sit among the priests as con¬ 
 trary to all rule and order. So it was ordered 
 that a deacon might only be seated by express 
 permission in presence of a priest (irpecr/Surepov, 
 Coiic. Laod. c. 20; comp. Cone. Agatli. c. 65, iv. 
 Cone. Carth. c. 39); but the same respect was to 
 be paid to the deacons by the subdeacons and in¬ 
 ferior clergy (^fbid.). So it is said that even the 
 deacons of the churches at Rome, though in¬ 
 clined to presume on their position, did not 
 venture to seat themselves during the services 
 (^Quaestiones, Q. i. 10); and the testimony of Je¬ 
 rome confirms this : “ In ecclesia Romae presby- 
 teri sedent, et stant diaconi ” (^Epis. 85, ad Evang.). 
 So I. Cone. Bareinon. c. 4. In councils their 
 proper position was standing, as is apparent in 
 several records of their proceedings ; e. g. “ con- 
 sidentibus presbyteris, adstantibus diaconis ” 
 (l. Cone. Tolet. Prooem.); “ adstantibus ministris 
 vel universe clero ” (l. Cone. Bracar. Prooem.) ; 
 and this was strictly enforced by canons; the 
 priests should sit at the back of the bishops, 
 and the deacons stand in front (iv. Cone. Tolet. 4). 
 Deacons, however, who held ecclesiastical offices 
 (^6(p(p'Kia iKK\r](TLa(rTiKa) were allowed to be 
 seated, but on no account before any presbyter, 
 unless they represented their own patriarch or 
 metropolitan in another city, in which case they 
 were to take the place allotted to the person 
 whom they represented (Cone. Quinisext. c. 7). 
 Another canon provides that they should not , 
 speak at councils unless especially bidden (iv. 
 Cone. Carth. c. 40). [Councils, p. 481.] 
 
 Thus in every way their position appears to ■ 
 have been associated with the discharge of duties 
 which were recognised as honourable in them¬ 
 selves, and conferring honour on those to whom 
 they were entrusted, yet distinctly marked out 
 as ministerial rather than sacerdotal, and care¬ 
 fully kept apart fi-om those which specially be¬ 
 longed to the priests. 
 
 III. Duties. —These were of a varied nature, 
 but appear to have been in every case suggested 
 by those which were originally allotted to them, 
 and to be comprehended in hi&Kovia twv rpa- 
 TTf^wu, as distinguished from the SiaKOu'ia rod 
 X6you. 
 
 1. They were stewards of the property of the 
 church and of the funds belonging to the widows 
 and orphans. Thus Cyprian speaks of Nicostra- 
 tus as having not only robbed the church but 
 defrauded the widows and wards (Cyp. Ep. 49 
 [rt/. 52], ad Cornelium). So Jerome calls the 
 deacon “niensarum et viduarum minister” 
 (Hieron. Ep. 85, ad Evang.'). They were also 
 to distribute the oblations (evXoylas) which re¬ 
 mained after the celebration of the Eucharist 
 among the different orders of the clergy, in 
 the regular proportions (Constitut. Apost. viii. 
 c. 31). 
 
 2. They were almoners of the charities dis¬ 
 pensed by the church. It was part of their duty 
 
 I to seek out and visit the sick .and afflicted, and 
 i report to the bishop respecting such as were m 
 affliction (Constitut. Apost. iii. 19). But all 
 j alms were to be distributed strictly under the 
 j direction of the bishop ([bid. ii. cc. 31, 32, 34). 
 They were also to select the aged women (irpecr- 
 fivTepas) invited on the ground of poverty to 
 more frequent participation in the aydirai (Ibid. 
 ii. 28). 
 
 3. The discipline of the church was in a great 
 measure intrusted to their hands as the imme¬ 
 diate ministers of the bishop. In times of per¬ 
 secution it was their duty to minister to the 
 confessors in their prisons, and to bury the 
 bodies of the martyrs (Euseb. H.E. vii. 11). 
 They were also to strengthen the fainthearted 
 and exhort the waverers. Thus it was one of 
 the complaints against Xovatian that he jier-' 
 sisted in remaining in his hiding-place when 
 exhorted by the deacons to come fortli (Euseb. 
 //. E. vi. 43). If any for misconduct were cast 
 out from the congregation, the deacons were to 
 intercede for the offender, since, it is added, Christ 
 intercedes for sinners with the Father (Constitut. 
 Apost. ii. c. 16). They were also associated with 
 the bishop in the work of seeking out and re¬ 
 proving offenders ([bid. ii. c. 17). As deputies 
 of the bishop they were to relieve him of the 
 lighter cases brought for adjudication, leaving 
 the weightier for his own decision (Ibid. ii. 44), 
 and might even, in his absence, take charge of 
 the diocese (Bede, //. E. ii. 20). They also appear 
 to have been entrusted, in the absence of a pres¬ 
 byter, Avith some jurisdiction over the inferior 
 clergy (Constitut. Apost. viii. 28). When any of 
 tlie faithful brought letters commendatory from 
 another diocese, they were to examine into the 
 circumstances of the case (Ibid. ii. 58). They 
 were also frequently sent on embassies from 
 one church to another (Ignat. Philadelpk. c. 10). 
 They also sometimes represented their bishops 
 in councils (Cone. Quinisex. a.d. 691, c. 7), 
 though this was forbidden in the West, on the 
 ground that a deacon being inferior to the 
 priests (presbyteris junior), could not be allowed 
 to sit with bishops in the council (Cone. Emerit. 
 A.D. 666, c. 5). Thomassin however asserts that 
 this provincial decree Avas neA'er acted upon 
 (Nova et Vet. Ecel. Discip. i. 2, c. 23, § 19). At 
 all councils a deifcon was to re?id the decrees 
 by Avhich the proceedings Avere regulated (caj'itula 
 de conciliis agendis) before the business com¬ 
 menced (iv. Cone. Tolet. 4). It appears also to 
 haA'e been the duty of the deacons on the.se occa¬ 
 sions to keep the doors, and call for those Avhose 
 presence Avas required before the council (CoeLw 
 Ecel. Afrieanae, c. 100). 
 
 4. In other respects they Avere to be channels of 
 communication betAveen the bishop and the laitv 
 (Constitut. Apost. ii. 28). All the olferings of 
 the people (ras dvalas 1 )toi vpoaepopas, fas 
 d-rrapxd’S Kal rds Se/edras xal ra Ixovata), Avhen 
 not made directly to the bishop, Avere to be j)re- 
 sented to him through their hands (Ibkl. ii. 27). 
 So various Avere their duties in relation to the 
 bishop that thev are called in one place his ears 
 and eyes and mouth and heart (Ibid. ii. 44); iq 
 another his soul and perception (^puxh Kal aicr- 
 O-qais, Ibid. iii. 19). 
 
 5. These duties Avere connected Avith the Sio- 
 Kovia T<t)v TpaiTf^wv, as relating to the mate¬ 
 rial needs of the community. Another class of 
 
DEACON 
 
 DEACON 
 
 529 
 
 duties arose from the “ministry of the Table,” 
 considered in relation to the celebration of the 
 Eucharist. Thomassin says that, although the 
 occasion for instituting the order of deacons arose 
 from the necessities of the common table, yet 
 that ft also had reference to the celebration of 
 the Eucharist, “ ad sacram mensam, quae tunc a 
 civili non divellebant ” (Fef. et Nova Discip. 
 Ecd. i. 1, c. 51, §4; comp. Wordswoxdh, Comm. 
 in Acts vi. 2, and, there quoted, Bishop Pearson, 
 “ In communi victu sacrameutum Eucharistiae 
 celebrabant ”). 
 
 a. They were to provide for the maintenance 
 of order in the congi’egations during the per¬ 
 formance of the various services. They were to 
 see that all the congregation took the places 
 allotted to them, that no one lingered in the en¬ 
 trance, or whispered, or slept, or in any way 
 misbehaved during the service (^Consiitut. Apost. 
 ii. 57, viii. 11). So Chrysostom says, “if any 
 misbehave, call the deacon” (^Hom. 24 in Acta)’, 
 and they were to be particularly careful in as¬ 
 signing honourable places and giving a cordial 
 welcome to the poor and aged and to strangers 
 (Constitut. Apost. ii. 58). They were to stand 
 at the men’s gate lest any should go in or out 
 during the celebration of the Eucharist (Ibid. 
 viii. 11). They also discharged the lesser offices 
 belonging to the Lord’s Table ; they arranged 
 the altar, placed on it the sacred vessels, and 
 brought water for the hands of the officiating 
 priest. Their duty was to minister both to bishops 
 and priests in things pertaining to their several 
 offices, that all things relating to the worship of 
 God might be rightly celebrated (Ibid. viii. 46). 
 These duties, however, in large churches where 
 there were many clergy, devolved on those be¬ 
 longing to the inferior orders: “ ut autem non 
 omnia obsequiorum per ordinem agant multitude 
 Licit clericorum. Nam utique et altare porta- 
 rent, et vasa ejus et aquam in manus funderent 
 sacerdotis, sicut videmus per omnes ecolesias ” 
 (Quaestiunes, Q. 101); and in another place it is 
 ordered that the subdeacon should pour the 
 water on the hands of the officiating priest, dird- 
 vii^iv xeipoij/ toTs tepevai (Constitut. Apost. 
 viii. 11). But there are decrees of councils 
 strictly forbidding the inferior orders of clergy 
 (vm^peras) to enter the Diaconicum or touch 
 the sacred vessels (Cone. Laodic. c. 21, Agath. 
 c. 66). In the decree of the latter council 
 virriperas is rendered “ insacratos ministros.” 
 The second canon of the first council of Toledo 
 orders that a deacon who had been subjected to 
 public penance should only be received among 
 the subdeacons, so that he might not handle the 
 sacred v'essels ; and it was expressly ordered that 
 the deacons should take the remains of the con¬ 
 secrated elements into the Pastophoria or Sacristy 
 (Constitut. Apost. viii. 1.3). 
 
 It was their duty also to present the offerings 
 of the people at the altar, proclaiming at the 
 same time the names of those who had made 
 them ; ol diaKouoi irpoa’a-yeTcvaav ra Swpa tw 
 eTTKTKSTTcp Trphs rh Ovaiaa'T^pioy (Con tit'd. Apost. 
 viii. 12). “ Public^ diaconus in ecclesia recitet 
 
 offerentium nomina, tantum offert ille, tantum 
 ille pollicitus e.st ” CHieron. Comm, in Ezekiel. 
 XViii.). [DtFTYCHS.] 
 
 They had also an important part to fill in the 
 service itself. At the commencement of the 
 Communion Office the deacon who ministered 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 was to stand near the bishop and proclaim with 
 a loud voice : /j-titis Kara rivhs, /jlt)tis iv vtto- 
 Kpicrei, “ let none come who has ought against 
 any one, none in hypocrisy ” (Constitut. Apost. 
 ii. 54, 57, § 12). The reading of the Gospel was 
 allotted either to a deacon or to a presbyter 
 (Ibid. ii. 57, § 5); though in some churches it 
 appears to have been the special office of the 
 deacon, “ Evangelium Christ! quasi diaconus 
 lectitabas” (Hieron. Epist. cd Sabin.). Sozomen 
 says of the church at Alexandria, that the 
 archdeacon only read the Gospel, but in other 
 churches the duty was discharged by the dea¬ 
 cons, and in many only by the priests (Soz. II. 
 E. vii. 19). The second council of Vaison ad¬ 
 mitted that a deacon, in the absence of a priest, 
 might be permitted to read a homily of the 
 Fathers in the church, on the ground that they 
 who were worthy to read the Gospel of Christ 
 were not unworthy to recite expositions of the 
 Fathers (ii. Cone. Vasense, c. 2), and for this 
 reason it was forbidden that a deacon should be 
 a]^ pointed who could not read (Cone. Narhon. 
 c. 11 ; comp. Cyprian, Ep. 34, al. 39). It was 
 perhaps in allusion to this part of their office 
 that the duty was assigned to them of holding 
 the Gospels over the head of a bishop at the 
 time of his ordination (Constitut. Apost. rdii. 4). 
 
 The deacon appointed for the purpose was also 
 to give the signal for the departure of the unbe¬ 
 lievers (Ibid. cc. 5, 12), to recite the appointed 
 prayers for the catechumens, the energumens, 
 those preparing for baptism, and the penitents, 
 and to dismiss each class in its proper order 
 (Ibid. viii. cc. 6, 7, 8). He was to m.ake the 
 proclamation which was the signal for the kiss 
 of peace (Ibid. ii. c. 57), and to recite the prayer 
 for the universal church (Ibid. ii. 57, viii. 9, 10, 
 11, 13, 35). Thus Chrysostom (Horn. 14 in 
 Rom.) speaks of the deacon offering the prayers 
 on behalf of the people (tov Stjjlcou). In the 
 Liturgy given in the C'.nstitutiones under the 
 name of St. James, it is ordered that two deacons 
 should stand by the altar bearing fans [Fla- 
 bellum] made of fine membrane, or peacock’s 
 feathers, or linen, to drii^e away flies or insects 
 fx'om the sacred elements (Constitut. Apost. viii. 
 c. 12). 
 
 At the administration of the Holy Communion 
 it was the duty of the deacons to receive the 
 consecrated elements from the officiating minister 
 in order to distribute them among those who 
 were present, and to convey them to the absent 
 (Justin Martyr, Apolog. viii. c. 2); “ Diaconi 
 ordo est accipei'e a sacerdote et sic dare plebi ” 
 (Quaestiones, 101). But their peculiar office was 
 the administration of the cup; o SiaKovos Kare- 
 XcVco rb TroTT)piov (Constitut. Apost. viii. c. 13); 
 “ solennibus adimpletis diaconus offerre prae- 
 sentibus coepit ” (Cyprian, De Lapses, c. 25). 
 They were strictly forbidden to distribute the 
 bread if a priest was present (ii. Cone. Arelat. 
 c. 15), unless some necessity arose for doing so, 
 and they were bidden to do so by the priest 
 (iv. Cone. Carth. c. 38). But it was carefully 
 noted that the deacon only acted as the suboi-di- 
 nate of the priest (Constitut. Apost. viii. 28), 
 and had no right whatever to ofl’er the sacrifice 
 (Ibid. viii. 46). Priests under censure are de¬ 
 prived of the privilege of consecrating, deacons 
 ' of ministering (Cone. Agath. c. 1); and it was 
 forbidden that they should give the consecrated 
 
530 
 
 DEACON 
 
 DEACON 
 
 bread to the priests, on the ground that it was 
 unseemly that those who had no power to conse¬ 
 crate should administer to those who had (i. Gone. 
 Nic. c. 18). So .Jerome says of Hilaidus, the 
 deacon, that he had no power without priests or 
 bishops to celebrate the Eucharist, “ Eucharistiam 
 conficere ” (\\\Q.Yon. contra Lucifer.'). And though 
 the right of consecration appears to have been 
 assumed in some jdaces, it was strictly forbidden 
 (i. Cone. Arclat. c. 15). 
 
 There are, however, two passages which may 
 seem to favour the idea that deacons had some¬ 
 times power to consecrate. One of these is the 
 decree of the council of Ancyra, which forbids 
 deacons who have offered sacrifice to idols to 
 offer either the bread or the wine, &pTov 
 TTOTTjpLou avdcpepfiu (^Conc. Ancijr. c. 2). But 
 tliis undoubtedly refers either to the ottering the 
 oblations which preceded the prayer of consecra¬ 
 tion (Thomass. Vet. et Kov. Eccl. Discip. i. 2, 
 c. 29, § 14), or to the distribution of the ele¬ 
 ments after consecration (Bingham, Antiquities^ 
 ii. c. 20, §7; comp. Suicer, Thesaurus., t. 1, 
 
 р. 871). The other is the speech put by- 
 St. Ambrose into the mouth of Laurentius, the 
 deacon, when meeting his bishop, Sixtus, on 
 the way to his martyrdom: “ Cui commisisti 
 Dominici sanguinis consecrationem, cui con- 
 summandorum consortium sacramentorum ” 
 (Ambros. De Offic. i. 41). But this doubtful 
 expression seems interpreted by the words im¬ 
 mediately preceding, “ nunquam sacrificium 
 sine ministro offerre consueveras,” the “offerre 
 consueveras ” clearly referring to Sixtus him¬ 
 self The “ sanguinis consecrationem ” probably 
 merely means “sanguinem consecratum,” and 
 the duty attributed to the deacons was the ser¬ 
 vice they always performed after consecration 
 —uTTTjpeTOU/ievoi Tov Kvplov (rd/xari /aera 
 <p6^ov {Const tut. Apost. ii. 57; see Bingham, 
 Antiquities, ii. 26, § 8). 
 
 After the admini.stration the deacons were to 
 take away what remained of the sacr*ed elements 
 into the sacristy, to recite {uiqpvTT^iv) the Post- 
 Communion Prayer, and dismiss the people {Con- 
 stitut. Apost. viii. cc. 13, 35, 40). Thus it is said 
 that Athanasius commanded his deacon Krjpv^ai 
 €vxhv (Soc. LI. E. ii. 11), and Kiqpvrreiv is 
 mentioned among the sacred offices from the 
 performance of which the deacons who had wor¬ 
 shipped idols were to be suspended {Cone. Ancyr. 
 
 с. 2). It was ordered by the fourth council of 
 Toledo (c.40), that the deacon (Levita) should 
 wear a stole over the left shoulder, “ propter 
 quod orat, id est, praedicat.” Chrysostom too 
 calls the deacons KripvKes {Horn. 17 in Hch. ix.). 
 Thomassin says that the word Kr]pvTT(iy, used 
 by the council of Ancyra, expressed the recital of 
 the prayers and exhortations and the reading of 
 the Gosjiels, which were done with raised voice 
 (Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discip. i. 2, c. 29, 
 § 14; comp. Suicer, Thes. in voc. K-qpvTTHv). 
 
 )3. It appears that the daily services in district 
 churches were sometimes entrusted to the dea¬ 
 cons and priests in alternate weeks. In this case 
 both presbyters and deacons were to assemble on 
 the Saturday evening, that the Sunday- services 
 might be celebrated with due honour {Cone. 
 Tarracon. c. 7). The council of Eliberis (c. 77) 
 also speaks of a deacon in charge of a parish, 
 without either priest or bishop, “ regens plebem 
 &ine episcopo vel presbytero.” 
 
 y. It does not appear that preaching was among 
 the duties which were usually entrusted to dea¬ 
 cons, though Philip and Stephen undoubtedly did 
 j)reach. Hilary, the commentator, holds that in 
 the earliest days of the church, all the faithful 
 both preached and baptized, but that afterwards a 
 different cour.se was ado[)ted, and separate offices 
 assigned to different members, so that in his 
 days the deacons did not preach, though he says 
 that at first all deacons were evangelists, and 
 had commission given them to preach, though 
 without any settled charge (sine cathedra) 
 {Comm, in Ephes. iv. 11, in Ambrose’s Works). 
 Tet that some faculty of preaching was inherent 
 in the office, at least at the command of the 
 bishop, appears from the language of Philostor- 
 gius (//. E. iii. 17), where he say-s that Leontius 
 ordained Aetius as a deacon, in order that he 
 might teach in the church, but that he declined 
 to undertake the other duties of a deacon, only 
 accepting that of preaching (SiSdcr/cct.v dveSe- 
 ^aro) ; and though Leontius was a heretic, the 
 words seem to indicate that this was reckoned 
 among the ordinary functions of a deacon. On 
 the other hand, the duty of preaching could not 
 have belonged to them in the Western church 
 in ordinary cases, since Caesarius, bbshop of Arles, 
 in giving permission to the priests and deacons 
 in his diocese to read certain homilies to the 
 people, when he himself could no longer preach 
 to them thi'ough the infirmities of age, gives as 
 the ground of his permission that, since they 
 were allowed to read the Holy Scriptures in the 
 church, it could not be wrong for them to read 
 homilies composed by himself or by- other fathers 
 of the church (Thomass. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Disnp. 
 ii. 1, c. 89, §8, 9), words adopted by the second 
 council of Vaison, already quoted. And so Vigi- 
 lius in his letter to two deacons, Rusticus and 
 Sebastian, speaks of their execrable pride in 
 venturing to preach without permission of the 
 bishop, as contrary to all precedent and canon law, 
 “ contra omnem consuetudinem vel canones ” 
 (Labbe, Cone. v. p. 554). 
 
 5. They had also certain duties to perform at the 
 administration of baptism. It was to be admi¬ 
 nistered by bishops and priests only-, with the 
 assistance of the deacons (e^uTTTjperou/xeVwv avTois 
 rwu 5iaK6uwv {Constitut. Apost. iii. c. 11). They 
 had to undertake the preliminary enquiries into 
 the circumstances of the candidates {Ibid. viii. 
 c. 32). They were to apply the unction which 
 preceded the administration of the sacrament to 
 the foreheads of the women {Ibid. iii. c. 15), and 
 to undertake all the nece.ssary arrangements for 
 the male candidates {Ibid. iii. 16). [Baptism.] 
 It was theii duty, or that of the subdeacons, 
 to fetch the Chrism from the bishop before 
 Easter (ii. Cone. Bra/', c. 51, i. Tolet. 20). 
 
 But they were strictly forbidden to assume 
 that the administration of baptism was one. of 
 the functions of their office. In the Aposh lic 
 Canons and Constitutions, the decrees concerning 
 baptism are directed only- to bishops and priest.s, 
 though the other general canons are addressed 
 to all three orders of the ministry- {Canones, 
 c. 39, 41, 42 ; Constitut. viii. c. 22). The Consti¬ 
 tutions, too, distinctly- assert that it is not lawful 
 for a deacon to baptize (viii. c. 28, iii. c. 11, 
 vii. c. 46). In the latter passage it is added, 
 that if any argument is drawn from the fact 
 of baptism being administered by Philip aad 
 
DEACON 
 
 DEACON 
 
 531 
 
 Ananias, it is for want of perceiving that these | 
 men were specially appointed for these duties by , 
 the Lord, the High-Priest. Epiphauius ‘asserts 
 that no deacon was ever entrusted with tlie 
 administration of a sacrament {ixvtJT-iipiov eVt- 
 -eAe?;/; Haeres. 79, cap. 4). So Hilary, while 
 asserting that all the faithful were once ac¬ 
 customed to baptize, adds, “ nunc neque clerici 
 vel laid baptizant ” {Com. in Eph. iv. 11, in 
 Ambrose’s TPor^s). 
 
 Yet it appears that they were permitted to 
 baptize by command of a bishop, or when in 
 charge of a parish without a presbyter. The 
 right of baptizing resides generally in the bishop 
 [Baptism, p. 166], but from him may be com¬ 
 municated both to priests and deacons (Tertul- 
 lian. Be Baptismo, c. 17). So a decree of the 
 j 5th century, speaking of the necessity of a holy 
 life even for the laity, adds, how much more is 
 this necessary for priests and deacons, since 
 they may be called at any moment to offer 
 the sacrifice or baptize ? (i. Cone. Turon. 1). In 
 another decree it is ordered that if a deacon 
 having charge of a parish (regens plebem) with¬ 
 out a bishop or presbyter should have baptized 
 any, the bishop should confirm it by his blessing, 
 
 “ per benedictionem perficere debebit ” {Cone. 
 Elib. 77); and again, in another, it is provided 
 that while priests, in cases of urgent sickness, 
 may baptize at any season of the year, deacons 
 may only do so at Easter {Synod. Rom. a.d. 
 384? c. 7, in Bruns’s Canones, ii. 278); and 
 Jerome, speaking of those who in remote places 
 were baptized by priests and deacons, places the 
 right of both to baptize on exactly the same 
 footing, as derived from the license of the bishop 
 and the possession of the chrism, “sine chrismate 
 et episcopi jussione neque presbyteri neque 
 diaconi jus habeant baptizandi ” {Dial, contra 
 Luciferum, c. 4). It seems then that, at least in 
 the Western Church, the deacons were permitted 
 to baptize when the bishop gaA-e them authority 
 and sent them the chrism. Thomassin however 
 (i. 2, c. 29, § 14), thinks they had less liberty 
 in this respect in the Eastern Church. 
 
 e. The power of receiving penitents appears 
 generally to have been confined to bishops and 
 presbyters; yet this rule was not invariable. 
 Thus Cyprian allow's deacons to receive confession 
 (exomologesin) and bestow the parting blessing 
 in the case of those penitents who had obtained 
 “ libelli ” and were prex^ented by the near ap¬ 
 proach of death from receiving absolution at the 
 hands of a priest {Ep. 13, al. 18, ad Cler.). A 
 decree of the first council of Toledo (c. 2) pro¬ 
 vides that those deacons w’ho had performed 
 public penance should be reduced to the order of 
 subdeacons lest they should lay hands on any. 
 But it is probable that this w’as not the act 
 W'hich conferred absolution, but only a ceremony 
 w'hich went before the reception of the Eucharist 
 and prepared the penitent for its administration 
 (Thomass. Vet. et Bov. Eccl. Disc. i. 2, c. 29, § 8). 
 A decree of the council of Eliberis (c. 32) pro¬ 
 vides that in certain cases of urgent necessity, 
 and at the command of a bishop, the deacon may 
 receive a penitent to communion. But this pro¬ 
 bably only meant that the deacons might convey 
 the consecrated elements, which, as in the case 
 of Serapion recorded by Eusebius (//. E. vi. 44), 
 might be sent even by a child (Thomassin, i..2. 
 c. 29 § 9). 
 
 In these cases their duties w'ere evidently only 
 ministerial and strictly limited to the subor 
 dinate functions belonging to their office. Theii 
 riglit to bestow any blessing on their own 
 authority is plainly denied {Constitut. Apust. viii. 
 28, 46). [Benediction ; Dominus Vobiscum.] 
 
 f. From their bearing the chairs of priests 
 and bishops (iv. Cone. Brag. Proem, c. 5), it 
 would appear that in some churches they were 
 expected to perform duties scarcely consistent 
 wdth the dignity of their office. But their 
 general tendency appears to have been either 
 to claim functions which did not belong to 
 them (i. Cone. Arelat. c. 15; Cone. Qninisext. c. 
 16), or to assume a precedence which may in¬ 
 dicate that they were in some ca.ses superior to 
 the priests in wealth or social position. Thus 
 they are rebuked for administering in some 
 churches the Eucharist to priests and partaking 
 of it even before bishops and presuming to sit 
 among the priests (i. Cone. Aic. c. 18); for their 
 pride in sitting in the first choir and comjielling 
 [iriests to take their places in the second (iv. Cone. 
 Tolet. c. 39); for claiming precedence at coun¬ 
 cils of presbyters when they held any ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal office {Cone. Quinisext. c. 7); for exciting 
 seditions against the bishop {Constitut. Ap: st. 
 ii. 32); for bestowing the benediction at private 
 banquets in presence of priests (Hieron. Ep. 85 
 ad Evang .'); and for esteeming themselves, on 
 account of their superior wealth, as of higher 
 dignity than the priests {Idem Comm, in Ezek. 
 xlviii.). 
 
 7). Deacons were strictly limited in the dis¬ 
 charge of their office to the parishes for which they 
 were appointed, and there are many decrees of 
 councils forbidding them to wander elsewhere 
 without the consent of the bishop {Canones 
 Apost. c. 12; i. Cone. Nic. c. 15; Cone. Quini¬ 
 sext. c. 17; i. Arelat. c, 21; ii. Bracar. c. 34; 
 Agath. c. 52). 
 
 IV. Promotion to a higher order. — It has 
 been doubted whether in the earliest ages ad¬ 
 mission to the diaconate implied, or was a 
 necessary preliminary to, advancement to the 
 priesthood. That this was the case has been in¬ 
 ferred from the words of St. Paul to Timothy— 
 ol KaXoSs SiaKovfjaavres fiaOphu eavroTs KaXhv 
 TTfpnroiovpTai (1 Tim. iii. 13). See Dictionary 
 OF THE Bible, i. 417. It is undoubtedly true:— 
 1. That in later times fiadphs was used as a tech¬ 
 nical term denoting degrees of ecclesiastical office. 
 So it was said of Athanasius, irao'ap ttjv twp 
 fiadpup cLKoXovQiap die^eXdtop (Greg. Naz. Orat. 
 21), and in that sense it repeatedly occurs in 
 the decrees of councils {Cone. Eph. c. 6 
 Chalcedon. c. 29; Quinisext. c. 13). 2. That the 
 
 elevation of deacons to the priesthood was part of 
 the system of the church in after years. Thus it 
 was ordered that deacons who maintained com¬ 
 munication w'ith their wives should not be ele¬ 
 vated to the priesthood (i. Cone. Tolet. c. 1), 
 “ ad ulteriorem gradum non ascendat ” (a. Cone. 
 Turon. 2). So, in the Quaestiones, the priest is 
 spoken of as being ordained from among the dea¬ 
 cons, “ex diaconis presbyterus ordinatur "{Quat st. 
 Q. 101). And so Jerome argues the higher 
 office of the priesthood from the fact that 
 the diaconate was a step to the priesthood, “ex 
 diacono ordinatur presbyter” (Hieron. Epist. 
 ad Evang.). But many deacons appear to have 
 grown old and died without promotion to the 
 
 2. M 
 
DEACON 
 
 532 DEACON 
 
 priesthood (Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Dlscip. 
 i. 2, 0.33, §9). 
 
 V. Vebtments. — Concerning the dress of a 
 deacon, it was ordained that when engaged in 
 the services of the altar their apparel should 
 not be too flowing, with a view to the ready 
 performance of their duties, for they are like 
 sailors and boatswains (roixc^px®**) in a ship 
 (^Constitut. Apost. ii. 57). They were to wear 
 a plain stole, “ orarium,” unadorneil with gold 
 or colours, on the left shoulder, the right being 
 left free, to typify the expedition with which 
 they were to discharge their .sacred functions (iv. 
 Co7ic. Ti/let. c. 40). The manner of wearing the 
 stole distinguished them from the priests; the 
 stole it.self was the mark of their office, since the 
 inferior clergy were expressly forbidden to wear 
 it {Co'.ic. Laod. c. 22, 23). Due care was to 
 be taken that this distinctive portion of the 
 dress was clearly seen, “ non licet diacono v’elo 
 vel palla scapulas suas involvi ” (Cone. Auttss. 
 c. 13). In another decree notice is taken of cer¬ 
 tain deacons who were accustomed to wear their 
 stoles hidden beneath their albs, so as to re¬ 
 semble a subdeacon’s, and they are ordered to 
 display it openly for the future on the shoulder 
 (i. Cmic. Brae. c. 9). Those who had been tem¬ 
 porarily deposed for any offence were presented 
 on their reconciliation with an alb and a stole, as 
 symbols of their restoration to their office 
 (iv. Cone. Tolet. c. 28). It was to the stole that 
 St, Chrysostom alluded when he saw a vision of 
 the wings of ministering angels in the fine linen 
 that floated over the left shoulders of those en¬ 
 gaged in the service of the altar (rais Xeirrals 
 oB6vais Tats iirl rcav apiffTcpup io/xeay K€iiJ.4vais ; 
 Chrysost. Horn, in Fil. Prodig.'). [Stole.] The 
 alb was to be worn only at the time of ministering 
 at the altar, or reading’ the Gospels—“ Diaconus 
 tempoi’e oblationis tantum vel lectionis albal 
 utatur ” (iv. Cunc. Carthag. 41; Cone. Narbon. 
 c. 12), or when performing the duty of the dea¬ 
 con at the opening of councils (iv. Cone. Tolet. 
 c. 4). And this renders more emphatic a rebuke 
 administered to certain priests and bishops who 
 were accustomed on great festivals to be borne 
 on chairs or litters by deacons in albs—“ albatis 
 diaconibus ” (iv. Cone. Brae. Proem. &c. c. 5). 
 They also wore a Dalmatic (which see). 
 
 VI. Number of Deacons. — The number of 
 deacons allotted to each church appears to have 
 varied. The council of Neocaesarea (c. 15) or¬ 
 dained that thei’e should be seven deacons and 
 no more in every city, however large, since that 
 number had been ordained by the apostles (comp. 
 Cone. Q'linisext. c. 16), and this appears to have 
 been the normal number in many churches 
 (Constitut. Aj:ost. viii. cc. 4, 46 ; Euseb. H. E. 
 
 vi. 43; Hilary, Comm, in 1 Tim. iii. 8). But 
 the later practice appears to have been as stated 
 by Sozomen, that the church of Rome retained 
 the number of .seven deacons, as instituted by 
 the apostles, but that other churches acted 
 according to their owu convenience (Soz. H. E. 
 
 vii. 19). The number of deacons seems, how¬ 
 ever, to have been generally small; for St. 
 Jerome states that deacons derived a dignity not 
 belonging to their office from their paucity in 
 number—“ Diaconos paucitas honorabilcs, pres- 
 byteros tui-ba facit contemtibiles ” (Epist. ad 
 Evang.). 
 
 VII. Age .—The age at which deacons were 
 
 allowed to be ordained was universally fixed at 
 twenty-five (iii. Cone. Carth. c. 4 ; Cone. Agath. 
 c. 16: Cone. Quinisext. c, 14; iv. Cone. Tolet. 
 c. 20 ; iii. Cone. Aurcl. c. 6); but Thomassin 
 relates that Caesarius, bishop of Arles, would 
 not permit any deacon to be ordained in his 
 diocese who was undei the age of thiity, and 
 who had not read four times all the books of 
 the Old and New Testament ( Vet. et Nov. Eccl. 
 Discip. ii. 1, c. 89, § 8). 
 
 VIII. Jurisdiction over. —A deacon could only 
 be judged by three bishops (i. Coric. Cart'), c. 11 ; 
 ii. Cone. Carth. c. 10, but Bruns gives a different 
 reading of this canon) of whom one was to be 
 his own diocesan (iii. Cone. Carth. c. 8). See 
 Degradation, p. 542. 
 
 IX. Diaconus in Monasteries. In monasteines 
 
 the name of deacon was sometimes given to those 
 who discharged the office of steward and almoner 
 — “ oeconomi et dispensatoris ” [Oeconomus] 
 (Thomass. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discip. iii. 2, c. 3, 
 §4;3, c. 29, §23.) [P. 0.] 
 
 X. Cat'dined Deacon. —A cardinal deacon (dia¬ 
 conus cardinalis) was in ancient times a deacon 
 who was permanently attached (incardinatur) 
 to a particular church (Gregory the Great, Epist. 
 V. 2; see Cardinal, p. 289). 
 
 The name cardinal seems also to have been 
 given to the deacon to whom seniority or pre¬ 
 eminence among his fellows had been assigned by 
 competent authority. So Gregory the Great, 
 writing to Liberatus, a deacon at Cagliari (Epist. 
 i. 81), warns him not to set himself above the 
 other deacons, unless he had been made cardinal 
 by the bishop. Under Charlemagne a cardinal 
 deacon of the city of Rome (diaconus in cardine 
 constitutus in urbe Roma) is mentioned with 
 special distinction (Capitula, anni 806, c. 23, 
 p. 458*, Baluze; and Capitularium, i. c. 133, 
 
 р. 728). 
 
 XI. A deacon was assigned to each of the seven 
 Regions into which the city of Rome was eccle¬ 
 siastically divided; these were called Regionary 
 Deacons (diaconi regionarii). The acolytes of each 
 region were under the authority of the regionary 
 deacon (Mabillon, Corn. Praev. in Ord. Rom. p. 
 xix.). 
 
 XII. Stationary Deacons were those who mini¬ 
 stered to the pope on his going to any Station 
 where an office was to be said. 
 
 XIII. Diaconi Testimoniales'were those deacons 
 who always lived with and accompanied a bishop, 
 for the avoiding of scandal (ii. Cone. Turon. 
 
 с, 12). See Svncellus. [C.] 
 
 DEACONESS (^ hiuKovos, hiaK6viaaa, Dia- 
 
 conis-ia, Diacona.) I. An order of women in the 
 Primitive Church who appear to have undertaken 
 duties in reference to their own sex analogous to 
 those performed by the deacons among men. Their 
 office was probably rendered more necessary by 
 the strict seclusion which was observed by the 
 female sex in Greece, and in many Oriental 
 countries. The word itself is only once used in 
 the New Testament, in the place in which St. 
 Paul speaks of Phoebe as biaKovos rrjs iKKKg- 
 a-ias (Rom. xvi. 1); but it was usually supposed 
 by ancient commentators that the “ women ” 
 mentioned by St. Paul in the passage in which 
 he enumerates the qualifications of a deacon 
 (L Tim. iii. 11) were really deaconesses, whether, 
 as the A.V. assumes, wives of deacons (Chrysost., 
 
DEACONESS 
 
 DEACONESS 
 
 533 
 
 Theophykot, Theodoret, Oecumen., quoted by 
 Wordsworth, Comm, in loco), or women-deacons 
 (Lightlbot, Essay on Christian Ministry in Comm, 
 on Fkilippians, p. 189). 
 
 II. Qualifications for the Diaconate. — It has 
 been thought that these deaconesses were widows 
 in the earlier days of the Church, on the ground 
 of the injunction of St. Paul that no widow 
 should be taken into the number under sixty 
 years of age (1 Tim. v. 9, cf. Thomass. Vet. et 
 Eov. Eccl. Discip. i. 1. 3, c. 50, n. 10 ; Hooker, 
 Eccl. Pol. V. c, 78, § 11). But it does not appear 
 certain that St. Paul is in this place speaking of 
 deaconesses (cf. Wordsworth, Comm, in loco). 
 And it aj)pears certain that virgins were admitted 
 to the office. Thus Pliny speaks, in his epistle 
 to Trajan, of two handmaidens (ancillae) whom 
 the Christians called “ ministrae.” The Apostolic 
 Constitutions (vi. 17) say that the deaconess should 
 be a chaste virgin -(TrapOeyos ayvr)') or else a 
 widow (cf. Just. Novell, vi. 6). The 4th council 
 of Carthage (c. 12) speaks of widows and conse¬ 
 crated virgins (sanctimoniales) who are selected 
 to discharge the duties of deaconesses. Epipha- 
 nius gives three classes from whom they are to 
 be chosen, the virgins, the widows of one husband, 
 and those who lived in continence with one hus¬ 
 band (^Expositio Fidei, n. 21). The council in 
 Trullo also provides that the wife of a bishop 
 who has retired into a convent on the consecra¬ 
 tion of her husband may, if found fit for the 
 office, be admitted to the diaconate {Cone. Quini- 
 sext. c. 48). Gregory Nyssen ( Vita Macrinae) 
 speaks of his sister Macrina, and of one Lampadia, 
 as being virgins and deaconesses. Sozomen (//. E. 
 viii. 23) speaks of a noble virgin named Nicarete 
 whom Chrysostom urged without effect to become 
 a deaconess ; and of one Olympias, a young widow, 
 who was ordained to the same office (fd. viii. 9). 
 Thus it seems evident that the deaconesses 
 cannot be absolutely identified either with the 
 widows or the virgins of the early church, but 
 were probably chosen from these orders as occasion 
 served. It would even appear that, under some 
 circumstances, married women were admitted. 
 
 The age at which they were to be admitted to 
 their office was strictly defined. Tertullian {De 
 Vel. Virg. c. 9) lays it down that they should 
 be 60 yeai’s of age, widows of one husband, and 
 mothers, that their own experience may enable 
 them to give sympathetic help to others (com¬ 
 pare Basil, Epist. Canon, c. 24 and Jerome, Ep. 
 ad Salvian.'). The council of Chalcedon (c. 15) 
 fixes it at 40, and says they are to be chosen 
 after strict enquiry, giving as a reason the dis¬ 
 honour done to the grace of God, if any, after 
 having undertaken this service, should marry. 
 The council in Trullo (cc. 14, 40) also assigned 
 the age of 40 for the admission of a deaconess, 
 and 60 for that of a widow, grounding the latter 
 rule on the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. v. 9), thus 
 proving conclusively that, in their opinion, he 
 was not speaking in this place of deaconesses. 
 Theodosius issued a decree that no woman should 
 be admitted to the diaconate till she had attained 
 the age of 60, and borne children (Soz. //. E. vii. 
 16). Justinian’s legislation fixed the age of 
 admission at 40 (Novell. 123 c. 13) or 50 (Id. vi. 
 6). Thomassin thinks that only the canons 
 which relate to women of 60 years of age refer 
 to deaconesses, and the others apply to widows 
 who have merely taken the vow of continence. 
 
 But he is obliged to own that he is maintaining 
 this opinion in the face of the decree of the 
 council of Chalcedon (Thomass. Vet. et Nov. 
 Eccl. DEcip. i. 1. 3, c. 52, § 3, 4). Yet much 
 appears to have been left to the bishops. Olym¬ 
 pias is described as a young widow, and Tertul- 
 lian (De Vel. Virg. c. 9) expresses great indigna¬ 
 tion at a case, with which he says he was him¬ 
 self acquainted, in which a virgin under 20 was 
 admitted to the order of widows “in viduatu,” 
 under which term the context proves that he is 
 speaking of the diaconate. 
 
 From the passages already quoted it will be 
 seen that it was always requii-ed that, if widow.^, 
 deaconesses should only have been once married. 
 This was probably in obedience to the injunction 
 of St. Paul, “the wife of one man” (1 Tim. v. 
 9). Other names of female servants of the 
 Church are, irperr^vTiSes, womeu-elders, and irpe- 
 (rfiuTepai, aged women. In the N. T. the words 
 appear identical in meaning (cf. 1 Tim. v. 2, and 
 Titus ii. 3). But in the Apostolic Constitutions 
 (ii. 28), the TrpefffiuTepai, the poorer of whom 
 were to be invited more frequently to the Agapae, 
 are clearly different from the wpecr^vTidfs who, 
 as ministers of the church, are allotted a definite 
 share of the first-fruits then offered, while the 
 same proportion of the “ eulogiae ” is allotted 
 in another place to those who are there called 
 deaconesses (hiaKoviacrais, Ibid. viii. c. 31). Epi- 
 phanius appears to make a distinction between 
 the two, when he says that the deaconesses were 
 called widows (x'fipas), but the elder of them 
 (tos 6Tt ypaoTcpas) were called irpea^vriSas^ 
 and notes carefully that the word is quite different 
 from that which designates women - presbyters 
 (Trp€(r^vT€piSas) (Epiph. Haer. 79, cap. 4, cf., 
 Cone. Laod. c. 11). 
 
 Probably from the difficulty of finding virgins 
 qualified for the office, it would appear that the 
 deaconesses were in a great measure chosen 
 from among the widows. And thus they were 
 often called although distinct from the 
 
 general body of widows belonging to the Church. 
 Thus Epiphanius, in the passage already quoted, 
 speaks of the order of deaconesses (hiaKoviafftHv 
 raypa) who are called widows. So there is a 
 canon speaking of the ordination of widows 
 whom they call deaconesses, “ V'iduarum conse- 
 cratio quas diaconas vocitant ” (Cone. Epaon. c. 
 21); and Basil speaks of a widow who has been 
 taken into the number of widows, that is, re¬ 
 ceived by the Church into the diaconate (Basil, 
 Ep. Can. c. 3). Under this term were included 
 all deaconesses, whether they were widows or 
 not. So Ignatius speaks of the virgins who 
 were called widows, tos irapOivovs ras \^yop.4pas 
 XT^pas (Ad Smyrn. c. 13). So that it is probable 
 that the word may have meant those living with¬ 
 out a husband, whether in widowhood, or under 
 a v'ow of continence (see Jacobson in loco). 
 
 III. Duties ofi Deaconesses. —The duties of the 
 deaconesses were various. The most impoitant 
 related to the administration of baptism to 
 women [Baptism, p. 160]. Thus the 4th coun¬ 
 cil of Carthage (c. 12) speaks of them as widows 
 or virgins selected for the purpose of assisting in 
 the baptism of women, and who therefoi e must 
 be qualified to assist the unlearned candidates 
 how to answer the interrogatories in the baj)tis- 
 mal office, and how to live after baptism. Ej)i- 
 phanius .says that the order was instituted tc 
 
634 
 
 DEACONESS 
 
 DEACONESS 
 
 assist at the baptism of women, that all things 
 might be done with proper decency {ffner. 79, 
 cap. 3). In the Apost'dic Con tilutions (iii. 
 15, 16) it is said that the deaconess (rr/i/ 5ia- 
 Kovov) was to be chosen for ministering to 
 women, because it was impossible to send a 
 deacon into many houses on account of the un¬ 
 believers. At the baptism of Avomen the dea¬ 
 conesses were to administer the chrism before 
 baptism, and to undertake all the necessary 
 •’rrangements for the women, as the deacon did 
 tor the men. No woman was to have any inter¬ 
 course with the bishop or deacon except through 
 the deaconess {IbiL ii. c. 26). They were also 
 to receiA^e women who Avere strangers, and allot 
 them their places in the church {Ibid. ii. c. 58), 
 and to stand at the door of that part of the 
 church Avhich Avas allotted to Avomen {Pnd, ii. 
 c. 57). Thus the Pseudo-Ignatius {Ad Antioch. 
 c. 12) speaks of the deaconesses who kept the 
 doors of the church. They were to attend to 
 the Avomen who Avere sick or in affliction as the 
 deacon did to the men {Coyistitut. Apost. iii. 19), 
 and in time of persecution to minister to the 
 confessors in prison (Cotel. Annot. in Cunstit. 
 Apost. iii. >5, quoting from Lucian and Libanius). 
 They Avere to exercise some supeiwision over 
 the general body of AvidoAvs, Avho were to be 
 obedient to the bishops, priests, and deacons, and 
 further to the deaconesses {Constitut. Apost. iii. 
 c. 7). They also probably had authority over 
 the A'irgins. Thus Gregory Nyssen, in the life 
 of Macrina, says that Lampadia Avas set oA'er the 
 bodv of Aurgins in the diacoiiate. But the latter 
 office appears to have been sepai'able from the 
 diacouate. Sozomen says that Nicai'ete refused 
 either to become a deaconess, or to preside over 
 the virgins of the Church, as if she might haA'e 
 accepted the one position Avithout the other 
 (Soz. II. E. viii. c. 23). 
 
 IV. Bank and Prkileges. —There can be no 
 doubt that deaconesses Avere considered to be an 
 order in the Church. Nectarius is said to have 
 ordained Olympias to the diaconate, Skxkovov 
 ix^ipoTouryo'e (Soz. H. E. A'iii. 9), and the same 
 Avord is used in the decrees of the councils in 
 Trullo (cc. 14, 40), and Chalcedon (c. 15). Epi- 
 jjhanius speaks of them as an order, raypa, in 
 the Church {Haer. 79, cap. 3); and they 
 Avere to receive the consecrated elements imme¬ 
 diately after the male clergy, taking precedence 
 of the Avidows and virgins, and the lay people 
 {Constitut. Apost. Auii. c. 13). Their ministry is 
 said to be dependent upon that of the deacons 
 {Ibid. ii. c. 26). A form of ordination by the 
 bishop is also given in Avhich the words iiridT)<T€is 
 Tcts which express the act of ordination, 
 
 are the same as those employed in the office for 
 the ordination of deacons, Avhich the whole foi'm 
 greatly resembles {loid. viii. 19, 20). 
 
 Tiiomassin understands deaconesses to be meant 
 in a decree of the 2nd council of Carthage (c. 
 3), which forbids a A'irgiu to be consecrated by 
 a presbyter, “ puellarum consecratio apresbytero 
 non fiat ” (ii. Cone. Carth. c. 3), or, as modified 
 by the dial council (c. 36), without the consent 
 of the bishop ( Vet. ct Noc. Eccl. Discip. i. 1. 3, 
 c. 50, § 11, 12). 
 
 There is hoAveA’-er a someAA^hat remarkable pas¬ 
 sage in a decree of the council of Nice, Avhich, 
 after speaking of the Paulianist clergy Avho 
 were to be reordained on their admission to the 
 
 Catholic Church, goes on to say that the dea¬ 
 conesses Avho had assumed that office, or habit, 
 since they had no imposition of hands, could only 
 be reckoned among the laity (1 Cone. Nie. c. 
 19). But this ajijiears simply to refer to cer¬ 
 tain Avomen among the Paulianists Avho had 
 assumed the habit or office of deaconess Avithout 
 imposition of hands, and Avho therefore could 
 not be reonlained but simply reckoned among 
 the laity (cf. Thomassin Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discip. 
 i. 1. 3, c. 50, § 12). Indeed the same canon 
 speaks of deaconesses as among the clergy (eV 
 t(5 Kav6vi) and to be receiA^ed in the same man¬ 
 ner. Thus clearly making a distinction betAveen 
 those among the Paulianists Avho had been regu¬ 
 larly ordained, aud those Avho had assumed the 
 office Avithout ordination. But the reading is 
 doubtful (see Bruns, Cunones, i. 19), though 
 Thomassin, in the place above quoted, accepts it 
 Avithout question as authentic. 
 
 The ordination, hoAvever, was expressly under¬ 
 stood to confer no sacerdotal functions of any 
 kind. The 4th council of Carthage (c. 100) 
 ex))ressly orders that no Avoman should venture 
 to baptize. It appears that certain sects of the 
 Montanists ordained Avomen as ))riests and even 
 as bishops. In opposition to these Epiphanius, 
 Avhile speaking of them as an order in the Church, 
 asserts that they Avere Avomen-elders, but not , 
 priestesses in any sense {wpefr^uTepiSas ^ lep'orcras'), 
 and that their mission aauas not to interfere in 
 any Avay Avith the functions allotted to the priests 
 (/epareuetJ/), but simply to perform certain offices 
 in the care of Avomeu (Epi])h. Haer. 79, cap. 
 3). Tertullian also says that it is not })ermitted 
 to a Avoman to speak in the church, nor to baptize, 
 nor to make the oblation (offerre), nor discharge 
 any of the offices allotted to men (A'irile munus) 
 (Tert. de Vel. Virg. c. 9), and is indignant at 
 the forAvardness of Avomen Avho take upon them- 
 seh^es to teach aud to baptize contrary to the 
 express command of the Apostle (Id. De Baptis. 
 c. 17). The Constitutions (iii. 9) emphatically 
 deny the right of Avomen to baptize, asserting 
 that priestesses are ordained for female deities, 
 and are a heathen, not a Christian institution; 
 aud that if Our Lord had Avished them to baptize, 
 he would himself haA'e been baptized by his OAvn 
 mother rather than by John the Baptist. The 
 latter argument is also used by Epiphanius, Avho 
 says that if Our Lord had ordered Avomeu to 
 exercise any priestly or ecclesiastical ministry, 
 he Avould first have given that office to the 
 Virgin Mary {Haer. 79, cap. 3). 
 
 V. Celibacy .—It is evident that the ordination 
 of deaconesses included a a'oav of celibacy. The 
 council of Chalcedon (c. 15) pronounces an 
 anathema against those who should marry after 
 haA'ing been ordained to the diacouate. Aud Jus¬ 
 tinian’s legislation ordered that those Avho married 
 should be sentenced to forfeiture of property and 
 capital punishment {Novell. A'i. 6). 
 
 VI. Discontinuance. —It is probable that this 
 occasioned the discontinuance of the order. Cer¬ 
 tainly it did not last long. The council of Laodicea, 
 A.D. 320, forbade the appointment of any of 
 those Avho Avei'e called irpea^vribes {Cone. Da d. 
 c. 11). The 1st council of Orange (c. 26), A.D. 
 441, simply forbids the ordination of any dea¬ 
 coness Avhatever; aud again, “ Viduarum conse- 
 cratiouem quas diaconas vocitant ab omui rogione 
 nostra penitus abrogamus ” {Cone, hpaon. c. 21), 
 
DEAD 
 
 DEAD 
 
 535 
 
 The 2nd council of Orleans (cc. 17, 18) decrees 
 that deaconesses who had married were to be 
 excommunicated unless they renounced their 
 '■usbands, but none in future were to be ordained 
 on \ccount of the weakness of the sex. It would 
 appear that, in the time of the writer of certain 
 commentaries which appear under the name of Je¬ 
 rome, the order was quite extinct in the Western 
 Church, and only known by report as existing in 
 .the East. Thus he speaks of “those whom in 
 *the East they call deaconesses ” (Hieron. Comm, 
 in 1 Tim. iii. 11), and “In the East women 
 deaconesses (diaconissae mulieres) appear to 
 minister to their own sex in baptism and the 
 ministry of the word ” (Id. Comm. Rom. xvi. 1). 
 Thomassiu thinks that the order was extract in 
 the Western Church in the 10th or 12tn century 
 ( Vet. et Nuv. Eccl. Discip. i. 1. 3, c. 49, § 8), but 
 that it lingered on a little longer in the Church 
 of Constantinople, though only in convents (Fd. 
 i. 1. 3, c. 47, § 10). 
 
 The title of deaconesses was also given some¬ 
 times to the wives of deacons (ii. Cone. Turon. c. 
 19), and to abbesses of convents (Thomass. Vet. 
 et Nov. Eccl. Discip. i. 1. 3, c. 47, § 10). [P. 0,] 
 
 DEAD, Baptism of and for the. 
 
 DEAD, Communion of. the. 
 
 The three practices thus grouped together had. 
 a common origin in the feeling that baptism was 
 an indispensable condition of salvation; that for 
 those who had been baptized the other great 
 sacrament of the Chnrch was almost as essential; 
 that it, at least, brought with it priceless advan¬ 
 tages to the receiver when he entered on the 
 unseen world ;• that it was the viaticum for that 
 last journey. The earliest trace of the feeling 
 and its results is seen in the strange, passing 
 allusion by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 29, to the 
 fianTi/irep v^Kpeev. It is not within the 
 scope of the present paper to enter fully into 
 the exegesis of that perplexing passage. The 
 strange contrast which its apparent meaning 
 presented to the received doctrine and practice 
 of the Church made the interpreters of a later 
 period anxious to find a way of esca])e, and from 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact downward there 
 have been those who have seen in it a reference 
 to the profession of faith in the resurrection of 
 the body made at baptism. It is believed,, how¬ 
 ever, that this is simply a non-natural and unte¬ 
 nable interpretation. It is better to take the 
 words in their obvious sense, and to remember 
 that St. Paul simply draws from the practice of 
 which they speak an argumentum ad hominem, 
 and does not, in the slightest degree, sanction the 
 practice itself. However startling it may seem 
 that a feeling so gross in its superstition should 
 s})ring up so soon, we have to remember that it 
 was more or less analogous to the “ sorrow with- 
 out hope of which St. Paul speaks in writing 
 to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. iv. 13), and which 
 sprang out of the belief that those who died 
 before the coming of the Lord were shut out 
 from all participation in the glory of the king¬ 
 dom. So it was at Corinth and, it m.ay be, else¬ 
 where. Men were told that by baptism they were 
 admitted to the kingdom of God; that it was the 
 pledge not only of immortality for the soul, but 
 of resurrection for the body. But what would 
 become of those who, though they had believed, 
 were cut off by death before receiving baptism ? 
 
 His an.swer led to the expedient of a “ vicarium 
 baptisma ” (Tertull. De Resurr. Cam. c. 48, Adv. 
 Marcion. v. 10), to which the usages of later 
 Judaism offered, at least, some remote analogies 
 (Lightfoot, IFor. Jlcbr. in 1 Cor. xv.). The 
 practice assumed among the Ebionites (Ejnphan. 
 Ilaeres. 30) and the Marcionites (Chry.sost. 
 //om. 40 in 1 Cor.) a somewhat dramatic form. 
 The corp.se was laid upon the bed, and beneath 
 there was concealed a living man. The question 
 “ Wilt thou be bapti.sed ? ” was formally put 
 and answered, and then the rite was performed 
 on the living as the prox}'^ for the dead. There 
 is no reason for thinking that the practice ever 
 became common in the Church. Its adoption 
 by heretical sects probably secured its con¬ 
 demnation. But the feeling had showed itself 
 in another form more widely. The stronger 
 the feeling that baptism conferred what could 
 be conferred in no other way, the more men 
 lamented over the non-fulfilment of the con¬ 
 dition by those they loved. The Church allowed 
 baptism in articulo mortis, it is true, even where 
 the ordinary conditions were not fulfilled. It 
 might, in case of necessity, be administered by a 
 layman or even by a woman. But still death 
 might come beforehand. What was to be done 
 then? What was to be done in the parallel case 
 of the baptized man dying without communion ? 
 In all parts of the Church, and for some centuries, 
 we find traces of the prevalence of the practice 
 of administering baptism to the corp.se. It is for¬ 
 bidden, it is true, by Councils, but the locality 
 and date of the Synods that prohibit it, are sig¬ 
 nificant as showing how widely spread it was. 
 We have canons against it and against the ana¬ 
 logous practice of placing the Eucharist within 
 the lips of the dead, in the third Council of Car¬ 
 thage (a.d. 397 c, 6) ; in the Council in Trullo 
 at Constantinople (a.d. 692, c. 83); in that of 
 Auxerre (a.d. 578, c. 12) ; in the Canons of Boni¬ 
 face, Bishop of Maintz (Can. 20). Gregory of 
 Naziaiizum {Orat. 40) utters a serious warning 
 against it. Even when the better sense of the 
 Church rejected the more revolting usage, there 
 was, as has been said under Burial, both in the 
 East and West, the corresponding usage, hardly 
 less superstitious, of placing a.portion of the con¬ 
 secrated bread upon the breast of the corpse to 
 be interred with him, as a charm against the 
 attacks of malignant spirits. The practice of 
 the baptism of the dead prevailed most, according 
 to one writer, among the Phrygian followers of 
 Montanus (Philastr. De Haeres. c. 2). [E. H. P.] 
 
 DPIAD, FESTIVAL OF THE. [All 
 Souls Day.] 
 
 DEAD, PEAYER FOR THE. [Canon 
 OF THE L 4 TURGY: Mass.] 
 
 DEAD, TREATMENT OF. [Burial of 
 THE Dead.] 
 
 DEAMBULATORIA, DEAMBULACR A, 
 
 covered porticos for w'alking in, more particu¬ 
 larly those .surrounding the body of a church, 
 d'ambnlutoria ecclesiarnm. These were some¬ 
 times of tw'O stories. This was the case in the 
 church built by Constantine over the Holy Sepul¬ 
 chre, which is described by Eusebius ( IVC C nst. 
 lib. iii. c. 37) as having two porticos, Sirral aToa\, 
 on each side of the church, corresponding to the 
 length of the building, with upper and lower 
 ranges of pillars. Gregory Nazianzen also (OraL 
 
536 
 
 DEAN 
 
 DEBTORS 
 
 19) describes the church erected by his father as 
 having crroal ^i6po(poi. The chur(;h of St. Sophia 
 was similarly surrounded with porticos, except 
 towards the east, on which side they were usually 
 wanting (Procop. dc Aedif. lib. i, c. 8, lib. v. c. 6), 
 and which were of two stories towards the west 
 (Ducange, Constantinopolis Christiana, lib. iii. cc. 
 16, 17). The “ deambulatoria ” sometimes con¬ 
 tained altars (Ducange suh voc.). The term is 
 also used for the walk.s of a cloister, “ deambu- 
 latoria claustrorani.” [Cloistkr.] [E. V.] 
 
 Dh^AN. [Decanus.] 
 
 DEATH, REPRESENTATIONS OF.— 
 
 Though symbolic images involving the thought of 
 death are by no means rare in early Christian art, 
 they have reference almost entirely to the state 
 of death, rather than the process, so to speak. 
 They point to the condition of the restored soul, 
 rather than to the painful separation of body 
 and soul. Thus the thought and representa¬ 
 tions of death are generally without terror. 
 The Raising of Lazarus [Lazarus] is repeated 
 (Bottari, passim) as an earnest of the Lord’s 
 power : the Resurrection accompanies the Cru¬ 
 cifixion in early art, as in the Laurentine MS. 
 Flowei's are freely used to decorate tombs, with 
 little change from their Pagan employment; 
 a ad the bird set at liberty, the palm-branch, the 
 car or chariot at rest, and the ship at anchor 
 (see s. vv.), occur the two first passim, the 
 others occasionally. Herzog {Beal-Encyc., s. v. 
 “ Sinnbilder ”) states that the skeleton figure of 
 death, in its retrospective view, pointing to the 
 change from the life and pleasure of this world 
 is traceable to remains of Gnostic symbols. The 
 writer of this article can remember no earlier 
 instance of it, than Giotto’s crowned skeleton at 
 Assisi. (See Crowe and Cavalcaselle’s Italian 
 Painters, life of Giotto.) Orgagna and, lastly, 
 Holbein bring down this Gothic grotesque sym¬ 
 bol of the visible change, and outer side of the 
 subject, to modern days. 
 
 For the apparently Pagan Chariot of Death in 
 the Catacomb of St. Praetextatus see Perret, Cata- 
 com’jes, &c., vol. i. pi. 72; also Bottari, vol. iii. 
 219. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DEBTORS. The Jewish law in reference to 
 debts and debtors, and to the redemption of 
 pledges, is very peculiar. That of the Christian 
 Church has been mainly founded on the Roman, 
 which, originally very harsh towards debtors 
 (see Gibbon, c. xliv., &c.), under the empire 
 was greatly mitigated in their favour. Thus 
 by a constitution of Diocletian and Maximin 
 (a.d. 294), it was expressly enacted that the 
 laws do not sufler freemen to be compelled to 
 become slaves to their creditors by reason of 
 their debts (^Code, bk. iv. Tit. ix. 1. 12). Under 
 the older law there had already been introduced 
 in favour of the debtor the expedient of the 
 bonorum cessio, something between our bank¬ 
 ruptcy, and what a few years back was distin¬ 
 guished from it as insolvency (see Dig. bk. xlii. 
 Tit. iii.). It was a question among the jurists 
 whether, if a man had once given up all his 
 goods to his creditors, any after acquired pro¬ 
 perty of his was subject to their claims. Sabinus 
 and Cassius would have him free (A6iJ. 1. 4), 
 thus assimilating him to the bankrupt. Ulpian 
 took a middle, and it must be said, an unwise 
 course, holding that the liability (h;peuded on 
 
 the quantum of the subsequent earnings, and 
 that he was not to be disturbed in the possession 
 of anything left or given to him by way of 
 charity for his maintenance (Ibid. 1. 6). Modes- 
 tinus also held the liability to attach, if the pro¬ 
 perty were sufficient to justify the action of the 
 praetor (Ibid. 1. 7). Under the Code, by a con¬ 
 stitution of Alexander Severus (a d. 224), the 
 debtor was not held free from his debt till the 
 creditor was paid in full, but the cess'o bonorum 
 exempted him from imprisonment and from tor¬ 
 ture (bk. vii. tit. Ixxi. 11. 1, 8). It was in the 
 option of the creditors to allow the debtors five 
 years’ delay instead of accepting the ce.sio, such 
 option to be exercised, in case of difference of 
 opinion, according to the figure of the debt, so 
 that a single creditor whose claim should amount 
 to more than the sum total of all the others had 
 the fate of the debtor in his hands (1. 8; Const, 
 of Justinian). An attempt having moreover 
 been made to make the cessio compulsory on the 
 debtor, the 135th Novel forbade this. 
 
 Debtors were under the Christian emperors 
 admitted to the right of sanctuary in churches 
 and their precincts, Jews only excepted, who pre¬ 
 tended a wish to become converted in oi'der to 
 frustrate their creditors, and who were i.ot to 
 be admitted until they had paid all their debts 
 (Code, bk. i. t. xii. 1. 1 ff.), although the public 
 imposts might be levied within the churches 
 themselves, and if the collectors were subjected 
 to violence or seditious opposition, the defensores 
 and oeconomi of the Church were made respon¬ 
 sible for the fiscal dues not collected (Novel 17, 
 c. 7); but otherwise it was expressly enacted by 
 a constitution of the Emperor Leo, A.D. 466 (bk. 
 i. t. xii. 1. 6), that the bishops and oeconomi 
 were not to be held responsible for the debts of 
 persons claiming sanctuary. 
 
 We may moreover observe in the 60th Novel a 
 law forbidding creditors to torment their dying 
 debtors or their families, place their seals upon 
 the property, or interfere with the funeral, under 
 severe penalties (c. i.); and in the 115th another 
 which forbade the pressing by creditors of the 
 heirs, parents, children, wives, husbands, agnates, 
 cognates, connexions or sureties of a deceased 
 debtor within nine days of his death, the delay 
 not to be reckoned as time running for prescrip¬ 
 tion nor otherwise to prejudice the creditor 
 (c. v.). The 134th Novel forbids a custom which 
 it speaks of as prevalent in various places, that 
 of detaining a debtor’s children as pledges, or as 
 slaves or servants for hire, under penalty of for¬ 
 feiture of the debt, damages to an equal amount, 
 and corporal punishment (c. vii.). As to debts 
 due to bankers, see the 136th No el, and 7th 
 Edict of Justinian. 
 
 Under the Ostrogothic rule in Italy, the 
 Edict of Theodoric required debtors condemned 
 by judicial sentence to pay within two months, 
 under pain of the sale of their pledges (c. 124). 
 Where, however, a creditor seized the goods of 
 one who was not under obligation to him, he was 
 to pay fourfold the value, if sued ^rithin the 
 year, otherwise simply to restore the amount 
 seized; and so of the fruits ot land (c. 131). 
 Under the Lombard law, on the contrary, by 
 practice of seizing the person of the debtor the 
 way of j)ledge seems to reappear, although the 
 liability is confined to himselt and his gaphans, 
 or nearest future heir (Laws of Eotharis, c. 149 j 
 
DECALVATIO 
 
 DECANUS 
 
 537 
 
 X.D. 638 or 643). Little, however, is found 
 generally in the barbaric Codes on the subject. 
 
 It is not surprising to find the Church occasion¬ 
 ally int'^rfering either by spiritual penalties, or 
 conversely by kindly assistance to the unfor¬ 
 tunate, where the municipal law failed to take 
 efiect for their relief. A signal instance of ec¬ 
 clesiastical assistance to a debtor is that which 
 *orms the subject of Augustine’s 215th or 268th 
 letter, addressed to his congregation, to which he 
 appealed to repay Macedonius, who had sufiered 
 by his kindness to one Fascius, a debtor who had 
 taken sanctuary. 
 
 An Irish Synod of the middle of the 5th cen¬ 
 tury (450 or 456) enacted the excommunication 
 of fraudulent debtors, as if they were heathens, 
 till they paid their debts (c. 20). In the collec¬ 
 tion of Irish canons, supposed to belong to the 
 end of the 7th century, there is a whole book 
 (xxxii.) “of debts and pledges, and usury,” and 
 another (xxxiii.) “ of sureties and rates.” There 
 is however no reason for supposing that enact¬ 
 ments like this ever took efiect beyond the limits 
 of Ireland. 
 
 From the letters of Gregory the Great, (a.d. 
 690-b03) we obtain some glimpses of the con¬ 
 dition of debtors at the heart of Christendom, 
 towards the end of the 6th and beginning of the 
 7th century, and of the behaviour of the Church 
 towards them. ^Two of his letters (^Epistt. ii. 56 
 and iii. 43) are occupied with the case of a Syrian 
 named Cosmas, a poor debtoi', whose sons, accord¬ 
 ing to his account, were detained by his creditors 
 as pledges for his debts, and whom he was anx¬ 
 ious to benefit. 
 
 Several other instances to the same efiect occur 
 in the same collection. A letter (^Epist. v. 35) 
 to Secundinus, bishop of Taormina, is written in 
 favour of one Sincerus, whose wife was pressed 
 to pay the debts of her late father. See also 
 Epist. vii. pt. 2, 37 and 60, Compare Sanc¬ 
 tuary ; Usury. [J. M. L.] 
 
 DECALVATIO. [Corporal Punishments, 
 p. 472.] 
 
 DECANATUS = 1. the office of dean; 2. the 
 district of a rural dean ; 3. sometimes a farm or 
 monastic grange, in late charters. [A. W. II.] 
 
 DECANIA, the district under a Decanus 
 [p. 539], temp. Car. Calvi. The word was used 
 in later times also for a monastic farm or grange 
 (Du Cauge). [A. W. H.] 
 
 DECANICIUM (AeKau'iKiov'). The PAS¬ 
 TORAL Staff borne before the Patriarch of Con¬ 
 stantinople on solemn occasions: delivered to 
 him in the first instance by the emperor (Suicer’s 
 Thesaurus, s.y.'). Pancirolus however (T’.-es'im’Ms 
 i. 85) states that the decanicium (or dicanitium) 
 was a silver mace. [C.] 
 
 DECANICUM, Decania, or Decanica (Ae- 
 KaviKor), an ecclesiastical prison, career canoni- 
 calis or demerito um d/mus, a place of confine¬ 
 ment in which criminous clerks were incarcerated 
 by their bishops and other ecclesiastical supe¬ 
 riors. The word is derived from the dec mi, the 
 subordinate officials—the pa^Zovxoi or lictors 
 of the church—who were the jailers. By a 
 false etymology it is sometimes written ZiKavinSv. 
 Another form, SiaKoviKdv, also found, may be 
 justified by the fact that the sacristy and other 
 annexed ecclesiastical buildings sometimes served 
 
 the pui’pose of a prison. Cf. the letter of Pope 
 Gregory II., a.d. 731-741, to the Emperor Leo 
 Isaurus, in which, comparing the mercy of the 
 ecclesiastical with the severity of temporal 
 rulers, he says that when one of the clergy was 
 proved to be worthy of punishment, instead of 
 hanging or beheading him, the bishoj) hung 
 round his neck the gospels and the cross, and 
 imprisoned him in one of the treasuries or dia- 
 conica, or catechumena of the church (Labbe, 
 Concil. viii. p. 25). The word decanicum is not 
 unfrequently met with in early times: e.g. in 
 the petition of Basil the deacon to the Emjieror 
 Theodosius, complaining of the cruel indignities 
 he and his friends had been subjected to at the 
 hands of Nestorius (Acta Concil. Ephes. pars i. 
 c. 30, § 3 <?< passim; Labbe, Concil. iii, 425-431). 
 
 “ They had been stripped and beaten, and led 
 off half-naked to the decanicum, where they were 
 detained without food, and again beaten by tlie 
 decani. 
 
 The Decanica are named among the buildings . 
 of which heretics were to be deprived, in a 
 decree of Arcadius and Honorius (Justin. Cod. 
 lib. i. tit. V. c. 3); and in the Novells of Justi¬ 
 nian (Ixxix. c. 3, p. 211) we find a decree ad¬ 
 dressed to Mennas, Archbishop of Constantinople, 
 ordering that officers venturing to execute a 
 sentence of .secular courts on clerics should be 
 imprisoned in the so-called decanica (KaOetpye- 
 adwaau eV tois KaXovpeyois SeKo.y'iKOis'). [E. V.] 
 
 DECANUS (in an ecclesiastical sense) = 
 
 I. A member of a guild, whose occupation was 
 that of interring the dead [Copiatae] : reckoned 
 among clerici hy St. Jerome, Epiphanius, the Cod. 
 Theodos., &c.; called also Koiriargs (Epiphanius), 
 fossarius (Pseudo-Jerom,, De VII. Ord. Eccl.), 
 lecticarius (Justinian, Novel, xliii. Praef.), col- 
 legiatus (in the laws of Honorius, &c., Justinian, 
 Theodosius the Great), decanus (same laws ; and 
 Collect. Constit. Eccl. in Biblioth. Jur. Canon. 
 p. 1243). The office was apparently instituted 
 by Constantine at Constantinople, where it num¬ 
 bered in his time 1100 members, but was 
 afterwards reduced to 950; but then again 
 increased by the Emperor Anastasius, who also 
 endowed it (Justinian, Novel, xliii. lix.; Cod. lib. 
 iv. De Sacrosanct. Eccl.'). From thence it sjiread 
 to “ other populous churches.” The poor were to 
 be buried by its members gratuitously, at least 
 where it was endowed (id. Novel, lix.). The 
 SfKavol mentioned by St. Chrysostom (Horn. 
 xiii.) were a different, and a civil, body of 
 officials, attached to the emperor’s palace. 
 (Bingham, Du Cange, Meursius, Suicer.) 
 
 II. A presbyter appointed to preside as the 
 bishop’s deputy over a division of his diocese : 
 called at first archipresbyter (Thomassin, I. iii. 66, 
 
 § 14; Dansey, p. i. § 2), with the epithet of vica- 
 nus (Cone. Turon. II. c. 19, a.d. 567 ; Bruns’s 
 Canunes, ii, 229), to distinguish him from the 
 urban archipresbyter or protopope, and succeed¬ 
 ing under that name to some of the functions of 
 the older chorepiscopus : originally in the Church 
 of France :—first called Decanus, and his district 
 Decania, —(setting aside a canon, wrongly at¬ 
 tributed to the Council of Agde, A.D. 506, but 
 really of the date of Charles the Great, acc. to 
 Dansey, and two questionable canons respectively 
 of Cone. Tolet. V. a.d. 636, and VII. a.d. 646)— 
 later than about the time of Charles the Great 
 
538 
 
 DECANUS 
 
 DECANUS 
 
 (soe Capit. Car. Cahi, tit. v. § 3; Cone. Tolos. 
 A.D. 843, c. 3 ; Hincmar, 0pp. i. 738, c. a.d. 878) ; 
 called also decaniis ruralis (e.g. in Cone. Trever. 
 A.D. 948, c. 3), magister (by Hincmar, v. Cone. 
 ^Gallie. III. 623), decanus epjiscopi (when intro¬ 
 duced into England, a step perhaps facilitated by 
 the existence of the civil division into tithings, 
 about A.D. 1052, in Legg. Edw. Confess, xxxi., 
 and see Du Cange, and Carpentier’s Supplem. to 
 Du Cange), deeanus Christianorum (in a charter 
 of A.D. 1092, ap. Du Cange), and commonly after¬ 
 wards deeanus Cliristlanitatis, probably as having 
 to do with courts Christian, i. e. with the bishop’s 
 courts. The developed functions of the office 
 belong to a period later than that to which the 
 present work i-elates. In Ireland, the peculiar 
 institution of the court became mixed up with 
 that of pleb tnus, or rural dean. Beyond the 
 British isles and France, the office does not seem to 
 have existed. (Dansey, Horae Decanieae Ilurales, 
 2nd edit. 1844; Du Cange; Spelman.) 
 
 III. The chief officer of a cathedral, deeanus eeele- 
 siae eathedralis, as distinguished from the deeanus 
 urhanus and ruralis, or city and country arch pres¬ 
 byters, after the chapter of the cathedral had be¬ 
 come a separate and corporate body [Canonici]. 
 The office so entitled dates in its full development 
 only from the 10th or 11th centuries, Normandy 
 and Norman England being the countries where 
 it first occurs, Rouen having a dean in the 10th 
 century, and the Dean of St. Paul’s, A.D. 1086, 
 being the first English dean. But as a cathedral 
 officer, the decanus dates from the 8th century, 
 when he is found, after the monastic pattern, 
 as subordinate to the praepositus or provost, who 
 was the bishop’s vicegerent as head of the chapter. 
 The arrangement still survives, after a fashion, 
 in the relative positions of the provost or head, 
 and of the dean, in Oxford and Cambridge colleges. 
 The Council of Mayence, A.D. 813, substituted 
 deans for provosts. And that of Aix la Chapelle, 
 A.D. 817, subordinated the provost to the dean. 
 A series of provosts, afterwards mostly con¬ 
 verted into deans—at Canterbury until the time 
 of Lanfranc, at Worcester a.d. 872-972, at Ely 
 A.D. 878, at Lichfield a.d. 818—822, at Wells 
 before a.d. 1088, at Beverley a.d. 1070, at se¬ 
 veral foreign cathedrals, and in some English col¬ 
 legiate churches—is given by Walcot (^Catkedraiia, 
 p. 38). The change probably arose from the 
 abandonment on the part of the provosts of the 
 spiiitual and internal direction of the chapter, 
 through their attention to its temporal and ex¬ 
 ternal concerns. The functions of the dean are 
 laid down, for the diocese of Lincoln, a.d. 1212, 
 as sanctioned by Pope Alexander III. (Wilk. 
 Cone. 1. 535, 536), and for that of Lichfield 
 A.D. 1194, by Bishop Nonant (ib. 497), and for 
 that of Sarum, as adopted by Glasgow (ib. 741). 
 But the office, in this full sense of the title, 
 belongs to a period long subsequent to the date 
 of Charles the Great. 
 
 IV. Deans of Peculiar.^, and other special appli¬ 
 cations of the title of dean, belong also to a like 
 later period. As does likewise the deanery of the 
 province of Canterbury, attached to the bishopric 
 of Loudon. (Thomassin ; Du Cange ; Waloot’s 
 Archaeology and Caihedralia.) [A. W. H.] 
 
 V. Decanus Mo^iaslicus. —Among monks the 
 office seems to have existed in Asia and Egypt, 
 at least in a rudimentary form, from almost 
 the very commencement of coeuobitism ; in 
 
 I subordination to the ‘ pater,’ ‘ abbas,’ ‘ hegu- 
 menos’ or ‘ archimandrita ’ (Bingh. ib.). The 
 ‘decanus’ was deputed by him to superintend 
 the younger brethren, drilling them in self- 
 denial and encouraging them to confess to him 
 even their secret thoughts (Cassian, Instit. v. 
 8, 9). Especially he was to watch over the 
 novices just emerging, their first year of pro¬ 
 bation being past, from the ‘ xenodochium ’ or 
 strangers’ room (ib. 7), setting them an example 
 of obedience by himself obeying the ‘ praepositus ’ 
 even in things impossible (ib. 10). Augustine 
 speaks of the ‘ decanus ’ as having charge over 
 ten monks (De Mor. Eccl. 31); Jerome, over 
 nine ; (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch.). The ‘ decanus ’ was 
 to provide for the temporal necessities of his 
 monks, for instance, by sending out to them the 
 linen under-garments; (cf. Ca.ss. Instit. iv. 10) to 
 watch by night over their cells ; to lead them 
 to and from refection; to assign to each the 
 allotted task ; and, at the close of the day, to 
 hand over the work done to the ‘ oeconomus ’ or 
 steward, who was to make a monthly report of 
 it to the abbat (Jerome, ib. cf. Bingh. u.s.). 
 
 The great monastic legislator of M. Casino 
 adopted cordially this important feature in coe- 
 nobitism, prescribing more precisely the duties 
 of the ‘ decanus,’ and placing him next in rank 
 to the ‘prior’ or ‘praepositus.’ Indeed, Benedict 
 preferred deans to priors as less Tikely to collide 
 with the supreme authority of the abbat (lieg. 
 c. 65 ; cf. Cone. Mogunt. 1. 816,11). All monas¬ 
 teries, except the very smallest, for the words 
 ‘ major congregatio ’ are taken to mean any number 
 over twenty (Mart, in Beg. S. Bened. 17), were 
 to have deans, one for ten brethren. He was to 
 have charge of his ‘decauia’ in all things, with 
 this proviso, “ according to the precepts of the 
 abbat” (Reg. 21). He was to be appointed not 
 by seniority, ‘ per ordinem,’ but by merit, at the 
 choice of the abbat, or, according to some com¬ 
 mentators, of the abbat and seniors (ib.). He 
 was to hold office for an undefined period, one 
 year or more (Mart, in Reg. 31-2), in fact, 
 “ quamdiu se bene gesserit,”.but after three ad¬ 
 monitions was to be deprived (Reg. 21). He was 
 to guard the morals and conduct of the monks 
 under his care, especially the dormitory (Reg. 22 ; 
 ci Reg. Magist. 11); and to hear their confessions 
 (Reg. 46). 
 
 In subsequent adaptations of the Benedictine 
 Rule the office of Dean is defined still more pre¬ 
 cisely. By the rule entitled ‘ Magistri,’ his 
 badge of office was to be a wand ‘ virga,’ or 
 rather a crook, symbolic of pastoral duties (Reg. 
 Mag. 11, cf. Menard, in Cone. Reg. 28, 2). The 
 same rule orders two deans for each decade of 
 monks, to relieve one another, so that one or the 
 other may be always with them (ib.). They were 
 to preside at table in the refectory (D.). By 
 the rule of Fructuosus, the dean is to keep watch 
 over the younger monks, even in minute points of 
 deportment, to receive their most secret confes¬ 
 sions, and to delate imuenitent oflenders to the 
 abbat or prior (R g- Fruct. 12). By the council 
 of Aachen, in 817, the eldest in rank of the 
 deans is to superintend the other deans (Cane. 
 Aquisgr. 55). 
 
 According to IMenard (in Reg. S. Bened. 21), 
 the practice of the Reformed Benedictines as to 
 the office of dean has varied considerably. With 
 the Cistercians it has been unknown (ib.). With 
 
DlilCIMAE 
 
 DECRETAL 
 
 539 
 
 the monks of Clugni, the deans administered the 
 temporalities of the monastery, being the ‘ vil- 
 laruin provisores ’ or ‘suffraganei Prioris' (i6. 
 cf. Du Cange, Glussar. s.v.). With the monks 
 of M. Casino, the dean at one time ranked next 
 to the abbat (cf. Alteser. Ascetic, ii. 9) ; but aftei’- 
 wards, the original institution of deans was 
 revived (Menard. f6.). In some monasteries, 
 according to Du Cange (Glossar. s.v.), there was 
 a ‘ foris decanus ’ to look after the interests of 
 the monastery, outside its walls; in some a ‘ de¬ 
 canus operis ’ or ‘ operariorum ’ over the work¬ 
 people ; in some, the tenants under the monastery, 
 
 ‘ villici ’ or ‘ coloni ’ were called ‘ decani.’ Hence 
 the ‘ decania ’ or ‘decanatus’ came to mean 
 sometimes a grange belonging to a monastery 
 (ib.). In nunneries there were officials, ‘ decanae,’ 
 corresponding to the ‘decani’ in the older sense 
 of the word, to maintain order and discipline 
 (f6.). 
 
 See, also, Haefteni Disquisitiones Monasticae 
 III. tract vi. disquis. 4, Antverpiae, 1644. Dic- 
 tionnaire du Droit Canonique^ par Durand de 
 Maillane, Lyon, 1776, 1786. 
 
 For the growth and development of the office 
 of ‘ decanus ’ in cathedi'al-monasteries see under 
 Canoxici. [I. G. S.] 
 
 DECIMAE. [Tithes.] 
 
 DECREE. [Decretum.] 
 
 DECRETAL. As has been observed in a 
 previous article [Canon Law], a decretal in its 
 strict canonical sense is an authoritative rescript 
 of a pope, in reply to some question propounded 
 to him, just as a decree is an ordinance enacted 
 by him, with the advice of his cardinals, but not 
 drawn from him by previous inquiry.® The 
 very word therefore implies power and jurisdic¬ 
 tion. Hence, though from the 4th century 
 downwards epistles of the Bishops of Rome are 
 extant,** the earlier specimens do not come up to 
 the full canonical idea of decretals, inasmuch as 
 they ])Ossessed, when issued, a moral weight 
 rather than a legislative force. They are thus 
 spoken of by Gieseler :—“ Another source of in¬ 
 fluence to the Roman bishops was the custom of 
 referring to them particularly, as the head of the 
 only apostolic Church of the West, all questions 
 concerning the apostolic customs and doctrines, 
 which in the Last were addressed indiscrimi¬ 
 nately to the bishops of any church founded by 
 an apostle. This gave them occasion to issue a 
 vast number of didactic letters (epistolae decre- 
 tales), which soon assumed a tone of apostolic 
 authority, and w'ere held in high estimation in 
 the West, as flowing from apostolic tradition.” 
 (Gieseler, Ck. Hist., Second Period, chap, iii.) 
 
 As the papal power became firmly established, 
 such epistles acquired more and more force, until 
 at length they occupied the position tersely ex¬ 
 pressed by the canonist Lancellottus in later 
 
 ® Decretalis epiistola est, quando Papa ad c<>nsiiUa- 
 tioncni alicnjus respondet; sive solus, sive de consilio 
 fratrum.. . . Decretum est, quod Papa de consilio tratrimi, 
 nulla consultatione factti, super aliqua re siatuit, et in re- 
 scriptis redegii...Consliiuiio estqu'dPapa prop'io motu 
 sUtui', et in rescriplis redegit, sine consilio Iratrum et 
 nulla consultatione fa ta.—Hosiiensis, Aurea suvima, 
 I'lO-jeip. 14. 
 
 >> .\s regards the 3id century, see Phillips, p. 6, and 
 Bickell, i. 35, note. Cornel.us is the only Pope of whom 
 any lett js of th..t date remain. 
 
 days—“ Decreta Pontificum Romanorum canoni- 
 bus conciliorum pari potestate exaequantur ” 
 (lib. i. tit. 3). Conversely, also, the papal power 
 itself was mainly indebted for its development 
 to the canonical doctrine of decretals. For it 
 was the collection of forged decretals put forth 
 by the Pseudo-Isidore which chiefly jiersuaded 
 the world that the popes had from the most 
 primitive times been in the habit of issuing 
 authoritative rescripts ; and this being once ad¬ 
 mitted, it followed that they must still have 
 power to act in a like manner.Moreover, the 
 pretended decretals were so full of assertions of 
 the papal prerogatives, that wdien they were 
 once accepted as genuine and valid, they were a 
 sufficient justification for the issue of any sub¬ 
 sequent document of the same sort, how'ever ex¬ 
 travagant. As the collection of the Pseudo- 
 Isidore did not appear until the middle of the 
 9th century, it lies beyond the period to which 
 the present work is confined. But some notice 
 of it is required on many grounds. It contains 
 numerous alleged decretals of very early popes, 
 the spuriousness of which must be pointed out. 
 It gave the chief support to the canonical idea 
 of a “ Decretal,” and therefore enables us to 
 show that that idea in its full development is 
 probably later than 800 a.d. It contains several 
 decretals taken from the older collections of Dio¬ 
 nysius and of the Spanish Church, and therefore 
 gives us occasion to notice that the idea in 
 question, though not fully matured, was not un¬ 
 known at an earlier period. It may be con¬ 
 venient therefore briefly to indicate the character 
 and contents of the work. 
 
 It commences with nearly sixty letters of 
 various Bishops of Rome, from Clement to Mel- 
 chiades. These are all fictitious, and are all 
 (according to Heinschius, cxxxi.), with the ex¬ 
 ception of two letters of Clement (which are in 
 whole or in part more ancient forgeries), the 
 work of the Pseudo-Isidoi-e. 
 
 Then follow various conciliar decrees, with 
 which we are not here concerned, but many of 
 which are unauthentic. In a third part we have 
 again decretals of popes down to Gregory 11. In 
 this series the first that is genuine is that of 
 Siricius to Himerius or Eumerius, Bishop of Tar¬ 
 ragona.** Among those that follow, some are to 
 a certain extent genuine, or, at all events, have 
 been taken, with more or less exactness, from 
 existing records. Others, on the contrary, are 
 either the invention of the compiler, or have 
 been compounded by him out of some existing 
 materials, or, lastly, were forgeries found ready 
 to his hand.® Everywiiere, however, unwar¬ 
 ranted alterations and additions are to be found. 
 
 c The work is considered by Heinschius to h.n e appeared 
 between 847 and 853, a.d. It has been usual to trace its 
 origin to the province of Mayence, but Heinschius attri¬ 
 butes it to that of Rheims. The author is not certainly 
 known (see Heinschius. ccviii. and ccxxix. et seq.). liy 
 some he has been Identified with Benedictus lan it.i; but, 
 according to Heinschius, he only availed himself ot mate¬ 
 rials found in the collection of Benedictus. (Heins, cxliii.) 
 
 ^VIth this the original collection of Dionysius began, 
 e Milman makes 39, Phillips 35, false decrees in this 
 part of the work. It is liard to .say with preci.-ion how 
 many of the forgi ries were previously in existence. On 
 this jxjiiit the carelui analysis in the preface ol Heinschius 
 should be (on.sulted. S e also I’hillips, p. 63, Bickell, i 
 35, note. It Is imjiosslble to condense the results. 
 
540 
 
 DECRETAL 
 
 DECRETUM 
 
 wholly spurious letters being apparently mixed 
 with those that have some title to be deemed 
 authentic.^ It thus appears that the work is not 
 a pure, unmixed forgery. It rests in part on 
 older collections. These are the Hispana col- 
 •ectio, the so-called Hadriano-Dionysian collection 
 (or Codex Hadrianus), and some other works of 
 less importance. Of these some account has been 
 already given under a previous head [Canon 
 Law], and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat 
 it here. As there mentioned, the work of Dio¬ 
 nysius (subsequently sanctioned by Pope Hadrian) 
 was the first which placed the papal epistles side 
 by side with the decrees of Councils. This seems 
 to have been the important step. From this time 
 an opening was given to contend that they wei’e 
 on a par, and the wide circulation which the work 
 obtained very materially assisted the pretensions 
 founded on it. Then came the Spanish collec¬ 
 tion, which yet further contributed to invest the 
 papal epistles with a legislative, as distinguished 
 from a moral, authority in the Church. It car¬ 
 ried on the series further than Dionysius had 
 doue;l^ and at length, in the 9th century, the 
 appearance of the work of the Pseudo-Isidore (so 
 called to distinguish him from the Isidore to 
 whom the Spanish collection is attributed), with 
 its crowd of fictitious epistles which an uncritical 
 age received in implicit faith, put into the hands 
 of the popes the greatest weapon which they 
 have ever wielded. The result therefore is that 
 previously to the year 800 a.d. the foundations 
 were really laid for the superstructure after¬ 
 wards raised ; but it was chiefly due to the sub¬ 
 sequent work that that superstructure attained 
 its vast proportions and peculiar character. For 
 the forgeries invented by, or enshrined in, that 
 work, not only vastly increased the number of 
 papal epistles, and carried them back to pri¬ 
 mitive times, but were directly framed with a 
 view of sujjporting the highest claims of the 
 Roman see. There is little or nothing in the 
 genuine epistles which could be made the foun¬ 
 dation of many of the later papal claims, whereas 
 the fictitious decretals furnish a basis for the 
 largest pretensions. It was for this reason that 
 
 f As an indication that the learned of all communions 
 are substantially agreed at the present day as to the cha¬ 
 racter of the work as a whole, it may not be uninteresting 
 to cite the following summary of the work from the Bene¬ 
 dictine notes to the Bibliotheca Cavonica of Ferraris, edit. 
 1845: (stated to be published *• Superiorum permissu et 
 privileglo.") Under the title “ Canones ” the collection 
 of Pseudo-Isidore is thus spoken of:—“Continet collectio 
 praeter quinquaginta Canones Apostolorura ex Hadrian^ 
 collectione, epistolas Romanorum Pontificum a Clemente 
 usque ad Silvestrum, quarum omnium ipse Isidorus auctor 
 fuit, exceptis duabus dementis ad Jacobum literis; turn 
 canones plurium conciliorum, in quibus falsa habetur Con- 
 stitutio Constantini ad Silvestrum; postremo Pontificum 
 literas ab ipso Siivestro ad Gregorium M. aliis cum epi- 
 stolis ac monumeritis, quorum pars ex aliis collectionlbus 
 sump'a vera est atque germana, praeter epistolas omnes 
 Pontificum Siricio antiquiorum ab Isidoro conficta's, ex¬ 
 ceptis S. Damasi ad Paullnum Uteris, pars altera cum 
 actis concilii Romani sub Julio et Concilil 1. V. et VI. sub 
 Symmacho, excogitata et inventa est.” See another ac¬ 
 count, also from a Roman Catholic point of view, in 
 Phillips’ Du Droit EccUsiastique, chap. i. § 8. 
 
 g Phillips (p. 29) seems to think that some decretals 
 purporting to proceed from the earliest popes had been 
 added to the collection of Dionysius at, the end of the 7ih 
 century, thus carrying the series backward also, and 
 paving the way for Pseudo-Isidore. 
 
 they were brought at once into pi*omincnce, and 
 that from the time of their ap])earance decretabs, 
 as di.stinguished from other sources of ecclesi¬ 
 astical law, j)lay so large a part in the works of 
 the canonists. 
 
 “The false decretals,” says Milman (Lot. 
 Christ, book v. chap. 4), do not merely assert 
 the supremacy of the popes—the dignity and pri¬ 
 vileges of the Bishop of Rome—they comprehend 
 the whole dogmatic system and discii)line of the 
 Church, the whole hierarchy from the highest to 
 the lowest degree, their sanctity and immunities, 
 their persecutions, their disputes, their right of 
 appeal to Rome.** They are full and minute on 
 church property; on its usurpation and spolia¬ 
 tion ; on ordinations; on the sacraments, on bap¬ 
 tism, confirmation, marriage, the Eucharist; on 
 fasts and festivals; the discovery of the cross, 
 the discovery of the reliques of the apostles ; on 
 the chrism, holy water, consecration of churches, 
 blessing of the fruits of the field ; on the sacred 
 vessels and habiliments. Personal incidents are 
 not wanting to give life and reality to the fic¬ 
 tion. The whole is composed with an air of 
 piety and reverence: a specious jiurity, and oc¬ 
 casionally beauty, in the moral and religious 
 tone. There are many axioms of seemingly sin¬ 
 cere and vital religion. But for the too manifold 
 design, the aggrandisement of the see of Rome 
 and the aggrandisement of the whole clergy in 
 subordination to the see of Rome ; but for the 
 monstrous ignorance of history, which betrays 
 itself in glaring anachronisms, and in the utter 
 confusion of the order of events and in the lives 
 of distinguished men — the former awakening 
 keen and jealous suspicion, the latter making 
 the detection of the spuriousness of the whole 
 easy, clear, irrefragable — the False Decretals 
 might still have maintained their place in eccle¬ 
 siastical history.' 
 
 Authorities .—Gieseler, Text Book of Eccles. 
 History ; Heinschius, Decretales Fseudo~Isido~ 
 rianae et Capitu'a Anyilrami, Lipsiae, 18fi3, 
 which is now probably the standard work on the 
 subject; Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, 
 Giessen, 1843; Milman, Latin Christi inity ; 
 Phillips, Du Droit eccldsiastique dans scs Sources ; 
 Walther, Kirchenrecht. [B. S.] 
 
 DECRETUM, DECRETALE. The letter 
 of the clergy and people of a city, sent to the 
 metropolitan and the comprovincial bishops, 
 signifying the election of a bishop of their city 
 [Bishop, p. 220], whom they require to be con¬ 
 secrated ; equivalent to ttjs 
 \pT)<picr/JLa (Palladius, Vita Chrysos. p. 39). Gre¬ 
 gory of Tours (Vita Maurit. c. 13, in Du- 
 cange) says that in the choice of Mauritius the 
 electors could not “ in unum venire decretum.” 
 A form for such a letter is given in the Ordo 
 Bomanus Vulg., under the title, “ Decretum quod 
 clerus et populus firmare debet de electo epi- 
 scopo.” The proper form of one addressed to the 
 pope himself is given in the Li'>er Diurnus Bon- 
 
 »» It has been thought by Gfrbrer that one motive of the 
 fraud was to beat dow'ii the power of the metropolitans 
 over the bishops, by making that of the pope greater and 
 more immediate in Its nature over all the clergy. See 
 Milman’s note, ibidem. 
 
 » It should perhaps be added that in this article the 
 strict caiionical sense of “ Decretal ” has been taken. 1 he 
 woid, like other ecclesiastical terms, is sometimes used in 
 a looser and more general sense. 
 
DEDICATION 
 
 tiff. Romm. c. 3, p. 54. In the same place there 
 fo'llows (p. 56) a ^^Decretale, quod legit diaconus 
 dcsignuto episcopo.” The difference between this 
 and the foregoing Decretum appears to be, that 
 the one was sent by the hands of some official of 
 the vacant see immediately on the election of the 
 bishop; if thereupon the pope gave his assent, 
 the bishop became technically desijnate, and a 
 deacon of his church read the Decretalc or peti¬ 
 tion for consecration (Gamier, in loco). Several 
 forms of Decreta on the election of bishops may 
 be found in Sirmond’s Concil. Gall. ii. 647 ff. 
 and in Ussher’s Vet. Ejjist. Hihern., Kpp. 25, 33, 
 40. [C.] 
 
 DEDICATION. [Consecration of 
 Churches: Patron Saint.] 
 
 DEDICATION, FESTIVAL OF (’£ 7 /^ 0 !- 
 
 v^a). The observance of the anniversary of 
 dedication arose contemporaneously with the 
 custom of the solemn dedication of churches. 
 It was natural that an epoch so intimately con¬ 
 nected with the religious life of the congrega¬ 
 tion should not be allowed to drop into oblivion. 
 By a very intelligible metaphor the day of con¬ 
 secration was considered the birthday of the 
 church, or congregation meeting for worship 
 within its walls. St. Leo (^^enno Ixxxii. in 
 Ratal. Machab.) calls it the “ dies natalis ” of the 
 church. By another metaphor it was regarded 
 as the day of the church’s espousals to her 
 heavenly Bridegroom. Most naturally therefore 
 these anniversaries were celebrated with the 
 same joyous feelings and outward festivities as 
 birthdays and wedding-days. These celebrations 
 havincf their first origin in the time when the 
 Christians were a poor and barely tolerated sect, 
 exposed continually to persecution, and when 
 any outward pomp attracting the notice of the 
 heathen population around would be fraught 
 with peril, assumed a character of magnificence 
 in their period of security and opulence. The 
 earliest instance on record of the observance of 
 such anniversaries is in the case of the church of 
 “ the Great Martyry ” erected by Constantine on 
 Calvary, and consecrated a.d. 335. In memory 
 of this solemn dedication, the most magnificent 
 the Christian world had yet witnessed, a yearly 
 festival was held for eight days at Jerusalem, 
 attended by immense crowds not of the citizens 
 only but of strangers from all parts (Soz. //. E. 
 lib. ii. c. 26). But the custom was certainly 
 anterior to this, for not many years later, to¬ 
 wards the middle of the 4th century, the obser- 
 A'ance of these anniversaries is spoken of by 
 Gregory Nazianzen as “ an ancient usage,” iyKal- 
 via rifiaaQai iraKaihs vSjxos Kai KaXws koI 
 
 toCto ovx a7r«| aWa Ka\ iroWaKis, kK(X(TTi]s tov 
 ^viavTov TreptTpoTTTjs r^v avTr?*' Tjfxepav iTray~ 
 
 o6(T7)s (Greg. Naz. In Novam Dominicam. Orat. 
 xliii.). Two centuries later it was laid down by 
 Felix IV. c. A.D. 530, as a law.of the Church that 
 such anniversaries should be solemnly kept for 
 eight days, “ solemnitates vero dedicationum 
 ecclesiarum per singulos annos sunt celebrandae ” 
 (^Epistola ad Episcopos, Labbe, Concil. iv. 1655). 
 The example of Christ attending the Feast of 
 Dedication (John x. 22), and of Solomon feasting 
 the people for eight days at the Dedication of 
 the Temple, 1 Kin. viii. 65, 66, were adduced as 
 authorities for this observance. At the com¬ 
 mencement of the next century we find the fii’st 
 
 DEDICATION, FESTIVAL OF 64t 
 
 indication of the re^elry with which these festi¬ 
 vals were subsequently disgraced, and which 
 made them a by-word for scandalous licence. 
 Gregory the Great writing to Mellitus when pro¬ 
 ceeding to join Augustine in England, a.d. 601, 
 after retracting the advice previously given that 
 the heathen temples should be destroyed, and re¬ 
 commending their purification and conversion 
 into Christian Churches, proceeds in a similar 
 spirit to advise that the popular festivals for¬ 
 merly held on these consecrated sites should not 
 be wholly discontinued, but that “as some so¬ 
 lemnity must be conceded as a compensation,” 
 they should be transferred to the anniversaries 
 of the day of dedication, or the nativities of the 
 martyrs by whose relics the churches were 
 hallowed. On these days he recommends that 
 huts or arbours should be erected, about the 
 transformed temples, in which after “ killing 
 cattle to the praise of God in their eating, they 
 should celebrate the solemnity with religious 
 feasting ” (Greg. Mag. Epist. ad Mcllitum, Had- 
 dan and Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 37 ; Bede, lib. i. c. 
 30). In other places Gregory alludes to the 
 eagerness with which the country folk flocked 
 together to these festive celebration.s, and the 
 mixed crowds that were attracted by the good 
 cheer (Greg. Mag. Homil. in Evang. xiv.; Epist. 
 lib. i. 52, 54; Vita, c. 37. See also Sidonius 
 Apollinaris, Epist. lib. iv. ep. 15). Such gather¬ 
 ings of half-leavened pagans inevitably assumed 
 a character of gross license entirely at variance 
 with their sacred intention. Dramatic repre¬ 
 sentations were performed, drinking was pro¬ 
 longed to intoxication, and singing and dancing 
 were continued far into the night. In fact they 
 were characterized by all the revelry and licen¬ 
 tiousness of a village fair, which in so many 
 cases is the lineal successor of the dedication 
 festival, changed only in its externals. These 
 gross scandals were not allowed to pass un¬ 
 reproved. The serious attention of bishoj)s and 
 councils was directed to them, and earnest 
 attempts were made for their suppression. The 
 19th canon of the council of Chalons, a.d. 650, 
 is directed against the custom (the prohibition 
 indicates the practice) of bands of women sing¬ 
 ing foul and obscene songs, “turpia et obscoeua 
 cantilena,” at the porches or churchyard walls 
 on the dedication festivals (Labbe, Con:il. vi. 
 391 [compare Dancing]). But so thoroughly 
 had these licentious festivjils established them¬ 
 selves, that their authoritative condemnation 
 proved idle, and they lived on in defiance of pre¬ 
 lates and councils. 
 
 Gavanti lays down (^Thes. Sacr. Rit. § 8, c. 5) 
 that the Feast of Dedication is a festival of the 
 first-class, of greater dignity than that of the 
 Patron Saint or the Titulary of the Church. 
 The reason for this superiority is assigned by St. 
 Thomas Aquinas (lect. 5 in Joann, c. x.) because 
 the dedication festival is a commemoration of the 
 benefits conferred on the whole church, which 
 exceed those given to any individual saint. The 
 Feast of Dedication is a “ duplex majus ” and 
 has an octave. If it happens to coincide with 
 any greater festival the consecrator, or after¬ 
 wards the bishop of the diocese, may transfer 
 the anniversary to some Sunday, or any other 
 day convenient for the large attendance of the 
 country people (Gavanti u. s.; Bellarmin. de cultu 
 sanctorum, lib. iii. c. 5, de dedicatione et conxcru' 
 
542 
 
 DEDUCTORIUM 
 
 DEGRADATION 
 
 tione ecclesiarum ; Ducange suh voc.; Bingham, 
 Ori(j. bk. viii. c. ix. § 14; Isid. Hispal. De Eccl. 
 Off. lib. i. c. 36 ; Gratian Decret. iJe Consecr. 
 Dist. i. c. 17 ; Ivo Carnot. Decret. pars iii. c. 24). 
 
 After the establishment of Christianity newly 
 founded cities were solemnly dedicated to Christ 
 and the Saints, and the anniversary of tlie dedi¬ 
 cation was celebrated. This was notably the 
 case with Coustantinoj)le, the anniversary called 
 •yev^QKios rr\s irdKecos ^ix4pa [p. 448] being kept 
 on the 11th of May (Ducange, CumtanLinop. 
 Christiana, lib. i. c. 3). [E. V.] 
 
 DEDUCTORIUM. A name sometimes given 
 to the j)i})e or channel by which the baptismal 
 water escaped from the font (Paschasius, Epist. 
 ad Lconem Papani). [Font.] [C.] 
 
 DEER. [Stag.] 
 
 DEFENSOR ECCLESIAE. [See Advo- 
 CATUS Kcclesiae.] The Division into Defensores 
 Ecclesiae, Pauperum, Matrimonii, &c., is one of 
 duties, not of persons. In addition to their proper 
 work, already described under Advocatus, a law 
 of Justinian Ixxiv. 4) imposed upon them 
 
 also in certain cases the incidental duty of wit¬ 
 nessing and registering espousals. Setting aside 
 on the oue hand the case of senators and persons 
 of the highest rank, who were bound to have a 
 regular settlement of dowry and antenuptial 
 gift, &c., &c., and on the other that of persons 
 of the lowest rank, who needed no written docu¬ 
 ment at all, Justinian ordained that oHicers, 
 merchants, professional men, and the like, if 
 they desired their marriage to be lawful, must 
 present themselves in church in the presence of 
 the Defensor Ecclesiae [Contract of Mar¬ 
 riage, p. 488]; and that officer, with three or 
 four of the superior clergy of the church, is to 
 draw up and sign, with at least three of the said 
 clergy, a dated and formal attestation of the 
 marriage contract, one copy to be deposited in 
 the archives of the church, others to be given if 
 required to the parties themselves {fBincjh. XXII. 
 iii. 10). [A. W. H.] 
 
 DEGRADATION, DEPOSITION, DE- 
 ORDINATION, DEPRIVATION, were terms 
 at first used indiscriminately to signify the total 
 and absolute withdrawal from a clergyman, by 
 ecclesiastical sentence, of his clerical office, and 
 the reducing of him to simple lay communion : 
 derjradare, ah officio removere, deordinare, ab or- 
 dine cleri amoveri, KadaipeiaOai, air' oIkPiov ^ad- 
 uov airoir'nrTeiv, ireTravcrOaL tov KXppov, being 
 all used of the same thing ; which is also ex¬ 
 pressed by “ deponi ab officio communione con- 
 eessa.” As a punishment of clergymen, it stood 
 midway between a temporary withdrawal of the 
 clerical office, viz. suspension, and an exclusion 
 from the Church altogether by excommunication. 
 There were also various degrees of degradation 
 itself: as e.g. the degradation simply from a 
 higher order to a lower; or again, degradation 
 from the office, but with permission to retain its 
 title and dignity: for which, and for some minor 
 variations, see Bingham, XVII. iv. 
 
 1. The proper to inflict such a sentence, 
 in the case of an inferior clerk, was the Bishop 
 [p. 228], acting with his presb 3 flers and with his 
 church in the earliest times, but from the 4th 
 century the bishop practically was the judge. An 
 appeal, however, was allowed from the beginning 
 to the provincial synod; see e. g., Cone. JS’icaen. 
 
 and Cone. Sardic., and also under Appeal. And 
 the provincial Council of Seville {llispal. II. a.D. 
 619, c. 6) endeavoured to restore the older prac¬ 
 tice also, and insist on the bishop acting ab initio 
 with his council—“ Solus honorem dare potest, 
 auferre solus non potest.” The rule how^ever 
 gradually came to be, that three bishops were 
 required to degrade or try a deacon, six in the 
 case of a priest, and twelve in that of a bishop. 
 [See Appeal.] The synod of the province indeed 
 was alone the tribunal which could depose a 
 bishop, and subsequently a prie.sl also. 
 
 2. As to the crimes for which clergy were to 
 be degraded, it may be taken for granted that 
 they were liable to the penalty for all such im¬ 
 moral acts as would involve excommunication in 
 the case of a layman. But in addition to these, 
 there are special offences against clerical disci¬ 
 pline to which various canons attached the like 
 penalty, such as digamy, usury, having recourse 
 to a secular tribunal, keeping hawks or hounds, 
 meddling with secular business, frequenting ta¬ 
 verns needlessly; besides such matters as more 
 immediately related to their duties, as, e. g. alter¬ 
 ing the form of bapti.sm, despising fasts and festi¬ 
 vals, not rightly keeping Easter, &c. The 58th 
 Apostolic Canon {al. 57) deposes for negligence 
 in pastoral care, paOvpia. See Bishop, Priest, 
 Deacon. 
 
 3. There must always have been some cere¬ 
 monial in the infliction of such a sentence, 
 although the elaborate details of later customs 
 are not traceable in early times, and date in 
 their formal fulness from the Roman Pontifical 
 and from a Bull of Boniface VIII. ^Martene 
 (^De Bit. Ant. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 2) has collected 
 what can be gathered of earlier practice. Libe- 
 ratus* Breviarium supplies his earliest instance. 
 The principle on which the later practice was 
 formed was so natural in itself, that something 
 of the kind no doubt was the rule from the first. 
 Since the clerical office was conferred with the 
 accompaniment of delivering to each order cer¬ 
 tain appropriate iustrumeutSj and with the 
 adoption also of certain vestments, there could 
 be no more effectual or natural symbol of the 
 taking away of its office than the taking away 
 of these appropriate instruments and vestments. 
 In the case mentioned by Liberatus, accordingh’, 
 an archbishop is deprived by taking away his pall. 
 The more elaborate and later ceremonial in the 
 Pontifical and in Boniface’s bull gives each 
 separate article and then solemnly takes it awa}’, 
 with a form of words for each, and this either 
 privately, “ before the secular judge,” or on some 
 public and elevated stage ; ending by scraping the 
 thumb and hand of the degraded clerk, to signify 
 the removal from him of unction and blessing. 
 The Donatists it appears proceeded tc shave his 
 head bald also. That some words as well as acts 
 were used from the beginning may likewise be 
 taken for granted (See e.g. Socrates, //. E. i. 24, 
 speaking of the deposition of Eustathius). Regular 
 and minute ritual forms are of a late date. They 
 may be found in Martene and in Bohmer, as 
 quoted below. 
 
 4. After degradation, there still followed in 
 stricter times, and for bad cases, confinement to 
 a monasteiy and penance, as may be seen in e.g. 
 Gregory the Great’s letters; the clerk being still 
 quasi subject to ecclesiastical law, although now 
 a laj'man only. 
 
DEICOLAE 
 
 DEMONIACS 
 
 (Bingham, 
 lib. iii. c. 2; 
 tit. xxxvii. § 
 
 xvii.; Martene, De Ant. Hit. Heel. 
 Bohmer, Jus Eeeles. Protest, lib. v. 
 974, tom. V. pp. 715-766.) 
 
 TA. W. H.l 
 
 DEICOLAE (compare Colidei). A name 
 sometimes applied to monks, as in the Epistle 
 of ^lartin of Braga to King Miro, in D Achery s 
 Spieilcgium, lii. 312 (Ducange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 DEI GRATIA. The bishops of the Church, 
 regarding themselves as called to their office by 
 the will of God, have from ancient times been 
 in the habit of using formulae implying a divine 
 call. Thus Pope Felix II. (a.d. 356) calls him¬ 
 self “per gratiam Dei episcopus” (Hardouin, 
 C'jn' ilia, i. 757). Aurelius says that he holds 
 his office “ dignatione Dei” (C. Garth, iii. c. 45; 
 A.d. 397). Other bishops used equivalent ex- 
 ])ressions, as “Dei” or “ Christi nomine, mise- 
 ratione, misericordia.” The German bishops 
 have used, from the 7th century onward, the 
 form “ Dei gratia,” to which in later times some 
 such phrase as “ a})Ostolicae sedis gratia” or 
 “providentia” was added. Z^Wwem (Pr,neipia 
 Juris- Eecl. iv. 278) believes this addition not 
 to be earlier than the middle of the thirteenth 
 century, and Thomassin (^Vetus et Nova Eeel. 
 Discip. pt. i. bk. i. c. 60, § 10), will not allow 
 that it was used in Germany before the be¬ 
 ginning of the fifteenth ; but the germ of it is 
 certainly found in the writings of Boniface, 
 the apostle of Germany, who styled himself 
 “ servus apostolicae sedis ” (Hartzheim, Cuneilta 
 Gernvxniae., i. 43). 
 
 A similar style was adopted by secular per¬ 
 sons of exalted rank ; thus Agilulf on his crown 
 [Crown, p. 508] is described as “ Gratia Domini 
 . . . Rex totius Italiae ” (a.d. 591); and Rothar 
 (a.d. 643), in his Edict for the Lombards (Walter, 
 Corpus Juris Germcmici, i. 683), speaks of him¬ 
 self as “ in Dei nomine rex, anno, Deo propi- 
 tiante, regni mei octavo.” In England, Ethelbert 
 of Kent, in a charter of the year 605, styles 
 himself, “ Aethilbertus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum” 
 (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 55), Ethelbald (A.D. 716) 
 styles himself “ divina dispensatione rex Merci- 
 orum ” (^Codex Dipl.'). From the days of Pepin 
 the form “ Dei gratia ” seems commonly to have 
 been adoj)ted by the Frankish kings. Charles 
 the Great (a.d. 769) adopted the following style 
 and title: “Carolus gratia Dei I’ex regnique 
 Francorum rector et devotus sanctae ecclesiae 
 defensor atque adjutor in omnibus apostolicae 
 sedis ” (Pertz, Monuin. Gennaniae, iii. 33). Sel- 
 den, Titles of Honour, in IVor^s, iii. 214; Allen, 
 Pojal Prerogative, p. 22, ed. 1849; Herzog, 
 Heal-Eneyelopd lie, iii. 312. . [C.] 
 
 DEITIES, PAGAN. [Paganism in Art.] 
 DELATORES. [Informers.] 
 DELEGATED JURISDICTION. [Juris¬ 
 diction.] 
 
 DELEGATUS. [Legate.] 
 
 DELFPIINI. [Corona Lucis, p. 46L] 
 DEIMERITORUM DOMUS. [Decania.] 
 
 DEMETRIA, daughter of Faustus, martyr 
 at Rome under Julian; commemoi’ated June 21 
 (J/arL Horn. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DEMETRIUS. (1) Martyr at Thessalonica, 
 a.d. 296 ; commemorated Oct. 8 (^Mart. Horn. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi); Oct. 26 (JJal. Byzant.). 
 
 513 
 
 (2) Bishop and martyr at Antif)ch with Aui- 
 anus. Eustosius, and twenty others; commemo¬ 
 rated Kov. U> GMart. llieron., Usuardi). 
 
 ( 3 ) Saint; commemorated Dec. 22, with IIo- 
 noratus and Florus (^Alart. Usuardi, Adonis in 
 Appendice). 
 
 (4) Patriarch of Alexandria, A. >. 231; com¬ 
 memorated Magabit 12 = March 8 and Tekemt 
 12 = Oct. 9 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (5) “ Demetrius et Basilius,” commemorated 
 
 Nov. 12 {C(d. Armen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DEMOCRITUS, Saint, at Sinnada in Africa ; 
 commemorated July 31, with Secundus and 
 Dionisius {Mart. llieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DEMON (in Art). The evil spirit is al¬ 
 ways represented in early Christian art as the 
 enemy and tempter of mankind under the 
 form of the sorj)ent, excepting in the Laurentian 
 MS. [Demoniac] and in the singular diptych 
 (in Gori, Thesaurus, t. iii. tab. viii.) which re-^ 
 presents the cure of a demoniac. As Martigny 
 observes, these cases are in all respects excep¬ 
 tional ; but they are probably the earliest 
 works of art in which the devil or any inferior 
 evil spirit is represented in the human form. 
 [But see Devil.] It might be expected that 
 as the form of Job occurs frequently in early 
 carvings and paintings (Bottari, taw. xv. cv.; 
 Perret, i. xxv. &c.) some representation of the evil 
 one as an agent of torment might be found with 
 him ; but this seems not to be the case. The figure 
 of the Serpent (see s. v.) accompanies most re- 
 presenti.tions of Adam and Eve in Bottari and 
 elsewhere : his head is generally turned towards 
 Eve. The first known instance of the human¬ 
 headed serpent as tempter is found in the 
 Catacomb of St. Agnes (Perret, ii. pi. xli.), if the 
 painting be of the same date as the catacomb. 
 This point involves great difficulties, which time 
 and inquiry seem rather likely to aggravate than 
 to diminish. For the Serpent threatening the 
 Doves see Dragon ; and Gori, Thesaurus Dipty h. 
 iii. p. 160. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DEMONIACS. The Church inherited from 
 both Jews and heathens the belief that demons, 
 i.e. “unclean” or “evil” spirits, could take 
 possession of the bodies and the souls of men, 
 women, children, and subject them to a cruel 
 bondage. The history of our Lord’s miracles 
 naturally tended to confirm and deepen the be¬ 
 lief. Abnormal physical oi mental states, which 
 could not be otherwise explained, were referred 
 to demoniacal possession as a sufficient cause. 
 From one point of view, indeed, it was held as a 
 dogma that every child born into the world was 
 thus under the power of an evil spirit, of the 
 chief of evil spirits, and from an early period a 
 formula of exorcism was employed as a preli¬ 
 minary rite to baptism, and the work of cate¬ 
 chist and exorcist was thus brought into close 
 connection [Baptism; Exorcism]. In the j>re- 
 sent article, however, it is proposed to deal only 
 with tho.se in whom the condition was more or 
 less chronic, and who were brought therefore 
 under a continuous course of treatment. 
 
 It is clear from the narratives of the New 
 Testament, and from the records of the Church, 
 that the class consisted chiefly though not ex¬ 
 clusively of those who in our own time wouhl be 
 classified as insane. They were known a.s the 
 haLpovi^op-ivoi, the N. T. name more frcauently 
 
544 
 
 DEMONIACS 
 
 as th 'i iv^pyov/j-evoi (energumeni), men opoi-ated ! 
 on, exercised by, unclean spirits, less frequently 
 as )(eiiJia^6fjLepoi (hyemantes)’^ or K\vSwpi^<iiJ.€voi, 
 those who are tossed to and fro by the storms 
 and billows of uncontrollable impulse. The 
 boundary-line between mental and moral dis¬ 
 order is at all times difficult to trace, and the 
 name is at times extended, as by the Pseudo-Dio¬ 
 nysius (de Eccles. Hierarch, iv. 3), to those who 
 wei e the slaves of lust or other master-passions, 
 probably to those in whom the moral evil as- 
 ^sumed the character of a possession, overpower- 
 • ing the ordinary restraints of prudence and self- 
 control. For the most part, however, the ener- 
 gurneni, as demoniacs, may be identified with 
 those who suffered from some form of insanity. 
 The symptoms described by Cyprian, sleepless 
 nights, panic fears, restless agitation (de Idol. 
 Vanit. p. 239); the outward appearance of the 
 denioniacs as pourtrayed by Chrysostom (Horn. 
 IV. De incomprehens. Not. Dei\ squalid, foul, 
 with hair dishevelled, and in rags, all point to 
 the same conclusion. It is not within the scope of 
 this article to discuss the theory which referred 
 all these phenomena to an actual possession 
 of the human nature by a malignant spiritual 
 power. It is enough to say that it was postu¬ 
 lated in the whole treatment of such cases by 
 the Church. The suggestion of a more scientific 
 view that the symptoms originated in excess of 
 bile, or the inflammation of a tissue, or other 
 physical cause, was rejected as the whisper of 
 unbelief, itself the suggestion of the demons, 
 who wished thus to deprive men of the prayei’s 
 and incantations which were the only effectual 
 weapons against them (Horn. Clern.ix. 12). Men 
 dwelt with exultation on the power which their 
 prayers, and the utterance of the Divine Name, 
 and the laying on of hands, had to drive the 
 demon howling and blaspheming from his usurped 
 abode (Cyprian, de Idol. Vanit. 1. c.; ad Demetr. 
 c. 15). it might have seemed, looking at the 
 matter from the modern, scientific stand-point, 
 as if the Christian Church had itself got into 
 a hopelessly wrong groove, from which no good 
 results were to be expected, which tended to 
 stereotype the delusions that fed the madness, 
 and were utterly at variance with any rational 
 treatment. It will be found, however, it is 
 believed, that partly in spite of the theory, partly 
 in consequence of it, the treatment of the insane 
 in the early ages of the Church assumed before 
 long a true therapeutic character, and brought 
 them under influences which tended, in the 
 natural coui-se of things, to bring them to a 
 sound mind. Cases of instantaneous expulsion 
 of the demon, like those described by Cyprian, 
 became less frequent; and, where the mastery 
 of a strong will had for a time calmed a paroxysm 
 of frenzy, were followed by a relapse. Putting 
 aside the case of the symbolic or hypothetical 
 exorcism which preceded baptism, we have to 
 think of the energumeni as brought, by virtue 
 of the theory, within the range of sympathy and 
 care. Instead of being left, as in most eastern 
 countries, to go wild, like the Gadarene and 
 
 » The word xeifxa^ofxevoi and its Latin equivalent are 
 sometimes explained as pointing to the position which the 
 demoniacs occupied in the outer porch of the church, 
 exp*, sed to the inclemency of cold or rain. The meaning 
 given in the text rests, however, on better authority. 
 Comp. Suicer, s. v. ;^€ip.a^6jaer’oi. 
 
 DEMONIAC, HEALING OF 
 
 other demoniacs of the N. T., when the insanity 
 was not dangerous, or to be brutally chained and 
 fettered if it was, they were marked out as ob¬ 
 jects of pity and of special prayer (Constt. 
 Apost. viii. 7). They occupied a fixed place in 
 the porch of the church, and so were brought 
 within the soothing influence of psalms and 
 hymns and words of comfort (Dionys. d' Eccles. 
 Hierarch, iv. 3). With them, as fellow-sufferers, 
 might sometimes be found the lepers of the 
 neighbourhood; sometimes also those whose loath- 
 ‘ some depravity had made them defiled like the 
 leper, and incapable of human society like the 
 demoniacs (C. Ancyr. c. 17). When the prayer 
 was over they were brought to receive the bene¬ 
 diction of the bishop (Constt. Apost. viii. 7). 
 The church itself became a kind of home for 
 those who otherwi.se would have been homeless. 
 There the exorcists paid them a daily visit, and 
 gave them food, and laid their hand's upon them 
 (4 C. Carth. c. 90, 92). There, if the nature 
 of the case required it, they were brought under 
 a discipline of abstinence that might subdue the 
 impulses of passion (Horn. Clement, ix. 10). There 
 they were employed in industrial tasks that were 
 suited to their condition, such as sweeping the 
 pavement of the church (4 C. Carth. c. 91) or 
 lighting its lamps (C. Elib. c.. 37).*» If they 
 were in the status of catechumens they might 
 be admitted to baptism at the hour of death, 
 even though there had been no complete cure 
 (Constt. Apost._\m. 32; Cyprian, Epist. 76; 1 
 C. Arausic. c. 15; C. Elib. c. 37). If they were 
 already among the faithful they might even, if 
 the insanity did not take a violent form, be ad¬ 
 mitted to communion (Cassian, Collatt. vii. 30 ; 
 Timoth. Alex. Respons. c. 3), and that daily. It 
 is almost needless to say that they were excluded, 
 even after recovery, from ordination. The ex¬ 
 orcists were instructed to repeat their prayers 
 and other forms of adjuration memoriter (Isidor. 
 Hispal. Epist. ad Landefred.). They were often 
 identical with the catechists, and were therefore 
 more or le.ss expeidenced in the work of teaching 
 (Balsamon on C. Laod. c. 26). The influences 
 thus brought to bear upon the real or supposed 
 demoniacs were, it is submitted, calculated to 
 soothe and encourage, to bring them under the 
 influence of sympathy. Even the ceremonial 
 imposition of hands, over and above the sacra¬ 
 mental associations connected with it, and their 
 power to soothe the paroxysms of suicidal re¬ 
 morse, may have had what we have learnt to call 
 a mesmeric effect, calming the over-excited brain, 
 through the tones of pity, into something like 
 tranquillity. It is not too much to claim for 
 the Christian Church, whatever may be thought 
 of its theory of madness, the credit of having 
 taken some practical steps, and those steps the 
 first, towards a rational treatment of the in¬ 
 sane. Here, also, as in the institution of hos¬ 
 pitals, love and pity w’ere not without other 
 fruits than those they sought for, and minis- 
 tei’ed to the attainment of a truth at w'hich they 
 did not aim. [E. H, P.] 
 
 DEMONIAC, HKALING OF (tn Art). 
 One instance only is known to Father Martigny 
 
 *> The canons of the Council of Elvira cited in the text 
 forbid I he practice, probably cn account of some Incon¬ 
 venient results; but the prohibition shows that it was 
 common. 
 
DEPUTATUS 
 
 545 
 
 DENIS, COUNCIL OF ST. 
 
 of a representation of this miracle; it is one ot 
 the instances of single sufferers, perhaps that ot 
 the youth after the Transfiguration. Ihe evil 
 spirit issues in human form from the head ot 
 the possessed (Gori, Thes. Piptych. t. iii. tab. viii.}. 
 
 Our Lord holds a cross on His shoulders and 
 His hand is extended using the Greek benedic¬ 
 tion. Another example is in the Laurentian 
 AJS. ; see woodcut. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DENIS, COUNCIL OF ST. (ad S. Phny- 
 siuin, near Paris), a.d. 768, was rather a national 
 council of bishops and nobles, at which Pipin 
 shortly before his death divided his kingdom 
 between his sons Carl and Carloinan (Labb. vi. 
 1720, 1721.) [A. VV. H.] 
 
 DENARIUS. [Pkter’s Pence.] 
 
 DENUNTIATIO MATRIMONII. [Mar¬ 
 riage.] 
 
 DEO DICATUS. One of the terms by 
 which pei’sons who devoted themselves to religion 
 were designated. Thus Hatto or Ahito, bishop 
 of Basle (Capitulare, c. 16) forbade even Deo 
 dicatae to meddle with the service of the altar 
 [compare Devota Femina] ; and Lucifer of 
 Cagliari, describing the conduct of his enemies, 
 says (in the tract Moriendum esse, etc.) that they 
 tortured and slew even dedicated persons (Deo 
 dicatos). [C.] 
 
 DEO GRATIAS. T<^ 0«(p xdpis, “Thanks 
 be to God! ” A response of the people, fre¬ 
 quently occurring in divine service from very 
 ancient times, derived no doubt from the apos¬ 
 tolic use of the phrase (1 Cor. xv. 57 ; 2 Cor. ii. 
 14). The best-known instance of its use is pro¬ 
 bably that in which it forms the response of the 
 people to the Ite, missa est of the priest at the 
 end of the liturgy. 
 
 According to the Mozarabic rite the people 
 said Deo <// atlas, “ Thanks be to God,” at the 
 naming of the passage to be read as the “ Pro¬ 
 phecy ” in the Liturgy. Bona mentions this 
 phrase as being also occasionally used instead 
 ot Airten, or Laus tibi C/iriste when the Gospel 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 was ended (De Deb. Litnry. ii. vii. 4). St. Au¬ 
 gustine notices it as a common mode of greeting 
 among the monks in his time, for which they 
 were ridiculed and insulted by the Agonistici, 
 as they called themselves, among the Donatists 
 (Aug. in Psa'rn. cxxxii. p. 630). The expres¬ 
 sion appears to have been frequently used on 
 other occasions by way of acclamation. When 
 Evodius was nominated as Augustine’s successor 
 the people called out for a long time—“ Deo 
 gratias, Christo laudes ” (Aug. Ep. 110, de Actis 
 Evodii). [C.] 
 
 DEPORTATIO. One of the usages of the 
 Gallican Church was that a bishop on his way 
 to be enthroned was borne in a chair by the 
 hands of his fellow-bishops. Thus Wilfrid of 
 York, who was consecrated in Gaul, is said (Life 
 by Eddius, c. 12) to have been borne to his throne 
 by the hands of the bishops who were pre.sent, 
 “more eorum,” i.e. after the Gallican custom 
 [Bishop, p. 225]. Gregory of Tours perhaps 
 alludes to this custom when he says(//isf. Franc. 
 iii. 2) that the assembled bishops and people 
 placed (locaverunt) Quintianus in the episcopal 
 throne of Clermont. A “ chairing ’’pf the bishop 
 on the shoulders of certain persons of rank, the 
 first time he entered his cathedral, was customary 
 in several of the French churches in the middle 
 ages (Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Ritilus, I. viii. 10, 
 
 § 19). [C.] 
 
 DEPOSITION. [Degradation.] 
 
 DEPOSITION, IN Hagiology (Depositio). 
 The word depositio is explained in the sermon 
 of Maximus, De Depositione 8. Eusebii (in the 
 of Ambrose, ii. pt. 2, p. 469) to mean, 
 not the day of burial, but that on which the 
 soul lays down the burden of the flesh ; and it 
 is probably with this idea that it is used in 
 calendars and martyrologies. For instance, in 
 the Mart. Hieron. we have on March 21 “ Z>c- 
 pjositio Benedict! Abbatis;” in the Mart. Bedae 
 on the same day, “ Natale Benedicti Abbatis,” 
 as if Depositio were exactly synonymous with 
 Natale, which confessedly means the death-day 
 of a saint. 
 
 Yet on July 11, the day on which the Trans¬ 
 lation of St. Benedict is placed by Bede and Ado, 
 the Mart. Hieron. has again Depositio. We may 
 infer that the word was at least occasionally 
 used to designate the day on which the relics 
 were entombed. 
 
 Papebroch, in his Conatus Chronologico-Histor. 
 ad Catal. Pontiff. Roman. (Acta Sanctorum, May, 
 vol. iv.), contends strongly that Depositio is used 
 for the day of death; Elevatio, Cultus, or Trans- 
 latio for that of burial. 
 
 In early calendars the word Depos’tio is said 
 to be confined to bishops [Calendar, p. 258]. 
 (Binterim’s Denkwiirdigkeiten, vi. pt. 3, p. 
 370 ff.). [C.] 
 
 DEPRECATORIAE. In an ancient codex 
 quoted by Ducange (s. v.), literae deprecatoriae 
 are explained to be simple “ letters of request ” 
 given by presbyters, who were unable to grant 
 the formal “dimissory letters” (formatae) of 
 bishops. [Commendatory Letters: Dimissory 
 Letters.] [C.] 
 
 DEPRIVATION. [Degradation.] 
 
 DEPUTATUS (AeirovTdros). The Greek 
 Church distinguishes between persons properly 
 
546 
 
 DESCENSUS 
 
 DESEltTION 
 
 in orders^ set apart for a certain work by the 
 imposition of tlie bishop’s hands, and tiiose 
 merely nominated to certain offices without im¬ 
 position of hands. Deacons, subdeacons, and 
 readers belong to the former class; to the latter, 
 those who discharge purely subordinate offices 
 under the direction of the clergy; as the Theori, 
 who have the charge of the sacred vessels and 
 vestments ; the Camisati [Camisia], who attend 
 to the thuribles and water-vessels in the service 
 of the altar; and the Deputati. The office of the 
 latter is, in processions to precede the deacon 
 who bears the Book of the Gospels, or the obla¬ 
 tions, carrying lighted tapers and, also, if neces¬ 
 sary, to clear the way for the bishop through the 
 crowded church. (Permaneder in Wetzer and 
 Welte’s Kirchenlexicon, iii. 107, who quotes 
 Morinus, De 8. EccL Ordinationibus^ pt. ii. p. 
 66, ed. Antwerp, 1695). 
 
 These Deputati thus corresponded with the 
 Ceroferarii or Cereostatarii of the Latin Church ; 
 and in the form of their appointment (Goar’s 
 Euchologion, p. 237) their office is said to be that 
 of bearing the lights in the holy mysteries. See 
 Acolyte. [C.] 
 
 DESCENSUS. A word sometimes used to 
 signify the vault [Confessto] beneath the altar 
 containing relics of saints. Anastasius, for in¬ 
 stance {Hist. EccL, an. 5 Leonis Isaur.'), uses it 
 as equivalent to the Kard^acris of Theophanes, 
 from whom he is compiling. [C.] 
 
 DESECKATION of Churches and Altars 
 {Exsecratio).' So indelible a character of holi¬ 
 ness was thought to be stamped upon a church 
 or an altar by the act of consecration, that 
 nothing short of destruction, or such dilapida¬ 
 tion as to render them unfit to serve their 
 proper ends, could nullify it (Barbosa, De Off. 
 et Potest. Episcop. pt. ii.). A church might, 
 however, be so polluted as to need Recon¬ 
 ciliation (q.v.) by the perpetration in it of 
 homicide or other revolting crime ; and if the 
 relics which had been deposited at consecration 
 were removed, the church and altar lost this 
 sacred character until these w'ere restored; with 
 the relics and the renewal of masses, the whole 
 effect of consecration returned (Vigilius, Pope 
 538-555, Ad Eutherivm, Epist. ii. c. 4). Gre¬ 
 gory of Tours (Hist. Franc, ix. 6) mentions an 
 instance in which a church, in consequence of a 
 homicide having been perpetrated in it, lost the 
 privilege of Divine Service (officium perdidit). 
 Compare Churchyard, Sacrilege. (Martene, 
 De Pit. Ant. ii. 284; Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. 
 Eccl. Discip. i. 458). [C.] 
 
 DESERTION OF THE CLERICAL 
 LIFE. Sev'eral centuries elapse before we find 
 desertion of the clerical life recognized as an 
 offence. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, enacts 
 (c. 7) that those who have once been received 
 into the clerus are not to desert it for any 
 military service or worldly dignity. The Council 
 of Angers in 453 declared (c. 7) tluxt clerics who 
 leaving their order have turned away to secular 
 warfare and to a lay life are not unjustly removed 
 from the church which they have left. The 1st 
 Council of Tours, A.D. 461, has an equivalent 
 ju'ovision expressed in somewhat clearer lan¬ 
 guage (c. 5), specifically enacting excommunica¬ 
 
 tion for the offence. We have an instance of the 
 ]>ractice by a Breton Council of uncertain date 
 (suj)posed about 555), recorded by Gregory of 
 Tours (Hist. Franc, ix. 15), in which a bishop, 
 who let his hair grow and took back his wife, 
 was excommunicated. Under J.ustinian’s Code, 
 by a constitution of that Emperor himself, A .D. 
 532, renewing and extending a previous one of 
 Arcadius and Honorius, if a person deserted the 
 clerical or monastic life for a military one (the 
 term militia with its congeners, did not at this 
 period imply necessarily the use of arms) he was 
 punished by being made a curialis of the city 
 of his birth, i.e. charged with all the burthens 
 of the state. If there were already eery many 
 curiales in the city he was to be placed in any 
 neighbouring or remote one, or even in any one 
 of a different province which should'happen to 
 be in special want of these political beasts of 
 burthen. If he hid himself, the curiales could 
 at once enter upon his property and detain it to 
 answer legal demands (bk. i. tit. iii. 1. 53 § 1). 
 If, on the other hand, a clerk or monk embraced 
 an ordinary secular life, all his property pas.sed 
 to the church or monastery wdiich he had de¬ 
 serted (Ibid. 1. 56, § 2)—a provision confirmed 
 as to monks by the 5th Novel, c. 4. The 6th 
 Novel, which extends the prohibition to sub¬ 
 deacons and readers, transfers the benefit of the 
 forfeiture, as respects clerics,— if indeed there be 
 anything to forfeit,—to the curia, providing 
 moreover that if the clerk in question be poor, 
 he shall be reduced to an official condition, i.e. 
 probably to that of a mere servant to the public 
 offices (c. 7); and this forfeiture to the curia is 
 confirmed by the 123rd Novel, c. 15. But as 
 respects monks, the same Novel (c. 42) requires 
 a monk who betakes himself to a secular life— 
 being fii-st deprived of any office or dignity he 
 may acquire—to be sent to a monastery, to 
 which moreover it assigns all property acquired 
 by him after his leaving his former one. If he 
 absconds from this, the judge of the p>rovince is 
 to hold and admonish him. 
 
 In a letter of Pope Zacharias (a.d. 741-51) to 
 king Pepin, the Pope decrees that those who have 
 once been admitted into the clergy, or have de¬ 
 sired monastic life, are not to betake themselves 
 to military service, or to any worldly dignity 
 (Ep. 7, c. 9), under pain of anathema if they do 
 not repent and return to their former life—a 
 provision substantially identical with that of the 
 Councils of Angers and Tours. In Charlemagne’s 
 Capitularies also is a provision “ that a priest 
 ought to continue in the religious habit” (Ad- 
 ddio Tertia, c. 110). See also the 31st canon 
 of the Council of Frankfort in 794, “that clerics 
 and monks should continue stedfast in their de¬ 
 termination.” 
 
 Desertion of the clerical life must of course 
 be distinguished from desertion of the clerical 
 functions in a particular diocese or jtarish. See, 
 amongst other authorities, as to bishops leaving 
 their districts (irapoiKlas), the so-called Aposto¬ 
 lical Canons, c. 11 (otherwise 13 or 14), and the 
 123rd Novel; and as to presbyters, deacons, and 
 other clerics so acting, Apost. Cm. c. 12 (other¬ 
 wise 14 or 15); also the 16th Canon of the 
 Council of Nicaea. One of the temptations to 
 the breach of discipline in question appears to 
 , have been the serving in private oratories, as 
 ' to which see Novels 57, 58, and 131. [J. M. L.] 
 
DESIDEEATA 
 
 547 
 
 DEVOTA FE:MIXA 
 
 DESIDERATA. A name sometimes used 
 for the sacraments, as being desired of all Chris¬ 
 tians. Zeno of Verona {fiivit. 8 ad Fontem, 
 quoted by Ducange) asks why his hearers delay 
 “ ad desiderata festinaj-e.” [C.] 
 
 DESIDERIUS. (1) Bishop of Vienne, mar¬ 
 tyr at Lyons; Natale, Feb. 11 (^Mart. Bedae, 
 Adonis in Appends e, Usuardi). According to Ado 
 he suffered martyrdom on May 23, and was 
 translated Feb. 11. 
 
 (2) Bishop of Ferrara; “ Passio ” May 23 
 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) The reader, martyr at Naples under 
 
 Diocletian, with Januarius the bishop and others ; 
 commemorated Sept. 19 {Mai't. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DESPONSATIO. [Ajirhae: Betrothal: 
 Marriage] 
 
 DESPOTICAE (AefTiroTi/col eopral'). The 
 greater festivals of the Chtirch are so called by 
 the Greeks; they are generally reckoned to 
 amount to twelve, but authorities vary on this 
 point. [Festivals.] (Daniel’s Codex Liturgicus, 
 iv. 235.) [C.] 
 
 DETRACTION is defined to be the concealed 
 and unjust attack in words upon the reputation of 
 another person. It differs from Calumnia in that 
 the latter is a false accusation made in the course 
 of legal proceedings, and from Contumelia in its 
 being concealed from the person affected. 
 
 This sin has been condemned both by fathers, 
 as by St. Augustine (in horn. 41 De Sanctii), St. 
 Jerome {Fp. 2, al. 52, ad Nepotian. c. 14), and 
 St. Chrysostom {De Sacerd. 5, G), and by various 
 canons of councils (e.g. Cone. Carth. iv. cc. 55-60) 
 under wdder words which include other offences 
 against the 9th commandment (Bingham, Chr. 
 Ant. 6, 2, 10, and 16, 13. 3; Ferraris sub voc.; 
 Thom. Aq. Sumina, 2. 2. quaest. 73 ; Soto Ik 
 Just, et Jure, 5, 10). [I. B.] 
 
 DECS IN ADJUTORIUM. The canonical 
 Hours, according to Western usage, generally be¬ 
 gin with the words of the 70th [69th Vulg.] Psalm. 
 
 V. Deus in adjutorium meum intende. 
 
 R. Domine ad adjuvandum me festina. 
 
 Cassian {CoUatio, x. c. 10) tells us that this 
 verse was frequently used by monks in their de¬ 
 votions before his time, but it does not appear 
 that it w'as definitively prefixed to each Hour 
 before the time of St. Benedict, who prescribed 
 that use in his Rule (c. 9). 
 
 The Roman use at Matins prefixes the verse 
 and response, 
 
 V. Domine, labia mea aperies. 
 
 R. Et os meum annuntiabit laudem tuam, 
 from the 51st [50th Vulg.] Psalm ; in the 
 monastic breviaries, on the other hand, the 
 Domine, labia follows the Deus in adjutorium. 
 
 In Compline, Deus in adjutorium is preceded by 
 
 V. Converte nos, Deus salutaris uoster. 
 
 R. Et averte iram tuam a nobis, 
 from the 85th [84th Vulg.] Psalm. 
 
 The verse, “ 0 Lord, open thou our lips,” &c., 
 .also occurs in the early part of the Greek morn¬ 
 ing office. 
 
 (Bona, De Divina Psahnodia, ch. xvi. 4; 
 Martene, De Ant. Monach. Rit. pp. 5, 23 ; Wetzer 
 and Welte, Kirchenlexienn, iii. 122.) [C.] 
 
 DEVIL (in Art). The Early Church .seems 
 to have contemplated the spiritual enemy of Goa 
 and man i>rincipally as to his fuuction.s of tempt¬ 
 ation and po.ssession in tins 
 world. Representations of 
 him as the final accuser 
 and claimant of the souls 
 of the lost, or as their tor¬ 
 mentor in the ))lace of his 
 own condemnation, belong 
 to mediaeval rather, than 
 to primitive art. The pre¬ 
 sent writer is not aware of 
 the existence of any hell 
 earlier than the mosaics of 
 Torcello, as that painted 
 by Methodius, even if its 
 story be true, has alto¬ 
 gether vanished. On the 
 sarcoj)hagi, and later iii 
 Anglo-Saxon and Irish 
 MSS. more particularly, 
 the tempter is symbolized, 
 as so often in Holy Scrip¬ 
 ture, under the form of 
 the Serpent (see s. v.). 
 
 One instance there is, how¬ 
 ever, given by Didron in 
 the Iconographie du Ser¬ 
 pent {Ann. Arch^ologiques, 
 
 V. 2) of a Gnostic combi¬ 
 nation of human and serpentine form, with leo¬ 
 nine head and face (see woodcut). It is taken 
 from a bronze in the Vatican collection, and is 
 derived, he says with certainty, from the ancient 
 Egyptian symbol of a lion-headed serpent. But 
 the human form and expression are so predomi¬ 
 nant as to make it appear to be an anticipation 
 of the personified serpent of the Jliddie Ages, 
 represented in the Book of Kells and other 
 northern MSS. The Gothic or mediaeval re¬ 
 presentations seem to begin in Italy with the 
 fiend in the Chase of Theodoric, which, till 
 lately destroyed by gradual and wanton mis¬ 
 chief, adorned the ft’ont of St. Zenone in Verona. 
 
 In the Laureutian MS. of Rabula (A.D. 587) 
 there is an extraordinary representation of the 
 demoniacs of Gadara, just delivered from their 
 tormenting spirits, who are fluttering away in 
 the form of little black humanities of mis¬ 
 chievous expression. [See Demoniacs.] 
 
 [R. St J T ] 
 
 DEVOTA FEiMINA, or .simiily DEVOTA. 
 It need hardly be said that the practice of vows 
 made to God is recognized in the Pentateuch, 
 and throughout the Old Testament (Levit. vii. 
 16, xxvii. 1 and foil.. Numb. vi. 2 and foil., xv. 
 3, 8, XXX. 2 and foil. &c.). Such vows might be 
 of persons as well as thing.s, as in the instance 
 of the “singular vow ” mentioned in Lev. xxvii., 
 and of the Nazarites mentioned in Numb. vi. ; 
 with which compare the applications in the case 
 of Jephthah, (Judg. xl. 30) Samson (Judg. xiii. 5) 
 and Samuel (1 Sam. i. 11). Certain checks are 
 at the same time imposed on the vows of women, 
 which are required lo have at least the tacit a.ssent 
 of a father, if the woman be “ in her father’s house 
 in her youth ” (Numb. xxx. 3-5),.or of a husband, 
 if she “ had at all a husband ” (j 6. 6-8, 10-15); 
 “but every vow of a widow, and of her that is 
 divorced, wherewith they have bound their .souls, 
 shall stand against her” ''v. 9). 
 
 2 N 
 
548 
 
 DEVOTA FEMINA 
 
 DEVOTA FEMINA 
 
 Th-‘ exanii)les of St. Paul (Acts xviii. 2.3, 24), ' 
 ani the four di.sciples at Jerusalem (Acts x.xi. j 
 2.1) show that like practices were adopted by 1 
 the Apostolic Church. But over and above 
 these teinjjorary vows, it is clear that the 
 cLi.ss of church-widows were considered as per¬ 
 sonally devoted to God. Moreover, in his 
 mode of speaking of virgins, St. I’aul clearly 
 shews that he considers tho.se who have autho¬ 
 rity over them to have power to “keep” them 
 for the Lonl (see 1 Cor. yii. 34, 37, 38). The 
 A/'OSiolicul C'Distit 'tiom, besides their abundant 
 notices of the church-widows, shew us also 
 the rise of a distinct class of church-virgins 
 devoted to God in like manner. The term cfero^a, 
 however, as applied both to widows and virgins, 
 survived both organizations and spread beyond 
 them, and seems to serve as a transition link be¬ 
 tween them and female monachism. From the 
 4th century downwards there are many texts 
 which can hardly be applied, at all events ex¬ 
 clusively, to either institute as such, and antici¬ 
 pate any organized female monachism, but which 
 clearly imply a practice of self-consecration to 
 God on the part both of widows aud unmarried 
 women, and which serve as the foundation of the 
 pi’actice of the Chui’ch in later times in respect 
 to nuns. 
 
 Thus the first Council of Valence, A.D. 374, 
 tieating “of girls who have devoted themselves 
 to God,” exacts that if they voluntarily contract 
 “ earthly ” marriage, they shall not even be al¬ 
 lowed immediate penance, and shall not be admit¬ 
 ted to communion till they have given full 
 satisfaction. Now it was only in the 5th century 
 that monachism, under the Basiliau rule, penetra¬ 
 ted into Southern Gaul, .so that the pudlae in 
 question cannot have been nuns properly so called. 
 The same applies to the canons of the 1st Council 
 of Toledo, A.D. 400, which enact that a “ devota ” 
 who takes a husband is not to be admitted to 
 penance during his life, unless she preserves con¬ 
 tinence (c. 16), or, with still greater severity, 
 that if a bishop’s, or priest’s, or deacon’s daughter, 
 having been devoted to God, sins and marrie.s, 
 should her father or mother restore their affec¬ 
 tion to her, they are to be excluded from com¬ 
 munion; The father may indeed shew cause in 
 council against the sentence, but the woman her¬ 
 self is only to receive the communion after her 
 husband’s death and penance, unless at her last 
 hour (c. 19)—a text which indeed admits the 
 validity of the marriage. 
 
 The stamp was set on the woman’s devotio 
 by her taking, or rather receiving from the 
 priest’s hands, the veil, symbol of her being 
 espoused to Christ. Hence the distinction 
 which we find made between the gravity of mar¬ 
 riage in the case of the veiled and unveiled; as 
 to which see Pope Innocent I.’s 2nd letters, to 
 Victricius Archbishop of Ropen, cc. 12, 13, and 
 certain canons of doubtful authority, supposed 
 to be contemporaneous “ of the Roman to the 
 Gaulish bishops,” cc. 1, 2. The devotional or vir¬ 
 ginal habit might indeed be assumed, at all events 
 in the 5th century, without actual consecration; 
 see I.eo the Great’s 167th letter, a.d. 458 or 
 459, to Rusticus Bishop of Narbonne, c. 15. 
 
 The “ virgin devoted to God ” is assimilated 
 to the monk in a canon of the Council of Chal- 
 cedon, A.D, 451, forbidding both to marry under 
 pain of excommunication, but subject to the iu- 
 
 ' dulgonce of the local bishop (c, 15). The 2n'J 
 j Council of Arles, a.d. 452, seems to confine ex- 
 I communication in such cases to marriage after 
 25, and provides that a penance is not to be 
 refused if asked for, but communion only to be 
 granted after long delay (c. 52). An exagge¬ 
 rated strictness on the other hand pervades a 
 letter of Pope Symmachus (a.d, 498-51.3) to 
 Bishop Caesarius, of Arles. Not only does he 
 require the excommunication of those who have 
 sought to marry virgins consecrated to God, 
 whether with their own will or against it, and 
 declare that “ we do not suffer ” widows to 
 marry who have long persevered in the religious 
 purpose; but he forbids those virgins to marry 
 “ to whom it may have happened to pa.ss their 
 age during many years in monasteries”—en¬ 
 forcing, in short, virginity without even a j)ro- 
 fession. 
 
 The practice of the religious profe.ssion, both 
 in convents and outside of them, is shewn in the 
 Canons of the 5th Council of Orleans, A.D 529, 
 which excommunicates alike, together with their 
 husbands, both girls who in convents have put 
 on the religious garment, and those who, whether 
 girls or widows, have assumed the habit in their 
 houses (c. 19). On the other hand, the 1st 
 Council of Macon in 581 pronounced excommuni¬ 
 cation for life against both parties, in case of 
 such marriages. 
 
 Towards the end of the 6th or beginning of 
 the 7th century, in the letters of Pope Gregory 
 the Great (a.d. 590-603), we seem to perceive 
 a distinction between the “religious” and “mo¬ 
 nastic ” habit, which may have indicated that 
 between the simple devota and the nun. Writing 
 to the Roman exarch (bk. iv, ep. 18), he speaks 
 of women till now “ in the religious and mo¬ 
 nastic habit ” who have thrown off"the sacred gar¬ 
 ment and veil, and married, and who are said to 
 be under the exarch’s patronage, and warns him 
 against the iniquity of such protection. It will 
 not have escaped attention that the “ veil ” in 
 this passage seems to correspond, as in later and 
 present Romish practice, with the specially mo¬ 
 nastic profession. On the other hand, an earlier 
 letter of the same pope (bk. iii. ep. 24, ad Cau- 
 nanwn), distinguishes between veiled virgins and 
 women in convents. The incompatibility be¬ 
 tween marriage and the religious “habit” is 
 indicated in another letter of the same pope to 
 bishops Virgilius and Syagrius, (bk. vii. pt. ii. c. 
 119). 
 
 That in .spite of all prohibitions, marriages 
 with “ religious ” women continued to take place, 
 and to be celebrated even in church, is evident 
 from an edict of King Clothair II., issued at the 
 5th Council of Paris, a.d. 614 or 615. No one 
 was to carry off religious girls or widows, who 
 have devoted themselves to God, as well those 
 who reside in their own houses as those who are 
 placed in monasteries (thus clearly distinguishing 
 between the two classes); and if any, either by 
 violence or by any kind of authority should 
 presume to unite such to himself in marriage, 
 he was subject to capital punishment, or, under 
 special circumstances to exile, and forfeiture of 
 goods. 
 
 The 7th letter of Pope Zacharias (a.d. 741- 
 51), addressed to Pepin as mayor of the palace, 
 and to the bishops, abbots, and nobles of the 
 Franks, refers to Pope Innocent’s letter before 
 
DEXAMENE 
 
 DIADEMA 
 
 540 
 
 mentioned, as to the distinction between the 
 marriage of veiled and unveiled virgins, the 
 former of whom are to be separated, the latter 
 only to do “some” penance (cc. 20, 21). On 
 the other hand, a capitulary of the 6th book 
 (c. 411) treats as absolutely null a marriage 
 with “a virgiu devoted to God, a woman under 
 the religious habit or professing the continuance 
 of widowhood,” re-enacting the punishment of 
 separation and exile for the offenders. One of 
 the 7th book (c. 338) is addressed to the case of 
 those widows and girls who have put on the 
 religious habit in their own houses, either re¬ 
 ceiving it from their parents or of themselves, 
 but afterwards marry ; they are to be excom¬ 
 municated till they separate from their husbands, 
 and if they will not, to be kept perpetually e.x- 
 cluded from communion. A Lombard capitulary 
 of 783, contains a like enactment (Pertz, Leg. 
 t. 1). [J. M. L.] 
 
 DEX.\MENE, AefoucVTj, a cistern or tank 
 for the water needed for the replenishing of the 
 font and the various ecclesiastical offices (Pi'ocop. 
 Ilistor. Arcan. c. iii.). Erroneously interpreted by 
 Suidas, sub roc. of the altar; and by Bingham, 
 Orig. bk. viii. c. vii. § 4, of the font. [E. V.] 
 
 DIACONIA. (1). The name given to the 
 localities in which food and alms were distributed 
 to the poor by the deacons of the Chui’ch of Rome. 
 Each was under the administration of one of the 
 seven deacons, one for each region, the whole 
 being under the superintendence of an archdeacon. 
 Each diaconid had a hall for the distribution of 
 charity, and an oratory or chapel annexed. These 
 last remained when the original purpose of the dia- 
 coni i had passed away, and have risen to the dig¬ 
 nity of churches, of which there are now fourteen, 
 each assigned to one of the cardinal deacons. 
 
 The original purpose of the diaconia is illus¬ 
 trated by the following passages from Anasta- 
 sius :— Stephan. //. § 229 : “ foris muros . . . duo 
 fecit Xenodochia... quae et sociavit venerabili- 
 bus Diaconis illic foris existentibus .... id est 
 Diaconiae S. Dei genetricis, et B. Silvestri duae.” 
 Had -ian. I. § 337 : “ constituit Diaconias tres 
 foris portara B. Apost. Principis . .. et ibidem 
 dispensatione per ordinem pauperibus consolari, 
 atque eleemosynam fieri [constituit].” Infra, 
 
 § 345: “ idem egregius Praesul Diaconia con¬ 
 stituit . . . coucedens eis agros vineas etc. ut de 
 eorum reditu ... Diaconiae proficientes paupei’es 
 Chris*^i reficerentui*.” 
 
 (2) . The word diaconia was also used for that 
 
 part of the deacon’s office which consisted in dis¬ 
 pensing food and money to the poor. It is thus 
 employed by Gregory the Great in a letter to 
 John, in which he says, “ te mensis pauperum 
 et exhibendae diaconiae eligimus praeponendum 
 and goes on to speak of the money received “dia¬ 
 coniae exhibitione erogandum ” (Greg. Magn. 
 Ep. ad Joann. 24). See Suicer, Ducange, Hos- 
 pinian. de Templis, p. 18. [E. V.] 
 
 (3) . In the earlier days of monachism this term 
 
 was used for monastic alms-giving (Cass. Collat. 
 xviii. 7; Gregor. M. Ep. 22). The oldest mouk 
 was entrusted with it in Egypt (Cass. Collat. xxi. 
 1); in the East the “ oeconomus ” or bursar 
 (Martene in Cass. ib. xxi. 8, 9). [I. G. S.] 
 
 DIACOXICA (^AiaKoviKo,). Certain short 
 p-ayers or “suffrages” in the Liturgy are called 
 Diaconica, as being recited by the attendant i 
 
 deacon. They are also called E,lprjuiKd, as being 
 niaiuly prayers for peace. In the consecration 
 of a bishop the Diaconica are said by bishops. 
 (Menard on the Gregorian Sacramentary, p. 523 ; 
 Neale’s Tctralogia Liturgica, p. 217.) [C.J 
 DIACONICiUM. (1) The vestry oi sacristy 
 of a church, so called from being the place where 
 the deacons performed their duties in getting 
 ready the vestments and holy vessels, heating 
 the water, preparing and lighting the incense, 
 and other essentials for the celebration of the 
 Eucharist, and other divine offices. No minister 
 of a lower grade was permitted to enter the 
 Diaconicum {Concil. Laod. can. 21 ; Concil. Aga- 
 thens. can. 66). The diaconicum was, as a rule, 
 placed on the right or south side of the bema or 
 sanctuary, answering to the prvthcsis on the 
 north, and communicating with the bema by a 
 door in the parabema or side-wall. It also usu¬ 
 ally had an independent entrance through an 
 external dooi*. The diaconicum generally ter¬ 
 minated apsidally, and was always provided with 
 an altar (Qv(na(TTi]piov, Apophthegmata Patrum 
 apud Gelas. No. 3 ; ay'ia rpaTre^a, Eucliolog. 
 Goar, p. 245), on which the bread and wine 
 were placed prior to their removal to the pro¬ 
 thesis. Its wall was often adorned with pic¬ 
 tures of saintly deacons, Stephen, Benjamin, &c. 
 Within it was the treasury, K(ip.r]Kiapx^^ovy 
 or (TK€vo(pv\6.Kiov, where the sacred vessels 
 and other treasures of the church AVTere kept 
 (Cyril Scyth. in Vita S. Sab. apud Ducange). It 
 was also used by the priests as a vestry, in 
 which they changed their vestments and put on 
 their euchaidstic dress (elo'cA^dvres a\\d(X(rov(ri 
 T^v UpariKT]v aroX^v 4v raj SiaKoviKuj, Typicum 
 Sabae, cap. ii. ap. Suicer). Relics were preserved in 
 it {Catalog. Patriarch. Constantinopol. ap. Suicer);, 
 Worshippers who for disciplinary reasons wertj 
 excluded from the actual church were permitted, 
 to offer their devotions here, e.g. the Em])eror Leo 
 VI. when excommunicated for his fourth marriage 
 (Cedrenus, Compvnd. Hist.'). The diaconicum 
 was sometimes a spacious chamber annexed to 
 the church (diaconicum majus), large enough for 
 the reception of a provincial or general synod 
 [Council, p. 477]. In the diaconicum of the 
 church at Paneas, the statue, supposed to be that 
 of the woman with the issue of blood, removed 
 for safety from the market-place, was erected 
 (Philostorg. lib. vii. c. 3). 
 
 Other names by which the diaconicum was 
 known were, ounrao'Tt/fJv (as being the hall of 
 reception), (rK€vo<(>v\dKiov, yerardpiou or yira- 
 rddpiou (a word of various orthography and very 
 uncertain etymology, perhaps representing “mu- 
 ' tatorium,” as the place where the clergy changed 
 their vestments), iraffrorpdpiov, seoretarium, on 
 j which see Bingham, Orig, Eccl. bk. viii. c. vii. 
 § 7 ; Leo Allat. De Tempi. Graec. Pec., ep. i. 
 § 13-15; Suicer, sub voc. ; Ducange, Glossar. Id. 
 Descript. S. Sophiae, ad Paul. Silentiar.; Neale, 
 Hist. East. Ch., General Introd. p. 191, §9. 
 
 (2) Diaconicum also signifies the volume con¬ 
 taining the directions for the due perfoi-mance of 
 the deacon’s office, ^i^Kiov rrjs AiaKovlas. Cf. 
 Leo Allatius, Dissert, i. de Libr. Eccl. Graecor. 
 
 (3) The word is also used for certain ])rayers 
 
 said at intervals in the service by the deacon; 
 €ux“'‘ SiauSyov, known also as (ipr}vit(<i. [DiA- 
 CONICA.] [E. V.] 
 
 DI.\DEMA. [Crown; CoRONAnoN.] 
 
650 
 
 DIAPASON 
 
 DICE 
 
 DIAPASON, DIAPENTE, DIATESSA- 
 RON. These are the three intervals ot' the 
 octave, the perfect fifth, and the 2 )erfect fourth : 
 the ratios which determine them are I, |, and 
 They were the only intervals that were consi¬ 
 dered consonances, and w^ere always of the same 
 magnitude in every scale whether diatonic, chro¬ 
 matic, or enharmonic, while the others were 
 variable (see Canon in Music, p. 274). Although 
 the system of reckoning by tetrachords continued 
 till the time of Guido Aretinus, yet the name 
 Diapason shows that the ancients attributed to 
 the octave a greater degree of perfection in 
 respect of consonance, which is also shown by 
 the notation preserved by Alypius, where in the 
 modes above the Dorian in pitch, for most of the 
 higher notes (which would be the late.st exten¬ 
 sion of the respective scales) the symbols repre¬ 
 senting the notes an octave below were adopted 
 with the addition of a acute accent. It is strange 
 that this plan was not extended over the whole 
 “ diasram ” of the modes, which would have 
 been a very material simplification, and is indeed 
 a considerable approximation to our present 
 system of calling all notes differing by an octave 
 by the same name. This however appears to have 
 escaped the notice of the early Latin authors, 
 although they did make great simplifications. 
 St. Gregory completed the recognition of the 
 octave by reducing the names of notes to 7, 
 which have remained to this day. 
 
 The fifth and fourth together make an octave 
 ( 3 X 5 = 5 ), and according as the former or the 
 latter was the lower in pitch, the octave was said 
 to be harmonically or arithmetically divided; 
 these divisions Avere also called authentic and 
 plagal (q. V.), thus : 
 
 Authentic 
 
 w 
 
 rgy 
 
 Here the 
 value of G 
 (D is the 
 ® Harmonic 
 
 mean between those of C and c (1 and ^). 
 
 Plagal: 
 
 
 C F c 
 mean between those of C and c (1 and 5 ) 
 
 Here the 
 value of F 
 (I) is the 
 Arithmetic 
 
 But it is worth noticing that if two harmonic 
 means be inserted between C and c, F is one of 
 them, which would point to the conclusion that 
 the ancients were wrong in taking an arithme¬ 
 tical division at all, though it is most natural 
 that that error should have been made by them. 
 
 This division can be made in any octave, ex¬ 
 cepting that that from F to f can only be divided 
 authentically at c, and that from B to b can 
 only be divided plagally at E. [J. R. L.] 
 
 DIAPENTE. [Diapason.] 
 
 DIAPSALMA. This is the word used in 
 the Septuagint and recognised by other writers 
 as the equivalent to “Selah,” which occurs in 
 the Psalms and in the Canticle of Habakkuk. 
 Sea Smith’s Diet, of the Bible^ sub voc. Selah, 
 where the obscurity of the subject is fully 
 stated. As the early Christians used the psalms 
 in public worship so it is natural they would 
 copy the Hebrew method of singing the psalms. 
 The Liturgy of St. James prescribes Pss. 23, 34 , 
 145, 117 at the Fraction, and in Ps. 34 Sid\pa\- 
 fia occurs in the LXX. where Selah is not found. 
 
 St. Jerome enters into the question at some 
 length in his letter to lilarcella, but leaves the 
 matter in doubt; he mentions it also in his com¬ 
 mentary on Ps. 4 and Habak. 3. 
 
 It appears to the writer that an interpretation 
 suggested by the primary meaning of \pdAAfiy 
 will nearly, if not quite, reconcile the conflicting 
 opinions and perhajis account for them ; viz., 
 that it was a direction for the instruments to 
 play, while the chorus was silent or perhaps 
 producing a series of notes without words, t. e., 
 a “division,”® or “ Pneuma.” It has been 
 said that the Jews used Pneumata; if so, the 
 adoption of them by Christians is obvious; but 
 in any case it would seem that they were com¬ 
 monly in use at an early period. In consequence 
 of the common use of various musical instru¬ 
 ments at feasts and entertainments at which 
 Christian morality was likely to be outraged in 
 the period of the empire, the Christians were 
 chary of their use in religious services, fear¬ 
 ful doubtless of the association of ideas. Sir 
 John Hawkins (//isL 0 / Music, p. xxvii.) gives 
 a list of fathers who have denounced musical 
 instruments, but he gives no references; and 
 the writer has succeeded in verifying Epiphanius 
 only, who speaks of the flute as a diabolical 
 instrument. In the Eastern Church to this 
 day instrumental music is, we believe, unknown. 
 Thus the Pneuma may have been invented by 
 the early Christians as the nearest approxima¬ 
 tion to the Diapsalma. [J. R. L.] 
 
 DIARETOR. The Codex Eccl. Afnc. (c. 78) 
 runs thus (Bruns’s Canones, i. 175): “ Rursus 
 placuit, ut quoniam Hippouensium dixretorum 
 ecclesiae destitutio non est diutius negligenda 
 . . . eis episcopus ordinetur.” The equivalent 
 in the Greek version is “ ^povritnai ttjs ex- 
 KA-galas" “ caretakers of the church ” [Inter- 
 VENTOR], as if during a vacancy of the see, 
 which is implied in the concluding words of the 
 canon. Ducange (s. v.) conjectures “ direc- 
 torum,” Hardouin “ diarrhytorum.” The word 
 does not seem to occur elsewhere. [C.] 
 
 DIASTYLA, Atda-TvAa, the Cancelli by 
 which the beTna was separated from the naos 
 (Sym. Thessalon. apud Ducange ; Sid ruv KiyuAi- 
 Swv ^Toi rav SiaaTvAwy). Goar’s Euchol. p. 
 708. [E. V.] 
 
 DIATESSARON. [Diapason.] 
 
 DICE {Alea, kv^oi ; Low-Latin, Decius; whence 
 Fr. Ee"). The playing at dice, or games of chance 
 generally, never looked upon favourably by 
 moralists or laws (see Eict. of Greek and Rom. 
 Antiq., s. V. Alea), early attracted the notice 
 of the censors of Christian manners. The Paeda- 
 gogue of Clement (iii. 11, p. 497) forbids dice¬ 
 playing, whether with cubes or with the four¬ 
 faced dies called da’rpdydAoi (see Rost u. Palm, 
 s. u.), out of desire for gain. Apollonius (in 
 Euseb. H. E. v. 18, 11), denouncing the Mon- 
 tanists, asks whether prophets jilay at tables 
 (rdfiAais) and dice. And gaming is one of the 
 forms of vice which we find denounced by the 
 Church in the earliest canons which remain to us. 
 The Apostolical Canons (cc. 41, 42 [al. 42, 43]) 
 forbade either clergy or laity to play with dice 
 
 ““The lark makes sweet division ,”—Romeo and Juliet 
 lii. 6. 
 
DICERIUM 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 651 
 
 on pain of degradation or excommunication. Tlie 
 Council of Eliberis (a.d. 305) also denounced the 
 penalty of excommunication against any of the 
 faithful who played at dice, “ that is, tables,” for 
 money (can. 79). And at the end of the 7th 
 century the Trullan Council (can. 50) repeated 
 the same penalties of degradation and excom¬ 
 munication. Nor was the civil power indifferent. 
 Justinian (Code, lib. i., De Episc. et Cler. 1. 17; 
 Nov. 123, c. 10) forbade the clergy of every rank 
 from playing at games of chance (ad tabulas 
 ludere), or even being present at them, on pain 
 of suspension with seclusion in a monastery for 
 three years. Another enactment (Code, lib. i., 
 De Episc. Audien. 1. 25) commits the investiga¬ 
 tion of such offences to the bishops, and em¬ 
 powers them to call in the secular arm, if neces¬ 
 sary, for the reformation of scandalous offenders ; 
 and yet another (Ib. 1. 35), complaining bitterly 
 that even bishops did not abstain from these 
 stolen pleasures, denounces such laxity in the 
 severest terms. These imperial laws are all in¬ 
 serted in the Nomocanon of Photius and John of 
 Antioch. 
 
 The laws themselves indicate that Christians 
 and even clergy were by no means exempt from 
 the almost universal passion for games of chance. 
 One or two instances may serve to confirm this. 
 Jerome relates (De Script. Eccl. in Apol. Ep. 
 .105) that Synesius alleged his own irresistible 
 propensity for gambling as a reason why he 
 should not be made a bishop. Gregory of Tours 
 (Hist. Franc, x. 16) tells us that certain nuns 
 of the conv'ent of St. Radegund at Poictiers 
 accused their abbess, among other matters, of 
 dicing; whereupon the abbess declared that she 
 had done the same thing in the lifetime of St. 
 Radegund (f 587) herself, and that it was not 
 forbidden either by the common law of canonical 
 life or by their own Rule; nevertheless, she 
 would submit to the judgment of the bishops. 
 (Thomassinus, Nova et Vet. Eccl. Discip. pt. iii. 
 lib. iii. c. 43.) [C.] 
 
 DICERIUM. AiK-fjpiov, cereus bisulcus, a 
 two-forked wax taper used by bishops of the 
 Greek Church in the Benediction of the people. 
 It was also employed in the benediction of the 
 Book of the Gospels lying on the Holy Table. 
 The bishop was said SiKrjpicp (T<(>payi^eii/, The 
 double taper was considered to symbolize the 
 two natures of Christ. 
 
 Tricerium, TpiK-fipiou, cereus trisulcus, was simi¬ 
 larly used, and held to symbolize the Trinity. 
 
 Symeou Thessalon, De Temple, p. 222, apAiid Du- 
 cange s. v, KTjohs. Goar’s Eucholog. p. 125. [E. V.] 
 
 DICTERIUM. [Pulpit.] 
 
 DIDYMUS, martyr at Alexandria; comme¬ 
 morated April 28 i^Mart. Rorn. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). (W. F. G.) 
 
 DIES. The word dies is used, like the Eng¬ 
 lish “ day,” to designate a festival: as (e. g.) the 
 Annales Franc, a.d. 802, “ Ipse rex celebravit 
 diem S. Joannis Baptistae.” The principal special 
 uses of the word are the following :— 
 
 1. Dies adoratus. Good Friday. 
 
 2. Dies Aegyptiaci. Certain “ unlucky days” 
 once marked in calendars (see the ancient cal¬ 
 endars published by Bucher), supposed to have 
 been discovered by the ancient Egyptians from 
 astrological calculations. Decrees were made 
 
 against the superstitious observance of these 
 AAys(Decret. pt. 2, cans. 26, qu. 7, c. 16), and an¬ 
 cient Penitentials (see Ducange, s. v.) forbid men 
 to avoid these days especially for blood-letting 
 or commencing a work ; indeed the superstitious 
 preference for, or avoidance of, a day (Decrei. u. s. 
 c. 17) was forbidden generally. A memorial verse 
 for showing when the Egyptian days fall is given 
 by Durandus (Rationale, viii. 4, § 20). 
 
 3. Dies honi, “ les bons jours,” used for fes¬ 
 tivals (Sidonius, Epist. v. 17). 
 
 4. Dies Cinerum, the first day of Lent, or 
 Ash-Wednesday. 
 
 5. Dies Coenae Domini. Maundy Thursday. 
 
 6 . Dies Consecrati. The Capitularium Car. M., 
 (ii. c. 35), enjoins that four days at Christmas 
 should be observed as festivals; these days are 
 referred to in the council of Soissons, a.d. 853, 
 c. 7, and in the Capit. Car. Calvi at Compiegne, 
 A.D. 868, c. 8, as dies consecrati, on which no 
 courts were to be held. 
 
 7. Dies Dominica. [Easter ; Lord’s Day.] 
 
 8 . Dies Magnus, Feliciss^'mns, Ea.ster-Day 
 (Capitularium Car. M. v. c. 136); “dies mag- 
 nus Coenae,” Maundy Thursday (Capit. Herardi, 
 c. 14). So 7) fieydXr] Tj/xfpa (Cone. Ancyr. c. 6) 
 is used for Easter-Day. “ Dies magnus ” is also 
 used for the Last Day (Capit. Car. M. vi. c. 378). 
 
 9. Dies Natalis. [Natalis.] 
 
 10 . Dies Neophytorum, the eight days, from 
 Easter-Day to its octave, during which the 
 newly baptised 'wore their white garments. 
 Augustine (Epist. 119, c. 17) speaks of the 
 “ octo dies neophytorum ” as days of special 
 observance. 
 
 11. Dies Palrnarum, or in Ramis Falmarum, 
 Palm-Sunday. 
 
 12. Dies Sancti, the forty days of Lent. 
 See the Theodosian Code, lib. ii. De Feriis, and 
 Baronins, ad an. 519, § 42. 
 
 13. Dies Scrutinii, the days on which can¬ 
 didates for baptism were examined, especially 
 Wednesday in the fourth week of Lent. 
 
 14. Dies Solis, Dies Lunae, and the other days 
 of the week ; see Week. 
 
 7 % 
 
 15. Dies tinearum or murium; certain days 
 on which ceiemonies were performed to avert 
 the ravages of moths or mice (Audoenus, Vita 
 Eligii, ii. 15). See Delrio, Disqnis. Magic, lib. 
 iii. pt. 2, qu. 4, § 6. 
 
 16. Dies Viridium, in some ancient German 
 calendars, Thur.sday in Holy Week, “ Grtindon- 
 nerstag.” [Maundy Thursday.] 
 
 17. Dies votorum, a wedding-day ; Leges 
 
 Longobard. lib. ii. tit. 4, § 3. [C.] 
 
 DIETA. The ecclesiastical CuRSUS or daily 
 office. Victor of Paris (MS. Liber Ordinis, c. 27, 
 quoted by Ducange) ordei’s his book to be carried 
 round whenever office is said (quando dieta can- 
 tatur). See Beleth, De Div. Off. c. 21; Dur¬ 
 andus, Rationale, v. 3, 29. [C.] 
 
 DIGAMY. It has been stated under the head 
 Bigamy that we propose to consider under the 
 present head whatever concerns the entering into 
 marriage relations with two persons successively. 
 The subject is one in respect to which a different 
 morality has been applied to the clergy and laity 
 As respects each class moreover, it divides itself 
 under two branches — which, however, it will 
 not always be necessary to consider separately 
 —that of successive marriages after divorce or 
 
652 DIGAMY 
 
 separation, and after the death of a husband or 
 wife. 
 
 I. In respect of the clergy, it has been already 
 observed under the head Bigamy that the pre¬ 
 scriptions as to bishops and deacons in 1 Tim. iii. 
 2,12, and Tit. i. 6, requiring them to be husbands 
 
 of one wife,” apply more probably to successive 
 than to simultaneous marriages. The explana¬ 
 tion of them seems to lie in those enactments 
 of the Pentateuch (Levit. xxi. 7, 13, 14), which 
 forbid the priest to marry a widow or divorced 
 woman. The oldest authorities support this view. 
 The Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 2) require the 
 bishop to be the husband of a single woman once 
 manded; a prescription extended by a constitu¬ 
 tion, evidently indeed of later date (vi. 17) to 
 presbyters, deacons, and even singers, readers, 
 and porters ; the deaconesses also were to be pure 
 virgins, or at least widows of one husband (as to 
 ,whom, see also viii. 25, no doubt later still). 
 The so-called Apostolical Canons in like manner 
 provide that if any one after baptism shall twice 
 enter into marriage, or marry a widow or divorced 
 woman, he cannot be a bishop, priest, or deacon, 
 or in anywise on the list of the sacred ministry 
 (cc. 13, 14, otherwise 16, 17, or 17, 18). It is 
 dear from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus 
 (ix. 12) that by the beginning of the 3rd century 
 the rule of monogamy for the clergy was well 
 established, since he complains that in the days 
 of Callistus “digamist and trigamist bishops,and 
 priests, and deacons, began to be admitted into 
 the clergy.” Tertullian recognizes the rule as 
 to the clergy. Thus in his De Exhortatione Casti- 
 tatis (c. 7), he asks scornfully: “ Being a diga¬ 
 mist, dost thou baptize ? being a digamist, dost 
 thou make the offering?” And he points (/6. 
 c. 13) to certain honours paid among the heathens 
 themselves to monogamy. 
 
 The rule of the Church, it will be observed, 
 forbade alike to the clergy both personal digamy, 
 and marriage with a digamous woman. St. Am¬ 
 brose, in the first book of his Offices (c. 50), further 
 considers the case of prebaptismal marriage,— 
 many persons, it seems, being surprised that 
 digamy before marriage should be an impediment 
 to orders. 
 
 We pass from the testimony of the fathers to 
 that of councils and popes. The so-called canons 
 of the Nicene Council from the Arabic—which 
 probably indeed only represent the state of the 
 Church of Arabia at a much later period—enact 
 the penalty of deposition against a priest or 
 deacon dismissing his wife in order to change her 
 for another fairer or better or richer, or “ on 
 account of his concupiscence” (c. 66, or 71 of 
 the Ecchellensian version). The still more pro¬ 
 blematical ‘ Sanctions and Decrees ’ attributed to 
 the Nicene fathers require, in accordance with 
 the previously existing laws of the Church, the 
 priest to be “ the husband of one wife, not a 
 bigamist or trigamist,” and forbid him to marry 
 a widow or dismissed woman, &c. (c. 14). 
 
 The first Council of Valence (a.d. 374) enacts 
 that “ none after this synod .... be ordained to 
 the clergy from among digamists, or the hus¬ 
 bands of previously married women (internup- 
 tarum),” but decrees that nothing should be in¬ 
 quired into as to the status of those who are 
 already ordained (c. 1). Compare the 4th Coun¬ 
 cil of Carthage (a.d. 397), c. 69, and the 1st 
 Council of Toledo (a.d, 400), cc. 3 and 4. 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 The letters of pope In.iocent I. (a.d. 402-17) 
 deal frequently with the subject, and more than 
 once on the point already treated by St. Ambrose 
 of the effect of prebaptismal marriage. In his 
 2nd to Victricius bishop of Rouen, besides laying 
 it down that clerics should only marry virgins 
 (c. 4), he dwells on the absurdity of not reckon¬ 
 ing a wife married before baptism (c. 6). The 
 23rd letter of the same pope, addres;ed to the 
 Synod of Toledo, reverts a third time to the error 
 of not i-eckoning in cases of digamy a prebaptismal 
 marriage. 
 
 The letters of Leo the Great (a.d. 440-61) re¬ 
 peatedly recur to the subject. See the 4th, 5th, 
 and 6th. 
 
 Second marriages were, however, still allowed 
 to the inferior clergy. Thus the 25th canon of 
 the 1st Council of Orange, a.d. 441, ordained 
 respecting “ those fit and approved persons whom 
 the grace itself of their life counsels to be joined 
 to the clergy, if by chance they have fallen into 
 second marriage, that they should not receive 
 ecclesiastical dignities beyond the subdiaconate.” 
 The same enactment is repeated almost in the 
 same words in the 45th canon of the 2nd Council 
 of Arles, A.D. 452. In some dioceses, however, 
 the I'ule was still stricter, if full faith is to be 
 given to a letter of bishops Loup of Troyes and 
 Euphronius ofAutun to bishop Talasius of Angers 
 (a.d. 453), which lays it down that the Church 
 allows digamy as far as the rank of porters, but 
 excludes altogether exorcists and subdeacons from 
 second mai'riage, whilst in the diocese of Autun 
 the porter himself, the lowest of the inferior 
 clergy, if he took a second wife lost his office, 
 and, as well as a subdeacon or exorcist falling 
 into the same “ madness,” was excluded from 
 communion (see Labbe' and Mansi’s Councils, vol. 
 vii. p. 942). As respects marriages to widows, 
 we must not overlook a Council of uncertain 
 place, of the year 442-4, by which a bishop 
 named Chelidonius was deposed, amongst other 
 reasons, for having contracted such a marriage; 
 though he was afterwai-ds absolved by Pope Leo. 
 See further, against the 2nd marriages of the 
 clergy or other marriages to widows or divorced 
 women, the 4th canon of the Council of Angers, 
 A.D. 453; the 4th canon of the 1st Council of 
 Tours, A.D. 461; the 2nd canon of the Council 
 of Rome, a.d. 465 ; letter 9 of pope Gelasius I. 
 (a.d. 492-6) to the bishops of Lucania, cc. 3, 22 ; 
 and two fragments of letters by him to the 
 clergy and people of Brindisi. 
 
 Among the Nestorians of the Ea.st indeed, 
 towards the end of the 5th century, the re¬ 
 marriage of the clergy was held valid. One of 
 their synods held in Persia, under Barsumas 
 archbishop of Nisibis [Bigamy], expressly lays 
 it down that a priest whose wife is dead is not 
 to be forbidden by his bishop to marry again, 
 whether before or after his orders.® And even in 
 the West it is evident that instances of digamy or 
 quasi-digamy must at the beginning of the 6th 
 century have been so frequent in France at least 
 as to require toleration. Thus the Council ol 
 
 ® A somewhat later Nestorian synod under the pa¬ 
 triarch Babaeus, however, seems to allow but one wife to 
 the “ Catholiciis,'’ all inferior priests, and monks. It is 
 difiScult, however, to collect the exact purport of the 
 enactment from the short notice in Labbe aud Manei’s 
 Councils, vol. 8, p. 239. 
 
DIGAMY 
 
 Acrde, A.T>. 506, after the canons and statutes of 
 the fathers had been read, determined, “ as 
 touching digamists or husbands of women before 
 married (internuptarum)—although the statutes 
 of the fathers had otherwise decreed—that those 
 \\'ho till now have been ordained, compassion 
 being had, do retain the name only of the priest¬ 
 hood or diaconate, but that such persons do not 
 presume, the priests to consecrate, the deacons to 
 minister ” (c. 1). So the Council of Epaone, a.d. 
 517, c. 2; the 4th [Mrd] Council of Arles, a.d. 
 524, c. 3; and the 4th Council of Orleans, 
 A.D. 541, c. 10. It seems superfluous to multiply 
 authorities as respects the Western Church, ex¬ 
 cept to notice the introduction of the same legis¬ 
 lation among new communities. Thus for Eng¬ 
 land, a Council held under archbishop Theodore of 
 Canterbury, towards the end of the 7th century, 
 forbids the priesthood (c. 116) to the husband of 
 a widow, whether married to her before or after 
 baptism. The Collection of Irish Canons, suj)- 
 po.sed to be of about the same date, in its first 
 book ‘ On the Bishop,’ requires him to be a man 
 “ who having taken only one wife, a virgin, is 
 content ” (c. 9). And pope Gregory II. (714-30) 
 in a capitulary to his ablegates in Bavaria, forbids 
 a digamist, or one who has not received his wife 
 a virgin to be ordained (c. 5). On the other 
 hand, a Spanish canon seems to imply that quasi- 
 digamous marriages might in that province be 
 contracted with the advice of the bishop, since 
 the 4th Council of Toledo, a.d. 633, enacted 
 (c. 44) that clerics who without such advice 
 (sine consultu episcopi sui) had married widows, 
 divorced women, oi' prostitutes, were to be ex¬ 
 cluded from communion. 
 
 The last authority we shall quote, as embracing 
 the East as well as the Vfest, is that of the [5th] 
 6th General Council, that of Constantinople in 
 Trullo, A.D. 691, which treats of the subject in a 
 manner proving that the canonical injunctions 
 against digamous or quasi-digamous marriages 
 among the clergy were yet in many instances 
 transgressed. Those who had become involved 
 in second marriages, and down to a given past 
 date had “ served sin,” were to be deposed, 
 but those who, having become involved in the 
 disgrace of such digamy before the decree, 
 had forsaken their evil ways, or those whose 
 second wives were dead already, whether priests 
 or deacons, wei'e ordered for a definite time to 
 cease from all priestly ministrations, but to re¬ 
 tain the honour of their seat and rank, whilst 
 praying the Lord with tears to forgive them the 
 sin of their ignorance. On the other hand those 
 who had married widows, whether priests, deacons, 
 or subdeacons, after a short period of suspension 
 from ministerial functions, were to be restored 
 to their rank, but without power of further 
 j)romotion. For all those committing the like 
 offence after the date assigned, the canon was 
 renewed “ which sa)^s that he who shall have 
 become involved in two marriages after baptism, 
 or shall have had a concubine, cannot be bishop, 
 or priest, or deacon, or in anywise a member of 
 the sacerdotal order; and so with him who hjis 
 taken to wife a widow or divorced woman, 
 or a harlot, or a slave, or a stage-player ” (c. 3). 
 It would probably be difficult to assign the 
 original canon thus referred to. The text is 
 moreover remarkable as confining the disability 
 of second marriage to post-baptismal unions in 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 DIGAMY 65i3 
 
 direct opposition to the authority of St. Amfuoso 
 and others before referred to. 
 
 It is sufficient to state here that so long as we 
 retain the female diaconate in sight, the same 
 obligation of monogamy attache.; to the deacon¬ 
 esses as to the male clergy ; e. /., not to speak 
 of Epiphanius for the East, when the female 
 diaconate reappears in Gaul during the 6th cen¬ 
 tury, we find the 2nd Council of Orleans, a.d. 
 533, enacting that “ women who have hitherto 
 received against canonical prohibition the diaconal 
 benediction, if they can be proved to have again 
 lapsed into marriage, are to be expelled from 
 communion but if they give up their husbands 
 they may be readmitted after jienance (c. 17). 
 
 It must not be overlooked that the civil law 
 of the Roman empire since the days of Justiniau 
 followed the canon law on the subject of clerical 
 marriages. This is perhaps only implied in the 
 Code (see bk. i. t. iii. 1. 42, § 1, and 1. 48), but 
 distinctly enacted in the Noveh. Under one or 
 other of these, bishops, priests, deacons, and sub¬ 
 deacons were alike forbidden to receive ordination 
 if they had been twice married, or had married 
 widows or divorced vvomen (6th Nov. cc. i. v.; 
 22nd N^ov. c. xlii.; 123rd Nov. cc. i. xii.; 137th 
 Nov. c. ii.). Readers who remarried or con¬ 
 tracted the like marriages, could rise to no higher 
 clerical rank (an indulgence which did not, how¬ 
 ever, extend to a third marriage), or if they ob¬ 
 tained such irregularly, forfeited altogether their 
 clerical position (6th Nov. c. v,: 22nd Nov. c. 
 xlii.; 123rd Nov. c. xiv.). Deaconesses must in 
 like manner, if not virgins, have been only once 
 married (6th Nov. c. vi.).'’ 
 
 II. As respects the laity, the distinction be¬ 
 tween second marriages after divorce or separa¬ 
 tion, and after death, which is unimportant as' 
 respects the clergy, becomes an essential one. In 
 both respects the practice of the Church, instead 
 of being founded, as it was with reference to the 
 clergy, on the prescriptions of the Old Testament, 
 depends upon a more or less narrow interpreta¬ 
 tion of the New, or on more or less bold deductions 
 from its teachings, combined with the surround¬ 
 ing influences of civil society. In conformity with 
 St. Paul’s views as to remarriage after death, we 
 
 •» A curious offshoot from the subject of the proliibiiion 
 of clerical bigamy is the exte- sion of that prohibition to 
 the widows of clerics. Thus, the first Council of I’oU do, 
 A.D. 400, enacted that if the widow o'" a hisliop, priest, or 
 deacon took a husband, no cleric or religious woman 
 ouglit so much as to eat with her, nor sliould she l)e 
 admitted to communion except m arliculo moitis (c. I8). 
 The 4 th Council of Oi leans, a.d. 511, required tlie widow 
 of a priest or deacon married again to be separated from 
 her husband, or if she remained wiih him, both to l>e 
 exclude d from communion (c. 13). The C(>uncil of K[«»i6ne 
 (a.d. 517), somewhat more sharply decreed immediate 
 exclusion of both, till they should separate (c. 32). The 
 Council of Lerida (\.d. 524) accorditig to Suriu^ forbade 
 the communion to the remarried widow of a bishop, piiest, 
 or d'acori, even in artuulo worlis. The Council of 
 Auxerre (a.d. 578),again forbade such marriages as respects 
 the widows of the superior clf-rgy; the Council of Macon, 
 A.D. 585, extt nded the prohibition to those of sulxieacons, 
 e.xorci.sts. and acolytes, under pain of confinement for life 
 in a convent of women (c. 16). Yet Pope Gregory the 
 Gr at (a.d. 599-603) did not go so far, for we find him in 
 a letter to I^eo, bishop of Catania, (bk. ii. lettc'r 3i) oMer* 
 iiig a certain Honorata. widow of a subdeacon, vc ho on 
 h r m.irrying sgain had been shut up In a monastery 
 to be restored to her husband. 
 
554 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 lind Hevmas writing that “ whoso marries ”— 
 i.e. as shown in the context, after the death of 
 either wife or husband—“does not sin, but if he 
 dwells by himself, he acquires great honour to 
 himself with the Lord” (bk. ii. M. iv, § 4); but 
 ado[)tiug the stricter view as to remarriage after 
 divorce, declaring it to be adultery in the man 
 even when he has put away his wife for that, 
 ofi'ence itself, and the same to be the case with 
 the wife Qbid. § 1). Negatively, on the other 
 hand, it may be observed that the epistle of 
 Barnabas, in enumerating the works of the “ way 
 of light,” does not specify monogamy (see c. 19). 
 
 The Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 1) speak of 
 the marriage of a church-widow as bringing dis¬ 
 grace to the class, “ not because she contracted 
 a second marriage, but because she did not keep 
 her promi.se (67ra'y7€Xiav) ” — a passage clearly 
 implying even in this case the full lawfulness of 
 second marriage. See also cc. 2 and 3, and 
 Apost. Can. 40, al. 47 or 48. 
 
 Although amongst the earlier Romans there 
 was one form of marriage which was indisso¬ 
 luble, viz., that by confarreatio, still generally 
 a second marriage either after death or divorce, 
 was by no means viewed with disfavour. There 
 are, however, certain clear indications that 
 already in the first century of our era con¬ 
 stancy to a single partner was in the Roman 
 world beginning to be looked upon with favour. 
 Thus Tacitus speaks of Germanicus’s being a man 
 “ of one marriage” as one of the causes of his 
 influence (Ann. ii. 73), and mentions a little 
 further on (c. 76) that the daughter of Pollio 
 was chosen to be chief vestal “ for no other 
 reason than that her mother remained mar¬ 
 ried to the same man.” The same Tacitus ob¬ 
 serves of the Germans that the best of their 
 communities (civitates) were those where the 
 women only married as virgins, so that they 
 never had but one husband {De Mor. Germ, c, 
 xix.). And it is perhaps worthy of notice that 
 the jus connubii, when given to soldiers, was 
 restricted under Philip (247-9) to the case of a 
 first marriage, though this was probably not 
 attributable to any moral considerations (see 
 Muratori, Thes. fnscr. i. 362). 
 
 Meanwhile an intensifying spirit of asceticism 
 was leading many in the church to a condemna¬ 
 tion of second marriage in all cases. Minucius 
 Felix (Octavius, c. 31, § 5) only professes on 
 behalf of the Christians a preference for mono¬ 
 gamy. Clement of Alexandria (a.D. 150-220) 
 seems to confine the term marriage to the first 
 lawful union (Stromata, bk. ii.—quoted, as well 
 as several of the following references, in Co- 
 telerius, Patres Apostol. vol. i. p. 90, n. 16). 
 Athenagoras terms second marriage “ fair seem¬ 
 ing adultery.” Tertullian (a.d. 150-226) in¬ 
 veighs against it with unwearied urgency, in 
 his two books Ad Uxorem, in his De Exho'-tatione 
 C'lstitatis, in his De Monogamia, and in his De 
 Fudicitid-i\\e last but one, however, written 
 when he was altog«^ier a Montanist. In the 
 first of thpni, indeed, he admits that his wife 
 will not actpally sjq if she marry after his death 
 (i. 7), but argues frojn clerical to lay mono¬ 
 gamy. In the Evhortation to Cn^stity (which 
 is addressed to a man) he uses the same argument, 
 but goes so far as to say that second marriage is 
 a form of adultery (c. 9). Origen (184-253) sp 
 far as the Latin text of his 17th homily on 
 
 Luke can be trusted, is not much less severe. 
 Recommending perseverance in widowhood, h« 
 says : “ But now both second and third and fourth 
 marriages, not to speak of more, arc to be found, 
 and we are not ignorant that such a marriage 
 shall cast us out from the kingdom of God.” 
 
 It would seem, how'ever, that when these 
 views were carried to the extent of absolute 
 prohibition of second marriages generally by 
 several heretical sects, the Montanists (see Au¬ 
 gustin, de Haeresibus, c. 26), the Cathari (ib. 
 c. 38), and a portion at least of the Novatianists 
 (see Cotel. Patr. Ap. vol. i. p. 91, n. 16), the 
 Church saw the necessity of not fixing such a 
 yoke on the necks of the laity. The forbiddance 
 of second marriage, or its assimilation to forni¬ 
 cation, was treated as one of the marks of heresy 
 (Augustin, u. s.; and .see also his De bono vidui- 
 tatis, c. 6). The sentiment of Augustin (in the 
 last referred to passage) may be taken to express 
 the Church judgment at the close of the 4th 
 century : “ Second marriages are not to be con¬ 
 demned, but had in less honour ; ” and see also 
 Epiphanius, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, 
 c. 21. 
 
 What the “ less honour ” consisted in may 
 partly be inferred as respects the Greek Church, 
 from the ‘ Sanctions and Decrees ’ attributed to 
 the Nicene Fathers (Labbe' and Mansi, Councils, 
 vol. ii. p. 1029 and foil.), which distinctly au¬ 
 thorize widowers’ and widows’ marriages (i. 7). 
 Yet the ble.ssing of the crowns is not to be imparted 
 to them, for this is only once given, on first mar¬ 
 riages, and not to be repeated. . . But if one 
 of them be not a widower or widow, let such one 
 alone receive the benediction with the para- 
 nymphs, those whom he will. 
 
 The 7th Canon of the Council of Neocae.sarea, 
 in A.D. 314 or 315, bears that the presbvter 
 •ought not to be present at the marriage fes¬ 
 tivities of digamists, as the act would be incom¬ 
 patible with his assigning a penance to such per¬ 
 sons. The canon im 2 )lies, it will be seen, that 
 the act of second marriage entailed the infliction 
 of a penance. This appears more clearly from 
 the 1st Canon of the Council of Laodicea, (be¬ 
 tween A.D. 357 and 367), which rules, as re¬ 
 spects those who have “ freely and lawfully” 
 contracted a second marriage, without any 
 secresy, that after a short time, and some chastise¬ 
 ment in prayers and fastings, they should be ad¬ 
 mitted to Communion. And Basil (a.d. 326— 
 379) in his Canonical epistle to bishop Amphi- 
 lochius of Iconium fixes one year as the period 
 of the suspension of digamists from communion. 
 
 We must thus consider that two views on the 
 subject of simple remarriage after the death o< 
 husband or wife were abroad in the Church ; one 
 which, with Augustin, looked upon it as merely 
 less honourable than monogamy, and deemed its 
 actual condemnation a mark of heresy; the 
 other, which looked upon it as in itself an offence 
 deserving penance, however slight this might be. 
 
 The latter view found most colour as respects 
 .second marriages after what was deemed a re¬ 
 ligious profession, as that of the penitent, and of 
 the widow. See IV. Cone. Carth. c. 104; 
 A/. Arles, c. 21; Pope Symmachus, Epist. 5, 
 
 § 5 ; T’’. Paris, c. 13, and many others. 
 
 A more extraordinary instance of the enforce¬ 
 ment of monogamy on a particular class of 
 women is coqfiued to Spain. The 13th Council 
 
DIGAMY 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 555 
 
 of Toledo, in 683, declared it to be “ an execrable 
 crime, and a work of most inveterate iniquity, 
 after the death of kings, to affect the royal couch 
 of their surviving consorts ” (c. 5). This was 
 confirmed some years later by the 3rd Council 
 of Saragossa, a.d. 691, which required the 
 widows of the kings to enter a convent for the 
 remainder of their lives (c. 5). 
 
 The penance for ordinary digamy recurs in our 
 own country, in the canons of a Council held 
 under Archbishop Theodore, of Canterbury, which 
 fixes it at. two days fasting from wine and flesh- 
 meat every week during the first year, and fasting 
 for three consecutive Lents, “ but without dis¬ 
 missing the wife ” (c. 26). But subject how¬ 
 ever to some such qualifications, second mar¬ 
 riage after the death of husband or wife remained 
 fully recognised as the right of the laity. In 
 later times, indeed, so slight a feeling subsisted 
 in the Romish Church against re-marriage among 
 the lait}'^ after the death of a husband or wife, 
 that Muratori (^Antiquitates Medii Aevi, ii. 
 Diss. 20), says that the Latin Church neA^er 
 forbade second, third, or even more marriages 
 after the death of one of the parties, although 
 the ancient church, especially during the 3rd and 
 4th centuries, bore such unions impatiently, and 
 subjected them to penance. 
 
 It must now be observed that the feeling 
 against second marriage traceable in early times 
 in the records of the Church gradually extended 
 to the Civil Law, especially as regards widows. 
 The earliest laws which indicate this feeling 
 appear to belong to the time of Theodosius the 
 Great (a.d. 380-2), and are to be found in Justi¬ 
 nian’s Code, bk. V. tit. ix., Be secundis nuptiis, 
 and bk. vi. tit. Ivi. 
 
 Substantially the Roman' civil law, like that 
 of the Church, fully recognised the right of 
 second marriage of a surviving husband or wife, 
 latterly confining itself to securing with especial 
 care the rights of the issue of the first marriage. 
 The barbaric codes do not vary materially from 
 this point of view. See the Edict of Tlieodoric, 
 c. 37 ; the Laws of Notharis (a.d. 638 or 643), 
 cc. 182, 183 ; Laws of Liutprand (a.d. 724), 
 vi. c. 74. The laws of the VVisigoths recognised 
 fully the right of remarriage after the death of 
 a partner among the laity. See the Laws of 
 Chindaswinth, bk. iii. tit. 1, 1. 4. 
 
 Among the Carlovingian Capilularies is one 
 forbidding marriage with widows without their 
 priests’ (suorum sacerdotum) consent and the 
 knowledge of the people (bk. v. c. 40). Mar¬ 
 riages with professed widows were declared to 
 be no true marriages, and the parties were to be 
 separated, without any accusation being brought 
 against them, by the priest or the judge, and 
 were to be sent into perpetual exile (ib. c. 411) ; 
 though another enactment (bk. vii. c. 338) seems 
 to limit the ])enalty to suspension from commun¬ 
 ion till amendment of life, or in default of such 
 amendment, to perpetual exclusion. If, indeed, 
 a widow who was also a penitent remarried, she 
 and her husband were not to be suffered to enter 
 the church (/'>. 317, and see also Ac/t/.Q tartn c. 88). 
 A woman who had connexion with two brothers 
 was never to marry again {ib. 381). A limit 
 was even sought to be imposed on the number 
 of marriages which might be contracted : “ Let 
 none take more than two wives, sinc( the third 
 is already superfluous” (bk. vii, c. 406), 
 
 III. We come now to a branch of the subject on 
 which the law of the Church has seldom riii 
 precisely in the same groove as that of the state, 
 viz., remarriage not after death of one of the 
 pai’ties, but after divorce or separation. Several 
 classes of cases have here to be distinguished. 
 The first is that in which physical sejiaration 
 involves the presumption or at least the jiossi- 
 bility of death. The 22nd Novel fixed a period of 
 five years, after which the wife of a captive 
 husband, who could hear no tidings of him, 
 might lawfully marry again (c. 7). The Wisi- 
 gothic Code was less indulgent. One of its older 
 laws enacted that no woman might marry in 
 her husband’s absence, till he was known to be 
 dead; otherwise, on his return, both she and her 
 second husbJnd were to be giA'en over to him, 
 so that he might do with them what he chose, 
 whether by selling them or in any other way 
 (bk. ii. t. ii. 1. 6). As respects the church, a 
 letter of Pope Innocent I. (402-17) to Probus 
 simply lays down that where a wife had been 
 carried into captivity and her husband married 
 again in her absence, on the return of the for¬ 
 mer the first marriage alone held good {Ep. 9). 
 Leo the Great ruled to the same effect in his 
 letter (a.d. 458) to Nicetas, Bishop of Aquileia. 
 Wives whose husbands had been taken in war 
 were bound to return to their former husbands 
 under pain of excommunication ; but the second 
 husbands were not to be held guilty for the act 
 of marrying {Ep. 159). The Council in Trullo 
 (a.d. 692), more severe, decreed that the wife of 
 an absent husband marrying before she was 
 certain of his death was guilty of adultery 
 
 (c. 93). 
 
 The next group of cases are those of simple 
 prolonged physical separation. The Roman law 
 took especial account of the case of soldiers. 
 The 22nd Novel allowed the Avife of a soldier 
 after ten years’ absence, during Avhich she must 
 haA'e repeatedly pressed her husband by lettei'S 
 or messages, Avhilst he either repelled her im¬ 
 portunities, or wholly neglected them, to marry 
 again, altering in this respect a constitution of 
 Constantine’s {Code, bk. v. t. xvii. 1. 7), Avhich 
 seemed to fix four years as a sufficient period of 
 separation. But the wife Avas required to pre¬ 
 sent a protest, apparently a Avritten one, to the 
 soldier’s superior officers (c. 14); and the 117th 
 Novel surrounded this proceeding Avith certain 
 formalities, requiring moreoA'er the Avife to wait 
 a year further after taking the step in question 
 before she could laAvfully marry again (1. 11). 
 St. Basil on the other hand notices the case in 
 his first canonical epistle to Amphilochius, and 
 decrees that Avhere the soldier’s wife remarries, 
 the circumstances should be examined into, and 
 some indulgence shewn (c. 36). The Council 
 in Trullo adopted this vieAv, and authorized a 
 soldier, Avho might return after a long absence 
 and find his Avife married to another, to take her 
 back, indulgence being sheAvn both to the Avoman 
 and to her second husband (c. 93). 
 
 Physical separation through captivity con¬ 
 stitutes the next group. A council held under 
 Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, towards 
 the end of the 7th century, alloAvs a layman, if 
 his wife AA'ere by force carried aAvay into cajtti- 
 vity, and he could not recoA'er her, to take an¬ 
 other, as being better than to commit fornication 
 (c. 31). After such a second marriage (which 
 
556 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 DIGAMY 
 
 could be contracted after a twelvemonth, c. 140), 
 he was not at liberty to take back his former 
 wife if married to another, but she might her¬ 
 self also marry another husband (c. 31). One 
 of the later Lombard laws (a.d. 721) enacts that 
 if any one go away for a matter of business or 
 of trade, whetlier within a province or out of it, 
 and do not return within three years, his wife 
 may apply to the king, who may allow her to 
 marry again (Law of Liutprand, bk. iii. c. 4). 
 
 If we now consider the case of voluntaiy de¬ 
 sertion or divoi'ce, we shall find considerable 
 fluctuation in the rules and practice of the 
 Church as to a second marriage following there¬ 
 on. St. Paul had, indeed, admitted that desertion 
 for thrt faith’s sake dissolved the social obliga¬ 
 tions ox' marriage: “If the unbelieving depart, 
 let hiiji depart; a brother or a sister is not 
 under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. vii. 15). 
 Did the not being “ under bondage ” imply free¬ 
 dom to marry again ? An alleged canon of 
 Gregory the Great is repoided to have ruled that 
 it was no sin to do so (c. 17). The same conclu¬ 
 sion may, perhaps, be drawn, as respects heresy 
 at least, from a canon (72) of the Council in 
 Trullo, which not only forbids marriage between 
 an orthodox person and a heretic, but declares 
 it void and dissolved; and seems only by way 
 of permission to allow that where two infidels 
 have married, and one comes to the light of the 
 truth, he or she may remain in union with the 
 other. And under the canons of the English 
 Council under Theodore, the case would be in¬ 
 cluded in that of desertion generally, m which 
 it was laid down that a layman deserted by his 
 wife might after two years take another with 
 the bishop’s consent (c. 140). Indeed St. Basil 
 in the 4th century had ruled in his first canon¬ 
 ical epistle to Amphilochius that a woman who 
 married a man deserted by his wife, if dismissed 
 on the latter’s return, had only fornicated in 
 ignorance, and was not forbidden to maiTy again ; 
 though he thought it better that she should 
 remain single (c. 46), The 93rd canon of the 
 Council in Trullo confirmed this view, 
 
 There was indeed one case of separation, the 
 very converse of that of a Christian husband or 
 wife deserted by an infidel partner, which Jus¬ 
 tinian’s code specially dealt with, that of the 
 husband or wife embracing the monastic pro¬ 
 fession. This was held to give freedom to the 
 other party to marry again, although as respects 
 a woman, by analogy with the law in case of 
 remarriage after death, only after the expiration 
 of a twelvemonth. She was, however', at once 
 to send a divorce bond gratia to her husband 
 {Code^ bk. i. t. iii. 1. 53, § 3 ; and see 1. 56; 
 5th Nov. c. 5; 22nd Nov. c. 5). The avoidance 
 of marriage by the religious profession was how¬ 
 ever maintained, after the divorce bond gratid 
 had been forbidden; see the 117th Nov. cc. 10, 
 12, and the 123rd, c. 40. 
 
 The great struggle was, however, on the sub¬ 
 ject of marriage after divorce. Our Lord’s teach¬ 
 ing on the subject, it will be remembered, was 
 not only in professed opposition to the Jewish 
 law, but in no less signal opposition to the 
 Roman, in which the facilities for divorce were 
 simply scandalous. The right of divorce in spe¬ 
 cified cases, and of subsequent remarriage for 
 the innocent party, was maintained by the .state 
 for a long time under the emperors (see Coae, 
 
 bk. V. t. xvii.). No limitation of time for re¬ 
 marriage was fixed for the man (lib. 1. 8, § 5, 
 Constitution of Theodosius and Valentmian, A.n. 
 449); but by analogy with the case of re¬ 
 marriage after death, the woman’s right to 
 remarry after divorce for her husband’s wrong, 
 or after a divorce by mutual consent, was 
 limited to arise after the expiration of a twelve- 
 month (§ 4 and 1. 9, Constitution of Anastasius, 
 A.D. 497). But if she divorced herself from her 
 husband otherwise than in the cases specified, 
 she could not remarry within five yeans, and 
 if she did, became infamous, and the marriage 
 void (1. 8, § 4). The i-ight of remarriage by a 
 wife after the year was by the 22nd Novel 
 extended to all cases of “ reasonable ” divorce 
 obtained by her; the husband in the like case 
 being always free to remairy at once (cc. 16, 18). 
 The divorce by mutual consent, except for the 
 sake of obsei'ving chastity, was however for¬ 
 bidden by the 117th Novel, c. 10. 
 
 In Italy the right of divorce and remarriage 
 was maintained by the edict of Theodoric accord¬ 
 ing to the old constitutions (c. 54), and though 
 it cannot be traced through the Lombard laws, 
 probably subsisted till the Carlovingian conquest, 
 when by a capitulary of the year 789, enacted 
 for Lombardy, marriage after divorce was for¬ 
 bidden (bk. i. c. 42). 
 
 The Wisigothic law seems first to have ad¬ 
 mitted divorce, then sought to forbid it alto¬ 
 gether. An “ ancient ” law prohibited a divorced 
 woman from remarrying, and if she did, ordered 
 both her and her second husband to be given 
 over to the former one (bk. iii. t. ii. 1. 1). 
 
 If we turn now to the law of the Church, we 
 find the Council of Eliberis in 305 forbidding 
 communion even in extremis to women lea^-ing 
 their husbands without cause and marrying 
 another (c. 8). See al.o c. 9 and c. 10. 
 
 Basil in his canonical epistle to Amphilochius 
 dwells at length on the subject of divorces (c. 9). 
 He doubts, indeed, whether a woman living with 
 a divorced man is to be treated as an adulteress; 
 but she is one certainly who leaves her husband 
 and marries again. But the deserted husband may 
 receive absolution (^trvyyvwa'Ths ivTi), and the 
 woman who lives with him is not condemned; 
 though it is otherwise if the man himself leaves 
 his wife (ib.). Such a man marrying again is 
 an adulterer, and only in the 7th year is to be 
 readmitted among the faithful (c. 77). To Basil’s 
 mind, a dismissed wife should remain unmarried 
 (c. 48). 
 
 The African Council of Milevis, A.D. 416, the 
 17th canon of which forbids generally dismissed 
 women to marry other husbands, hardly agrees 
 with an Irish Council of uncertain date held under 
 St. Patrick, which lays it down that first mar- 
 I'iages are not made void by second ones, “ unless 
 they have been polluted by adultery” (c. 28); 
 nor with the Council of Vannes eyicticu.n) in 
 465, which enacts excommunication against those 
 who having wives, except by reason of fornication, 
 without proof of adultery marry other women 
 (c. 2). The Council of Hertfoi'd in 673 seems 
 to revert to the stricter view, enacting that a 
 man is not to leave his wife except for fornica¬ 
 tion, nor, if dismissing her, to marry another 
 (c. 10). The Council in Trullo declares that 
 both the woman leaving her husband and mar- 
 I l ying another, and the man leaving his wife and 
 
DIGAMY 
 
 DIGNITAS 
 
 557 
 
 marrying another, commit adultery, and enacts 
 a graduated scale of penance for seven years 
 (c. 88). On the other hand, the English Council 
 under Theodore enacts that where a wife is un¬ 
 faithful a man might dismiss her and marry 
 another, the woman however not to be allowed 
 to marry her lover (c. 143). And yet by a seem¬ 
 ingly strange contradiction it is enacted that a 
 harlot’s husband may not marry any other woman 
 during her lifetime (c. 166), the case aimed at 
 being probably that of a marriage with a full 
 knowledge that the woman did not mean to 
 leave her course of life. Among the Excerpts 
 from the chapters, “ de remediis peccatorum,” by 
 the same archbishop, published in the Anecdota 
 of Martene, we find that the penance assigned 
 to a man dismissing his wife and marrying 
 another is seven years “ with tribulation,” be¬ 
 sides five years of lighter penance. If the wife 
 departed, and the husband married again, his 
 penance was for one year only. 
 
 A letter (7) of Pope Zacharias (a.d. 741-51) to 
 Pepin as mayor of the palace, enjoins again the 
 excommunication of laymen dismissing their 
 wives and taking others in their place (c. 7), 
 and reiterates the prohibition against marriage 
 after divorce (c. 12), which we find also repeated 
 in the replies made by Pope Stephen II. in 754 
 to certain queries put to him when he was at 
 Quierry in France (c. 5). 
 
 Under Charlemagne -a different spirit be¬ 
 comes obvious. The law is made stricter, but 
 the rulers are above it. All injunctions to 
 morality on the part of the popes were power¬ 
 less against the passions of their Carlovingian 
 patrons. See the curious letter addressed by 
 Stephen III. (a.d. 768-70) to Charlemagne and 
 Carloman his son, then associated with him on 
 the throne. 
 
 The Council of Aix in 789 (c. 42) and the 
 Council of Friuli in 791 (c. 10), endorsing the 
 stricter construction of our Lord’s words as to 
 divorce, enacted that after a divorce for adultery 
 neither party should marry again. The latter, 
 however, “ by indulgence,” allowed those who 
 wei'e separated for consanguinity’s sake on 
 discovery to marry again, if they could not re¬ 
 main unmarried, which it recommended them to 
 do; but if they wilfully contracted such a mar¬ 
 riage they were after separation to do penance 
 all their lives and never marry again, nor could 
 their children inherit from them (c. 8). The 
 pi'ohibitions against a second marriage after 
 divorce are repeated in the Capitularies, bk. 
 vii. cc. 73, 382 (the latter expressly includ¬ 
 ing the case of adultery); bk. v. c. 300, Add. 
 quarta cc. 118-161,—the prohibition being here 
 extended to marrying again after “ killing a wife 
 without cause.” And the edict of Charlemagne 
 (a.d. 814) directs inquiry whether all men noble [ 
 or ignoble, have lawful wives, “ not the dis- I 
 missed wives of others.” j 
 
 Strange to say, the Eastern empire presented ^ 
 at this same period a similar scandal to that of 
 the imperial court of the west. The Emperor 
 Constantine had sent his wife to a convent and 
 married another, the Archbishop Joseph per¬ 
 forming the ceremony. For so doing he was 
 ejected” by the patriarch Tarasius, but received to 
 communion by a Constantinopolitan synod in 806 
 in spite of the efforts of Theodorus Studita and 
 oi the monks, and another assembly in 809, 
 
 declared the emperor’s marriage to be lawful, on 
 the shameful ground that “ the divine laws can 
 do nothing against kings.”—It is somewhat curi¬ 
 ous to add that a Nestorian synod held in Persia 
 in 804, following the stricter view, had laid it 
 down that after a divorce for fornication neither 
 husband nor wife could marry again. 
 
 To sum up the conclusions of this inquiry, we 
 find—1st, that as respects the clergy, a rule 
 borrowed from Leviticus or derived from its pre¬ 
 scriptions was held by the church to forbid to tlie 
 clergy all marriages which should on either side 
 be of a digamous character; and that although 
 this rule was evidently constantly infringed in 
 practice, and its infringements oftentimes con¬ 
 doned in the past, it was nevertheless steadily 
 upheld as binding throughout the whole jieriod 
 to which this work refers, and latterly extended 
 or sought to be extended to the inferior clergy; 
 the one open protest against its application being 
 that of a Nestorian synod in Persia, towards the 
 end of the 5th centuiy. 2nd, that as resjiects 
 the laity, notwithstanding the stricter views 
 taken by seA'eral writers of the earlier church, 
 the right of remarriage after the death of a 
 husband or wife became firmly established, 
 though in the Eastern church such marriages 
 were subjected to some ceremonial disjiarage- 
 ment, and were generally sought to be dis¬ 
 couraged by penances more or less severe. 3rd, 
 that considerable fluctuation in the views and 
 pi'actice of the Church seems to have jirevailed 
 on the subject of remarriage after separation or 
 divorce, and that whilst second marriages in such 
 cases were generally condemned by the letter of 
 the canon law towards the end of the 8th and 
 beginning of the 9th centuries, the sovereigns 
 both of the East and West set such prohibitions 
 at nought for themselves, and parted with their 
 wives to marry others almost at their will. 
 
 (See also Bigamy). [J. M. L.] 
 
 DIGNITAS. A well-known classical word — 
 id, quo quis re aliquii dignus est, as Facciolati 
 defines it. By degrees it was used as a generic 
 term for ranks or offices, “ Dignitas equestris, 
 senatoria, consularis,” and so forth. From Pliny 
 downwards, by “dignitates” were frequently 
 meant “magistracies.” The well-known nutitii, 
 or “ Table of dignities of the Roman Emjiire in 
 the east and west,” which Paucirolus thinks 
 may have been published about the end of the 
 reign of Theodosius the younger in its present 
 shape, was probably commenced under Augustus 
 (Bocking’s Notit. p. liii.-v.). They form the 
 subject of the 6th book in the Theodosiau Code, 
 and of the 1st and last books in that of Justinian 
 (Gothofred Op. Jurid. Min. pp. 1263, 1374, and 
 1415-18). All, of course, were purely secular; 
 but, in process of time, when ecclesiastics were 
 promoted to secular offices, and ecclesiastical 
 offices themselves began to confer as much social 
 distinction as secular, people talked of “ digni¬ 
 ties ” in the Church as freely as in the State. 
 Hence, retrospectively, this term might be ex¬ 
 tended to the offices of bishop, metropolitan, 
 archbishop, patriarch, pope, cardinal, bishop- 
 suffragan, archpriest, aiubdeacon, chancelloi’, 
 though, as matter of fact, it was never applied 
 to them till it had been used to denote later and 
 more suboi'dinate posts first. In ecclesiastical 
 parlance, says Ducange, “ when a benefice in 
 eluded the administration of ecclesiastical atlairi 
 
DIMISSORY LETTERS 
 
 558 
 
 with jurisdiction, it was called a dignity.” And 
 ri)onuusin, to the same purpose, speaks of “ pro¬ 
 vosts, deans, stewards, chamberlains, treasurers, 
 cellarers, and sacristans, as among the ‘ dignities ’ 
 inseparable from cathedrals and abbeys” (^De Ben. 
 i ii, 70). True, we meet with none of these 
 words in their received ecclesiastical meaning 
 bjfoi'e the 9th century; nor was it till then, 
 probably, that epclesiastical offices of any kind 
 began to be styled “dignities:” still, practically, 
 they had been this long before. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 DIMISSORY LETTERS. ^Literae dimis- 
 oriae,forinatae; inKTToKal aTrohvTiKai.) Letters 
 given by a bishop to one of his clerks removing 
 into another diocese ; or to a layman of his dio¬ 
 cese desiring to be ordained elsewhere. [See 
 Bishop, p. 232: Commendatory Letters.] 
 
 1. In ancient times a bishop was forbidden to 
 receive a clerk from another diocese, or to ad¬ 
 mit to higher orders a clerk already ordained to 
 some inferior rank, or to ordain a layman domi¬ 
 ciled in another diocese (alterius plebis hominem), 
 without the express and formal consent of the 
 bishop of that diocese (Cone. Nicaen. i. c. 16; 
 C. Sardic. cc. 16, 19, A.D. 347; C. Garthag. i. 
 c. 5, A.D. 348; C. Taurin. c. 7 ; C. Aruusic. i. 
 c. 8, 9 ; C. in Trullo, c. 17; Ordo Rom. VIf 1. 
 p. 87). Readers, psalmists, and doorkeepers, 
 were included under the designation of clerks 
 (C. Garth, iii. c. 21; compare Augustine, Epistt. 
 23.3, 240, 242). A bishop was not to hinder 
 a presbyter of his diocese from being ordained 
 bishop of a church to which he was elected, 
 nor was one who had a superfluity of clerks 
 to refuse them to a diocese where there were 
 too few (6'. Garth, iii. c. 45) The decision in 
 cases of this kind seems to have rested with the 
 metropolitan. In a case in which a bishop, Ju- 
 lianus, wished to reclaim a lector who belonged 
 to his diocese by birth, though he belonged by 
 baptism to the bishop who had ordained him, 
 Epigonius, it was ruled that the lector belonged 
 to the dioce.se of his baptism, to which he had 
 come as a catechumen with commendatory let¬ 
 ters (C. Garth, iii. c. 44). 
 
 The rules, however, with regard to the ordi¬ 
 nation of extraneous laymen were probably never 
 enforced with the same strictness as those which 
 related to clerics. Origen, an Alexandrian, was 
 ordained presbyter by the bishops of Caesarea 
 and Jerusalem, much to the indignation of his 
 own bishop, Demetrius; there was, however, in 
 Origen’s case a special reason—his mutilation— 
 why he should not be ordained (Euseb. //. E. 
 vi. 8, 26, 27). Jerome was oi’dained priest at 
 Antioch, neither the church of his birth nor of 
 his baptism. And there are other instances of 
 the like kind. 
 
 The theory on which all this rests is that a 
 bishop by the act of ordination acquired a per¬ 
 petual right to the services of the clerks whom 
 he ordained (“Quisquis semel in hdc ecclesia oi-di- 
 nem sacrum acceperit, egrediendi ex ea ulterius 
 licentiam non habet.” Greg. Magn, Epist. v. 38), 
 and even—in a less degree—to the services of 
 those whom he baptised. Hence letters dimissiffy 
 were not merely letters testimorial or commen¬ 
 datory, but properly awoKvTiKai ; instruments, 
 that is, setting the clerk free from his allegiance 
 to his first bishop, and transferring the same 
 powers over him to the bishop of his adopted 
 
 DIOCESE 
 
 diocese (Thomassin, Nova ct Vetus Ecclesiae Dis- 
 ciplina., ii, i. I ff.). 
 
 2. It was probably from the same notion, of 
 the clerks being bound by a peculiar allegiance 
 to their bishop, that the practice arose of re¬ 
 quiring the clergy, and “religious” persons 
 generally, to have the sanction of the bishop 
 before they approached their king or lord (dom- 
 num) for the purpose of asking benefices {Gone. 
 Aurelian. i. c. 7, A.D. 511. This canon is, how¬ 
 ever, wanting in several MSS.). [C.] 
 
 DIXGOLVINGA, COUNCIL OY {Dirugol- 
 vingense), at Dingolfing, on the river Isar, in 
 Bavaria, A.D. 772, under Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria, 
 passed 13 canons upon discipline and reformation 
 of manners. Labb. Gone. vi. 1794, 1795 ; Le 
 Cointe, Annal. v. in an. 770 ; Harzheim, Cone. 
 German, i. 130. [A. W. H.] 
 
 DIOCESE. The word SiolKrjffis, signifying 
 in its general sense any kind of administration, 
 came to be specifically applied by the Romans to 
 a RrorAncia, but to one of the lesser sort, for 
 Cicero speaks of his Provincia Ciliciensis “ cui 
 scis tres SioiK-fjcreis Asiaticas attributas fuisse ” 
 (^Epist. ad Earn. lib. xiii. ep. 67). 
 
 At a later period, however, when Constantine 
 remodelled the civil divisions of the empire, a 
 diocesis, instead of being a minor province, con¬ 
 tained within it several provinces. Thus, for in¬ 
 stance, there were ten provinces in the Egyptian 
 diocese. About the same time the word passed 
 from the terminology of the civil government 
 into that of the church. It was employed in a 
 sense analogous to its secular application, and 
 signified an aggregate not merely of several dis¬ 
 tricts governed each by its own bishop, but of 
 several provinces (eVapX'^O presided over 
 by a metropolitan. The diocese itself was under an 
 Exarch or Patriarch [Exarch]. It is in this sense 
 that the Council of Constantinople (can. 2) speaks 
 of the Asian and Pontic dioceses, and the Council 
 of Ephesus of the Egyptian diocese. Aioiktjo'is 
 ((TTir 7} TToWas iirapx'io.^ exovaa ev eavTrj, says 
 Balsamon, ad Gan. IX. Goncil. Ghalced. That canon 
 gives an appeal from the head of the province, 
 the metropolitan, to the head of the 5ioiKr)(Tis in 
 these words : et Se irphs rhp rris avrrjs eTrapx*®^ 
 MeTpoTToAiTTjv iir'KTKOTTOS K\7]piKhs a/jicpia^7}- 
 To'iTj, KaTa\ap.^av€T(i} rhy e^apxov ttjs SioiKTr 
 treois rhv TTjS ^Sao'iAeuouo'Tjy Kov(TTayTivovTr6- 
 Keoos Opouov, Kai Itt’ avT(S SiKaC^adw, About the 
 same period the word diocese began also to as¬ 
 sume the sense which has finally prevailed to 
 the exclusion of that just mentioned, and to be 
 used to signify the district governed by a single 
 bishop. For the three first centuries this was 
 commonly denoted by TrapoiKia, but it now began 
 also to be called dioecesis, as in the Council of 
 Carthage (see Bing. Antiq. bk. ix. ii. § 2) we 
 have “ Placuit ut nemini sit facultas, relicta 
 principali cathedrsi, ad aliquam ecclesiam in dioe- 
 cesi constitutam se conferre.” In point of fact, 
 howevei’, the word, which perhaps retained to a 
 certain degree its general rather than its tech¬ 
 nical sense, is found applied in turn to every 
 kind of ecclesiastical territorial division, bor, 
 while Hincmar (^Epist. ad Aicolaum') uses it of 
 the province of a metx’opolitan (“ non solum dioe¬ 
 cesis, verum etiam parochia mea inter duo 
 regua sub duobus regibus habetur divisa ”), 
 Suicer alleges other authorities to show that the 
 
DIOCKSE 
 
 DIOCESE 
 
 559 
 
 wox’d IS sometimes employed in a sense closeU 
 resembling our word parish, viz. the district of 
 a single church in a diocese. It has been ob¬ 
 served that this was a Latin, and especially an 
 African use of the term (Thomass. 1. I. c. H). 
 
 Considered in the acceptation of the word, 
 which has prevailed in later times to the exclu¬ 
 sion of the others, a bishop’s diocese and his 
 power over it are thus spoken of in the 4th 
 century— 
 
 "E/cafTTOV iiricKOTTOU e^ovcrlau 71)5 Lavrov 
 
 irapoiKias, SiwKeTv tc Karh, kKaarep 
 \ov(Tav ivXd^eiau, Kol Trpdvoiav rroiuadai irda'rjs 
 
 T7JS Tr6\lV" ws KUl 
 
 XfipoTOV€7y npea^vrepovs Kai SiaKdvovs, Ka\ 
 /uera Kpiaews CKaffTa SiaKafi^dveiv. wepaiTfpu 8e 
 uTjScj' vpdrTiiv iTrix^‘p^7v Slxo, rod ttjs fnpTpo- 
 iroXews iTraTKoirov, ix7}5h abrhv &U€V rrjs ruv 
 \onrwv yv(ap.7\s. (Goncil. Antioch, can. 9.) 
 
 It has been thought that, from every bishop 
 bavins a ris:ht to erect new chui-ches in his own 
 
 o o 
 
 diocese, and to set up a cross on the spot where 
 they were to be placed, his diocese has sometimes 
 been called aTavpo-ni)yiov (Bing. viii. 9, 5). 
 
 The canonical rule was not only that a diocese 
 should have but one bishop, but that a bishop 
 should have but one diocese. In subsequent times, 
 however, the latter part of this rule was much 
 broken down by the practice of “ commenda.” 
 This practice came into use on various grounds. 
 One of these is thus indicated by Thomassin:— 
 “ Incursationes barbarorum juges et cruentis- 
 simae Fundana civitate episcopum plebemque 
 propemodum omnem effugarant. Cum viduata 
 tunc pastore suo fui.sset Terracina, Fundanum 
 sibi postulavit episcopum. Confirmata est a 
 Gregorio Magno ea electio, a quo jussus est Ag- 
 nellus titulum et administrationem gerere eccle- 
 siae Terracinensis, et nihil secius veluti com- 
 mendatam sibi cui’are ecclesiam Fundanam. ‘Sic 
 te Terracinensis ecclesiae cardinalem constitui- 
 mus e.sse sacerdotem, ut et Fundensis ecclesiae 
 pontifex esse non desinas ’ ” (Thomassin, pt. ii. 
 lib. 3, cap. 10). 
 
 In other cases a vacant diocese was simply 
 committed to the care of a neighbouring bishop 
 till a successor could be appointed. This was in 
 the earlier times the most common species of 
 commenda, and was of course temporary only. 
 
 Sometimes there was a kind of double com¬ 
 menda, the pope commending to the care of a 
 neighbouring bishop a diocese whose own dio¬ 
 cesan was occupied in administering the affairs 
 of another church previously commended to him. 
 
 In other instances, again, where a bishop was 
 under sentence of penance, the affaii’s of his 
 church were entrusted to another, or to the 
 metropolitan, until he was restored. “ Emeri- 
 tense Concilium Metropolitano commendavit 
 ecclesias eorum episcoporum, qui ad poenitentiam 
 secedere jussi fuerant, quod aConcilio Provinciali 
 abfuissent ” (Thomassin, pt. ii. lib. 3, c. 11). 
 
 In one instance Childeric appears to have com¬ 
 mended a diocese to the care of an abbot (ibid.). 
 
 At first the bishop to whom a diocese was 
 commended appeal’s only to have received his 
 actual expenses. Gregory the Great, however, 
 W'hen Paulus had charge of Naples during a va¬ 
 cancy, directed as follows :—“ Praedicto Paulo 
 centum solidos et unum puerulum orphanum 
 quern ipse elegerit pro labore suo de eadem ec- 
 clesiS facias dari ” (ibid. c. 10). 
 
 By degrees large profits were derived from a 
 commenda, and it thus became an object of am¬ 
 bition, and was bestowed by popes and sovereigns 
 without reason and to the prejudice of the 
 Church. In later times it became a flagrant 
 abuse, but its worst forms belong perhaps mainly 
 to a period beyond our present limits. It came 
 to be held in perpetuity, instead of for a limited 
 period, and the revenues of two or more sees 
 were accumulated upon one person as a provi¬ 
 sion for life. 
 
 One peculiar kind of commenda must not be 
 omitted, viz. where a part of the revenues of a 
 church was assigned to a great lay noble, in 
 return for his taking on himself its defence 
 against its heathen or other enemies. Such pro¬ 
 tectorates were .common in the more disturbed 
 periods. They are styled ‘ commendae militares.’ 
 In the same manner and on like grounds the 
 sovereigns retained to them.selves portions of 
 church property. But the subject of Commendae 
 is too large to be discussed at length here. The 
 learning of the whole subject will be found in 
 Thomassin. 
 
 The limits of dioceses were probably fixed in 
 the first instance by local or accidental circum¬ 
 stances. “ They differed widely in size and popu¬ 
 lation. Details on these points will be found 
 under Notitia. It is more important to ob¬ 
 serve that when too large they were, not un- 
 frequently, divided, as in the following instance: 
 —“ In the Council of Lucus Augusti, or Lugo, 
 under King Theodemir, anno 569, a complaint 
 was made that the dioceses in Gallaecia [in 
 Spain] were so large that the bishops could 
 scarce visit them in a year: upon which an 
 order was made, that several new bishoprics and 
 one new metropolis should be erected, which was 
 accordingly done by the bishops then in council, 
 who made Lugo to be the new metropolis, and 
 raised several other episcopal sees out of the old 
 ones, as declared in the acts of that council ” 
 (Bing. ix. vi. § 16). 
 
 As his own diocese was the proper sphere of 
 the action of a bishop, in acting in the diocese of 
 another he was under certain restrictions. These 
 prevailed at all times to a greater or^’oiss degree, 
 but seem eventually to have been la.iI down in 
 
 * " The Diocese,” says Milman, “ grew up in two ways— 
 1. In the larger cities the rapid increase of the Christians 
 led neces-sarily to the formation of separate congregations, 
 which to a certain extent, required each its proper orga¬ 
 nization, yet invariably remained subordinate to the 
 single bishop. In Rome, towards the b^gmning of the 
 4th century, there were above forty churches, rendering 
 allegiance to the prelate of the metropolis. 2. Chris¬ 
 tianity was first established in the towns and ciiies, and 
 from each centre diffused itself with more or less success 
 into the adjacent country. In some of these country 
 congregations, bishops appear to have been establifhed, 
 yet their choreplscopi, or rural bishops, maintained some 
 subordination to the head of the Mother Church; or 
 where the converts were fewer, the rural Christians re¬ 
 mained members of the Mother Church in the City. In 
 Africa, from the immense number of bishops, each com¬ 
 munity seems to have had its own superior; but this 
 was peculiar to this province. In general, ihe churches 
 adjacent to the towns or cities either originally were, or 
 became, the diocese of the City Bishop: for as soon as 
 Christianity became the religion of the State, the powers 
 of the rural bishops were restricted, and the office at 
 length was either abolished, or fell into disuse .”—History 
 0 / Christianity, Book iv. ch. I. 
 
660 
 
 DIOCLES 
 
 DIPTYCHS 
 
 the later canon law as follows, viz. that a bishop 
 may perform divine offices and use his episcopal 
 habit in the diocese of another, without leave, 
 but not perform any act of jurisdiction ; and it 
 has even been said, that jurisdiction cannot be 
 exercised by a bishop of another place, though 
 with the consent of the diocesan, except over 
 such as willingly submit themselves to his 
 authority. And where the holder of a benefice 
 in one diocese resides in another, the bishop in 
 whose diocese he resides may proceed against 
 him for an offence, but the punishment, so far as 
 it affects his benefice, is to be carried out by the 
 bishop where the benefice is (Gibson’s Codex, 
 pp. 133, 134). 
 
 See also Bishop : Exarch : Parish. 
 
 Authorities : Thomassinus, Vetus et Nova 
 Eedesine diacAplina. Bingham. Ayliffe, Parergon 
 Juris Cdnonici. Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. Aiol- 
 KTfjais and aTavpairriyiov. [B. S.] 
 
 DIOCLES, martyr at Histrias (? Istria), 
 commemorated May 24 (^Mart. Horn. Vet., Adonis ; 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIODOKUS. (1) Presbyter, martyr at Rome 
 with Marianus the deacon and many others; 
 commemorated Dec. 1 (^Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) of Perga, iepo/xdprvs ; commemorated 
 April 21 (Cal. Byzarit.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIODOTUS, Saint, of Africa; commemo¬ 
 rated, with Anesius, March 31 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIOGENES, Saint, in Macedonia; comme¬ 
 morated April 6 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIOMEDES, martyr at Nicaea, A.D. 288; 
 commemorated June 9 (Mart. Usuardi); Aug. 
 16 (Cat. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIONYSIA. (1) Martyr at Lamosacum with 
 Peter, Andrew, and Paul; commemorated May 
 15 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Africa with seven others; com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 6 (Mart. Born. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 DIONYSIUS. (1) Martyr in Lower Armenia 
 with Emilianus and Sebastian; commemorated 
 Feb. 8 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Ilieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr; commemorated with Ammonius, 
 Feb. 14: (Ma7't. Adonis, Usuardi). . 
 
 (3) Martyr at Aquileia with Hilarius the 
 bishop, Tatian the deacon, Felix and Largus; 
 commemorated March 16 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Bishop of Corinth ; commemorated April 8 
 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Saint, uncle of Pancratius; commemorated 
 May 12 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 6 ) Bishop and confessor under Constantins ; 
 deposition at Milan, May 25 (Alart. Hieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Martyr at Sinnada with Democritus and 
 Secuudus; commemorated July 31 (Mart. Usu¬ 
 ardi). 
 
 ( 8 ) Saint, of Phrygia ; commemorated Sept. 
 20 (/■/).). 
 
 (9) The Areopagite, bishop of Athens and 
 martyr under Adrian; commemorated Oct. 3 
 (Mai't. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Py- 
 zanf.)-, Oct. 17 (Cal. Armen.'). 
 
 ( 10 ) Bishop of Paris, and martyr with Rrs- 
 ticus the presbyter and Eleutherius the deacon : 
 
 commemorated Oct. 9 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Ilieron., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (11) Patriarch of Alexandria, and martyr 
 under Valerian and Gallienus, A.D. 265; com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 17 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi) • Maskarram 17 = Sept. 14 (Cal. 
 Ethiop.). 
 
 (12) The Pope, under Claudius II.; deposition 
 at Rome Dec. 26 (Mart. Hieron., Usuardi); Dec. 
 27 (Cal. Bucher.). 
 
 (13) Martyr with Petrus Lampsacenus and 
 his companions; commemorated May 18 (Cal. 
 Byzant.). 
 
 (14) One of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus; 
 commemorated Oct. 22 (Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.j 
 
 DIOS, Asceta, Holy Father, under Theodo¬ 
 sius the Great; commemorated July 19 (Cal. 
 Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIOSCORUS. (1) Martyr under Numerian ; 
 commemorated Feb. 25 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) The reader, martyr in Egypt; comme¬ 
 morated May 18 (Mai't. Bom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Alexandria, with Heron, Arse- 
 
 nius, and Isidorus, under Decius; commemorated 
 Dec. 14 (lb.). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 DIOSCURUS, Patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 
 454; commemorated Maskarram 7 =Sept. 4, and 
 Tekemt 17 rrOct. 14 (Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DIOSPOLIS, or Lydda, probably Ramah 
 (Council of), a.d. 415, of 14 bishops under 
 their metropolitan, Eulogius of Caesarea ; where 
 Pelagius, having been examined, by anathema¬ 
 tising 12 propositions that had been imputed to 
 him, and making profession of 12 orthodox pro¬ 
 positions in their stead, was acquitted, and de¬ 
 clared to be in the communion of the Catholic 
 Church (Mansi, iv. 311-20). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 DIPPING. [Baptism.] 
 
 DIPTYCHS. (AIittvxci, lepal SeAxoi, Kard- 
 \oyos ; diptycha, matriculae, nomina, tabulae.) 
 1. The name of diptych is given to a tablet, pri¬ 
 marily two-leaved, as the word implies, in which 
 were contained the names of Christians, living 
 and dead, to be recited during the celebration of 
 the Eucharist. It would seem that the origin of 
 the custom is to be referred to the primitive 
 practice by which the members of a church 
 brought otierings of bread and wine from which 
 were taken the sacred elements. Then, before 
 the consecration, the names of those who had 
 so contributed were read aloud, as well as those 
 of deceased members of the church whom it was 
 wished specially to commemorate. 
 
 This primary use was subsequently extended 
 so as to include the names, on the one hand, of 
 sovereigns, patriarchs, bishops, and the like, as 
 well as of those who had deserved well in any 
 way of the church ; while, on the other hand, in 
 conjunction with departed saints and confessors, 
 a special mention was thought desirable in each 
 churph of those who had previously been its 
 bishops. The great length to which these lists 
 necessarily grew caused the habit of reciting 
 them fully to be subsequently abandoned, but in 
 some form or other the practice has been retained 
 in both the Eastern and the Roman Church. 
 
 This custom was doubtless primarily suggested 
 as to its form by the practice which jirevailed 
 
DIPTYCHS 
 
 DIPTYCITS 
 
 561 
 
 under the Roman Empire, by which consuls, 
 praetors, aediles, and other magistrates were 
 wont to distribute to their friends and the 
 people, on the day on which they entered office, 
 tablets inscribed with their names, and con¬ 
 taining their portraits, in token of the commence¬ 
 ment of their magistracy. (See e. g. Cod. Theodos. 
 de expends ludorum, 15, tit. 9, § 1; Symmachus, 
 Epist. ii. 81, V. 56, x. 119; Claudianus, De Sec. 
 Consulatu Stilichonis, 347.) For another pos¬ 
 sible, but certainly not probable, connection of 
 the use of Christian diptychs with an earlier 
 heathen custom, see Casaubon’s Animad. in 
 Athenaeum^ vi. 14. 
 
 2. Diptycha episcoporum (KaraAoyos twu iiri- 
 (tk6itwp ; comp. Catalogus Hieraticus, p. 317). 
 We shall now, however, confine ourselves to the 
 subject of diptychs as used in the Christian 
 Church, and shall refer first to that class of them 
 in which were inscribed the names of deceased 
 prelates. Each church would of course specially 
 commemorate its own past bishops, or at any 
 rate the more renowned among them, and thus 
 in these local fasti we may see the germs of later 
 calendars and martyrologies. An interesting 
 illustration of the employment of these tahellae 
 episcopates is furnished by the well known case 
 of St. Chrysostom, whom the persecution of his 
 inveterate foes drove into exile [Chalcedon, 
 p. 333J; and even after his death would hav'e 
 refused his name a place on the diptychs as a 
 denial of his orthodoxy : the insertion of his name 
 in the prayers of the church, when his friends 
 were strong enough to obtain it, is spoken of as 
 the usual privilege of departed bishops (Socrates, 
 Hist. Eccl. vii. 25; comp. Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 
 V. 35). 
 
 Another illustration may be taken from Venan- 
 tius Fortunatus (Po<?m. vii. 35, de S. Martino; 
 Patrol. Ixxx'viii. 332). 
 
 “ Nomina vestra legal patriarchis atque prophetis 
 (Jui hodie in templo Diptychus edit ebur.” 
 
 The names thus engraved on the tablets were 
 recited, as has been said, during the celebration 
 of the Eucharist. See, for example, the pro¬ 
 ceedings of the conference at Carthage between 
 the Catholics and Donatists (411 a.d.), where we 
 find the remark: “In ecclesia sumus, in qud 
 Caecilianus episcopatum gessit et diem obiit. 
 Ejus nomen ad altare recitamus, ejus memoriae 
 commuiiicamus, tanquam memoriae fratris ” 
 {Coll. iii. c. 230; Labbe', ii. 1490). See also 
 ConcU. Constant, ii. Coll. v.; Labbd, v. 478, 495. 
 
 It will be understood that such a mention has 
 no connection with the practice of prayers for 
 the dead, for the names thus enrolled were held 
 to be of those included among the blest, and in 
 fact the word ‘ canonization ’ primarily meant 
 a mention of this kind in the Canon of the 
 Mass (see p. 267). Conversely, a place would be 
 denied in the diptychs to those who were sus¬ 
 pected, rightly or wrongly, of heretical or he¬ 
 terodox views; and further, names wrongly in¬ 
 serted, whether inadvertently or through set evil 
 design, might be subsequently removed. Thus we 
 find Anastasius chronicling, “ deinde abstulerunt 
 de diptychis ecclesiarum nomina Patriarcharum 
 .... Cyri, Sergii, Pauli, Pyrrhi, Petri per quos 
 error orthoJoxae fidei pullulavit” {Vitae Ponti- 
 ficum, ‘Agatho,’ p. 145). 
 
 This power of refusing to a name a place in 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 the diptychs, or of removing a name once en¬ 
 tered, would doubtless degenerate at times into 
 the venting of personal spite, as we have seen in 
 the case of the disgraceful attempt to rob Chry¬ 
 sostom of his well deserved honour. For a still 
 stronger case Peter the Fuller is re.^ponsible, in 
 that, on his usurpation of the see of Antioch, he 
 removed from the diptychs the names of Ih'o- 
 terius and Timotheus Salafatiarius, and put in 
 their stead those of Dioscurus and Hellurus who 
 had murdered the former (Victor Tunnuuensis, 
 Chronicon, 480 A.D. in Gallandi Bibl. Vet. Pair. 
 xii. 225). 
 
 3. Diptycha vivornm .—We shall briefly con¬ 
 sider, in the next place, the case of the mention 
 of living persons, the origin of which, as has 
 been already said, would appear to be found in 
 the recital of the names of those members of a 
 church who had furnished the elements for the 
 holy communion. As time went on, it would be 
 natural to add the names of those who held civil 
 and spiritual authority, of special benefactors to 
 a church, and generally to embrace all faithful 
 believers; the presence of a name on the list be¬ 
 ing viewed as a recognition of Christian brother¬ 
 hood, and thus, by implication, of the full church 
 membership and orthodoxy of the person named ; 
 while, conversely, its absence implied heresy in 
 belief or laxity in life or discipline (see Cyprian, 
 Epist. 1, § 2). 
 
 This original association of the practice with 
 the names of the offerers was maintained in later 
 times. Thus we find Innocent I. (ob. 417 A.D.) 
 ordering that the names of those who offered 
 should not be recited before the oblations were 
 made {Epist. 25, ad Decentium, c. 5) ; Jerome 
 also {Comm, in Ezech. xviii. vol. v. 209) refers 
 to it, “ Publiceque diaconus in ecclesiis recitet 
 offerentium nomina.” For further injunctions 
 to the same effect, see Capit. Aquisgranense, 53 
 [789 A.D.], Capit. Francoford. 49 [794 A.D.], 
 in Baluze’s Capitutaria Regum Francorum, i. 
 231, 270. In this way too it is most natural to 
 understand the original reference of the words 
 in the corresponding place of the Roman canon, 
 “ qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis et gra- 
 tiarum actionis.” 
 
 The commemoration of the faithful living, 
 other than the offerers, includes names of holders, 
 first of ecclesiastical and then of civil office, in 
 due order. We may refer, for example, to Maxi¬ 
 mus Confessor, who remarks {Collatio cum Prin- 
 cipibus in Secretario, c. 5, vol. i. p. xxxiv. ed. 
 Combefis), “ at the holy oblation on the holy 
 table, after prelates, priests, and deacons, and 
 all priestly ranks {UpaTiuhv Taypa), when the 
 deacon says, ‘ And those laics who have died 
 in faith, Constantine, Constans, and the rest,’” 
 and then proceeds, ovtcd Se Kal tup ^uptuv 
 fjLPTfiJLOpevfi ^aaikiup ycra tovs lepuyepovs wdp~ 
 Toy.” We find a similar regulation in the Arabic 
 canons of the Nicene Council, to the effect that, 
 “ on the Sabbath and festivals, when the holy 
 elements are placed upon the altar, the deacon 
 shall make mention, first, of the patriarch by 
 name, then of the chief bishop, the suffragan 
 bishop, the arch-presbyter, the archdeacon, be¬ 
 cause these are the rulers of the church ” (can. 
 64; Labbe^ ii. 312). • 
 
 In documents of the Western Church, we meet 
 with injunctions to insert on all such occasions 
 the name of the pope. See, e. g., the order of 
 
5G2 
 
 DIPTYCHS 
 
 DIPTYCHS 
 
 the Second Council of Yasio (529 A.D.), “ ut 
 nomen Domini Papae, quicumque sedi apostolicae 
 praefuerit, in nostris ecclesiis recitetur.” (can. 4, 
 Labbe, iv. 1(580: cf. Sug;]. ii. Germani et alio- 
 rum post Ejjist. 40 Honnisd ie Pap le, ibid. 1484 ; 
 whei’e allu.sion is made to the omission of all 
 names, save of the pope only, in the celebration 
 of the Mass at Scampue, a usage of which Mar- 
 tene, p. 145 i$, gives some later examples.) 
 
 After the mention of the names of ecclesiastics 
 of various grades came that of the sovereign, as 
 mentioned in the above quoted passage of Maxi¬ 
 mus; and among tho.se who had deserved well 
 of the church in A'arious ways we find special 
 mention enjoined by the Council of Merida 
 (666 A.D.) of the names of those who had re- 
 Wilt a church {Concil. Eineritense, c. 19 ; Labbe', 
 vi. 507). 
 
 From these diptycha vivorum also, as we have 
 seen in the previous case of the tahellae episco¬ 
 pates, a name might be removed, justly or un¬ 
 justly, as, e.g., in the case of Vigiliiis (Baluzius, 
 CoUectio Nova Conciliorum, 1542). Thus too we find 
 Augustine threatening, in case of certain conduct 
 unbecoming to the clerical office, “ delebo eum 
 de tabula clericorum ” (^Scrin. 356, vol. v. 2059, 
 ed. Gaume) ; and in another pa.ssage of the same 
 father, we find him protesting against an unjust 
 exercise of this punishment (Epi>t. 78, vol. ii. 
 276). Again, we find the name of Pope Felix III. 
 erased from the diptychs by Acacius, and after 
 his death restored by Euthymius, who erased at 
 the same time that of Peter Mongus (Theophanes, 
 480-81 A.D. pp. 205, 206, ed. Classen). Felix, 
 however, ungraciously returned this by refusing 
 to recognise Euthymius, from his having retained 
 the names of Acacius and Phravites (pp. cit. 
 483 A.D. p. 209). 
 
 4. Diptycha moi'tuorum. —We shall now refer 
 briefly to the diptychs containing the names of 
 the faithful dead. And here it will be obviously 
 seen that the essence of the practice of a recital 
 of names at all was the wish to maintain and 
 keep alive the spirit of Christian brotherhood ; 
 and when Christianity had taught men that, 
 whether living or dead in the flesh, all faithful 
 were alike living memhers of Christ’s Church, it 
 would be natural to add the names of those who 
 had goue before in the fiiith and fear of God. 
 How soon this became complicated with the 
 idea of prayers for the dead this is not the place 
 to discuss. 
 
 As to the manner in which the diptychs of 
 the dead are introduced in Greek liturgies, we 
 find in that of St. Mark, 6 SkIkovos tol 8'nrTvxo. 
 Ta>j/ KeKoipLppivwv (i. e. reads), and, similarly, in 
 that of St. Chrysostom, 6 SiaKOvos twv re k^koi- 
 p.rip.€V03P Kal ws ^ovKerai, p.VT]p.opevei. 
 
 The prayer of the priest, which follows, runs in 
 the former case thus, /cal toutuv irdpTuiv tos 
 \pvxd.s dvdwavaop, SeairoTa Kvpie 6 Oebs fjjuwp, dp 
 rats Twp dy'iccp aov aKgpois . . This might be 
 
 illustrated by the passage of Cyprian already re¬ 
 ferred to (Epist. i. 2) : “ Non est quod pro dor- 
 mitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio 
 aliqua nomine ejus in ecclesia frequentetur.” 
 
 This commemoration of and prayer for the 
 faithful dead is found in the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary after the consecration, and thereupon 
 follows a prayer, entitled in the Sacramentary 
 Super Diptycha (the CoUectio post Nomina of the 
 Mozarabic Missal), which we cite : “ Memento 
 
 etlam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuorum 
 ///., qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei et dor- 
 miunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omni¬ 
 bus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii et 
 lucis et pacis ut indulgeas deprecamur.” 
 
 Among other.?, the names of deceased emperors 
 of undoubted orthodoxy were mentioned. Thus 
 Pope Nicholas I. (ob. 867 A.D.), in a letter to the 
 Emperor Michael III., refers to the mention of 
 the names of Constantine, Constan.s, Theodosius 
 the Great, Valentinian, and other emperors, 
 “ inter sacra mysteria ” (Epist. 86, Patrol, cxix. 
 959). 
 
 The regulation of the Council of Merida, al¬ 
 ready referred to, ordains the mention of the 
 names of special benefactors, after they have 
 departed this life. 
 
 Thus far we have spoken merely of names of in¬ 
 dividuals inserted in the diptychs, but, besides 
 these, a commemoration was made of the Four 
 Oecumenical Councils, to which jiractice numerous 
 references are made in the proceedings of the 
 Council held at Constantinople in 536 a.d. under 
 Mennas (See, e.g., Labbe', v. 85, 165, 185; the 
 last of which passages furnishes us with a very 
 interesting illustration of the practice, describing 
 how, at the reading of the diptychs, the whole 
 multitude flocked round the sanctuary to listen ; 
 and when only the titles of the Four Holy Synods 
 were recited by the deacon, and the names of 
 the archbishops Euphemius and Macedonius and 
 Leo, of blessed memory, all cried with a loud 
 voice, “ Glory be to Thee, 0 Lord) and in tho.?« 
 of the second Oecumenical Council of Constanti¬ 
 nople (e. g. Collatio 2, Labbe', v. 432). There is 
 also a reference to this in the Code of Justinian, 
 in a letter of the emperor to Epiphaniu.s, patri¬ 
 arch of Constantinople, in which he expresses 
 his intention of resisting any attempts to abolish 
 this practice (lib. i. tit. 1, § 7; tom. ii. pt. 1, p. 
 16, ed. Beck.). Theophanes records an instance 
 of a daring attempt to break through this cus¬ 
 tom, when Euphrasius, patriarch of Antioch, 
 omitted the Council of Chalcedon from his dip¬ 
 tychs, and also the name of Pope Hormisdas 
 (Theophanes, A.D. 513, p. 258). 
 
 5. A brief remark may be made here as to 
 sundry variations in the time when the diptychs 
 were recited according to various uses. The 
 primary custom would seem to be, that they 
 were read after the oblation of the bread and 
 wine, and before the consecration. This may be 
 seen, for example, from numerous references in 
 the acts of the council under Mennas, spoken of 
 above, which prove this to have been the custom 
 of the Church of Constantinople (see esp. Labb^ 
 V. 185, already quoted). It would appear also 
 that in the Mozarabic Missal and in the ancient 
 Gallican form, the diptychs originally held this 
 place. The same also holds true for the repre¬ 
 sentative of the diptychs in our own Liturgy, the 
 prayer for the Church Militant. In the Liturgy 
 of Chrysostom, however, the Mozarabic Missal, 
 and not a few others, as we now have them, the 
 diptychs follow consecration. 
 
 lu the various forms of the Roman Liturgy, 
 and in the Ambrosian, the commemoration of 
 the living and dead enters into the canon of the 
 Mass, that of the living before, and that of the 
 dead after, consecration. It has been suggested, 
 however, that this too is a modification of an 
 earlier state of things, from a consideration of the 
 
DIPTYCHS 
 
 DIPTYCHS 
 
 6G3 
 
 wording in the Gelasian Sacramentary. [Canon 
 01’ THE Liturgy, p. 271.] 
 
 Sundry differences also e.\ist as to the manner 
 of reciting the names on the diptychs. (1) Some¬ 
 times they were read by the deacon, as is exem- 
 pliffed by the citations we have already given 
 from tlie liturgies of St. Mark and St. Chryso¬ 
 stom, to which others might have been added. 
 See also Jerome (in Ezech. 1. c.) and Maximus 
 (L 0 .). (2) In some churches it would appear 
 
 that the subdeacon recited the names on the dip¬ 
 tychs behind the altar. Thus, in an ancient 
 Mass (Codex Ratoldi) published by Menard in his 
 edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary, we find 
 (p. 246), “ Subdiaconi a retro altari, ubi memo- 
 riam vel nomina vivorum et mortuorum uomi- 
 naverunt . . . .” (3) Frequently the priest himself 
 repeated the names. (4) A curious plan is that 
 mentioned by Fulcuin (De Gcstis Abbaturn Lobien- 
 sium, c. vii. in D’Ache'ry’s Spicilegiurn, vi. 551), 
 where the subdeacon whispered the names to the 
 priest. (5) We find even that in some cases the 
 tablets were merely laid upon the altar, with 
 the names of the offerers and benefactors, of 
 whom the priest made general mention. Thus 
 we find a form cited by Pamelius (Liturgg. Latt. 
 )i. 180), “Memento .... quorum nomina ad me¬ 
 morandum conscripsimus, ac super sanctum altare 
 tmun conscripta adesse videntur” The two last 
 views, at any rate, howev^er, are clearly quite late. 
 
 For some remarks on a plan whereby, in the 
 church of Ravenna, a chasuble was made to serve 
 the purpose of diptychs, see Ducange (s. v.). 
 
 The name of diptych was also given to regis¬ 
 ters in which were entered, as occasion required, 
 the names of newly baptized persons, as then 
 first becoming members of the Chidstian family 
 (Dion. Areop. Hier. Eccl. c. 11). [Register.] 
 
 6. Literature. —For the matter of the fore¬ 
 going article we are mainly indebted to Martene, 
 De Antiquis Ecclesiae liitibus, i. 145, sqq. ed. Ve¬ 
 nice, 1783; Ducange’s Glossaria, s. vv. Diptycha, 
 AiiTTvxa; Bingham’s Antiquities, xv. 3; and the 
 Onomasticon (s. v.') appended to Rosweyd’s Vitae 
 Patrum. Reference may also be made to Salig, 
 De Diptychis Veterum, tain profanis, quam sacris, 
 Halae Magd. 1731 ; Donati, Dei dittici degli an¬ 
 tichi profani e sacri, Lucca, 1753; Gibbings, 
 Prelection on the Diptychs, Dublin, 1864. [R. S.] 
 
 DIPTYCHS, EXTERIOE ORNAMEN¬ 
 TATION OF.— As the most ancient consular 
 diptych now known is referred to Stilicho in 405 
 (see infra, and Gori, vol. i. p. 128, ed. fol. Flor. 
 1779), and only one purely ecclesiastical one is 
 mentioned even as conjecturally earlier than the 
 5th century, it will be inferred that the interest 
 of these relics is historical rather than artistic. 
 Martigny gives a highly reduced copy of one 
 from Donati’s Dittica degli Antic, p. 149, attri¬ 
 buted to a certain Areobindus the Younger, 
 consul, A.D. 506, in tlie eastern parts of the 
 empire, 16th year of Anastasius (Baronius, ad 
 An. 508). It is beautifully engraved in folio 
 size in Gori, v. i. Its ornaments consist of two 
 cornucopias, with the titles of the consul above 
 them and baskets of fruit and flowers below ; 
 they are carved with leaves and connected by 
 wi’eathed foliage in which the stiff conventional 
 symmetry of Roman-Byzantine art begins to 
 show itself. Gori calls it the Diptych of Lucca. 
 The use of folding tablets in the services of the 
 
 church seems to have been a matter of common 
 convenience, like their use anywhere else. But 
 many of these carvings remain, which have evi¬ 
 dently been altered from jirofane uses to eccle¬ 
 siastical, and still retain the original bas-reliefs 
 with changes and adaptations. Others, again, 
 like that of Rambona, ai-e entirely Christian in 
 their origin. The mo.st ancient of the latter 
 class is considered by Martigny to be the pro¬ 
 perty of the Cathedral of Milan (Bugati, ATe- 
 morie di 8. Cclso in fn.f and is referred to the 
 4th century from the character of its sculptures. 
 He cites others, whose coverings are lost or 
 .separated trom them, whether they were of 
 wood, ivory, or metal. Tiiat of Areobindus bears 
 the cross, as also the Greek diptych of Flavius 
 Taurus Clementinus (Gori, tab. ix. and x., p. 260, 
 vol. i.). The Rambona ivory, though only of the 
 9th century, is far the most interesting in exis¬ 
 tence. (See art. Crucifix for a full description 
 and woodcut; and Gori, Thes. Vet. Diptychorum, 
 vol. iii.) It is stated by MS. Laurent. Icono- 
 graphie de la Croix et du Crucifix, in Didron’s 
 Annales Arche'ologiques, vv. xxvi.-vii., to have 
 been presented to the monastery of Rambona 
 (March of Ancona) by Agiltrude, wife of Guy, 
 
 d. of Spoleto; and is of type more barbaric than 
 the Lombard work of Verona, bearing great re¬ 
 semblance, in the large unmeaning faces and eyes 
 of its figures, to many Irish and Saxon MSS. 
 Many ancient diptychs have been used for bind¬ 
 ings of more recent service-books; as a tablet 
 which now covers a copy of the Gospels of St. 
 Luke and St. John in the Vatican. Our Lord 
 between two angels and the Magi before Herod 
 can be traced in it. At the Cathedral of Vercelli, 
 at St. Maximus in Treves, and at Besani,'on, there 
 are relics of this kind. Gori’s Thesaurus, and 
 Raciaudi’s De Cultw 8. Joanms Baptistae, contain 
 
 2 0 
 
564 
 
 DIRECTANEUS 
 
 DISCIPLINA ARCANI 
 
 many and most interesting records and illustra¬ 
 tions, chiefly of i\Iiddle-Age works. 
 
 The liainbona ivory, with two others of greater 
 antiquity, are described and represented in Buo- 
 narotti’s Vetri, p. 231. One of them is that of 
 the Consul Basilius, in 541 ; the other, which 
 Buonarotti supposes to be more ancient, is 
 called the Diptych of Romulus, and rejiresents 
 his apotheosis. 
 
 The Florentine edition of Gori’s Thesaurv,s E?- 
 terum Dij'tyc/ioruia, 1755, contains a fine en¬ 
 graving of the half of the Diptych of Stilicho 
 which remains in existence (see woodcut.) The 
 consul is seated at the top, with the usual bar¬ 
 baric stolidity of expression, in toga picta, and 
 curule chair: the amphitheatre and combats of 
 wild beasts are represented below. That of 
 Boethius, which succeeds, has standing figures 
 of the consul, with a head of disproportioned 
 size, but a countenance evidently studied with 
 great care : he bears a sceptre, surmounted by 
 an eagle, drawn with much spirit. Stilicho to 
 all appearance, and Boethius undoubtedly, hold 
 the raappa, the signal of beginning the games, in 
 the right hand, as also the elder or prior Areo- 
 bindus. Gori, i. tab. vii., where the bestiarii 
 and their opponents are of considerable merit. 
 The curule chairs are evident Iv the originals of 
 those represented in Saxon and early Norman 
 MSS. 
 
 The Christian Diptychs of Milan, in use in the 
 12th century, and conjectured to belong to the 
 7th or 8th, are represented in Gori, vol. iii, p. 
 264, sqq. They represent the history of the 
 New Testament; and in particular, the Nativity, 
 the Transfiguration, and the Passion of our Lord. 
 They must certainly be well within our allotted 
 period of the first eight centuries. Those of 
 Monza (Murray, Handbook N. Italy, p. 164) are 
 referred to either Claudian, Ausonius, or Boethius. 
 Another, bearing two consuls, su^-named David 
 and Pope Gregory by later possessors of the 
 diptvch, is highly interesting. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DIRECTANEUS. Any psalm, hymn, or 
 canticle, said in the service of the Church in 
 monotone, without inflection, was called direc- 
 taneus. It is probably to this monotone that 
 Isidore refers when he says (Z>e Eccl. Off. v. 5) 
 that the primitive Church used a very simple 
 kind of chant, more like mere recitation than 
 singing. Aurelian {legula, ad Virgines, c. 40) 
 gives the following direction : “Ad Lucernarium, 
 Directaneus p.xrvulus, id est, ‘ Regina teiTae,’ 
 
 ‘ Cantate Deo,’ &c.; ” and he further dii’ects 
 that at Nocturns the directaneus “ Miserere mei 
 Deus ” should be said. Compare the Eule of 
 Benedict, c. 17 ; and that of Caesarius of Arles, 
 c. 31. [C.] 
 
 DIS MANIBUS. [CATACOiiBS, p. 308.] 
 
 DISCIPLINA ARCANI, a term of post- 
 Reformation controA-ersy (it is used by Tentzel 
 and Schelstrate in special dissertations a . d . 
 1683-5), is applied to designate a number of 
 modes of procedure in teaching the Christian 
 faith, akin to one another in kind, although 
 diftering considerably in character; which pre¬ 
 vailed from about the middle of the 2nd century 
 until the natural course of circumstances ren¬ 
 dered any system which involved secrecy or 
 reserve impossible. So far as these were de¬ 
 
 fensible, they arose out of the principles, 1. of 
 im]jarting knowledge of the truth by degrees, 
 and in methods adapted to the capacity of the 
 recipients, and 2. of cutting off occa.sion of pro¬ 
 faneness or of more hardened unbelief by not 
 jn’oclaiming the truths and mysteries of the 
 faith indiscriminately, or in plain words, or at 
 once, to unbeliever.s. And these principles find 
 their origin, and their defence, respectively in the 
 apostle’s distinction between “milk for babes” 
 and “strong meat” for those “of full age” 
 (Heb. V. 12-14), and again, between speaking to 
 “carnal” and to “spiritual” hearers (1 Cor. 
 iii. 1); and in oiir Lord’s j^rohibition against 
 “ casting that which is holy to dog.«,” or 
 “ throwing pearls before swine,” together with 
 the habitual tone of His teaching, and in parti¬ 
 cular its parabolic character. Persecution also 
 at first compelled to secrecy. Upon such grounds 
 there arose, as the Church became systematized 
 and settled, first, a distinction between catechu¬ 
 mens and fideles, and between different classes of 
 catechumens, with respect to the kinds and 
 amounts of knowledge to be imparted to each 
 successiA'ely; and, secondly, a spirit, rather than 
 a formal system, of habitual reticence upon the 
 higher and more mysterious doctrines of the 
 faith, in Christian Avritings or sermons likely to 
 be read or heard by the heathen. But beyond 
 these natural and reverent practices, the desire 
 to meet the ancient philosophers on their OAvn 
 ground, and on the one hand to rationalize 
 Christian doctrines, on the other to transcenden- 
 talize the theories of reason into anticipations 
 and foreshadowings of the mysteries of the faith, 
 assisted by the excess of the allegorizing prin¬ 
 ciple of interpretation current in the Alexandrian 
 Church, produced a special disciplinct arcani, 
 almost wholly at Alexandria, yet preA’ailing in 
 a less degree elseAvhere also, from the time of 
 Clement of Alexandria and Origen ; in Avhich the 
 doctrines and facts of Scripture Avere expounded 
 esoterically to the initiated, who had the key to 
 them in the true yvaxxis, while their real and 
 deeper meaning was disguised and Avithheld by 
 an “ oeconomy,” or “ accommodation,” from 
 others. 
 
 1. First, as regards catechumens, the earliest 
 intimation of any system of secrecy is in Ter- 
 tullian : “ Omnibus mysteriis silentii fides ad- 
 hibetur ” (^Apol. A'ii.); and again, speaking of 
 heretics, “ Quis catechumenus, quis fidelis, in- 
 certum est; pariter audiunt, pariter orant: 
 etiam ethnici si supervenerint, sanctum canibus 
 et porcis margaritas, licet non A’eras, jactabunt ” 
 (Fraescr. adv. Hacx'et. xli.). And the latter com¬ 
 plaint, respecting catechumens, is repeated Iavo 
 centuries afterwards by Epiphanius (//aer. xlii. 
 n. 3), and by St. Jerome (^Comment, m Galat. vi.), 
 with reference to the Marcionites. Later writers 
 than Tertullian specify particulars, e.g. baptism, 
 the eucharist, and the oil of chrism, & ou5e 
 (TroTTreveiv rots afiorirois (St. Basil. M., 
 
 De Spir. S. xxvii.); and St. Greg. Naz. (^Orat. xl. 
 De Bapt.}, ‘'Exeis rod yvcngpiov ra ^Kcpopa /cal 
 Tais Twv iroWdiv uKoais ovk anopprjTa, ra 5e 
 &\\a eiaw yad-na-r ]: and St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 (^Catech. vi. c. 30), OvSe twp pLvaT-ppiwv cttI 
 KaTTJXOVfiduuv Aeu/ews \a\ovibLfP, aWa iroWa 
 TToWeLKis \eyop.€P iTriKfKa\viJ.p.€PU)S, 'iva o' 
 
 TTicTTol POrfXTOjai, Kal ol fii) elSdres /xtj 
 
 And the Apost. Canons (Ixxxv.) speak of ai Sta- 
 
DISCIPLIXA ARCANT 
 
 566 
 
 DISCIPLINA ARCANI 
 
 Taya\ . . . fes ou XP^ 57 j/iO<riev€iv eiri iravToiv 5ia 
 Tu iy auTa ?9 fivcTTiKd. Simihu'ly the proclamfv- 
 tion in the Apost. Constit. (viii. 12) and in the 
 Liturgies, Mtj tis aKpow- 
 
 p€vwv, /XT] Tis TU'v dKicTTuiv. And the phiase, 
 “ missa catechumenorum,’ used in St. Aug. 
 Sei'rn. xlix. A.D. 896, Cone. Carthag. IV . c. 8d, 
 A.D. 898, and Cone. Herd. a.d. 523, c. 4, and Jo. 
 Cassian, Coenoh. Lnstitut. xi. 15, and Cone. \ oXent. 
 A.D. 524, c. 1. So Cone. Arausie. I. a.d. 441, 
 c. 19, “Ad baptisterium catechumeni numquam 
 admittendi.” And while Cone. Laodie. a.d. 865, 
 c. 5, ytiTj 5e?j/ rds xetporovios eirl Trapova'ia 
 hKpo'jo(XiVO}v 'ysi’^crOaL may possibly refer to the 
 consecration, as probably as to the election, of a 
 bishop: St. Chrysostom certainly speaks of ordi¬ 
 nation (//oOT. xviii. in 2 Cor.), when he retrains 
 from detailing what takes place at a x^i-porovia, 
 “which the initiated know; for all may not be 
 revealed to the uninitiated.” The eucharist again 
 was celebrated with closed doors (St. Chrys. 
 Horn, in IMatt. xxiii.), not to be opened to any¬ 
 body, even one of the taithtul, at the time ot 
 the Anaphora (^Apost. Constit. viii. 11), and to be 
 guarded by the deacons, lest any unbeliever or 
 uninitiated person enter {ib. ii. 57). So again 
 Pseudo-Augustin {Scrni. ad Neophyt. i.), “ Di- 
 missis jam catechumenis, . . . quia specialiter de 
 coelestibus mysteriis loquuturi sumus.” And to 
 the same effect, St. Ambrose (^De IJis Qui mysteriis 
 Initiantur, c. 1), Theodoret {Quaest. xv. in Num.), 
 Gaudentius (^iierni. II. ad AeojAiyt.'), and aboA'e 
 all the catechetical lectures ot St. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, which are framed expressly upon 
 this princi])le, and the preface to which forbids 
 the communication of their more advanced con¬ 
 tents to those who are without, if any such 
 should ask what St. Cyril had said. See also the 
 directionsto widows in iii. 5. Lastly, 
 
 and further still, besides this general and perpe¬ 
 tually recurring distinction between initiated 
 {ixeyv-rjixeyoi) and uninitiated (d/xuTjrot), distinc¬ 
 tions, were made between the more and the 
 less advanced of the latter themselves: .the 
 Lord’s Prayer; Constit. Apostol. vii. 44; St. 
 Aug. Enehirid. c. 71; Theodoret, Ilaeret. Fab. 
 v. 28, and Epit. Eiv. Eecret. c. xviii. ; St. 
 Chrys. Horn. xx. al. xix. in Matt. ; the Creed ; 
 St. Ambrose, Ad Mareell. Epist. 33 (20 ed. 
 Bened.); St. Jerome, Epist. xwviW. Ad Pam- 
 maeh. (ed. Ben.); and the doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity (St. Cyril Hieros. Cateeh. A'i. 30), 
 being taught only to the eompetentes, the first, 
 in St. Augustine’s time, only eight days before 
 baptism (St. Aug. Horn, xlii.. Cone. Agath. c. 13), 
 the second at some like period, and the last men¬ 
 tioned during the last forty day.s. Catechumens 
 also were allowed to hear the sermon, but no 
 further, in the African Church {Cone. Garthag. 
 as above), in that of Gaul (from Cone. Arausie. 1. 
 A.D. 441, c. 18),and in that of Spain (from Cone. 
 Valentin, a.d. 524, c. 1). 
 
 11. Apart from the special discipline of cate- 
 chumen.s, the Christian fathers, from the 2nd to 
 at least the 5th century, habitually refrain trom 
 speaking plainly of the deeper mysteries of the 
 faith, in writings or sermons accessible to the 
 heathen. Origen, e.g. {Cont. Cels. i. 7, 0pp. i. 
 325), enumerating the doctrines that were not 
 hidden, mentions the birth, crucifixion, and re¬ 
 surrection of our Lord, the resurrection of the 
 dead, and the last judgment, but omits the doc¬ 
 
 trines of tne Holy Trinity and of the Atonement 
 (compare St. Paul’s account of the elements of 
 the fiiith in Heb. vi.). St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 {Leet. Cateeh. vi. 30; Op. i. 106, ed. 1720) tells 
 us, that it is not permitted to speak to a heathen 
 of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Sozomen 
 omits the Nicene creed from his history (i. 20), 
 expressly because that work Avould probabl)’- be 
 read by heathen readers. St. Chrysostom will 
 not speak fully of baptism in a homily, because 
 of the “uninitiated” among his hearers {Horn. 
 xl. in 1 Cor.). St. Augustine reckons both sacra¬ 
 ments among the “ occulta ” {in J’s. ciii. ; see 
 also Horn. xevi. in .Ioann., and in Ps. cix.). 
 Pope Innocent 1. {Ad Decentium, c. 3) will not 
 recite the words even of Confirmation, “ ne 
 magis prodere videar, quam ad consultationem 
 respondere.” The last words of the Apostolie 
 Constitutions forbid the making these books 
 public (bk. viii. in fin. “preach of the mys¬ 
 teries contained in them.” So St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria {Cont. Julian, vii.), and ntany others ; 
 Avhile the words of Theodoret {Quaest. xv. in 
 Num.') may be taken as a summary : “ We speak 
 obscurely of the Divine mysteries on account of 
 the uninitiated ; but when these have with¬ 
 drawn, we teach the initiated plainly.” Such 
 topics are to be mentioned to persons in general 
 “ in enigmas and shadows, mystically, not 
 clearly.” And any statement about them is 
 repeatedly broken off with “ the faithful,” or 
 “ the initiated, know.” Compare also the dis¬ 
 tinction drawn by St. Cyril of Jerusalem between 
 Tr€pir]^e7(rdai and iyrjx^iaOai. The reasons as¬ 
 signed for the practice are ;—1. To avoid offence 
 to the weak or to the heathen, ovk 
 daOeueiav KaTeyrcofi^u rCcv TeXov/x^vcou, oAA.’ 
 eTreiSTj areAeVrepoy oi ttoAAoI Trphs avTCt e/f- 
 SiaicuvTai (St. Chrys. Horn, in Alatt. xxiii. 
 al. xxiv.), or again, more forcibly, ov XPV 
 TO. ixvardipia d/j.vr}TOis rpayepSur, 'Iva /xr; “EA- 
 \7]v(s iJ.hu dyuoovuTes yeXccai, Kar't})(^ovfxfVoi 
 5e TTfpiipyoi yeuopeuoi (TKauSaKi^orurai {Conc. 
 Alexandr. ap. St. Athan. Apol. ii.). To which 
 may be added the still more forcible woi’ds of 
 St. Clem. Alex. {Strom, i. pp. 323, 324), who 
 says that he .suppressed some portions of the 
 truth, not as grudging it, but fearing lest he 
 should put a sword into the hand of a child. 
 2. Out of reverence: “ Adhibuimus tarn sanctis 
 rebus atque Divinis honorem silentii ” (St. Aug. 
 Serin, i. inter, xl.). To which, 3. St. Augustine 
 adds another of a more superficial kind, viz. the 
 excitement of curiosity ; saying to catechumens, 
 “ Si non excitat te festivitas (Paschae), ducat ipsa 
 curiositas,” and therefore, “da nomen ad baptis- 
 mum” {De Verb. Dom. Horn. xlvi.). 
 
 It must be added, in order to complete the 
 case, first, that such a principle of reticence is 
 not to be looked for, for obvious reasons, in the 
 earlier Apologists in persecuting times; c.g. there 
 is no trace of it in Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athena- 
 goras, Theophilus (Bingh. X. v. 2). In such cases, 
 the desire to avoid scandal to the weak, and the 
 feeling of reverence for the truth itself, must 
 needs, and rightly, give way to the clear necessity 
 of a plain statement of the whole truth. Next, 
 that the reserve in que.stion was simply (so to 
 say) a temporary educational expedient ; and was 
 never practised towards the “ faith I ill ” them- 
 selve.s, to whom the whole truth was declared 
 in plain words; and that there are no grounds 
 
566 
 
 DISCIPLINA ARCANI 
 
 DISCIPLINE 
 
 whatever for supposing the existence of an eso¬ 
 teric system of doctrine, not appearing at all in 
 any of the writings or documents of the earlier 
 church, but brought to light in subsetjuent cen¬ 
 turies, although secretly held all along. 
 
 III. So far, there can be no question made of 
 the defensibleness of the principle of reserve, 
 thus applied; however plain it maybe, that it 
 must speedily have become impossible to main¬ 
 tain the })ractice. It is obviously a perfectly fair 
 ])roceeding, to withhold truths avowedly from 
 those to whom it will do harm to declare them. 
 The Alexandrian schools, however, seem to have 
 stretched the casuistry of truthfulness to a point 
 beyond this. Controvei'sially, it is no doubt both 
 allowable, and wise, to state the truth in terms 
 as acce])table to the views and prejudices of an 
 opponent as sincerity will permit, but certainly 
 no further. To help a Platonist, e.g. to believe 
 in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, by pointing 
 out how far Platonism itself advances towards 
 such a doctrine, is plainly as consistent with 
 honesty as it is with good sense; but so to speak 
 as to imply the identity of the two doctrines has 
 both actually proved to be a fruitful parent of 
 heresy, and is distinctly not honest. So again 
 it is obviously fair to neutralize an opponent’s 
 objection by pointing out that it includes in its 
 range that opponent’s own erroneous or incom¬ 
 plete view as well as the orthodox faith ; but 
 only if the latter is not confounded with the 
 former as though it were the same thing. An 
 argumentum ad homincm, used as such avowedly, 
 is of course justitiable, so that it be not put for¬ 
 ward as the arguer’s own bond fide belief. The 
 Alexandrian school, however, seem to have 
 “ oeconomized,” in managing controversies, both 
 in fact and avowedly, in the extremer sense of 
 the lines of argument thus suggested. St. Cle¬ 
 ment of Alexamlria, for instance, lays down as a 
 principle (Strom, vii. 9), that the true Gnostic, 
 indeed, “ bears on his tongue whatever he has in 
 his mind,” but it is “ to those who are worthy to 
 hearadding, that “ he both thinks and speaks 
 the truth, unless at any time, medicinally, as 
 a physician for the safety of the sick, he may 
 lie or tell an untruth, as the Sophists say.” 
 (OuTTore xpevSerai, k^li/ \pev8os \€yg, is the Pla¬ 
 tonic way of putting it.) So also (Strom, vi. 15), 
 ^evcTTai Tw bvri ovx oi (TVix-mpig>ep6g.€voi 5t’ 
 oiKOPOfjLiav (TcoTrfp'ias, d\\' ot ets rd KvpLwraTU 
 ‘TrapaTr'iiTTOPTfS, Ka\ dderovpTes fji\v rhv Kuptop 
 rh '6 (Top eV’ avroTs, cnroarepovPTes §€ tov Kvp'iov 
 TTjp d\r]$rj 8i8a(TKa\iap. And Origen, as quoted 
 by St. Jerome (Ado. Bufin. Apol. i. c. 18), in like 
 manner lays down a caution, implying a 
 like principle, that “ homo cui incumbit neces- 
 sitas mentiendi, diligenter attendat, ut sic utatur 
 interdum mendacio, quomodo condimento atque 
 medicamine, ut servet mensuram ejus : ex quo,” 
 he adds, “ perspicuum est, quod nisi ita mentiti 
 fuerimus, ut magnum nobis ex hoc aliquod quae- 
 ratur bonum, judicandi simus quasi inimici Ejus 
 Qui ait. Ego sum veritas.” Further, St. Clement 
 also appears to hold an esoteric traditional teach¬ 
 ing to liave been delivered to St, Peter, St. James, 
 St. John, and St. Paul (Strom, i. 1, vi. 7 ; and v. 
 Euseb. 11. E. ii. 1) ; and Origen likewise (Cont. 
 Cels. i. 7) speaks of an esoteric Christian teach¬ 
 ing, but obviously means no more by the terms, 
 at least in this passage, than to aflirm the dis¬ 
 tinction between elementary teaching and the | 
 
 deeper doctrines of the faith as taught succes¬ 
 sively to catechumens. On the other hand (Cunt. 
 Cels, vi.) he speaks of an oral traditional know¬ 
 ledge, ov ypaTTTfa irphs robs ttoWovs- oi/de l>r]ri. 
 But St. Clement’s ypuxris was not a distinct inner 
 .system of doctrine differing from that which was 
 to be taught to the ttoAAoI, but rather a diflerent 
 mode of apprehending the same truths, viz. from 
 a more intellectual and spiritual stand-point. 
 In actual fact, we find, by way of instance, 
 St, Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, Oidgen’s pupil, 
 using language re.specting the Holy 'I'rinity that 
 is confessedly erroneous, and defended by St. Basil 
 (Epist. ccx. § 5) on the ground that he was 
 “ not teaching doctrine but arguing with an 
 unbeliever,” and that in such a case “ he would 
 rightly in some things concede to the feelings 
 of the unbeliever, in order to gain him over to 
 the cardinal points.” The whole subject will be 
 found ably and profoundly discussed in Newman’s 
 Arlans, c. i. § iii. pp. 40-102 (8rd edition). How 
 far the practice was borrowed from, or uncon¬ 
 sciously furthered by, the undisguised principles 
 and practice of Philo-Judaeus on the subject, 
 may be doubted. That writer certainly, both in 
 actual exposition of Scripture and in avowed 
 principle, assumes that duller souls must be 
 taught “falsehoods by-which they may be bene¬ 
 fited, if they cannot be brought to a sound mind 
 through the truth ” (Quid Deus sit Immutabilis, 
 0pp. i. 282, ed. Mangey). But there is no need 
 for looking beyond Scripture itself for the germ 
 and principle of a true and legitimate “ oecono- 
 my.” The Alexandrian divines themselves are 
 only responsible for pushing that principle to a 
 degree which made it at least extremely danger¬ 
 ous, and sometimes barely honest. The applica¬ 
 tion of e.soteric meanings to Scripture facts by 
 the same school is a parallel case of exagger¬ 
 ating a principle of the analogous sort, posses¬ 
 sing a foundation of truth, into extremes that 
 are utterly unjustifiable, 
 
 [Newman, Arfans(as above quoted); Martigny; 
 Bingham; Schelstrate, De Eiscipl. Arcani■ 3Io- 
 sheim. Be Beb. Christ, ante Constantin. § xxxiv. 
 pp. 302-310; and a s]iecial dissertation, De 
 Accommodatione Christo imprimis et Apostolis 
 tributd, by F. A. Carus (Lips. 1793, 4), is refer¬ 
 red to.] • [A. W. H.J 
 
 DISCIPLINE. (1.) From the earliest time 
 the Church has endeavoured, in accordance with 
 the Lord’s commands, to maintain its own purity 
 both in life and doctrine. In the earliest ages, 
 the penalties for transgressing the laws of the 
 Church, in whatever resj)ect, were of course of 
 a purely spiritual nature, and enforced by the 
 authority of the Church itself, which had no 
 jurisdiction in invitos. The means which the 
 Church employed for the correction of offenders 
 within her pale were admonition, withdrawal of 
 privileges, the enjoining of acts of mortification, 
 and, in the last resort, exclusion from the Church 
 altogether [Excommunication]. From this 
 constant effort of the ecclesiastical authorities to 
 correct offences, and to purify the Church from 
 scandals by its own power arose the system of 
 Penitential Discipline [Pknitence], which is 
 common to all members of the Church, lay and 
 clerical, secular and regular. 
 
 But besides the general duty of maintaining 
 holy life and true doctrine, which is incumbent 
 
DISCIPLINE 
 
 DISCIPLINE 
 
 567 
 
 on all Christians, the clergy and the membei’s of 
 monastic orders voluntarily take upon them¬ 
 selves peculiar obligations, and the enforcing of 
 these by the proper authorities constitutes a 
 special subdivision of discipline. On the subject 
 of Monastic and Canonical Discipline, see below. 
 
 What has been said applies to the Church in 
 all ages, whether before or after its connection 
 with the State. But from the time of Constan¬ 
 tine, when the existence of Christianity in the 
 empire was formally recognised, and the Church 
 adopted as an institution guarded and respected 
 by the State, we no longer find its disciplinary 
 lav/s solely in its own canons and decrees, nor 
 its punishments solely spiritual and over persons 
 who ffive a voluntarv submission. The several 
 codes of the empire not only recognise gene¬ 
 rally the fact that its subjects are Christian, but 
 frequently adopt and sanction laws enacted ori¬ 
 ginally bv purely ecclesiastical authority ; and 
 this in two ways. In some cases ecclesiastical 
 laws and principles are simply adopted into the 
 civil code, and enforced by civil tribunals and civil 
 sanctions : in others the ecclesiastical authority 
 [see Appeal] —generally the Bishop (p. 231)—is 
 empowered to call in the secular arm to enforce its 
 decisions; see, for instance, Justinian’s Code, lib. 1, 
 1. 25., De Episc. Audien. It is evident that this 
 change in the relations of Church and State con¬ 
 verted many acts, which had previously been dis¬ 
 regarded by the civil power, into crimes, or offences 
 against the sovereign authority, and gave a dif¬ 
 ferent aspect to many delicts which still remained 
 in the cognizance of the Church. Discipline was 
 henceforward enforced partly by the spiritual, 
 partlv by the secular arm ; the State reinforced 
 the Church with more or less vigour according 
 to the disposition of the rulers for the time 
 being; and the ecclesiastical authorities made 
 constant efforts to withdraw the clergy from the 
 jurisdiction of the civil courts altogether [Immu¬ 
 nities OF THE Clergy ; Jurisdiction ; and 
 the articles on the several offences which have 
 been subject to censure or punishment in the 
 Church], [C.] 
 
 (2.) Jfonastic LiscipUne. — Monastic punish¬ 
 ments were of two kinds, corporal and spiritual, 
 and, in each kind, more or less severe, according 
 to the nature of the offence or the founder’s 
 ideas of discipline. Instances of both kinds 
 occur very early in the history of monasticism. 
 Thus Basil of Caesarea speaks of various de- 
 gi-ees of excommunication — from joining in 
 the chanting, from choir, and from meals 
 (Serm. de Mon. Instit.), while about the same 
 date Jerome and Kutfinus make mention of 
 fastings as a punishment (Hiei'on. Ep. ad E^po- 
 tian.; Ruffin. De Verb. Sen. 29). Augustine 
 speaks of offending monks (fratres) being anathe¬ 
 matised, if incorrigible after reproofs, and of 
 their excommunication by their superiors (prae- 
 positi) of higher or lower rank, the excommuni¬ 
 cation by the bisliop being the severest punish¬ 
 ment of all (^De Corrupt, et Grat. ad Valent. 
 c. 15). A pa.s.sage in one of his letters implies 
 his appi'oval of fiogging as a chastisement {Ep. 
 ad Marcellin., 159). In the writings of Cassian, 
 early in the 5th century, monastic discipline 
 becomes more closely defined. For slighter 
 offences, such as coming late to prayers or work, 
 making a mistake in chanting, breaking any¬ 
 thing, or speaking to any other monk than the 
 
 one who .shares the cell, the offender is to pros¬ 
 trate himself in the chapel during divine service 
 or to make genuflexions till allowed by the 
 abbot to cease (Cassian, Inst. iv. c. 16). Ca.ssian 
 tells a story of an Egyptian monk doing public 
 penance for having dropped three peas, while 
 acting as cook for the week {Inst. iv. 20). For 
 graver offences, as bad language or greediness, 
 the punishment is flogging or expulsion iv. 
 
 c. 16). For lingering after nocturns instead of 
 going at once to the cell, a monk is to be ex¬ 
 communicated (ii. 15); no one being allowed to 
 pray with him till he has been publicly absolved 
 (ii. 16). Cassian speaks of a slap or buffet, 
 “ alapa,” as a punishment among monks {Coll. 
 xix. 1, cf. Greg. M. Dialofj. i. 2, ii. 4). Palladius, 
 about the same date, in describing the monks of 
 Nitria, relates that three, whips or scoui'ges 
 hung from a pillar in a part of the church 
 apparently corresponding to a chapter-house, 
 one for the correction of robbers, one for un¬ 
 ruly guests, one for the monks {Hist. Laus. 2). 
 He speaks also of confinement in a cell {ib. 
 cc. 32, 33). About half a century later the 
 Council of Chalcedon pronounces anathema on 
 a monk returning to the secular life {Cone. 
 Chalced., c. 7). Being, as a rule, at that date 
 still laics, monks thus offending were anathema- 
 ti.sed, not degraded. Dorotheus, an Archiman¬ 
 drite in Palestine, very early in the 7th century, 
 speaks of fasting as a jmnishment for monks 
 {Doctrina, c. 14, ap. Ducean. Auciuar. i. 743). 
 One of the strongest instances of monastic 
 severity in the East is in the Scala of Joannes 
 Climacus, sometimes called Scholastic us," of 
 Mount Sinai, in the preceding century, who 
 speaks of offenders being dragged by a rope 
 through ashes, their hands bound behind their 
 backs, and flogged till those who witnessed the 
 punishment “ howTed afterwards they were 
 to lie prostrate at the church-door till absolved 
 after public confession {Scala, c. 4). 
 
 In the West, too, prior to the Benedictine rule, 
 monastic discipline was very rigorous. Each 
 monastery had its own code ; but, probably, in 
 Southern Europe Cassian’s influence was felt 
 largely. In the Regula Tarnatensis, the lule (c. 
 550 A.D.) of a monastery in south-eastern France, 
 which Mabillon identifies with that of Tarnay, 
 near Vienne {Aunal., tom. i. App. ii. Disquis, 5), 
 a monk who jests is to be chidden (c. 13 ; cf. Bas. 
 Constit. Monast. c. 13, on scurrility). In the 
 rule of Ferreolus, bishop of Ezes, in Languedoc, 
 about the same date, a fast of three days is 
 imposed for jesting during lections (c. 24), and 
 thirty days’ silence for railing (c. 22). But the 
 Regula Cujusdam Patris, suj)posed by Menard to 
 be the rule of Columba (c. 561 a.d.), is stricter 
 still, especially against the murmuring or re¬ 
 fractory: even a thoughtless word is visited 
 wfith imprisonment (c. 8). Columbanus, of 
 Luxeuil and Bobbin (c. 590 A.D.), trod in the 
 steps of his ascetic predecessor. Six blows were 
 to be the penalty for such offences as speaking 
 at refection, not responding to the grace, not 
 being careful to avoid coughing in chanting, iS:c. 
 For other similar transgressions the punishmert 
 was the “ impositio ” of Psalms to be learned by 
 heart, or the superpositio,” complete silence for 
 
 “ Not Joannes Scholasticus, of the same ilate, of Antioch 
 and Constantinople (Cave, Hist. Lilt. s. v.). 
 
568 
 
 DiSCOFEl?AE 
 
 DISCOMMUNICANTES 
 
 a time {Eeij. Coluinhim. c. 10). Darker offences 
 were visited with proportionate severity. 'J'hus, 
 fora perjury the penalty was solitary confine¬ 
 ment on bread and water for three years (Colum- 
 ban. De Penitout. ]\Iensur. c. 32 ; cf. pass.). 
 
 The milder discij)line of Benedict gradually 
 extended itself, in the 0th and 7th centuries, 
 from Italy even into parts of Europe alrea<ly 
 occupied by other rules, as was France by that 
 of Columbanus. He prescribed two rejn-oofs in 
 private, followed by one in public, before pro¬ 
 ceeding to severer remedies. If these were in- 
 efi'ectual, then ensued excommunication, or for 
 chose too young or otherwise disqualified for 
 spiritual censures, corj)oral punishment {Peg. 
 Ben. c. 23). The incorrigible were to be flogged 
 and prayed for ; and, as a last resource, ex])elled 
 (c. 28) : if re-admitted, they were to be placed 
 in the lowest grade (c. 29) ; cf. Greg. M. Lib. x. 
 Ind. iv. Ep, 39 ; Lib. i. Ind. ix. Ep. 19. A 
 breakage or waste was lightly regarded, unless 
 unconfessed (c. 46) ; and the confession of secret 
 faults was to be made, not in public, but to 
 the dean [Dkcanus, § v.] (seniori suo, c. 46). 
 Only the contumacious, after four admonitions, 
 were to be subject to the “disciplina regularis,” 
 flogging, with, probably, solitary confinement on 
 bread and water (cc. 3, 65). 
 
 Where not adopted as a whole, the Benedictine 
 rule was frequently incorporated with other 
 rules. Thus the rule of Isidore of Seville, in 
 the first part of the 7th century, though more 
 minute in its distinctions, resembles the Bene¬ 
 dictine code of punishments (Isid. Peg. c. 17 ; cf. 
 Mab. Ann. iii. 37, xii. 42). Donatus of Besan- 
 Qon, about the middle of this century, himself 
 a pupil of Columbanus, blended the two rules in 
 one: “disciplina” with him seems to mean 
 flogging or solitary confinement (Don. Peg. ad 
 Virg. c. 2); silence or fifty stripes is the penalty 
 for idle words (c. 28). Later in the century, 
 Fructuosus of Braga in Portugal, founder of the 
 great monastery of Alcala (Complutum) near 
 Madrid, borrowed largely from Benedict (Fruct. 
 Peg. c. 17 ; cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 37). The Council 
 at Vers, near Paris, 755 A.D., speaks of a prison¬ 
 cell or flogging-room — “locus custodiae” or 
 “ pulsatorium ” {Cone. Venn. c. 6). The Har¬ 
 mony of Monastic Rules, compiled in the 9th 
 century by the namesake of the founder of the 
 Benedictines, contains a gradation of punish¬ 
 ments, which is on the Avhole equitable, but too 
 minute (Bened. Anian. Concord. Pegul.) In the 
 12th century the influence of Petrus Damiani 
 introduced a rigour hitherto unknown within 
 the walls of Monte Casino : each monk, after his 
 confession every Friday, was to be whipped, by 
 himself or by others, in cell, chapter, or oratory 
 (Altes. Ascet. A'i. 4). In the famous monastery 
 of St. Gall, in Switzerland, the whip for similar 
 purposes was suspended from a pillar in the 
 chapter-house (i6.). 
 
 Voluntary flagellations, or self-scourgings, as 
 a recognised part of monastic discipline, began 
 about the middle of the 11th century, at the 
 suggestion of Petrus Damiani (Richard et Giraud, 
 Bibliotk. Sacr. s. v.), or according to ^labillon 
 (Ac^a SS. Ben. Praef., Saec. vi., i. s. 6), rather 
 earlier (cf. Boileau, I’abbef, Hist. Flagell., 1700 
 A.D.). '[1. G. S.] 
 
 (3.) Canontcal Discipline. —Though the rule of 
 the Canonici was easier than that of the Monachi, 
 
 their code of punishments wa.s severe. By 
 Chrodegang’s rule, any canon failing to maka 
 a full confession at stated times twice a vear, 
 wa.s to be flogged or incarcerated {Chron. Peg. 
 c. 14). Any canon guilty of theft, murder, or 
 any grave ofleuce was liable to both these penal¬ 
 ties ; he was, besides, to do public penance by 
 standing outside the chapel during the “hours,” 
 and by lying prostrate at the door as the others 
 were going in and out, and to jiractise extra¬ 
 ordinary abstinence, until absolved by the 
 bishoj) (c, 15). Any canon speaking to one ex¬ 
 communicated incurred excommunication him¬ 
 self (c. 16). The refractory or contumacious 
 were, after two reproofs, to do open penance by 
 standing beside the cross ; they were to be pub¬ 
 licly excommunicated, or, if insensible to such a 
 punishment, flogged (c. 17). Lesser ofi'ence.s, if 
 confessed, were to be treated lightly; if de¬ 
 tected, .severely (c. 18). The measurement and 
 apportionment of penalties was in the hands of 
 the bishop (c. 19). But certain rules to guide 
 the bishop’s subordinates, “ praelati inferiores ” 
 (perhaps^deans), in the exerci.se of this dis¬ 
 cretionary power were laid down by the Council 
 at Aachen, 816 a.d. Boys were to be beaten. 
 Older members of the comnrunity were, for more 
 venial faults, as neglecting the “ hours,” being 
 careless at work or in chapel, late at meals, out 
 without leave or beyond the proper time, after 
 three private admonitions, to be admonished 
 publicly, to stand apart in the choir, and to bo 
 kept on bread and water. For a graver fault, 
 “ culpa criminalis,” unless atoned for by spon¬ 
 taneous penance, they were to be publicly ex¬ 
 communicated, “damnentur,” by the bishop, 
 and to be imprisoned, lest they should “taint 
 the rest of the flock ” {Cone. Aquisgr. c. 134). 
 It is to be noted that it seems customary then 
 to have a prison within the precincts of the 
 monastery or canonry (“ ut fit mult is in monas- 
 teriis ”), and that disobedience, rudeness, or 
 quarrelling are not, as with monks, classed 
 among things of a darker die {ib.') The same 
 council, in a subsequent session, enacted a similar 
 scale of punishment for nuns, “ sanctimonialei:,” 
 with the same climax of solitary confinement 
 for the incorrigible {Cone. Aquisgr. lib. ii. c. 8). 
 The rule was to be recited in chapter very fre¬ 
 quently (cc. 69, 70). 
 
 For monastic and canonical discipline gener¬ 
 ally, see Benedictine Rule, Canonici, ^Ion- 
 ACHISil. [1. G. S.] 
 
 (4). From the constant use of the rod or 
 scourge in monastic discipline (see above, § 2) 
 the word disciplina came itself to mean flogging. 
 In the Liber Ord'nis S. Victoris Paris., c. 33 
 (quoted by Ducange) is a full description of the 
 manner in which a monk ought to take jumish- 
 ment (disciplinam accipere). Sometimes disci¬ 
 plina is used with a qualifying word, as “ di.scip. 
 flagelli” {Peg. S. Anrel. c. 41); “ discip. corpo- 
 ralis ” {Peg. Chrodegang. cc. 3, 4, 14 ; Capitul. 
 A.D. 803, v. 1). [Corporal Punishment.] [C.] 
 
 DISCOFERAE. In convents of nuns the 
 sisters who bring the dishes to table are some¬ 
 times called discoferae. Caesarius of Arles {Ad 
 Oratoriain Abhatissani) gives the direction, “ ae- 
 qualia cibaria potionesque communes exhibeant 
 discoferae vel pincernae ” (Ducange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 DISCOMMUNICANTES. The second 
 
DISCUS 
 
 DIVINATION 
 
 569 
 
 council of Arles (c. 10), referring to tlie eleventh 
 canon of the fii'st council of Nicaea, condemns 
 those who have fallen away under persecution to 
 five vears among the catechumens, and two “ in- 
 ter discommunicantes, ita ut communionem inter 
 poenitentes non praesumant.” The canon of 
 Nicaea referred to has “ Suo cttj irpoa- 
 
 (popas KOLVwvt](Tov(Ti Tw Ka'p tcov TTpocrev^wv.” 
 When all who offered communicated, this was 
 equivalent to a sentence of exclusion for two years 
 from the mysteries, though not from the prelimi¬ 
 nary prayers. [See Communion, p. 415.] [C.] 
 
 DISCUS. [Paten.] 
 
 DISPENSATION. [Indulgence.] 
 
 DISPUTATIO. In some monastic Rules a 
 discussion on Scripture, called Disputatio, is one 
 of the exercises prescribed to the monks. For 
 instance the Buie of Pachomius (c. 21) directs; 
 “ Disputatio autem Praepositis domorum tertio 
 fiet.” [Compare Collation.] [C.] 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF THE ELEMENTS. 
 [Communion, Holy,] 
 
 DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH PRO¬ 
 PERTY. [Alms; Churches, Maintenance 
 OF ; Corn, Allowance of ; Divisio Mensurna; 
 Property of the Church.] 
 
 DIUS. (1) Saint, in Caesarea; commemo¬ 
 rated July 12 (^Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi), 
 
 (2) Martyr at Alexandria, with Peter, bishop 
 of Alexandria, Faustus the presbyter, and Am- 
 monius, under Maximinus; commemorated Nov. 
 20 (^Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G,] 
 
 DIVINATION. It ivas all but inevitable 
 in the nature of things that the ineradicable 
 desire to penetrate the secrets of the future 
 should show itself sooner or later in some form 
 of superstition within the Christian Church. 
 Jews and heathens had alike been accustomed 
 to practices of which that desire had been the 
 origin. The decay and disrepute of the older 
 oracles, of which the legend that they ceased at 
 the time of the Nativity of Christ was the re¬ 
 presentation, forced men back upon the more 
 mysterious and recondite arts by which the 
 secrets of the future were to be unveiled. The 
 mind of the Church was, of course, from the 
 first opposed to such attempts, and taught men 
 to leave the future in the hands of God. But the 
 laws and canons which meet us alike in East and 
 West testify to the strength of the superstition 
 against which the warfare was thus waged. It 
 can hardly be said, looking at Christendom as a 
 whole, to have succeeded in repressing it. 
 
 The revival within the Church of the arts of 
 the old Chaldaean soothsayers has been noticed 
 under A.5Trologers and Calculatores. But 
 the elaborate system of divination which Mas 
 officially recognised in the auguries of the Roman 
 republic and empire, and which had a thousand 
 ramifications in private and local superstitions, 
 was even more difficult to cope with. As eaidy 
 as the Council of Elvira (c. 62) we find the augur 
 named among those who M'cre not to be admitted 
 to Christian communion unless they renounced 
 their calling.* The Fourth Council of Carthage 
 (c. 59) excommunicated any who addicted them¬ 
 selves to practices that were so essentially 
 
 heathen. That of Ancyra (c. 24) condemned 
 the KaTauavTiv6fX(voL to five years’ penance. 
 See also the ‘Penitential’ printed in Menard’s 
 Sacram. Greg. p. 467, Tiie legislation of the 
 emperors was even more stern in its severity; 
 but the sharpness of the law was in this case 
 due, like the old edicts of banishment against 
 the Chaldaei under Tiberius, to the infiucace of 
 suspicious fear. Diviners, who were consulted as 
 to the length of the emperor’s life might help 
 to work out the fulfilment of their own predic¬ 
 tions. So we find Constantins inflicting the 
 penalty of death on all who were known to con¬ 
 sult soothsayers or observe omens. Even the 
 credulous peasants, to whom the cry of a weasel 
 or a rat was a presage of evil, were hunted down 
 and condemned (CW. Theod. ix. tit. 16, leg. 4; 
 Ammian. Marcell. xvi. ]i. 72). Valens, iu like 
 manner, half believing in what he sought to re¬ 
 press, having heard that it had been declared as 
 the result of such divining arts (in this case 
 veKvo/xavrela is named), that the name of his 
 successor should begin with 0 E O A, not only 
 enforced the law iu its fullest severity against 
 the diviner, but sought out and put to death all 
 whom he could find whose names brought them 
 M’ithin the range of his suspicion (Socrates, //. E. 
 iv. 19). It is probable enough that the wide- 
 "spread belief thus engendered really helped to 
 prepare the way for Theodosius. 
 
 It was comj)aratively easy to condemn art; 
 that were manifestly heathen iu their nature. 
 It was more difficult when the practice came 
 with Christian associations and appealed to men’s 
 , reverence for the Sacred Books. The principle 
 of casting lots was recognised in Scripture as an 
 appeal from the ignorance of man to the Provi¬ 
 dence of God (Acts i. 26; Prov. xvi, 33 ; xviii. 
 1% et al.). What form of aortes could be more 
 certain to direct men in the right path than an 
 appeal to the Written Word ? Here, too, both 
 Jewish and heathen influences may have helped 
 to foster the new form of superstition. The Jew 
 had been in the habit of so dealing u ith the Law, 
 opening it at random, taking the verse on which 
 he lighted as an oracle from God. It Avas his 
 substitute for the Urim and Thummim, and 
 the utterance of a prophet’s voice (Gemar. 
 Hieros. Schabb. f. 8). The Roman, anticipating 
 the mediaeval belief as to the poet’s character, 
 had looked to the Aeneid of Virgil as filling up 
 the gap left by the dumbness of the oracles. The 
 sortes Virgilianae Avere in repute as haA'ing pre¬ 
 dicted the power and character of Hadrian (Spar- 
 tian. Vit. Had. p, 5), and Alexander Severus 
 (Lamprid, Vit. Alex. p. 341). So in like man¬ 
 ner the Bible, as a whole, or certain portions 
 of it, came to be treated in the 4th century, 
 if not earlier. It aj)pears to haA’e prevailed 
 in the West rather than the East, but Avas 
 neA'er during the period Avith Avhich Ave are con¬ 
 cerned in any degree sanctioned by the Church 
 or its leaders. Augustine, who had been con¬ 
 sulted by Januarius as to its legitimacy, thought 
 it a less evil than seeking knowledge from de- 
 mons, but condemned it, as bringing doAvn the 
 Divine Word to base and trivial uses (Bpist. ad 
 Januariurn, cxix. (aliter Iv.) c. 37). The pro¬ 
 vincial Councils of Gaul in the 5th century con¬ 
 demned the “sortes divinatiouis,” “sortes sanc¬ 
 torum,” and threatened clergy or monks who 
 practised them Avith severe penalties ((7. Venctic. 
 
 * There is, however, the various reading of “ auriga.” 
 
670 
 
 DIVINE SERVICE 
 
 DOLIUM 
 
 c. 16; Agathens. 42; Aurel. I. c. 30). The 
 jractice grew, however, in spite of the prohi¬ 
 bition, with the increasing power of the Franks, 
 and Gregory of Tours {Hist. iv. 16) describes a 
 scene in which, with great solemnity, in the 
 presence of bishops and priests in the celebration 
 Dt Mass at Dijon, the volumes of the Epistles and 
 Gospels were thus opened in order to ascertain 
 the fortunes of the son of Clothaire. [E. H. P.] 
 
 DIVINE SERVICE. [Communion, Holy: 
 Mass: Houiis of Prayer: Office, the Di¬ 
 vine.] 
 
 DIVISIO APOSTOLORUM. [Apostles’ 
 Festivals, p. 87.] 
 
 DIVISIO MENSURNA. The division of 
 the revenues of a church among the clergy seems 
 commonly to have been monthly ; this monthly 
 payment is called by Cyprkin “divisio mensurna,” 
 and a suspension from this was equivalent to 
 what in later times was called siispeusion “ a 
 oeneficio,” which did not necessarily imply sus¬ 
 pension from ministerial functions (Cyprian, 
 Epist. 34, c. 3). [Oblations ; Property of 
 THE Church.] [C.] 
 
 DIVORCE. [Marriage.] 
 
 DOCTOR. Beesids the general sense of 
 “ teacher,” this word early acquired certain 
 special significations:— 
 
 1. Doctor Audicntiwn, the officer of fhe church 
 to whom was committed the instruction of Cate¬ 
 chumens (p. 319). When we read in the Pas^io 
 8S. Perpettiac ct Fclic. (c. 13; Ruinart. p. 99) 
 that Aspasius, “ presbyter doctor,” stood before 
 the door, we ought probably to understand that 
 he was a presbyter who bore the office of Doctor 
 audientium. Cyprian, too, speaks {Epist. 29) of 
 “ presbyteri doctores,” as well as of a reader who 
 held the office of teacher of the catechumens. 
 
 2. Persons whose teaching was of special 
 weight in the church were called Doctores. The 
 Decreta (c. 1) of Celestinus (a.d. 422—432) con¬ 
 demn those who set themselves up against the 
 Doctors, meaning apparently in this case more 
 particularly St. Augustine (c. 2) and the bishops 
 of Rome (c. 3). The same prohibition is repeated 
 in the Capitularinm Car. M. vii. c. 44. 
 
 3. The term legis doctor seems to have acquired 
 
 a technical force at a comparatively early date. 
 Adrevaldus {De Mirac. S. Bened. i. 25) speaks 
 of a certain “ legis doctor ”—clearly a judge— 
 who deferred judgment in consequence of having 
 received a bribe ; and a charter of Pipin, mayor of 
 the palace (quoted by Ducange, s. v. Doctor Legis'), 
 speaks of tilings decided by “ proceres nostri, seu 
 Comites palatii nostri vel reliqui legis doctores,” 
 where the doctors are clearly persons who have 
 an official right to expound the law. [C.] 
 
 DOCTORS, CHRIST IN CONFERENCE 
 WITH. This subject is represented in a fresco 
 of the first cubiculum of the Callixtine Cata¬ 
 comb. See in Bottari, taw. xv. and liv., also tav. 
 Ixxiv. Both are conventionally arranged, our Lord 
 being on a lofty seat in the midst, with hand 
 upraised in the act of speaking; the doctors on 
 His right and left, with some expression of 
 wonder on their countenances. The only sarco¬ 
 phagus besides that of Junius Bassus (Bottari, 
 XV.), which indisi utahhj^ contains this subject, 
 is stated by Martigny to be that in S. Ambrogio 
 
 at Milan. (Allegranza, Sacra Monim. Ant. de 
 Milano, tav. iv.) See, however, Bottari, vol. i. 
 tav. 33. All the surrounding figures are seated 
 in this example, but our Lord is placed above 
 them in a kind of stall or ediculc, with two 
 palm-trees at its sides. He holds a book or roll 
 in His hand, which is partly unrolled, while 
 the doctors have closed theirs. So also in Alle¬ 
 granza, tav. i., a mosaic from St. Aquilinus of 
 Milan. The Lord’s elevated seat is placed on a 
 rock, with the Divine Lamb below, probably in 
 reference to Rev. v. as “able to oj)en the Book.” 
 On the right and left, at His feet, are Joseph 
 and Mary in the attitude of adoration. 
 
 Perret (i. pi. 1.) gives a co}>y of a very skilful 
 painting from the catacombs, which places two 
 doctors on the Lord’s right hand, who are ex¬ 
 pressing attention and wonder, and Joseph and 
 Mary on the other, with looks of patient waiting 
 on Him. The figure on the left is so evidently 
 feminine, as to repel the idea that the four 
 evangelists are intended. 
 
 The fine diptych of the 5th century at the 
 Cathedral of Milan and that of I\Iurano (Bugati, 
 Mem. di S. Celso and Gori, Thes. Dipt. viii. tab. 
 8, see Avoodcut) also represent our Lord sitting, 
 
 with the doctors standing before Him. These re¬ 
 present Him of more mature appearance and 
 stature than the account in the Gospels quite 
 warrants. The figure below our Lord’s feet is 
 supposed to represent Uranus or the Firmament 
 of Heaven (Ps. xviii. 9). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DOLIUM. This seems to be the most con 
 venient generic term for the A^arious representa¬ 
 tions of casks and large vessels which occur fre¬ 
 quently in early Christian art, and have sym¬ 
 bolic meaning very generally attributed to them. 
 (Boldetti, pp. 164-368; Perret, iii. 3 ; Bottari, 
 tav. 155.) As they are generally found on tombs 
 they are taken as empty, representing the body 
 when the soul has fled from it. If the marriage 
 of Cana [see s. v. Cana] can be supposed to be so 
 frequently used on sarcophagi as a symbol of the 
 Resurrection, the cask may be supposed to repre¬ 
 sent a water-vessel, and be a short-hand symbol 
 of the Miracle. This seems altogether unlikely, 
 and, moreover, in almost all cases the vessels re¬ 
 presented are strictly “ waterpots of stone ” or 
 hydriae. The close juncture of the staves of a 
 cask has been taken to indicate Christian luxity. 
 
DOLPHIN 
 
 DOMESTICUS 
 
 571 
 
 Martigay conjectures (quoting St. Cyprian, Ep. 
 xvi. Ad Confess. Rom. “Vini vice sanguinem 
 tunditis ”) that the form of a cask has been given 
 to certain small vessels for preserving the blood 
 of martyrs (e.g. Boldetti, pp. 163—4), with allu¬ 
 sion to tne power of their self-sacrifice in hold- . 
 ing the Church together. He concludes, how¬ 
 ever, on the whole, that the picture of the 
 Dolium was very possibly only a play" on words, 
 from its resemblance in sound to doleo, and its 
 inflections. This seems to be proved by his ex¬ 
 ample from Mamachi (see woodcut)—two dolia, 
 with the inscription IVLIO FILIO PATER 
 DOLIENS. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DOLPHIN [sees. v. Fish]. As in tne case 
 of other Christian symbols, the dolpnin is used 
 
 from a very early date in two or more senses, 
 representing either the Lord Himself, the indi¬ 
 vidual Christian, or abstract* qualities such as 
 those of swiftness, brilliancy, conjugal affection, 
 &c. In a painting given by De Rossi (vol. i. tav. 
 viii.), two dolphins bear (apparently) vessels with 
 the Sacramental loaves. It has been suggested, 
 and is not improbable, that the Dolphin embra 
 cing the Anchor, so often found on gems, rings, &c. 
 (Mamachi, Antig. Christ, iii. 23 ; Lupi, Epitaph. 
 Sever. M. 64, note 1), is an emblem of the Cruci¬ 
 fied Saviour, or, indeed, of the faithful follower 
 For its use as an emblem of swiftness, see Bol¬ 
 detti, p. 332, where is figured the handle of a pen 
 found in a Christian sepulchre, fashioned into the 
 dolphin-shape, which may indicate, as Martigny 
 supposes, that the occupant was in life a scribe 
 or short-hand writer.—Ps. xlv. 2. The fish with 
 extended fins, or back bent, as if in the act of 
 plunging forward, seems to be used to express 
 speed in pressing forward for the prize of the 
 Christian race. See Lupi, Epitaph. Sev. pp. 53 
 and 185. In the latter he is accompanied by a 
 dov^e, and both are approaching a vase, which may 
 signify the Living Waters of Baptism or of Truth. 
 See Martigny, s. v. Dauphin. The dolphins (see 
 woodcut), placed two close together on each side 
 of the inscription over Baleria or Valeria La- 
 tobia, are thought to symbolize conjugal affec¬ 
 tion. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DOLUS MALUS. [Forgery.] 
 
 DOME. (Commonly derived from Domus 
 Dei, domes being at one time so invariable a | 
 part of churches as to usurp their name. Per- j 
 haps from Sw/aa.) A concave ceiling or cupola, 
 either hemispherical or of any other curve, 
 covering a circular or polygonal area; also a 
 roof the exterior of which is of either of these 
 forms (Parker’s Gloss, s. v. Cupola). 
 
 The dome is not usual in churches of the 
 basilica type, though it is sometimes found; in ! 
 the church of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme (for 
 instance), we find a dome covering one of the 
 chapels (the south-eastern) by which the apse is 
 enclosed. [Church, p. 370.] 
 
 In sepulchral or memorial churches, usually 
 circular, sometimes polygonal in form, the dome, 
 as might be exjiected, is of frequent occurrence. 
 The church of Sta. Costanza is of this class, and 
 there we find the dome supported on an interior 
 peristyle. [Church, p. 371.] The “Dome of | 
 the Rock ” at Jerusalem, classed by some autho¬ 
 rities among memorial churches, has a dome sup¬ 
 ported by four great piers. Other examples may 
 be found in the church of St. George in Thes- 
 salonica, 5th cent., and the cathedral at Bosrah 
 in the Hauran, of the date a.d. 512. [CiiURCn, 
 p. 372.] ■ I 
 
 The sepulchral chapel built by the empress 
 Galla Placid ia at Ravenna has a tower enclosing 
 a small dome. [Church, p. 372.] One of the 
 most remarkable domes in the world is that of 
 St. Sophia, both from its size and from the pecu¬ 
 liar manner in which it is supported, not by 
 piers or arches on every side but upon two semi¬ 
 domes, east and west, by which means a vast unen¬ 
 
 cumbered space—200 ft. by 100 ft.—is obtained. 
 [Church, p. 373.] After the time of Justinian 
 churches in the East were almost exclusively 
 built after some modification of the plan of St. 
 Sophia, in which the dome forms so important 
 a feature. The germ of the nearly square ground- 
 plan, with a dome covering the centre, is perhaps 
 to be found in domed oratories or Kalybes of 
 Syria. See woodcut, p. 347. 
 
 In the church of St. Vitalis at Ravenna, built 
 between A.D. 526 and 547, there is a sort of 
 clerestory, 20 ft. high, below the dome. And 
 after the death of Justinian we find this con¬ 
 struction, in which the dome itself is placed on 
 a drum pierced with windows, frequent in the 
 i empire. The church of St. Clement, for in- 
 1 stance, at Ancyra, belonging probably to the 
 j latter part of the 6th and beginning of the 7th 
 ! century, had such a dome placed on a low drum. 
 The church of St. Irene, at Constantinople (earlier 
 part of the 8th century), has the dome on a drum 
 of great height; and a similar dome is found in 
 the church of St. Nicholas of Myra, which is 
 perhaps of more modern date. [Church, p. 378.] 
 The Duomo Vecchio at Florence, by some assigned 
 to the 7th century, by others to a.d. 774, is 
 covered by a dome 65 ft. in internal diameter. 
 [Church, p. 380.] [C.] 
 
 DOMESTICUS, “ belonging to the house or 
 household,” has several ecclesiastical senses :— 
 
 1. Domestici are all who belong to the “ house¬ 
 hold of faith ; ” “ omnibus congruus honor exhi- 
 beatur, maxime tamen domesticis fidei ” (^Regula 
 St. Bencd. c. 53). 
 
 2. In the East, the principal dignitary in a 
 church choir after the Rrotopsaltes. There was 
 
672 
 
 DOMINICA 
 
 D(JMIO 
 
 one on each side ot the choir, to lead the singers in 
 antiplional chanting (Codinus, he c. vi. § ?>; 
 Cioar’s Eucholofj. pj), 272, 278; Ducange, s. v.)- 
 
 d. hornesticns Ostiorum, 6 Ao/xeariKos tu'V 
 OvpcSv, the chief door-keeper at Constantinople 
 (Codinus, he Off. c. i. § 43). [C.] 
 
 DOiMINICA. 
 
 DO^MINICA, 6(naiJ.r]TT]p, commemorated Jan. 
 8 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOIMINE LABIA. [Di:us in adjutoiuum.] 
 
 DOIMINICALIS or -LE. A fair linen cloth 
 used by females at the time of the reception of 
 the Eucharist. So far all authorities are agreed, 
 but it is a controverted point whether it was a 
 white veil worn over the head, or a napkin in 
 which females received the Eucharist, which 
 thev were forbidden to touch with the naked 
 hand. [Communion, Holy, p. 416.] 
 
 The latter view is that which has the greatest 
 currency, and can reckon among its supporters 
 such weighty liturgical authorities as Cardinal 
 Bona (Aer. Litnrg. lib. ii. c. 17); Habert {Archie- 
 rat., part. x. obs. viii.) ; Mabillon (de Liturg. Gall. 
 lib. i. c. V. r. xxv.) ; Macer {Hiet'olex., sub voc.); 
 Voss. {Tlies. Iheol. de Symbol. Coen, horn.), and 
 others. It is chiefly based on two canons of 
 the Council of Auxerre, A.D. 578, one (can. 36) 
 forbidding women to receive the Eucharist 
 with the bare hand; the other (can. 42) enact¬ 
 ing that every woman when she communicates 
 should have her dominicalis or else postpone 
 her communion. These two canons are inter¬ 
 preted to refer to the same subject, and the 
 dominicalis has been thus identified with the 
 fair linen cloth with which the hand was to be 
 covered at the time of communion. This custom 
 is exjji'essly mentioned in a sermon printed 
 among Augustine’s, but erroneously ascribed to 
 him, in which we read, “ omnes quando com- 
 municare desiderant lavent manus, et omnes 
 mulieres nitida exhibeant linteamenta ut Corpus 
 Christi accipiant.” It will be observed^ that 
 nowhere is this napkin expressly called dominicale. 
 
 The other view—that the dominicale was a 
 head-covering, a veil (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 13) is strongly 
 supported by Ducange {sub voce); Labbe {ad Con¬ 
 di. Autissiod.') and Baluzius {Not. in Gratian. 
 cans, xxxiii. quaest. iii. c. 19), and is accepted by 
 our own Bingham (bk. xv. ch. v. § 7). The pas¬ 
 sage from an ancient MS. Penitential given by 
 Ducange, forbidding a woman to communicate 
 if she has not her “ dominicale ” on her head, 
 “si mulier communicans dominicale suum super 
 caput suum non habuerit, kc.” is express for 
 this view if it be correctly quoted. The canons 
 cited by Baluzius (aimd Bingham, 1. c.) from the 
 Council of Macon, “ in which the dominicale is 
 expressly styled the veil which the women wore 
 upon their heads at the communion,” do not 
 appear in the acts of either the first or second 
 Council of that name. This, however appears 
 the more probable view. [E. V.] 
 
 DOMINICXJM. 1. One of the names of a 
 Church (q. v.), Greek KopianSv. 
 
 2. Equivalent to KvpiaKhv heitrvov. Cyprian, 
 Epist. 63; “Numquid ergo hominicum post 
 coenam celebrare debemus?” And the martyrs 
 in Africa, somewhat later, were accused of cele¬ 
 brating “collectam et Dominicum,” the ordinary 
 
 assembly and the Lord’s Supper {Acta Procons. 
 Saiuniini, etc., c. 5 ; compare cc. 7 and 8). [C.j 
 
 DOIMINUS or DOMNUS. 1. Equivalent to 
 “Saint” as a title; as “ Dominus Joannes” for 
 St. John, in Cyprian’s of Caesarius of Arle.s. 
 Sometimes in the form homrus; St. Martin, for 
 instance, is called “ Domuus Martinus ” in the 
 jireface and in can. 13 of the first council oi 
 Toui’s. St. Peter is called “ Domnus Petrus 
 Ajiostolus ” {Cone. Turon. JT. c. 23); St. I^aul, 
 “ Domuus Paulus Apo.stolus” (Gregory of Tours, 
 Hint. Franc, ix. 41). The Mar of the Chaldaean 
 Christians (as in “ Mar Markos ”) is equivalent 
 to Dominus. 
 
 2. Bishops are called Domini, without any 
 
 further designation of their episcopal dignity. 
 For instance, a bishop is described by Gregory 
 the Great {Epist. iv. 27) as “ Dominus Mizenatis 
 ecclesiae.” Dominus in this usage also is fre¬ 
 quently shortened into Domnns, as, for instance, 
 by Gregory of Tours and Gregory the Great 
 (Ducange, s. v.). [C.j 
 
 3. Domnus was at first a title of the abbat 
 {Reg. Benedict. 63), afterwards of his sub-officials, 
 and, in the middle ages, of monks generally (Mar- 
 tene ad loc. citat.). The word was applied to saints 
 (Sulpic. Sever., Epp. 2, 3 ; Mabill. Ann. 0. S. B. 
 xviii. 9), to bishops {Cone. Aurel. iii. Subscr.), 
 and to the pope (Ducange, Glossar. Lat. s. v.). 
 Hence the titles, “ Dan,” “ Don,” “ Donna,” kc. 
 in the Eomance, and, in modern French, “ Dom,” 
 for monks (Ducange, Gloss. Lat. u. s. Alard. Gaz. 
 Praef. Cassiani 0pp.'). 
 
 “ Domna ” was used similarly of nuns. 
 
 [1. G. S.] 
 
 DOMINUS VOBISCUM. 1. The versicle 
 Dominus Vohiscum, with the response, et cum 
 spiritu tuo, is found in the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary immediately before the Sursum Corda, 
 which introduces the Canon. 
 
 In the third of the ancient canons read and 
 appi’oved at the First Council of Braga, A.D. 563, 
 (Bruns’s Canones, ii. 35), it is provided that 
 bishops and priests should not greet the people 
 in different ways, but that both should use the 
 form Dominus sit vohiscum (Ruth ii. 4), and 
 the people respond Et cum spirilic tuo, the forn 
 handed down from the very Apostles, and re¬ 
 tained by the whole Eastern Church. The latter 
 assertion does not ajqiear to be founded on fact, 
 for the Eastern Church has constantly used the 
 form “ Peace be with you all.” [Pax Vobis- 
 CUM.] The distinction which the canon notes 
 and forbids between the priest’s salutation and 
 the bishop’s, was probably that the former used 
 the form Domdns vob'seum, the latter, as re¬ 
 presenting more completely the Lord Himself, 
 the form Pax vohiscum. But see Krazer, De 
 Liturgiis, p. 399 f. 
 
 2. At Prime, in the Daily Office, Dominus 
 vohiscum, with the usual response, is .said before 
 the Collect. 
 
 3. When the Breviarium Ilipponense (can. I, 
 
 al. 6) orders “ ut lectures populum non salutent,” 
 the meaning probably is, that they were not 
 permitted to use the form commonly appro¬ 
 priated to the higher orders, whether Dominus 
 or Pax vobiscum. [C.j 
 
 DOMIO, bishop of Salona in Dalmatia, mar¬ 
 tyr, with eight soldiers ; commemorated April 
 11 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
DOMITIANUS 
 
 DOORS OF CHURCHES 573 
 
 DOMITIANUS. (1) Abbot of Lyons; de¬ 
 position July 1 (^Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Philadelphia in Arabia, with 
 five others; commemorated Aug. 1 (^Mart. Horn. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Deacon, and martyr at Ancyra in Galatia, 
 with Eutycus the presbyter; commemorated 
 Dec. 28 {Mart, llieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Bishbp ofMelitene, circa a.d. 570; com¬ 
 memorated Jan. 10 {Cal. Bijzant.'). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOMITILLA, viigin, martyr at Terracina 
 in Campania, under Domitian and Trajan; com¬ 
 memorated May 7 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usxiardi) ; IMay 12 {Mart, llieron.^. [W. F. G.j 
 
 DOMITIUS. (1) Martyr in Syria ; comme¬ 
 morated July 5 {Mart. Rum. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) In Phrygia, oo-io^xaprus, under Julian; com- 
 memoi’ated Aug. 7 {Cal. Bijzant.') [VV. F. G.] 
 
 DOMNINA or DOIMNA, virgin, martyr 
 with her virgin companions ; commemorated 
 April 14 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOMNINUS. (1) Martyr at Thessalonica 
 with Victor; commemorated March 30 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Julia, under Maximian; com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 9 (76.) [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOMUS DEI. (1) Literally, the church 
 as a material building (Optatus, c. Donat, iii. 17). 
 Hence Ital. Duomo, and Germ. Dom. 
 
 (2) The Church, as the whole body of Chris¬ 
 tian peo])le (Lucifer of Cagliari, Fro Athanasio, 
 i. 22 ; Ducange, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 DONA, DONARIA. These words are not 
 unfrequently used by Cliristian writers in the 
 special sense of ofterings placed in churches, parti¬ 
 cularly costly presents given as memorials of 
 some great mercy receiv'ed by the offerers (Jerome, 
 Epist. 27, ad Eustoch.; Ejnst. 13, ad Paulin.: 
 Sidonius Apoll. lib. iv. Ep. 18 ; Paulinus of Nola, 
 Natal. S. Felicis, 6). The corresponding Greek 
 word is avad-npa (Luke xxi. 5 ; 2 Maccab. ix. 16), 
 which Suidas detines as irav rh acpiepwjULet/ou 
 0ey. See, for instance, the account of tbe otler- 
 ings of Constantine to the Anastasis at Jerusa¬ 
 lem (Euseb. Vita Constant, iii. 25). [Corona 
 Lucis ; Votive Offerings.] [C.] 
 
 DONATA, of Scillita, martyr at Carthage 
 with eleven others; commemorated July 17 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi) [W. F. G.] 
 
 DON ATI. [OiiLATi.] 
 
 DONATIANUS. (1) Martyr at Nantes 
 with Rogatianus, his brother; commemorated 
 May 24 {Mart. llieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop and confessor in Africa, with Pre- 
 sidius, Mansuetus, Germanus, and Fuscolus, 
 under Hunnericus ; commemorated Sejff. 6 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DONATILLA, virgin, martyr in Africa, 
 with IMaxima and Secunda, under Gallienus; 
 commemorated July 30 {Mart. llieron., Rom. 
 Vet., Usuardi, Cal. Garth.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DONATES. (1) INlartyr at Rome with 
 Aquilinus and three others ; commemorated 
 Feb. 4 {Mart, llie/on., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Concordia with Secundianus, 
 Romulus, and eighty-six others ; commemorated 
 Feb. 17 {lb.) ; 
 
 (3) Martyr at Carthage ; commemorated Mar. 
 l(/6.); 
 
 (4) Martyr in Africa, with Epiphanius tlie 
 bishop, and others ; commemorated April 7 
 {Mart. Usuardi), April 6 {Mart. JHeron.). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Caesarea in Cajipadocia, with 
 Polyeuctus and Victorius; commemorated May 
 21 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi), 
 
 (6) Bishop and martyr at Aretium in Tuscany 
 under Julian ; commemorated Aug. 7 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., llieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (7) The presbyter and anchorite in a district 
 on Mount Jura, in Belgic Gaul ; commemorated 
 Aug. 19 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (8) Martyr at Antioch, with Restitutus, Vale- 
 rianus, Fructuosa, and twelve others; comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 23 (76.). 
 
 (9) Martyr at Capua, with Quintus and Arc6n- 
 tius; commemorated Sept. 5 {Mart, llieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (10) Martyr with Hermogenes and twenty- 
 
 two others ; commemorated Dec. 12 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOOR (as Svmbol). See St. John x. 9. It 
 seems most probable that in the various repre¬ 
 sentations of sheep leaving or entering their fold 
 or house, and so representing the Jewish or Gen¬ 
 tile Church [Bethlehem ; Church], the door 
 may be intended to recall the words “ I am the 
 door,” to the spectator’s mind. In Allegranza, 
 Mon. di Milano, ^c., tav. ii,, the door is seen 
 five times repeated, evidently with this sym¬ 
 bolic reference, and on the porch or tympanum 
 of the old basilica of St. Aquilinus in the same 
 city the following verses occur:— 
 
 “ Janua sum vitae; precor onincs intro ve’iit'*; 
 
 Per me transibunt qui cocli gaudia qua. nn.t: 
 Virgine qui natus, nullo de pane cicatus, 
 
 Intrantes salvet, redeuntes ipse gubernet.” 
 
 Lupi, Diss. e Lett. i. p. 262 gives a bas-relief 
 in gilded bronze, which contains a gate or door, 
 with the Lamb under it bearing the Cross, and 
 the words “ Ego sum ostium, et ovile ovi- 
 um.” [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DOORS OF CHURCHES. {Januae, 
 
 portae, valvae ; dupa], nvAai.) 
 
 1. The principal outer doors of a church seem 
 to have been in ancient times at the west, if the 
 church was so built that the altar was at the 
 east end, or at any rate in the end facing the 
 altar. In a basilican church of three aisles there 
 were for the most part three western doors : 
 
 “ Alma domus triplid patet ingn dientibus arcu.” 
 
 J’aulinus of Noia, J:p. ;i‘2, ad Sec. 
 
 In Constantine’s great “ Church of the Sa¬ 
 viour ” at Jerusalem, the three doors faced the 
 east [Church, p. 369]. At these doors stood 
 during service the “weepers” {irpoaKXa'iovTes). 
 j If there was a Narthex, the western doors 
 I gave entrance into this, and other doors again 
 ! from the narthex into the nave. The nave was 
 j sometimes again itself divided into chorus and 
 I trajieza—the portions for the clerics and the 
 I peojde respectively—by a screen or jiartition 
 j having doors; but more freiiuently tho.se who 
 entered by the western doors saw before them at 
 once the Iconostasis, or screen enclosing the 
 sanctuary, with its three doors. 
 
 2. The doors in the Iconostasis were known 
 generally as KayKfWodvoibes, Troproi toD ay'iov 
 
674 
 
 DOORKEEPERS 
 
 DORMITORY 
 
 ^T]fi.aTos the side doors distinctively as vXdyiai 
 or trapairSpria. The central doors were called the 
 “ Holy Doors ” (dyiai 6vpai) and sometimes the 
 “ Royal Doors ” (0arrt\£Kat dvpai). 
 
 3. The great western doors of the nave were 
 called the “Royal Gates” (^aaiXiKal irvXai); 
 and this term was also adoj)ted by Latin writers, 
 so that “ regiae ” came to be used substantively 
 for these doors. Anastasius, for instance, says 
 (Vitae Pontiff, c. 119) that pope Honorius (a.d. 
 626-638) covered with silver plates the great 
 royal—the so-called “Median”—doors at the 
 entrance of a church (regias in ingressu ecclesiae 
 majores, quae aiipellantur medianae). When the 
 church had a narthex, the western doors of this 
 were also sometimes called the “ royal ” gates. 
 
 4. The great church of St. Sophia at Constan¬ 
 tinople had nine dooi’s between the narthex and 
 the nave. As these were covered with silver, 
 not only were they called the “ Silver Doors,” 
 but the same term came to designate the doors 
 of other churches which occupied the same 
 position. 
 
 5. Another term, the application of which 
 cannot be absolutejly determined, is the “ Beauti¬ 
 ful Gates” (wpaiai irvXai). These have been 
 supposed to be the gates which separate chorus 
 and trapeza (Goar); those which separate nave 
 from narthex (Ducange) ; or the outer gate of 
 the narthex (Neale). The latter application is 
 supported by tlie fact that the term is taken 
 from the “Beautiful Gate” of the temple, un¬ 
 doubtedly an outer gate. 
 
 6. The “ Angelic Gate ” (dyyeXiK^ ttuAtj) was 
 one which allowed a person to enter the tivapeza, 
 so as to draw near the choir. Nothing farther 
 is known of it. It is not improbable that it was 
 a local term. 
 
 7. The word dvpd is consistently used to de¬ 
 signate a door within the building, and the word 
 ttuAtj to designate the much larger “gates” 
 which admitted the mass of the congregation 
 from without into the narthex or the nave. 
 Epithets like “royal ” “and beautiful” are per¬ 
 haps not used invariably with a special meaning, 
 but the “ Holy Doors ” are always the central 
 doors of the Bema, and no other. 
 
 8. The Holy Doors were opened at the com¬ 
 mencement of the Great Vespers, at all “en¬ 
 trances,” whether at Vespers or in the Liturgy ; 
 and at the end of the Liturgy, when the people 
 are invited to approach for the purpose of com¬ 
 municating (Neale, Eastern Churchy IntroJ. pp. 
 194-200). 
 
 9. The doors of churches were frequently of 
 rich material and workmanship. The outer 
 door's of St. Sophia at Constantinople were of 
 bronze, with ornaments in relief [CilURCii, p. 
 374]; and those of the Iconostasis, as well as 
 those between the narthex and the nave, of 
 silver. And elsewhere, as not unfrequently in 
 the Liber Pontffcaiis, we read of doors of metal 
 gilt, or of wood richly inlaid or carved. [C.] 
 
 DOORKEEPKRS (trvXcopol, Oupwpol, Ostiarii\ 
 an inferior order of clergy mentioned by the 
 Pseudo-Ignatius (Epist. Antioch.'), by Eusebius 
 (//. E. vi. 43), and by Justinian (Novell, iii. 1). 
 There is no mention of them in Tortullian or 
 Cyprian, from which Thomassin ( Vet. et Nov. 
 Eccl. Discip. i. 1. 2, c. 30, § 8) infers that in 
 the early African church their duties wore 
 
 dischargjd by the laity. The council of Lao- 
 dicea (c. 24), speaks of them among the inferior 
 orders of clergy. At the ordination cf a door¬ 
 keeper, after previous instruction by the arch¬ 
 deacon he was presented to the bishop who de¬ 
 livered to him the keys of the church, with the 
 injunction to act as one who must render to 
 God an account of the things which are opened 
 by those keys (iv. Cone. Carth. c. 9). The 4th 
 council of Toledo (c. 4) provides that a door¬ 
 keeper should keep the door of the church at 
 the opening of councils. In the 2nd canon of 
 another council of Toledo, held A.D. 597, it is 
 ordered that a doorkeeper should be appointed 
 by the priest to pi'ov'ide for the cleansing and 
 lighting of the church and sanctuary (Bruns’s 
 Canones, i. 220). In the Apostolic Constitutions 
 (ii. 25) they are spoken of as belonging to that 
 portion of the clergy which represents the Le- 
 vites, but in the lowest grade. Their share of 
 the Agapae was the same as that of a Lector or 
 Cantor (Ibid. ii. 28); there is no mention of 
 their ordination, and they are named among the 
 clergy who were not permitted to baptize (tbid. 
 iii. 11). They were to stand during the time of 
 service at the door of the part of the church 
 allotted to the men (Ibid. ii. 57). Thev were 
 allowed to marry (Ibid. vi. 17). [P. 0.] 
 
 DORIA, martyr with Chrysanthus, under 
 Numerian ; commemorated March 19 (Cal. By- 
 zant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DORMITIO (KolfiTjcris), the “falling asleep,” 
 used to describe the state of those who “ depart 
 hence in the Lord ” (Cyprian, Epist. i. c. 2). 
 More especially it is used to designate the day 
 of the departure or “Assumption ” of the Virgin 
 Mary [Mary, Festivals of] ; Xanthopulus, for 
 instance (quoted by Ducange, s. v. Eormitio), 
 uses the expi'ession, Kolp-qaiv dyvys, tt)v perd- 
 (TTacTiv Xiyoj. See Daniel’s Cudex Liturg., iv. 239 ; 
 and Menard’s Sacram. Greg., pp. 411, 707. [C.] 
 
 DORMITORIUM. A garment for sleeping 
 in; the “lebiton linens” of Pachomius (Vita, 
 c. 22). The gloss on the Pule of St. Benedict 
 explains Dormitoria by the Greek woi'd iyuol 
 prjOpa (Ducange, s.v.). [C.] 
 
 DORMITORY (Dormitorium). It was the 
 primitive custom for monks to sleep all together 
 in one large dormitory (Alteser. Asceticon, ix. 8). 
 Not till the 14th century (Ducange, Glossar. Lot. 
 s. V.) was the custom introduced of using separate 
 sleeping cells. By the rule of Benedict all were 
 to sleep in one room, if possible (Boned. Peg. c. 
 22) with the abbat in their midst (cf. Magistr. 
 Peg. c. 29; Bened. Peg. c. 22) or in larger mo¬ 
 nasteries ten or twenty together with a dean 
 (Bened. Peg. ib. ; cf. Caesar. Arelat. Peg. ad Afo- 
 nach. c. 3 ; Peg. ad Virg. c. 7 ; Aureol. Peg. c. 6 ; 
 Ferreol. Peg. cc. 16, 33). Only the aged, the in¬ 
 firm, the excommunicated were excepted from 
 this arrangement (Cujusd. Reg. c. 13). Each monk 
 was to have a separate bed (Bened. Peg. v. s.; 
 Caesar. Arelat. Peq. v. s.: Fructuos. Peg. c. 17). 
 They wei'e to sleep clothed and girded (Bened. 
 Peg. V. s.; Mag. Peg. c. 11; Cujusd. Peg. v. s.), 
 tlie founder probably intending that the monk 
 should sleep in one of the two suits ordered by 
 his rule (Bened. Peg. c. 55); but in course of 
 time the words were loosely interpreted as 
 meaning only the woollen tunic (Marten, ad loc. 
 
DORONA 
 
 DOVE 
 
 oi'cat.') It was particularly enjoined, puerile as 
 the caution sounds, by Benedict and others, that 
 the monks were not to wear their knives in bed 
 (Bened. Reg. c. 22 : Magist. Reg. c. 11). A light 
 was to be kept burning in the dormitory all 
 night (Bened. Reg. v. s.; Mag. Reg. c. 29; 
 Cujusd. Reg. v. s.). All the monks were to rise 
 at a given signal {Regg. Monast. passim). The 
 dormitory was to be ke])t under lock and key 
 till morning (Mart, ad bened. Reg. c. 48). The 
 sleeping-room for stranger monks was usually 
 close to the great dormitory, and not far from the 
 chapel (jNIart. ad Bened. Reg. c. 53: cf. Capitul. 
 Aquisgr. 68). 
 
 In the first fervor of monastic zeal it was a 
 common practice to sleep on the bare ground 
 (xajaeui/to ; cf. Altes. Ascet. ix. 8 ; Vit. St. Anton. 
 c. 6; Theodoret, Philoth. 1, &c.). Others slept 
 on mats (ipiadia, mattae, stramenta; Cassian. 
 Collat. \. 23; .xviii. 11; Ruffin. Verb. Senior, ii. 
 29, 125); frequently these were made by them¬ 
 selves ( Vit. Fachom. 43), and Augustine speaks 
 of some strict Manicheans as “mattarii” (Cont. 
 Faustin. v. 5). The rule of Benedict allows 
 mattress (sagutn), coverlet (laena or Una'), and 
 pillow (capitate, v. s.); but in Egypt the mat¬ 
 tress was considered a luxury in the 4th century, 
 not permissible except for guests (Cass. Coll. 
 xix. 6). Some of the monks ofTabenna slept 
 in their tunics, half sitting, half lying ( Vita 
 Pachoinii, c. 14, in Rosweyd’s Vit. Pair.). 
 
 The time allow'ed for sleep was for Egyptian 
 monks? in the commencement of monachism very 
 short indeed (Cass. Instit. v. 20; Coll. xii. 15, 
 xiii. 0). Arsenius is said to have contented him¬ 
 self with one hour only. Ruffinus speaks of 
 others who allowed themselves four hours in the 
 night for sleep, assigning four for prayer, four 
 for work (Verb. Sen. c. 199). Even Benedict, 
 though far more tolerant, forbad his disciples to 
 retire to rest again after nocturns {Reg. c. 8 ; cf. 
 Cass. Instit. ii. 12). But the rule was not adhered 
 to strictly (Marten, ad Bened. Reg. 1. c.). 
 
 The rules of the canonic! in the 8th and 9th 
 century were very similar to those of the monks. 
 Chrodegang ordered all to sleep in one chamber, 
 unless with the bishop’s licence (Reg. c. 3). 
 This w’as enforced on the canonic! in their 
 monasteries and on those dwelling under the 
 bishop’s roof, by the council of Tours, 813 a.d. 
 (Cone. Turon. iii. cc. 23, 24). The council at 
 Aachen, three years later, oi’dered bishops to see 
 that the canonic! slept in one dormitory (Cone. 
 Aquisgr. cc. 11, 123); and in its second session 
 repeated the decree of the council at Chalons 
 813 A. D., that all nuns, except the sick and in¬ 
 firm, should sleep in one dormitory on separate 
 beds (Cone. Cabill. c. 59, cf. Cone. Mogunt. 813 
 A.D., c. 9, cf. Cone. Turon. ii. 567 A.D., c. 14). 
 Grimlaic, in his rule for solitaries, orders that 
 no fancy work is to be allowed on the coverlets. 
 
 [I. G. S.] 
 
 DORONA, “ Indus et Dorona,” commemo¬ 
 rated Dec. 19 (Cal. Armen.) [W. G.] 
 
 DOROTHEA, virgin, martyr with Theophi- 
 lus at Caesarea in Cappadocia; commemorated 
 Feb. 6 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOROTHEUS. (1) Martyr at Tarsus in 
 Cilicia, with Castor; commemorated Mar. 28 
 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 575 
 
 (2) Bishop of Tyre, martyr under Julian 
 commemorated June 5 (Cal. Byzunt.). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Nicomedia, with Gorgonius, 
 
 under Diocletian ; commemorated Sept. 9 (Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DORYMEDON, martyr with Trophimus 
 and Sabbatius, a.d. 278 ; commemorated Sept. 19 
 (Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DOSSAL (Dorsale, dorsile pallium). A cur¬ 
 tain hung on the walls of the choir of a church, 
 or other place of dignity, behind the stalls of the 
 clerks, “a dorso clericorurn ” (Durandus, Ra¬ 
 tionale, I. iii. 23). “Cortina quae pendet ad 
 dorsum ” (The Monk of St. Gall, Vita Car. Mag. 
 i. 4). Ekkehard the younger (De Casibus S. Galli, 
 c. 1), speaks of a place decked “ tapeto et dor- 
 sili ” (Ducange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 DOTALIA INSTRUMENTA. [Contract 
 OF Marriage, p. 458.] 
 
 DOVE (as Symbol). Like the mystic fish 
 and lamb, the dove has more than one meaning 
 or ti*ain of meaning: it is used svmbolically for 
 the Divine Being and for the Christian wor • 
 shipper; and is also represented simply in its 
 own form on graves and the walls of cata¬ 
 combs. It is used very frequently (see wood- 
 cut) with Noah in the ark, in the literal sense; 
 and in all representations of the Lord’s baptism 
 
 Fresco in the Catacomb of Domitilla, probably secSond centnry. 
 
 and elsewhere, the dove indicates the presence 
 of the Holy Spirit. In one instance, an Orante 
 surrounded by several doves is opposed on one 
 medallion of the front of a sarcophagus to the 
 Good Shepherd with His sheep on another. 
 
576 
 
 DOVE 
 
 DOVE 
 
 This use of the dove is very frequent in the 
 iTionuiuoiits of Southern Gaul 5 where, as in 
 the catacombs, the birds which stand on each 
 side of the monosiranis or crosses are often clearly 
 intended for doves. See Leblant,//iscr. divsticnncs ■, 
 dc 1(1 Guule ciutei'icui’cs ciu huitictnc laiis, 
 
 185G. 
 
 As an emblem of the Third Person of the 
 Trinity, the car.ved or painted figure of the dove 
 appeared from a very early period in all bap¬ 
 tisteries (see Luke iii. 24-). One of the earliest 
 examples of this is the baptistery in the ceme¬ 
 tery of St. Pontianus (Aringhi, ii. 275). The 
 painting, though considered by Martigny as of 
 later date than the building, is referred by him 
 to the 6th century, and represents the Lord’s 
 
 Raptlsmal Dove. Oatiux)nib of roiitianns ; seventh century. 
 
 thought. One is ^latt. x. 16, “ Be ye wise as 
 serpents and harmless as dovesthe other, 
 Ps. Iv. 6, “ 0 that 1 had wings like a dove, then 
 would I flee away and be at rest.” The passages 
 in Cant. i. 15, ii. 14, v. 2, vi. 9, refer to the 
 Church, and therefore may be taken as referring 
 simply to all faithful souls. Martigny give.^ a 
 drawing of a seal with a dove in the centre, 
 surrounded by the words “ Veni si amas,” 
 obvious reference to Cant. ii. 10. The dove 
 with the olive or palm-branch, which so 
 often accompanies it, is held equivalent to 
 the form “In Pace.” As with other birds, the 
 flying or caged dove has reference to the de¬ 
 liverance of the soul from the fle.sh in death, 
 or to its imprisoned state in life. [See Bird.] 
 Aringhi quotes St. Ambrose’s sermon on St. Euse¬ 
 bius, “ Altiora facilius penetrantur simplicitate 
 mentis, quam levitate pennarumand St. Au¬ 
 gustine on St. Matt. x. to the .same purpose. 
 In Aringhi, ii. p. 145, the dove is a.ssociated with 
 the peacock; also, p. 139, in a vault of the 
 Catacomb of St. Priscilla. In Bottari, tav. 181, 
 it hovers with the olive-branch above the three 
 holy children in the flames. 
 
 Twelve doves, representing the Twelve Apostles, 
 occur in Bottari, i. p. 118, on a mosaic crucifix. 
 See also Paulinus of Nola(A7/>. ad Severum, xx.^ii. 
 c. 10). He thus describes a mosaic (musivum 
 opus) in his church. [Cross.] 
 
 baptism in Jordan. The rude and grim figures 
 in this painting remind us of those of the Lau- 
 I'entine and other very early MSS. The sym¬ 
 metrical arrangement is also like early Byzantine 
 work, so called ; and the river is a winding trench, 
 with a curious tyjiical resemblance to the actual 
 course of Jordan, which induces us to think the 
 jiainter had visited it. So also in both bap¬ 
 tisteries at Ravenna. The mosaic of St. Mark’s 
 preserves this likeness, with the addition of three 
 adoring angels, a star above the dove, fish in the 
 river, and the double axe laid to the root of a 
 tree. This imagery is strictly followed in the 
 wild and powerful painting of Tintoret, in the 
 Scuola di S. Rocco, now scarcely intelligible 
 (Ruskin, Modern Pauders, vol. ii.). The Turin 
 miniature is remarkable for its topographical 
 ‘accuracy as to two of the sources of Jordan, 
 
 labelled re.spectively ^0 T^s y and 
 
 ^or]S p. 
 
 Martigny also mentions 
 
 figures of doves on a font or laver of very early 
 date belonginsr to the church of Gondrecourt 
 (^Pevue Arche'ologique, v. i. p. 129), where how¬ 
 ever only birds are said to be drinking from 
 vases, and pecking at grapes. See also Pa- 
 ciaudi, De Cultii S. Joannis Baptistae, pp. 58, 
 69, where copies of a miniature from a MS. in 
 the Royal Library at Turin, and of a mosaic in 
 St. Mark’s in Venice, are given, both containing 
 the dove. A golden or silver dove w'as often 
 suspended above the font in early times. [Dove, 
 THE Eucharistic.] These sometimes con¬ 
 tained the anointing oil used in baptism, and 
 extreme unction (Martigny, s. v.; and Aringhi, 
 vol. ii. p. 326, c. 5). On lamps in form of doves, 
 see Aringhi, ii. 325, 1. 
 
 As a svnibol of the believer, the dove of 
 course has chief reference to two texts of H. S., 
 belonging to different yet harmonious trains of 
 
 “ rieno coruscat Trinitas mysterio: 
 
 Stat Christus agno: vox Patris coelo tonat: 
 
 Et per colunibam Spiritus Sanctus fluit. 
 
 Crucem corona lucido cingit globo ; 
 
 Ciii coronae sunt corona apostoli, 
 
 Quorum figura est in columbarum choro. 
 
 Pia Trinitatis unitas Christo coit, 
 
 Habente et ipsa Trinitate insignia; 
 
 Duin revelat vox paterna, et Spiritus: 
 
 Sauctam fatentur crux et agnus victimam. 
 
 Eegnum et triumphum purpura et palina indicant 
 Petram superstat ipsa petru ecclesiae, 
 
 De qua sonori quatuor fontes meant, 
 
 Evangelistae, viva Christi flumina.’ [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DOVE, THE Eucharistic. Pyxes or recep¬ 
 tacles for the reserved host were not unfre- 
 quently made of gold or silver in the shape of a 
 dove, and suspended over the altar. Doves ol 
 the precious metals, emblematic of the Holy 
 Spirit, Avere also suspended above the font in 
 early churches. In the life of St. Basil by the 
 Pseudo-Amphilochius, it is narrated that that 
 father, after a vision that appeared to him while 
 celebrating the Eucharist, divided the wafer into 
 three parts, one of which he partook of with great 
 awe, the second he preserved to be buried with 
 him, and placed the third in a golden dove hang¬ 
 ing over the altar. He afterwards sent for a 
 goldsmith, and had a new golden dove made to 
 contain the sacred morsel (Amphiloch. Vit. Basil., 
 c. 6). 
 
 One of the charges brought against the Ace- 
 phalian heretic Severus by the clergy of Antioch 
 at the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 536, was 
 that he removed and appropriated to his own 
 use the gold and silver doves hanging over the 
 sacred fonts and altars, apyvpas 
 
 wepirrepas Kpep-ap-^vas virepavu tcou QPiwv ko- 
 \vp.^r}dpc!>u Kai Bv(na(TTTipiwv .... i<T(p€T€p'iaaTO 
 
 (Labbe', Concil. v. 159). 
 
 Such doves are mentioned by Anastasius in the 
 Liber Pontijicalis, e.g., St. Hilar. 70, “columbam 
 
DOWRY 
 
 DOXOLOGY 
 
 577 
 
 ani'eam pensau. libras 21Cf. Ducange, suh voc.: 
 Durantus, De Jiitibus, lib. i. c. xvi. §5; Paulia. 
 Rolan. JCp. xxxii. Not. 154, p. 910. [E. V.J 
 
 DOWRY. [Arriiae : Marriage.] 
 
 DOXOIiOGY (Ao^o\oyla). The term doxo- 
 logy is usually confined (1) to the “Gloria in 
 Excelsis,”'which is called the greater doxology, 
 and also the Angelical Hymn, from its opening 
 clause recorded by St. Luke as having been sung 
 bv the angels who announced the birth of Christ 
 to the shepherds ; and (2) to the “ Gloria Patri,” 
 which is called the lesser doxology. The term 
 is, however, sometimes given to the “Trisagion” 
 (Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts, heaven 
 and earth are Aill of Thy glory), called also 
 the Sera])hic hymn, in reference to the vision of 
 the Serajihim described by Isaiah (c. vi.); and 
 also to the word Alleluia (q. v.), when repeated 
 again and again as a hymn of praise. 
 
 The exact p<^riods of the origin of these dox- 
 ologies are unknown, owing to the extreme 
 scantiness of early Christian literature. But it 
 may be safely ('’onjectured that, in their earliest 
 forms, they came into use soon after that circu¬ 
 lation of the GTispel narratives which must have 
 quickly become general among Christians in pro¬ 
 portion to the cultivation of each local church, 
 and its means for communicating with the gene¬ 
 ral body of believers. The extent and rapidity 
 of this circulation being involved in extreme 
 obscurity, so far as contemporary history informs 
 us, the positiveness with which later writers 
 have spoken of the almost Apostolic origin ot 
 these hymns must be set down amongst those 
 numerous assumptions which have clouded our 
 real knowledge of judmitive Christian life and 
 devotions. • The “ Trisagion ” in all probability 
 is the most ancient of all, as it would be the 
 natural expression of the adoration of the Jewish 
 Christians, who were already in possession of 
 the Old Testament, and who would have been 
 familiar with the book of Isaiah before their 
 conversion to Christianity. The use of the 
 “ Gloria in Excelsis,” which originally consisted 
 only of its ojjening sentence, would be equally 
 natural, wherever the narrative of St. Luke was 
 known ; and the “ Gloria Patri,” which origi¬ 
 nally consisted only of its first clause, would be 
 the result of a familiarity with the last verses 
 of St. Matthew’s Gospel. 
 
 The “Gloria in Excelsis” is unquestionably 
 of Eastern origin. Liturgical speculators, in¬ 
 deed, have ineeniously discovered a reference to 
 its existence in very early writers. It has been 
 frequently assumed that it was in fact “ the 
 hymn,” which Christians sang on all solemn 
 occasions, including such as are referred to* in 
 Acts xvi. 25; 1 Cor. xiv. 26; and Col. iii. 16. 
 When the author of the dialogue attributed to 
 Lucian speaks of the Christians as watching 
 all night for the purpose of singing hymns, 
 it is supposed that their chief song was the 
 “ Gloria in Excelsis.” It is also held to have 
 been specially re .'erred to in the famous passage 
 U) Pliny’s letter to Trajan: “ Affirmabant haiic 
 fuisse summam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, quod 
 essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, car- 
 menque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.” 
 In reality, however, we first meet with this 
 doxology, and in something very like its final 
 form, in the book known as The Apostolical 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 Consiitufions (vii. 47). It is there described as 
 the “morning prayer,” and stands as follows: 
 
 “ Glory be to God on high, and on earth j)eace. 
 good will towards men (e’v apdpcoirois euSoKi'a). 
 We praise Thee, we sing to Thee (a/x^'o^'/xeV ce), 
 we bless Thee, we glorify Thee, w'e worshij) d'hee, 
 through the great High Priest; Thee the true 
 God, the only unbegotten, whom no one can 
 approach for the great glory. 0 Lord, heavenly 
 king, God the Father Almighty, Lord God, the 
 Father of Christ, the Lamb without s])ot, who 
 taketh away the sin of the world, receive our 
 prayer, thou that sittest upon the Cherubim ! 
 For thou only art holy, thou only. Lord Jesus, 
 the Christ of God, the God of every created 
 being, and our king; by whom unto Thee be 
 glory, honour, and adoration.” Unfortunately, 
 the writer of the Constitutions was not exempt 
 from the spirit of falsification, wdiich was by no 
 means rare among early religious writers. As 
 it is impossible to believe him when he attributes 
 a liturgy of palpably Oriental character to St. 
 Clement, we cannot be sure that in this record 
 of the great doxology he has not made alterations 
 or interpolations of his own. In the mention of 
 the doxology in the treatise De Virginitote (in 
 Athanasius’s Works') only the beginning is quoted, 
 and even here it is not identical with that given 
 by the author of the Constitutions. Giving direc¬ 
 tions to the virgins for their morning devotions, 
 Athanasius says, “ Early in the morning say this 
 Psalm, ‘0 God,'my God, early will I wake to 
 Thee.’ When it is light, say, ‘Bless ye the 
 Lord, all ye works of the Lord,’ and ‘ Glory to 
 God in the highest, and peace on earth, goodwill 
 towards men. We sing to Thee, we bless Thee, 
 we worship Thee,’ and the rest (of the hymn)” 
 (c. 20; tom. 2, p. 120, ed. Benedict.). 
 
 St. Chrysostom, on the other hand, in de¬ 
 scribing the morning devotions of those who led ( 
 an austere life, says that they sang, as the angels 
 did “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
 peace, goodwill towards men ”; making no men¬ 
 tion of the subsequent additions {Horn. 69 in 
 Matth.). How soon the use of the com])lete hymn 
 became general in the Western Church it is im¬ 
 possible to say. The 4th council of Toledo, a.d. 
 633, treats of it in its completeness, defends it, as 
 such, against certain rigorists who objected to 
 its repetition on the ground that only its first 
 sentence was of divine origin. “ For the same 
 reason,” said the fathers of the council (can. 13), 
 
 “ they might have rejected the le.sser doxology, 
 
 ‘ Glory and honour be to the b'ather, and to the 
 Son, and to the,. Holy Ghost,’ which was com¬ 
 posed by men; and also this greater doxology, 
 {)art of which was sung by the angels at our 
 Saviour’s birth ; ‘ Glory be to God on high, and 
 on earth peace to men of goodwill ;’ but the 
 rest that follows was composed and addt!d to it 
 by the doctors of the Church.” 
 
 The period at which this doxology was gene¬ 
 rally' introduced into the eucharistic office in the 
 West is entirely' a matter of conjecture. There 
 is no foundation for the common idea that it 
 formed a portion of the early liturgies. Justin 
 Martyr (^Apol. i. c. 65) in describing the eucha¬ 
 ristic worship of his contemporaries, makes no 
 mention of this hymn. St. Cyrihof Jerusalem, 
 in his 5th catechesis on St. Peter’s 1st Ej)istle, 
 .»niic fixing certain details in the eucharistic 
 service, such as the “Sursum corda,” &c., gives 
 
578 
 
 DOXOLOGY 
 
 DOXOLOGY 
 
 uo hint of its use. Nor is it found in any ot 
 the earliest liturgies, whether Western or 
 Kastern, which are in existence. In the East, it 
 is still used in the non-eucharistic morning ser¬ 
 vices of the Church, being sung on Sundays and 
 the greater festivals, and recited on ordinary days. 
 It was fii'st a])])oiuted (according to the Liber 
 Poatif.) to be said in the Roman Liturgy by Pope 
 Symmachus, who was raised to the Pontificate in 
 498, but only on Sundays and the festivals of 
 martyrs, and ajijiarently its recital was held to 
 be a special privilege; for the Gregorian Sacra- 
 mentary (p. 1) gives the following directions con¬ 
 cerning it: “ Item dicitur Gloria in Excelsis Deo^ 
 si episcopus fuerit, tantummodo die Dominico, 
 sive diebus testis. A presbyteris autem minime 
 dicitur, nisi in solo paschi. Quando vero letania 
 agitur, neque Gloria in Excehis Deo, neque Alle¬ 
 luia canitur.” Pope Stephen the 3rd directed 
 that on the highest festiv^als it should be sung 
 only by bishops, at least in the Lateran Church. 
 Pope Calixtus 2nd granted, as a privilege to the 
 monks of Tournus * that they should use it on 
 the Feast of the Annunciation ; “pro reverentia 
 B. Marine semper Virginis, cujus nomine locus 
 vester insignis est, in Annunciatione Domini Sal- 
 vatoris nostri hymnum Angelicum inter missa- 
 rum solemnia abbati et fratribus pronunciare 
 concedimus ” (Calixti epist. ad Franconem Ahha- 
 tem monasterii 2'renorchiensis). From the Mo- 
 zarabic ritual it seems to have been about this 
 time recited in Spain on Sundays and certain 
 festivals, in the eucharistic office; but in the 
 Gallican Church it appears even when introduced 
 to have been for a long time only sung on public 
 days of thanksgiving. Its ultimate gradual 
 adoption throughout the Western Church was 
 uo doubt due to the increasing influence of the 
 example of Rome. At the same time our modern 
 desire for uniformity in religious worship was 
 unknown in the early ages of Christianity, not 
 merely because our ideas on disciplinai-y organi¬ 
 zation were as yet undeveloped, but because the 
 facilities for communication, both personally and 
 by letter, were comparatively slight, and local 
 customs were preserved, as almost sacred in the 
 eyes of those who had received them from their 
 fathers. [Gloria in Excelsis.] 
 
 2. The origin and history of the “Gloria Patri,” 
 or lesser doxology, is even more obscure than 
 that of the “ Gloida in Excelsis,” and in its 
 present shape it is the result of the Arian 
 controversies concerning the nature of Christ. 
 It is quite impossible to trace its use to the 
 three first centuries ; if it was really known 
 to the primitive Christians, it probably arose, 
 as has been already suggested, from the juxta¬ 
 position of the three persons of the Trinity, 
 in the command given by the Lord to his 
 Apostles to teach and baptize all nations. For 
 several centuries, the clause “ As it was in the 
 beginning, &c.,” was certainly unknown in 
 many parts of Christendom. The 4th council 
 of Toledo, A.D. 633, makes no mention of this 
 clause, and at the same time gives a version 
 of the first portion which is not identical 
 
 * Tournus was an abbey in Burgundy, on the SaOne, 
 between Macon and Chalons; and the privilege granted 
 by Stephen is reniarkahle as one of the earliest instances 
 in which the bishop of Rome claimed a right over the 
 public forms of prayer in local churches. 
 
 with that which subsequently became universal, 
 reading it thus: “ Glory and honour be to the 
 Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, 
 world without end, Amen.” In the old Spanish 
 liturgy, known as the Mozarabic, supposed to be 
 of a little later date, it occurs in the same form 
 as in the decree of Toledo. In the treatise of 
 Walafridus Strabo De rebus ecclesiasticis (c. 25), 
 the different usages of difl'erent countries are 
 particularly sjiecified. “ Dicendum,” he says, 
 “ de hymuo, qui ob honorem sanctae et unicae 
 Trinitatis officiis omnibus interseritur, eum a 
 Sanctis patribus aliter atque aliter ordinatum. 
 Nam Hispani sicut superius commemoravimus, 
 ita eum dici omnimodis voluerunt. Graeci 
 autem, ‘Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, 
 et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. 
 Amen.’ Latini vero eodem ordine et eisdem 
 verbis hunc hymnum decantant, addentes tantum 
 in medio, ‘ Sicut erat in principio.’ ” The writer 
 of the treatise De Vinjinitate which is often 
 placed among the works of Athanasius, gives 
 the “Gloria Patri,” as “Glory be to the Father, 
 and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, world 
 without end. Amen.” 
 
 The addition of the second clause is enjoined 
 in the year 529, by the 2nd council of Vaison, 
 which at the same time asserts that it was 
 already universal among the Greeks. “ Quia 
 non solum,” says the council, “ in Sede Aposto- 
 lica, sed etiam per totum Orientem et totam 
 Africam vel Italiam, propter haereticorum astu- 
 tiam, qua Dei Filium non semper cum Patre 
 fuisse, sed a tempoi*e fuisse blasphemant, in omni¬ 
 bus clausulis post Gloria, sicut erat in principio 
 dicitur, etiam et nos in universis ecclesiis nostris 
 hoc ita esse dicendum decrevimus.” From which 
 decree it appears certain that the use of the 
 additional clause was at the least not general in 
 Gaul at that time, though it is likely that it 
 had gradually been introduced from Italy. It is 
 remarkable, indeed, as the new addition was 
 adopted with the direct object of repudiating 
 the Arian doctrine, that it should not have 
 spread more rapidly eastward, after the decisive 
 action of the council of Nice in asserting the 
 orthodox faith. 
 
 From the writers of the Arian period, again, 
 it would seem that there wei’e important valua¬ 
 tions in the traditional forms of the first clause, 
 to which great significance was attached by the 
 adherents of the opposing doctrines. One of these 
 forms stood thus: “ Glory be to the Father, and 
 to the Son, with the Holy Ghost ; ” and another, 
 “ Glory be to the Father, in or by the Son, and 
 by the Holy Ghost.” Sozomen asserts (//. E. 
 iii. 20) that the form “ Glory be to the Father 
 through the Son ” was adopted by the Arians as 
 distinctly implying the subordination of the Son 
 to the Father; and Valesius believes that the 
 aKpoTe\evTia which the Arians used in their 
 chanting (76. viii. 8), composed to support their 
 own views (irphs tt]v avrwv So^ar), were doxo- 
 logies. On the other hand, Philostorgius, him¬ 
 self an Arian, alleges that the ancient form was 
 really that which the Arians preferred, and that 
 Flavian of Antioch was the first person who 
 introduced the form now used, every one before 
 him having said either “ Glory be to the Father 
 by the Son,” or “Glory be to the Father in the 
 Son.” It is to be noted, also, that St. Basil 
 was accused of having introduced a novelty, 
 
DKACONAKIUS 
 
 DRAGON 
 
 when he said, “ Glory be to the Father, and to 
 the Son;” and that in his vindication of himself 
 i^De Spiritu Sancto, c. 29 [al. 70 ft'.]) he declai-es 
 that all the thi'ee forms were ancient and to be 
 used in tne Micene sense. He says, too, that his own 
 practice was that of Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, 
 Dionysius of Rome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Diony¬ 
 sius of Alexandria, Origen, Athenogenes, Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus, Firmilian, and Meletius. Each 
 form indeed, was probably used indift'erently, 
 during the long period when the faith of the 
 Church was left undefined, that is, until the 
 council of Nice in the early part of the 4th cen¬ 
 tury. How soon, in its present complete form, it 
 was generally used in connection with the recita¬ 
 tion of the Psalms, it is impossible to say. It is 
 directed to be thus recited by St. Benedict (^Regula, 
 c. 18) where he writes, “In primis dicantur versus; 
 ‘ Deus in adjutorium,’ &c., ‘ Domine ad adjuvan- 
 dum,’ &c., et ‘Gloria.’” But whether he was 
 introducing a novelty, or merely sanctioning a 
 practice already introduced, is a matter of mere 
 conjecture. [See Psalmody.] [J. M. C.] 
 
 DRACONARIUS. Strictly speaking this 
 word denotes the bearer of the military standard, 
 on which a dragon was represented, “ vexillifer, 
 qui fert vexillum ubi est draco depictus ” (Du- 
 cange, s. r.). 
 
 When Constantine after his conversion placed 
 the Christian symbol on the military ensigns 
 instead of the dragon, the name outlived the 
 change, and the standard-bearer was still called 
 draconarius. Sometimes we find the ancient 
 .symbol joined to the new, the dragon being 
 placed beneath the cross. 
 
 In the Christianized empire this name came 
 to signify the official who carried a standard or 
 banner in ecclesiastical processions; a ti’ansfer- 
 ence which was facilitated by the fact that the 
 official in question often carried, as the soldiers 
 also did, the labarum with the cross, Constan¬ 
 tine’s chosen symbol. 
 
 Pellicia states (Politia, ii. 113, ed. 1780) that 
 in his time an object resembling almost exactly 
 the ancient labarum, as depicted on coins, was 
 still carried in supplications, and called “ gon¬ 
 falon ” by the Italians. 
 
 The name Draconarius seems also to have been 
 sometimes given to the ci’oss-bearer. [C.] 
 
 DRAGON (as Symbol). [See Serpent.] 
 Though the serpent from the earliest ages has 
 been a symbol of both good and evil, the dragon, 
 wherever he occurs in early Christian art, seems 
 to repre.sent the enemy of mankind, all his temp¬ 
 tations, and the evil desires of mankind which 
 combine with them. The images of the Apo¬ 
 calypse have much to do with this, of course, 
 and the dragon appears in MSS. of that book, as 
 in a Saxon one now in the Bodlefan Library. 
 The dragon-standards of cohorts, on the con¬ 
 version of Constantine, had the Cross or mono¬ 
 gram of Christ placed above the serpentine 
 image; the name of the standard-bearer [Dra¬ 
 conarius] being applied in after times to bearers 
 of banners in Church processions. The labarum 
 is represented as planted on the body of a ser¬ 
 pent, in a medal given by Aringhi after Baro¬ 
 nins (vol. ii. p. 705). 
 
 The fish or whale of Jonah is often rej)re- 
 sented in the catacombs as a sort of draconic 
 nondescript (see Bottari Ivi. and passim, De 
 
 679 
 
 Ross., &c.), perhaps with an idea of carrying 
 out the symbolism of our Lord’s passing under 
 and out of the power of hell and of death. But 
 the idea of a sea-monster seems always intended 
 to be conveyed. The idea of the dragon as a 
 winged crocodile or lizard may have been derived 
 from remains of the Sauri: a skeleton of some 
 animal of that family is mentioned by Mrs. 
 Jameson as having been exhibited at Aix in a 
 fossil state, as the frame of a dragon which had 
 long devastated the neighbourhood. Prof. Kings¬ 
 ley calls attention to the fact that the pterodac- 
 tyles of the lias were literally flying dragons to 
 all intents and purposes. The Griffin, as a mi¬ 
 nister of God’s service, is quite distinct from the 
 dragon (see s. v.) » For Daniel and the Apocry¬ 
 phal Dragon or Serpent see Bottari, v. 1, tav. 
 xix. and woodcut. 
 
 The Gothic imagination, in later days, revelled 
 in dragons; the seven-headed beast, with crowns 
 and nimbuses on all his heads except that 
 “ wounded to death ” (Rev. xii.), is a type of 
 such art; see Didron’s Outline, &c., vol. i. p. 162, 
 “from a 12th century Psalterium cum figuris,” 
 in the Bibiiotheque Royale. In Constantine’s 
 Mosaic, (Euseb. de Vita Const, lit. iii. c. 3; sec 
 also Didron, Iconogr. Chre'tienne, vol. i., art. 
 Croix), the serpent or dragon is associated 
 with the Cro.ss as the conquei’ed enemy of man¬ 
 kind. The serpent is placed at the foot of the 
 Cross of Lothaire, and in the missal of Charles 
 the Bald (Essay by Mons. G. St. Laurent, in 
 Didron’s Annales Archeologiqucs, vol. xxv. See 
 Serpent.) dragons are mentioned as occupying 
 alternate panels of bas-relief with doves, drinking 
 or pecking at grapes, on a font from the ancient 
 church of Godrecourt, Revue Archeologique, vol. 
 i. p. 129. 
 
 Gold’s representation {Thesaurus Diptychorum 
 V. ii.) of the ivory binding of the Codex Laures- 
 tanus consists in part of our Lord trampling on 
 
 • Bottari refers to Bosio, de, Cmce, vi. c. xi.; Ciampini, 
 Vet. Mmi. t. i. c. xxl. p. 191; Oretzor, de Vruce, t. iiu 
 lib. 1. c. 33. 
 
 2 P 
 
680 
 
 DRAMAS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 the lion and dragon, while the serpent is carved I 
 also near Him. [See Skrfknt,] For the doves ! 
 and temj)ting sor])ent on the Barberini gem see 
 same article, and Gori, 2'h. iJiptiich, vol. iii. 
 
 р. IGO. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DRAMAS, Christian. As works of lite¬ 
 rature, dramas such as the Xpiarhs iracrx^tiv 
 ascribed to Gregory of Nazianzus, do not come 
 within tlie scope of this Dictionary. Nor have we 
 any suflicient evidence that sacred dramas were 
 ever acted till after the time of Charlemagne, 
 which forms the chronological limit of its archae¬ 
 ology. All that can be said, therefore, is to 
 note the fact that there is no proof of the prac¬ 
 tice of dramatic representations of sacred history 
 prior to that period, but that probably those 
 which soon afterwards became very popular 
 were not entirely novelties, and, as the present 
 writer has noticed elsewhere {Diet, of the Bible^ 
 s. V. Maijif that names and descriptions like 
 those which Bede gil-es of Caspar, Melchior, and 
 Belthasar {de CoHectan.f appear to imply a dra¬ 
 matic as well as pictorial representation of the 
 facts of the Nativity. [E. H. P.] 
 
 DREAMS. It does not appear that the at¬ 
 tempt to foretel the future by the interpretation 
 of ordinary dreams was condemned by the early 
 Church ; rather it was acknowledged that dreams 
 might be made the A^ehicle of divine revelation. 
 But some of the old heathen practices by which 
 men sought to acquire supernatural knowledge 
 in dreams, such as sleeping in an idol’s temple 
 wrapped in the skin of a sacrifice (Virgil, Aeneid 
 vii. 88), or under the boughs of a sacred ti'ee, 
 were distinctly condemned. Jerome (in loco) 
 takes Isaiah Ixv. 4 to refer to such practices. 
 There was no impiety (he says) which Israel in 
 those days did not perpetrate, “sitting or dwell¬ 
 ing in sepulchres, and sleeping in the shrines of 
 idols; where they used to pass the night (incu- 
 bare) on skins of victims laid on the ground that 
 they might learn the future by dreams, as the 
 heathen do in certain temples even unto this day” 
 (Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlex. xi. 172). [C.] 
 
 DRESS. This article relates to the ordinary 
 dress of Christians, and the dress of the clergy 
 in civil life. For the ministerial dress, see Vest¬ 
 ments. 
 
 1. Dress of Christians generally. —In the ear¬ 
 liest days of the Church Christians probably took 
 little thought for raiment; yet even in the first 
 century “ gay clothing ” was found in Christian 
 assemblies (St. James ii. 2) as well as in kings’ 
 palaces. For Christians wore the ordinary dress 
 of their station and country ; neither in speech 
 nor in manners did they differ from other men; 
 whether in cities of the Greeks or cities of the 
 barbarians they followed the customs of the place 
 in dress and manner of life (Epist. ad Diognetuin, 
 
 с. 5 ; Tertullian, Apohget. c. 42). Here and there 
 a convert adopted or retained—as Justin did—the 
 napless cloak (rp'i^cor) which was characteristic 
 of the philosopher, and especially of the Cynic; 
 but this did not distinguish him from the hea¬ 
 then, but from those who made no profes.sion of 
 philosophy or asceticism. There is no reason to 
 doubt that those converts who had a professional 
 dress—as civil and military officials—continued 
 to wear it whenever duty required. 
 
 But if the Christian was not ',n early times 
 
 distinguished from the heathen by his garb, 
 there was always in the Cburcli—as there could 
 not fail to be—a strong feeling against luxury, 
 display, and immodesty in a})parel. Clement of 
 Alexandria, who represents a somewhat ascetic 
 tendency, condemns (Stromata, ii. 10, p. 232 ff.) 
 all kinds of dye for that which is but the cover¬ 
 ing of man’s shame, all gold and jeweliy, all 
 over-nice })laiting of the hair or decoration of 
 the face ; he seems even to imply that there is 
 no reason why men’s dress should differ from 
 that of women, as in both cases it serves but the 
 same purj)ose of covering and protecting from 
 the cold. He will none of cloth of gold or Indian 
 silk, the product of a poor worm turned to pur¬ 
 poses of pride; still less of those fine materials 
 which display what they seem to cover. Let 
 the stuffs which Christians wear be of their 
 natural colour, not dyed with hues fit only for a 
 Bacchic procession. It is permissible to weave 
 stuffs soft and pleasant to wear, not gaudy so as 
 to attract the gaze. The long train which 
 sweeps the ground and impedes the step is an 
 abomination to him, as also the short immodest 
 tunic of the Laconian damsel. In a word, he 
 urges simplicity and modesty in all points. 
 
 Clement’s invective probably implies that 
 luxury in dress was not unknown among the 
 faithful in his time; this is certainly the case 
 with that of Tertullian, whose denunciations are 
 expressly addressed to Christians. In his treatise 
 on women’s dress, he charges on the “ sons of 
 God,” who lusted after the daughters of men, 
 the invention of the adventitious aids of femi¬ 
 nine beauty—the gold and jewehs, the brilliant 
 dye.s, the black powder with which the eyelids 
 were tinged, the unguent which gave colour to 
 the cheek, the wash which changed the hair to 
 the fashionable yellow, the towers of false tresses 
 piled upon the head and neck (De Cultu Femm- 
 arum, i. 2, 6, 8; ii. 5, 6, 7). Why', he asks, 
 should Christian women clothe themselves in 
 gold and jewels and gorgeous dyes, when they 
 never displayed their charms in processions, as 
 the heathen did, and needed not to pass through 
 the streets except when they' went to church 
 or to visit a sick brother—not occasions for 
 gorgeous apparel (ih. ii. 11)? Why should 
 they imitate the Apocalyptic woman that 
 was “arrayed in ])urple and scarlet colour, 
 and decked with gold and precious stones and 
 pearls?” (ih, ii. 12). He does not object to 
 seemly and becoming dress (cultus), and approves 
 attention to the hair and skin, but he inveighs 
 against such decoration (oruatus) as seems in¬ 
 tended to attract notice (ib. i. 4; ii. 2). The 
 wrist accustomed to a bracelet would hardly 
 bear a chain, the leg adorned with an anklet 
 would scarcely bear the fetter; some necks were 
 so loaded with pearls and emeralds as hardly to 
 afford room for the headsman’s sword (ik ii. 13). 
 Virgins ought alway's to cover their faces when 
 they had occasion to go abroad (De Virgin. 
 Veland. passim). 
 
 Nor does the vehement African spare the men ; 
 he speaks with contempt of their foolish efforts 
 to please the other sex by' artistic clipping of 
 the beard, by dressing the hair, by' dyeing white 
 locks, by singeing the down from the skin, even 
 by using the feminine aids of paint and powder 
 on the tace (De Cuitu Fern. ii. 8). To the same 
 effect Cyprian speaks (Dc Habitu Virginum^ c. 
 
DRESS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 581 
 
 12 fF.), anrl so speaks the treatise De Bono Budi~ 
 citiae (c. 12) attributed to him. 
 
 From such passages it is evident that Chris¬ 
 tians in the latter part of the second and the 
 beginning of the third century, both men and 
 women, followed the fashion of the world, though 
 not without strong remonstrance from those who 
 took a more serious view of their Christian call¬ 
 ing. The only exception probably was in the 
 case of some decoration which implied, or was 
 thought to imi)ly, participation in idolatry (Ter- 
 tullian. Be Idololatrid, c. 18). It was indeed a 
 part of the torture applied to Christians to com¬ 
 pel them to put on garments distinctly indica¬ 
 tive of such })articipation {Acts of Berpetua and 
 Felicitas, c. 18, in Kuinart, p. 100, ed. 2). A 
 series of passages in denunciation of luxury in 
 dress might be produced from the early fathers ; 
 see, for instance, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV. 
 p. 94, ed. 1641; Basil, lieg.fusius Tract. Interrog. 
 22 ; ii. 366, ed. Bened. 
 
 Some canonical decrees on the subject relate 
 to the assumption by one sex of the dress of the 
 other; since for women to wear the dress ot 
 men was sometimes represented as meritorious 
 asceticism. Eustathius, for instance (quoted by 
 Bingham, xvi. xi. 16) taught his female disciples 
 to cut off their hair and to assume the habit of 
 men. But the council of Gangra (a.d. 370), in 
 canons 13 and 17, condemns both these practices 
 in the following terms :—“ If any woman, under 
 pretence of leading an ascetic life, change her 
 apparel, and instead of the accustomed habit of 
 women take that of men, let her be anathema.” 
 And, “ If any woman, on account of an ascetic 
 life, cut off her hair, which God has given her as 
 a memorial of subjection, let her be anathema, 
 as one that annuls the decree of subjection.” 
 These decrees are manifestly founded upon Deut. 
 xxii. 5 and 1 Cor. xi. 6 respectively. Cyprian 
 {Ep. 2, c, 1, ad Eucratiiim) and Tertullian {de 
 Spectac. c. 23), with other writers (see Prynne’s 
 Histriom'tstix'), apply the Mosaic prohibition to 
 the interchange of clothing by men and w'omen 
 in stage plays, which they condemn for this rea¬ 
 son among many others. 
 
 Under the Frankish emperors the Mosaic pro¬ 
 hibition (Deut. xxii. 11) of wearing a garment of 
 woollen and linen was re-enacted {Cajyitularium^ 
 vi. c. 46). 
 
 The civil code under the empire attempted to 
 repress luxury by specific enactments {Codex 
 Justiniani, lib. xi. tit. 8), which seem however 
 to contemjjlate, at least in part, the preservation 
 of an imperial monopoly and of the sanctity of the 
 imperial insignia. [Commerce, p. 409.] It was 
 utterly forbidden to manufacture cloth of gold 
 or edgings (paragaudas) of silk and gold thread 
 for male attire, except in the in-qierial factories 
 (gynaeciariis); nor was any male to wear such 
 decorations, except imperial officials. No woollen 
 garments were to be dyed so as to imitate the 
 imperial purple, the blood of the sacred murex. 
 No one was to wear imperial insignia, nor to 
 manufactiire privately any silk tunics or pallia. 
 There was probably a demand for silk and cloth 
 of gold for male attire, when so strict laws were 
 made against their use. 
 
 2. Civil Dress of the Clergy. —It is certain that 
 during the first five Christian centuries the 
 clergy in general were distinguished from the 
 laity, in ordinary life, neither by the form nor 
 
 the colour of their garments, but only by their 
 sober and unobtrusive style (Thomassin, i. ii. 43). 
 The lacerna, byrrus, and dalmatic which Cyprian 
 took off before his martyrdom {Acta Bro'ons. 
 c. 5) seem to be the ordinary die.ss of a citizen 
 of that period. So far were the clergy commonly 
 from adopting a peculiar dress that pope Celes- 
 tinus (a.d. 428) sharply blamed certain Gallican 
 bishops who had chosen to make themselves con 
 spicuous by a dre.ss different from that of the 
 laity about them {Epist. 2, in Binius’ C'^ncilia, 
 i. 901). These bishoj)s, it appears, had been 
 monks before they were promoted to the epi¬ 
 scopate, and retained as bishops the pallium and 
 girdle of the monk, instead of taking the tunic 
 and toga of the su])erior layman. Yet Con- 
 stantinus {]'ita Germani, in Surius, iv. 360) says 
 that bishop Amator, when he ordained Germanus 
 (t448), afterwards bishop of Auxerre, })ut upon 
 him “ habitum religiouis,” an expression which 
 in all probability designates the monastic dress; 
 and other ecclesiastics of special austerity no 
 doubt wore the rough dress of the monk, as St. 
 IMartin did (Sulpicius Severus, ]'ita B. Martini, 
 c. 10; Dialogus II. c. 1), but the very fact that 
 this costume was specially noticed shows that it 
 was not the common attire of the clergy. 
 
 Nor do the clergy of the East, more than those 
 of the West, seem to lun'e adopted a distinctive 
 dre.ss in early times, unless they were members 
 of monastic bodies, or remarkably austere in life. 
 If Heraclas (Euseb. II. E. A"i. 19) wore the gown 
 of the philosopher, this distinguished him not 
 from the laity but from the uu 2 )hilosophical, 
 whether lay or clerical. The dress of the bishops 
 whom Constantine assembled round his table 
 (Euseb. Vita Constant, i. 42) seems to have had 
 no distinctive character except simplicity. Sis- 
 innius, a Novatian bishop (Socrates, //. E. vi. 22), 
 incurred the reproach of ostentation by wearing 
 a white robe, which contrasted with the more 
 usual sober colour of episcopal garments. But 
 there are indications at a later date among the 
 orthodox, that a somewhat splendid vesture was 
 thought to become high station in the hierarchy. 
 John Chrysostom, for instance, a short time before 
 his death, adopted the more splendid attire suited 
 to his position; and Gregory Nazianzen declares 
 that his own simple life and mean dress was one 
 of the reasons for his expulsion from Constan¬ 
 tinople—implying that something more distin¬ 
 guished was looked for. 
 
 St. Augustine too {Sermo 50, De Diver sis), 
 apparently still a priest, says that a valuable 
 byrrus might befit a bisho}), which would by no 
 means suit a poor man like Augustine. That 
 the byrrus was the common, as opposed to the 
 ascetic, dress of Christians, is shown by the 12th 
 canon of the council,of Gangra (a.d. 358), in 
 which those who wore the ascetic gown {inpi- 
 ^oKaiov) are warned not to despise the wearers 
 of the byrrus. Augustine objects only to wear¬ 
 ing one more valuable than became his station. 
 
 The account also of Euthymius {life, by Cyril, 
 in Surius, Jan. 20) saluting Anastasius as Batri- 
 arch, shows that a dignitary of that eminence 
 was generally distinguished by the splendour of 
 his attire. 
 
 We conclude then generally that no especial 
 style of dress was prescribed for the clergy 
 within the first five centuries, but that during 
 the latter part of that period it was usual for 
 
582 
 
 DRESS 
 
 DRESS 
 
 monks who became bishops to retain their mon¬ 
 astic garb, and for the liigher dignitaries—esj)eci- 
 ally the Patriarch of Constantinople, connected 
 as he was with a splendid court—to wear such 
 garments as befitted a person of rank. 
 
 The same inference may be drawn from the 
 fact that the Pseudo-Dionysius (^Hierarch. EccL 
 c. 5), in describing the ordination of bishops, 
 priests, and deacons, probably in the 5th century, 
 says not a word of any change of dress, though 
 he is careful to mention it in the case of monks. 
 
 In the 6th century the civil dress ofthe clergy 
 came to difi’er from that of the laity, mainly be¬ 
 cause the latter departed from the ancient type 
 to which the former adhered ; for the clergy, in 
 the empire of the West, retained the long tunic 
 and toga (or pallium) of the Romans, while the 
 laity adopted for the most part the short tunic, 
 trowsers, and cloak of the “ gens bracata,” the 
 Teutonic invaders. It was probably in conse¬ 
 quence of this change of dress that the compila¬ 
 tion of canons sanctioned by the second council 
 of Braga, a.d. 572 (c. 66; Bruns’s Canones, ii. 56), 
 especially desired the clergy to wear the long 
 dignified tunic (talarem v'estem). Gregory the 
 Great constantly assumes the existence of a dis¬ 
 tinctive clerical habit. He speaks, for instance 
 (^Kpiat. iv. 22), of men assuming the ecclesiastical 
 habit and living a worldly life. And John the 
 Deacon (Vita Gregor ii, ii. 13) directs especial 
 attention to the fact, that the great Pontiff him¬ 
 self tolerated no one about him who wore the 
 barbarian dress; every one in his household wore 
 the garb of old Rome (trabeata Latinitas), then 
 almost synonymous with the clerical habit. 
 
 And from the beginning of the 6th century 
 we find canons forbidding deifies to wear the 
 secular dress. They are not to wear long hair, 
 nor clothes other than such as befit “religion” 
 (Cone. Agathen. c. 20); nor a military cloak, nor 
 arms (C. Matiscon. c. 5); nor purple, which 
 rather befits the great ones ofthe world (C. Kar- 
 hon. c. 1). And again, in the 8th century, priests 
 and deacons are desired not to wear the laic 
 sagum, or short cloak, but the CasULA, as be¬ 
 comes servants of God (C. German, i. a.d. 742, 
 c. 7),— where the expression “ ritu servorum 
 Dei ” probably does not mean “ like monks ” 
 (Marriott, Vest. Christ. 201, n. 416)—and gener¬ 
 ally not to wear ostentatious clothes (pompatico 
 habitu) or arms (Boniface, Epist. 105). Yet 
 about the same time pope Zachary, writing to 
 Pipin, mayor of the palace {Cone. Galliae, i. 563), 
 desires bishops to dress according to their dignity, 
 and parish priests (presbyteri cardinales) to wear 
 in preaching a better style of dress than that of 
 the people committed to them ; w'arning them 
 at the same time that not the dress of the body 
 but the state ofthe .soul is the important thing. 
 
 Yet even in the latter part ofthe 7th century 
 Bede tells us ( Vita Cudberti, c. 16) that St. Cuth- 
 bert wore ordinary clothes (vestimentis com- 
 munibus),® neither splendid nor dirty, and that 
 after his exam})le the monks of his monastery 
 continued to wear gai meiits of undyed \vool. 
 
 The course of events in the Bast, in respect of 
 clerical dress, was not very ditlerent from that 
 in the West, except that as the settlements of 
 the barbarians were less numerous, the distinc¬ 
 
 “ Tois may mean, however, that Cuthlvrt as abbot did 
 not assume a dress different fiom that of his monks. 
 
 tion between layman and cleric was less obvious, 
 both tvearing the long tunic. A law of Jus¬ 
 tinian {Nov. 123, c. 44) protected monastic dress 
 from profane uses, but says nothijig of any other 
 dress peculiar to clerics. The council in Trullo, 
 however, a.d. 691, expressly enacted (c. 27) that 
 no one on the roll of the clergy should wear an 
 unprofessional {avoiKnov) dress, whether in the 
 city or on a journey, but should use the robes 
 {aroKals') prescribed for those who were enrolled 
 among the clergy, under pain of excommuni¬ 
 cation for a week. From this point the differ¬ 
 ence between clerical and lay dress may be con¬ 
 sidered established, though a series of enactments 
 throughout the middle ages shows that the 
 clergy w'ere constantly in the habit of assimilat¬ 
 ing their dress to that of the laity. 
 
 Pope Zacharias decreed (a.d. 743) that bishops, 
 priests, and deacons should not use secular dress, 
 but only the sacerdotal tunic; and that whes 
 they walked out, whether in ciiy or country— 
 unless on a long journey—they should wear 
 some kind of upper garment or wrapper (operi- 
 mentum).*’ 
 
 The second council of Nice, in the year 787, 
 condemns (c. 15) bishops and clerics who distin¬ 
 guish themselves by the richness and brilliant 
 colours of their dress. So Tarasius, patriarch 
 of Constantinople (f806), bade his clergy ab¬ 
 stain from golden girdles, and from garments 
 bright w'ith silk and purple, prescribing girdles 
 of goats’ hair, and tunics decent but not gor¬ 
 geous {Life, c. 14, in Surius, Feb. 25). 
 
 The council of Aix, in the year 816 (c. 124), 
 inveighs against personal ornament and splendour 
 of dress in the clergy, and exhorts them to be 
 neither splendid nor slovenly. It seems to be 
 presumed that the proper /orw of the clerical 
 dress was well known, for nothing is said on this 
 point. It further (c. 25) forbids secular or 
 canonical clerks to wear hoods [Cuculla], the 
 peculiar distinction of monks. A somewhat 
 later council {C. Metens. a.d. 888, c. 6) forbids 
 the clergy to wear the short coats (cottos) and 
 mantles (mantellos) of the laity, and the laity to 
 wear the copes (cappa.s) of the clergy. Early in 
 the 9th century also, presbyters were enjoined 
 to wear their .stoles always, as an indication of 
 their priesthood {Cone. Mogiint. a.d. 813, c. 28; 
 Capitulariuni, lib. v. c. 146). 
 
 We may conclude then, genei'ally, that the 
 clergy w’ore in civil life, during the first eight 
 centuries of the church, the long tunic which 
 was the dress of decent citizens at the time of 
 the first preaching of Christianity. This was at 
 first generally white [Alb], afterwards of sober 
 colours, though not seldom—in sjdte of canons— 
 of more brilliant hue. To this was added in 
 early times the dignified toga; afterwards the 
 cappa [Cope; Casula, p. 294]. or pluviale, not 
 then appropriated as a vesture of ministration 
 only. The long tunic, under whatever name, has 
 continued to be the ordinary dress of the clergy 
 to this day, wherever they have worn a peculiar 
 dress. 
 
 Literature. — Bingham’s Antiquities, vi. iv. 
 
 h The word rather suggests a covering for the Aead; 
 but it is difficult to understaiid why u iiiati Liking a long 
 journey should be excused from wearing a head-covering, 
 while It is easy to imagine that he might not wish to 
 wear a cumbrous cappa or casula in the climate of Italy 
 
DROC’iOVEUS 
 
 DEUNKENNESS 
 
 583 
 
 15 ff.; Mamachi, Costumi dci Primitive Cristiani 
 (Rome, 1753, 54), and (h-igines, lib. iii. c. 7; 
 Thomassin, Vet. et Nova Eccl. Discip. i. ii. 43 IF,; 
 J. Bcileau, Disquis. Ilominis Sacri vitam commu- 
 nera more civili traducentis; Heineccius, De Ha- 
 bitu Sacerdot. [C.] 
 
 DROCTOVEUS, abbot, disciple of Germanus 
 the bishop; deposition at Paris, March 10 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DROMIC. In the Oriental Church churches 
 of the basilican form, i. e. parallelograms, with 
 the length considerably exceeding the breadth, 
 aud terminating in a semicircular apse, were 
 called “dromic ” (Spo/jLiKai), from the similarity of 
 their plan to that of a bpSpos or “ stadium.” The 
 notion of Leo Allatius (de Templis Graec. Recent. 
 Ep. ii. § 3), and Suicer (sub voc. va6s, adopted 
 by Bingham; Origines, bk. viii. ch. iii. § 1) that 
 they were so styled from having “ void spaces 
 for deambulatoria” within their roofs on the 
 upper side of the flat ceilings, is quite unfounded. 
 Theod. Zygomalas apud Suicer correctly derives 
 the name “ di'omic ” from the form, the length 
 much greater than the breadth, like a “ narthex ” 
 or wand : SpopLiKbu Sik^v vapQpKos' Trav bpop.iKhv 
 yapdr]^ \4yeTat. Of this plan was the original 
 church of St. Sophia at Constantinople: iv rfi 
 peyaKg (KKK-qtriq rrjs ayias '2,o<p'ias bpopiKg rh 
 irp6r(pov oberj (Codin. Grig. Constantinopol. 72), 
 and that of St. Anastasia in the same city: 6 Se 
 vahs TTjs ayias'Avaaraffias (<Tri dpopiKos (Con¬ 
 stant. de Admin. Imp. 29). Existing examples of 
 dromic churches in the East are those of St. De¬ 
 metrius at Thessalonica (Texier, Archit. Byzant. 
 137), St. Philip, and the Vii’gin of the Grand 
 Monastery at Athens (Couchaud, pi. 2, 4), and 
 St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, built by Justi¬ 
 nian. [E. V.] 
 
 DRUNKENNESS. Of the prevalence of 
 this vice in the Roman world in the early ages 
 of Christianity it would be needless to speak. 
 That it became peculiarly shameless about the 
 very opening of the Christian era, we infer from 
 Pliny’s observation that under Tiberius men first 
 began to drink fasting, jejuni (bk. xiv. c. xxviii.). 
 The neighbouring races to the Roman empire 
 were not more temperate than the Romans them¬ 
 selves. To the east, the same Pliny records that 
 the Parthians were great drunkards. Of the 
 Germans, Tacitus says that to drink through a 
 whole day and night was considered no disgrace 
 (De Mor. Germ. c. xxii.). 
 
 It is not necessary to go here into the denun¬ 
 ciations of drunkenness contained both in the 
 Old and New Testament. It will be enough to 
 say that St. Paul expressly includes “drunk¬ 
 ards ” among those who shall not “ inherit the 
 kingdom of God ” (1 Cor. d. 10). Early Church 
 writei's follow the same line, see Clement ad Cor. 
 Ep. i. c. 30; Apost. Const, ii. c. 25; v. c. 10; 
 vii. c. 6; and particularly viii. c. 44. The Apo~ 
 stulkal Constitutions there warn against giving 
 relief to gluttons, drunkards, or idlei's, as not 
 being fit for the Church (bk. ii. c. 4). Drunken 
 habits were to afford a pi’^sumption against a 
 person accused before the Church Courts (ib. 
 c. 49). The oblations of drunkards were not to 
 be received (bk. iv. c. 6). The true rule of Chris¬ 
 tian temperance is given in one of the later 
 constitutions (bk. viii. c. 44): “ Not that they 
 should not drink, for this is to condemn inai 
 
 which is made of God for cheerfulness, but that 
 they should not drink to excess.” The A^josfo- 
 lical Canons in like manner make drunkenness a 
 ground of exclusion from communion for bishops, 
 priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers or singers, 
 and also for laymen (c. 35, otherwise numbered 
 41, 42, or 42, 43). 
 
 Still the vice flourished, as may be seen for 
 instance from the injunctions of Jerome to Nepo- 
 tianus “never to smell of wine,” since “wine- 
 bibbing priests are both condemned by the 
 apostle and forbidden by the old law ” (Ep. 2); 
 or to Eustochium, that “ the spouse of Christ 
 should flee wine as poison.” In some countries 
 drunkenness was even made an accompaniment 
 of the most solemn services of the Church. 
 Augustine complains (ad Aur. Ep. 22, otherwise 
 64) that in Africa “ revellings and drunkenness 
 are deemed so allowable and lawful that they 
 take place even in honour of the most blessed 
 martyrs,” even in the cemeteries [Cella me¬ 
 moriae], as appears from the sequel to the pas¬ 
 sage. And so rooted does he consider drunken 
 habits to be in his flock that he advises them 
 to be dealt with gently, rather by teaching 
 than by command, rather by warning than by 
 menace. 
 
 For a long time, however, clerical discipline 
 in respect of this vice seems rather to have been 
 enforced, or attempted to be enforced, through 
 the well-known prohibition to clerics to enter 
 taverns. [Caupona.] Except in the Aposto¬ 
 lical Canons, the first distinct Church enact¬ 
 ment against drunkenness appears to be that 
 of the 1st Council of Tours, 461. “ If any one 
 
 serving God in whatever clerical office shall 
 not abstain from drunkenness according to the 
 order of his estate, let a fitting punishment be 
 awarded to him ” (c. 2). In Ivo the same canon 
 appears in an altered form as directed especially 
 against clerical tavern-keepers, who sold wine in 
 their churches, so that where nought should be 
 heard but orisons and the word of God and his 
 praise, there revellings and drunkenness arc 
 found. Such excesses are forbidden, and the 
 offending presbyter is ordered to be deposed, 
 offending laymen to be excommunicated and 
 expelled (see also c. 3, of same). No doubt 
 the vice was highly prevalent in France, for 
 a few years later we find the Council of 
 Vannes also enacting that “above all things 
 should drunkenness be avoided by clerics .... 
 therefore we decree that he who shall be ascei*- 
 tained to have been drunk, as the order suffers, 
 shall be either excluded for thirty days from 
 communion or given over to corporal punishment” 
 (c. 13). The same canon was re-enacted by the 
 Council of Agde in 506 (c. 41). Somewhat later in 
 the century, the Constitutions of king Childebert, 
 after ordeidng the abolishing of certain remains 
 of idolatry, lament the sacrileges committed, 
 when for instance all night long men spend the 
 time in drunkenness, scurrility, and singing, 
 even in the sacred days of Easter, Christmas, and 
 the other feasts; and enacts for penalty 100 
 lashes for a servile person, but for a freeborn 
 one strict imprisonment (districta inclusjo) and 
 penance, that at least by bodily torments they 
 may be reduced to sanity of mind. In the East 
 even, at the Council of Constantinople in 536, 
 we find mention of a letter of the clergy of 
 Apamea against one bishop Peter (deposed for 
 
584 
 
 DRUNKENNESS 
 
 DRUNKENNESS 
 
 heresy) who used to make drunk persons coming 
 to b iptism (see Labbe and Mansi’s Councils^ vol. 
 vii. p, 1104). 
 
 The West, however, seems to have been the 
 chief home of giut+ony and drunkenness. A 
 canon of the Council of Autun (a.d. 670 or there¬ 
 abouts) enacted that no priest stuffed with food 
 or crapulous with wine should touch the sacrifice, 
 or presume to say mass, under pain of losing his 
 dignity. In a work of Theodore, archbishop of 
 Canterbury, De Jiemecliis Peccatorum (end of 7th 
 century), it is laid down that a bishop or other 
 ordained j)erson who has the vice of habitual 
 di'unkenness must either amend himself or be 
 deposed. The Council of Berkhampstead, in the 
 5th year of Withraed king of Kent (a.d. 697), 
 enacts that if a priest be so drunk that he 
 cannot fulfil his office, his ministry shall cease 
 at the will of the bishop (c. 7). Gildas (^De 
 Poenitentia, c. 7), lays down that if any one 
 through drunkenness cannot sing the psalms, he 
 is to be excluded from communion. Some ex¬ 
 tracts from a certain “ Book of David,” supposed, 
 like that of Gildas, to have been received by the 
 Irish Church, make some curious distinctions. A 
 priest drunk through ignorance is to be subject to 
 13 days’ penance; if through negligence, to 40 
 days; if through contempt* [of discipline ?], to 
 thrice forty. He who for civility’s sake (humani- 
 tatis causa) compels another to get drunk is to 
 do penance as for drunkenness. But he who 
 through the effect of hatred or luxuriousness, that 
 he may shamefully confound or mock others, com¬ 
 pels them to get drunk, if he has not sufficiently 
 repented, is to do penance as a killer of souls 
 (c. 1). 
 
 Gregory III. (731-41) in his Excerpts from 
 the Fathers and the Canons, mentions the habi¬ 
 tual drunkenness of a bishop, priest, or deacon 
 as being a ground of deposition, if he do not 
 amend himself (c. 8). An epistle of Boniface him¬ 
 self to Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, read 
 at the Council of Cloveshoe, a.d. 747, bears fur¬ 
 ther testimony to the prevalence of drunkenness 
 in Britain : “ It is said also that in your parishes 
 drunkenness is a too common evil, so that not 
 only do the bishops not forbid it, but themselves, 
 drinking too much, become intoxicated, and com¬ 
 pel others to become so, offering them larger 
 beakers.” And the Canons of the Council bear 
 “ that monks and clerics should not follow or 
 desire the evil of drunkenness,” but should avoid 
 it; “ nor should they compel others to drink 
 immoderately.” If they have no infirmity, they 
 should not before the third hour of the day in¬ 
 dulge in potations after the manner of drunkards 
 (c. 21). So again the Penitential of archbishop 
 Egbert repeats, with slight A’ariation of lan¬ 
 guage, the canon of the Council of Vannes as to 
 the inflicting of 30 days’ excommunication or 
 corporal punishment on the cleric proved to 
 have been drunk (bk. ii. c. 9); increasing the 
 punishment to three months on bread and water 
 to the cleric or monk who is given to drunken¬ 
 ness (c. 10). And the canons of the same 
 on “ the remedies for sin,” reckon among 
 capital crimes habitual drunkenness (c. 5), and 
 impose three years’ penance for it (c. 7),—such 
 penance being apparently in addition to the three 
 months’ bread and water above referred to, A 
 “ faithful ” layman making another drunk must 
 do forty days’ penance (c. 11). A definition is 
 
 given of drunkenness, which is also found else¬ 
 where : “ when the state of the mind is changed, 
 and the tongue falters, and the eyes are troubled, 
 and there is dizzinesss and distension of the belly 
 followed by pains.” Clerics guilty of such ex¬ 
 cess must do 40 davs’ penance ; a rule followed 
 unintelligibly by the enjoining for the same 
 offence of 4 weeks’ penance for a deacon or priest, 
 5 for a bishop, 3 for a “ prelate the penance- 
 to be without wine or flesh-meat (c. 12). 
 
 Drunkenness must have been widely spread over 
 the Continent also in the 8th and 9th centuries. 
 The same Boniface in a letter to Pope Zachari;is 
 (a.d. 741-51), complains, among other scandals 
 of the contemporary Romish Church, of its 
 drunkard deacons ; and the pope in reply only says 
 that he does not allow such deacons to fulfil sacred 
 offices or touch the sacred mysteries. The 3rd 
 canon of the Council of Friuli (a.d. 791) is severe 
 against drunkenness, referring to the passages of 
 the subject in Titus i., Rom. xiii., Eph. v., Luke xxi. 
 The Capitularies of Theodulf, archbishop of Or¬ 
 leans, to his clergy (797) enjoin on these both 
 to abstain themselves from drunkenness and to 
 preach to their flocks that they should likewise 
 abstain (i. c. 13); but reckons among minor 
 sins the intoxicating others for the sake of 
 mirth (ii.). The 26th of Charlemagne’s Church 
 GapAtularies (810) directs in like manner the 
 elder clergy to forbear the vice themselves and 
 offer to the younger an example of good sobriety; 
 the first capitulary of 802 contains repeated 
 injunctions against drunkenness among monks 
 (c. 17), nuns (c. 18), and canons (c. 22); the 
 Council of Mayence (812), speaking of drunken¬ 
 ness as “ a great evil, whence all vices are bred,” 
 directs all to be excommunicated who do not 
 avoid it, until they amend their ways (c. 46); 
 the 2nd Council of Rheims (same year) declares 
 that the bishops and ministers of God should not 
 be too much given to feastings (vinolentiis; c. 18) ; 
 the Edict of Charlemagne in 814 forbids clerics 
 “ nourishing ” drunkenness and ordering others 
 to become intoxicated (c. 14). See also the first 
 capitulary of Aix-la-Chapelle of 802, c. 35 ; a 
 capitulary of 803 (bk. vii. c. 218, and again at 
 greater length, c. 270) repeating at the close the 
 15th canon of the Council of Vannes, but extend¬ 
 ing the period of suspension from communion to 
 40 days; the Additio Quarta to the capitularies, 
 c. 46; the 3rd Council of Tours, A.D. 813, 
 c. 48 ; and the 2nd Council of Chartres (same 
 year), c. 10. 
 
 The above canons and rules relate chiefly, 
 though not exclusively, to the clergy, or if to 
 the faithful generally, only in respect to Church 
 discipline. In the Carlovingian era, however, 
 civil penalties or disabilities began to be inflicted 
 for drunkenness. In a capitulary of 803, added 
 to the Salic law, it is enacted that no one while 
 drunk may obtain his suit in the mall nor give 
 witness; nor shall the count hold a plea unless 
 before breaking his fast; nor may any one com¬ 
 pel another to drink (cc. 15, 16; and see also 
 General Collection, J)k. iii, c. 38, and bk. vi. 
 232-3). The latter injunction is thus developed 
 in a capltularv of813: “That In the host none 
 do pray his peer or any other man to drink. And 
 whoever in the army shall have been found 
 drunk, shall be so excommunicated that in drink¬ 
 ing he use onlv water till he know himself to 
 have acted evilly ” (bk. iii. c. 72). Another 
 
DRUSUS 
 
 EAGLE 
 
 585 
 
 capitulary, i*elating however to the clergy, enacts 
 that priests who against the canons enter taverns 
 and are not ashamed to minister to feastings and 
 drunkenness, are to be severely coerced (bk. v. 
 c. 325 ; see also c. 162, which however only pro¬ 
 nounces excommunication). 
 
 The data for the above statements are taken, 
 except in the first few centuries, exclusively from 
 the legal records of the Church, or those of a 
 period when it was almost identified with the 
 state. They might be abundantly illustrated 
 from contemporary writers, century by century. 
 But they suffice to shew that the vice in ques¬ 
 tion was never absent from the Church nor from 
 its clergy, and that it attained enormous pro¬ 
 portions among the latter in our own islands, 
 and in the 8th and 9th' centuries on the Con¬ 
 tinent also. (See also Caupo.) [J. M. L.] 
 
 DRUSUS, martyr at Antioch, with Zosimus 
 and Theodorus; commemorated Dec. 14 (^Mart. 
 liom. Vet., Hicron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DUCKS. It is quite uncertain why this bird 
 is represented in early art, but it occurs repeat¬ 
 edly in the bas-reliefs of the Duomo at Ravenna, 
 on the great piers at the east end, and in the 
 church of St. Giovanni Evangedista in the same 
 place. It is also drawn with great spirit and 
 evident enjoyment by the monk Rabula, who 
 twice indulges in an archivolt })atteru of ducks 
 and eggs (Assemani, Catalog. Bibl. Med. Taw. 
 xviii., xix.); besides single repre.sentations of 
 various species. The bird may have been do¬ 
 mesticated in monasteries, &c., and have been a 
 favourite subject of illumination from its pretty 
 colours. It occurs in the Lombard bas-reliefs 
 at Verona. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 DUEL {Duellum). The notion of deciding a 
 matter in dispute, after ordinary means had 
 failed, by a single combat between the parties or 
 their champions, came into the empire with the 
 Teutonic tribes, who were accustomed to settle 
 by arms their private as well as public disputes. 
 
 The earliest formal recognition of the judicial 
 combat as an institution seems to be in the laws of 
 the Burgundians (Canciani, Leg. Barhar. iv. 25; 
 A.D. 502), which provide (tit. 45) that a man 
 who declines to clear himself by oath is not to be 
 denied his right of challenge to combat. After¬ 
 wards the duel is referred to in many barbarian 
 codes, as Leges Alemann. tit. 44, § 1 ; Baiuar. 
 tit. 2, c. 2; Longobard. lib. i. tit. 9, § 39, &c. 
 
 It was only under the formal sanction of a 
 court, and as a kind of appeal to a higher tri¬ 
 bunal, that such combats were held to be legal. 
 
 The further development of the system, and 
 the canonical prescripts relating to it, belong to 
 the Middle Ages (Sclden, The Duello or Single 
 Combat, in IVor^s, vol. 3: Ducange, s. v. Duel- 
 lurn). [C.] 
 
 DULA, martyr at Nicomedia ; commemo¬ 
 rated March 25 (Maid. Bom. Vet., Ilieron., Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 DUMB. The 49th (otherwise 56th) of the 
 Apostolical Canons enacts excommunicatiem 
 against any cleric who should make a mock 
 of the deaf, dumb, or blind. By the 69th (other¬ 
 wise 77th), the deaf, the dumb, and the blind 
 were excluded from the episcopate, not as defiled, 
 but that the proceedings of the Church should 
 not be hinde.ied. 
 
 The capacity of the dumb to receive the sacra¬ 
 ments or accept a penance was the subject ol 
 some controversy. A whole work of Fulgentius 
 (De Baptismo Aethiopis') is devoted to the ques¬ 
 tion of the validity of the baptism of an Ethiop 
 catechumen after the loss of his voice, and he 
 concluded that it was entitled to the same va¬ 
 lidity as that of an infixnt. This view prevailed 
 in the Church. Amongst other canonical autho¬ 
 rities, the 1st Council of Orange, a.d. 441, en¬ 
 acted that a person suddenly losing his voice 
 might be baptized or accept a penance, if his 
 previous will thereto could be proved by the 
 witness of others, or his actual will by his nod 
 (c. 12). The 38th canon of the 2nd Council of 
 Arles (452) is to the same effect as regards 
 baptism. 
 
 According to one of Ulpian’s Fragments (t. xx.) 
 Ihe dumb could not be a witness, nor make a 
 testament, the reason assigned in the latter case 
 being that he could not pronounce the “ words of 
 nuncupation ” technically required for the pur¬ 
 pose. And by a constitution of Justinian, a.d. 
 531 (Code, bk. vi. tit. xxii. 1. 10) deaf-mutes were 
 declared incapable of making a will or codicil, 
 constituting a donation morcis causa, or confer¬ 
 ring a freedom, unless the infirmity should not be 
 congenital, and they should have learned to write 
 before it occurred, in which case they could exer¬ 
 cise all these rights by writing under their own 
 hand. The dumb were in all cases allowed to do 
 so by such writing. It was, however, heTd by the 
 old law that the dumb, as well as the deaf and 
 blind, could lawfully contract marriage, and be¬ 
 come subject to dotal obligations (Dig. bk. xxiii. 
 tit. iii. 1. 73). Deaf-mutes were held excused 
 from civil honours, but not from civic charges 
 (ibid. bk. 1. tit. ii. 1. 7). But the dumb might 
 lawfully decline a guardian- or curatorship 
 (Code, bk. v. t. Ixvii.: Const, of Bhilip, a.d. 
 247). [J. M. L.] 
 
 DUODECIMA, the twelfth hour, or ves¬ 
 pers [Hours of Prayer]. “ Duodecima, quae 
 dicitur Vespera” (Regula S. Bened. c. 34; Mar- 
 tene, De Bit. Monach. i. x. 6). [C.] 
 
 DUREN, COUNCILS OF (Duriense), at 
 Diiren, near Aix-la-Chapelle ; (i.) a.d. 748, under 
 Pipin, a “ placitum,” which commanded a synod 
 to be held, for restoration of churches, and for 
 the causes of the poor, the widow, and the 
 orphan (Labb. vl. 1880); (ii.) A.D. 761, a 
 national council under Pipin, in the tenth year 
 of his reign, called by Regino a “ synod ” (ib. 
 1700); (iii.) A.D. 775, under Chaidemagne (ib. 
 1821); nothing more is known of these two 
 assemblies : (iv.) A.D. 779, under Charlemagne, 
 of bishops, nobles, and abbats, passed 24 Capit da 
 upon discipline, one of which enforces pavmeut 
 of tithes (ib. 1824-1826). [A. W. H.] 
 
 DURIENSE CONCILIUM. [Duren, 
 Councils of.] 
 
 E 
 
 EAGLE. It is probably an instance of care¬ 
 ful exclusion of all Pagan emblems or forms 
 which had been actual objects of idolatrous nprship, 
 while merely Gentile or human tokens and 
 myths were freely admitted, that the form ot 
 the eagle appears so rarely in Christian orua* 
 
586 
 
 EBRULFUS 
 
 EASTER 
 
 mentation, at least before the time of its adop¬ 
 tion as the symbol of an evangelist. [Kvax- 
 GELISTS.] Aringhi (vol. ii. p. 228, c. 2) speaks 
 of the eagle as representing the Lord Himself; 
 and this is paralleled by a quotation of Mar- 
 tigny’s from a sermon of St. Ambrose, where he 
 refers to Ps. ciii. (“Thy youth is renewed like 
 the eagle’s”) as foreshadowing the resurrection. 
 Leblant (/rtscr. Chretiennes de la Gavle, i. 147, 45), 
 in illustration gives a palm between two eagles, 
 and Bottari a ])late of a domed ceiling in the 
 sepulchre of St. Priscilla, where two eagles 
 standing on globes form part of the ornamenta¬ 
 tion. It refers evidently to some buried general 
 or legionary officer (vol. iii. tav. 160). Tri¬ 
 umphal chariots fill two of the side spaces, but 
 they and the eagles can hardly be considered 
 Christian emblems, though used by Christians. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 EBRULFUS, abbot and confessor; comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 29 (^Mart. Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EARS, TOUCHING OF. 1. Tn Baptism. 
 As by the influence of the Holy Spirit men’s 
 hearts are opened to receive the wondrous things 
 of God’s law, so there was a symbolic opening of 
 the ears in the baptismal ceremony (Ambrose, 
 De Mysteriis^ c. X; Pseudo-Ambrosius, De Sacra- 
 mentis, i. 1; Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 52; see 
 also the ancient Expositio Evangeliorum in 
 aurium gpertione in Martene, De Bit. Ant., 
 I. i. 12). Thus in Magnus’s directions for the 
 preliminaries of baptism (Martene, u.s. art. 17), 
 drawn up by command of Charles the Great, we 
 read, after the instruction in the Creed: “ tan- 
 guntur aures et nares de sputo, et dicitur 
 Effata [Ephphatha], id est, aperire,” in order 
 that the ears may listen to the wholesome teach¬ 
 ing of the Christian faith and reject the sophistic 
 pleadings of the devil. Similarly in the ancient 
 baptismal Ordines of Gemblours and of Rheims 
 (Jh. art. 18). 
 
 2. In Holy Communion, it seems to have been 
 the custom to touch the organs of sense (alaOri- 
 r-fjpia) with the moisture left on the lips after 
 receiving the cup (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 
 Myst. V. 22; see Communion, Holy, p. 413). 
 
 [C.] 
 
 EARTHQUAKE. The great earthquake 
 which befel Constantinople in the year 758 is 
 commemorated Oct. 26 (CaL Byzant.') [C.] 
 
 EAST, Prayer Towards. Praying towards 
 the East, as the quarter of the rising sun, the 
 source of light, a natural symbolism common to 
 nearly all religions, was adopted by the Christian 
 church from its commencement, in accordance 
 with the very wise rule which accepted all that 
 was good and pure in the religious systems it' 
 came to supplant, breathing into the old cere¬ 
 monies a new and higher life. One of the ear¬ 
 liest testimonies to the prevalence of this custom 
 among Christians is that of Tertullian, c. 205 
 (^Apoloy. c. xvi.; coat. Valentin, c. iii.), who refers 
 to the suspicions entertained by the heathen that 
 Christians were sun worshippers “ because they 
 were well known to turn to the East in pi’ayer,” 
 being “ lovers of the radiant East, that figure 
 of Christ.” The Apostolical Constitutions also 
 direct that the whole congregation “ rise up with 
 one consent, and looking to the east, pray to God 
 
 eastward ” (lib. ii. § vii. c. 57). The same rule 
 is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus {Stromata, 
 vii. 7), who says that “ prayers are made looking 
 towards the sunrise in the east.” Basil, c. 374, 
 testifies to the universality of the custom 
 {De. Sp. Sanct. c. 27), and Augustine speaks « 
 of it as a general usage {De Serm. in Monte, lib. 
 ii. c. 5). To take one later instance out oi 
 many, Joannes Moschus, c. 600, records an anec¬ 
 dote of a certain abbot Zjicchaeus of Jerusalem, 
 who, when praying, “ turned to the east and 
 remained about two hour.s, without speaking, 
 his arms stretched out to heaven ” {Prat. Spnrit. 
 
 § 102). The chapter of Joannes Damascenus {De 
 Orthodox. Fid. iv. 13) “ concerning worshipping 
 to the east,” proves the prevalence of the 
 custom. 
 
 The true reason for this custom is doubtless 
 that already alluded to, that, to adopt the lan¬ 
 guage of Clemens Alex., “ the east is the image 
 of the day of birth. For as the light which 
 there first shone out of darkness waxes brighter, 
 so, like the sun, the day of the knowledge of 
 truth has dawned on those immersed in dark¬ 
 ness ” (Clem. Alex, u.s.') In close connection 
 with this is the reference to Christ as the “ Day¬ 
 spring from on high,” the apdroXi], the “ Light of 
 the World,” which the early writers delight to 
 recognise (Chrys. Homil. in Zach. vi. 12). Other 
 reasons for, or more properly speakiii^, deduc¬ 
 tions from the practice, are given % other 
 wi’iters, one of the most frequent and beautiful 
 of which is that in praying to the east the soul 
 is seeking and sighing for its old home in 
 Paradise, to which it hopes to be restored in 
 Christ, the second Adam (Basil De Sp. Sanct. u.s.. 
 Const. Apost., u.s.; Greg. Nyss. Homil. V. de 
 Orat. Domin.; Chrys. ad Daniel, vi. 10 ; Gregen- 
 tius Disputat. cum Herb. JuJ. p. 217). Another 
 cause assigned is that Christ when on the cross 
 looked towards the west, so that in praying to 
 the east we are looking towards Him (Joan. 
 Damasc. u. s., Cassiod. ad Ps. Ixvii.), and that as 
 He appeared in the east, and thence ascended 
 into heaven, so He will there appear again at the 
 last day, the coming of the Son of Man being 
 like “ the lightning that cometh out of the east 
 and shineth even unto the west ” (Matt. xxiv. 27), 
 so that in prayer Christians are looking for their 
 Lord’s return (Hilar, in Ps. Ixvii.). We learn 
 from St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others that the 
 Catechumen at Baptism turned from the west, 
 the place of darkness, to the east, the home 
 of light, and to the site of Paradise which by that 
 sacrament was reopened to him (Cyril Catech. 
 xix. 9; Hieron. in Anv^s. vi. 14; Ambros. De 
 Initial, c. 2; Lactant. lib. ii. c. 10; Pseudo 
 Justin. Quest, ad Orthodox. 118). (Bona De Divin. 
 Psahnod. c. vi. § 2; Bingham Orig. xi. 7. 4; 
 xiii. 8. 15.) [E. V.] 
 
 EASTER-EVE. [Easter, Ceremonies of.] 
 
 EASTER. The Teutonic name of the church 
 feast of our Lord’s resurrection (A.-S. eastre. 
 Germ, ostem). Bede {De Temp. Rat. c. xv. De 
 mensibus Anglorum), gives as the name of the 
 fourth month, answering nearly to April, Eostur- 
 monath, and adds: “ Eostur-monath, qui nunc 
 Paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a Dea 
 illorum quae Eostre vocabatur, et cui in illo 
 festa celebrabant, nomen habuit: a cujus nomine 
 uuQc Paschale tempus cognominant, concueto 
 
EASTER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 687 
 
 antjquae observatioiiis vocabulo gaudia novae 
 solennitatis vocantes.” 
 
 The name of the festival in the Romance lan¬ 
 guages (Ital. Pasqua, Fr. Pdques), like the Latin 
 Pasc/ia, takes us back at once to the historic 
 origin of the festival in the passover. In N. T. 
 rh Trd(rxa, though in A. V. once (Acts xii. 4) 
 translated “Easter,” refers either to the Jews’ 
 passover, or (l .Cor. v. 7) to our Lord as its anti¬ 
 type. The word irdcrxa represents the Hebrew 
 nDS3. See Ex. xii. Thus the history of Easter 
 of necessity starts from the passover. 
 
 The passover was kept on the 14th day of the 
 month originally called Abib (Ex. xiii. 4), after¬ 
 wards Nisan (Neh. ii. 1 ; Esth. iii. 7), Avhich 
 month was to be the first month of the yeai’. 
 On the 16th Kisan, a sheaf (or rather handful) 
 of the new barley was presented before the Lord, 
 as the firstfruits of the harvest (Lev. xxiii. 10; 
 Joseph. Ant. iii. x. v.). 
 
 The above observance led, as a most important 
 consequence, to the fixity of the seasons (con¬ 
 sidered in the average) in the Jewish year. It 
 may be taken as established tha't the Jewish 
 ;^ear was luni-solar, of twelve lunar months, 
 which we may say, in general term.s, consisted 
 by turns of twenty-nine days and of thirty, with 
 ‘an occasional I3th intercalary month, by which 
 a correspondence was kept up with the length of 
 tlie solar year: and for the proper time of inter¬ 
 calating this month^ it was onljr necessary to 
 consider, at the time of the commencement of 
 the month Nisan, whether the barley would be 
 sufficiently ripe in sixteen days for the observance 
 of the rite of the firstfruits, and if not, to inter¬ 
 calate a month, and thus postpone the ceremony. 
 In this way, the seasons would continually be 
 brought back to the same point. 
 
 Having regard to the astronomical element in 
 later controversies, we now offer some further 
 account of the astronomical data adecting the 
 passover. 
 
 1. The I’elation of the passover to the moon. 
 The night following the 14th Nisan was no 
 doubt intended to be and usually was that of 
 the full moon. We hear indeed in the institu¬ 
 tion of the passover, not of the full moon, but 
 of the 14th day of the moon, and in the early 
 church controversies as well as in the modern 
 rule settled by Clavius, everything still depends 
 technically upon the “ 14th day of the moon.” 
 But Philo tells us ( Vit. Mosis, iii. 686) that the 
 passover is celebrated, /u-fWouros tou (reArjj/ia/cou 
 kvkKov y'lveaOai Tr\T]ai(paovs, and again (c/<? Sept, 
 et Fest. 1191), that it was so fixed that there 
 might be no darkness on that day; and again, 
 “ That not only by day but also by night, the 
 world may be full of all-beauteous light, inas¬ 
 much as sun and moon on that day succeed each 
 other with no interval of darkne.ss between.” 
 This last statement is extremely significant, and 
 together with the lunar date, the 14th, very 
 clearly marks the point of time. The first day 
 of the moon means, in pre-astronomical times, 
 not the day of the conjunction of the sun and 
 moon, but the day on the evening of which the 
 new moon first becomes visible as a thin streak 
 of light to the left of the sun, just after sunset. 
 This is possible in a fine climate, some eighteen 
 hours after cor.'uuctiou: if less time had elapsed, 
 the first visible phase would be on the next day. 
 Now an average synodic period of the moon, or 
 
 lanation, is 29d. 12 h. 44m., and therefore the 
 average interval between conjunction and full 
 moon is 14d. 18 h. 22 m. Taking the average 
 length of phase and of interval, we should be 
 brought for full moon to sunrise on the 15th 
 day of the moon (inclusive), which would make 
 the night succeeding the 14th day (inclusive) 
 the night of full moon. Since the half-lunation 
 may be prolonged or shortened in rare cases 
 about twenty hours, and the length of j)hase »s 
 also variable, luune exceptions must be allowed 
 for, but the general correctne.ss of the rule is 
 apparent, and also that the night of the 14th 
 will more frequently precede the full moon than 
 follow it; in other words, the moon would rise 
 a little before sunset, instead of rising, as it 
 might do in the contrary ca.se (a day later), nearly 
 an hour after sunset. Thus Philo’s statement 
 that there was no interval of darkness, a fact of 
 a nature to catch the attention, and about which 
 thei’e could be no mistake, leads us to believe 
 that by calculating the time of full moon from 
 the astronomical tables, we may assign the 15th 
 Nisan with certainty in many cases, and with a 
 high degree of probability in others. In some 
 cases where it appears difficult to decide between 
 two successive days, an examination of the time 
 of the preceding new moon will help, though it 
 will not always suffice, to remoA'e the doubt. 
 
 2. We have next to notice the relation of the 
 passover to the sun. This relation is apparent 
 from the regulatloos as to th^ firstfruits on 
 16th Nisan. The season of the year depends on 
 the equinox, and the general statement is that 
 barley ears can be procured in a fitting state at 
 or soon after the vernal equinox. But this 
 relation is not a mere matter of inference. Jose¬ 
 phus writes {Ant. iii. x. 5): “ In the month of 
 Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is 
 the beginning of our year, on the 14th day of 
 the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries .... 
 the law ordained that we should in every year 
 slay that .sacrifice .... called the passover.” 
 And Philo ( Vita Mos. iii.) : “ Trjr apx^v 
 iapivrjs ifftifiepias irpuTov di'aypdcpei p-r^va 
 Mwi5<rrjs Tans twv iviavrwv irep'ioSois.” 
 
 The first month of the Jewish year was then 
 (as the best authorities hold), that month which 
 contained the vernal equinox, although the 
 beginning of the month might precede it. The 
 Jews apparently had no rule about not keeping 
 the passover before the equinox ; at least if we 
 may believe Epiphanius {1/aeres. Ixx. 11), and a 
 definite instance given by St. Ambrose, a.d. 387, 
 of the Jewish passover on Mar. 20 {Ad Aemil. 
 Episc. 83). Moreover it is stated that the ante¬ 
 rior limit of the Latins for the 14th of the moon, 
 viz. Mar. 18, was derived from the Jews. 
 
 In after times, jirobably from the time of 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 247-264, it be¬ 
 came one of the sharpest points of controversy: 
 '6ri yUTj fiAAore I) yutTCt t^v eapivTjy larjpfpiav 
 'iTpo(rr}K€i ndcxa eopr^v (TTne\(7u (Eus. //. E. 
 vii. 15). 
 
 Although, however, the time of the equinox 
 became a point of critical discussion in after 
 times, there was so little general knowledge of 
 its true position, that very strange mistakes 
 were made respecting it. The correct knowledge 
 of the equinox was in fact nearly confined to the 
 Alexandrian astronomers, and there are several 
 misappi-eheuaions which still prevail, as, foi 
 
588 
 
 EASIER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 instance, that it was originally on the 25th j 
 March, which was true indeed of the mean 
 vernal equinox, hut never of the true vernal 
 equinox. This misconcej)tion is probably due to 
 the fact that the 25th of March was marked as 
 the vernal equinox in the calendai* of .Julius 
 Caesar, according to the testimony of Varro, 
 Pliny, and Columella. We have thought it 
 worth while to-calculate, for the purj)oseof this 
 article, and now to state, the princii)al i)Osi- 
 tions of the vernal equinox (true) since the 
 Julian era. 
 
 Dates of {true) Vernal Equinox for the Meridian 
 of Alexandria.. 
 
 B.C. 4.5. Mar. 23 (civil) 4'‘ 34'" A.M. 
 
 ilange from Leap-year to licap-year. 
 
 Earlier Limit. B.C. 45. Mar. 23 (civil) 4^ 34'" a.m. 
 
 Later Limit. B.C. 42. Alar. 23, 10^ !■" r.M. 
 
 A.D. 29. Mar. 22. O'* 18'" r.«. 
 
 Range from Leap-year to Leap-year. 
 
 Earlier Limit. A.Ib 28. Mar. 22. S'* 29'" r.ir. 
 Later Limit. A. I). 31. Mar. 23 (civil) 8>> 55'" A.M. 
 
 A.l). 325. Mar. 20. 2^ 17''> p.m. 
 
 Range from Leap-year to Leap-year. 
 
 Earlier Limit. A.D. 324. Mar. 20 (civil) 8>> -JS*" a.m. 
 
 Later Limit. A.D. 327. Mar. 21 (civil) St'" a.m. 
 
 Clavius, misled by the tables which he used 
 (Tabulae Nicolai Copcrnici, sire Prutenicae) placed 
 the Vernal Equinox at the Nicene Council, A.D. 
 325, or March 21st, 6’* P.M. nearly 28 hours 
 too late (Op. tom. v. p. 72). The 20th and 21.st 
 are the very days to which the equinox was 
 brought back at the Gregorian correction of 1582, 
 when it stood at Mar. 11th (civil) 2'* 10”’ A.M., 
 the earlier limit being Mar. 10th, 2*‘ 32“’ P.M., 
 and the later Mar. 11th (civil) 8*’ A.M. 
 
 The connection of the passover with Ea.ster is 
 through that particular passover at which our 
 Lord suffered, but so few are the chronological 
 details in the gospels, that it is imj)Ossible to fix 
 with absolute certainty either the year or the 
 day of the year, or perhaps even of the month 
 on which our Lord suffered. The full investiga¬ 
 tion of the subject would be beyond the scope of 
 this article. 
 
 The points which are beyond doubt are these : 
 
 I. Our Lord’s death took place under the pro- 
 curatorship of Pontius I^ilate : that is to say, 
 between the limits A.D. 28 and a.d. 33 inclusive. 
 
 II. It took place at the passover. 
 
 III. All the gospels agi-ee that it took place 
 on the irapaiTKev^, that is, on a Friday. In St. 
 John (xix. 14), the Trapao'/feurj rov 7rd(T)^a pro¬ 
 bably means (like TvpoeToiixaaia in the Chronicon 
 Pasdude i. 15) the day before the 15th Nisan, 
 which was in a double sense that year a Sabbath 
 (John xix. 31), but the word was in common use 
 to designate the eve before the Sabbath, and 
 came afterwards to mean simply “ PT-iday.” 
 
 Astronomy, while furnishing valuable sugges¬ 
 tions on this important subject, is not competent 
 to decide absolutely, either for the particular 
 year, or between the advocates of the 14th and 
 of the 15th Nisan. 
 
 The history of the paschal observance in the 
 apostolic and early post-apostolic times is ex¬ 
 tremely obscure, and has been very variously 
 represented. There is no evidence in the New 
 Testament that it existed at first as an institu¬ 
 tion. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates is no 
 
 doubt right when he .says (v. 22): “The Saviour 
 and His apostles have enjoined us by no law to 
 keep this feast .... The ajwstles had no thought 
 of apj)ointing festival days, but of jtromoting a 
 life of blamele.ssness and piety. And it seems to 
 me that the feast of Easter has been introduced 
 into the Church from some old usage, just as 
 many other customs have been established.” It 
 ajipears (from Acts xviii. 21 ; xx. 6, 1(5) that the 
 Jewish Christians and even St. Paul still ob¬ 
 served the Jewish feasts, and there can be no 
 doubt that the memory of the Loj'd’s death 
 would be with them the main thought of the 
 passover-night, and would gradually supersede 
 for them all other associations. On the other 
 hand, the passover meal had no place amongst the 
 habits of the Christians of Gentile descent, and 
 their anniversary naturally attached itself to 
 the first day of the week, which was observed 
 both by Jewish and Gentile Christians as the 
 weekly festival of the Lord’s resurrection. When 
 the time of the passover came round, the first 
 day of the wgek seemed to be the actual day of 
 the resurrection, and this day, taken together 
 with the preceding P^riday, as the day of the 
 crucifixion, seemed the proper representations of 
 the gi’eat act of our redem^ffion. Amongst the 
 Gentile Christians these institutions, with their 
 accompanying rules of Lasting, &c., were appa¬ 
 rently very gradually developed, and the conflict 
 between the two usages was slow in coming. 
 When it came, we find the cardinal point to be 
 the T-ppeiv (with the Asiatic Christians), or the 
 ft?) Tippdiv (with the Westerns), the 14th of 
 the'moon (Nisan), and afterwards along with 
 this, and connected with it, the correct deter¬ 
 mination of the 14th of the moon. The point 
 insisted on most'emphatically by the Alexan¬ 
 drians (whom the Westerns followed), was, that 
 it must not precede the equinox. 
 
 When the Western view ultimately prevailed 
 in the church, those who obstinately ))ersevercd 
 in the Asiatic custom, and were condemned as 
 heretics, were called Quartodecimans, and it is 
 usual and convenient to give the same name by 
 anticipation to those who observed the 14th day 
 of the moon in the earlier controversy. 
 
 The chief information we have is derived from 
 Eusebius, from several passages of Epiphanius, 
 treating in his work on all heresies of certain 
 Quartodeciman sects, and from several fragments 
 preserved in the Chronicon J'aschale, a work of 
 about 630 A.D. 
 
 The following conclusions of Bucherius from a 
 passage in Epiphanius (Haer. Ixx.), will express 
 the probable course of events. “ P'rom this 1 
 gather three things: P’irst, that so long at least 
 as the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem (those of 
 Jewish descent) continued, the pascha was cele¬ 
 brated everywhere by all Christians, or by a 
 great majority of them, according to the lunar 
 computation and method of the Jews. But they 
 continued until the year 136 a.d., or to the end 
 of the reign of the emperor Hadrian, when ^lark 
 was first taken from the Gentiles to be bishop. 
 (Euseb. V. xii.) Secondly, that then began a 
 time of dissension, as P^jfiphanius a little before 
 more plainly testifies (see below). Thirdly, that 
 a more general method then came in, whether 
 the eighty-four years cycle, or the octaeteris 
 (amended), otherwise that re{)roach was un¬ 
 meaning which the Audiaui launched against the 
 
EASTER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 589 
 
 orthodox—that they had departed from the 
 ancient custom,” &c. We subjoin the earlier part 
 of the chapter which is here alluded to. 
 
 “ For even from the earliest times various 
 controversies and dissensions were in the church 
 concerning this solemnity, which used yearly to 
 bring laughter and mockery. For some, in a 
 certain ardour of contention, began it before the 
 week, some after the week, some at the begin¬ 
 ning, some in the middle, some at the end. To 
 say in a word, there was a wonderful and la¬ 
 borious confusion. Nor is it unknown to 
 learned men, how often, at the various times 
 of this feast, there have arisen from the ob¬ 
 servance of a diflerent ecclesiastical discipline, 
 tumults and contentions, especially in the time 
 of Polycarp and Victor, when the Easterns and 
 Westerns would receive no mutual letters of 
 peace. Which also happened in other times, as 
 in that of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and 
 Crescent ins, how they wrote against each other 
 and bitterly fought. Which disputes began to 
 be agitated from the very times of the bishops who 
 had been converted to Christ from the circumci¬ 
 sion and from the sect of the Jews, even to our own 
 times, on which account those who had gathered 
 from all sides to the Nicene council, the matter 
 having been accurately known, witli common 
 agreement from all, and with fitting computation 
 and calculation of times, order it to be kept.” 
 
 Eusebius (//. E. v. 24) gives in a letter of 
 Irenaeus the following account, relating to the 
 events about A.D. 160 • 
 
 “ When the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in 
 the time of Anicetus, and they had also some 
 little ditfereuce of opinion with regard to other 
 points, they immediately came to a peaceable 
 understanding respecting this one, for they had 
 no love for mutual disputes. For neither could 
 Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe (/xr? 
 TTjpeii', i.e. the 14th Nisan) inasmuch as he had 
 always observed it with John the disciple of our 
 Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had 
 associated ; nor could Polycarp pei’suade Anicetus 
 to observe for he said that he ought to 
 
 follow the custom of the presbyters before him.” 
 
 Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, 
 and there can be no doubt that he expressed in 
 these words the custom of the Asiatic churches, 
 which was rrjpelv, whilst that of the Western 
 was TT}pe7v. That we ought to supply after 
 TTjpdu, the 14th Nisan, we learn from c. 23 
 (referring to about A.D. 190). 
 
 “ There was a considerable discussion raised 
 about this time, in consequence of a difference of 
 opinion respecting the observance of the paschal 
 season. The churches of all Asia, guided by 
 ancient tradition, thought that they were bound 
 to keep the 14th day of the moon, on the oc¬ 
 casion of the feast of the Saviour’s pa.ssover, 
 that day on which the Jews had been commanded 
 to kill the paschal lamb, it being necessary fur 
 them by all means to regulate the close of the 
 fast by that day, on whatever day of. the week 
 it might ha|)pen to fall; while it was the custom 
 of all the churches of all the rest of the world, 
 which observed in this respect an apostolic tra¬ 
 dition that has prevailed down to our own time, 
 not to celebrate it in this manner, it being 
 proper to close the fast on no other day than 
 that of the resurrection of our Lord.” 
 
 “ The bishops, however, of Asia ” (he continues 
 
 in the 24th chap.) “ persevering in observing the 
 custom handed down to them from their fathers, 
 were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had 
 also set forth the tradition handed down to 
 them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor 
 and the church of Rome. ‘We,’ said he, ‘there¬ 
 fore observe the genuine day : neither adding 
 thereto, nor taking therefrom. For in Asia 
 great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise 
 again in the day of the Lord’s appearing .... 
 All these observed the 14th day of the passover 
 according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, 
 but following the rule of faith ; so also do I, 
 Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, ac¬ 
 cording to the tradition of my relatives, .some oi 
 whom I have followed. For there were seven ol 
 my relatives bishop.s, and I am the eighth ; and 
 my relatives always observed the day when the 
 people (i.e. the Jews) threw away the leaven.’” 
 
 “ Upon this, Victor, the bishop of the church 
 of Rome, forthwith endeavoured to cut otf the 
 churches of all Asia, together with the neigh¬ 
 bouring churches, as heterodox, from the com¬ 
 mon unity. And ho publishes abroad by letters, 
 and proclaims that all the brethren there are 
 wholly excommunicated.” 
 
 Many bishop.s, however, remonstrated, amongst 
 others Irenaeus, who wrote an epistle, in which 
 he maintains the duty of celebrating the mys¬ 
 tery of the resuiTection of our Lord, only on the 
 day of the Lord; but admonishes Victor not to 
 cut off whole churches of God, who observed the 
 tradition of an ancient custom. 
 
 In chap. XXV. Eusebius explains that the bishops 
 of Palestine agreed wdth the decree, and stated 
 that they observed the same day with the church 
 of Alexandria, an important point, for Alexandria 
 is to be looked on, along with the churches of 
 Rome and Asia Minor, as the third, and ulti¬ 
 mately the most important, influence in regu¬ 
 lating Easter. 
 
 Considering how much has been written re¬ 
 specting the Asia Minor controversies in modern 
 times, it is material to observe that the state¬ 
 ments of Eusebius and the whole course of the 
 controversy, leave no doubt of the observance of 
 the 14th day of the moon. No other day comes 
 into consideration. Thus the facts are settled ; 
 to judge of the motives from which the day 
 was kept is, however, more difficult. Various 
 reasons might easily be alleged for the observ¬ 
 ance of this day: those who thought that our 
 Lord died on the 14th Nisan, might keejj it (as 
 Ave believe) us the anniversary of our Lord’s 
 death, or even if they desired to keep the anni- 
 I A'ersary of the last sui)per, knowing that that 
 ' supper, Avhich was by intention a })assover, Avas 
 I only anticipated in point of time by necessity, 
 might revert to its legal time of celebration, 
 j Avhihst those Avho thouglit that our Lord died on 
 the 15th Nisan, might yet keep the 14th (as Baur 
 I and Hilgenfeld allege) in memory of the supper. 
 
 I That St. John found at Ephesus a fesfiA’al on 
 the 14th and joined in it, and gave it the Aveight 
 ^ of his authority, in no Avay militates, then. 
 
 against his authorship of the gospel, that fixes 
 j the 14th Nisan for the crucifixion, even though 
 ‘ it Avere true that the other chronology had 
 originally preA'ailed there. 
 
 ! The argument of Baur, and all the members 
 of the Tubingen school, is as follows;—'I'he 
 Asiatics celebrated the 14th Ni.-un bv an ad- 
 
590 
 
 EASTER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 miuistration of the Lord’s supper, in comme- 
 moi'ation of the passover which Jesus had on 
 that same day, immediately before his death, 
 eaten with his disci])les. The Asiatic church, 
 therefore, believed that Jesus ate on the evening 
 of the 14th, and that he died on the 15th, and 
 it believed this, according to unimpeachable 
 testimony, on the authority of the apostle John. 
 But now, what says the 4th gospel ? According 
 to it, the celebration of the last supper bj* our 
 Lord took jjlace, not upon the 14th Nisan, but 
 upon the evening of the day previous, the 13th, 
 while Jesus dies upon the cross upon the 14th, 
 and therefore before the passover of the law 
 could have been partaken of. The conclusion 
 is obvious. The apostle who is the great au¬ 
 thority for the Asiatic, cannot possibly be the 
 author of the gospel, which speaks unmistakeably 
 for the western practice. 
 
 There is a simplicity and coherence in the 
 Tubingen theory, as expanded at length in Hil- 
 genfeld’s I'asc/iasfreit der alien Kirche, which 
 gives it a very strong hold upon the mind. But 
 it rests upon more than one untenable assump¬ 
 tion. Thus it assumes that the Asiatic Christians 
 kept the 14th evening as the anniversary of the 
 last sup))er. There is not, however, any hint of 
 this in the most important narratives of the 
 controversy, and the plain natural view is that 
 the 14th Nisan was observed in Asia by fasting 
 in memory of the death of Jesus; while a com¬ 
 munion feast in the evening commemorated a 
 completed redemption. The fact of the fasting, 
 to which both Irenaeus and Eusebius bear wit¬ 
 ness, is of itself a testimony that it was the 
 solemn memory of the death of our Lord that 
 was observed. Fasting in anticipation of the 
 eucharist, belongs altogether to a later period, 
 as is truly observed In Steitz’s article in Herzog’s 
 Rcal-Encyclo])adie. [Communion, Holy, p. 417.] 
 
 Between these controversies, that of Anicetus 
 and Polycarp (about 160 A.D.), and that of 
 Victor and Polycrates (190 A.D.), there occurred 
 another in Laodicea (between 170 a.d. and 177 
 A.D.), which has become of late the very turning- 
 point of the whole discussion, but about which 
 Eusebius affords us no further information than 
 what follows (//. E. iv. 26). “Of Melito, there 
 are th& two works on the passover .... In the 
 works on the passover he shews the time in 
 which he wrote it, beginning with these words: 
 —‘ When Servilius Paulus was proconsul of 
 Asia, at which time Sagaris suffered martyr¬ 
 dom, there was much discussion in Laodicea 
 respecting the j)assover, which occurred at that 
 time in its i)roper season, and in which also 
 these works were written.’ This work is also 
 mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, in his own 
 work on the jiassover, which, he says, he wrote 
 on occasion of Melito’s work (e’l ulrias rrjs rov 
 MeAiTcoi/os ypdcprjs).’' 
 
 But with this dispute are connected, probably 
 rightly, the two following fragments of Apol- 
 linaris, bishop of Hierapolis, given in the Chro- 
 nicon i'asc/ude: 
 
 1. “There are some who now, through igno¬ 
 rance, love to raise controversy about these 
 things, being guilty in this of a pardonable 
 ofience, for ignorance does not so much de.serv'e 
 blame as need instruction. And they say that 
 on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with his 
 disciples, but that He himself suffered on the 
 
 great day of unleavened bread; and they in¬ 
 terpret Matthew as favouring their view, from 
 which it appears that their sentiment.< are not 
 in harmony with the law, and that the gosjiels 
 seem, according to them, to be at variance.” 
 
 Again, “ The 14th is the true pa.ssover of the 
 Lord, the great sacrifice, instead of the lamb the 
 Son of God, .... who was lifted up upon the 
 horns of the unicorn, and was pierced in his sacred 
 side, who shed out of his side the two cleansing 
 elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and 
 who was buried on the day of the passover, the 
 stone having been jdaced upon his tomb.” 
 
 We know very little of Ajtollinaris. Eusebius 
 tells us that he was the author of an Apology for 
 the Christians, addressed to the emperor, and 
 that he was an eloquent writer against the 
 Phrygian, Cataphryglan, and other Montanists, 
 and wrote two works against the Jews: but we 
 are left to conjecture who tho.se opponents were 
 against whom he was arguing in the work from 
 which these fragments are taken. 
 
 With these fragments are associated quotations 
 from Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria :— 
 
 “Hippolytus, the witness of religion, who was 
 bishop of the so-called Portus, near Rome, has 
 written literally thus in his Treatise against 
 all the Heresies: ‘ I therefore see that there is 
 a contentiousness in this affair. For he (i.e. 
 the adversary, the Quarto-deciman) says thus: 
 Christ celebrated the passover on that very day, 
 and suffered: I therefore must also do as the 
 Lord did.’ But he is wrong from not knowing 
 that, when Christ suffered, he did not eat the 
 passover according to the law. For He was the 
 passover that had been foretold, and which was 
 accomplished on the day appointed.” 
 
 And again the same (Hippolytus) says in the 
 Treatise on the Passover: “ He did not eat the 
 passover, but he suffered (i.e. as the passover) 
 ovK ((payer, dW* eiradeu.’* 
 
 Another passage from Clement of Alexandria, 
 in his work concerning the passover : “In the pre¬ 
 ceding years then the Lord keeping the passover 
 ate that which was slain by the Jews: but 
 when he proclaimed himself to be the passover, 
 the Lamb of God, led as a sheep to the slaughter, 
 immediately he taught his disciples the mystery 
 of the type on the 13th, on which also they ask of 
 him, Where wilt thou that we make ready to 
 eat the passover, .... but the Savioui suf¬ 
 fered on the next day, being himself the passover 
 . . . .” See also Philosophnmena, 274-5. 
 
 These fragments are given because they offer 
 almost the entire evidence on which we have to 
 fix the place of the Laodicean interlude. Hilgen- 
 feld views Apollinaris as a representative of the 
 West, through whom Western infiuence has 
 gained a footing in the heart of Asia. His oppo¬ 
 nent is directly Melito, but Melito as the repre¬ 
 sentative of the whole body of Asiatic Christians. 
 
 Now that Apollinaris is in the greatest har¬ 
 mony with the Roman and Alexandrian writers 
 whose fragments are associated with him in the 
 Chrunkon Paschale, is manifest: there is great 
 probability also in the conjectui’e that he, like 
 Clement, wrote on the occasion of Melito’s work, 
 and the absence of his name from the list of 
 Polycrates suggests some discordance between 
 his views and those of Polycrates. But he 
 writes against certain persons who are creating 
 a disturbance, not against the quietly existing 
 
EASTER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 591 
 
 ancient custom, nearly univei'sal around him: 
 he seems to observe the 14th himself, and when 
 we notice the characteristics of his writings ae 
 directed against the Phrygians, Cataphrygians, 
 and other Montanists, and against the Jews 
 (Euseb. H. E. iv. 27), we may see ground for 
 suspecting that his real antagonist was such a 
 man as Blastus (perhaps the very man) who, 
 about 180, carried Montanism from Asia Minor 
 to Rome and there provoked the opposition of 
 the church, which is extremely likely to have 
 stirred up Victor’s crusade against the customs 
 of Asia Minor. We know that Hippolytus, as 
 well as Irenaeus, wrote against Blastus, and 
 although Melito’s work may have occasioned 
 that of Apollinaris, Eusebius would hardly have 
 noticed them together, as he does, as fellow- 
 helpers in the church, if they occupied so marked 
 an antagonistic position as has been supposed. 
 
 We have already seen from Epiphanius that a 
 diversity of usages continued to prevail until 
 the Nicene council. At that council the Western 
 usage may be said to have established its victory, 
 and those who still persisted in the Asiatic 
 practice fell into the position of heretics. We 
 find in the letter of the emperor Constantine 
 to the churches after that council (Socr. H. E. 
 i. 9): “ There also the question having been con¬ 
 sidered relative to the most holy day of Easter, 
 it was determined by common consent that it 
 would be proper that all should celebrate it on 
 one and the same day everywhere.” Also that 
 “ it seemed very unsuitable in the celebration of 
 this sacred feast, that we should follow the 
 custom of the Jews,” .... who, labouring under 
 a judicial blindness, “ even in this particular 
 do not perceive the truth, so that they, con¬ 
 stantly erring in the utmost degree, celebrate 
 the feast of passover a second time in the same 
 year.” This of course refers to the error of 
 celebrating before the equinox. “ Consider how 
 grievous and indecorous it is, that on the same 
 days some should be observant of fasts, w'hile 
 others are celebrating feasts ; and especially that 
 this should be the case on the days immediately 
 after Easter. On this account, therefore. Divine 
 Providence directed that an appropriate cor¬ 
 rection should be effected, and uniformity of 
 practice established, as I suppose you are all 
 aware.” (This refers to the determination of 
 the equinox, which was settled to be on the 21st 
 March, although, as we have shown above, the 
 20th was the proper day, as it only happened once 
 in four years on the 21st, and then at 2 a.m.) 
 “ And since the order is a becoming one, which 
 is observed by all the churches of the western, 
 southern, and northern parts, and by some also 
 in the eastern : from these considerations all have 
 on the present occasion thought it to be expe¬ 
 dient. and 1 pledged myself that it would be 
 satisfactory to your prudent penetration, that 
 what is observed with such general unanimity 
 of sentiment in the city of Rome, throughout 
 Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spain, France, Britain, 
 Libya, the whole of Greece, and the dioceses of 
 Asia, Pontus and Cilicia, your intelligence would 
 also concur in.” The epistle of the synod to 
 the church of Alexandria spe.aks in the like 
 terms (see Socr. i. 9): “ We have also gratifying 
 intelligence to communicate to you relative to 
 unity of judgment on the subject of the most 
 holy feast of Easter: for this point also has been 
 
 happily settled through your prayers; so that 
 all the brethren in the East who have heretofore 
 kept this festival when the Jews did, will hence¬ 
 forth conform to the Romans and to us, and to 
 all who from the earliest time have observed our 
 period of celebrating Easter.” (See also Eustb. 
 Life of Constantine.) 
 
 It is to be noted that no rule is here give x 
 for determining Easter; the churches are re¬ 
 ferred to the ancient rule of the West. 
 
 It has been often stated that the council esta¬ 
 blished a particular cycle, that of nineteen years, 
 but this is a mistake. 
 
 Epiphanius mentions three different sets of 
 so-called heretics, who persisted in the Quarto- 
 deciman usage, viz. the Audiani {[lucres. Ixx.), 
 the Alogi (li.), and the Quarto-<leciiiians (1.), the 
 last being orthodox in all respects except this. 
 
 It is unnecessary to follow out further the 
 history of the decline of the Quarto-decimans. 
 
 We must now give some brief account of w'hat 
 is known respecting the various astronomical 
 cycles employed for the determination of Easter. 
 
 The use of cycles was very familiar to the an¬ 
 cient astronomers. It arose out of the neces¬ 
 sity, when lunar months were in use (as at 
 Athens) of linking together in some manner the 
 changes of the moon and the sun. They all 
 rested upon the mean motions of the moon, 
 which was not only all that could be exactly 
 calculated in the state of their astronomical 
 knowledge, but w’hich is in fact all that can be 
 used with advantage for the arrangement of 
 ceremonies and festival-days. The object was 
 to find a period which should contain an exact 
 number of lunations and also of tropical years— 
 the former consisting of 29 d. *5305887 or 29 d. 
 12 h. 44 m. 2s. *865. 
 
 1. The most ancient cycle was the Octaeteris, 
 or cycle of 8 years. It depends on the fact, that 
 8 tropical years are nearly equal to 99 lunations. 
 The 99 months contained 2922 days, three of the 
 8 years having embolisms or intercalary months, 
 as follows. The first year of the period seems 
 to have been variously taken: I. being the ar¬ 
 rangement gix-^en by Geminus ; II. by Epiphanius; 
 whilst III. is that adopted in Scaliger’s account 
 of this cycle, the letter E denoting the embo¬ 
 lism. 
 
 I. II. 
 
 12345678 
 
 E EE 
 
 III. 
 
 1 
 
 2 3 4 
 
 5 6 7 8 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 The months were full (30 days) and hollow (29) 
 by turns, except the intercalary, which were 
 always full. This is exactly 8 years of 365J 
 days. But neither the lunation nor the year is 
 here taken at its true value, and the 8 vears 
 really fall short of 99 lunations by 1 d. 14 h. 
 10 m.—an error w’hich would soon accumulate 
 and make the cycle useless. 
 
 Cleostratus, Eratosthenes, and others made 
 various changes for the correction of this cycle, 
 which still however remained imperfect. 
 
 2. A great improvement upon this was the 
 
 12 3 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 7 8 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
592 
 
 easti:r 
 
 EASTER 
 
 <.ycle of 19 yeai’s ascribed by Geminus to Eucte- 
 moii, but generally to Meton, about 432 ll.'D. 
 This rests on the extremely close relation be¬ 
 tween the length of 19 years and 235 lunations, 
 f.ince 
 
 19 years = 6939 • 60256 days, 
 
 235 lunat. = 6939'688348 days, 
 
 a difference of about 2 h. 3 m. The actual ar¬ 
 rangement was that out of 235 months 110 were 
 hollow, making 6940 days, being in excess of 235 
 lunations by 7^ hours. In the course of 4 Me- 
 tonic periods the accumulation of errors would 
 be 30 hours, and accordingly Calippus proposed 
 then to leave out 1 more day. There was then 
 an excess of 6 h. only in 76 years or of 1 day in 
 310 years. This jDeriod of 76 years is called the 
 Calippic period. 
 
 The first Paschal cycle in use seems to have 
 been the Octaeteids. Epiphanius refers to \l(^Hacr. 
 Ixv.), and appeals to it in his argument with 
 the Audiani in such a manner as to imply that 
 they were right in holding this to be the ancient 
 church cycle : on which account he would rather 
 rest his argument u])on it than upon the superior 
 cycle of 19 years, which must have been familiar 
 to him. Eusebius also mentions (vii. 20) that 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in one of his 
 Paschal letters giA*es a canon for 8 years, seem¬ 
 ing to imply the use of the Octaeteris (about 
 250 A.D.). 
 
 The Paschal cycle of 112 years of St. Hip- 
 poly tus attained some celebrity and was inscribed j 
 on the chair of his statue, discovered at Rome in | 
 1551, and now in the Vatican. It was based on a ' 
 double Octaeteris of 16 years, repeated 7 times: ' 
 St. Hippolytus having observed that by using 16 . 
 }^ears, instead of 8, the week-days recurred in * 
 succession, though in their natural order re-1 
 versed. It extends from A.D. 222 to a.d. 333, 
 and was evidently constructed about 222 A.D. j 
 and was based upon the period of years 215 to 
 222 A.D. for which period it is correct. Beyond 
 this its defective nature soon appears, and after 
 another period it would be found to be worthless. ' 
 It may he seen in Fabricius’s Hippolytus. See 
 also Ideler, ii. 222, and Ordo Saeclorum, p. 477. ! 
 
 The Paschal canon of St. Cyprian, called the 
 Computus Fiischalis, which is extant, hut without 
 the table, was a repeat of St. Hippolytus, with a 
 new start from a.d. 242, based on the 16 years ' 
 from 228 to 243. j 
 
 3. When the Western church discovered the 
 defective nature of the Octaeteris, they took up 
 or perhaps returned to a cycle of 84 years, ' 
 which was employed by, according to Epiphanius 
 and Cyril’s Prologue in Bucherius, the Jews (per¬ 
 haps after the fall of Jerusalem), then probablyby [ 
 some Quarto-decimans, and also by some Latins, ' 
 for Cyril in his Prologue implies that the 84 | 
 years cycle was forsaken for that of Hippolytus, 
 saying, “ pejus aliquid addiderunt.” 
 
 The 84 years cycle may be regarded as con¬ 
 sisting of a Calippic period of 76 years (with the ' 
 correction of 1 day) and a single Octaeteris: and 
 as their errors are in opposite directions, it has a 
 less error in 84 years than the Octaeteris had in 
 8, Both Epiphanius and Cyril ascribe it to the 
 Jews, and the fact that, 84 being a multiple 
 of 7, the Calendar moons would recur on the 
 same days of the week in each period, would 
 do'jhtless give it a value in their eyes. However 
 
 this may be, it became undoubtedly the great 
 cycle of the Latin church, fn- more than two 
 centuries, till it was superseded by the cycle of 
 Victorius of 532 years, published in the year 
 457. An 84-year Easter-table of the Latin 
 church may be seen in Ideler, ii. 249, con¬ 
 structed from a “ f'asti Consulares,” discovered 
 by Cardinal Noi'is, an<l beginning with the year 
 298. Muratori published another in his Anec- 
 dota ex Airdjrosi mae iJihliofliecae Codicih is. In 
 both these it appears that the Epacts and week¬ 
 days of the 1st January were employed for the 
 determination of Easter. Bucherius akso gives 
 ‘ The Latin or Prospor’s cycle of 84 Years,’ be¬ 
 ginning at 382, Since 84 Julian years contain 
 30681 days, and 1039 lunations 30682 d. 6 h. 
 48 m., the 84-year cycle gives at its conclusion 
 the new moon 30 hours too early. 
 
 It may be right here to mention the fact that 
 Epiphanius, believing that the Jews had this 
 84 years cycle at the time of our Saviour’s cruci¬ 
 fixion (for which there is no evidence in Jewish 
 writers), argues at length (^Haer. li.) that, this 
 cycle being shorter than the moon’s true cycle 
 (he means probably the Alexandrian) the Jews 
 anticipated the proper time of the passover by 
 two days in the year of the Passion, and Bu¬ 
 cherius believes that he is in the main right, 
 and reasons quite correctly from his premisses 
 that, if the Alexandrian cycle and 84-year cycle 
 started together B.c. 161, the latter was 3 days 
 in advance of the moon and the former 1 dav. 
 And Bucherius holds, in agreement with Peta- 
 vius, that there was a division amongst the Jews 
 as to these two calculations, the Pharisees and 
 priests keeping the passover one day later than 
 our Lord and his disciples and a great part of 
 the nation. 
 
 There is, however, a great fallacy in these 
 calculations. The cycles give, of necessity, not 
 the true moon of the heavens, but the mean moon, 
 and it does not at all follow that, because on the 
 whole they give a good representation of the mean 
 moon, that therefore They give the true mean 
 mooq in any particular year. On the conti'ary, 
 they all go by fits and starts, according as the em¬ 
 bolism has just taken place or not; and it requires 
 not a general calculation, but an exact knowledge 
 of the state of the cycle, starting from some ab¬ 
 solutely certain date, before we can argue with 
 any certainty from such cycles. We have above 
 expressed the belief that the Jews, having been 
 for many centuries accustomed to the feasts of 
 the New Moon, did not allow any cycle to cari-y 
 them away from a close adherence to the actual 
 phase of the moon. And we may add that having 
 examined the three best attested dates—that ©f 
 the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, n.C. 64, on the 
 day of the Fast (10 Tisri) according to Josephus, 
 and according to Dion Cassius, on a Sabbath ; 
 the setting of the Temple on fire, the 9th Ab or 
 Lous A.D. 70, a Sabbath ; and the taking of Jeru¬ 
 salem by Titus on the 8th Gorpiaeus, or Elul, 
 according to Josephus—again a Sabbath, accord¬ 
 ing to Dion Cassius, we find that the phase ot 
 the moon gives in each case, without anv ambi- 
 guity and without any doubt, these very day.s, 
 viz. B.c. 64, Oct. 4, Saturday; Aug. 4, A.D. 70, 
 Saturday, and September 1, a.d. 70. Saturday. 
 The investigation of a few such cases creates 
 a viA’id impression that wc are on firm ground. 
 A number of other ca*©*, of a more conjectural 
 
EASTER 
 
 598 
 
 EASTER ' 
 
 character, may be seen in Browne’s Ordo Saeclo- 
 rum, p. 538. 
 
 The following results are taken from the 84- 
 ycar cycle in Ideler, ii. 249, already referred to. 
 
 1 
 
 A.D. 
 
 2 
 
 Easter 
 
 Day. 
 
 3 
 
 Tabular 
 Age of Moon. 
 
 4 
 
 A.D. 
 
 5 
 
 Real Age of Moon 
 (by Pliase) 
 on Friday. 
 
 448 
 
 4 Apr. 
 
 XVI 
 
 28 
 
 XIX 
 
 449 
 
 27 Mar. 
 
 XIX 
 
 29 
 
 XXI 
 
 450 
 
 16 Apr. 
 
 XX 
 
 30 
 
 XXII 
 
 451 
 
 1 Apr. 
 
 XVI 
 
 31 
 
 - XVIII 
 
 452 
 
 23 Mar. 
 
 XVlIl 
 
 32 
 
 XX 
 
 453 
 
 12 Apr. 
 
 XIX 
 
 32 
 
 XXII 
 
 Thus whilst the 3rd column is correct for the 
 ) \ars A.D. 448-453, it is erroneous by 4 or 5 
 days for A.D. 28-33. It is remarkable that it 
 gives Mar. 25 for Good Friday A.D. 29, like 
 Hippolytus’s cycle. 
 
 \Ve have now to trace the history of the 19- 
 vears or Metonic cvcle in the church, and its 
 final triumph. 
 
 The Metonic cycle and the Calippic period had 
 long been known to the Alexandrians, and had 
 been in use in Syria and adjacent countries, so 
 that it is remarkable that we hear of the Octa- 
 eteris rather than this cycle as having been first 
 in use, even at Alexandria. 
 
 Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea about 284, by 
 birth an Alexandrian, enjoys the credit, on the 
 authority of Eusebius (vii. 32) of having been the 
 first to arrange the 19-years cycle for ecclesi¬ 
 astical purposes. But the passage has greatly 
 perplexed the commentators, and has called forth 
 elaborate attempts at explanation or emendation 
 from Petavius and others. For Anatolius declares 
 that the sun “is not entering the first segment 
 (of the zodiac) on the 22nd March, where he 
 places the New Moon of the 1st year of the 
 cycle, but is already on the fourth day passing 
 through it. But this segment they generally call 
 the first dodecatemorium, and the equinox, and 
 the beginning of the months, &c.” Unless we 
 are to reject all that is said about Anatolius’s 
 knowledge and ability, we must take him to 
 mean that, the equinox fell on the 22nd, but that 
 the sun was not then at the beginning of the 
 zodiacal sign, but four days advanced in it. This 
 is quite in consonance with the statements of 
 Pliny (xviii. c. 25) and Columella (ix. 13), who 
 after Eudoxus place the equinoxes and solstices 
 at the 8th part of the signs. But the account 
 re.specting Anatolius is further complicated by 
 the existence of a Canon Paschalis attributed 
 to him, which exercised great influence in the 
 British church, but which, if it is identical with 
 that given in Bucherius, was certainly forged. It 
 is strange, too, that so little is heard of the cycle 
 for some time afterwards. But the 19-year cycle 
 probably gradually made its way at Alexandria, 
 cnly it was found that something more than a 
 cycle Avas wanted to insure uniformity. An actual 
 catalogue of results was necessary. So Theo- 
 philus, bishop (,f Alexandria (385-412) framed 
 at the command of Theodosius a cycle (or actual 
 calendar) of 418 years (19 x 22), which St. Cyril, 
 who succeeded him in that see in 412, shortened 
 ^ into a cycle of 95 years (19 x 5) for conA'cnience’ 
 sake. Part only of St. Cyril’s Computus Paschalis 
 remains, but his Prologue survives in a Latin 
 translation (in Bucherius). Theophilus had laid 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 down dii anctly the rule that when the xiv of 
 the moon falls on Sunday, Easter day is the Sun¬ 
 day after; and Cyril states distinctly that Easter 
 may fall on any of the 35 days from March 22 to 
 April 25, our modern mode. In fact, the two 
 chief sources of discrepancy after the Nicone 
 council Avere these: the Latins often celebrated 
 on the Sunday on Avhich the xiv fell, Avhile the 
 Alexandrians Avaited a Aveek; and the Latins 
 made the 18th March the first day on Avhich the 
 xiv could fall, Avhilst the Alexandrians made 
 their limit the 21st March. They both agreed 
 that as the passover Avas to be kept in the first 
 month, Easter Avas to folloAV the same rule ; but 
 the Latins made (as Bucherius, &c. think the 
 JeAvs did) the 5th March the earliest possible 
 day of the 1st month, Avhilst the Alexandrians, 
 holding firmly the doctrine that the xiv must not 
 fall before the equinox, that is, according to their 
 rules, the 21st March, made the 8th March the 
 1st possible day of the month. The Alexandrian 
 rules, as we shall sec, ultimately prevailed. 
 
 It seems to be noAv the time to explain the 
 actual method employed by the Alexandrians. 
 
 The years of the cycle of 19 years being num¬ 
 bered in order, the number of any giAmn year 
 Avas called the Golden Number. So also the 
 letters A B C D E F G being Avritten against all 
 the days of the year in succession, the letter A 
 being placed against the first of January, the 
 same letter Avill stand against any giA'en Aveek- 
 day throughout the year, except in Leap-year, 
 Avhen a change Avill take place after the inter¬ 
 calary day. The letter Avhich stands against all 
 the Sundays is called the Sunday Letter. 
 
 Again, the day on which the 14th of the equi¬ 
 nox moon falls is called the Easter Term. As the 
 Easter Terms recur every 19 years, the knoAvledge 
 of the Golden Number gives the Easter Term, 
 and if AA^e know the Sunday Letter we can pass 
 on from the Easter Term, its letter being knoAvn, 
 to the next Sunday, Avhich Avill be Easter Day. 
 
 Rule 1. To find the Golden Number. Add 1 
 to the numei’al of the year, and divide by 19. 
 The remainder is the Golden Number; Avhen there 
 is no remainder, 19 is the Golden Number. 
 
 Rule 2. To find the Sunday Letter. To the 
 numeral of the year, add its quotient on dividing 
 by 4, and also the number 4; diA’ide the sum by 
 7, and subtract the remainder from 7. This will 
 designate the place of the Sunday Letter in the 
 alphabet. Ex.: 325 -f 81 -f 4 = 410 ; 410 7 
 
 leaves remainder 4; the 3rd letter C is the Sun¬ 
 day Letter. In Leap-year the earlier tAvo months 
 of the year haA'e the letter next succeeding. 
 
 The folloAving Table Avill now suffice to find 
 the Alexandrian Easter (old style). 
 
 Golden 
 
 Nos. 
 
 Easter Terms, 
 
 Golden 
 
 Nos. 
 
 Easter Terms. 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Apr. 
 
 D 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 Apr. 
 
 G 
 
 2 
 
 25 
 
 Mar. 
 
 G 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 Apr. 
 
 C 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 Apr. 
 
 !•: 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 Mar. 
 
 F 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 Apr. 
 
 A 1 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 Apr. 
 
 D 
 
 5 
 
 22 
 
 Mar. 
 
 D 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 Apr. 
 
 G 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 Apr. 
 
 B 
 
 16 
 
 21 
 
 Mar. 
 
 C 
 
 7 
 
 30 
 
 Mar. 
 
 E 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 Apr. 
 
 A 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 Apr. 
 
 C 
 
 18 
 
 29 
 
 Mar. 
 
 D 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 Apr. 
 
 F . 
 
 19 
 
 17 
 
 Apr. 
 
 B 
 
 10 
 
 27 
 
 Mar. 
 
 B 1 
 
 f 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 Apr. 
 
 D 
 
 Ex.—A.D. 29. Golden mimber=ll. Sunday Letter B. 
 Easter Temi, 15th April. Easter l)ay=l7ih April. 
 
594 
 
 EASTER 
 
 EASTER 
 
 It must not be supjwsed, however, that the 
 subject was always regarded from this simple 
 point of view. It was approached with old tra¬ 
 ditionary notions, so that the 19 years was spoken 
 of as made up of 8 and 11—and the years were 
 thought of as lunar years with embolisms—and 
 as it happened that the Latins began their cycles 
 3 years later than the Alexandrians, and so in¬ 
 serted embolisms in different years, this again 
 was a cause of discrepancy, 
 
 Alexandrian cycle: 
 
 I 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 
 
 E E E E K £ £ 
 
 Western cycle: 
 
 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
 
 E E £ £ £ E E 
 
 We give at the same time the order of the 
 cycle of Victorius: 
 
 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
 
 E E E E E E E 
 
 During the popedom of Leo the Great doubts 
 occurred, in the year 444 a.d., and 455 A.D., as 
 to the proper day of celebrating Easter. Leo wrote 
 to St. Cyril to enquire respecting 444, who 
 answered that the day was April 23, propter 
 rationem embolismi anni (not 26 March, as the 
 Latins made it). It was 8 of the lunar cycle of 
 the Alexandrians, 18 of Victorius’ cycle. Leo 
 acquiesced. 
 
 In 455 the contention was greater. Here it 
 was not a question of a month, but of i week. 
 The Latins by the 84-year cycle made it April 
 17 ; the Alexandrians April 24. 
 
 Leo then wrote to Martian, emperor of the 
 East, and to Eudocia Augusta, in which he asks 
 them to interfere that the Alexandrians may not 
 name April 24, alleging that the viii. kal. Maii 
 is beyond the ancient limits. The emperor made 
 enquiry of certain eastern bishops and of the 
 Alexandrians, and Leo finally yielded for the sake 
 of peace. In the matter of these limits the Alex¬ 
 andrians were always firm, allowing the 14th of 
 the moon to range from March 21 to April 18, 
 Easter-day from March 22 to April 25; while 
 the Westerns had shown much vacillation. Their 
 old 14th day limits were March 18 and April 21, 
 then the council ofCaesarea (a.d. 195) laid down 
 as the limits of Easter-day March 22 and April 
 21, alleging that the crucifixion was on March 22. 
 This authority, together with that of the Nicene 
 council, ordering that Easter should not be kept 
 before the equinox, led the Latins to yield the 
 first limit; then Leo extended the 2nd limit two 
 days, by understanding April 21 of the cruci¬ 
 fixion, thus getting Mai-ch 22 to April 23, 33 
 days. Finally the Latins had to yield 2 days 
 more. But the Latins would only keep Easter 
 from the 16th to the 22Dd of the moon, so that 
 the passion might be on the l4th, whereas the 
 Alexandrians often kept Easter on the 15th. In 
 the year 463 Victorius (or Victorious) of Aqui¬ 
 taine, an abbot at Rome, was employed by pope 
 Hilary to correct the calendar, and he was the real 
 author of the cycle of 532 years, found by mul¬ 
 tiplying together 19, the cycle of the moon, and 
 28, the cycle of the sun. Thus, on the suppo¬ 
 sition of the perfect accuracy of the 19-years 
 cycle, all full moons, days of the week, &c., 
 would recur in the same order from cycle to 
 cycle, for ever. 'The cycle is given in Bucherius: 
 it begins at a.d. 239 and ends 770. Some days 
 
 are marked, as differently taken by the Alex¬ 
 andrians and Latins, for Victorius commenced 
 the cycle at the 11th year of the Alexandrian 
 cycle, and also still adhered to the above-men¬ 
 tioned Latin rules. 
 
 There were many errors in his tables, and the 
 revision of it by Dionysius Exiguus obtained for 
 it the name of the Dionysian cycle, transferring 
 to Dionysius most of the merit which belonged 
 to Victorius. 
 
 But what Dionysius really did was to continue 
 the 95-year cycle of St. Cyril, and he also induced 
 the Italians to accept fully the Alexandrian rules. 
 He also abandoned the era of Diocletian, and was 
 the first to introduce the modern Christian era, 
 reckoning from the supposed date of the birth 
 of Christ. Victorius had made his cycle begin 
 from the baptism, A.D. 28. 
 
 But the Easte*r table of Victorius long held its 
 ground in Gaul. In the council of Orleans (541) 
 it was ordered that all should observe Easter 
 according to the laterculus Victorii, and Gregory 
 of Tours says of A.D. 577 : “ In that year there 
 was a doubt about Easter. In Gaul we, with 
 many other cities, celebrated Easter on the 14th 
 Calends of May: others with the Spaniards on 
 the 12th Calends of April. The former was Vic- 
 torius’s date: the Alexandidans kept Easter a 
 week later, the Spaniards four weeks earlier.” 
 It is only at the end of the 8th century that 
 traces of such differences disappear in Gaul. 
 (Ideler, iii. 294.) 
 
 The 84-years cycle lasted longer in Britain 
 than elsewhere: and the bitter controversies 
 which were carried on for a long time between 
 the new English church, founded by the mission 
 of Augustine, and the ancient British church 
 were entirely due to the pei'sistence of the British 
 clergy in clinging to the old cycle of 84 years 
 (see the letter of Althelmus Anglus Episcopus, 
 about 700 A.D. in Bucherius) and old tradition¬ 
 ary maxims respecting the paschal limits. 
 
 They kept the festival from the 14th of the 
 moon to the 20th: they placed the equinox on 
 the 25th March, and would keep no festival 
 before it, and they used as the later limit of 
 the festival the old limit of the Latins, the 21st 
 April. 
 
 For these rules they appealed to tradition and 
 the example of St. John, and also repeatedly to 
 the authority of Anatolius. The discussion almost 
 always turns in Bede’s narrative, and in the letters 
 preserved, on this point:—Is the festival to be 
 kept fi’om the 14th to the 20th of the moon (with 
 the British church), or from the 15th to the 21st 
 (with the Roman) ? And as the battle turned 
 so largely on the 14th of the moon, the partisans 
 of the Roman use tried to fix on the British 
 clergy the name of Quartodecimans, and so the 
 stigma of heresy. But they were in no real 
 sense Quartodecimans. They observed the Easter 
 festival on a Sunday and kept the Friday before 
 it, not keeping, as did the Christians of Asia Minor, 
 the 14th of the. moon, fall when it might: 
 nor is there any ground for connecting them, on 
 the supposition of their being Quartodecimans, 
 with Asia Minor. As we have mentioned before, 
 the spurious canon of Anatolius, given in Bu¬ 
 cherius, was perhaps designed to support the 
 cause of the British Christians. And there is 
 some ground for supposing that the laterculus 
 of 100 years, given in Bucherius, may have be- 
 
EASTER, CEREMONIES OF, 
 
 longed to the British church, as it falls in with 
 their principles. 
 
 Frequently as the differences respecting Easter 
 are mentioned in Bede (Acc/. Hist.), there are 
 unfortunately no dates given which can throw 
 further light on these discrepancies; but the 
 statement respecting Queen Eantleda and her fol¬ 
 lowers as still fasting and keeping Palm Sunday, 
 v/hen King Oswy had done fosting and was keeping 
 his Easter, must refer to some year not for from 
 651; and the xiv of the moon fell on Sunday in 
 645, 617, 648, and 651. 
 
 The Roman use finally prevailed in England. 
 Archbishop Theodore, a.d. 669, is believed to 
 have arranged everything according to Roman 
 customs, and from that time genei’al uniformity 
 existed. Nothing further of impoidance occurred 
 respecting Easter until the Gregorian reformation 
 of the calendar, by which time the accumulated 
 errors arising from the I 5 hrs. excess of the 
 19-years cycle made the calendar moon about 
 four days later than the real moon. [L. H.] 
 
 EASTER, Cerf:monies of. The season of 
 Easter, as the epoch of the great redemptive acts 
 by which the salvation of mankind was consum¬ 
 mated, was from a very early period observed 
 with special solemnity by the Christian church. 
 The Paschal season originally extended over fif¬ 
 teen days, of which Easter Day was the central 
 point, commencing wdth Palm Sunday and ter¬ 
 minating with Low Sunday. The first w’eek 
 W'as known as irdax^ (Travpuxrtfxov, the second 
 W'eek as irdax<^ dpaardirifiov (Suicer, svh voc.). 
 Leaving to other articles the solemnities of the 
 former period [Palm Sunday : Good Friday] 
 w-e propose to speak of those of the pei'iod of 
 Easter, proi)erl 3 ' so called. 
 
 Easier Eve .—This day w'as known by a variety 
 of titles in the early church —rh ij.4ya ad^^arov, 
 rh dyiop (rd^^arop, pv^ dyyeXiKr) (Pallad.), Sabba- 
 tum Magnum^* Dies Vigiliarum Paschae. (Hieron.), 
 ^fi4pa rrjs vardvris tov irdcrx'^ (Fuseb. 
 
 vi. 34). It had a double character, penitential 
 and jubilant; as the conclusion of the great 
 Lenten Ifost, and as the prelude of the Festival 
 of the Resurrection. This was the only Sab¬ 
 bath in the wdiole year on wdiich fasting was 
 permitted {Aj ostol. Con^tit. vii. 23). The fast of 
 Easter Eve w'as of the strictest character, and 
 was prolonged at least till midnight. Good Friday 
 and Easter Eve being a continuous fast, in sup¬ 
 posed obedience to our Lord’s words (Matt. ix. 15). 
 The Apostolical Constitutions enjoin fasting till 
 cockcrow {Ap. Coiist. v. 18). The synod of 
 Auxerre, A.D. 578 {Can. xi.) forbids the breaking 
 of the fast till the second hour of the night. 
 The 89th Trullan canon {Condi. Quinisext. Labbe, 
 vi. 1180) limits the fasting at midnight. Jerome 
 assigns as a reason for the congregation not being 
 dismissed on Easter Eve till after midnight, that 
 even as the Paschal deliverance of Israel took 
 place at midnight (Exod. xii. 29) it was the 
 expectation of the church, according to apo¬ 
 stolical tradition, that Christ would return to 
 
 » The earliest instance of the use of this designation for 
 Easter Eve is in the letter of the chiircli of Smyrna de¬ 
 tailing the martyrdom of Polycarp (Euseb. iv. 15. 12). 
 The day on which Polycarp was apprehended is doscribi d 
 as “ the Great Sabbath ’’ - optos cratifidrov ^icyaAov. The 
 term is evidently borrowed from John xix. 31. yap 
 fityuKr) 7} iip.epa (KeCvri toi> <ro/3^oTO«/. 
 
 EASTER, CEREMONIES OF 595 
 
 accompli.sh the redemption ol His church and 
 triumph over her enemies at the .same hour. 
 That hour being passed, the awe with which the 
 Lord’s coming was anticipated being relieved, the 
 Easter Feast was celebrated with universal joy 
 (Hieron. In Matt. xxv. 6 ). The same belief is 
 mentioned by Lactantius (Zvfo. Inst. vii. 19). whon 
 he speaks of the night being passed in watchful¬ 
 ness on account of the coming of our King and 
 God. VV'e have evidence that in Tertullian’s time 
 it w^as spent in public worship, wdien he speaks 
 of the difficulty wdiich w^ould be caused by the 
 absence of a Christian wife from her heathen 
 husband during the whole night at the time of 
 the paschal solemnities (Tert. ad Uxor. ii. 4). As 
 the night advanced and Easter drew nearer all 
 sign of mourning w'as laid aside for the highest 
 festal jubilee. One sjiecial solemnity indicating 
 the festival character of this night was the light¬ 
 ing of lamps and candles, a custom which is 
 repeatedly referred to by writers from the 4 th 
 century downw'ards. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his in¬ 
 troductory Catechetical lecture (§ 15), speaks of 
 “ that night, that darkness that shows like day,” 
 and Eusebius records {De l it. Const, iv. 22 ) that 
 Constantine observed Easter Eve with such pomp 
 that “ he turned the sacred or mystical vigil into 
 the light of day ” b)^ means of lamps suspended 
 in every part, and setting up huge waxen tapers 
 as big as columns {Krjpov klopus uif/rjAoTdrous), 
 through the w'hole city. We find a reference to 
 the same custom in Gregory Nazianzen {Orat. 
 xlii. De Pasch.), who speaks of persons of all 
 ranks, even magistrates and men and ladies of 
 rank, carrying lamps, and setting up tapers, 
 both at home and in the churches, thus turning 
 night intoday ; and again {Orat. xliii.) describes 
 this Upa pv^, as a “ torch-bearing ” {Sabovx'ia), 
 being as it were a npoSpo/xos or forerunner of 
 the rising of the great light, Christ. Gregory 
 Nyssen also describes the brilliancy of the illu¬ 
 mination as a cloud of fire mingling with the 
 dawmmg rays of the sun, and making the eve and 
 the festival one continuous day without any inter¬ 
 val of darkness {In Christ. Pesurr. Orat. v.) From 
 the poem of Prudentius {Hymn. v. ad Incensum 
 ccrei Paschalis, 141-148) we learn that the church 
 was illuminated with lamps dei)euding from the 
 roof, reminding the spectator of the starry firma¬ 
 ment. In later times one special w'ax taper of 
 large size was solemnly blessed, as a type of 
 Christ’s rising from the dead to give light to the 
 world. The institution of this custom was attri¬ 
 buted to pope Zosimus A.D. 417 [Paschal Taper]. 
 
 The latter hours of the evening and the night 
 were spent by the assembled congregations in 
 united prayer and supplication, the singing of 
 psalms and hymns, reading the Scriptures, and 
 in hearkening to the exhoi taticns of the bishop 
 and presbyters {Apost. Constit. v. 19; Greg. Nyss. 
 Orat. iv. in Christ. Pesurrect.). 
 
 Easter Eve w'as the chief time for the baptism of 
 catechumens. The first seventeen catechetical lec¬ 
 tures of St. Cyril were delivered during the weeks 
 before Easter to those who were preparing for 
 baptism at the ensuing Easter Eve, on which day 
 the eighteenth was i)ronounced {Catech. xvii. 20, 
 xviii. 32, 33). The nineteenth, on Easter Monday, 
 explains “ the deep meaning of what was done 
 on the evening of their baj)tism ” (xix. 1 ). On the 
 Easter Eve which succeeded Chi }'^cstom’s deposi¬ 
 tion. no fewer than three thousand catechumens 
 
 2 Q 
 
596 EASTER, CEREMONIES OF 
 
 awaited baptism at Constantinople, who were 
 dispersed by a body of soldiers bursting into the 
 baptistery, many of the female catechumens being 
 driven out only half dressed, having laid aside 
 their outer garments in preparation for the sacred 
 rite. The sacrament, thus brutally interrupted, 
 was resumed in the Baths of Constantine, where 
 the scattered congregation reassembled (Chrysost. 
 Kp. ad Tnnoc. i.; Ballad. Vit. Chrys. c. 9). The 
 rite of baptism was preceded by the solemn bene¬ 
 diction of the water (^Apost. Comtit. vii. 43 ; 
 Tertull. I)e Bapt.c.A] Cyprian, Apisf. 70 (69)). 
 [Baptism.] 
 
 We find in Rabanus Maurus, c. 847 {De 
 Clericor. Instit. ii. 28) a detailed account of the 
 mode of observing Easter Eve which would not 
 differ much from that of the preceding centuries. 
 All the congregation remained in perfect silence 
 and tranquillity awaiting the hour of the Resur¬ 
 rection. uniting from time to time in prayer and 
 psalmody. Towards nightfall the ceremonies of 
 the Xox Dominica began with the benediction by 
 the archdeacon of the paschal taper. This cere¬ 
 mony tvas followed by lections from the Old 
 Testament and prayers, succeeded by the litanies 
 of the saints. Then followed the administration 
 of baptism. The white-robed neophytes ascended 
 from the font—“ ascendit grex dealbatorum de 
 lavacro ”—and the celebration of the eucharist 
 commenced, of which all were bound to partake 
 but the excommunicate. 
 
 Complaints of disorders consequent on these 
 nocturnal assemblies are found as early as the 6th 
 century. These scandals led first to the limitation 
 of the hours of the vigil, and ultimately to the 
 transference of the observance to the daytime. 
 
 Although nothing could exceed 
 the honour paid to the Feast of the Resurrec¬ 
 tion by the early church, by which it was 
 justly regarded as the chief festival of the 
 whole year, there is very little to say respect¬ 
 ing the mode in which was observed. The 
 high-sounding titles with which the early 
 fathers delighted to decorate it—“ the queen of 
 days,” “ the feast of feasts, and assembly of 
 assemblies” (Greg. Nyss. Orat . xix, ; Ibid, xliii.), 
 “ the desirable festival of our salvation ” 
 (Chrysost. Homil. Ixxxv. de Pasch.), “ the crown 
 and head of all festivals,” and the like—are mere 
 rhetorical flourishes which never obtained general 
 currency, and need not therefore be further 
 dwelt upon. It was commonly known as fj 
 peyaKr ) KvpiaK - fj . “ Dominicii gaudii ” seems also 
 to have been a familiar appellation (Bingham, 
 Orpj . XX. 5. 5). As a religious observance Easter 
 Day was not distinguished from other Sundays 
 except by the vastness of its congregations, 
 and the general splendour and dignity of its 
 sendees. Indeed it was ordained by pope Vigi- 
 lius in the 6th century (537-555) that the mass 
 on Easter Day should be the same as that on 
 other days, “ ordine consueto,” with the excep¬ 
 tion of the addition of singula capitula diebus 
 apta ” (^Epist. ad Euther. § 5 ; Labbe, v. 313). 
 By one of the so-called Trullan canons, a.d. 692 
 (Can. 90; Labbe, vi. 1180) it was forbidden to 
 kneel in prayer from the entrance of the priests 
 to the altar on the evening of Easter Eve till the 
 evening of Easter Day, the two days being com¬ 
 bined in one continuous celebration of the 
 Resurrection, cortV 6 AoK \^ pu ) ivrevdev vvxQr]fxepov 
 TTavy - yvpi^civ yp.as tt)v avaaraenv . Gregory Xys.sen 
 
 EASTER, CEREMONIES OF 
 
 draws a vivid pief ure of the joyous crowds who, by 
 their dress and their devout attendance at church, 
 sought to do honour to the festival. All labour 
 ceased, all trades were suspended, the husband¬ 
 man threw down his spade and plough and put 
 on his holiday attire, the very tavern-keepers 
 left their gains. The roads were empty of 
 travellers, the sea of sailors. The mother came 
 to church with the whole band of her childi-en 
 and domestics, her husband and the whole family 
 rejoicing with her. All Christians assembled 
 everywhere as members of one family. The 
 poor man dressed like the rich, and the rich wore 
 his gayest attire; those who had none of their 
 own borrowed of their neighbours; the very 
 children were made to share in the joy of the 
 feast by putting on new clothes (Greg. Nyssen, 
 O/'af. iii. in Christ. Pesnrrect.). Evangelical 
 lections were read to the assembled convresra- 
 tions, so arranged that the whole history of the 
 Resuri'ection was gone through on successive 
 days (Aug. Serin, de Temp. 137, 140), and ser¬ 
 mons preached instructing the people how to 
 keep the feast duly, Z^ovtws kop-ri^eiv (Athanas. 
 Epist. ad Dracont. ad fin.). When the empire 
 became Christian, the emperors, beginning with 
 Valentinian, A.D. 367, testified to the universal 
 joy by throwing open the prisons, and granting a 
 general pardon (Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 38, leg. 3, 
 6 , 7, 8 ; Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 4, leg. 3 ; Cassiod. 
 xi. Ejnst. ult.; Ambrose Ep. 33 (14)), debtors 
 were forgiven, slaves manumitted, all actions at 
 law were suspended except in some special cases 
 (^Cod. Justin, lib. iii. tit. 12, leg. 8; Cod. Theod. 
 lib. ii. tit. 8, leg. 2; lib. ix. tit. 35, leg. 7), anc 
 liberal alms given to the poor. In the words 
 of Gregory Nyssen (m.s.) “ every kind of 
 sorrow is put to rest to-day, nor is there any one 
 so overwhelmed with grief as not to find relief 
 from the magnificence of this fea.st. Now the 
 prisoner is loosed, the debtor is forgiven, the 
 slave is set free, and he w'ho continues a slave 
 derives benefit.” All games or public spectacles 
 were prohibited as being inconsistent with the 
 sanctity of the season (Can. Trull. 86; Labbe, 
 vi. 1171 ; Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 5, leg. 5). 
 What has been said of Easter Day may be 
 extended to the week following, ivhich, together 
 with that which went before, was considered to 
 partake in the sacredness of the festival. The 
 Apostolical Constitutions ordain that slaves 
 should be allowed to rest from their work “all 
 the great iveek ” (Holy Week), “and that which 
 follows it ” (^Ap. Const, viii. 33). The purpose 
 of this rest was religious edification. St. 
 Chrysostom states (Homil. 34 De Eesurrect. 
 Chri t.') that for seven days sacred assemblies 
 were held and sermons preached. The council of 
 Macon a.d. 585 (Can. ii.; Labbe, v. 981) also 
 forbids all servile work for six days, during which 
 all are to assemble three times a day for worship, 
 singing paschal hymns, and ofiering their daily 
 sacrifices. The Trullan canons (Can. 86 ; Labbe, 
 vi. 1171) also lay down that the faithful ought 
 to spend theiT time through the whole week in 
 church, devoting themselves to j)salmody, read¬ 
 ing the Scriptures, and the celebration of the 
 holy mysteries. 
 
 The F.aster season —Octo dies neophytorum 
 (August. Epist. xix. ad Januar. c. 17)—qlosed 
 with the following Sunday (Low Sunday with 
 us), known by the titles of avrnrdoxay y Kaivh 
 
ECDICI 
 
 ECCLERTASl'ICAE EES 
 
 597 
 
 KvpiaK^, avaKaivfja’ifjLos, Dominica in Octavis 
 Paschae, Fascha Clausum; also with reference to 
 the white dresses of the newly baptised, r] KvpiaK^ 
 eV AevKOis, Dies Neophytorum, Dominica in AUns. 
 The appellation Quasimodo derived from 
 
 the introit (1 Pet. ii. 2), is of later origin. In the 
 Greek church it has been known as the KvpiaKy 
 Qcop.a, and rjpLipa ccTrocrTSXcvy, with reference to 
 the gospel for the day (John xx. 19-23), and the 
 appearance of Christ to Thomas on this day 
 (w. 26-29). The special solemnity of this Sunday 
 was the laying aside by the newly baptised of 
 their white baptismal robes, to be deposited in 
 the sacristy of the church. St. Augustine refers 
 to the appearance of the neophytes in church in 
 their w’hite robes QSerm. de Temp). 162; Dominic, 
 in Octav. Paschae) : “ Hodie vitali lavacro resur- 
 gens Dei populus ad instar Resurrectionis eccle- 
 siam nostram splendore nivei candoris illuminat.” 
 The white bands that w'ere wi'apped round the 
 heads of the newly baptised infants w'ere also 
 removed on this day, w'hich from this custom 
 sometimes bore the name of octavae infaniium : 
 
 infantes vocantur et habent octavas hodie 
 
 .recludenda enim sunt capita eorum ” 
 
 (Aug. Serm. de Temp, 160). We learn from 
 Rabanus Maurus (^De Cleric. Inst. ii. 38) that 
 in his time the seven days after Easter Day were 
 known as Dies Alhae, because those who had been 
 baptised on the holy night wore their albs and 
 assisted at the holy mysteries in that dress,' 
 till the following Sunday, when the bishop’s 
 hand was laid upon them in confirmation. 
 Gregory of Tours mentions processions— roga- 
 tioncs —being made every year at Easter tide 
 (Greg. Turon. Vit. Pair. c. vi. p. 1175). [E. A^.] 
 
 ECDICI Q'EkBikoi or iKKXgcrieKSiKoi), certain 
 officers appointed, in consequence of the legal 
 disabilities of clergy and monks, to represent the 
 church in civil affairs; see Advocate of the 
 Church, Defensor. The place where they met 
 officially wois called eKBiKfioy. [C.] 
 
 ECON OM ITS. [0 EcoNOMus.] 
 
 ECPIIONESIS Q‘EK(pwvT)(ns') denotes that 
 portion of an office which is said audibly, in con¬ 
 trast with that said secrete (plv(ttikus) ; especi¬ 
 ally the doxology, with which the secret prayers 
 generally conclude. [C.] 
 
 ECTENE or ECTENIA (’E/crev^sr or iu - 
 Teyia). Omitting from consideration certain 
 preparatory prayers, the liturgies of St. Basil 
 and St. Chrysostom begin with a litany, known 
 as Ectene, Synapte, Diaconicae, or Eirenicae. The 
 name Ectene may refer to the length or (more 
 probably) to the earnestness of the supplication. 
 Litanies of a similar form are also found in the 
 Hour-offices. See further under Litanv. [C.] 
 
 ECTIIESIS ("EKfleo-is), a doctrinal formula, 
 or “ setting forth ” of a Creed. Thus Theodoret 
 (Hist. Eccl. ii. 17) speaks of the statement of 
 doctrine put forth by the “ conciliabulum ” of 
 Rimini as an ^kO^ctis. The same word is again 
 iised by the same historian in speaking of the 
 creed of Eunomius (//. El, ii. 23). [C.] 
 
 ECTYPOMATA. [Dona : Votive Offer¬ 
 ings.] 
 
 ECIT:MENICAL councils. [Councils.] 
 
 ECCIjESIA ('EKKXrja'id). The principal 
 senses of the word Ecclesia with which we are 
 concerned are the followinsc:— 
 
 I. The congregation or gathering together of 
 the faithful. “Ecclesia est convocatus jiopulus 
 per ministros ecclesiae ab eo qui facit unauimes 
 habitare in domo. l])sa domus vocatui Ecclesia, 
 quia Ecclesiam continet” (Amalarius, De Eccl. 
 Off. iii. 2). 
 
 II. As indicated in the extract above from Ama¬ 
 larius, the word came to designate the build¬ 
 ing used for the Christian assembly [Church] ; 
 as in 1 Coi*. xi. 18: “Appellamus Ecclesiam 
 basilicam qud continetur populus” (Augustine, 
 Epist. 157). The principal designations of 
 churches of different kinds are the following:— 
 
 1. 'H eKKXrjaia is used absolutely to desig¬ 
 nate the princijial church or “ cathedral ” of 
 a city ; as by Procojiius (De Bello l^ersico, ii. 9), 
 to designate the catliedral of Antioch. 
 
 2 . Ecclesia Baptismalis, a parish church—to 
 use the modern term—in which baptisms are 
 celebrated. Walafrid Strabo (De lieb. Eccl. c. 
 30) speaks of “ presbyter! plebium qui baptis- 
 males ecclesias tenent et minoribus presbyteris 
 praesunt.” [Compare Parish.] 
 
 3. Ecclesia Cardinalis. This was also a de¬ 
 signation of parish churches. [Cardinal.] 
 
 4. Ecclesia Cathedrcdis, a church in wliich a 
 bishop set up his throne. [Cathedra: Cathe¬ 
 dral.] 
 
 5. Ecclesia Catholica. [Catholic.] 
 
 6. E. Diocesana (Leges Wisigoth., lib. iv., tit. 
 5, c. 6) is equivalent to parochialis. [Diocese: 
 Parish.] 
 
 7. E. Mater, Matricialis, Matrix, Matricula, 
 may designate either a cathedral, as distinguished 
 from its subordinate churches; or a parish 
 church, as distinguished from mere oratories. 
 
 8 . Ecclesia Plebalis or Pleheiana, the church 
 of a Plebs, or community; that is, a parish 
 church. See the quotation above (II. 2), and 
 Ducange’s Glossary, s. v. Blebs. 
 
 9. Ecclesia Principalis, a cathedral (Leg. TVfsi- 
 goth. iv. 5, c. 6). 
 
 10. Ecclesiae Patriarchales, in the Roman 
 church, are those subject to the immediate 
 authority of the pope. 
 
 11. Ecclesia per se, a church having its own 
 priest, and not dependent (as an oratory would 
 have been) upon another church (Hincmar, 
 Ejnst. ed. Labbe, quoted by Ducange). [C.] 
 
 ECCLESIAE MATRICULA. [Matricula.] 
 
 ECCLESIj^RCH ('EKKXr^aidpxgsX in the 
 Eastern church, was the sacrist, who had general 
 charge of the church and its contents, and sum¬ 
 moned the people to service by the bells or other 
 means of giving notice. The minor ollicials of 
 the church were under his authority. The 
 Typicum of Sabas (c. 1) rejiresents the Ecclesi- 
 arch as giving a rubrical direction in the same 
 way that the deacon commonly does : Hra dp- 
 X^rai 6 iKKXrja-Ldpxvs, AeCre, Trpoa-Kuyj^a-co- 
 pev (Suicer’s Thesaui-us, s. v. ; Daniel’s Codex 
 Lit. iv. 700). [C.] 
 
 ECCr.ESIASTICAE LITER AE. [Com- 
 
 MENDATORY LETTERS : DiMISSORY LETTERS.] 
 
 ECCLESIA STIC AE RES. 1. The term 
 res ecclesiasticae is used, in a wide sense, to de¬ 
 note all matters belonsfinsr to the church, as 
 
 O O ' 
 
 opposed to 7'es seculares, terremae, matters be¬ 
 longing to the world. Things ecclesiastical 
 are again divided into res spirituaics, func¬ 
 tions or objects which belong solely to the 
 
598 ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS 
 
 ELDERS 
 
 priesthood, as the sacraments and tlie altars; 
 and res teinp07'n/es, which contribute to the wel¬ 
 fare rather of the body than the soul (Ambrose, 
 Epist. 3o, ud Marcellinnm'). 
 
 Again, of res spirituales some are immaterial 
 (incorporales), some material (corporales). To 
 the former belong the invisible gifts and graces 
 bestowed on the soul by God; to the latter, the 
 outward acts Or objects connected with such 
 gifts or graces, that is, the sacraments; certain 
 “ res sanctae, sacrae, sacrosanctae,” as churches, 
 the vessels used in the eucharistic or other rites 
 of the church, and the vestments of its ministers ; 
 and certain “ res religiosae,” such as foundations 
 «r institutions for purposes of piety and benefi¬ 
 cence over which the church claims jurisdiction. 
 The molestation or injury of ecclesiastical things 
 is Sacrilege. 
 
 2. In a narrower sense, the term res eccle- 
 siasticue designates the Property" of the 
 Church. (Lancelotti Instit. Juris Canon, ii. 1; 
 Jacobson in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. s. v. Kir- 
 chensachcn ). [C.] 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. [Bishop: 
 Discipline: Jurisdiction.] 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LANGUAGE. [Li¬ 
 turgical Language.] 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. [Canon Law.] 
 
 ECCLESIASTICUS. 1. A member of the 
 Catholic church, as opposed to a heretic or schis¬ 
 matic (Jerome, Epist. 62, c. 1 ; in Jtuffinum, ii. 4). 
 
 2. Any person in orders, whether major or 
 minor. Thus the first council of Vasa (c. 3) 
 desires presbyters not to send for the chrism by 
 the hands of any servant of the church (per 
 quemcunque ecclesiasticum), but by the hands of 
 a subdeacon at least. The word is similarly used 
 in the Theodosian code. 
 
 3. Isidore of Seville (^De EccL Off. ii. 3) speaks 
 of a clerk occupying his due position in the hier¬ 
 archy as “ clericus ecclesiastieus,” in contradis¬ 
 tinction from acephali, or irregular clerks. 
 
 4. Those who were in any way the “ men ” of 
 
 a church, so as to be unable to leave its terri¬ 
 tories or its service, were called in a special 
 sense ‘‘homines” or “ viri ecclesiastici ” (Car. 
 Jlagni C'pital. iv. 3). “Homines ecclesiastici 
 seu fiscalini ” are mentioned, and their duties to 
 their lord prescribed, in Car. Mag. Capita!, v. 
 303. They are distinguished froiji sei'vi (^Conc. 
 Suessio7i. ii. c. 12 ). [C.] 
 
 EDESSA. The translation of the Holy Icon 
 (or picture) of Christ from Edessa is comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 16 {Cal. Byzant.'). A great festi¬ 
 val (Daniel’s Codex, iv. 244). [C.] 
 
 EDILTRUDIS. [Etheldreda.] 
 EDUCATION. [Schools.] 
 
 EGARA, COUNCIL OF {Egarense con- 
 cdiuni), held a.d. 615 at Egara, now Terassa, in 
 Catalonia: to confirm what had boon enacted at 
 Osca or Huesca seventeen years before. Twelve 
 bishops, whose sees are not given, and a presbyter 
 and deacon representing two more, subscribed to 
 it (Mansyx. 531). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 EGDUNUS, presbyter, martyr at Nicomedia 
 with seven others; commemorated March 12 
 (Ma)’t. Adonis Hsuai’di). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EGESIPPUS. [Hegesippus.] 
 
 EGYPT. The entrance of Christ into Egypt 
 is commemorated Ginbot 24 = May 19 (Cal. 
 Ethiop.')', the flight of Cl rist from Melisa to 
 Roskuama in Egypt, Hedar 6 = Nov. 2 {Cal. 
 Ethiop.'). [C.] 
 
 EGYPT, FLIGHT INTO. It is difficult, 
 if not impossible, to name any earlier repre¬ 
 sentation of this event than the bronze casting 
 on the doors of St. Zenone at Verona, which is 
 at all events one of the earliest known of Chris¬ 
 tian works in metal, and may date from the 
 original fabric of the 9th century. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 EGG. There seems some diversity of opinion 
 as to the use of the egg as a Christian symbol. 
 Boldetti (p. 519) speaks of marble eggs found in 
 the tombs of St. Theodora, St. Balbina, and 
 others ; these were of the size of hen’s eggs. Egg¬ 
 shells are occasionally found in the loculi of 
 martyrs, and Raoul Rochette refers them to the 
 agapae so frequently celebrated there. [See 
 Eucharist.] But Martigny, with the Abbe' 
 CaA'edori {Hagguaglio crit. dei Monam. delle 
 A)'ti Crist.) is inclined to think that the egg 
 signified the immature hope of the resurrection. 
 “ Restat spes, quae quantum mihi videtur, ovo 
 comparatur; spes enim nondum pervenit ad 
 rem ” (Augustine, Serrn. cv. 8 , 0pp. t. v. 379). 
 The Use of eggs at Easter has no doubt reference 
 to this idea; but whether the idea was reallv 
 attached to the object or not, in a generally 
 symbolic sense, seems still a dubious matter. For 
 Eggs and Ducks see the Medici ]\ISS. in Asse- 
 mann. Catalog. Bibl. Med. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 EILETON (EiATjTor). After the ecphonesis 
 of the prayer of the catechumens, and imme¬ 
 diately before the deacon warns the catechumens 
 to depart {Lit. Chrysos., Daniel iv. 349) the 
 priest unfolds the eileton, or Corporal, on which 
 the chalice and paten are aftei'jvards placed. 
 What this signifies is e.xplained by Germanus 
 of Constantinople {Theoria Mast. p. 153, ed. 
 Paris, 1560) thus: “The eileton represents the 
 linen cloth in avhich the body of Christ was 
 w'rapped when it was taken down from the 
 cross and laid in the tomb ” (Suicer’s Thesaurus, 
 s. V.). [C.] 
 
 EIRENICA {ElpvviKo). (1) The earlier 
 clauses of the great litany in the Greek liturgies 
 are frequentlv called elprjviKd, as being for the 
 most part prayers for peace. Thus the great 
 litany in the liturgy of St. Chrysostom (c. 14, 
 
 р. 340, Daniel) begins with “ Let us beseech the 
 Lord in peace; for the peace Avhich is from 
 above ;. .. .for the peace of the whole world. ..” 
 
 ( 2 ) See Pacificae. [C.] 
 
 EISODOS. [Entr.ance.] 
 
 ELASIPPUS, martyr at Ferrara, with 
 Speusippus and Melasippus, under Aureliau; 
 commemorated Jan. 17 {JIart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELDERS {Senioi'es). There are some traces 
 of elders recognised in the church, yet distinct 
 from the clergy. Augustine addresses his epistle 
 to the church at Hippo {Epist. 137) to the 
 clergy, the elders, (senioribus), and all the 
 people. In another place {C nti-a Crescon. iii. 
 
 с. 29), he mentions bishops, presbyters, deacons, 
 and elders, (seniores). Optatus (i. c. 41) says, 
 that when Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, waa 
 
eleazar' 
 
 forced to leave his diocese in the persecution 
 under Diocletian, he committed the ornaments 
 and utensils belonging to the church to the 
 faithful elders (tidelibus senioribus). These 
 appear in some cases to have been merely the 
 leading men of the congregation. Thus the 
 council of Carthage, A.D. 419, committed the 
 office of meeting the leaders of the Donatists to 
 the magistrates and elders of the several dis¬ 
 tricts (Cod. Eccl. Afric. c, 91). But there also 
 appear to have been others who had a special 
 position, and probably special duties, in the 
 church. Thus, in the Gesta Purgat. Caecil. et 
 Felic. (p. 263, in Optatus, ed. Paris, 1676) it is 
 said, that in the business of enquiring into cer¬ 
 tain disputes there were associated with the 
 bishop and clergy certain elders of the people, 
 who were also officers of the church (seniores 
 plebis, ecclesiasticos viros). Compare Eccle- 
 SIASTICUS. In the same tract mention is made 
 in one place of the clergy and elders, and in 
 another of bishops, priests, deacons, and elders. 
 In the decrees of the council of Carthage, A.D. 
 419, mention is made of certain elders, who 
 appear to have been sent as delegates to the 
 council (Cod. Eccl. Afric. cc. 85, 100). Compare 
 Churchwardens : Electoral Colleges. 
 
 [P. 0.] 
 
 ELEAZAR, teacher of the Maccabees, com¬ 
 memorated Aug. 1 (Cal. Byzant.^] July 29 (Cal. 
 Armen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELEAZARIUS, martyr at Lyons, with his 
 eight children and Minervius; commemorated 
 Aug. 23 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELEEMOSYNARIES. 1. See Alms, p. 52. 
 2. The w'ord is occasionally used to designate 
 the distributor for pious uses of the effects of a 
 person deceased, i.e. the “executor” of his will. 
 Thus Gregory of Tours (De Vitis Patrum, c. 8) 
 speaks of one from whose executors (eleemosy- 
 nariis) no small sums were received in honour of 
 a saint (Ducange, s.f.). [C.] 
 
 ELECTI. Some writers (as Bona, De Peb. 
 Lit. I. xvi. 4) consider the Catechumens [p. 317] 
 to be divided into the four classes of Audiente.s, 
 Substrati or Genuflectentes, Competentes, and 
 Electi ; the latter being those whose names were 
 actually inscribed in the church-list with a view 
 to baptism. Bingham (Antiq. X. ii. 1) considers 
 the Electi to be identical with the Competentes, 
 though he also makes four classes by adding one 
 of i^wdov/afyoi. But both these classifications 
 are of doubtful authority. (See Martene, De Pit. 
 A)it. I. i. 6.) [C.] 
 
 ELECTION OF CLERGY. The first re¬ 
 corded election of clergy is in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, where Matthias was chosen by casting 
 lots. But this example does not appear to have 
 been followed. 
 
 Clemens Romanus (Epist. Cor. i. c. 42) says 
 that in the early days of the church the apostles 
 appointed their first-fruits, proving them by the 
 Spirit, bishops and deacons of those who should 
 join the faith; and that afterwards the ministers 
 W’ere appointed by other men of consideration 
 (avSpwv iK\oyif/.oiv) with the consent of the 
 whole church (c. 44). Compare Pseudo-Clemens 
 (Epist. ad Jacob, i. c. 3). Clemens Alexandrinus 
 (Euseb. H. E. iii. c. 23, § 6) says that St. John 
 
 ELECTION OF CLERGY 599 
 
 ordained such clergy as were pointed out by the 
 Spirit. 
 
 It appears to have been sometimes held that 
 the bishop had the right of selecting the inferior 
 clergy. Cyprian (Ep. 29, ed. Hartel) say that 
 he had appointed Saturus as a lectoi and 
 Optatus as a subdeacon, insisting that he has not 
 acted arbitrarily, but carried out the wishes of 
 the church in general. Ambrose (Epist. 82 ad 
 Verccll.) speaks of bishops as admitting other 
 clergy to orders and benefices, and (Offic. i. 
 c. 18) of a certain person who was refused ad¬ 
 mission into the clerical oi'der (in clerum), by 
 himself. Jerome (Comm, in Tit. i. 5) speaks of 
 bishops as having power to appoint (constitu- 
 endi) priests in every city, and again (Epist. ad 
 Nejx)t.) of their selecting (eligendi) priests, 
 and (ibid.) of their being entrusted with the 
 power of placing in office whom they would. 
 Philostorgius (II. E. iii. 17) speaks of Leontius 
 bishop of Alexandria appointing Aetius as a 
 deacon. In the Life of John Damascene, it is 
 said that the bishop of Jerusalem, acting by 
 divine inspiration, sent for him and ordained 
 him to the priesthood (Vita Joann. Damascen. 
 per Ioann. Episcop. Hierosolym. inter opp. Joan. 
 Damas.). Gregory the Great, while strenuously 
 asserting the right of the clergy and people to 
 the free election of bishops, was equally firm in 
 re.serving to the bishops the power of selecting 
 parish pidests and deacons, on the ground that 
 in choosing a bishop, the clergy and people 
 transferred to him all rights of election to the 
 inferior offices (Thomassiu, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. 
 Discip. ii. 7, c. 34, § 10). The council of Lao- 
 dicea (c. 13) forbids the election to the priest¬ 
 hood (els lepaTetop) to be entrusteil to the 
 multitude (toTs vx^ois). But this is some¬ 
 times referred to the election of bishops. The 
 4th council of Carthage (c. 22) provides that a 
 bishop shall not ordain any without the advice 
 of his clergy, and shall also seek not only the 
 testimony, but the assent (conniventiam), of 
 the people. A decree of the council of Merida 
 (Cone. Emerit. c. 19) speaks of a parish priest as 
 having been put in charge of his church, by the 
 appointment (per ordinationem) of his bishop. 
 Another decree of the same council (c. 18) 
 ordains that all parish priests shall provide a 
 supply of inferior clergy from the household 
 (familia) of the church. The 6th canon of Theo- 
 philus of Alexandria associates the clergy with 
 the bishop, providing that at every ordination all 
 the clergy shall exercise the power not only of 
 assent, but of choice (consentiat et eligat), and 
 that the candidate selected by the clergy shall 
 be ordained in presence of the people, and that 
 the bishop shall enquire of them whether they 
 also can bear testimony to his fitness. 
 
 In these instances it a])pears that the right of 
 election rested with the bishop, or with the 
 bishop and clergy, and that the people only 
 consented. There is evidence, however, that in 
 many cases the people not only bore witness to 
 the fitness of the candidates, but had themselves 
 a share in the election. Cyprian (Ep. 67, cc. 3 
 and 4) speaks of the people as having the 
 greatest power of choosing worthy bishoj's, since 
 by their presence the merits of the candidates 
 will be known, and the election be just and 
 legitimate as confirmed by the general suflVage 
 and assent. He adds that this was the apo- 
 
600 ELECTORAL COLLEGES 
 
 ELEMENTS 
 
 stolic rule not ouly in tlie election of bishops 
 and priests, but also in that of deacons, Je¬ 
 rome (Epist. ad Jhistkai/i) appears to assert 
 that oith(3r the bishop or the people had 
 power to elect the candidates for ordination, 
 
 “ vel poiiulus vel pontife-ic elegerit.” And, in 
 another place {Comm, in Ezeh. c. 33, v. 6 ) spea.ks 
 of either a bishop or a priest being a watchman, 
 “speculator,” of the church, because of his 
 election by the jieople, “quia a populo electus 
 est.” Siiicius {Ejjist. i. ad Jfimerum Taracon. 
 c. 10 ) speaks of elevation to the office of priest 
 or bishop as depending on the choice (electio) 
 of the clergy and people. Chrysostom {irepl 
 'Upws. iv. c. 2, § 376, 379) speaks of the electors 
 to the office of the priesthood {robs (Ao/jLivovs) 
 as quite distinct from the bishop who or¬ 
 dains. Of these electors he speaks as being the 
 elders {tG>v Trarepup, ibid. i. c. 3 § 29) or 
 the leading {/xeyuAovs') members of the con¬ 
 gregation {ibid. i. 14 § 39). He also speaks 
 of the election as being decided by a ma¬ 
 jority of votes {ibid. iii. c. 4 § 171). Some¬ 
 times indeed the people appear to have brought 
 a candidate to the bishop and insisted on his 
 immediate ordination, as is said to have been 
 the case with St. Augustine (Possid. Vita 
 Augustini, c. 4). 
 
 The 1 st council of Orange (c. 10), provides 
 that when a bishop is the founder of a church 
 in anotlier diocese, he may select the clergy to 
 officiate in it. Justinian {Novell. 123 c. 18) 
 allows the founders of private oratories to select 
 their clergy, but if any unworthy were chosen, 
 the bishop was to have the power of selecting 
 those whom he thought fit. [P. 0.] 
 
 ELECTORAL COLLEGES. The evils of 
 a popular election of bishops and other clergy in 
 a great city, such as Constantinople, were so 
 manifest (Chrysostom de Sacerdutio, iii. 15), that 
 attempts were sometimes made to commit the 
 choice of ministers to a select body or committee. 
 We find perhaps a trace of this in the earliest 
 times, when Clement of Rome {ad Cor. i, 44) 
 speaks of the successors of the apostles being 
 chosen by men of consideration (ott’ iAAoy'ip.oou 
 avSpcHv) with the assent of the church. The 
 council of Laodicea (c. 13) clearly desires that 
 the clergy should be chosen by some definitely 
 organized body, and not by a mere mass-meeting 
 (toTs tlxA-cns) [Election of Clergy]. In 
 spite of this ordinance, however, there are only 
 too many instances in later times of the choice of 
 clergy by meetings which can only be called 
 mobs. (See Augustine, Epist. 155; Synesius, 
 Epist. 67; Baronius, an. 303, § 22 ff.; Baluze, 
 Miscell. ii. 102 If.) Yet, generally, the infiuence 
 of the principal men in a city could not be 
 ignored, and when Justinian {Novel, cx.xiii. c. 1; 
 see Bishop, p. 216) definitely enjoined th-at the 
 clergy and chief men of a city {irpcliToi ttjs 
 ttJAcws) should nominate three for a vacant 
 see, he probably did but confirm an o.xisting 
 practice. From the three thus nominated, one 
 was to be chosen by the consecrator (too 
 rovovvros), generally the metropolitan. 
 
 If the “ chief men ” had been defined, we 
 should have had here an “ Electoral College ” of 
 clergy and notables; as they were not, this 
 system generally led to a struggle between the 
 clergy and the civil government. [C.] 
 
 ELEMENTS. The two parts of the outw'ard 
 and visible sign in the Sacrament of the Lord’s 
 Supper. 
 
 I. Names. —The Latin word elementa does not 
 appear to have been u.^ed in this technical sense 
 in the early ages of the church, though it is 
 a very natural word to express the component 
 parts of any thing. Possibly the use arose from 
 the analogy of baptism, where the outward sign 
 would naturally be spoken of as the element ” 
 of water, as, for instance, in the following pas¬ 
 sage from St. Augustin, where, in speaking ot 
 bajitism, he says, “ Take away the word, and 
 wffiat is the water but water ? 'I'he word is 
 added to ih.Q clement, and it becomes a sacrament, 
 itself as it were a visible word” (accedit verbum 
 ad eiementum et fit sacramentum. Augustin in 
 Joan. XV. 1—3, Tract. Ixxx. 3). Gregory of 
 Tours {De Vitis Patrum, c. 15) uses the word of 
 both bread and water, “Nam esus illi panis 
 tantum hordcaceus erat et aqua, de utrisque elc- 
 mentis libras singulas per dies singulos sumens.” 
 Words denoting saciifice or ofleriug were con¬ 
 stantly used of the Elements; ra ayia Sdjpa, as 
 in the Liturgy of St. James, 6 lepeus elfrdywv to 
 dyia hwpa ; or simply rh. dyia, as in the Liturgy 
 of St. Chrysostom and elsewhere; so the Latin 
 Sancta,’^ as in Ordo Horn. II. c. 8 (see Mabillon, 
 Comment. Praev. p. xxxvi.); or again, simply to 
 Awpa. npocrcpopd was also generally used for 
 the Elements placed on the altar. So the 
 Latin oblatio and oblaia as in the Ordo Ro- 
 mamis If. (c. 9), “ Archidiaconus suscipit 
 oblatas duas de oblationario .. , et ponit [cali- 
 cem] super altare juxta oblationes pontificis.” 
 The word Ilostia, “the Victim,” expre.sses a 
 somewhat different aspect of the sacrificial con¬ 
 ception.’’ 
 
 The unconsecrated Ele.nents on the altar are 
 called in Eastern liturgies “the Mysteries;” the 
 bread alone the “ Seal ” {ccppayis), from its being 
 divided by lines in the form of a cross (see below). 
 
 In certain Arabic rubrics (Kenaudot, Litt. 
 Orientt. ii. 62) the Elements are called Barschin, 
 a corruption of the Greek d-napxv^. 
 
 In Syriac they bear the name oi Kourhono, cor¬ 
 responding nearly to the Greek 8wpor and irpoa- 
 <popd and the Latin oblata ; the bread is simply 
 “Bread of the Sacraments,” or “ of the Mys¬ 
 teries.” 
 
 When the Elements have been placed on the 
 altar, they acquire other names having more 
 distinct reference to sacrifice, as “ the Lamb,” or 
 “ the First-born.” The Syrians too call the por¬ 
 tion imjiressed with a cross “the Seal.” Other 
 names are given to the various particles after 
 division (Ren. u. s. i. 189 ; ii. 62) [Fraction.] 
 
 Again, the Elements were called aopL^oKa, 
 TUTToi, formae aspectabiles, as outward repre¬ 
 sentations of inward and spiritual grace. The 
 word species, often supposed to have the same 
 force, probably in its origin meant no more than 
 “ fruits of the earth ”—a sense which it is well 
 known to bear in later latinity, especially with 
 the jurists (Ducange, s. v.). 
 
 a By the Sancta, however, we ought probably here to 
 understand the consecrated Host reserved from a pre¬ 
 vious celebration. 
 
 ^ See on these names the essay on sacrificial terms in 
 Meynorials of the liev. Wharton H Marriott (London, 
 1873). 
 
ELEMENTS 
 
 ELEMENTS 
 
 601 
 
 II. What 'cere the Elements'! 
 
 Throughout tho universal church bread and 
 wine have always been the recognised elements J 
 in the eucharist, with but few and slight excep¬ 
 tions which may be described in a few words. 
 There was an obscure sect called the Artotyritae ^ 
 who added cheese to the bread. St. Augustin 
 {dc Haeres. c. xlviii.) says “ the Artotyrites are 
 so called from, their oblation, for they oiler bread 
 and cheese, saying that the first oblations which 
 were offered by men, in the infancy of the world, 
 were of the fruits of the earth and of sheep.” 
 Thei-e were also sects which used no wine but ^ 
 water alone, and some who did not use wine in 
 their morning services, though they did in the 
 evening (see below, § VI.) 
 
 III. Composition of the Bread. 
 
 With regard to the element of bread, whatever . 
 may have been the practice of certain sects, 1 
 there is entire agreement in the church that it i 
 should be made of wheat-flour. The mystical j 
 allusions to the superiority of wheat in Clement ! 
 of Alexandria (Strom, vi. 11’, p. 787) and Origen ' 
 (Horn, in Gen. xii. c. 5, p. 247, Wirceburg, 1780) | 
 strongly indicate, what indeed there is no reason ! 
 to doubt, that wheaten bread and (ordinarily) no 
 other, was used in the mysteries. Alenin (Epist. j 
 90) speaks specially of the “ grana tritici,” from ' 
 the flour of which the bread is to be made. The | 
 great controversy in the matter has been ; Should : 
 the bread be leavened or unleavened ? 
 
 A. The princij)al evidences bearing on this 
 question are the following: 
 
 1 . It has generally been assumed in the West 
 that the Last Supper was eaten at the feast of the 
 Passover, and that therefore the bread used was ^ 
 the unleavened bread which the Jews were alone ' 
 allowed to eat at that time. But it is contended 
 by some writers of the Greek church that the 
 Last Supper was held on the 13th Kisan, when 
 leavened bread was still used; and there is no 
 direct statement either in the New Testament or 
 in the writings of the Early Fathers to indicate 
 that azyme, or unleavened bread, was used ; on 
 the contrary, the fact that only “bread” was men¬ 
 tioned would lead to the inference that only com¬ 
 mon bread was meant. The Acts of the Apostles 
 simply speaks of “breaking bread” as a solemn 
 rite, or meeting together to “ break bread.” j 
 Justin IMartyr simply speaks of bread, and as ; 
 he is giving a particular description of the 
 Christian rites, it seems most probable that he 
 would have mentioned the fact had any parti¬ 
 cular kind of bread been used. 
 
 2. It is said that as the element of bread was 
 taken in the early ages from the offerings of the 
 people [Our.ATiON], which served also for the 
 support of the ministers and dependents of the 
 church, it must have been ordinary, that is, 
 leavened bread. But this argument is by no 
 means so conclusive as at first sight it ap})ears ; 
 it is good for the age of Justin Martyr; but in 
 later times there are evident traces of a double 
 offering; one of ordinary food, for the use of the 
 dependents of the church, and one of bread and 
 wine for the altar. The council of Nantes (c. 9, 
 quoted by Martene) clearly distinguished between 
 the o'llatiorus which were intended for consecra¬ 
 tion, and the panes., or loaves, offered for the use 
 of the church [Eulogiae]. So Hincmar (Capitul. 
 
 K 16). And when such a separation was n:adc 
 between the offerings for the ministers and the 
 offerings for the altar, the latter were pi-obably 
 specially prepared, whether leavened or not. 
 The woman who smiled when Gregory the Great 
 (Joannes Diac. Vita Greg. ii. 41) offered her in 
 the eucharist that wliich she had herself pre¬ 
 pared, need not be supj)Osed of course to have 
 taken the oblation from her household loaf. 
 
 3. Epiphanius (Haeres. 30, c. 16) says that 
 
 the Ebionites, in imitation of the saints in the 
 church, celebrate mysteries yearly in the cliurcli 
 with unleavened cakes (Sf using water 
 
 for the other element in the sacrament. Here 
 the azymes seem to be mentioned, like the water, 
 as a departure from Catholic practice; but Epi¬ 
 phanius does not in terms reckon the use ot 
 azymes among the heretical practices of the 
 Ebionites, so that it is possible that their depar¬ 
 ture from orthodoxy may have consisted in their 
 annual, instead of more frequent, celebration, 
 and in their use of water for wine. 
 
 4. The words of the Pseudo-Ambrosius (De 
 Sacram. iv. 4), “ tu forte dicis, mens panis est 
 usitatus; sed panis iste panis est ante verba 
 sacramentorum; ubi accesserit consecratio, de 
 pane fit caro Christi,” are generally thought to 
 imply that the bread used for consecration was 
 leavened. But the opposition in the writer’s 
 mind is between “ common bread ” and “ the 
 Bodv of Christ,” not between “ common ” and 
 “ leavened ” bread, nor is such an expression as 
 “panis usitatus” absolutely conclusive, though 
 it is in the highest degree probable that it desig¬ 
 nates leavened bread, such as was everywhere 
 most commonly used. 
 
 5. A custom of the Roman church, mentioned 
 by the Liber Pontificalis (cc, 33, 55) in the lives 
 of Melchiades and Siricius, is thus referred to 
 by Innocent I. (Epist. ad Lecentium, c. 5). 
 Writing to the bishop of Gubbio, he sa 3 's that his 
 correspondent had no need to consult him about 
 the “ fermentum ” which on Sundays he (Inno¬ 
 cent) sent to the parish churches (titulos), 
 because that was a custom confined to the city 
 of Rome, intended to prevent the parish priests 
 [see Cardinal], who were detained in their 
 own churches by their proper duties, from 
 feeling themselves cut off’ from communion with 
 the mother church [Eulogiai:]. Even in Rome 
 it was only sent to the “ tituli ” proj)er, not 
 to the presbyters of other churches. It has 
 been supposed (e. g. bv' Bona) that the euchar- 
 istic bread which was sent by the pope was 
 called “fermentum” as being made of leavened 
 bread; but, unless the bread common!v con¬ 
 secrated in the churches was «?ileavened, this 
 supposition does not furnish a reason why these 
 particular oblates should be called “ fermentum ” 
 by way of distinction, as they certainly ap¬ 
 pear to be ; and the conjecture of Sirniond 
 (adopted by Mabillon) seems by no means im¬ 
 probable, that this “fermentum” was so called 
 
 j as being intended to leaven the whole mass of the 
 Roman church. Certainly the expressions used 
 in the Lives of Melchiades and Siricius, “quod 
 declaratur, quod nominatur, fermentum,” seem 
 to imply that the term is used in an improper, 
 
 , not a strict, sense. 
 
 6 . The sixth canon of the 16th council of 
 Toledo (a.d. 693) is to this effect. It having 
 been brought to the notice of the council that in 
 
602 
 
 ELEMENTS 
 
 ELEMENTS 
 
 some parts of Spain priests do not offer on tlie 
 Table of the Lord clean loaves, specially prepared 
 (panes mundos et studio praeparatos), but take 
 off a piece to form a round disc (crustulam in 
 rotunditatem) from loaves prepared for their 
 own use, and offer it upon the altar with the 
 wine and water; a thing contrary to all prece¬ 
 dent ; . . . . the council decides unanimously, that 
 no other kind of bread be placed on the altar of 
 the Lord, to be hallowed by priestly benediction, 
 but such as is whole and clean and specially pre¬ 
 pared (panis integer et nitidus qui ex studio 
 fuerit praeparatus); nor is anything of large 
 size to be offered, but only cakes of moderate 
 size, according to ecclesiastical custom (neque 
 grande aliquid, sed modica tantum oblata, secun¬ 
 dum quod ecclesiastica consuetudo retentat). 
 
 This canon has been claimed by the advocates 
 both of the leaven and of the azymes ; but in 
 fact it is not conclusive for either. It is decisive 
 as to the fact that in the Western church in the 
 7th century oblates were specially prepared, and 
 were not portions of a loaf, but “Integra;” but it 
 is not proved that the words “ nitidus ” and 
 “ mundus ” necessarily imply the absence of 
 leaven. 
 
 7. The tenth canon of the council of Chelsea 
 (^Conc. Calchut. a.d. 787 ; Haddan and Stubbs, 
 iii. 452) enjoins that the oblations be cakes or 
 loaves, not pieces of bread (panis, non crusta). 
 Probably the same distinction is intended as that 
 laid down by the 16th council of Toledo, between 
 a whole cake prepared for the purpose, and a 
 piece taken from a loaf. The passage determines 
 nothing as to the use of leaven, for “ panis” may 
 be used either of leavened or unleavened bread, 
 as in “ panes azymi et crustula absque fei’mento ” 
 (Exod. xxix. 2 ). 
 
 8 . Another point of which much has been 
 made in the discussion is this: that Photius of 
 Constantinople (a.d. 867) never mentioned the 
 use of unleavened bread in the eucharist as one 
 of the Latin errors, while Michael Caerularius, 
 also patriarch of Constantinople (a.d. 1054), 
 gave it a ])rominent place ; it has thence been 
 inferred that the use of unleavened eucharistic 
 bread was introduced between the years 867 and 
 1054. This is however by no means a certain 
 inference ; Photius may have omitted to mention 
 azymes among the points of difference between 
 the Greek and the Latin churches, because he was 
 content to leave the question of leaven or no 
 leaven undetermined, like the Greeks of a later 
 age at the council of Florence. All that can be 
 certainly inferred from the .silence of Photius is, 
 that either the use of unleavened bread was un¬ 
 known to him, or he regarded it as a thing in¬ 
 different. It is extremely difficult to suppose 
 that Leo IX. would have written so strongly as 
 he did to Michael Caerularius (Epist. ii. 24 ; vi.) 
 as to the immemorial use of azymes among the 
 Latins, if that use had arisen since the time of 
 Photius ; i. e. not more than a century before his 
 own birth. 
 
 There is in fact positive evidence—if the docu¬ 
 ments be genuine—as to the iise of unleavened 
 bread in the eucharist in the Western church 
 before that date. 
 
 9. Cyprian (^Epist. 6 . 6 , c. 13) says, that, as the 
 chalice is composed, not of wine alone, nor of 
 water alone, but of the union of the two; so the 
 Body cannot be meal alone, nor water alone, but 
 
 the union of the two into one loaf. This is re¬ 
 peated in almost the same words by Lsidore of 
 Seville (^Ee Div. i. 18). It is dilKcult to 
 imagine that Cyprian, and Isidore after him, 
 omitted all mention of so significant an ingre¬ 
 dient as leaven, if it was u.sed in the eucharistic 
 loaf. Moreover, Alcuin {Epist. 90 [al. 69] ad 
 Fratres Lmjdunenses, p. 107) writing about a.d. 
 790, uses the very same expression as to the 
 composition of the bread, “ex aqua et farina 
 panis fit qui consecratur in corpus Christi,” and 
 adds, that it should be perfectly pure from 
 leaven or “ferment” of whatever kind (absque 
 fermento ullius alterius infectionis debet esse 
 mundissimum). Somewhat later, A.D. 819, Ra- 
 banus Maurus {J)e Clerv-. /nstit. i. 31,** p. 319, 
 Migne) lays it down that the eucharistic bread 
 should be unleavened, after the manner of the 
 Hebrew offerings (Lev. viii. 2), and holds that 
 the bread which the Loyd blessed in the Last 
 Supper was undoubtedly unleavened. 
 
 10 . John Maro (quoted by INIartene), writing 
 at any rate before the Trullan council, says that 
 those who made the eucharistic offering in lea¬ 
 vened bread reproached the Western churches, 
 the Armenians, and the Maronites, with offering 
 azymes, which were not bread at all ; a clear 
 proof that the Western churches generally, in 
 fhe 7th century, were thought to agree with the 
 Maronites and the Armenians in this respect. 
 
 11. Again, allusions to “common” or “lea¬ 
 vened ” bread would scarcely have been intro¬ 
 duced into the Canon of the Liturgy [p. 272], 
 as is done, for instance, in the liturgies of James 
 Baradai and Mathew the Pastor, if the compilers 
 had not known of some who used unleavened 
 bread. 
 
 12 . On the whole, then, there is distinct evi¬ 
 dence that unleavened bread was used in the 
 eucharist by the Latins, and by some Eastern 
 sects, in the 7th and 8th centuries; and there is 
 probable evidence that it was used in the 3rd. 
 In the orthodox Eastern church, there can be no 
 doubt that leavened bread has been used from a 
 very early period indeed; if not from the very 
 first, at any rate from the time when Judaizing 
 sects insisted on using unleavened cakes, like 
 those of the Passover, in the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 B. Mixture of Oil and Salt. —The Syrian 
 Christians, besides the leaven which is common 
 to almost all oriental communions, mix with the 
 bread a little oil and salt—a practice which they 
 defend by many mystical reasons (Renaudot, Lift. 
 Orient, i. 191). The mixture of oil—perhaps 
 taken from Lev. ii. 4, etc. ; compare Justin 
 Martyr, Dial. v. Tryj:ho, c. 41—was probably 
 always a singularity of a small sect ; that of 
 salt was more general and more hotly defended. 
 Thus Alcuin (^Epist. 90 [al. 69] ad Fratres Jaiq- 
 dunenses) reprehends certain j)ersons in Spain 
 for insisting, against the custom of Home and the 
 church in general, that salt should be put into 
 the eucharistic bread; and adds mystical reasons 
 why three things only, flour, water, and wine 
 should be offered in the Mass. The modern 
 Greeks eagerly defend the mixture of salt, which 
 (they say) represents the life, so that a sacrifice 
 
 = The genuineness of this treatise is doubted by Baro- 
 nius. See Cave, Hist. Lit. s. v. Isidore. 
 
 There seems no reason to doubt (with Bona, De Reb. 
 Lit. I. xxiiu 7) the genuineness of this passage. 
 
ELEMENTS 
 
 ELEMENTS 
 
 603 
 
 without salt is but a dead sacrifice ; and one of 
 the reproaches coininonly directed against the 
 Armenians was, that they used oblates containing 
 neither salt nor leaven (Martene, A. E. I. iii. 7, 
 § 1 ). 
 
 IV. Preparation of the Bread. 
 
 The more minute directions for the preparation 
 of the eucharistic bread belong to a later age 
 than that with which we are concerned. Those 
 which fell within our period are principally 
 these. 
 
 The canon already quoted of the 16th council 
 of Toledo makes it certain that special prepara¬ 
 tion of the eucharistic bread was enjoined in the 
 7th century. So long as people actually offered, 
 they probably themselves prepared the oblates 
 fcr the altar. Thus the emperor Valens is said 
 to have prepared with his own hands the gifts® 
 which he offered for the altar (Qregory Naziauz. 
 Funeral Oration on St. Basil, c. 52, p. 809) ; and 
 the Roman matron mentioned by Joannes Dia- 
 conus (iL s.)—probably a person of rank, or she 
 would not have received the bread from the 
 pope—had herself prepared that which she re¬ 
 ceived. And it seems that not unfrequently 
 noble ladies undertook the preparation of the 
 oblates as a meritorious work; Candida, wife of 
 Trajan, a prefect, prepared bread for oblation 
 from flour which she had ground with her own 
 hands (Martene, A. R. I. iii. vii, 24); so did St. 
 Radegund (t587), distributing the oblates to 
 different churches {hife by Fortunatus, in 
 Acta SS. Bened. i. 320). And this task was not 
 unfrequently undertaken by nuns, Theodulph 
 of Orleans, however (c. a.d. 797), desired that 
 duty to be discharged by the presbyters them¬ 
 selves or their “boys”^ in their presence, 
 in the following terms: “panes quos Deo in 
 sacrificio offertis aut vobis ipsis aut a vestris 
 pueris c^ram vobis nitide et studiose fiant ” 
 {Capitul. 5). And since that time the oblates 
 have generally been prepared by priests or 
 “religious” persons. See Bethlehem. For 
 further particulars of the preparation of the 
 sacramental bread in various places, see Martene, 
 A. R. I. iii. 7, §§ 23-25 ; Renaudot, Litt. Orientt. 
 1 . 189 I ii. 63 ii'. ed. 1716, 
 
 V. Form of the Bread. 
 
 The loaf used by the Jews of Palestine seems 
 commonly to have been round, somewhat less 
 than an inch thick, and six or eight inches in 
 diameter. In order that it might be more readily 
 broken, it was scored with lines, frequently two 
 lines at right angles to each other, so as to form 
 a cross, dividing the loaf into four portions 
 (Aringhi, Roma Suhterr. II. v. 9, p. 278, quoted 
 by Probst, Sakramente, p. 201). And such was 
 probably the form of the eucharistic loaf in the 
 early Christian church (see woodcut). The Liber 
 Pontificalis (p. 98 a, ed. Muratori) attributes to 
 Zephyrinus (pope 197-217) the order, that pres¬ 
 byters should distribute round cakes (coronas) 
 blessed by the bishop—a statement probably of 
 no great authority. In the 4th century Epipha- 
 
 e The word Stopa c mmoiily n fers to the Elements; in 
 this place, however, Nicetas takes the “ gifts” for golden 
 vessels which Valens ha^i made (u>r avrovpybi fjv). 
 
 f Meaning, probably, those devoted to the service of the 
 church—" oblati.” 
 
 nius (Ancoratus, c. 57) and Cassarius, brother of 
 Gregory Nazianzen {JDial. iii. (juaest. 169), speak 
 of the bread as round. Gregory the Great {I)ia- 
 logus, iv. 55) speaks of a certain presbyter 
 
 On an ancient tomb. (From Mnrtigny.) 
 
 bringing “duas oblationum coronas,” then the 
 usual form ot* oblation. These are explained bv 
 Joannes Diaconus(in Martene, A. R. I. iii. vii. 26) 
 to be cakes made of a handful of fine flour, and 
 in form like a crown (ex pugillo similae et ad 
 speciem coronae); that is, round, whatever else 
 may be intended by the comparison. And the 
 evidence of pictorial repre.sentations agrees with 
 this so far as it goes. Whenever in ancient re¬ 
 presentations the form of the bread is distin¬ 
 guishable, it is round. See Canister, p. 264; 
 Eucharist, p. 627. 
 
 A passage quoted by Martene (?<. s.) from a 
 treatise of Ildephonso, a Spanish bishop, describes 
 the form and comjiosition of the eucharistic bread 
 in the beginning of the 9th century thus : “ men- 
 sura trium digitorum anguli in rotundum panis 
 azymi sic composita est i. e. the azymes for 
 the eucharist were made in the form of a circle 
 of three “ fingers ” radius.s The same authority 
 mentions that the oblate from which the priest 
 was to communicate was larger than those in¬ 
 tended for the people. 
 
 That it is an ancient custom to impress the 
 oblates with a cross is probable from the words 
 of Chrysostom {Quod Chrisius sit Feus, 571 A, ed. 
 Ben.), where he says, “on the Table is the Cross 
 . ... in the mystic Supper the Cross of Christ 
 shines forth with the Body of Christ.” The 
 woodcuts represent the forms of the Greek and 
 
 Coptic oblates, which may probably be of consi¬ 
 derable antiquity. 'I'he former bears the in¬ 
 scription “ IC XG [’ItJCOVS XpilTTys] VLKuf' the 
 latter, “ ayios, ayws, ayios, Kvpios 2a)3a«0.” 
 
 It is evident from what has been .said above, 
 that from a comparatively early age a strong 
 
 s Somewhat less than three iiicbes. 
 
60 i 
 
 ET.KMKNTS 
 
 ELEMENT.? 
 
 objection was felt to the j)ractice of consecrating 
 a portion of a loaf in the eucharist; a whole loaf 
 or take was always to be employed. 
 
 
 Coptic Oblate. 
 
 YI. Composition of the Cnp. 
 
 With regard to the element of Wine there has 
 been less controversy, though it is an interesting 
 and unsettled question whether the cup was mixed 
 at the institution of the sacrament by our Blessed 
 Lord himself. Pfaff (after R. Ob. de Bartenora 
 and Maimonides, in Mislinam de Benedict, c. 7, 
 §5) asserts that the Jews as a rule mixed water 
 with the wine in their Cup of Blessing. Light- 
 foot ( Jemple Service, i. 691) says that he that 
 drank pure wine performed his duty; so that, 
 although it seems probable that our Lord used 
 the mixed cup, yet it is not certain that he did 
 so. Buxtorf (JJe prhnae Coenae Ititibus et Forma, 
 §20) says that it was indifferent whether the 
 cup was mixed or not; and in his Synagoga 
 Judaica, where he gives full details of the Pass- 
 over, does not mention a cup of wine diluted 
 with water. Again, the Babylonish Talmud calls 
 water mixed with wine “the fruit of the vine;” 
 but it would a|)pear that the same term is used 
 for pure wine in Isa. xxxii. 12; Hab. iii. 17; 
 so that nothing positive can be ascertained from 
 the use of that term. On the whole it seems 
 probable that our Lord used a mixed cup. but 
 there is no conclusive evidence on the point. 
 
 It is acknowledged on all hands that, with the 
 exception of a few heretics, the church used for 
 many centuries wine mixed with water. Justin 
 Martyr, the first after the apostles who gives any 
 account of the celebration of the eucharist, says, 
 “There is then brought to the brother who pre¬ 
 sides a cup of water and mixed wine” (Kpd/xaros). 
 And afterwards he tells us that “the deacons 
 distribute to each one present that he may par¬ 
 take of that bread and wine and water which has 
 been blessed by thanksgiving;” and this food, he 
 says, is called Lucharistia (Apof. i. ch. 6.5). 
 Irenaeus also (adv. Ilaer. lib. v. c. 2, p. 294) 
 speaks of the mixed cup (KeKpa/jLevov TvorypioF). 
 And again (lil». v. c. 86) of the Lord’s promise to 
 his disciples, “that he would drink the mixture 
 of the cu}) (mistionem calicis) new wdth them in 
 ihe kingdom,” which shows that he thought the 
 fruit of the vine and the mixed cup the same thing. 
 Cyprian (Epist. 6.3, ad Caecilium) has several 
 passages bearing on this question. He says: 
 (c. 2) that to mix wine with water is to follow 
 the Lord’s example; and again (c. 13): “Thus 
 in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, water cannot 
 be offered alone, as neither can wine be offered 
 alone; for if the wine be offered by itself the 
 blood of Christ begins to be without us, and 
 
 if the water be alone the people begins to be 
 w'ith.yut Christ.” 
 
 The third council of Carthage (c. 24) orders, 
 “that in the sacrament of the body and blood 
 of our Lord, nothing else be offered but what the 
 Lord himself commanded, that is bread, and wine 
 mixed with water.” The African code, both 
 Greek and Latin, has this same canon, with 
 furtiier directions added (Cod. Can. African. 
 c. 37). All the ancient liturgies either contain 
 a direction for mixing water with the wine, or 
 else in the canon the mixing is alluded to. Thus 
 in the Clementine Liturgy (Constt. Apost. viii. 
 12, § 16), in reciting the words of Institution 
 the priest says: “lJkewi.se also mixing the 
 cup of wine and water (e| o^vou /cal vdaro?) 
 and blessing it, He gave it to them.” The 
 Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark contain 
 like words, while the Liturgies of .St. Basil and 
 St. Chrysostom order the deacon to put wine 
 and water into the cup before the piJest places 
 it on the altar. In like manner, in some form or 
 another, the mixing is mentioned in the Litursies 
 of Ethioj)ia, Nestorius, Severu.s, of the Roman 
 and the Gallican churches. In most liturgies, 
 when the water is mixed with the wine, some 
 reference is made to the blood and water which 
 flowed from the Lord’s side; as (e. g.) in the Am¬ 
 brosian rite : “ De latere Christ! exivit sanguis 
 et aqua pariter.” Similarly the Mozarabic . and 
 the Roman. 
 
 A peculiar rite of the Byzantine church is the 
 mingling of /lot water with the wJne. In the 
 Liturgy of St. Chrysostom (c. 34), after the frac¬ 
 tion of the oblate, the deacon, taking up the 
 vessel of boiling water (rb C^or), says to the 
 priest: “ Sir, bless the boiling water ;” the ju iest 
 then says: “ Blessed be the fervency ({‘eVts)*' of 
 thy saints for evei', now and always, and for ages 
 of ages;” then the deacon pours a small quantity 
 of the boiling water into the chalice, saying, “ The 
 fervency of faith, full of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” 
 
 Various mystical reasons have been given for 
 the mixture of water with the xvine. That of 
 Cyprian has been already quoted. Gennadius 
 (Be Eccl. Bogmat. c. 75), besides the fact that 
 our Lord used the mixed cup at the first institu¬ 
 tion, alleges as a further reason that blood and 
 water flowed from His pierced side. The same 
 reason is given by the Pseudo-Ambro.sius (Be 
 Sacram. v. 1), and generally by the liturgies. 
 In the comment on St. Mark, ascribed to Jerome, 
 another is given; that by one we might be 
 purged from sin, by the other redeemed from 
 ])un*shment (On Mark XIV.). Alcuin (Epist. 
 90) finds in the three things, water, flour, and 
 wine, which may be j)laced on the altar, a mys¬ 
 tical resemblance to the Three Heavenly Wit¬ 
 nesses. 
 
 The principal deviations from the received 
 practice of the church in this matter have been 
 the opposite usages of the Aquarians, who used 
 no wine at all in the eucharist, and ot the Arme¬ 
 nians, who mixed no water with the wine, 
 claiming the authority of John Chrysostom. 
 Both these are censured by the council in Trullo 
 (c. 32). These Aquarians or Hydroporastatae 
 l)robably abstained from wine as a bad thing in 
 itself. Tike the Lbionites and the Tatianists or 
 Encratites described by Epiphanius (Haeres. 30, 
 
 See Acts xviii. 2b ; Rom. xii. 11 
 
ELESBAAN 
 
 ELEVATIO 
 
 605 
 
 16; 46, 2; 47, 1); but others in early times, 
 though they partook of the mixed cup in the 
 evening, used water only in the morning, lest the 
 smell of wine should bring scandal upon them, 
 and betray their celebration of the mysteries to 
 heathen persecutors. This practice is noticed 
 and reprehended by Cyprian (Upist. 63, c. 16). 
 
 Some in the 7th century otiered milk for wine 
 in the eucharist; others communicated the 
 people not with wine pressed from grapes, but 
 with the grapes themselves (oblatis uvis) {Cone. 
 Bracar. iii. c. 1); errors severely censured by 
 the ecclesiastical authorities, who constantly 
 insisted on the oti'ering of wine, water, and bread 
 only. 
 
 A peculiar instance of an addition to the cup 
 is the dropping of milk and honey into it, ac¬ 
 cording to the Roman rite, on Easter-Eve (Mar- 
 tene, A. R. IV. xxiv. 32), the great day of bap¬ 
 tism. [Baptism, p. 164.] 
 
 The Colour of the Wine. 
 
 The wine in use in the church has in general 
 been red, apparently from a desire to symbolise 
 as much as possible the blood of our Lord. Ac¬ 
 cording to the Talmud red wine was offered at 
 the Passover. Ireuaeus indeed {Haeres. bk. i. 
 c. 13, § 2) says that Marcus (a heretic) claimed 
 to perform the eucharistic ceremony over certain 
 mixed chalices, and to make them appear red 
 and purple, which would lead to the supposition 
 that the wine had been originally white. But 
 Cyprian {Ep. 63, c. 7) speaks as if the Eucha¬ 
 ristic wine was blood-red ; and Chrysostom 
 (Horn. 82 in Matt. xxvi. 34, 35) speaks of the 
 tongue being empurpled with the blood of Christ 
 in the eucharist. Later in the history of the 
 church many of the synods have ordered red 
 wine to be used; and although there is no 
 necessity in the matter, it certainly seems the 
 most appropriate. 
 
 Literature. —Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum Libri 
 li. ; Martene, Be Antiguis Ecclesiae Ritibus; 
 Krazer, De Antiquis Ecclesiae Occidentalis Li- 
 turgiis; Bingham’s Antiquities; Vossius, Theses 
 Theol.; Brett on the Liturgies \ '^aa.Ws Eastern 
 Church; Vogan’s True iJoctrine of the Eucharist. 
 On the special question of Azymes, see, against 
 the antiquity of unleavened cakes in the eucharist, 
 Sirmond’s treatise De Azumo (1651); on the 
 other side, Mabillon, in the preface to Saec. iii. 
 of the Acta SS. Bened., and in a sj)ecial treatise 
 De Azynio et Eermentalo. [G.VV.P. and C.] 
 
 ELESBAAN, king, monk in the time of the 
 emperor Justin; commemorated Ginbot 20 = 
 May 15 {Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELEUTHERIUS. (1) Bishop, and martyr 
 at Messina, with his mother Anthia or Evanthia; 
 commemorated April 18 {Mart. Hieron.., Rom. 
 Vet.., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop, at Autesiodorum (Auxerre); com¬ 
 memorated Aug. 26 {Mart. L'suardi). 
 
 (^3) ^lartyr at Nicomedia under Diocletian, 
 “cum aliis- innumeris;” commemorated Oct. 2 
 {Mart, llieron.., Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Deacon, martyr at Paris, with Dionysius 
 the bishop and Rusticus the presbyter; comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 9 {Mart. llieron., Bedae, Rom. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Bishop of Illyricum, martyr A l). 290; 
 commemorated Dec. 15 {Cal. Byzant.). [VV.F.G.] 
 
 ELEVATIO (in a Liturgical sense). 
 
 »(1). Eastern CImreh .—In all early Oriental 
 liturgies an elevation of the bread by the cele¬ 
 brating priest is prescribed contemporaneously 
 with the pi-oclamation ayia ayiois, and before 
 the Fraction. Thus, in the liturgy of St. Chryso¬ 
 stom “the priest, elevating the holy bread, 
 exclaims ‘ Holy things for holy persons ;’ ” of St. 
 James : “ then he elevates the gifts, and saith 
 ‘ Holy things,’ &c.;” of St. Basil, “ the priest, 
 elevating the holy bread, exclaims ‘ Holy things,’ 
 &c.”; the Armenian, “the ])riest lifts up the 
 sacrifice before his eyes, and saith ‘ the Holy of 
 holies.’ ” The original intention of this rite was 
 clearly not that the host might be adored by the 
 people, for it took place within the Bema, the 
 doors of which being closed and the curtains 
 drawn, it could be only seen by the attendant 
 ministers. This is acknowledged by Goar; “Non 
 ita tamen ut a populo conspiciatur Dominicum 
 corpus elevat Graecus sacerdos ” {Eucholo j. p. 145, 
 note 158, cf. pp. 84, 151) ; he adds that there is 
 no allusion to eucharistic adoration in the 
 earlier ritualists : “ De majoris hostiae, a populo, 
 
 ' completa consecratione, per elevationem conspi- 
 ciendae, nihil apud anti(iuos rituum expositores.” 
 
 I The authority of St. Basil, to rys iiriuXiiaiooi 
 pryxara eirl rys aj/a5et |ecos rod 6.prov rrjs 
 euxupiarias ris rG)V ay'iwv iyypdcpcDS i)ixiv /cara- 
 XeXoLTTfj /; {De Sp. Sanct. c. 27), is eri'oneously 
 ' urged by Bellarmin {De Eucharist, ii. 15), Schel- 
 ' strate {De Concil. Antioch, p. 219), and Bona 
 ' {Rer. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 13, § 2), in su})])ort of the 
 ' later practice of elevating the eucharist to show 
 it to the people. For the word ardSei^ts has 
 been abundantly proved by Albertinus, quoted 
 j by Bingham {Grig. Eccl. lib. xv. c. 5, §4), 
 
 I and is acknowledged by Renaudot (i. 270), to 
 be used here in its classical sense of “ dedication,” 
 “consecration,” not that of “displaying.” The 
 authorities alleged in supjiort of the earlv intro¬ 
 duction of the practice of disjilaying the eucharist 
 to the people prove very weak on examination. 
 The Pseudo-Dionysius, whose writings^ cannot be 
 placed earlier than the 5th or 6th century, 
 when speaking of the priest “ .showing the gifts,” 
 (tos Swpdas rS.iv deovpytSv vwoSel^asf before 
 proceeding to communion {De Eccl. Hierarch. 
 c. iii. § 11) does not in any way assert that it 
 was to the jieople that he showed them. The 
 example of St. Euthymius, adduced by Martene 
 (p. 423), is little more to the jioint. All that 
 is said is, that after the nn'phora, “stretching 
 forth his hands to heaven, and as it were 
 displaying to them the mystery administered 
 for the sake of our salvation,” {ual uxnrep 
 avrols VTToSetKvvs rh olKOvo/urfdfv rrjs awrripias 
 xdpLV rrjs 7)p.erdpas yvcrr-hpiov), “ he cried 
 with a loud voice, rd dyia rods a-^'iois” 
 (Cyril Scythopol. Vita S. Eut'iym. aj)ud Coteler. 
 Eccl. Grace. Monum. vol. ii. j). 268, §81). The 
 passage quoted from Germanus, and accepted by 
 Bingham as coming from the patriarch of Constan¬ 
 tinople of that name, A.i). 715, is from a woi’k, 
 Theoria Renim Dii in irum, correctly assigned 
 by Cave to his namesake and successor five cen¬ 
 turies later, a.d. 1222. Tlie most apjiosite 
 passage is that given by Renaudot (i. 267) from 
 James bishop of Edessa, c. 651, which, if cor- 
 I’ectly quoted, jirescribes that the priest, after 
 uttering the dyia aylois, “shall lift tlie sacra¬ 
 ments and show them to the whole people as for 
 
606 ELIBERITANUM COXCTLIUM 
 
 EMBALMING 
 
 a witness,” “ turn elevat et ostendit sacramenta 
 universe populo tanquam in testimonium.” 
 
 (2) Western Clvirch. —Obscure and vague as is 
 the date of the introduction of the elevation of 
 the eucharist in the Oriental church, there is 
 still greater uncertainty when it became the 
 practice of the West. Goar humbly confesses 
 his ignorance (^llunholoQ. p. 146, § 158), and Bona 
 acknowledges the same (//cr. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 13, 
 § 2), and professes his inability to discover any 
 trace of the jn-actice in the ancient sacramen- 
 taries or the codices of the Ordo Romanus, or in 
 any of the ancient ritual writers, Alenin, Ama- 
 larius, Walafrid, &c. Indeed there is little doubt, 
 as is acknowledged by all learned and candid 
 Romanists, that the elevation owes its introduc¬ 
 tion to the spread of the tenets of Berengarius, 
 c. 1050, against which it was regarded as a public 
 protest (Muratori, Lifurg. Rom m. Vetus, i. 227). 
 This practice was the natural consequence of the 
 mediaeval doctrine of Transubstantiation, though 
 it had little or no authoritative sanction before 
 the 13th century. Although from its late date 
 the Latin practice does not belong to the period 
 embraced in this Dictionary, we may mention 
 that the position of the deviation in the Roman 
 canon differs es.sentially from that of the Greek 
 church, not taking place until after the fraction 
 and consecration instead of before it. 
 
 (Binterim, iJenkwiirdij. vol. iv. p. 3, pp. 432, 
 sq.; Bingham, Grig. Eccl. bk. xv. c. 5, §4 ; Neale, 
 Eastern (Jh. vol. i. p. 1, p. 516 ; Bona, Rer. Litarg. 
 lib. ii. c. 13, § 2 ; Goar, Eucholog. p. 145 sq.; 
 Marlene, De Eccl. Rit. vol. i. p. 423; Renaudot, 
 JAturg. Oriental. Collect, i. 265-271, ii. 82, 572, 
 608; Scudamore, Notitia Eucharist, ch. vi. § 10, 
 p. 546 sq.; ch. viii. § 7, p. 594 sq.) [E. V.] 
 
 ELIBERITANUM CONCILIUM. [El¬ 
 
 vira, Council of.] 
 
 ELIGIUS, bishop and confessor, “ gloriosus 
 in miraculis,” at Noyon; commemorated Dec. 1 
 {May't. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELIJAH, the prophet; commemorated July 
 4 i^Cal. Armen.\ July 20 (Caf. Byzant.f Taksas 1 
 = Nov. 27 {Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELISHA, the prophet; commemorated Senne 
 20 = June 14 {Cal. Et hiop., Cal. Byzant.'), Oct. 12 
 {Cal. Armen.) \ also Tekemt 19 = Oct. 16 {Cal. 
 Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELIZABETH. (1) Mother of John the 
 Baptist; commemorated Jakatit 16 = Feb. 10 
 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (2) daviJ.arovpy6s, commemorated April 24 
 {Cal. Byzaat.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELODIA, virgin, and martyr with Nunilo at 
 Osca; commemorated Oct. 22 {3Iart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi;. [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELPIDIPHORUS, and companions, martvrs 
 in Persia, a.d. 320; commernoi’ated Nov. 2 {dal. 
 
 Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ELPIS (Hope), daughter of Sophia (Wis¬ 
 dom), is commemorated with her sisters, Faith 
 and Love, Sept. 17 {Cid. Byzant.) [C.] 
 
 ELVIRA, COUNCIIi OF {EHberitanum or 
 Illiberitanurn concilium), held at Elvira in Gra¬ 
 nada. There was another Elvira in Catalonia. 
 The date assigned to it in its own acts is Era 
 CCCLXII = A.d. 324. But it has been referred to 
 A.D. 305, 313, and even 335 by moderns. As 
 
 Hosius of Coiduba is placed second of the nine-- 
 teen bishops attending it, its date cannot well 
 have been earlier than 313, nor later than 324. 
 And, in either case, its canons about the lapsed 
 would find their counterjiart in those of Ancyra 
 or Nicaea. Perhaps the later date, besides being 
 that of its own acts, would accord best with the 
 reference to it by Hosius himself in the 11th 
 Sardican canon, which Baluze points out. Its 
 own canons, all on discipline, seem to have 
 amounted to fourscore and one; but Gratian 
 and others cite several more not now found in 
 its acts. Among the former, absence from 
 church for three con.secutive Sundays is pun¬ 
 ished by the 21st. Superpository fasts—on which 
 see Bingham xxi. i. 25—to be observed in all 
 other months, are relaxed in July and August 
 by the 23rd. Bishops, priests, and deacons co¬ 
 habiting with their wives are threatened with 
 depriv'ation in the 33rd, lights in cemeteries are 
 forbidden during the day by the 34th, and 
 pictures in churches by the 36th. A huge 
 dissertation on this council, in three books, ad¬ 
 dressed to Clement VIII. by Mendoza, may be 
 read in Mansi, ii. 58 and seq. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 EMANCIPATIO, in a special sense, is the 
 setting free of a monk, chosen to an ecclesiastical 
 dignity, from the obedience which he owes to his 
 superior. This was done by letters under the 
 hand of the abbat, called emancipatoriae literae. 
 A form of such letters is given by Petit in his 
 edition of Theodore’s Reniterdial, p. 143. (Du- 
 cange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 EMBALMING. There are many testimonie.s 
 to the observance of this custom among the 
 Christians of the early centuries. That it was 
 practised in the case of martyrs appears from 
 the instance of Tharacus {Acta Tharaci, ap. 
 Baron, an. 290, n. 21), to -whom it was denied 
 by his persecutor Maximus, and his body sen¬ 
 tenced to burning, in contempt of the doctrine 
 of the resurrection. But embalming was not 
 confined to martyrs; it was a reproach cast 
 upon Christians generally by the heathen inter¬ 
 locutor in Minucius Felix {Octav. c. 12, § 6), that 
 “using no perfumes for their bodies in life, they 
 required all costly ointments for their funerals.” 
 Tertullian also {Apol. c. 42) is a witness to the 
 general observance of the custom: “ Let the 
 Sabaeans know that more of their costly wares is 
 spent in the burial of Christians than in offering 
 incense (fumigandis) to their gods.” 
 
 The practice was doubtless derived from the 
 Jews. In the Old Testament the only recorded 
 examples are those of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 1. 
 2, 26) in conformity with Egyptian usage; but it 
 would seem to have been observed more or less 
 generally during their later history; and in St. 
 John’s description of our Lord’s burial, we read 
 that Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus “took 
 the body of Jesus and wound it in linen clothes 
 with the spices, as the nutnner of the Jews is to 
 bury.” Our Lord’s interpretation of the pious 
 offering of Mary to His person (Mark xiv. 8), 
 “She hath anointed my body to the burial” 
 {evTa<pi<i(Tp.6v) implies the use ot unction as a 
 recognized practice. Various spices were em¬ 
 ployed for the embalming, especially myrrh; so 
 Prudentius {Cathemerin. hym. 4)— 
 
 “ Aspersaque myrrha Sabaeo 
 Ck)ri)us-medicaniii)e servat.” 
 
EMBEK DAYS 
 
 EMBER DAYS 
 
 607 
 
 Although the custom of embalming was com¬ 
 mon to Christians and heathens, there was an 
 essential difference in the purpose for which it 
 was practised. As a pagan ceremony it was 
 intended to facilitate cremation; with the Chris¬ 
 tians, on the contrary, to whom “ the old irre¬ 
 verence of bui’ning ” was always abhorrent, its 
 object was to preserve the body from corruption. 
 It was doubtless the expression of that reverential 
 feeling for the body, as having been the temple 
 of the Holy Ghost, and as destined for restora¬ 
 tion to an imperishable existence, by which the 
 Christian faith was exclusively characterised 
 among all the religions of the world. [D. B.] 
 
 EMBER DAYS (jejunta quatnor temporum). 
 From the Latin title has been derived the name 
 of these seasons in most European languages, 
 whether by translation [«?. q. the French les 
 Quatre-Tanps^ or the Swedish de fy>'a faste- 
 tider'], or by a corruption of the original [e. g. 
 the German Quaterrtber, Dutch Quatcrtemper, or 
 Danish KvatcmhcT']. Hence too, if we consider 
 the wide-spread use of the expression is a 
 probable derivation of the English Ember; 
 though two others have been proposed, one 
 connecting it with embers in the sense of ashes, 
 for which little can be said, and the other 
 identifying it with the Anglo-Saxon Ymbren, a 
 revolution or circuit, to which it has been 
 objected that all church seasons are necessarily 
 recurrent. [In favour of this last A'ievv, how¬ 
 ever, may be cited the phrases ymbren dagas, etc., 
 and such notices as the canon of the English 
 council of Aenham, given below.] On the sup¬ 
 position that the derivation from the Latin is 
 the true one, it is interesting to note the Danish 
 form Tamperdag, as marking an intermediate 
 stage between that of the German and of the 
 English. An exception to the aboA’-e rule is the 
 Welsh name, Wythnos y Cydgoriau, Aveek of the 
 united choirs or processions. 
 
 Whatever may have been the origin of the 
 solemnity of the Ember Fasts, we find them at 
 an early period associated with the invoking of 
 God’s blessing on each of the four seasons as 
 it came round in its turn, and the special 
 striA'ing by prayers and fasting to merit such 
 blessings. Still, on the earliest occasion on 
 Avhich we meet Avith a mention of these fasts, 
 this idea does not seem to have been present to 
 the mind of the Avriter. The passage in question 
 occurs in the treatise de I/aeresibus of Philas- 
 trius, bishop of Brixia, in the middle of the 4th 
 centurv. As the [lassage is of some importance, 
 we think it Avell to quote it at length. After 
 citing Zech. viii. 19, as referring to the 
 subject, he proceeds “ . . . . ut mysteria Chris- 
 tianitatis ipsis quatuor jejuniis nuntiata cognos- 
 ceremus. Nam per annum quatuor jejunia in 
 ecclesia celebrantur; in Natali primum, delude 
 in Pascha, tertium in E])iphania, quartum in 
 Pentecoste. Nam in Natali Salvatoris Domini 
 jejunandum est, deinde in Paschae Quadragesima, 
 iitque in Ascensione itidem in caelum post 
 Pascha die quadragesimo, inde usque ad Pente- 
 costen diebus decern: id quod jjostea fecerunt 
 beati Apostoli post Ascensionem jejuniis ct 
 orationibus insistentes.” (I/aeres. 119, in Patrol. 
 xii. 128G.) It seems certain here, whatever the 
 explanation may be, whether of a false reading 
 in the text, or of an unusual meaning of the 
 
 word, that, as Fabricius (not. in loc.') suggests, 
 the fast in Epiphanvi refers to the season of the 
 Ascension, both from the position assigned to it 
 between Easter and Pentecost, and from the 
 subsequent reference to the Ascension. 
 
 We now pass on to the first definite mention of 
 these fasts as associated with the beginnings of 
 the four seasons. Among the works of Leo L, 
 are found numerous sermons for each of the 
 fasts, Avhich are spoken of as the fast decimi 
 mensis (Scrm. 12-20), the fast in Qvadragesimci 
 (Scrm. 39-50), the fast in Pentecoste (Serm. 
 78-80), and the fast seytimi mensis (Serin. 
 86-94) respectively: and in one passage (Serm. 
 19, c. 2; A'ol. i. j). 59, ed. Ballerini), he thus 
 associates the fasts Avith the seasons they 
 introduce, “jejunium vernum in Quadragesima, 
 aestivum in Pentecoste, autumnale in mense 
 septimo, hiemale autem in hoc qui est decimus 
 celebramus.” Further, he appears to speak of 
 this practice as resting on apostolical authority 
 (Serm. 80, c. 1 ; p. 316), meaning, probably, that 
 resting on the authority of his church, they 
 claimed the respect due to apostolic ordinances. 
 The autumnal fast does not seem to be mentioned 
 before the time of Leo L, for it will haA'e been 
 observed that the arrangement in Philastrius 
 is different. Pei-haps, however, Leo or some of 
 his predecessors may haA'e added to three existing 
 ancient fasts this fourth one, and then associated 
 the four seasons of the year with these four re¬ 
 gularly recurring fasts. 
 
 , The particular days on which it was incumbent 
 to fast at the Ember seasons according to the 
 Roman rule Avere Wednesday, Friday, and 
 Saturday ; thus Leo (Serm. 80, c. 4, p. 320) 
 enjoins “ Quarta et sexta feria jejunemus, 
 Sabbato autem apud beatissimum Petrum Apo- 
 stolum A'igilias celebreraus.” Augustine (Ejiist. 
 36, ad Casulanum, c. 8 ; vol. ii. 105, ed. Gaume) 
 seems to speak simply of the particular days of 
 the week on Avhich the local Roman church fasted 
 in its ordinary practice. 
 
 It has been said that ].eo (Serm. 18, c. 2; p. 57), 
 asserts that the fasts of the four seasons Avere 
 celebrated “ in uniA'crsa ecclesia but an 
 examination of the passage will shoAv that he is 
 referring to the institution of fasts generally. 
 Indeed, there can be little doubt that the fasts of 
 the four seasons Avere at first only observed in 
 that part of the church in immediate dependence 
 on Rome. The language of Augustine Avill not 
 allow us to suppose that the same state of 
 things preA'ailed in Africa ; the church in north 
 Italy differed, at any rate in not making Satur¬ 
 day a fast. (Ambrose apud August., Epist. 86 ad 
 Casulanum c. 32 ; ed. cit. 120).* 
 
 In the eastern church there is no trace Avhat- 
 ever of an obserA'ance of the Ember seasons. The 
 passage of Athanasius, Avhich some have quoted 
 in support of a differait conclusion de fuga, 
 
 c. 6; A'oI. i. p. 323, ed. Bened.), merely proves 
 the existence of a fast at Pentecost. With this 
 may be compared an allusion in the Apostolic 
 Constitutions (lib. a'. c. 20). 
 
 Not only is there thus a lack of CA'idence 
 to establish the existence of the usage in early 
 times as aught but a local Roman custom, but 
 Ave find Jerome protesting against the multiply- 
 
 » S<'e on this point Quesnell’s sixth Dissertation ap* 
 pended tu Ins edition o1 Leo I. 
 
608 
 
 EMBER DAYS 
 
 EMBER DAYS 
 
 ing of obligatory fasts, and clearly recognizing 
 no fast but Lent as of universal obligation (^Kpist. 
 41 ad Marcellum c. 2; vol. i. 189, ed. Vallarsi ; 
 cf. vi. 750). 
 
 Nor if we take illustrations from a somewhat 
 later period shall we find the practice uniformly 
 established. Thus the rule of St. Benedict (ob. 
 circa 542 A.D.), carefully specifies the fasts which 
 tlie order was to observe, but ignores the Ember 
 seasons altogether, and indeed, his rule is 
 hardly compatible with the existence of the 
 latter (JdeijiUa S. JSened. c. 41 ; p. 88, ed. Venice, 
 1723). 
 
 Later still Isidore of Seville (ob. 636, A.D.), 
 speaks of the four fasts which are to be observed 
 in the church, “ secundum Scripturas sacras,” 
 mentioning those in Lent, Pentecost, the seventh 
 month, and [on the authority of Jeremiah 
 xxxvi. 9], the Calends of November (de off. Eccl. 
 i. cc. 36 sqq.). He afterwards mentions in 
 addition to these four, that on the Calends of 
 January and others. 
 
 As regards the Galilean church, the Ember 
 seasons do not seem to have been established 
 much before the time of Charlemagne. The 
 second council of Tours (567 A.D.) in prescribing 
 the fasts to be observed by monks, makes no 
 mention whatever of the fasts of the four 
 seasons—the various Galilean Liturgies published 
 by Mabillon equally ignore them; and the 
 language of the council of Maintz [813 A.D.], in 
 ordering their observance, seems to imply a 
 recently established institution, “ Constituimus ut 
 quatuor tempora anni ab omnibus cum* jejunio 
 observentur, hoc est in mense Martio hebdomada 
 prima, et feria quarta, 6t sexta, et Sabbato. . . . 
 similiter in mense Junio hebdomada secunda, in 
 mense Septembris hebdomada tertla, in mense 
 Decembris hebdomada prima, quae fuerit plena 
 ante vigiliam Nativitatis Domini sicut est in 
 Romana hicclesia traditum.” {Concil. Mogxint. 
 can. 34; Labbe vii. 1249). We also meet 
 with capitularies of the Carlovingian kings 
 to the same effect (see e. g. lib. v. 151 ; vol. i. p. 
 854, ed. Baluzius. See also one of 769 A.D., 
 ib. p. 192). 
 
 To return now to the Roman church properly 
 so called, it will be seen that there is reason to 
 doubt whether even there the spring fast was 
 not at first really Lent itself, and not the three 
 special days. It is pointed out by Muratori (see 
 below) c. 3, that while Leo in his sermons on 
 the summer, autumn, and winter fasts, alludes to 
 the three days Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday ; 
 he yet in his sermons on the spring fast in no 
 way refers to them, and indeed it is difficult in 
 any case to see the meaning of a fast within the 
 limits of another fast, except it were meant to be 
 of a more rigorous kind, of which in the present 
 case we have no evidence. 
 
 Some would attemj)t to solve this difficulty by 
 supposing that the Ember seasons were originally 
 instituted as times for ordination, but it certainly 
 appears that this theory cannot be borne out by 
 facts (see e. g. Amalarius Fortunatus, de Eccl. 
 Off. ii. 2, and cf. Muratori c. 3). Everything 
 points to the conclusion that the solemnity- 
 attaching to the seasons led to their being 
 chosen as fitting times for the rite. The theory 
 of Muratori seems very probable, that the spring 
 fast is really Lent itself, and that the fixing of 
 the three days is due to a later development. 
 
 Among other evidence referred to bv him is the 
 fact that in some ancient Roman sacramentaries, 
 when notice is appointed to be given of the fa.st 3 
 of the fourth, seventh, and tenth months, no 
 mention is made of the spring fast. Lent being 
 assumed to be known from other sources. (For 
 instances of this see Cardinal Bona, lierum 
 TAturgg., lib. ii. c. 16; vol. ii. p. 343, ed. Aug. 
 Taur. 1753; and Thomasius, Codices Sacramen- 
 torum, lib. i. c. 82; p. 113.) We may further 
 refer to the rule of tlie English coiincil of 
 Cloveshoe (747 a.d.), which orders that no one 
 should neglect “jejuniorum temi)ora. id est, 
 quarti, septimi et deciini mensis,” and that due 
 notice should always be given of each (Concil. 
 Cloves, can. 18 ; Labbe vi. 1578). It is inter¬ 
 esting to add here that the introduction of the 
 fasts of the four seas'ons is refei-red by a later 
 English council (that of Aenham [1009 A.D.], the 
 locality of which aj)pears to be unknown,) to 
 Gregory the Great, “ et jejunia quatuor tem- 
 po'um, quae htihren vocant et caetera omnia 
 pr )ut sanctus Gregorius imposuit genti Anglorum, 
 conservantor ” {Concil. Aenham. can. 16 ; Labbe 
 ix. 792). 
 
 Among other evidence in favour of this theory 
 may be mentioned an epistle in the False Decre¬ 
 tals bearing the name of pope Callistus (ob. 
 223 A.r>.), which orders that to the three already 
 existing fa.sts, a fourth should be added. Now 
 it may be reasonably argued that the author, 
 Isidore, put the matter in accordance with what 
 he himself believed to be the state of the case, 
 and that thus we obtain an insight into the 
 tradition existing in his time (circa 800 A.'D.). 
 A similar remark as to Callistus, occurs in a 
 MS. of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, in the Am¬ 
 brosian library. Although the statement is of 
 course false, still the origin of the forgeiy may 
 have been that the writer wished to embody 
 what he himself believed to be the fact, namely, 
 that the fourth (spring) fast was added on later 
 A capitulary also of Ahyto or Atto, bishop of 
 Vercellae about 945 A.D., mentions the three 
 fasts in a similar way {Patrol, cxxxiv. 43). 
 
 Not only does this doubt exist as to the origin 
 of the spring fast, but there seems much reason 
 for supposing that at one time it did not neces¬ 
 sarily fall in Lent at all, but was fixed in the 
 first week in March, though afterwards as a: 
 matter of convenience it was fixed within Lent 
 always ; also the summer fast was at one time 
 placed in the second week of June, and there¬ 
 fore did not necessarily fall at Pentecost. The 
 council of Maintz, it will have been observed, 
 speaks of the fast as occurring in the first week of 
 March, Lent not being mentioned at all; simi¬ 
 larly also for the summer fast. So too the Ordo 
 lioinanns, “in primo mense {i.e. March) quarta 
 et sexta feria et Sabbato in ])rima hebdomada 
 ipsius mensis primum jejunium celebratur. 
 Secundum in quarto mense {i.e. June) in secunda 
 hebdomada ipsius mensis. Tertium jejunium 
 septimi mensis, id est Septembris, tertia hebdo¬ 
 mada ipsius mensis. Quartum decimi mensis, 
 id est Decembris, quarta hebdomada ante Natalem 
 Domini ” (i. 33, ed. Hittorp; cf. also Rabanus 
 Maurus de Inst. Cler. ii. 24; and Amalarius 
 de Eccl. off. ii. 1). Again in many ancient 
 sacramentaries we have many things pointing to 
 the .same result; e.g. in the Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentary, we find a notice “ Istae orationes ouae 
 
1':mber days 
 
 EMBOLI SMUS 
 
 609 
 
 sequuntnr primo Sabbato in mense primo sunt 
 diceudao (Patrol. Ixxiv. 1069, and cf. others 
 cited by Muratori, 261). One inoi-e example 
 mav suffice: the council of Aix la Chapelle 
 (817 A.D.), orders that no fast should he in the 
 week of Pentecost, “ nisi statuti fuerint dies 
 jejunii ” (Cone. A'/nisgran. can. 51 ; Labbe vii. 
 1511). Consequently, while the summer fast 
 might fall in the week of Pentecost, it did not 
 necessarily do so. It seems therefore not un¬ 
 reasonable to infer that at one time the church 
 celebrated the fasts of the four seasons accoi-ding 
 to this rule, a change being subsequently made 
 to the present plan. 
 
 We must now refer to the Ember seasons as 
 times specially fixed for the ordinations of the 
 clergy. We have before said that they were in 
 all probability fixed at these times from the 
 solemnity attaching to them, and it is noticeable 
 that we find no trace of such a connexion earlier 
 than the time of Gelasius, who enjoins “ordi- 
 nationes etiam presbyterorum et diaconorum nisi 
 certis temporibus et diebus exercere non debent, 
 id est quarti mensis jejunio, septimi et decimi, 
 sed et etiam Quadragesimalis initii ac mediana 
 Quadragesimae die sabbati jejunio circa vesperam 
 noverint celebrandas ” (Epist. 9 ad Episcopos 
 Luermiae et Bi xittiorum, c. 11; Patrol, lix. 52). 
 It will be observed that two periods in Lent are 
 specified here, a piece of evidence in favour of 
 Muratori’s view that the spring fast is Lent itself. 
 
 The Gelasian Sacramentary also furnishes a 
 form for this ordinance, which is headed, “ Ordo 
 qualiter in Romana sedis apostolicae ecclesia 
 presbyteri, diaconi vel subdiaconi eligendi suit, 
 meiisis i. i\^ vii. et x. Sabbatorum die in xii. 
 lectionibus . . . .” Ixxiv. 1069). Again, 
 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary enjoins that the 
 greater orders are to be conferred only “ in 
 
 It IS perhaps not impossible that the develop¬ 
 ment of the ))ractice in the Roman church may 
 have been something to this effect. Fasts at the 
 times of Lent, Pentecost, and the Nativity, are 
 certainly very ancient; the j)eriods of these 
 would roughly correspond with three of the 
 four seasons, and thus some bishop of Rome, Leo 
 or one of his predecessors, may have conceived 
 the idea of making them symbolize the i-eturn of 
 the seasons, and so added the one necessaiy to 
 complete the four. It would soon come to pass 
 then that they would be spoken of as originally 
 ordained with that view. The length of each 
 fiist having been more or less settled, and the fasts 
 being now more specially associated with the 
 seasons, the spring aii'I summer fasts would 
 come more and more to be viewed independently 
 of Lent and Pentecost, and hence they would fall 
 occasionally outside these seasons. Finally, the 
 inconveniences arising from such irregularities 
 may have caused the ultimate settlement of the 
 matter in its present form. 
 
 For the matter of the foregoing article, I am 
 especially indebted to Muratori’s De iv. Temporum 
 jejuniis disquisitio (in his Anecdota, vol. i. 246-266 ; 
 Mediolani 1697); also to Bingham’s Antiquities 
 of the Church., book xxi. ch. 2, and Binterim’s 
 Denhvmrdigkeiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, 
 vol. V. part 2, 133 sqq. Reference may also be 
 made to Yalfredus, De usu et institutione jejunii 
 quituor temjDorum, Bononiae, 1771. [R. S.] 
 
 EMBLEM. [Symbol.] 
 
 EMBOLISMUS, also EMBOLIS, EMBO- 
 LUM, (1) an inserted or intercalated prayer; 
 the name given to the prayer which in almost 
 all ancient liturgies follows the Lord’s Prayer, 
 founded on one or both of the two last petitions. 
 It is so called because it is interposed here, and 
 
 Sabbatis duodecim lectionum per quatuor tem¬ 
 pera ” (Greg. Sac. 219, and cf. Menard’s note). 
 The same order is laid down in the Poqtifical of 
 Egbert, archbishop of York from 732-766 A.D. 
 (p. 8, ed. Surtees Society). 
 
 The irregularity as to the time of the Ember 
 seasons evidently continued down to a late period. 
 Thus the plan laid down by the council of Maintz 
 is repeated two hundred and fifty years after 
 (1072 A.D.), by a council of Rouen (Concil. Po- 
 thom. can. 9 ; Labbe ix. 1227); and the fre¬ 
 quency with which conciliar rules occur on the 
 subject prove how unsettled the matter was. 
 (See e.g. the regulations of the council of Seli- 
 genstadt [1022 a.d., can. 2; Labbe ix. 845], of 
 those of Placentia [1095 a.d., can. 14 ; ib. x. 504], 
 and Clermont [can. 27; ib. 508], and even of 
 Oxfoi’d [1222 A.D., can. 8; ib. xi. 274], in the 
 very last of which we still meet with the 
 mention of Martii prima hebdomada.) The 
 system followed in later centuries is ordinarily 
 referred to the rule as laid down in the councils 
 of Placentia and Clermont. 
 
 It may be well very briefly to sum up our 
 results. The observ'ance of the Ember seasons 
 is purely a western institution, there being 
 no certain trace of it whatever in the eastern 
 church. It was doubtless at first a rite merely 
 of the local Roman church, whence it gradually 
 spi'cad throughout the west, and established 
 itself^in Gaul and Spain by the eighth centurv, 
 and in England po.ssibly earlier, through its 
 special connection with Gregorv. 
 
 what had been already asked in the Lord’s 
 Prayer is expanded, and it is more clearly ex¬ 
 pressed what evils we seek to be delivei’ed from, 
 viz. past, present, and future, together with the 
 saints by whose intercession we strengthen our 
 prayer, viz. the B. V. Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, 
 and St. Andrew (Bona, Per. Lit»rg. ii. c. 15 § 2). 
 Amalarius (a.d. 810) says of it, “in consumma- 
 tione orationis venit clausula universas petitiones 
 et preces nostras collecta brevitate concludens” 
 (Amalar. De ICccl. Offic. iii. 29). The Embolis- 
 mus was usualh" repeated by the ])riest in a low 
 voice, symbolizing the silence during the period 
 that our Lord lay in the grave; but in the Am¬ 
 brosian rite it was always pronounced aloud 
 (Macri, Hierolex. s. v.). Thi.s practice, which 
 has left very faint traces in the Western church, 
 being reduced in the Roman and Ambrosian 
 rites to “Libera nos quaesumus Domine ab 
 Omni malo,” holds a more important place in 
 Oriental liturgies. The Emb lisunis is not, how¬ 
 ever, found in the liturgies of St. Chrysostom 
 and St. Basil, but appears in those of St. James, 
 St. Mark, and Theodore the Interpreter, as weL 
 as in the Armenian, Mozarabic, and Coptic St. 
 Basil. As examj)les of the shorter Exnbolismus 
 we give that of the church of Jerusalem, “And 
 lead us not into temptation, 0 Lord, the Lord of 
 Hosts, who knowest our iniii mity ; but deliver 
 us from the Evil One, and his works, and every 
 assault and will of his, for the sake ot Thy Holy 
 name which is called upon our lowliness ” (As- 
 seman. vol. v. p. 51), and the Syriac St. James, 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
610 
 
 EMBOLOS 
 
 ENCHEIRION 
 
 “ 0 Lord our God, lead us not jnt'i temptation 
 which we devoid of strength are not able to 
 bear, but also with the temptation make a way 
 of escajie, that we may be able to bear it, and 
 leliver us from evil through Jesus Christ,” &c. 
 
 Renaud. vol. ii. p. 40). 
 
 (Neale, Easlern Ch'irch^ part i. 1, p. 513; 
 2, pp. 627-629; Scudamore, Notit. Euchur. 
 
 р. 572 ; Binterim, Iknhvsurd. iv. 3, p. 465; 
 Maci'i, Hierolex. ; Ducange, Glossar.s. v.) [E.V.] 
 
 (2) EniboUsnus also designates the excess of 
 the solar year over twelve lunar months, com¬ 
 monly called the Epact. See Durandus, lin- 
 tiomle, viii. 10. (Ducange, s.v.'). [C.] 
 
 EMBOLOS. A covered portico or cloister; 
 in ecclesiastical language a cloister surrounding 
 the external walls of a church, serving as an 
 ambulatory in hot, rainy, and dirty weather, and 
 al.so affording a convenient passage for the priests 
 and ministers of the chui’ch from the bema and 
 diaconi::uin to the narthex, used at Constantinople 
 by the patriarch when he proceeded to wash feet 
 in the narthex. Codinus speaks of these cloisters 
 being vaulted, and Goar of their walls being orna- 
 mented with mosaic pictures. Such porticos ran 
 along the N. and S. sides of the church of St. Sophia 
 at Constantinople (Ducange, Constan. Christian. 
 lib. iii. c. 16), and surrounded the churches of St. 
 Michael at Anaplus, and the Deipara at Jerusalem, 
 on all sides but the east (Procop. de Aedific. lib. i. 
 
 с. 8, lib. V. c. 6), It was in “the right embolos” 
 of St. Sophia—that the summaiy of the proceed¬ 
 ings of the so-called eighth general council, that 
 of Constantinople in 870, were drawn up (Labbe, 
 Concil. viii. 1421). In Moschus (^Prat. Spiritual. 
 § 66 apud Coteler. Eccl. Grace. Monum. ii. 390) 
 we read of an archimandrite named George, who 
 buried in “ the right embolos” of a church he 
 was erecting, the body of an ascetic who had 
 apjieared to him in a dream and warned him 
 where he would find his corpse. 
 
 (Goar, Eueholof]. p. 627; Allatius, de Templis, 
 Epist. ii. § 4; Ducange, Gloss. Grace.'). [E. V.] 
 
 EMERENTIANA, virgin, martyr at Rome ; 
 commemorated Jan. 23 {Mart. Piom. Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 (3) Martyr at Capua; commemorated Oct. 6 
 {Mart. Jlicran.., Adonis, Csuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EMITHERIUS, martyr with Celed'Miius at 
 Calagurris; commemorated March 3 {Matt. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 EMPHOT.TON {'Epcpdriov) is one of the 
 names for the white robe {aua$u\iov) with which 
 persons were invested at baj)fism. The name is 
 no doubt derived from the “enlightening” attri¬ 
 buted to the ba])tismal ceremony. See Baptism, 
 pp. 156, 163. [C.] 
 
 EMPHYTEUSIS {'E/acpuTevan), a manner 
 of letting real property, at first confined to waste 
 lands requiring much outlay to bring them under 
 cultivation, but afterwards applied to any real 
 property. 
 
 Emphyteusis is a contract by which the bene¬ 
 ficial ownership of real projierty (res immobilis) 
 
 ^ is transferi'ed by the proprietor to another, 
 
 ' either fo’’ a term of not le.ss than ten years, or 
 for a life or lives, or in perpetuity, in considera¬ 
 tion of an annual payment. It differs from mere 
 letting (locatio), in that by emphyteusis bene¬ 
 ficial ownership is transferred for the term, 
 while by letting only the use and enjoyment of' 
 produce is transferred; in that its use is confined 
 to real property; and in that it cannot be for a 
 less term than ten years. It differs from feudal 
 tenure (feodum), in that it requires periodical 
 payments, not personal service, to be given to 
 the lord or proprietor. 
 
 Emphyteusis is either ecclesiastical or lay. 
 Ecclesiastical emphyteusis is a contract by which 
 property belonging to a church, monastery, oi 
 other religious foundation, is granted. This 
 differs from lay emphyteusis [See Smith’s Dicr. 
 OF Greek and Roman Antiq. s. u.] principally 
 in that it requires the assent of the bishop, and 
 must clearly be for the benefit of the church or 
 foundation which grants it; a provision no doubt 
 i intended to check the alienation of church pro- 
 I perty by ecclesiastical persons. [Alienation 
 I OF Church Property : Propertv of the 
 Church.] 
 
 (Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. “Emphy¬ 
 teusis.”) [C.] 
 
 EMERITENSE CONCILIUM. [Merida, 
 Council op.] 
 
 EMILIANUS. (1) Martyr in Lower Ar¬ 
 menia with Dionysius and Sebastian ; commemo¬ 
 rated Feb. 8 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Numidia, with Agapius and 
 Secundinus, bishops; commemorated April 29 
 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Dorostorum; commemorated 
 July 18 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Deacon, martyr at Cordova with Hiere- 
 mias ; commemorated Sept. 17 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Presbyter and confessor in Tarragona; 
 commemorated Nov. 12 {lb.) 
 
 (6) Confessor in Africa; commemorated Dec. 
 6 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EMILIUS. (1) Martyr in Africa, with 
 Castas; commemorated May 22 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Carth.). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Sardinia; commemorated May 
 28 {Mart.. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 EMPRESMUS {'E,uirpr](riJ.6s), the great con¬ 
 flagration ; commemorated Sept. 1 {Cal. 
 Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EMUNITAS. [Immunities.] 
 
 ENAFOTA, ENAFODIA 
 In the Liber Pontijicalis, we read that pope 
 Paschal gave to a church “ canistra enafota ex 
 argento duo, pens. lib. x.” two coronae of nine 
 lights, weighing ten pounds. And Valentine II. 
 gave “canistra ennafodia duo pens. lib. xv.” 
 Compare Canister, Corona, Exafota. (Du¬ 
 cange, s. V.) 
 
 EN C AENI A. [Dedication-F estival.] 
 
 ENCHANTMENT. [Magic.] 
 
 ENCHEIRION {'Eyx^ipior), the napkin 
 with which the priest wipes his hands, worn at 
 the girdle. Towards the end of the letter of 
 Nicephorus of Constantinople to pope Leo (in the 
 Acta Cone. Ephes. p. 313, ed. Commelin, 1591), 
 we read of a stole and an encheirioa em¬ 
 broidered with gold. It is described by Ger- 
 manus of Constantinople {Theoria Myst. p. 150, 
 
ENCYCLICAI. LETTERS 611 
 
 E>^COIiPION 
 
 cd. Pans, 1560) thus: “ The encheinon, which 
 hangs to the girdle, is the napkin which wipes 
 his hands; and to have a napkin at the girdle is 
 typical of him who washed his hands and said, 
 ‘1 am innocent’ (Matt, xxvii. 24).” (Suicer’s 
 Thesaurus, s. v.) [C.] 
 
 ENCOLPION ('EyK6\Tnoy, that which is 
 worn on the breast), the name anciently given 
 to small caskets worn round the necks of the 
 fiiithful, containing usually either relics or a 
 copy of the Gospels. 
 
 The use of these portable reliquaries is of 
 the highest antiquity; Chrysostom (^Quod Ckristus 
 sit iJeus, p. 571 E, ed. Ben.) speaks of particles 
 of the true Cross being suspended from the 
 necks both of men and women, enclosed in gold. 
 
 In 1571 two such reliquaries, made of gold, 
 were found in tombs belonging to the ancient 
 cemetery of the Vatican; they are square in 
 form, and are furnished with rings which indi¬ 
 cate their use; on one side they bear the mono¬ 
 gram of Christ, between the A and Cl (see 
 woodcut). These probably date from the 4th 
 century. 
 
 The pectoral cross worn by bishops was also 
 called encolpion. The oldest specimen now 
 
 existing is one which was found not long since 
 upon the breast of a corpse in the basilica of St. 
 Laurence, outside the walls. It came to light in 
 clearing the intavior of that church, and we are 
 indebted to De Rossi for a careful drawing of it 
 {BuUetino, Apr. 1863). On one side it bears 
 the inscription, Em.manovha [Emmanuel] No- 
 BiscvM DEVS ; oa the other, the following 
 
 words, addressed apparently to Satan: Crvx 
 LST VITA Mini II MORS INIMICE TIBI ; a cavlty 
 closed by a screw appears to have been intended 
 for relics. Reliquaries in the form of a cross 
 are first mentioned by Gregory the Great. He 
 sent one of them to queen Theodelinda with a 
 fragment of the true cross ; this still exists at 
 Monza, and is used by the provost of the 
 ancient church in that city when he officiates 
 pontifically. An engraving of it may be found 
 in Frisi’s Memorie della Chicse iJomese (p. 52). 
 Two amulets given to this princess by the 
 same pontiff for the use of her children ai’e still 
 preserved among the celebrated treasures of 
 Monza, one of which contains a piece of the true 
 cross, the other a fragment of the Gosjiels (Greg. 
 Magn. Epist. xiv. 12). Engravings of those ob¬ 
 jects are given by Mozzoni ( Tavole cron, della 
 stor. eccl. vol. vii. p. 79). The same volume of 
 the same work also contains (pp. 77 and 84) 
 drawings of other reliquaries of the highest 
 interest—namely, some of the vases in which 
 oil from the sacred lamps of the tombs of the 
 martyrs had been sent by Gregory to Theodelinda. 
 [Ampulla.] 
 
 Fiom the same pope we also learn (Epist. i. 
 36; vii. 26) that filings from St. Peter’s chains 
 were sometimes enclosed in small golden keys. 
 He himself had sent one of these consecrated 
 kevs to Childebert, king of the Franks, to 
 wear hung fi-om his neck “as a protection 
 from all evils ” — “ Claves sancti Petri, in 
 quibus de vincuhs cateuarum ejus inclusum 
 est, excellentiae vestrae direximus quae collo 
 vestro suspensae a malis vos omnibus tueantur” 
 (Epist. vi. 6). An illustrious Gaul named Dina- 
 mius also received, from the same pontiff, a 
 small cross of gold, containing a similar relic 
 (Epist. iii. 33)—“ Transmisimus autsm B. Petri 
 apostoli benedictionem crucem parvulam, cui de 
 catenis ejus beneficia sunt inserta.” [Eulogiae.] 
 Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (f 828), 
 speaks of an encolpion set in gold, one side of 
 which was formed of crystal, the other 
 of enamel (Eikovi<T[x4p 7) St iyuavaeces') ; 
 containing another encolpion, in which 
 fragments of the true cross were ar¬ 
 ranged in a pattern (ipTervirw/LLfyai) 
 (Acta Cone. Ephes., pp. 312, 313, ed. 
 Commelin, 1591). 
 
 The whole subject of these reliquaries 
 might receive abundant illustration 
 from the records and the remains of 
 mediaeval antiquity, were that period 
 within the scope of the present work. 
 [See Amulet.] 
 
 (Meursius’s Glossarium and Suicer’s 
 Thesaurus, s. v. iyuoKiriov ; De la 
 Cerda, Adversaria Sacra, c. 36 § 7; 
 Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret.) [C.] 
 
 ENCYCLICAL LETTERS 
 
 (’EttottoAoI (yKVK\iot, ypaju/xarc 
 iyKVK\ia). Letters of a circular na¬ 
 ture, not addressed to a particulai 
 person or community; a.s, the Catholic Epistles 
 (Oecumenius on St. James i.). The letters in 
 which the members of a council signified their 
 j conclusions to all the churches were called en- 
 ! cyclical; and Nicejihorus Callisti (/list. xvi. 3) 
 1 speaks of the encyclical letters (/yuvuMa 
 I ypdixfxaTo) which the emperor Basiliscus wrote 
 against the fourth council (Chalcedon, A.D 
 
 2 R 
 
612 
 
 ENDOWMENT 
 
 ENTRANCE 
 
 451), addressed to all the bishops of the church. 
 The same writer (c. 4) speaks of divine and 
 apostolic encyclics (iyKUK\ia). The circulars of 
 Basiliscus just referred to are styled by Evagrius 
 (II.l!^. iii. 4) ^yKVKXioi (TvWa^a'i’, an encyclical 
 letter of Photius is mentioned (ih. v. 2). 
 
 It is to be observed, that the jjhrase iyKvKXia 
 ypaixfiara sometimes (as Euseb. II. E. vi. 18) de¬ 
 letes those subjects which the Greeks included 
 in the “ circle of the sciences,” or cyclopaedia. 
 (Suicer’s Thesaurus., s. v. ^Y.yKVKXiosI) [C.] 
 
 ENDOWMENT. The property given by the 
 founder of a church for the maintenance of the 
 edifice and of the clerks who served it was 
 allied dos ccclesiae or endowment. Justtnian 
 (Novel 67), compelled those who built churches 
 also to endow them; and without a competent 
 provision for their maintenance, no clerks wei-e 
 to be ordained to any church (Cone. Epaon., a.d. 
 517, c. 25) ; whoever desired to have a parish 
 church (dioecesim) on his estate was to set apart 
 a sufficient landed endowment for its clerks 
 (Cone. Aurel. iv.^ a.d. 541, c. 33); a bishop was 
 not to consecrate a church until the endowment 
 of it had been regularly secured by a deed or 
 charter (Cone. Bragar. ii. [iii.], a.d. 572, c. 5); 
 founders of churches were to understand, that 
 they had no further authority over property 
 which they had given to the chureh, but that both 
 the church and its endowment were at the dis¬ 
 position of the bishop, to be employed according 
 to the canons (Cone. Tolet. iv., a.d. 633, c. 33). 
 
 In the ninth council of Toledo, a.d. 655, a 
 special provision was made (c. 5), that a bishop 
 was not to confer on any monastic church which 
 he might found within his diocese more than a 
 fiftieth part of the funds at his disposal; nor on 
 any non-monastic church, or church destined for 
 his own burial-place, more than one hundredth 
 part of the revenues of the diocese. 
 
 If one who held a “ fiscus,” or fief, from the 
 king, built and endowed churches, the bishop 
 was desired to procure the royal confirmation of 
 the gift (Cone. Tolet. iii., A.D. 589, c. 15). 
 
 See Alms; Benefice; Churches, Mainten¬ 
 ance OF, p. 388 ; Property of the Church. 
 
 During the period with which we are con¬ 
 cerned, the Bishop [p. 233], with the advice 
 and assistance of his presbytery, took charge of 
 church endowments. 
 
 (Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchen - lexieon, s. v. 
 Dotalaut: Ducange, s. v. Bos Eeelesiae.') [C.] 
 
 ENERGUMENI. [Demoniacs.] 
 
 ENOCH, the patriarch, translation of; com- 
 memoi-ated Ter 27 = Jan. 22 (Cal. Ethiop.) ; 
 July 19 (Cal. Copt.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ENTALMA (’'EuTaXpa, ivxaXrripia ypap- 
 para), the document by which a bishop confers 
 on a monk the privilege of hearing confessions 
 (Daniel, Codex, iv. 588). The form of such a 
 letter is given by Goar, Eucholog. p. 300. [C.] 
 
 ENTHRONIZATION. 1. The solemn 
 placing of a bishop on his throne. See Bishop, 
 p. 224. 
 
 2. The word evdpovia^nv is also used to desig¬ 
 nate the placing or “enthroning ” of relics of the 
 saints in the altar of a church on consecration 
 [Consecration of Churches]. Hence vabs iv- 
 Qpovia(Tp4vos designates a regularly consecrated 
 church and not a mere oratory. Thus Germa- 
 
 nus (in Daniel’s Codex, iv. 701) speaks of a 
 church as dedicated in the name of martvrs and 
 consecrated over (or by virtue of) their holy 
 relics (Iv toIs ayiois avroov Xeixj/dvoiS' evOpovi- 
 a(rOf?(ra). 
 
 3. The word ivdpovKTpSs is perhaps sometimes 
 used to designate the installation of a presbvter 
 in his church (Keiske on Constant. Porphj'rog. 
 Be Caerim. 617). [C.] 
 
 ENTHUSIASTAE (ivOouffiacrraX). Those 
 who pretended to prophesy by the motion of an 
 indwelling daemon which they thought to be 
 the Holy Spirit (see Theodoret, Hist. Eecl. iv. 
 11; Suidas, sub voee fvdovs Bingham, Ant. 16, 
 5 , 4 ). 
 
 In A.D. 428 Theodosius and Valentinian or¬ 
 dained that these heretics (with many others) 
 “ nusquam in Romano solo conveniendi oran- 
 dique habeant facultatem.” This constitution 
 was inserted in the Theodoslan Code (16, 5, 25), 
 and in that of Justinian (1, 5, 5), but with the 
 reading (if it be the correct one) “ nusquam 
 in Romanum locum conveniendi morandique 
 habeant facultatem.” The same exclusion is 
 decreed in general terms by Justinian in his 
 37th Novell, “nulla omnino haeresis domum aut 
 locum orationis habeto.” [I. B.] 
 
 ENTRANCE (EferoSos). Two of the most 
 remarkable ceremonies of Eastern liturgies arc 
 the Lesser and the Greater Entrance—that of 
 the Word and that of the Sacrament. 
 
 1. The Lesser Entranee is the bearing in of 
 the book of the gospels in solemn procession. 
 In the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom (c. 17, p. 343, 
 Daniel) after the prayer of the third antiphon 
 (our ‘ Prayer of St. Chrysostom ’) the rubric 
 runs : “ Then the priest and the deacon, standing 
 before the Holy Table, make three genufiections 
 (Trpo(rKuvripaTa): Then the priest, taking the 
 Holy Book of the Gospels gives it to the deacon; 
 and so, going out by the north side, with lights 
 going before them, they make the Lesser En¬ 
 trance.” That is, the deacon and priest pass 
 from the sanctuary into the chapel of the pro¬ 
 thesis, which is to the north of it, and so out 
 into the body of the church, where, by a devious 
 path, they return to the Holy Doors, which are 
 open; the volume, often decorated with great 
 magnificence, is laid on the Holy Table, whence 
 it is again taken to the ambo wffien the gospel is 
 to be read. 
 
 The rubric in St. Mark’s liturgy (Dan. iv. 142) 
 is simply, “ uai yiyvfTai 7} elcroSos tov evay- 
 
 This “ Entrance ” corresponds to the carrying 
 of the gospel by the deacon to the ambo or rood- 
 loft in the Western church, once a rite of great 
 importance; for the book was preceded not only 
 by tapers but by a crucifix Durandus, Ration de, 
 iv. 24. 16). Compare Alleluia, Gradual. 
 
 In the Coptic St. Basil, the Greater Entrance 
 pi’ecedes the Lesser. See below. 
 
 2. 2he Greater Entranee. —This ceremony has 
 pi'obably, like others, been developed from simple 
 beginnings into very great prominence and mag¬ 
 nificence. 
 
 The liturgy of St. James (c. 17, Daniel iv. 98) 
 simply alludes in passing to the bringing in of 
 the elements : “ the priest bringing in the Holy 
 Gifts says the following prayer.” St. !Mark 
 (c. 10, Dan. iv. 148) is even more vague: “the 
 
ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM 
 
 ERACT 
 
 ITv-ly Things (ra ayia) are brought into llie 
 sanctuary, and the priest prays as follows.” 
 Similarly the Mozarabic (Dan. i. 67), “ while 
 the choir chants Aliehiia, the priest offers [h e. 
 places on the altar] the Host and Chalice, with 
 the prayers following.” In the Armenian rite 
 (Dan. iv. 460) the celebrant lies prostrate before 
 the altar while the Great Entrance is made; in 
 this rite (anomalously) the elements are spoken 
 of as the body and blood of Christ before conse¬ 
 cration (Xeale, East. Ch. Int. 42d). 
 
 In the much more developed rite of Constan¬ 
 tinople (^Lit. C/iry^ost. Neale, u. s. 373), after the 
 chanting of the Cherubic Hymn, the ceremony 
 proceeds as follows. During the previous part 
 of the eucharistic office, the elements have re¬ 
 mained on the table in the chapel of the prothesis. 
 At the lU’oper point, the deacon censes the altar 
 and the sanctuary, and then goes before the 
 priest into the prothesis. The priest then lifts 
 the “aer,” or covering, from the chalice and 
 paten, and lays it on the deacon’s shoulder, and 
 then places upon it the paten, covered witii the 
 Asterisk and veil. The deacon takes hold of 
 these with his left hand, bearing the censer in 
 his right; the priest takes the chalice and fol¬ 
 lows the deacon, and so, preceded by tapers, they 
 move round to the Holy Doors, as in the Lesser 
 Entrance. In great churches, where there are 
 dignified clergy and many attendants, this pro¬ 
 cession is one of great magnificence. Where 
 there is but a single priest and no deacon, he 
 bears the paten on his shoulder, supporting it by 
 his left hand, and the chalice in his right hand 
 before his breast. 
 
 In the Coptic St. Basil, the Great Entrance is 
 made at the very beginning of the liturgy; the 
 directions for it are very curious and minute. 
 “ The priest goes to the Takaddemet [Prothesis] 
 from which he shall take the lamb [Elements, 
 p. 600], looking attentively that there be no flaw 
 in iC ...When he hath all that he needs, the 
 lamb, the wine, and the incense, ...he takes 
 the lamb in his hand and wipes it lightly, as 
 Christ the Lord was first washed with water 
 before He was presented to Simeon* the priest; 
 then he shall bear it round to the altar in his 
 hands, as Simeon bai-e Him round the Temple. 
 At last the priest shall lay it down on the altar 
 and shall place it on the paten, which signifies 
 the cradle; and shall cover it with a linen cloth, 
 as the Virgin did at His Nativity” (Renaudot, 
 Litt. Orientt. i. 186). A deacon seems to have 
 borne the cruet. 
 
 Compare Introit. [C.] 
 
 ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. This event 
 in our Lord’s life is very frequently represented 
 in the earlier art of the Christian Church, occur¬ 
 ring on some of the first sarcophagi, though not, 
 as far as the present writer knows, in fresco or 
 mosaic in the catacombs or elsewhere, excepting 
 in an ancient mosaic of the Vatican (Bianchini 
 Demonstr. hist. Sac. Saec. i. tav. 2, No. 17), and 
 one from the basilica at Bethlehem, reproduced 
 by Martigny (p. 331) from Count de V'ogue' 
 (fLes Eylises d/' la Terre Ste. pi. v.). The earliest 
 MS. representation of it is probably that in the 
 Rabula or Laurentian Evangeliary. The treat¬ 
 ment is almost always the same; the Lord is 
 
 • There is an evident confusion here between Simeon 
 and the high-priest. 
 
 C13 
 
 mounted on the ass, sometimes accompanied by 
 her foal, and the multitude with their palm- 
 branches follow, or lay their garments before 
 Him (Aringhi t. i. pp. 277 -329; ii. p. 159 and 
 passim; Bottari, tav. xxi.). His right hand is 
 generally raised in the act of blessing. The 
 
 multitude frequently raise their hands in thanks¬ 
 giving. In one of the oldest MSS. of the New 
 Testament in existence, the Gregorian Evangeliary 
 of St. Cuthbert (^Palaeugraphia Sacra) the Lord is 
 represented mounted on an ass, and bearing a 
 large whip—evidently with reference to the 
 scourge of small cords used in the expulsion of 
 buyers and seller's from the temple. There is a 
 certain variety in the examples taken from dif¬ 
 ferent carvings. In Bottari (i. taw. xvi. xxii. 
 xxxix.) Zaccheus is represented in the “ fig or 
 sycomore tree ” behind the Loi'd, as if to call 
 attention to the beginning of His last journey at 
 Jericho. In the last example the sycomore and 
 palm branches are carefully and well cut. In i. 
 tav. 40, garments are being strewn before the 
 Lord (as in the others). See also vol ii. tavv. 88, 
 89; iii. tav. 133. In one instance, without 
 Zaccheus, the colt accomjianies the ass (iii. 1.34). 
 The .small stature of Zaccheus is often dwelt on. 
 Or the figure may represent a person in the act 
 of cutting down branches. [K. St. J. T.] 
 
 envy—HOW CENSURED. Envy was 
 
 always reckoned a diabolical sin, and one of the 
 first magnitude (Chrys. Horn. 41 in Matth.; 
 Cyprian, De Zelo et Livore, p. 223); but there 
 are no distinctive penalties attached to it, 
 inasmuch as before it could bring a man 
 under public di.scipline, it required to be dis¬ 
 played in some outward and vicious action, which 
 received its appropriate punishment (Bingham, 
 Ant. 16, 14, 1; Thom. Aq. Summa 2, ‘2, qu. 36). 
 
 [1. B.] 
 
 EPACT, inaKTa'i, SC. T]/j.(pai ; Lat. epactae ; 
 in Mediaeval writers, adjectiones ^Lunae; the 
 number of days required to make up the lunar 
 year to the solar:—and so the numeral of the 
 moon’s age on the Ist January. Or we may 
 say, with Scaliger, on the 1st IMarch, which 
 
614 
 
 EPAGATUS 
 
 comes to the same thing, and has the advantage 
 of escaping the ambiguity of Leap yea]-. In the 
 Easter canon of Dionysius Exigiius, the ejiact 
 meant the numeral of the moon’s age on the 
 22 nd March. 
 
 Tlie old Latin cycles of 84- years, of which 
 we have an example in Ideler, ii. 249, indicated 
 Easter by means of the epacts of the 1st January, 
 and the day of the week on which the 1st 
 January fell. 
 
 The method of determining the months (lunar), 
 was as follows. For the first month of the year 
 that month was taken, whose age was expressed 
 by the ej)act. The day of December on which it 
 commenced is found by subti-acting the epact 
 (when more than one) from thirty-three. 'I’he 
 first mouth was always counted full, then hollov/- 
 and full succeeded by turns, so that the last 
 mouth in the year in a common lunar year was 
 hollow, in an intercalary year full. From the 
 last begins the new moon of the following year. 
 
 The Easter new moon being found, Easter-day 
 was, according to the Latin rules, that Sunday 
 which fell on or next after the 16th of the 
 moon, not therefore later than the 22nd of the 
 moon. The choice of the month was determined 
 thus. New moon must not be earlier than the 
 5th March, and full moon not later than the 
 21st; the first of these rules sometimes having 
 to give way, to save the violation of the latter. 
 
 The following rule is given for the 1st 
 January epact, viz., multiply the Golden Num¬ 
 ber by eleven, and divide the product by thirty, 
 the remainder is the epact. But this rule will 
 not give the epacts mentioned above, which 
 Avere constructed as Ave have just described— 
 Avith a saltus lunae, or addition of tweh'e after 
 the 19th year of the cycle, &c. 
 
 For the determination of Easter according to 
 the Alexandrian rules, Avith Avhich the later 
 Roman rules agreed, see under Easter. 
 
 The elaborate system of epacts afterwards 
 devised by Lilius, and Clavius, belongs to the 
 system of the Gregorian calendar. [L. H.] 
 
 EPAGATUS, martyr at Lyons, under Marcus 
 Aurelius, with Photiuus bishop, Zacharias pres¬ 
 byter, and others; commemorated June 2 {Mart, 
 llieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPAPHRAS, bishop of Colossae, and mar¬ 
 tyr; commemorated July 19 {Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EPAON, COUNCIL OP {Epaonense con¬ 
 cilium), held A.D. 517 at a toAvn in Burgundy, 
 whose name is thought to haA-e been preserved 
 in the modern village of lene on the Rhone. It 
 Avas attended by tAventy-fiA’’e bishops at the joint 
 summons of Axatus, bishop of Vienne, and Viven- 
 tiolus, bishop of Lyons, Avho presided. Forty 
 canons on discipline are giA^en to it in its acts; 
 but two more, called canons of Epaon by 
 Egbert of York, and by Gratian, are not among 
 these. By the 4th of them, bishops priests 
 and deacons are forbidden to keep haAvks or 
 dogs for hunting. By the 9th, no abbot may 
 preside OA’^er two monasteries. By the 26th no 
 altar, no^ of stone, may be consecrated Avith 
 chrism. By the 39th slaves, taking sanctuary, 
 that haA'e committed heinous crimes, are only to 
 be lot off corporal punishment. Most of these 
 rogulalions had previously become Liav else- j 
 Avhere (jMansi, yiii. 555 and seq.). [E. S. Ff.j | 
 
 EPHESUS (COUNCILS OF) 
 
 EPARCHIA. [Province.] 
 
 EPARCHU'S, monk, confessor at Angouleme ; 
 commemorated July 1 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPARP’CHIUS, commemorated Avith Seve- 
 rianus Oct. 29 {Cal. Annen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPENDYTES (eVei/SuTTjs). The ependytes, 
 the “ fisher’s coat ” of St. I’eter (John xxi. 7), 
 Avas a kind of cloak used especially by monks, 
 and, as the etymology Avould seem to indicate, 
 Avorn oA'er another garment. Thus e.g. in the 
 Graeco-Latin Glossary cited by Ducange (s. a'. 
 epidecen), the Gi-eek Avord is rendered Instata 
 (leg. Tnstrata or Tnstita) haec superaria. Also 
 Augustine naturally enough speaks of eTrerSu/na 
 as equiA'alent to super indumentum {Quaest. in 
 Jud. 41; iii. 938, ed. Gaumc). Suidas also ob- 
 seiwes this distinction {inroSvTrjp rb itrwTfpov 
 IjuaTiov, iTTfvbvTTiv 5e rb eTrdrco). It is thus 
 surprising that some should have taken it to 
 mean an under-garment, as e. g. the Lexicon of 
 Zonaras (col. 788, ed. Tittmann), Avhich defines 
 it as zb f(ru>Tepop tp-aTiov, ts Kal v-rroKapiKTov 
 \4yeTai. Athanasius mentions this dress as 
 Avorn by St. Antony (17^a S. Anton., c. 46; i. 
 831, ed. Bened.), and Jerome refers to it in the 
 case of Hilarion {Vita S. Hilar, c. 4; ii. 15, ed. 
 Vallarsi). It appears, at any rate in the east, to 
 have been made of skins; thus the pgkoDT-ps of 
 St. Antony is frequently mentioned, and Jerome 
 describes that of Hilarion as pelliceus. For other 
 references to the dres.s, see Pseudo-Athanas. de 
 Virginitate, c. 11 (ii. 116), and Basil of Seleucia, 
 Ee vita S. Theclae, i. 62 {Patrol. Gr. Ixx.xa'. 
 516). 
 
 The ependytes Avould appear to be the dress 
 worn by the tAvo figures (Ardon and Sennen, 
 victims of the Decian persecution) who are being 
 croAvned by the SaA'iour in a fresco in the 
 cemetery of Pontianus, on the Via Portuensis, 
 near Rome. [See p. 8.] [R. S.] 
 
 EPHEMERIS. [Calendar, p. 258.] 
 
 EPHESUS (Councils of). — (1) a.d. 197, 
 under Polycrates its bishop, on the Easter ques¬ 
 tion. His letter to Victor and the Roman 
 church is in part preserved by Eusebius (a^. 24), 
 shewing that it had been customary there, down 
 from the days of St. John the Apostle, to keep 
 Easter day on the 14th of the moon (Mansi, i. 
 719-24). The interest of this fragment is 
 enhanced from its having been translated by 
 Rufinus and St. Jerome. 
 
 (2) A.D. 245, otherwise called Asiatic, against 
 the errors of Noetus (Mansi, i. 789-90). 
 
 (3) A.D. 431, the third general, held in the 
 church there dedicated to St. Mary, soon after 
 the feast of Pentecost in the month of June, to 
 sit in judgment on Nestoriusi patriarch of Con¬ 
 stantinople, Avho contended that Avhile the blessed 
 Virgin might with propriety be styled the 
 mother of Christ, she could not and ought not to 
 be styled the mother of God (Theotocus). In 
 other Avords he looked upon Christ as a com¬ 
 pound of two persons, as AA'ell as tAvo natures, 
 instead of tAvo natures, the Divine and Human, 
 hypostatically joined together in the single Per¬ 
 son of the Son of God. The controversy on this 
 point culminated in the celebrated letter ad¬ 
 dressed by St. Cyril in synod to Nestorius, ending 
 Avith tAvelve anathemas, to Avhich he is called 
 
EPHESUS (COUNCILS OF) 615 
 
 1323) it is ill effect a corollary. Then the 
 business of the sixth session led to the “defini¬ 
 tion,” since termed impro])erly the seventh 
 canon; and that of the seventh session to the 
 decree since termed with less impropriet)’^ the 
 eighth canon. Most of the principal documents 
 relating to this council are to be found in Mansi, 
 iv. 577 to the end, and v. to p. 1046, too nu¬ 
 merous to be specified. Some few more are 
 sup])lied by Marius Mercator P. ii. (Patrol, 
 xlviii. p. 699 and seq. ed. Migne) Cassian de 
 Iricarn. (ib. 1. p. 10 and seq.) Soc. vii. 29-34. 
 Evag. i. 2-7, with Garnier’s five Diss. on Theo- 
 doret (Patrol. Ixxxiv. 89-864). 
 
 (4) A.D. 440, under Basil : reversing the 
 apiiointment of Bassianus to a distant see by 
 Memnon his own predecessor, and giving him 
 episcopal honour and rank at home (Mansi, v. 
 1199-1204). 
 
 (5) A.D. 447 under Dioscorus of Alexandria, 
 when Ba.ssianus its bishop was deposed and 
 Stephen appointed in his room. The council of 
 Chalcedon, however, on considering their case, 
 decided that neither had been canonicallv con- 
 secrated, Oct. 30, A.D. 451 (Mansi, vi. 493-4, 
 and then vii. 271-94). 
 
 (6) A.D. 449, Aug. 10, under Dioscorus bishop 
 of Alexandria, convened by the Emperor Theo¬ 
 dosius like the last general council, and held in 
 the same church of St. Marv where the last had 
 been; but its acts having been reversed in the 
 first session of the council of Chalcedon, where 
 they are recited at length, it was designated the 
 “robbers’ meeting” {Latrocinalis, see the title 
 to c. 9, B. i. of Evagrius) and abandoned. It 
 was inspired throughout by the eunuch Chry- 
 saphius, who patronised Eutyches and was hostile 
 to Flavian. There are three letters from the 
 emperor to Dioscorus in reference to its com¬ 
 position. First he was to bring with him ten 
 of his own metropolitans, and ten other bishops 
 distinguished for their learning and orthodoxy, 
 but not more; others having received their 
 summons from the emperor himself similarly. 
 Next he was told that Theodoret had received 
 orders not to appear there, unless invited unan 
 imously by the council when assembled. An¬ 
 other letter bade him admit the archimandrite 
 Barsumas to sit in it as representing all the 
 
 I eastern archimandrites. A third letter assigned 
 i him the first place in it, with the archbishops 
 
 EPHESUS (COUNCILS OF) 
 
 upon to subscribe (Mansi, iv. 1067-84), and the 
 twelve counter anathemas which formed his only 
 reply to it (ib. ]>. 1099). 
 
 To end the disi)ute, the emperors Theodosius 
 the Younger and Valentinian issued orders for 
 the meeting of a general council, to which the 
 letter summoning St. Cyril himself is still ex¬ 
 tant. It is dated Nov. 19, A.D. 430, and directs 
 him to repair to Ephesus by the Feast of Pente¬ 
 cost ensuing. It forbids the introduction of any 
 innovation privately till then, and directs that 
 all the disj)utes that have produced so much 
 strife shall be thei’e settled canonically. Copies 
 of this letter had been sent to all metropolitans. 
 
 The council met accordingly for its first session 
 June 22, as is stated in its sentence deposing 
 Nestorius (comp. Bev. ii. 103) which was the 
 first thing done: St. Cyril heading the list of 
 the bishops present, as bishop of Alexandria first, 
 and then as vice-gcrent of the archbishop of 
 Rome, Celestine: Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem 
 came next: Memnon of Ephesus followed. About 
 160 were there when they commenced : 198 sub¬ 
 scribed. 
 
 It met for its sixth session, July 22, to publish 
 what it had defined on doctrine. First it recited 
 the Nicene Creed; secondly, those passages from 
 the fathers which had been quoted in its first 
 session; and lastly, its own definitive sentence, 
 that no other profession of faith but that of 
 Nicaea should be framed or propounded to any 
 desirous of coming over to the communion of 
 the church from Paganism, Judaism, or any 
 heresy whatsoever. Bishops and clergy framing 
 or propounding any other were deposed, and lay¬ 
 men anathematised. What induced the council 
 “to define” thi.s, was a case just then brought 
 under its consideration by Charisius, steward 
 and priest of the church of Philadelphia, shewing 
 that two priests who had come thither from 
 Constantinople had been procuring subscriptions 
 to a formula purporting to be the doctrine of 
 the church, but in many respects heterodox. 
 
 The council condemned all who approved of it. 
 
 At the seventh and last session, held August 
 31st, on the petition of Rheginus, bishop of 
 Constantia in Cyprus, and two of his suffragans, 
 complaining of attempts made by the bishop of 
 Antioch to ordain in their island, contrarv to the 
 canons and established custom, a no less stringent 
 rule was laid down on discipline; “ that no 
 bishop may act in any province which has not ' of Jerusalem and Caesarea to support him. St. 
 
 always been subject to him. . .” [Bishop, 
 p. 234: Diocese.] In most of the Greek col¬ 
 lections eight canons are attributed to this 
 council; but only seven by Photius and John 
 Scholasticus, and none at all in the Latin col¬ 
 lections. Beveridge shews conclusively (ii. 104) 
 that they were not in fact published as separate 
 canons. The first six, as he points out, form 
 part of a synodical letter addressed by the council 
 to all bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laymen, 
 on the defection of John of Antioch, and were 
 caused by it; being directed against all deserters 
 
 Leo was likewise summoned from Rome, and sent 
 three representative-s, one of whom Julius, bishop 
 of Puteoli, seems to have sat next after Dioscorus. 
 Altogether 128 bishops were present, but several 
 confessed to subscribing through others as being 
 unable to write. Eutyches having been intro¬ 
 duced, made profession of his faith, and com¬ 
 plained of the treatment he had received fi’om 
 Flavian in the council of Constantinople con¬ 
 demning him. The acts of this council, as well 
 as of the council held five months afterwards to 
 
 reconsider its sentence, were read out next; his 
 or despisers of the council, whether favourers of | acquittal and re.storation followed. Afterwards 
 Nestorius, or Celestius the Pelagian, and uphold- a j)etition was received from some monks of his 
 ing all who had been deposed by them. Wliere begging that his deposer might be deposed. On 
 
 this letter should come in the acts he omits to 
 explain. It is placed by Mansi without com¬ 
 ment at the end of them (iv. 1469-74). Its 
 proper place doubtless is at the end of the fifth 
 
 this the acts of the sixth session of the third 
 general council were recited, and both Eusebius 
 of Dorylaeum and Flavian of Constantinople 
 deposed, as having conti'avened the definition 
 
 session, to the final proceedings of which (ib. j respecting the creed that was laid down there, 
 
616 EPHESUS, HOJ.y OIllLUllEN OF 
 
 EPIOOXATIOX 
 
 V'liivi.in who was present saitl at once that he 
 appealed from their sentence. Hilary, the 
 deacon iVom Rome, “contradicted” it; others 
 acce))ted it only through misapprehension, as 
 they aflirmed at Chalcedon on recanting. Ibas of 
 Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, Domnus of Antioch, 
 and several more, were similarly dej)rived of 
 their sees, as we learn from Evagrius. Liberatus 
 adds (Brev. 12) that great intimidation was 
 practised by the soldiers and monks })resent, 
 that Eusebius and Flavian were both given into 
 custody, and that the latter died of the injuries 
 which he there received (Mansi, vi. 503-8, and 
 then 587-93(3). [E. S. Ff.j 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 EPHESUS, the Seven Holy Children of, or 
 Seven Sleei’ERS, are commemorated Aug. 4 
 (^C<d. Byzant.'). [C.] 
 
 EPHOPvl. [Bishop, p. 210.] 
 
 EPHPHATHA. [Ears, Opening of.] 
 
 EPHRAEM, EPHRAIM, or EPHREM. 
 
 (1) Syrus, deacon of Edessa, Holy Father; 
 commemorated Ter 7 = Jan. 2 (^Cal. Ethiop.'), Jan. 
 28 {Cal. Byzant.), Hamle 15 = July 9 (Ca/. 
 Ethiop.), Feb. 1 (^Mart. Adonis, Usuardi) ; depo¬ 
 sition, July 9 (J/arA Bedae). 
 
 (2) Bishop and martyr, A.D. 296 ; commemo¬ 
 
 rated March 7 (^CaL Byzant.)] one of the martyrs 
 of the Chersonesus. [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPICLESIS ( 'EirlKXrjfTis ) = “ invocation,” 
 generally ; but specially the invocation of the 
 Holy Spirit to sanctify the elements displayed 
 on the Holy Table, occurring in Eastern litur¬ 
 gies after the recitation of the Words of Insti¬ 
 tution. 
 
 Tl'iO evidence of Irenaeus in the second, Fir- 
 milian in the third, and of Cyril of Jerusalem 
 and Basil in the fourth century, as to the prac¬ 
 tice of the church with regal’d to the Epiclesis, 
 has been already quoted [C anon of the Liturgy, 
 
 р. 269]. To this may be added Chrysostom, 
 Horn. In Coeineterio (^Opp. ii. 401, ed. Ben.), 
 W’here is described the priest standing before the 
 table, invoking (^Ka\u>v) the Holy Spirit to de¬ 
 scend and touch the elements. 
 
 Of the liturgical forms, we may take the Cle¬ 
 mentine {Constt. Apostt. viii. 12, § 17) as an 
 early example. The priest beseeches God to send I 
 down His Holy Spirit upon the sacrilice, “ that I 
 He may declare [or make] “ (Ji,iro<pi]vy) this bread i 
 the Body of Thy Christ, and this cup the Blood 
 of Thy Christ, in order tnat they who partake of 
 it may be confirmed in piety, obtain remission of 
 their sins, be delivered from the devil and his 
 deceits, be filled with the Holy Spirit, be made 
 worthy of Thy Christ, obtain eternal life. Thou 
 being reconciled unto them, 0 Lord Almighty.” 
 Compare the liturgy^ of St. James, c. 32. 
 
 The Epiclesis in the Byzantine liturgy (Chrys. 
 
 с. 30; Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 359, 360), after 
 praying God to send down the Holy Spirit on the 
 gifts and the worshippers, proceeds, “and make 
 (Tto'niaov) this Bread the precious Body of Thy 
 Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious 
 Blood of Thy Christ, changing them (^/xiTa^aXwv) 
 by Thy Holy Spirit.” 
 
 “ Neale (Telralogia, p. xv.) compares, for this sense of 
 the word, Plato’s Protag. 349 A. See also von Drey, 
 Ueber d’c Constit. Apostol, p. 110; and Hefele, Peitrdge 
 zur Archdol. il. 56. 
 
 .St. Mark (c. 17; Dan. iv. 162) has: “Send 
 forth . . . Thy Holy .Sj>irit u])on us, and upen 
 these loaves, and upon these cups, that He may 
 sanctity and consecrate (rcAeid’trp) them< as God 
 Almighty , and may make (iroir}(Tr)) the bread 
 the liody and the cup the Blood of the New 
 Covenaiit, of the very Lord and God and Saviour, 
 our Almighty King, Jesus Christ.” 
 
 Several of the Mozarabic J'ost Secrefa contain 
 similar invocations of the Holy Spirit ; for in¬ 
 stance, that for the second Sunday after Ej)i]>hany 
 (Neale, Eastern Ch., Introd. 499) has the follow¬ 
 ing: “We thy servants beseech Thee, that thou 
 wouldest sanctify this oblation by the permixturc 
 of Thy Holy Spirit, and wouldest conform it, 
 with full transformation, to the Body and Blood 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ,.that we may merit to 
 be cleansed from the pollution of our sins bv 
 this sacrifice, whereby we know that we were 
 redeemed.” 
 
 “The Syrian churches post])oned the oblation 
 until after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit ; 
 while in the Jerusalem, Alexandrian, and Con- 
 stantinopolitan offices it precedes that prayer.” 
 (Neale, n.s. 500.) 
 
 The question, wffiether the consecration is 
 complete without the Epiclesis, has been much 
 debated in modern times; but for our ])urpose it 
 is sufficient to observe that an Epiclesis is uni¬ 
 versal in Oriental liturgies, and common in litur¬ 
 gies influenced by the East, as the Mozarabic; 
 while in liturgies of the Roman type it is alto¬ 
 gether wanting. [C.] 
 
 EPICTETUS, and companions, martyrs at 
 Rome, A.D. 296 ; commemorated Aug. 22 (^Mart, 
 Bom. Vet., Ilieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPIGONATION (^i-Kiyovariov] also yova- 
 TiQv, viTuyovaTiov). This ornament, peculiar to 
 the Eastern church, consists of a lozenge-shaped 
 piece of some stiff material, hanging from the 
 girdle on the right side as low as the knee, 
 whence its name. It seems to have been at first, 
 like the maniple in the West, merely a handker¬ 
 chief, and it apparently continued in this form 
 in the patriarchate of Antioch, as late as the 
 11th century (Ducange, Glossarium, s. v. vnoyo- 
 vanov), and in the Armenian church it has 
 remained thus to the present day (Neale. Eastern 
 Church, Introd. p. 311). Wi iters who delight 
 in finding symbolical reasons for the use or 
 vestments, have connected it either with the 
 tow'el with which our Lord girded Him.self, or 
 more generally with the sword and Christ’s 
 victory over death ; in connection with which 
 latter idea, Psalm xlv. 3, 4, is repeated on 
 assuming this ornament {Liturgia S. Chryso- 
 stomi ; Goar, ExLchologion, pp. 59, 60). The 
 epigonation is properly part of the e))iscopal 
 dress, but is allowed by the rubric in this j)lace 
 to be worn by other ecclesiastics of a certain 
 rank . ... el ecrri TrpwToa-vyKeWos rys yeyaKris 
 iKKX-na-'ias ^ &\Xos ns a^tSTyra. nva 
 
 (Goar, 1. c., and see his note, p. 112 ; cf. also the 
 rule as laid down at a much later period by 
 Symeon Thessalonicensis in the l.)th century, 
 where the wearing of the epigonation by priests 
 is spoken of as granted Kara Scopeav apxtepa- 
 nniiV] Marriott, resfwrmHi Christinvun, p. 171). 
 In .one form given by Goar ot the consecration 
 of a bishop in the Greek church, we find a 
 mention of this ornament as given to him imme- 
 
EPILEPTICS 
 
 diately after a declaration of his faith and the 
 subsequent benediction by the presiding bishop 
 (Goar, p. 310). [R- 
 
 EPILEPTICS. The 11th council of Toledo 
 (a.I). 675), after mentioning the case of those 
 possessed with demons [Demoniacs], who are 
 excluded altogether from the service ot the altai’, 
 speaks separately (c. 13) of the case ot those who 
 sometimes fall to the earth trom bodily disease, 
 who are excluded from ministering until they can 
 show that they have passed a whole year with¬ 
 out such attacks; and desires (c. 14) that per¬ 
 sons liable to such attacks should (if possible) 
 not be left alone in the performance of divine 
 offices. These provisions clearly refer to the 
 case of those who are afflicted with epilepsy or 
 (to use the old English name) “ falling sick¬ 
 ness.” [C.] 
 
 EPIMACHIUS, martyr at Alexandria, with 
 Alexander ; commemorated Dec. 12 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, LIsuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPIMACHUS. (1) Martyr at Rome, with 
 Gordianus, under Julian ; commemorated May 10 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usu- 
 ardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr A.D. 255; commemorated Oct. 31 
 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPIMANIKION. [Maniple.] 
 
 EPINIKION. [Sanctus.] 
 
 EPIPHANIUS. (1) Bishop, and martyr in 
 Africa, with Donatus and thirteen others; com¬ 
 memorated April 6 {Mart. Hieron.'), April 7 
 {2Iart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop of Salami# in Cyprus, A.D. 402 ; 
 commemorated May 12 {2[art. Bedae, Adonis, 
 Usuardi, Cal. Byzant.), June 17 (Cal. Armen.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF {y eVt- 
 
 (pdi/eia, TO eTTKpdvia, t] deocpdreia, to deocpdria; 
 TO. (pcoTa, ^fiepa twv (pduTwv, to dyia. (pwra riav 
 eirKpaviotiv to (payapduia :— Epiphania, Theo- 
 phania, AppariHo, Manifestatio, Acceptio, festum 
 trium regum \magorum, sapientum), festum stel- 
 lae; dies lnmin>im; festum lavacri; Bethphania, 
 dies nat tlis virtutum Domini. The names of this 
 festival in European languages are mainly either 
 0) as in the case of those of Latin derivation 
 and others, mere reproductions of the Latin 
 name or renderings of it; or (2) refer‘to the 
 manifestation to the Magi as the three kings, as 
 the Dutch Drie-koningen-dag, the Danish Hellig- 
 tre-kongersdag, and an equivalent form in Bre¬ 
 ton ; also the Welsh Ystuyll, if, as is not impro¬ 
 bable, it is a corruption of the Latin Stella ; or 
 (3) indicate it as the final day of the Christmas 
 festivity, as in the familiar English Twelfth-day, 
 the old German der Zwelfte, Dreizehnde, or the 
 Swedish Trettonde-dagen). 
 
 1. History of Festical. —It has already been 
 shown in a previous article [Christmas] that 
 the festival of the Epiphany was originally 
 viewed in the Eastern church as a commemora¬ 
 tion of o»a- Saviour’s manifestation to the world 
 in .n v/'.dj sense ; including, that is. His Nativity, 
 or His Toaniiestation iu the flesh, together with 
 the manifestation of the Trinity at His baptism. 
 In the Western church, on the other hand, so 
 far as the matter can be traced back, the Nati¬ 
 vity appears to have been always celebrated as 
 
 EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF 617 
 
 ' a separate festival, and in their commemoration 
 of the Epiphany it is the manifestation to the 
 Magi that is mostly dwelt on: and further, 
 Christ’s manifestation in yet another sense is 
 associated with these. His Divine power and 
 goodness, as shown in His miracles; primarily 
 
 I the turning of water into wine at Cana of 
 Galilee, and sometimes the feeding of the five 
 thousand. Thus there are, besides the Nativity 
 itself, three manifestations commemorated, vari¬ 
 ously dwelt on and variously combined in differ¬ 
 ent branches of the church. 
 
 In the Eastern church till nearly the end of 
 the 4th century, we find, as has been said, a 
 combined celebration of Christ’s Nativity and 
 Baptism on January 6.“ The date of the sever¬ 
 ance of the two can be approximately fixed, for 
 Chrysostom refers to it as a matter of merely a 
 few years’ standing, in a sermon probably de¬ 
 livered on the Christmas day of 386 A.D. How 
 far back we are to refer the origin of this two¬ 
 fold festival it is not easy to determine, the 
 earliest mention of any kind being the allusion 
 by Clement of Alexandria to the annual com¬ 
 memoration of Christ’s baptism by the Basili- 
 dians (Stromata, lib. i. c. 21).^ At any rate by 
 the latter part of the 4th century the Epiphany 
 had become one of the most important and ven¬ 
 erable festivals in the Eastern church. 
 
 It may not unreasonably be assumed that the 
 festival of the Epiphany first took its rise in the 
 east and then passed into the west. This may 
 be argued (1) from the comparatively very early 
 date at which we find a trace of it in the east; 
 
 (2) from the Greek name by which the Western 
 church as well as the Eastern knows it, while 
 Christmas is designated there by a Latin name ; 
 
 (3) from the nature of the earliest allusions to 
 the existence of a festival of the Epiphany in the 
 west. These it may be well to state somewhat 
 fully.*^ 
 
 The earliest instance of all is the reference by 
 Ammianus Marcellinus to the emperor Julian’s 
 visit when at Vienne in Gaul to a church, “ feri- 
 arum die quern celebrantes mense Januario 
 Christiani Epiphania dictitant ” (lib. xxi. c. 2); 
 and we find Zonaras, apparently alluding to the 
 same event, speak of it as happening yeve- 
 0\iov SojTTjpos ypepas i<pf(TTr\Kvias {Annal. xiii. 
 11). Now if it is remembered that this took 
 place in Gaul, where the church had close affinities 
 with the east, we are perhaps not claiming too 
 much in assuming that the Gallican church at 
 this time celebrated Epiphany and Nativity to¬ 
 gether on January 6; and we shall subsequently 
 find a confirmation of this view from an ex- 
 
 » In a passage In one of the spurious sermons once 
 wrongly ^ascribed to Chrysostom is a mention of ihe Epi¬ 
 phany as celebrated on the 13th day of the 4th month, 
 K0.Ta ' K(Tiavov^ (0pp. vol. vii. App. p. 275). It is not 
 stated who these Asiatics were, but the explanation of 
 tlie reckoning may probably be found in a comparison 
 with tlial given by Epiphanius {Haer. li. 24). 
 
 b Neander {Church, History, i. 346, trans. Rose) con- 
 siders it probable that this Gnostic sect derived the prac* 
 lice from the Judaco-Christlaii churches in Palestine. 
 
 ' Besides the instances given above, an early allusion to 
 the Epiphany is found in the Acta ot Philip, bishop of 
 Heraclea (in Iluinart’s Acta Hrimorum Martynim), who 
 suffered early In the 4th century. Ii would be unsafe, 
 however, to argue from a passage in a document itself of 
 doubtful data 
 
618 EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 amination of the Gallican liturgy, where it is 
 rather the manifestation at the Baptism than 
 that to the Magi that is dwelt on. Again we 
 find a mention of the emperor Valens, in the 
 course of his futile attempt to overawe Basil of 
 Caesarea, entering the church in that place with 
 a great train on the festival of the Ejdphany 
 (Greg. Naz. Oral, xliii. 52). Another early 
 allusion may be mentioned : Augustine (Serm. ccii. 
 § 2; vol. V. i;i28, ed. Gaume) speaks of the 
 Donatists as refusing to join in the celebration 
 of the Epiphany, “ quia nec unitatem amant, 
 nec orientali ecclcsiae . . communicant,’' obviously 
 pointing to an eastern origin of the festival. 
 We may take this opportunity of remarking that 
 there is no mention of the Epiphany in the 
 Calendar of Bucherius, but in the Cal. Cartha- 
 ginense we find xiii. Id. Jan. Sanctum Epiphania 
 \Patrol. xiii. 1227). 
 
 On these grounds we think it probable that 
 while on the one hand the Eastern church, at 
 first commemorating Nativity and Epiphany as 
 one festival, afterwards in compliance with 
 western, or perhaps, more strictly speaking, 
 Roman, usage, fixed the former on a separate 
 day ; so too, the Western church, at first cele¬ 
 brating the Nativity alone, afterwards brought 
 in from the east the further commemoration of 
 the Epiphany, but with the special reference 
 somewhat altered. For the early history of the 
 Epiphany in the Eastern church, and the gradual 
 severance from it of the Nativity, we must again 
 refer to the discussion ah’eady given [Christ¬ 
 mas], and it may now be desirable briefly to 
 review further historical notices, arranging them 
 according to the special manifestation of Christ 
 to which they mainly refer. 
 
 a. Ilanifcstation at the Baptism. —This mani¬ 
 festation of our Saviour as Messiah and as God is 
 the prevailing idea dwelt upon throughout the 
 Eastern church, though in the Western church 
 as a rule this commemoration has been quite 
 secondary to the manifestation to the Magi. 
 References are continually met with in the writ¬ 
 ings of Chrysostom and .others of and after his 
 time to this idea of the festival. Thus Chry¬ 
 sostom, in a homily apparently delivered on 
 December 20, 386 A.D., and therefore after the 
 western plan of celebrating Christmas separately 
 had been introduced, speaks of the Nativity as 
 in a certain sense the parent of all the other 
 great festivals, for, to take the case of the Epi¬ 
 phany, had He not been born— ovk Uv 
 OTTcp kcrr\ TO. 6eo<pdvia (^Hom. 6 in B. Philv- 
 gonium, c. 3; i. 497, ed. Montfaucon). So also 
 in a homily probably delivered on the following 
 Epiphany, 387 A.D. (Horn, de Baptismo Christi, 
 c. 2 ; ii. 369). In another place (^Hom. de Sancta 
 Pentecoste, c. 1; ii. 458) he says, toIvvv Trap’ 
 f)ixiv eopTT] -jrpwTr) (i. e. in the order of the year) 
 Ta 'Eiri(f>dyia, where Montfaucon {Monitum in 
 Hom.) gives the probable explanation that Chry- 
 .sostom is speaking according to the old fiishioned 
 Avay. Reference may also be made to an oration 
 of Gregory of Nazianzum, spoken apparently on 
 the Epiphany of 381 a.d. (Oratio 39 in Sancta 
 Lumina, c. 1; i. 677, ed. Bened.), and to one of 
 Gregory of Nyssa {Orat. in Bapt. Christi, iii. 577 ; 
 ed. Migne). 
 
 From this view of the Epiphany it naturally 
 became one of the three great seasons for bap¬ 
 tism, and on this day was the solemn consecra¬ 
 
 tion of water for the rite {infra'). Hence the 
 origin of the names for the day, rd (pSira, nptpa 
 Twv (pdoTOJu, referring to the spiritual illumina¬ 
 tion of bapti.srn. It is needless to say that to 
 explain the name by a reference to the free em¬ 
 ployment of lighted candles in i_e solemnities of 
 the day in the Greek church, is a simple inver¬ 
 sion of cause and effect. For the strange mis¬ 
 take of some writers who lun^e sujqiosed that 
 “the day of lights” is to be interpreted of 
 Candlemas day, see Suicer’s Thesaurus {s. v 
 <pws, § 12 ) and Bingham’s Antiquities (xx. 4, 7). 
 
 In the west also, this manifestation of Christ, 
 though not the one most dwelt on, is still oc¬ 
 casionally referred to, as by Maximus Taurinensis 
 {Horn. 22, 23, 29, 32, 33, &c., where see the pre¬ 
 fatory remarks in the Roman edition), and Jerome, 
 “quintam autem diem mensis adjungit, ut sig- 
 nificet baptisma, in quo aperti sunt Christo caeli, 
 et Epiphaniorum dies hucusque venerabilis est, 
 non ut quidam putaut, Natalis in came, tunc 
 enim absconditus est et non apparuit ” {Horn, 
 in Ezech., lib. i. c. 1 , v. 3; v. 6 , ed. Vallarsi). 
 To the allusions in the Gallican liturgy already 
 mentioned we shall again refer, and it will be 
 remembered that our own church makes the 
 Baptism of our Lord the subject for the second 
 lesson on the evening of the Epiphany. 
 
 Furthei’, the association of this dav with the 
 administration of baptism occurred also in the 
 west, for we find Himerius, a bishop of Tarraco, 
 in Spain, complaining to pope Damasus (ob. 384 
 A.D.) of the practice of baptizing on the Epi¬ 
 phany ; and the latter having died, his successor, 
 Siricius (ob. 389 a.d.), enters his prohibition 
 against it and restricts baptism as a rule to 
 Easter and Pentecost {Epist. i. ad Ilimerium 
 Tarraconensern Episcopmn, c. 2 ; Patrol, xiii. 
 1134); and somewhat later, Leo I. speaks of it 
 as “ irrationabilis novitas ” {Epist, 16, ad SicHiae 
 episcopos, c. 1; i. 715, ed. Ballerini). The same 
 prohibition was laid down at a still later period 
 (517 A.D.) by the Spanish council of Gerunda 
 (can. 4; Labbe iv. 1568). See also Codex 
 vcterum can. Eccl. Eispanae, lib. iv., tit. 26 in 
 Cajetan Cenni’s De antiqua Eccl. Ilisp. i., xcviii., 
 where reference is made to Leo’s injunctions. 
 Further, Victor Vitensis alludes to this as the 
 practice in the African church {de persecutvmc 
 VandaHca, lib. ii. c. 17 ; Patrol. Iviii. 216). Se^i 
 also Pamelius’s note to Tertulliau de Baptismo, 
 c. 19. 
 
 j 8 . Manifestation to the Magi. —It has been on 
 this idea that the Western church has specially 
 dwelt, with the exceptions mentioned above ; but 
 even in these, save perhaps in the Gallican 
 liturgy, the manifestations at the Baptism and 
 at Cana of Galilee are brought in as subsidiary 
 to the main topic. Hence has arisen one com¬ 
 mon western name for the day, fcstiim tnum 
 regum, in accordance with the legend by which 
 the wise Magi of the east became exalted into 
 kings and their number restricted to three. We 
 shall speak briefly hereafter of the origin and 
 growth of this wide-spread legend (below, § 3). 
 We have numerous homilies of the Latin fathers, 
 dwelling mainly, or exclusively (as e. g. eight by 
 Leo I.), on this aspect of the day. 
 
 7 . Manifestatim at the Marriage in Cana of 
 Galilee. —The manifestation of Christ’s Divine 
 power by His first miracle of turning the watei 
 into wine is not unfrequently dwelt on in docu- 
 
EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 nients of the Western church. Thus Maximus 
 Taurinensis, to whom we have already referred, 
 associates tliis with the two previous manifesta¬ 
 tions. See e. g. Horn. 29, “ ferunt enim hodie 
 Christum Dominum nostrum vel stella duce a 
 gentibus adoratum, vel invitatum ad nuptias 
 aquas in vino vertisse, vel suscepto a Joanne 
 baptismate consecrasse fluenta Jordanis.” Hence 
 he speaks of the day as virtulum {Domini) natalis. 
 From this cause comes the later name Bethphania 
 (see Ducange, s. v.). Cf. also Gregory of Tours 
 {de miracnlis S. 3Iartin{, ii. 26). 
 
 We find in the Eastern church too traces of 
 an association of the miracle at Cana with this 
 season, for Epiphanius {Haeresis li. c. 30; i. 
 451, ed. Petavius) speaks of it as happening 
 about Tybi 11 ( = Jan. 6 ), and adds, doubtlessly 
 in perfect good faith, that sundry fountains and 
 rivers (e.g. the Nile) were changed into wine on 
 the anniversary of the miracle. 
 
 5. Ilanifeskdion at the Feeding of the Five 
 Thousand .—Less frequently met with than any of 
 the preceding is the commemoration of the above 
 act of miraculous feeding, which may be speci¬ 
 ally associated with the one preceding. Under 
 this point of view the day was known as (payi- 
 (pdvia. We have mentioned below a reference 
 to this in the Gallican use. 
 
 The first three of these manifestations are all 
 referred to by Isidore of Seville (de off. eccl. ii. 
 26), and the Ordo Romanus also adds the fourth. 
 We may also mention here a passage in a sermon 
 once attributed to Augustine, but palpably not 
 his, in which all the four manifestations are 
 alluded to {Serm. 136 in Append.; v. 2702, ed. 
 Gaume). 
 
 For the special association of the festival of 
 the Innocents with that of the Epiphany refer¬ 
 ence may be made to the article on the former. 
 
 Before we proceed to speak briefly of the 
 various liturgical forms for this day, we may re¬ 
 mark that it was usual to give notice on the 
 Epiphany of the day on which the Easter of the 
 ensuing year would fall. Letters were sent about 
 this time by metropolitans to their provincial 
 bishops {e/'istolue Raschales, heortasticae), in 
 which at the end of a discourse of a more general 
 kind was given the requisite information. An 
 allusion to the existence of this practice in Egypt 
 is found in Cassian, “ Intra Aegypti regionem 
 mos iste antiqua traditione servatur, ut peracto 
 Epiphaniorum die . . . epistolae pontificis Alex- 
 andrini per universas dirigantur ecclesias, qui- 
 bus initium Quadragesimae et dies Paschae . . . 
 significentur ” (Co/l. x. 2 ; Patrol, xlix. 820). 
 Instances of such letters are those by Dionysius 
 of Alexandria (referred to by Eusebius, Hist. 
 Eccles. vii. 20), Athanasius (fragments of whose 
 once numerous series were first brought to light 
 in a Syriac version by Mai, Nova Bibliotheca 
 Patrum, vi. 1-168), Theophilus of Alexandria 
 (three of which were translated into Latin by 
 Jerome, and are included among his works, Epp. 
 96, 98, 100, ed. Migne), and Cyril, no less than 
 thirty of whose are .still extant (vol. v. part 2 , 
 ed. Aubert); and besides these purely Egyptian 
 examples may be further cited those of Innocent I. 
 {Ep. 14 de ratione Paschali; Patrol, xx. 517), 
 and Leo 1. {Ep. 138 ad epucopos Gall, et Hi<pan. 
 i. 1283, ed. Ballerini). We find traces of the 
 custom as existing in Spain, but there the notice 
 was to be giv’en on Christmas day, according to 
 
 EPirHANY, FESTIVAL OF G19 
 
 the third council of Braga, 578 A.D. {Conc.Bracar. 
 iii. can. 9 ; Labbe v. 898). 
 
 This duty is insisted on by several early coun¬ 
 cils (e. g. Cone. Arelat. i. can. 1 ; Cone. Carth. 
 iii. cann. 1, 41; Cone. Carth. v. can. 7; Labbe, 
 i. 1427 ; ii. 1167, 1173, 1216), and we cite espe¬ 
 cially the fourth council of Orleans (541 A.D.), 
 which after enjoining that Easter is to be kept 
 uniformly according to the Paschal table of VTc- 
 torius, adds “quae festivitas annis singulis ab 
 episcopo Epiphaniorum die in ecclesia poj)ulis 
 deuuntietur ” {Cone. Aurel. iv. can. 1 ; Labbe, 
 V. 381. See also Cone. Antissiod. [578 A.D.], 
 can. 2, op. cit. 957). The form of the announce- 
 ment as given in the Ambrosian liturgy, under 
 the Epiphany, runs thus: “ Noverit charitas 
 vestra, fratres charissimi, quod annuente Dei et 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi misericordia, die tali 
 mensis tails Pascha Domini celebrabimus ” (Pam- 
 elius, Litnrgg. Liit. ii. 314), 
 
 2 . Liturgical Notices. —It need hardly be said 
 that the festival of the Epiphany is recognised in 
 some form or other in all liturgies both of the 
 vvest and the east. The earliest form of the 
 Roman liturgy, the Leonine, is defective for this 
 part of the year, but it cannot be doubted that 
 a service for the Epiphany entered into it; the 
 more so that no less than eight homilies for this 
 festival are found in the works of Leo. In the 
 next form, the Gelasian, we find a mass both for 
 the festival of the Epiphany itself, and for the 
 vigil. Throughout the service for both days 
 the only Manifestation of our Lord referred to is 
 that to the Magi {Patrol. Ixxiv. 1062). 
 
 In the Gregorian Sacramentary we find the 
 further addition of a form for the Octave, though 
 it should be added that both this and that for 
 the vigil are wanting in some MSS., as the Codex 
 Rodradi (Greg. Sac. 15), and the same remark 
 is true for the Liber Antiphonarius {ib. 660). 
 In this last-named book the seventy-second psalm 
 is largely used, and very probably the poetic 
 imagery of this psalm suggested the special form 
 of the legend of the festwn trium regum (Ps. 
 Ixxii. 10). In this Sacramentary also, from 
 which, it may be remarked, the collect for the 
 day in our own prayer-book is derived, the re¬ 
 ference is solely to the manifestation to the Magi; 
 except in the solemn eucharistic benediction, 
 where a mention of the manifestation both at 
 the baptism and at the marriage in Cana of 
 Galilee is added, “ . . . . qui super Unigenitum 
 suum Spiritum Sanctum demonstrare voluit per 
 columbam, eaque virtute mentes vestrae exer- 
 ceantur ad intelligeuda divinae Legis arcana, 
 qua in Cana Galilaeae lympha est in vinum con- 
 versa ” {ib. 16), and see also the Liber Respon- 
 s 'lis {ib. 751). The Ordo Romanus prescribes 
 three lections for the vigil from the prophet 
 Isaiah (Iv., lx., Ixi. 10-lxiv. 4), as well as some 
 homilie-s. 
 
 The Ambrosian liturgy contains forms for the 
 vigil and the festival; the manifestation to the 
 Magi is the only one dwelt on, except in the 
 prefaces for the two days, in the former of which 
 the three manifestations are alluded to, and the 
 latter of which refers .solely to the baptism, 
 mentioning also the solemn consecration of the 
 water ; “ susceperunt hodie fontes benedictionem 
 tuam et abstulerunt maledictionem nostram ” 
 {Missa Ambros. in Pamelius’ Lilurgg. Latt. i. 
 315). 
 
C20 EriPIIANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 We may refer next to the liturgies of the old | 
 Galilean church, and here as before we find a I 
 recognition of the festival and its vigil. In the 
 ancient Icctionary ))ublished by Mabillon (dc [ 
 Liturgia Gallicuna, lib. ii. pp. 116, 117), the | 
 lection for the vigil introduces the reference to 
 the Magi, while on the day itself the jirophetical 
 lection, the e]tistle, and the gospel, are resjiec- 
 tively Isaiah lx.- 1—16; Titus i. 11-ii. 7; Matt, 
 iii. 13-17 ; Luke ili. 23; John ii. 1-11, where it 
 will be seen that the gospel is compounded of 
 passages from three of the evangelists (as on 
 Good Friday it is compounded of all the four), 
 dwelling on the baj)tism and the miracle at 
 Cana of Galilee. In the so-called Gothico-Gallic 
 Missal, we first meet with a number of different 
 prefaces and collects for the vigil in which all 
 the three manifestations are referred to, but that 
 to the Magi most frequently, and also the mani- 
 fiistation of the Divine power in the miraculous 
 feeding of the five thousand (lib. iii. pp. 207 sqq.). 
 In the actual masses given for the vigil and the 
 festival, we find that in the case of the former 
 the baptism is referred to in the preface and the 
 collect, the miracle of Cana in the preface, and 
 the manifestation to the Magi in the collectio ad 
 pacem, while the benediction, as in the Gregorian 
 Sacramentary, embraces all three. In the latter, 
 the baptism forms the special subject of the 
 collectio ad pacem and the contestation the miracle 
 of Cana that of the collectio post nomina, and the 
 manifestation to the Magi that of two other 
 prayers; while in the benediction, besides the 
 manifestation at the baptism and at Cana, that 
 at the feeding of the five thousand is also re¬ 
 ferred to. The same blending of references 
 characterizes also the Gallican Sacrameutary 
 edited by Muratori (/bf^ro/. Ixxii. 471). 
 
 We pass on next to the Mozarabic or Spanish 
 IMissal. Here, as well as in the Breviary, we 
 find a mention first of a Sunday before Epiphany, 
 and next comes a mass “ in jejunio Epiphaniae,” 
 that is a fast for January 3-5, a relic doubtless 
 of the earlier state of things when the subse¬ 
 quent festival of the Circumcision was observed 
 as a fast.** [Circumcision.] 
 
 For the Sunday referred to, the prophetical 
 lection, epistle, and gospel are respectively Isaiah 
 xlix. 1-7, Heb. vi. 13-vii. 3, John i. 1-18; and 
 for the following fast are Ecclesiasticus iv. 23-34, 
 Numbers xxiv.-x'xvi. with omissions, 1 Cor. xv. 
 33-50, John i. 18-34 (p. 58, ed. Leslie). 
 
 The mass for the festival itself is headed In 
 Apparitvme seu Epipliania Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi, the title in the Breviary being In fesio 
 Apparitionis Domini. The prophetical lection, 
 epistle, and gospel are Isaiah lx. 1-20 (with 
 omissions), Galatians iii. 27-iv. 7, Matt. ii. In 
 the prayers, &c., there are passing allusions to 
 the baptism (as in the Officium, Rom. vi. 3) and 
 the miracle in Cana of Galilee, but, as in the 
 various Roman liturgies, it is the manifestation 
 to the Magi that is mainly referred to. In one 
 passage of the mass (p. 63), as well as in the 
 Breviary, is an allusion to a name of the festival 
 evidently in use among the Visigoths in Spain, 
 
 d For an earlier allusion to the festival of Epiphany in 
 the Spanish church reference may be made to a canon of 
 a council of Saragossa (381 a.d.) evidently aimed at the 
 Prlscillianist practice of fasting at the Lord's Nativity 
 (Concil, Gaes. Aug. can. 4, Labbe ji. 1010), 
 
 EriPIIANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 acceptio, an obvious reference to Christ’s accept¬ 
 ance of the first fruits of the Gentiles. We may 
 take this opportunity of remarking that in Spain 
 the Visigoth law enjoined a total cessation of 
 legal business on this festival {Codex lej. BVst- 
 goth. lib. ii. tit. 1, lex 11 ; lib. xii. tit. 3, lex 6 : 
 in Ilispania Illustrata, iii. 863, 1004; ed. Frank¬ 
 fort, 1606. See also Cod. .Justin, lib. iii. tit. 12, 
 lex 7), and the Code of Theodosius forbade the 
 public games on this day {Cod. Tneodos. lib. xv. 
 tit. 5, lex 5 [where there is an allusion to Christ’s 
 baptism], v. 353, ed. Gothofredus, whose note see 
 in loc.). It may be added that the Apostolic 
 Constitutions (viii. 33) enjoins uj)on masters the 
 duty of giving their servants rest on the Epi¬ 
 phany, in memory of the great events comme¬ 
 morated. For additional remarks as to the vigil 
 of the Epiphany, reference may be made to those 
 on the vigil of the Nativity. [Christmas.] 
 
 The practice of the Greek church of making 
 the Epiphany one of the solemn seasons for bap¬ 
 tism and of the holding a special consecration of 
 the water has been already referred to. The 
 prophetical lection, epistle, and go.spel for this 
 latter rite are respectively Isaiah xxxv., Iv., xii. 
 3-6 ; 1 Cor. x. 1-4, Mark i. 9-11 (Goar, Eucho- 
 logion, pp. 453 sqq., and see his remarks, p. 467) ; 
 the epistle and gospel at the liturgy are respec¬ 
 tively Titus ii. 11-14, iii. 4—7, and Matt. iii. 
 13-17. 
 
 We find this practice of consecrating the water, 
 which was done at night, alluded to by Chry¬ 
 sostom {supra., ii. 369), who s])eaks of people 
 takinof home with them some of the consecrated 
 water, and of their finding it to keep good for a 
 year, or even three years. This nocturnal cere¬ 
 mony of consecrating the water is referred by 
 Theodorus Lector to Peter Gnapheus, who ap¬ 
 pointed itrl Twv vddrccu iv ro7s deo(pavLOis 
 iv rg iairepa y'lveadai (lib. ii. p. 566; ed. \a- 
 lesius; and see also Cedrenus, Hist. Comp. i. 530, 
 ed. Bekker; and Nicephorus Callist., Hist. Ecclcs. 
 XV. 28; ii. 634, ed. Ducaeus). It is however 
 justly remarked by Valesius {not. in loc. p. 169) 
 and Goar {Euchologion, p. 467), that since we 
 find Chrysostom at an earlier period alluding to 
 this practice as a familiar one, all that Peter 
 Gnapheus can have done must have been to 
 transfer the consecration from midnight to even¬ 
 ing. (For remarks on the ceremony at a later 
 period, see Georgius Codinus, de off. c. viii. [cf. 
 c. vi.], and refer to Gretser’s and Goar’s observa¬ 
 tions, pp. 303 sqq. ed. Bekker. See also Neale, 
 Easteryi Church, Introd. p. 754, for remarks as to 
 the superstitious ideas connected with this water 
 in Russia at the present day.) 
 
 Gregory of Tours mentions that on this day 
 those who lived near the Jordan bathed in the 
 river in memory of Christ’s baptism and of their 
 cleansing through him {De gloria martymm, i. 
 88 ). 
 
 Two miscellaneous notices may be added here 
 as illustrative of the ideas with which the fes¬ 
 tival was viewed. Chrysostom censures those 
 who communicating on the Epiphany did so be¬ 
 cause it was the custom rather than after due 
 reflection {Horn. iii. in Eph.; xi. 25, ed. Gaume); 
 and we learn from a decree of Gelasius that the 
 dedication of virgins took place especially on this'; 
 day {Epist. 9 ad episc. Lucaniae, c. 12; Patrol, 
 lix. 52). 
 
 3. Legend of the Three Kings. —We have al- 
 
EPIPHANY, FESTIVAL OF 
 
 EPISTLE 
 
 621 
 
 ready alluded in passinor to the title of festiim tri- 
 uin regum given in the Western church to the fes¬ 
 tival of the Epiphany, viewed as a commemora¬ 
 tion of the visit of the three Magi to the infant 
 Saviour. Whence then has tradition invested 
 them with royalty, and why has their number 
 been fixed as three ? The idea that the Magi 
 were kings, probably first suggested by an arbi¬ 
 tral-)' interpretation of Psalm Ixxii. 10 and simi¬ 
 lar passages, was early believed in. Thus Ter- 
 ttillian, after alluding to the above-mentioned 
 psalm, adds: “ Nam et Magos reges fere habuit 
 Oriens ” {adv. Judaeos, c. 9), though curiously 
 enough the apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy, 
 which gives a somewhat lengthy account of 
 the visit of the Magi, is silent as to this point. 
 The number three is not improbably due to the 
 number of the recorded gifts, though early pa¬ 
 tristic writers have thought it to symbolise 
 other special reasons. Thus some believed that 
 under this number was implied the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and others saw in it an allusion to 
 the threefold division of the human race, an idea 
 which is also referred to in sundry early repre¬ 
 sentations of the Magi. See e.g. Bede’s Collec¬ 
 tanea, if indeed the work is really his, where 
 this point seems referred to (Patrol, xciv. 541). 
 Not only did early tradition fix the number of 
 the Magi, but it also assigned them names. 
 These are variously giA'en, but the generally re¬ 
 ceived forms are Caspar, Melchior, Baltazar, 
 which are apparently first met with in the pas¬ 
 sage of Bede referred to above. These names 
 point, Mr. King thinks, to a Mithraic origin, from 
 the apparent reference in their etymology to the 
 sun (Gnostics arid their Ilemains, pp. 50, 133). 
 
 Merely to fix the names, however, was not 
 
 sufficient, and accordingly we find that bodies, 
 
 firmly believed at the time to be those of the 
 1/ _ 
 
 Magi, were brought by the empress Helena to 
 Constantinople, where they were received with 
 great honours. These remains were subsequently 
 transferred to Milan through the influence of 
 Eustorgius, bishop of that see; and in 1162 a.d. 
 they were again removed by the emperor Fre¬ 
 derick Barbarossa to Cologne, where they still 
 remain, and hence has arisen the appellation by 
 which they are so commonly known, the Three 
 Kings of Cologne. A further discu-ssion of this 
 legend is beyond our present scope, and reference 
 may be made to the ‘Bible Dictionary,’ s.v. 
 Magi, and besides the authorities there men¬ 
 tioned, a vast mass of information on the whole 
 subject may be found in Crombach’s Priirdtiae 
 Gentium sen Historia SS. trium regum magorum. 
 Colon. Agr. 1654. 
 
 4. Literature. —Reference has been made to 
 Martene, de Antiguis Ecdesiie Eitibus, iii. 42 sqq., 
 ed. Venice, 1783; Bingham’s Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church, bk. xx, ch. 4 ; Binterim, Denh- 
 uiirdigheiten der Christ-Kutholischen Kirche, v. 
 pt. 1 , pp. 310 sqq.; Guericke’s Antiquities of 
 the Church, pp. 163 sqq. (Eng. Trans.); Suicer’s 
 Thesaums, s. v. 'Emipdreia, &c. ; Ducange’s Glos- 
 saria; besides other authorities cited in the 
 article. The following may also be consulted : 
 Kindler, De Epiph iniis, Vitebergae, 1684; 
 Hebenstreit, De Epiphanix et Kjdphaniis ajjud 
 Gentiles ct Christian/js, Jenae, 1693; Blumen- 
 bach, Antuiuit'ites Epiphaniorurn, Lipsiae, 1737 
 (also in Volbeding, Thesaurus, i. 1 , Lipsiae, 
 1846, uum. 10); Wernsdorf, T« 'EnKpcivia ^ e- 
 
 temm, ad illustramlum Hgmnnm: Was furchst 
 du Feind Herodes sehr. Vitebergat', 1759. 
 
 [R. S.] 
 
 EPIPODIUS, martyr at Lyons under Anto¬ 
 ninus and Verus; commemorated April 22 
 (Mart, llieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 EPISCOPA, the wife of a bishop. The 
 second council of Tours (c. 13) expressly forbids 
 a bishop who has no wife (episcopam) to sur¬ 
 round himself with a set of women. [C,] 
 
 EPISCOPALIA, the ring and pastoral .stall’, 
 the distinctive marks of the authority of a 
 bishop. Thus Gerbod is said (Capitul. Franco- 
 furt. A.D. 794, c. 8) to haA'e received his Episco- 
 pxlia from Maguard his metropolitan (Ducange, 
 s. V.). . [C.] 
 
 EPISCOPATE. [Bishop.] 
 
 EPISCOPI CARDINALES. [Cardinal.] 
 
 EPISCOPI SUFFRAGANEI, YACAN- 
 TES. [Bishop, ji. 240.] 
 
 EPISCOPUS EPISCOPORUM. [Bishop, 
 
 p. 210.] 
 
 EPISTEME, martyr, with Galaction, a.d. 
 285; commemorated Nov. 5 (Cal. Bnzant.f 
 
 [\V. F. G.] 
 
 EPISTLE. Lections from Holy Scripture 
 form part of every known liturgy. These lec¬ 
 tions, as we learn from Justin Martyr, were 
 originally taken from the Old as well as from 
 the New Testament. The Apostolical Constitu¬ 
 tions speak of “the reading of the Law and the 
 Prophets, and of the Epistles, and Acts and 
 Gospels” (Ap. Const, viii. 5; ii. 57). Tertullian 
 mentions that the African church united the 
 reading of the Law and the Projihets with that 
 of the writings of the evangelists and apostles 
 (De Praescript. 36). St. Augustine repeatedly 
 refers to the first of the lections being taken 
 from the Prophets: “ primam lectionem Isaiae 
 prophetae ” (Serm. 45, ed. Bened. vol. a'. p. 218), 
 “ lectio prima prophetica ” (Serm. 47, a*. 268), 
 though, as Ave shall see, this was not uniA'ei’sally 
 the case. In comparatiA'ely early times the Old 
 Testament lection in many places dropt out of 
 u.se on ordinary occasions, and the first Scripture 
 lection in the litui-gy aauas that generally knoAvn 
 as the Epistle. The most ancient designation 
 Avas the Apostle, the lections being almost uni- 
 A'er.sally taken from the Avritings of St. Paul. 
 Thus Ave find, Apostolum audivimus, Psalmum 
 audivimus, EA'angelium audivimus ” (Aug. .Smu. 
 de Verb. Apost. 176, a'oI. v. p. 79()), ‘"sequitur 
 apostolus” (Sacram. Gregor. Menard, p. 2); 
 avayiucnaKerai airSaroAos (Litnrg. Chrgs.) ; “ in 
 quibusdam Hispaniarum ecclesiis laudes post 
 aptostolum decantantur ” (Co/i'uV. Tolct. iA'., a.d. 
 633, can. xii.; Labbe v. 1700); “Statim post 
 Apostolum id est post Epistolam ” (Hincmar, 
 Opusc. vii. vol. il. p. 149) ; KaTerreiyfi/ .... 
 xpaKr^piov 8i8d^ai p.e Ka\ rhu dn6(rTo\ou 
 (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Sal'ae). 
 
 In all ancient Sacramentaries of the Western 
 church the Epistle succeeds the Collkct. This 
 is not the case in the Eastern liturgies. In the 
 liturgy of St. Chrysostom Ave find a Proklaik- 
 'SOS (^npoKeipfvovj or short anthem preceding the 
 Epistle as its epitome, consisting of a ver.se and 
 response, generally, but not alway.s, taken from 
 
G22 
 
 EPISTLE 
 
 ERA 
 
 the Psalms. Before the epistle the deacon im¬ 
 posed silence attoidairius), “ not,” 
 
 observes St. Chrysostom, “as doing honour to* 
 the reader but to Him who speaks to all through 
 Him,” llomil. III., i. 2 Thess. After the Epistle is 
 read, the ])riest says, “ Peace be to thee,” which is 
 technically called elpr^pevnv (Tri(rTo\r]v. In¬ 
 stead of this “Thanks be to God” follows in 
 the Mozarabic liturgy. In the Western church 
 the anthem epitomizing the Epistle, taken 
 from the Psalms, followed instead of preceding 
 It. From being sung on the steps of the 
 ambo, it was called the Gradual [Alleluia : 
 Gradual]. St. Augustine frequently alludes 
 to its position between the Epistle and Gosjiel, 
 e.g. “ Primam lectionem audivimus apostoli.... 
 deinde cantavimus psalmum .... posthaec evan¬ 
 gel ica lectio ”.(Aug. Serin, de Verb. Apost. 176; 
 Senn. 45, ib. 49, u.s.'). Neither in the Eastern 
 nor the Western church was the Epistle always 
 selected from the writings of the ajwstles. We 
 find it sometimes taken from the Acts and the 
 Kevelation, and in the Western, but never in the 
 Eastern church, even from the Old Testament. 
 Several of the Oriental liturgies present more 
 than one lection in the place of the Epistle. In 
 the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil there is first a 
 lection from an epistle of St. Paul, then the 
 CatholiconV i. e. a lection from one of the Catholic 
 epistles, then a lection from the Acts, each fol¬ 
 lowed by an appropriate prayer; a psalm is 
 then sung, and the Gospel is read (Ftenaudot, 
 1 . pp. 5-8). The Liturgia Communis Aethiopum 
 gives the same five lections in the same order 
 (/ 6 . pp. 507-510), in which they also stand 
 in the Syriac liturgies (Ib. ii. p. 68 ). Canons 
 of the Cojitic church ordaining these five lections 
 —the psalm being counted as one—are given by 
 Renaudot (Fb. i. p. 203). The last lection is 
 alwa 3 "s the Gospel. 
 
 The origin and date of the arrangement of 
 these Scrij)ture lections will be more properly 
 discussed when the early lectionaries are treated 
 of [Lectionary]. Binterim carries 'them back 
 as early as the 3rd century (Denhicurdigheit. 
 iv. 1. 228-230; 2. 323). If the ancient Lec- 
 tionarinm of the Roman church, known by the 
 title of Gomes [Comes], in which we find the 
 epistles and gospels very much as they stand in 
 the English liturgy at the present day, were 
 really drawn up, as is asserted, by Jerome, we 
 should have certain evidence of their arrange¬ 
 ment at least as early as the 5th century. 
 But the authorship of the Comes rests only 
 on the authority of writers of the 11 th and 12 th 
 centuries, and though accepted by Bona (Rer. 
 Liturg. lib. iii. c. 6 , p. 624) and Binterim (u.s.'), 
 must be regarded as exceedingly questionable. 
 The fact, however, that the same lections were 
 employed by the fathers of the 4th and 5th 
 centuries as the subjects of their homilies proves 
 the veiy early date of their assignment to par¬ 
 ticular days (cf. the examples given by Augusti, 
 Hand'juch d. Christ. Arch. bk. vi. c. 8 , vol. ii. p. 
 239). 
 
 a “ Catholicon. Ita vocantur apud orientates Epistolae 
 Tacobi, Petri, Joannis et Judae, quae Catholicae appcl- 
 lantur, quia ad oiniies scrlptae sunt, ex quihus uuum 
 voluinen conRdiur quid Catholicon dicitur. Ibique 
 cum Tlieoldci laudant aliquam ex istis F.pistolis senten- 
 ti im dicunt Jacobus in Catholico, Petrus, kc.” Renau¬ 
 dot, 1. 210. [Catholic.] 
 
 According to the Eastern ritual the Epistle 
 was read by the Header, standing at the Royal 
 Doors. In the Western church it was read in 
 the 8th century from the ambo by the subdeacor 
 standing on the second step, the Gospel being 
 subsequently read by the deacon from the third 
 step. Amalarius (IJe Offic. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 11) 
 exj)resses his surprise that this office is assigned 
 to the subdeacon, since it is not mentioned in 
 the commission at his ordination; but the 4th 
 canon of the council of Rheims, A.D. 813, after 
 directing that “the Apostle” should be read by 
 the subdeacon, all sitting, adds “qualiter sub- 
 diacoui ministerium est apostolum legere ” 
 (Augusti, Ildbch.; Binterim, iJenkwiirdigk.; Bing¬ 
 ham, Oriq.; Bona, Rer. Litut'q.; Martene, de 
 Eccl. Rit.). [E. V.] 
 
 EPISTOLAE CANONICAE, CO:\rMEN- 
 DATORIAE, COMMUNICATORIAE, EC¬ 
 CLESIASTIC AE, FORMATAE, PACI- 
 FICAE, SYSTATICAE. [Commendatory 
 Letters: Forma.] 
 
 EPISTOLAE DIMISSORIAE. [Dimls- 
 SORY Letters.] 
 
 EPISTOLAE ENTHRONISTICAE. [Bi¬ 
 shop, p. 224.] 
 
 EPISTOLAE SYNODICAE. [Synodical 
 Letters.] 
 
 EPISTOLAE TRACTORIAE. [Tr.^c- 
 toria.] 
 
 EPISTOLIUM. A term used (IT. Cone. 
 Turon. c. 6) for the literae formatae the granting 
 of which is expressly limited to bishops. See 
 Commendatory Letters : Dimissory Let¬ 
 ters. [C.] 
 
 EPITAPH. [Catacombs, p. 308 : Inscrip¬ 
 tions.] 
 
 EPITRACHELION. [Stole.] 
 
 EPOCH. [Era.] 
 
 EPOLONIUS, martyr at Antioch, with 
 Babylas the bishop, under Decius; commemo¬ 
 rated Jan. 24 (Mart. Bedae, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EPOMADION CETTUfidSiov), the cord or 
 ribbon by which a pectoral cross or Encolpion 
 is suspended from the neck. (Suidas; Daniel’s 
 Codex, iv. 702.) [C.] 
 
 EQUI CURSUALES. [Cursuales Equi.] 
 
 ERA. A succession of years, reckoned on 
 some common principle from a specified event, or 
 date, called its epoch. The terms era and epoch 
 are frequently used as synonv’mous. 
 
 The Jidian Period. —1. To compare dates 
 belonging to diflerent eras, there is no method 
 more useful than to refer them all to the Julian 
 period, a period introduced or revived by 
 Scaliger. It consists of 7980 years, that 
 number being formed by multiplving together 
 28 X 19 X 15, the respective periods of the 
 cycle of the sun, of the cycle of the moon, and of 
 the indictions, the last being a period used in 
 the administration of the Roman empire. It is 
 the great cj'cle in which the solar, lunar, and 
 iudictional cycles sj’uchronize, after the com¬ 
 pletion of 285 CN'cles of the sun, 420 of the 
 moon, and 532 of the indictions. The great 
 cvcle then recurs as before. No two years in the 
 same period agree in all the three numerals of 
 
ERA 
 
 ERA 
 
 623 
 
 the subordinate cycles, so that by naming them 
 all, the year is completely designated. 
 
 2. The first year of the current Julian period, 
 iL which each of the subordinate cycles had the 
 numeral one, was the year 4713 B.C., and the 
 noon of 1st January of that year, for the 
 meridian of Alexandria, is its chronological 
 epoch. 
 
 ^ The years are Julian years, i.e., of 365 days in 
 common years, 366 in leap year, which is every 
 fourth year, that year in fact whose date- 
 numeral being divided by four, leaves the 
 remainder one. 
 
 3. 2lo find the place of any specified year of the 
 Julian period .—Divide its numeral by the 
 respective divisors 28, 19, 15. The respective 
 remainders give the years in the several cycles. 
 The remainder 0 is to be construed 28, 19, 15. 
 
 4. 2'o detennine the year of the Julian period 
 from the numerals of the three cycles.— Multiply 
 the numeral of the solar cycle by 4845, that of 
 the lunar by 4200, and that of the indictions by 
 6916, and divide the sum of these products 
 by 7980. The remainder is the year sought. 
 
 5. To find the day current of the Julian period 
 of any date in the Julian period .—Subtract one 
 from the numeral of the year-day, and divide the 
 remainder by four, calling Q the integer 
 quotient, R the remainder. Then will Q be the 
 number of entire quadrienuia of 1461 days each, 
 and R the residual years, the first of which is 
 always a leap year. Convert Q into days by 
 taking the right multiple of 1461, and R by 
 using the annexed table ; then add the days for 
 the current day of the given year, remembering 
 February 29th in leap year. 
 
 Residual Year 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Pay . . . 
 
 0 
 
 366 
 
 731 
 
 1096 
 
 6 . To convert a year of the Julian period into 
 the year B.C., or a.d. — If the numeral be less 
 than 4714, subtract it from that number, the 
 difference will be the year B.c. If the numeral 
 be greater than 4713, take that number from 
 the numei'al, and the difference will be the 
 year a.d. 
 
 2'he Olympiads. —1. The era used in Greece, 
 instituted in 776 B.C. (3938 J. P.) consisting of 
 four years. July 1st A.D., is considered to 
 correspond with the commencement of the first 
 year of the 195th Olympiad. 
 
 2 . To reduce any given year of an Olympiad 
 to the Christian era, multiply the Olympiad 
 immediately preceding the one in question by 
 four, and add to the product the number of 
 years of the given Olympiad. If before Christ, 
 subtract the amount from 777 ; if after Christ, 
 subtract 776 from the amount, and the re¬ 
 mainder will be the beginning of the year 
 required, commencing from July. 
 
 3. For an exact calculation of days tables are 
 required, showing the order of the months in the 
 different years of the Metonic cycle. These may 
 be found in Ideler i. 386. 
 
 4. The fathers of tl)e Greek church and the 
 ecclesiastical historians, as Eusebius and Socrates, 
 use the era of the 01ym})iads in a peculiar 
 manner. It would have been natural to begin 
 them with the commencement of their civil 
 
 year, September 1st, or ten months too early, 
 but they really commence them a year earlier 
 still, or nearly two years too early. The same 
 reckoning is used in the Chronicon Paschale. It 
 is necessary to add one year and ten months to 
 their date to make them accord with the 
 common era of the Olympiads. 
 
 Era of the Building of Home .—Amongst the 
 variety of dates assigned to this event, the 
 Varronian epoch is adopted, being April 22nd, B.c. 
 
 753, or 3961, J. P. The consular year began on 
 the 1st January. 
 
 To reduce the year of Borne, to the year before 
 or after Christ .— If the year of Rome be less than 
 
 754, deduct its numeral from 754; the difference 
 is the year before Christ. If the year of Rome 
 be not less than 754, deduct 753 from it, and the 
 remainder will be the year after Christ. 
 
 Era of the Seleucidae .—The era of the Seleu- 
 cidae, also called the era of the Greeks, was 
 widely used in Syria, and by the Jews from the 
 time of the Maccabees. It is used in the 
 book of the Maccabees. It is still used by 
 the Arabs. Its epoch is October 1st, B.c. 312, or 
 4402 J. P. 
 
 Julian Beformation of the Calendar .—This 
 took place 707 U.C., or January 1st B.C. 45. 
 4669 J. P. 
 
 The Christian Era .—The Christian era w'as 
 first introduced by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian 
 abbot in Rome, in the 6th century, and gradually 
 superseded the era of Diocletian, which had been 
 used till then. It was first used in h'rance in 
 the 7th century, but was not universally es¬ 
 tablished there till the 8th century, after which 
 time it became general. Great diversity, how¬ 
 ever, long subsisted as to the day on which the 
 year should be considered to commence. 
 
 It commenced on the 1st day of January, in 
 the middle of the 4th year of the 194th Olym¬ 
 piad, the 753rd U.C., and the 4714th of the 
 Julian period. It is now generally acknowledged 
 not to be the true year of the Saviour’s birth, 
 but its use as a chronological epoch does not 
 allow of its being altered. 
 
 The era of Diocletian .—This era was prevalent 
 till the adoption of the Christian era; its epoch 
 was 29th August, A.D. 284. It was introduced 
 in Egypt by Diocletian, after the siege of 
 Alexandria, and gave the Egyptians, for the first 
 time, the advantage of a fixed year. The first 
 Thoth, the beginning of the Egyptian year, was 
 August 31st, and it is supposed that a change 
 was made from a moveable to a fixed year, after 
 the lapse of five years. This era is still used by 
 the Copts. To reduce this era to the Christian 
 era add 283 years and 240 days, and as the 
 intercalation was made at the end of the year, in 
 the Diocletian year next after leap year, add one 
 day, from the 29th August to the end of the 
 ensuing February. 
 
 2'he era of Constantinople .—The era of Con¬ 
 stantinople, or the Byzantine era, first appears 
 in the Chronicon Paschale. It fixed the creation 
 of the world in the 5508th year before Christ, so 
 that A.D. 1, fell in the 5509th year of this era. 
 The Ru.ssians followed this calculation till the 
 time of Pater the Great, having received it from 
 the Greek church, by whom it is still used. 
 The year began on the equinox, March 21st. 
 It was afterwards made to beg[iu, for civil 
 purposes, on Seiffember 1st. 
 
624 
 
 ERACLEAS 
 
 EUCHARIST 
 
 The Alexandrians had used an era of the 
 creation, fixed at 5502 years before Christ; but 
 in A.D. 285, they reduced the date by ten years. 
 
 'J'o pass Irotn the year of our Lord to the era 
 of C<)nstantinoi>le, or conversely, add or subtract 
 5508 from January to August, and 5509 for the 
 rest of the year. 
 
 The Jewish era. —The Jews now reckon by the 
 year of the world, and they place the creation 
 8761 B.c. 
 
 By adding 952 to the numeral of the Jewish 
 year we get its date in the Julian period; and 
 by subtracting 952 from the year of the Julian 
 period we get the Jewish date. 
 
 For the Christian era we must subti-act 3761, 
 and add the same for the converse process. The 
 Jewish year begins in the autumn. 
 
 The following results are selected from a Table 
 in Sir J, Herschel’s ‘Outlines of Astronomy.’ 
 
 Intervals in Days between the Commencement of the Julian riiBiOD and that of some principal 
 
 Chronological Eras. 
 
 
 Names by which the Era is usually cited. 
 
 First Day 
 current 
 of the Era. 
 
 Chronolo¬ 
 
 gical 
 
 Designation 
 of the Year. 
 
 Current 
 Year of the 
 Julian 
 Period. 
 
 Interval 
 
 Days. 
 
 
 
 
 Julian Dates 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Julian Period. 
 
 Jan. 1 
 
 B.C. 4713 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 Olympiads (mean epochs in general use) 
 
 July 1 
 
 776 
 
 3938 
 
 1,438,171 
 
 
 
 Building of Rome (Varronian epoch, U.C.) . 
 
 Apr. 22 
 
 753 
 
 3961 
 
 1,446,502 
 
 
 
 Era of the Seleucidae (or Era of the Greeks) 
 
 Oct. 1 
 
 312 
 
 4402 
 
 1,607,739 
 
 
 
 Julian reformation of the Calendar. 
 
 Jan. I 
 
 45 
 
 4669 
 
 1,704,987 
 
 
 
 Spanish Era. 
 
 Jan. 1 
 
 38 
 
 4676 
 
 1,707,544 
 
 
 
 Actiun Era in Rome. 
 
 Jan. 1 
 
 30 
 
 4684 
 
 1,710,466 
 
 
 
 Actiaii Era of Alexandria. 
 
 Aug. 29 
 
 30 
 
 4684 
 
 1,710,706 
 
 
 
 Dionysian or Christian Era, “of our Lord " . 
 
 Jan. 1 
 
 A.D. 1 
 
 4714 
 
 1,721,424 
 
 
 
 Era of Diocletian. 
 
 Aug. 29 
 
 284 
 
 4997 
 
 1,825,030 
 
 
 [L. H.] 
 
 ERACLEAS. [Heracleas.] 
 
 ERACIJUS. [Heraclius.] 
 
 ERASMUS. (1) Bishop, and martyr in 
 Campania, under Diocletian ; commemorated 
 June 3 (^Mart. Horn. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Antioch ; commemorated Nov. 
 25 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ERAST US and Olympos and companions, 
 “Apostle;” commemorated Nov. 10 (Cal. By- 
 zard.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EREMITES. [Hermits.] 
 
 ERENAEUS. [Irenaeus.] 
 
 ERENACH, or HERENACH,- a term ap¬ 
 plied to a class of officials who appear promi¬ 
 nently in the annals of the Irish church prior to 
 its reconstitution in the 12th century, after 
 which time the word was used to denote an 
 ecclesiastic having a position akin to that of 
 archdeacon. 
 
 In its earliest use the Erenach, or Airchinneach, 
 appears to have been hereditary steward and 
 tenant of the lands granted by temporal chiefs 
 to the church-founding abbots of Ireland ; his 
 duties being to superintend the farmers or 
 tenants of the church or monastery—according 
 to Colgan, “ Omnium colonorum certi districtus 
 praepositus seu praefectus.” [J. S —T.] 
 
 ESICHIUS or ESICIUS. [Hesyciiius.] 
 
 ESPOUSALS. [Arrtiae : Benediction, 
 Nuptial: Betrothal: Marriage.1 
 
 _j 
 
 ETHELDREDA or EDILTRUDIS, virgin- 
 queen, martyr in Britain ; commemorated June 
 23 (Mart. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ETHERIUS, bishop; deposition at Auxerre 
 July 27 (Mart. LFsuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ETHIOPIAN MONKS. Monasticism spread 
 rapidly from Egypt into Ethiopia, and gained as 
 fctrong a hold there as in Egypt or Syria, if not a 
 
 stronger. Helyot (Histoire des Ordres Monas- 
 tiques, I. xi.) sjieaks of all the monasteries in 
 Ethiopia as professing to obey the so-called “ Rule 
 of Antony,” but with different observances. An 
 attempt at reformation, such as invariably recurs 
 in the life of a monastic order, was made in the 
 7th century; Tecla-Haimanot, as Helyot writes 
 it, being the second founder or Benedict of 
 Ethiopian monasticism. He endeavoured to con¬ 
 solidate the system under a Superior-General, 
 second in ecclesiastical rank only to the Patriarch 
 of Ethiopia, who was to visit and inspect the 
 monasteries ])ersonally or by proxv. Several of 
 them, however, preferred to retain their inde¬ 
 pendence, like congregationalists. Plonks swarmed 
 in Ethiopia, according to Helyot, long after the 
 first fervour of asceticism ; and the constitution 
 of the Ethiopian church was monastic (Robert¬ 
 son, Church Hist. i. 300). The story of a mili- 
 ta”y order of monks, like the knight-templars, 
 originating in the 4th century is purely fabulous 
 (Helyot, u. s. i. xiii.). [I. G. S.] 
 
 EUCHARIST (EvxupKrTLa). This article 
 treats of the use of the word Eu -haristii. For 
 the nature of the offices accompanying the sacra¬ 
 ment, see Liturgy, and the sevei-al articles on 
 its component parts, especially Canon of the 
 Liturgy and Communion, Holy. 
 
 1. The primary meaning of the word evxapi- 
 (TTia seems to be a feeling of thankfulness or 
 gratitude (2 Macc. ii. 27; Sirac. xxxvii. 11 ; 
 Acts XXIV. 3). 
 
 H. The expression of the feeling of gratitude : 
 1 . In words = thanksgiving; 2. In act = thank- 
 offering. 
 
 I . Euxapiarla, in the sense of thanksgiving, 
 occurs frequently in the New Testament ; it is 
 used for the thanksgiving in public worship 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 15, etc.), and for the 
 expression of thankfulness generally. 
 
 2. Philo uses ei/xapiaria in a wider sense. 
 
EUCHARIST 
 
 He speaks, for instance (^De Victimis, c. 9), of 
 ev^apiffTia as including hymns, prayers, and 
 sacrifices; of tcls 8ia Qvaiciv evxapiO’Tias (^Ib. 
 c. 4) ; and of giving thanks (or thank-offering, 
 ey;^apt(rT 77 a'at TrjV (vxo-pio’Tiai'^ to God for the 
 creation of the world—a plirase noteworthy as 
 suggesting one of the aspects of the Christian 
 eucharist (Irenaeus, Ilaeres. iv. 18, 4). The 
 word does not occur in the LXX. though it is 
 used by Aquila, 
 
 III. We have to consider the application of 
 the word ivxapKfria to the Supper of the Lord, 
 or the elements used in it. 
 
 1. The verb evxapia-TeTp, like the correspoud- 
 incr substantive, means both to feel thankfulness 
 and to e.xpress it. The use of the word evxa.- 
 pKTT-pdfj, in 2 Cor. i. 11, implies further that 
 fuxapKTTili/ might be used with an accusative of 
 the object for which thanks are given. 
 
 The Lord in the Last Supper gave thanks 
 after taking the Cup (de^dp-ei/os iror-ppiov cvxa- 
 picTT-fjo-as direv, Luke xxii. 17 ; \a$wp noTvpiou 
 Kal eiixapi(rTrj<Tay, ]\latt. xxvi. 27); and before 
 breaking the Bread (^^vxo-picr'T'piras cKKaafv, 
 1 Cor. xi. 24; Luke xxii. 19). Compare Matt. 
 XV. 36; Mark viii. 6 ; John vi. 11, 23. So the 
 disciples of the 2 nd centuiy gave thanks over 
 the Bread and the Cup in the Sacrament of the 
 Lord’s Supper, as we see from the description of 
 it in Justin Martyr. 
 
 2. From this uttering of thanksgiving over 
 the elements of Bread and Wine in the Sacra¬ 
 ment, the word €vxapt<TT€7v came to mean, to 
 bless, halloAV, or consecrate by the utterance of 
 the proper form of thanksgiving (Grimm, Lexicon 
 Novi Test. s. v.). Thus Justin Martyr {Apol. 
 i. 65) speaks of the Bread and Wine and Water 
 which had been made eucharistic (d/xapiaTT]- 
 Ofvros dpTov Kal o'ivou Kal vSaros), immediately 
 after mentioning the thanksgiving {^vxo.pi(TTlav^ 
 of the president for God’s mercy in granting us 
 the blessings of creation and redemption. And 
 again (c. 66 ), he speaks of ttjv 5i’ evxvs \6you 
 Tov Trap’ avTov evxapi(rTr]dfi<Tau rporp'fjv [Canon 
 OF Tiiii Liturgy, p. 268]. Compare “ panem in 
 quo gratiae actae sint ” (Irenaeus, Ilaeres. iv. 
 
 By an easy transition the eoxapirmpd^irra 
 rporpT) or consecrated elements came to be called 
 simply evxapKTTla (lb. c. 66 ). Similarly in the 
 Ignatian letter ad Smyrn. 7. Irenaeus {Haeres. 
 iv. 18, 5) says that the Bread after the Epiclesis 
 is no longer common bread, but eucharistia, con¬ 
 sisting of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. 
 
 3. But the conception of thank-offeriny is also 
 found in the word eucharistia and its correspond¬ 
 ing verb, Avhen applied to the Sacrament of the 
 Body and Blood of Christ. Clement of Alex¬ 
 andria (Strom, iv. § 132, p. 623) speaks of the 
 martyr’s blood poured out as a thank-offering 
 (€vxapi(TTr)d(yTos a’i;xaTos [Dindorf’s text: vulg. 
 evXo.pia'&(:VTos~^’, and we might interpret Jus¬ 
 tin’s evxapia-TTjOeia-a rporp^ in the same way 
 were it not for its clo.se connexion with evxa- 
 pim'ia, where the latter evidently means thanks¬ 
 giving. In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 117), 
 when Justin speaks of the Christian sacrifice 
 which takes place (he says) iitl -rf} euxapia-Tia 
 TOV dpTov Kal TOV TTOTTip'iov, it is evident that he 
 regards the Bread and the Cup as being them¬ 
 selves made a thank-offering or eucharistia. And 
 again, when (c. 41) he refers to the leper’s offer- 
 
 CHKIST. ANT. ‘ 
 
 EUCLIARIST (in Christian Art) 625 
 
 ing of fine flour as a type of the eucharistic 
 bread (tov dprov Trjs (vxapiaTlai) which the 
 Lord commanded us to offer (ttoiui/) in thanks¬ 
 giving ("pa evxapKTTwp.eu') for the blessings of 
 creation and redem])tion, he regards the elements 
 as themselves an ex[)ression of thankfulness; 
 i. e. as a thank-offering. When Celsus objected 
 to the Christians that they were ungrateful in 
 not paying due thank-offerings (xapiarlipia) to 
 the local deities, Origen replied (c. Celsuin,\in. 
 57; pp. 415, 416, Spencer) that the bread called 
 eucharistia (apros evxapKTTia KaXovfxfPos) W'as 
 the symbol or outw'ard token of thankfulness 
 towards God (t^s -rrpbs rhp Sebp eiixaparTias) • 
 that is, he regards the bread itself as of the 
 nature of a thank-offering. 
 
 4. Whether the original meaning was, “ that 
 over which thanks have been given,” or “that 
 which has been made a thank-offering,” the word 
 eucharistia came to be sim})ly equivalent to “ the 
 consecrated elements of bread and wine,” or 
 sometimes of bread alone. Thus Clement of 
 Alexandria (Strom, i. §5, p. 318) speaks of the 
 ministers distributing the eucharist (rpp evxa- 
 piariav SiapeifiapTfs), i. e. the elements, to the 
 communicants ; and the epistle to Victor (Euseb. 
 H. E. V. 24, § 15) of sending the eucharist to 
 neighbouring churches. [Compare Eulogiae.] 
 Cyprian (Epist. w. c. 1 ) explains euchari tia by 
 the words, “id est. Sanctum Domini Corpus.” 
 
 5. The euchari‘ t (i. e. the consecrated bread) 
 was employed in the following ways, he.sides 
 that of ordinary administration. It was taken 
 home and preserved in a casket [Arca] ; it was 
 sent by bishops to other churches as a token of 
 Christian brotherhood [Eulogiae]; it was borne 
 before the pope at a pontifical mass (Ordo Rom. 
 i. c. 8; see Martene, R. A. 1. iv. 2, § 2) ; it was 
 reserved in churches [Dove: Reservation]; 
 it was enclosed in altars at cons.^cration [Conse¬ 
 cration, of Churches]; it was carried on a 
 journey (Ambrose DeObitu SatyripVi. 19); Gregory 
 the Great I)e Off. iii. 36; Dial. c. 37); it was some¬ 
 times worn suspended from the neck in an En- 
 COLPION (Giraldus Cambren. Topograph. Ilibern. 
 Dist. ii. c. 19) ; it was used in the cure of dis¬ 
 ease (Augustine, c. Julian, iii. 162); it was 
 placed in the mouth of the dead [Burial of the 
 Dead] ; and the administration of the eucharist 
 was one of the forms of ordeal (Martene, De Rit. 
 Antiq. 1. V. 4). 
 
 IVL The Greeks interpret the ei/xapiariai of 
 1 Tim. ii. 1 to be hymns or canticles sung to the 
 honour and glory of God (Daniel, Codex Litura. 
 iv. 406). [C.“] 
 
 EUCHARIST (in Christian Art). The 
 earliest eucharistic lepresentations, as may be 
 expected, seem to refer principally to the agapae, 
 or suppers which preceded the actual eucha¬ 
 ristic breaking of the bx'ead in the earliest times 
 (1 Cor. xi. 20.) It is to be jxresumed at least 
 that the order of the Lord’s Supper itself was 
 followed, and that the celebration, or symbolic 
 breaking of the bread, took place after, or 
 towards the end of, the meal. (St. John xiii. 
 2—4.) In the earliest days of persecution they 
 naturally began to be celebrated in the catacombs 
 
 • The writer wishes to acknowledge his obligation to 
 the Rev. F. J. A. Ilort, Fellow of Emmanuel CollegCi 
 Cambridge, for several suggestions on the tnatUr treate<l 
 in this article. 
 
EUCIIAIIIST (ix Chhistiax Art) 
 
 or near the tombs of martyrs. [Cella Memo- | 
 RIAK.] It is not the business of the present j 
 writer to enquire into tlie connexion of the 
 arrangements for public celebration of the ' 
 eucharist and Christian rites in general with | 
 the ancient usages of funeral rites. But those 
 usages were so familiar to the early church, that 
 it is not to be wondered at that the agape at 
 least is so frequently represented and the eucha¬ 
 rist so distinctly implied in the various catacomb 
 paintings. Dr. Mommsen (^Contemp. lievieo.'^ 
 May 1871, 16+ and 171) mentions an agape 
 with bread and fish in that very ancient crypt | 
 of Domitilla on the Ardeatine Way, which De 
 Rossi refers to Flavia the granddaughter of 
 Vespasian.* The bread and fish occur again 
 repeatedly in the Callixtine catacomb, with a 
 man in the act of blessing the bread; seven, 
 eight, or more baskets of bread are placed near 
 a table at which seven persons are sitting. The 
 table is round, and fishes are also placed on it. 
 The use of the vine is frequent in the oldest 
 w'ork, as in the Domitilla vault, where boys are 
 gathering the grapes, and the art is quite of 
 the Augustan age, and probably executed by 
 Pagan hands. A parallel work in mosaic, of 
 later though still very early date, exists in the 
 church of Sta. Constantia at Rome [Vine]. 
 (Parker, Ancient Mosaics at Rome and Ravenna.^ 
 A connexion must always have existed in the 
 Christian mind between the last supper at Jeru¬ 
 salem, the bread and wine, and the last repast 
 of the Lord with His disciples, the bread and 
 fish by the sea of Galilee (John xxi.). And His 
 words on the former occasion cannot have been 
 unconnected with this discourse of Himself the 
 bread of life in St. John vi. 58 sqq. But the 
 earlier representations of a memorial banquet 
 seem to point rather to the agape or com- i 
 memorative repast, than to the breaking of the 
 bread and pouring forth of the wine in com¬ 
 memorative sacrifice. A sense of mystery and 
 
 EUCHARIST (in Christian Art) 
 
 I treated by M. Raoul Pochette {Mem. de V Institut. 
 j des Inscr. et Relies Lettres, t. xiii. 775, &c.). They 
 may, he thinks, account for the relics of cups 
 ' and j)latters, knife-handles, and egg-shells [see 
 J Egg] found in the Christian sepulchres (Boldetti, 
 lib. ii. xiv. tav. 5, 59 and 60, and passim), though 
 there can be no doubt, as he implies, that old Etrus¬ 
 can (or indeed human) custom or instinct, made 
 survivors bury many objects used in life along 
 with their dead. 
 
 One of the earliest knowm representations of 
 the eucharistic ofi'ering is that of the mosaic in 
 j St. Vitale at Ravenna, dating from the 6th cen¬ 
 tury. (See woodcut.) On one side Abel is repre¬ 
 
 sented as standing with hands raised in prayer, 
 clad in cloak and short tunic, and just issued 
 from a house; it is possible that this, with the 
 streaked sky of the mosaic, may indicate a 
 morning or evening sacrifice. At all events the 
 presence of Abel connects the other figure of the 
 priest and king Melchisedech, with the idea of 
 the sacrifice of the lamb, and therein of the death 
 of the Lord. ^lelchisedech is standing before an 
 I oblong altar-table, on which is a chalice and two 
 loaves of bread; his hands are raised in prayer, 
 not in the act of blessing, and he is clad in the 
 penula or cloak over a long tunic and girdle. 
 
 awe, a pious reticence, which appears for the 
 present almost erased from the Christian con- 
 sciousne.ss, seems to have prevented represen¬ 
 tation of the Lord’s act of typical sacrifice of 
 Himself; as representation of His actual death 
 by crucifixion was also long delayed. [Crucifix.] 
 The subject of the agapae, and the disorders to 
 which they sometimes gave occasion, is admirably 
 
 a This vault is mentioned in Boldetti (p. 551); it is 
 called the Sepulchre of SS. Achilles and Nereus, the relics 
 of those martyrs having been conveyed there. Of its date 
 he says only, “tempo vicino agli Apostoli." 
 
 This mosaic is an important illustration of the 
 fundamental principle of Christian svmbolic 
 ornament, w'hich appears to have been from 
 the earliest times devoted, as a central object, 
 to displaying the fulfilment of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment by the New. In the Laurentian MS., 
 a.d. 556, our Lord is represented as adminis¬ 
 tering a small rounded object, evidently bread, 
 to one of eleven standing figures. ' See woodcut.) 
 
 The* frequent introduction of the fish in the 
 various representations of eucharistic repasts, 
 which are found particularly in the Callixtine 
 catacomb, is connected of course with the 
 
EUCITAKIST (in CiipasriAN Art) 
 
 anagrammatic meaning of the word as 
 
 well as with the miracles of the bread and 
 fish, or the Lord’s words in John vi. The 
 connexion of the last repast by the sea of 
 Galilee with the last supper is expressed in 
 the words of Bede, In Joann, xxi. “ Fiscis assus, 
 
 Christus passus.” It is no part of our duty to 
 pursue it here, except in its frequent illustrations 
 on the Avails of St. Callixtus. These Avill be 
 found in De Rossi’s Boma Sotteranea, and the 
 author refers them, from the beauty of their 
 execution, to an early period of the 3rd century. 
 It cannot be denied, howeA'er, that a certain 
 uncertainty and suspicion of repainting attaches 
 more particulaidy to this catacomb in the minds 
 of many antiquarians. XeA^ertheless, if, as Mr. 
 Parker thinks, the most extensiA'e paintings and 
 repaintings took place in the time of St. 
 Paulinus of Nola, a highly respectable anti¬ 
 quity still belongs to these subjects. We haA'e 
 giA’-en a Avoodcut [C.\nister, p. 264], of the 
 most important of these paintings. Its subject 
 is the mystic fish bearing loaves on his back ; 
 they are not decussated or crossed, as is most 
 frequently the case Avhere they are.represented 
 [Elements, p. 603], but bear a central mark, 
 Avhich, as Martigny thinks, connects them Avith 
 Eastern and Jewish otferings of cakes made from 
 first-fruits of corn (called mamphula or Syrian 
 bread). The fish bears them in a basket, Avhich 
 has in it besides another object. This is sup¬ 
 posed to represent a vessel of Avine, but, as he 
 admits, it is not very easy to decipher in the 
 original, and the lithograjih in De Rossi is some- 
 Avhat of a restoration. What it is like in the 
 actual fresco must be A^ery difiScult to deter¬ 
 mine. But his rafei’euce to St. Jerome {Ep. ad 
 Rustic, c. XX.), “ Nihil illo ditius qui corpus 
 Domini canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in 
 vitro,” corresponds with great exactness and 
 A'ery impressiA’ely Avith this painting. In any 
 case there can be no doubt AvhateA’er that it 
 represents the Lord oflering the bread of life 
 to mankind. These paintings are in the crypt 
 named fi-om St. Cornelia; another represents 
 seven persons at a tabic with bread and fish, 
 Avith seven baskets of decussated loaves at 
 hand, referring, of course, to the Lord’s mira¬ 
 culous reproduction of them. Without disputing 
 that the anagrammatic fish is a symbol of the 
 
 EUCHARIST (in Christian Art) 627 
 
 greatest antiquity for our Lord, and that it 
 associates itself naturally in the mind Avith the 
 tAvo miracles, the rejiast of Tiberias, &c., it 
 should not be forgotten that the anagram is not a 
 scriptural emblem. Our Lord never likened Him¬ 
 self to fish as to bread, and His own use of the 
 fish in parable makes them represent mankind 
 and not Himself. Nevertheless, His act of bless¬ 
 ing and breaking the fish on three distinct 
 occasions must always connect them in our minds 
 Avith the eucharistic banquet.^ (See woodcut.) 
 
 From the Cemetery of St. Priscilla. 
 
 Representations of other cA'onts or objects 
 symbolic of the body of the Lord, or anyhoAv to 
 be connected Avith Him as the bread of life, have 
 of course a relation to the eucharist. The decus¬ 
 sated loaves are offered to Daniel by Habbacuc, 
 on a sarcophagus found near the altar of St. Paul 
 Avithout the Avails of Rome (Martigny, Art. Sat'- 
 cophageSi Avith Avoodcut), and the author refers 
 to the custom of sending a portion of the eucha¬ 
 rist round to imprisoned confessors in time of 
 persecution. The manna and the rock cloven 
 for the life of the people are naturally connected 
 Avith John A'i. 59. [Rock.] The latter is 
 frequently in bas-relief; the former appears to 
 occur only in one unmistakable example, though 
 those in Bottari, tav. 164, from the cemetery of 
 St. Priscilla, and taA\ 57 from the Callixtine, are 
 probably connected Avith it. 
 
 The miracle of Cana has been held in art to 
 possess an eucharistic signification, at all eA'ents 
 since Giotto’s fresco in the Arena chapel at Padua. 
 Ruskin, in Arundel Societi/s account of that 
 building. But in the earliest examples, very 
 frequent as they are on the bas-reliefs, the Saviour 
 does not raise his hand in the act of blessing, as 
 the artist might be expected to represent him, 
 had he designed to connect the miracle Avith the 
 last supper. Nor is He so dejiicted on the 
 tablet of the Duomo at Ravenna (Bandini fn tab. 
 ehurneam. Florence, 1746), nor on the beautiful 
 sih'er urceolus supposed by Blanchini (Not. in 
 Anastas, in Vit. St. Urban!) to be of the 4th 
 century. [Cana, Miracle of.] 
 
 In treating of repre.sentations of the eucharist 
 in Christian art, it is not necessary for our 
 
 >> Martigny gives (s. v. 'lile.sse’) a woodcut of a fresco 
 from the Callixtine catacomb, where the bread and fish 
 are apparentiy under the- act of consecration by a man in 
 a pallium which leaves his right arm and side bare, Avhile 
 a woman prays with uplifted hands. She may be the 
 tenant of one of the tombs near wliich the fresco is placed, 
 or may represent the church, i he date of this Avork 
 seems exposed to that uncertainty which hangs over so 
 many of the catacomb paintings, more particularly thosa 
 of the Callixtine cemeteries. 
 
 2 S 
 
628 
 
 EUCHARISTIA 
 
 EULOGIAE 
 
 purpose to consider anything beyond their ex¬ 
 pressed meaning—that is to say, beyond the 
 meaning which the artist or inspirerof the woi-k 
 distinctly meant to convey. The further ideas 
 he may hav^e suggested to fervent imaginations, 
 or to minds ])redetermined to read meanings 
 of their own into his work, are not his or our 
 affair, though they may often be ingenious and 
 beautiful, and even right and true as matter of 
 spiritual thought. [R. Sx. J. T.] 
 
 EUCHARISTIA. [Maundy Thursday.] 
 
 EUCHELAION (Evxf^aiov') is the “prayer- 
 oil,” blessed by seven priests, used in the Greek 
 church for the unction of the sick ; see Sick, 
 Visitation of: unction (Suicer’s Thesaurus, 
 s.v.; Daniel’s Codex Liturg., iv. 503, 606). [C.] 
 
 EUCHERIUS, bishop of Lyons, and confes¬ 
 sor ; commemorated Nov. 16 {^Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUCHOTjOGION. The most comprehensive 
 and important Service-Book of the Eastern 
 church coj-responding to the Western Sacramen- 
 tarius, and Li’ier officiorum of the Latins. In 
 its simplest state the Euchologion includes the 
 liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil, and that of 
 the Presanctified, which for no very certain 
 reason bears the name of Gregory the Great. 
 To these are usually added the offices of adminis¬ 
 tration of the other sacraments and other forms 
 of prayer, and benedictions. It cannot be affirmed 
 with any certainty that the present Euchologion 
 existed previous to A.D. 800, though the Eastern 
 church cannot fail to have had an office book, or 
 books more or less corresponding to it. The 
 edition of the Euchologion with learned notes by 
 James Goar, Paris, 1645, frequently reprinted, 
 is the standard authority on the subject. (Bin- 
 teriin, Denkwurdig. iv. i, 274; Neale, Eastern 
 Church, i. 2, 828). [E. V.] 
 
 EUDOCIA, btnofxdpTvs, A.d. 160; comme¬ 
 morated March 1 , Aug. 4 (Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUDOCIMUS, Martyr under Theophilus 
 the Iconoclast; commemorated July 31 (Cal 
 Byzant). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUGENDUS, abbot at the monastery of the 
 Jurenses in Celtic Gaul ; commemorated Jan. 1 
 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUGENIA. (1) Virgin, martyr at Rome 
 under Gallienus; commemorated Dec. 25 (Mart. 
 Bom. \et., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi); 
 bcno/idpTvs, commemorated Dec. 24 (Cal. By¬ 
 zant.). 
 
 (2) and Bagan, virgins; commemorated Jan. 
 
 22 (Cal. Armxn.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUGENIANUS, martyr; commemorated 
 Jan. 8 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUGENIUS. (1) martyr with six others in 
 Africa; commemorated Jan. 4 (Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 2) Martyr at Neocaesarea with three others; 
 commemorated Jan. 24 (Mart. Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Syria, with Paulus, Cyrillus, 
 and four others; commemorated March 20 
 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 4 ) Martyr at Tibur in Italy, with Sympho- 
 
 0 
 
 rosa, his mother, and her six other children ; com¬ 
 memorated June 27 (Mart. Born. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi); July 21 (Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (•5) Bishop of Carthage, and martyr with his 
 500 companions, or more (“ universi cleri eccle- 
 siae ejusdem ”) ; commemorated July 13 (lb.). 
 
 ( 6 ) Bishop of Toledo, and confessor; comme¬ 
 morated Nov. 13 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Martyr at Paris; commemorated Nov. 15 
 
 (lb.). 
 
 ( 8 ) Martyr with Candidus, Valerianus, Acylas, 
 A.D. 292; commemorated Jan. 21 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (9) Bishop, and martyr a.d. 296; commemo¬ 
 rated March 7 (Ib.). 
 
 (10) ^lartyr, with four others, A.D. 290 ; com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 13 (/ 6 .). 
 
 ( 11 ) and Macarius; commemorated Aug. 5 
 
 (Cal. Armen.). . [W. F. G.] 
 
 (12) Invention of the relics of those who were 
 
 martyred with Eugenius (e»/ rots Ebyiviov)’, 
 Feb. 22 (Cal. Byzant.). [C.] 
 
 EUGRAPHIUS or EUGRAPHUS, martyr 
 with Mennas (or Menas) and Hermogenes, a.d. 
 304; commemorated Dec. 10 (Cal. Byzant.) ; 
 Dec. 3 (Cal. Armen.). 
 
 EULALIA. (1) Virgin, martyr at Barcelons 
 in Spain, under Diocletian; commemorated Feb. 
 12 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi); Dec. 10 
 (Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr at Merida in Spain ; com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 10 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi, Cal. Carthag.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EULAIMPIA, martyr with EULAMPIUS, 
 her brother, a.d. 296; commemorated Oct. 10 
 (Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EULOGETARIA (EvKoygrapia) are cer¬ 
 tain antiphons occurring in the Greek Morning 
 Office, so called from the frequent repetition in 
 them of the words cvXoyriTos el, Kvpie. (Daniel, 
 Codex Lit. 304, 703; Neale, Eastern Church, 
 Introd. 919.) [C.] 
 
 EULOGIAE in an eucharistic sense. 
 
 (1) Eulogia was used down to the middle of 
 the 5th century as synonymous with evxapicTTla 
 for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This 
 signification was naturally derived from St. Paul’s 
 words, rh Tror-ppiov tvs evXoylas h ev\oyov/j.ev 
 (1 Cor. X. 16). In commenting on this passage 
 Chrysostom’s language shows that the word was 
 beginning to be used in this restricted sense, 
 chXoyiav otuv eXiru) iravra avairTvcaw rhp 
 TTjs fvepycaias too Qeov drjaauphv, k.t.X. (Chrys. 
 Ilomil. xxiv. in 1 Cor. x. 16), in which it is of con¬ 
 stant occurrence in the writings ofCyril of Ale.x- 
 andria, sometimes by itself (Lib. iv. c. 2 in Joann. 
 vi. p. 260; ib. 364 ; Catena ad Joann, iii. 27, 
 p. 343, &c.); sometimes with a qualifying epi¬ 
 thet, iivctik)) evKoyia (lib. Glaphyr. in I.ecit. 
 pp. 351, 367 ; in Deut. p. 414; de Adorat. lib. ii. 
 p. 80); euA. TTvevp.a.TiKy) (ib. lib. vl. p. 177); 
 6 uA. ^oioTToibs (ib. lib. vii. p. 231). To this we 
 may add “ tuuc eulogia, non alogia celebratur ” 
 (Aug. Ep. 86 Casul. presh.). 
 
 (2) Eulogia then came to be used specifically 
 for that portion of the eucharist, t) euxapiadeiaa 
 Tpo(p^ (Just. Mart. A/ioloj. § 67), which was 
 conveyed in the primitive church by the hands 
 
EULOGIAE 
 
 EULOGIAE 
 
 629 
 
 of the deacons to those who were absent as 
 W'ell as for that sent by the bishops, notably 
 those of Rome, to their daughter churches, 
 and to foreign bishops and churches, as a 
 symbol of Christian love and brotherhood. Ire- 
 naeus is the earliest authority for this practice, 
 which he speaks of as long established. In his 
 letter to Victor bishop of Rome, at the end of 
 the 2nd century, in which he entreats him not 
 to make a ditference as to the time of the cele¬ 
 bration of Easter a ground for breach of com¬ 
 munion, he refers to the example of his pre¬ 
 decessors, who, notwithstanding this difierence, 
 were in the habit of sending the eucharist to the 
 presbyters of other dioceses who observed the Ori¬ 
 ental rule (Iren, apud Euseb. II. E. v. 24). 
 With the increased reverence for the material 
 eucharist this practice dropt into disfavour, and 
 was distinctly forbidden by the 14th canon of 
 the council of L.aodicaea, A.D. 365. This canon 
 prohibits “ the sending of the holy things into 
 other dioceses, at the feast of Easter, by way of 
 eulogiae ” (ets Koyov e hKoy iwv'). Easter seems 
 to be specially mentioned as the chief period 
 for this interchange of pledges of communion, 
 the prohibition itself being general. The 32nd 
 canon of the same council, which forbids the 
 reception of the eulogiae of heretics, which is 
 also prohibited by the second council of Braga, 
 A.D. 572, probably refers to the eulogiae of un¬ 
 consecrated, but blessed bread (see below). 
 
 Forbidden in the East, the practice lingered 
 considerably longer in the West. Sirmond, in¬ 
 deed, the learneil Jesuit, affirms that the custom 
 of sendincr the eucharist round to other churches 
 and congregations arose subsequently to the 
 times of Cyprian and Tertullian, since in their 
 writings there is no allusion to it, and all 
 Christians who were present at divine service 
 had the oj)portunity of communicating, and were 
 bound to avail theni-selves of it, and that the 
 eulogiae distributed consisted of bread blessed 
 but not consecrated (de Azymo, iv. 527 sq.). 
 Bat the passages adduced cannot be satisfactorily 
 interpreted on any other hypothesis. Suicer un¬ 
 doubtedly states the case correctly when he .says, 
 “ evAoytai istae quae mittebantur per paroecias 
 ipsissimae erant Eucharistiae sive panis evxapi- 
 cdfVTos, ex quo communio data fuerat ]>raesenti- 
 bus, particulae, quae absentibus Presbyteris per 
 pa roecias Dioecesis mittebantur. Sic enim per- 
 fecta ex eodem pane sanctificato communio inter 
 omnes illas paroecias unius dioecesis institui vide- 
 batur” {Thes. sub voc. euAoyi'o). After the 
 church had been invaded by heresy, the eucha¬ 
 rist was distributed to the orthodox presbyters 
 by the bishop as a pledge of their adhesion to 
 the true faith, as is shewn by the ordinances 
 relating to the fennentum of Melchiades, a.d. 
 311, and Siricius, a.d. 385. The letter of Inno¬ 
 cent I. to Deceutius, c. 410, informing him of 
 the custom of sending the “ fermentum ” to the 
 presbyters of the “ tituli,”on Sundays as a token 
 of communion, and expressing his disa))[)robation 
 of carrying the leaven through a whole diocese, 
 “ quia nec longe portanda sunt sacramenta,” 
 illustrates the same practice [F*:RMi:NTirM]. A 
 practice very nearly allied to this of which we have 
 been speaking, was that which prevailed among the 
 faithful in the first ages of the church, of carry¬ 
 ing home them.selves and transmitting to others 
 a portion of the consecrated bread to be con¬ 
 
 sumed hereafter. Thus Tertullian speaks of Chris¬ 
 tian womec being accustomed “ secretly before 
 all other food ”. to partake of the eucharist 
 (Tert. ad Uxor. ii. 5), and answers the objection 
 of some against receiving the eucharist on a day 
 of abstinence lost they should break their fast, 
 by the suggestion that they could “ take the borly 
 of the Lord and reserve it till the. fast was over ’ 
 (id. do Oral. 19). Cyj)rian tells of a woman 
 who had lapsed being terrified by the sudden 
 outburst of flame when she opened her chest 
 [Ahca] in which “the holy thing of the Lord ” 
 (Domini sanctum) was kept (Cypr. de Lapsis, 
 p. 132). Satyrus, the brother of Ambrose, when 
 fearing to be lost by shipwreck obtained “ that 
 divine sacrament of the faithful ” from some of 
 his fellow-passengers (Ambros. de Obit. Fratris, 
 iii. 19). Gregory Nazianzen speaks of his sister 
 Gorgonia “ treasuring up with her hand the 
 antitypes of the precious Body and Blood ” (Greg. 
 Naz. Orat. xi. p. 187). We learn from Basil that 
 it was the almost universal custom at Alex¬ 
 andria and in Egypt for the daity to have “ the 
 communion” in their houses; that solitaries did 
 the same, where there was no priest near ; and 
 that it was generally customary in times of per¬ 
 secution (Basil, Ejjist. 93). Jerome sjieaks of 
 some who scrupled to receive the eucharist at 
 church, but were not afraid to take it at home 
 (Hieron. Epist. ad Pamrnach.')^ and of those who 
 “carried the Lord’s Body in a wicker basket and 
 His Blood in a glass vessel ” (id. Epist. ad Rus- 
 ticum., 95). But universal as this practice seems 
 to have been, its natural tendency to degenerate 
 into irreverence and superstition gave rise to 
 evils which led the church to discountenance 
 and ultimately to suppress it. There is no trace 
 of its general observance after the 4th century 
 (Scudamore, Notitia Euchnristica, p. 793). 
 
 (3) With the cessation of the practice of 
 sending the consecrated eucharist to persons who 
 were not present grew up as a substitute that 
 of distributing the unconsecrated remains of the 
 oblations among those who had not received under 
 the name of eulogia, or in still later times of 
 antidoron or substitute for the duipou, or eucha¬ 
 rist proper. According to the rule laid down 
 in the Apostolical Constitutions (lib. viii. c. 31) 
 these remains (tcis Trepio'afvova’as eV toTs p-vari- 
 ko7s cuAoyias), were distributed by the deacons, 
 at the pleasure of the bishops or presbyters, to 
 the clergy in proj)ortion to their rank. The rule 
 prescribed by Theophilus bishop of Alexandria, 
 A.D. 385, permits “ the faithful brethren ” to 
 share them with the clergy, but prohibits a 
 catechumen to partake of them. That the cate¬ 
 chumens, however, in the time of Augustine par¬ 
 took of some kind of sacrament is plain from his 
 words ((/<? Peccator. Meritis, ii. 26), “quod acce- 
 peruiit (catechumeni) quaiiivis non sit corpus 
 Christi, sanctum tainen est et sanctius quain cibi 
 qnibus alimur, quoniam sacramentum est.” As 
 the first love of the church grew cold and non- 
 communicating attendance became common, the 
 unconsecrated remains began to be regularly 
 distributed among tho.se who had not received, 
 that they might not dejiart without a semblance 
 of a blessing. The Greek names for tliis prac¬ 
 tice, eu\oyia, dur'iSupot', sufficiently indicate 
 where it originated, Tho word occurs in So¬ 
 crates’ account of Chry.santhus, the bishop of 
 the Novatians at Constantinople in the 5th ecu- 
 
630 
 
 EULOGIAE 
 
 EULOGIAE 
 
 tury, who declined to receive anything frorri his 
 churches but “two loaves of i\\c eHlo(]iae Gvery 
 Lord’s Day,” 8vb &pTovs eukoyiuiu (Socr. II. K. vii. 
 12). In the liturgies of Chrysostom an<l Basil 
 the distribution of the antidoron by the priest 
 is prescribed— /uLerar^v evxv>^ i^fpx^Tui 6 Upeus 
 Kul (rras eV ry orvvpdsi rbircp SlSuxri rh avri- 
 Supou (Goar, J'Jnc/iolog. 85, § 190). But this is 
 evidently an addition of late though uncertain 
 date. Bal.'.am'on deduces it from a desire to 
 evade the force of the threat of the second canon 
 of Antioch against non-cornmunicating attend¬ 
 ance, so that even those who were not able to 
 receive the undefiled mysteries might take the 
 eu'o(jin of the hallowed fragment from the hand 
 of tiie celebrant. But if its original be Greek, 
 the earliest certain notice of it is found in Latin 
 writers, and not earlier than the 9th century, 
 'i'he decree of Pius I. A.D. 156 (Labbe, i. 578), 
 wliich prescribes it, is an undoubted forgery, as is 
 acknowledged by Card. Bona (^Iler. Liturg. lib. i. 
 cap. 23). This decree appears nearly verbatim 
 both in the G'pi uln of Hincmar, A.D. 353, c. 7 
 and c. 16 (Labbe, viii. 570), and in the canons of 
 Kantes, c. A.D. 896 (Labbe, ix. 470, canon ix.). 
 It runs: “ ut de oblationibus quae offeruntur a 
 populo et consecrationi superfluunt, vel de pa- 
 uibus quos deferunt fideles ad Ecclesiam, vel 
 eerie de suis. Presbyter convenientes partes in- 
 cisas habeat in vase nitido et convenienti, et post 
 missarum solemuia qui communicare non fuerint 
 parati Eulogias omni die Domiuico, et in omnibus 
 festis exinde accipiant, quae cum benedictione 
 prius facial.” This canon prescribes a form of 
 prayer to be used in the benediction (c. 7). 
 Leo IV. (847-855) also commanded that “ the 
 eulnjiae be distributed to the people after the 
 Masses on Feastdays ” (Labbe, viii. 37). We 
 should be transgressing our assigned limits still 
 further if we traced the custom any later.® 
 
 (4) When the custom of sending the eucharist 
 to one another as a symbol of Christian com¬ 
 munion had ceased among Christians, the prac¬ 
 tice arose of distributing cakes of bread, which 
 had received a special benediction, as a token of 
 mutual love. We have a reference to this prac¬ 
 tice in the writings of St. Gregory Nazianzen 
 {Ora.t. xix. p. 306) when relating a dream of his 
 sister Gorgonia when sick. “ She thought that 
 1 . . . . suddenly stood by her in the night with 
 a basket and loaves of the purest flour, and 
 having prayed over them and signed them as 
 our wont is, fed her.” During the disputes which 
 succeeded the council of Ephesus, the bishops and 
 presbyters of Cilicia and Isauria sent Eulogiae to 
 John of Antioch, in token of communion (Baluz., 
 Nov. Coll. Concil. 867). The writings of Pau- 
 liuus, bishop of Nola, contain many notices of these 
 eulo jiae, sometimes under the name of bcnedic- 
 tiones, which were interchanged between him and 
 Augustine and others. The latter writes to Pau- 
 linus, “the bread we have sent will become a 
 riciier blessing, for the love of your benignity in 
 accepting it” (Aug. Epid. xxxiA-.). The compli¬ 
 ment is returned by Faulinus. “The single loaf 
 which we hai'e sent to your charity, as a token of 
 unanimity, we bog that you will bless (i.e. make 
 a true eulogia') by accepting it ” (Paulin. Epist. 
 
 » Those who wish to follow up this practice to more 
 modern times will find the materials in Scudamore’s 
 Notitia Eucharistica, ch. xvi. ^ 2, pp. 774-780. 
 
 iA\ p. 16). Paulinus also sends a trifid loaf tc 
 Alypius, “ panem unum . . in quo Triui- 
 
 tatis soliditas continetur,” which he will turn 
 into a eulogia by his kindne.ss in receiving it, 
 (ib. iii. p. 12). He sends five loaves to Koma- 
 nianus and Licinius {ib. vii. p. 27). To Severus 
 he sends “a Campanian loaf from his cell, as 
 a eulogia,” together with a boxwood casket, 
 and begs him, as before, by accepting the loaf in 
 the name of the Lord to convert it into a eulogia 
 {ib. V. § 21, p. 30). The large number of stories 
 in Gregory of Tours in which the expressions 
 eulogias accipere, dare, flagifare, minidrare, pe- 
 tere, porrigere, postulare, &c. occur, jtrove how 
 common the practice was as a token of Christian 
 communion and a symbol of episcopal benediction 
 in the 6th century (Greg. Turon. Hist. iv. 16; 
 A^ 14, 20; X. 16; de Glor. Confess. 31). From 
 some of these passages we learn that to drink a 
 cup of wine, and to partake of a morsel of bread 
 blessed by him in a bishop’s house was considered 
 equivalent to receiving bis benediction, {eu'ogia) 
 (id. Hist. A’i. 51 ; idii. 2). Ducange {sub voce) 
 affords a very large number of later references. 
 Forms of litcrae salutatoriie to accompany eulo¬ 
 giae sent by a bishop to a king or to another 
 bishop, and of acknowledgment, are contained in 
 the Exemplaria of Marculfus, lib. ii. 42, 44, 45, 
 46. 
 
 (5) This was not the only form which eulogiae 
 assumed. We have seen Paulinus sending a 
 Avoodeu box as a eulogia. Tiie presents sent 
 by Cyril of Alexandria to Pulcheria and the 
 ladies of the court to induce them to forward 
 his interests in his disputes Avith John of Antioch 
 and the Oriental bishops Avere delicately de¬ 
 scribed as “ blessings,” “eulogiae.” This use of 
 the word is borroAved from Holy Sciu'pture, Avhere 
 a gift is not unfrequently styled a blessing, in 
 the LXX. eiiAoyia; see Jud. i. 15 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 
 27; XXX. 26; 2 Kin. v. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 5; 
 Rom. XV. 29. We find Gregory the Great using 
 this term of some relics of saints (“ eulogias 
 S. Marci ”) sent him by Eulogius, patriarch of 
 Alexandria; and “ benedictio ” of a small cross 
 [Encolpion], containing some filings of the 
 apostles’ chains (Greg. Mag. Epist. lib. xiii. ep. 42). 
 Some of Augustine’s opuscula Avere brought to the 
 abbot Valentinus under this title (August. Ep. 
 256). Even sAveetmeats, nuts, and dry figs Avere 
 included under this title, Avben blessed by the 
 sender. Some curious stories illustrative of this 
 custom are recorded in the Vitae Patrum. Thus 
 some bellaria (sweetmeats) brought to the monas¬ 
 tery Avhere A’^alens was a monk by some guests 
 and distributed by the abbot Macarius to each 
 cell, Avere indignantly rejected by Valens, Avho 
 beat the bearer and sent him back with the 
 message, “Go and tell Macarius that I am as 
 good as he. What right then has he to send me 
 a benedict ion i’’ (Pallad. Hist. Laus. c. 31). Ihey 
 Avere Avithheld from those Avho were under ex- 
 communication, and excommunicated bishops 
 were forbidden to send them to others (Greg. 
 Turon. Hist. viii. c. 20). Thus the abbot Arsenins 
 took umbrage at some dry figs not being sent 
 him, and regardihg himself as excommunicated 
 refused to attend divine seiwice with his brethren 
 until the ban AA'as taken off {de 1 it. Patr. lib. a'. 
 Migne, Ixxiii. p. 053). The eulogia Avas refused 
 to the king Merwig, who had apostatized (Greg. 
 Tui-on. Hist. v. 14). (Bingham, Grig. Eccl. xv 
 
EULOGITJS 
 
 EUPROBUa 
 
 631 
 
 4, 3, and 8; Bona, lierum Liturg. ; Ducange’s 
 Glossaries; ouicer, Thesaurus ; Binterim, Denk- 
 tci/j-dig.; Augusti, Christ. Arch. ii. 533). [E. V.] 
 
 (G) Eulogiae in monasteries. In the Bene¬ 
 dictine rule monks are forbidden to receive 
 “ litteras, eulogias, vel quaelibet munuscula” 
 without the abbat’s leave (^lieg. Bened. c. 54, cf. 
 Beg. Dun<tt. c. 53). Here probably the word is 
 used in its widest sense, for any offering or 
 token of esteem (Martene ad loo. citing Reg. 
 Comment.), or, more particularly, for bread sent 
 with a blessing. See (4) and (5) above. 
 
 In some monasteries, e. g. that of Fulda 
 (Mabill. Ann. O.S.D. Praef. Saec. III. vii.), 
 eulogiae were distributed daily to the monks, 
 who had not already received, in the refectory 
 before their meal; in others this was done only 
 on Sundays and holy-days (cf. Reg. Bened. Com¬ 
 ment. c. 54). In the life of Eligius, in the 7th 
 century, it is related that he used to beg these 
 “ eulogiae ” or pieces of blessed bread from the 
 monks of Solignac (Mabill. Ann.^ O.S.B. XII. 
 xxii.). When the abbess who succeeded Rade- 
 gunde in the convent of Ste. Croix at Poitiers 
 was accused of feasting she replied that the 
 alleged feasting was only the partaking of the 
 “ eulogiae ”(/6. VII. liii. 589 A.D.). “Eulogiae,” 
 in this sense, were sometimes giv'cn by a bishop 
 to an excommunicated person in token of recon¬ 
 ciliation {Ib. III. 1.) The other .spelling, “eulo- 
 gium,” is condemned by Menard (^Conc. Regul. 
 Bened. Anian. c. 61). [I. G. S.] 
 
 EULOGIUS. (1) Deacon, and martyr at 
 Tarragona, with Fructuosus the bishop, under 
 Gallienus ; commemorated Jan. 21 (^Mart. Hieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) ^lartyr at Constantinople ; commemorated 
 July 3 (^Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Presbyter, and martyr at Cordova; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 20 (hlart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUMENIA, martyr at Augusta, with Hilaria 
 and others; commemorated Aug. 12 (^Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUM1<1NIUS. (1) Bishop of Gortyna, ’6(xios 
 Trar^jp Kal davgaroupySs ; commemorated Sept. 
 18 (Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (2 ) Patriarch of Alexandria, A.D. 143; com¬ 
 memorated Tekemt 10 = Oct. 7 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUNUCHS, not to be ordained. The feeling 
 , that one devoted to the .sacred ministry should 
 be unmutilated was strong in the ancient church. 
 Hence, the council of Nicaea (c. 1) enacted that 
 if any one, being in health (vyiaivujv) dismem¬ 
 bered himself, after ordination, he should be 
 deposed from the ministry, or, being a layman, 
 he should not be admitted to Holy Orders; 
 and in the Apostolical Canons (c. 21) the reason 
 for such exclusion is added, viz., that the offender 
 is a self-murderer (avrocpoi^evTrjs iavrov) and an 
 •nemy of the workmanship of God. These 
 /anons, and a later one in the 2nd council of 
 Arles (c. 7), were aimed against that perverted 
 notion of piety, originating in the misinterpre¬ 
 tation of our Lord’s saying (Matt. xix. 12), by 
 which Origen, among others, was misled, and 
 their observance was so carefully enforced in 
 later times, that not more than one or two 
 instances of the practice which they condemn 
 
 arc noticed by the historian. The case waa 
 different if a man was born a eunuch, or had 
 suffei’ed mutilation at the hands of j)ersecutoi's. 
 an instance of the former, Dorotheus, pres¬ 
 byter of Antioch, is mentioned by Eusebius 
 (II. E. vii. c. 32); of the latter, Tigiis, pres¬ 
 byter of Constantinople, is referred to both Ly 
 Socrates (H. E. vi. 15) and Sozomen (II. E. vi. 
 24) as the victim of a barbarian master (Bing¬ 
 ham, Antiq. iv. iii. 9). [D. B.] 
 
 EUNUS, martyr, with Julian, at Alexandria; 
 commemorated Feb. 27 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUODUS, martyr with Calliste and Hermo- 
 genes; commemorated Sept. 1 (Cal. Byiant.). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUOTUS, martyr at Caesaraugusta with 
 seventeen others ; commemorated April 16 
 (Mart. Usuardi). p ^ 
 
 EUPHEMIA. (1) Martyr at Chalcedon, 
 under Diocletian, A.D. 288 ; commemoratecl 
 Sept. 16 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi); IQ (Cal. Byzant.) commemoration 
 
 of the miracle which she is said to have wrought 
 in the church of Chalcedon, July 11 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome, with Lucia; commemo¬ 
 rated Sept. 16 (Mart. Hieron., Cal. Allatii et 
 Frontonis). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUPHRASIA or EUPRAXIA. (1)Virgin; 
 deposition at Alexandria, Feb. 11 (Ma' t. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin; deposition in the Thebais, March 
 
 13 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUPHRASIES. (1) Bishop, and martyr; 
 natale Jan. 14 (3Iart. Usuardi); deposition Jan. 
 
 14 (Mart. Hieron.). 
 
 (2) Confessor at Eliturgis Spain; comme¬ 
 morated May 15 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUPHROSIUS, martyr in Africa; commemo¬ 
 rated March 14 (Mart. Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUPHROSYNE or EUFROSINA. (1) 
 Virgin, of Alexandria; commemorated Jan. 1 
 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr, wdth Domitilla and Theo¬ 
 dora, under Trajan; commemorated May 7 (Ib.) 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUPHROSYNE, hala giiryp, A.D. 410; a:)m- 
 memorated Sept. 25 (Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUPLUS, deacon, and martyr at Catana in 
 Sicily, under Diocletian and Maximian, A.D. 296 ; 
 commemorated Aug. 12 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi); Aug. 11 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUPRAXIA, and Olympias ; commemorated 
 July 25 (Cal. Byzant.). See Euphkasia. 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUPREPIA, martyr at Augusta, with Hila¬ 
 ria and others; commemorated Aug. 12 (Mart. 
 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W, F. G.] 
 
 EUPREPIUS, one of the three brothers of 
 Cosmas and Damianus, martyrs under Diocletian ; 
 commemorated Sept. 27 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUPROBUS, bishop and martyr, at Saintes 
 in Gaul; commemorated April 30 (Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi), [VV. F. G.] 
 
632 
 
 EUrSYCHIUS 
 
 EVANGELIST 
 
 EUPSY’CHIL^S, martyr at Caesarea, under 
 Julian; commemoi-ated April 9 (Ca/. Bi/zant.'). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUSEBIUS. (1) Palatixus, martyr with 
 nine (^Hora. Vet. eight) others ; commemorated 
 March 5 Horn. Vet.., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 2 ) Martyr with Aphrodisius, Carilippus, and 
 Agapius ; commemorated April 28 (Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (3) The historian, bishop, and confessor, of 
 Caesarea in Palestine; commemorated June 21 
 (J/arf. Hieron., Flori, Usuardi), 
 
 ( 4 ) Bishop and martyr at Vercelli under Con¬ 
 stantins; commemorated Aug. 1 (^Mart. Rom. 
 Vet.., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Presbyter, and confessor at Rome, under 
 Constantins Augustus; commemorated Aug. 14 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. 
 Frontonis). 
 
 (6) Martyr at Rome, with three othei’s, under 
 Commodus; commemorated Aug, 25 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 7 ) Martyr at Adrianopolis in Thrace, with 
 Philip the bishop and Hermes ; commemorated 
 Oct. 22 {Mart. Hiei’on., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 8 ) Monk, and martyr at Tarracina in Cam¬ 
 pania, with Felix the presbyter, under Claudius ; 
 commemorated Nov. 5 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (9) Bishop of Samosata, and martyr under 
 Valens ; commemorated June 22 {Cal. Bi^zant.). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 EUSIGNIUS, martyr at Antioch, a.d. 361; 
 commemorated Aug. 5 {Cal. Byzant.'). fW. F. G.] 
 
 EUSTACHIUS. (1) Bishop and confessor 
 at Antioch in Syria, under Constantine (Constan¬ 
 tins, Ado); commemorated July 16 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 2 ) Presbyter and martyr in Syria; comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 12 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (Z) Placidus, martyr at Rome, with his 
 wife and two children, under Adrian; comme¬ 
 morated Nov. 2 {Mart. Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 EUSTATHIUS or EUSTASIUS. (1) With 
 
 nis companions, yLcyaXoixapros, A.D. 100 ; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 20 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 ( 2 ) ab Msketha or Mzcheta; commemorated 
 July 29 {Cal. Georg.). 
 
 (3) and Theodotus; commemorated Oct. 1 
 {Cal. Armen.). 
 
 ( 4 ) Abbot of Luxeuil; deposition March 29 
 
 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUSTORGIUS, presbyter and martyr at 
 Nicomedia; commemorated April 11 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUSTOSIUS, martyr at Antioch with De¬ 
 metrius the bishop, Anianus the deacon, and 
 twenty others; commemorated Nov. 10 {Ih.) 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUSTRATIUS, martyr with Eugenius and 
 three others, A.D. 290; commemorated Dec. 13 
 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUTHYMIUS. (1) Magnus, '6<tios kuI 0€o- 
 (fiopos, A.D. 465; commemorated Jan. 20 {Cal. 
 Byzant.). 
 
 ( 2 ) Deacon of Alexandria ; commemorated May 
 5 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron,, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) of Athos ; commemorated May 1.1 {Cal 
 Georg.). 
 
 ( 4 ) Bishop of Sardis, and martyr, a.d. 820: 
 commemorated Dec. 26 {Cal. Buzant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUTROPIA, sister of Nicasius the bishop, 
 martyr with him at Rheims; commemorated 
 Dec. 14 {Mart. Usuardi), [W. F, G.] 
 
 EUTROPIUS (1) and companions, martyr 
 A.D. 296; commemorated March 3 {Cal. By 
 zant.). 
 
 (2) Bishop, and martyr at Arausio in Gaul; 
 commemorated May 27 {Mad. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Rome with sisters Zosima and 
 Bonosa; commemorated July 15 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUTYCHIANUS. (1) Martyr in Campania, 
 with Symphorosa and eight others; commemo¬ 
 rated July 2 {Mart. Rom.Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Africa with Arcadius and two 
 others; commemorated Nov. 13 {.Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Pope, and martyr under Aurelian; com¬ 
 
 memorated Dec. 8 {Mart. Rom. Vet.. Hieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUTYCHIUS (1). Deacon and martyr in 
 Mauretania Caesariensis, with two others; com¬ 
 memorated May 21 {Mart. Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Sicily with Placidus and thirty 
 others; commemorated Oct. 5 {Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Spain; commemorated Dec. 11 
 {Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 4 ) Presbyter, and martyr at Ancyra in Gala¬ 
 tia with Domitianus the deacon; commemorated 
 Dec. 28 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 551-582 ; 
 commemorated April 6 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EUTYCHUS or EUTYCHES. (1) Martyr 
 in Thrace with Plautus and Heracleas; comme ■ 
 morated Sept. 29 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Naples with Januarius, bishop 
 of Beneventum, and others, under Diocletian; 
 commemorated Sept. 19 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Italy, with ilaro and Yictorinus, 
 under Nerva; commemorated April 15 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 4 ) Disciple of St. John, and martyr; comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 24 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EVAGRIUS. (1) Martyr at Tomi in 
 Scythia, with Benignus; commemorated April 3 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Tomi, with Priscus and Cre- 
 scens; commemorated Oct. 1 {Mart. Rom. 1 d., 
 Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EVANGELIARIUM, EVANGELISTA- 
 RIUM {EvayyfXKTT^pioy), the book contain¬ 
 ing the passages of the gospels to be read in the 
 liturgy. [Gospel : Lectioxaky : Liturgical 
 Books.] [C.] 
 
 EVANGELIARYL [Liturgical Books.] 
 
 EVANGELIST. The deacon is called “Evan¬ 
 gelist ” in his capacity of reader of the gospel. 
 In the liturgy of Chrysostom (c. 19, p. 347, 
 
EVANGELISTS 
 
 EVANGEIJSTS 
 
 633 
 
 Daniel) the deacon prays the priest, “ Bless, sir, 
 the evangelist (€vayyc\i(TTijy) of the holy 
 apostle and gospel.” [0.] 
 
 EVANGELISTS. The Four Evangelists are 
 commemorated Oct. 19 (Cd/. Armoi.). [C.] 
 
 EVANGELISTS, symbolic representations 
 of. We find from Aringhi (ii. 285) that the 
 four symbolic creatures are (as might be ex¬ 
 pected) not the original emblems of the four 
 evangelists. The four rivers of paradise are 
 perhaps intended to represent the gospel, and 
 the distinct channels of its diffusion through¬ 
 out the world (Gen. li.). These are found in 
 some of the earliest specimens of unquestionably 
 authentic Christian decoration, as in the Lateran 
 cross [Cross, p. 496], where the lamb and stag 
 are introduced. The four books or rolls are 
 also found in early work, Ciampini (F. M. i. 67 
 tab.; Buonarotti, xiv. 2). In some instances, 
 as in the bapti.sm of our Lord in the cemetery 
 of St. Pontianus (Aringhi, 275, 2, also at end 
 of Bottari), the animals are introduced drink¬ 
 ing in the Jordan. In this case, either the 
 mystic river is identified with the four rivers of 
 paradise, and made to accompany the ornamented 
 cross below, representing the gospel, as in the 
 Lateran cross (see s. v.), or the cross in St. Pon¬ 
 tianus, below the baptism-picture, represents the 
 Lord’s death and baptism thereinto. Mr. Parker 
 gives an admirably clear photograph of the pre¬ 
 sent condition of this important work, which he 
 dates from a.d. 772. The Lateran relic is sup¬ 
 posed to be similar to the crosses of the time of 
 Constantine. 
 
 The adoption of the four creatures of the 
 Apocalypse (iv. 6) as images of the evangelists, 
 does not seem to have taken place generally, or 
 is not recorded on Christian monuments, before 
 
 peculiarly impressive connexion between the 
 beginning of the visions of Ezekiel, and the 
 unveiling of heaven to the eyes of St. John. 
 This is unmistakable; although in the pro¬ 
 phet’s vision the living creatures were not 
 only four in number, but each was fourfold in 
 shape. “ They four had the face of a man, and 
 the face of a lion, on the right side; and they 
 four had the face of an ox on the left side; they 
 four also had the face of an eagle.” While in 
 the Apocalypse, “The first beast was like a lion, 
 the second like a calf, the third had the face of a 
 man, and the fourth beast was like a flying 
 eagle.” This connexion is said by Mrs. Jameson, 
 (^Sacred and Legendary Art, 79) to have been 
 noticed as early as the 2nd century, though no 
 representations are found till the 5th. Nor was 
 it till long after the four creatures had been 
 taken as prefiguring the four evangelist.s, that a 
 
 special application was made of each .symbol to 
 each writer. This may be referred to St. Jerome 
 on Ezekiel i. St. Matthew has the man, as 
 beginning his gospel with the Lord’s human 
 genealogy : St. Mark the lion, as testifying the 
 Lord’s royal dignity, or as containing the ter¬ 
 
 rible condemnation of unbelievers at the end of 
 his gospel: St. Luke the ox, as he dwells on 
 the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ: St. John 
 the eagle, as contemplating the Loi-d’s divine 
 nature. Ingenuity and devotion have done their 
 utmost on this subject for centuries with little 
 result. An ivory diptych of the 5th century. 
 
 the earliest known representation of this emblem, 
 which does not occur in the glass devices recorded 
 by Garrucci or Buonarotti. The well-known 
 representation of the four creature-symbols in 
 the great mosaic of the church of St. Pudentiana 
 at Rome, must we think be left out of reckoning 
 altogether as an historic document. (See Mr. 
 J. E. Parker’s photographs, and the articles 
 thereon in his Antiquities of Rome, by the author 
 of the present paper; also Messrs. Crowe and 
 Cavalcaselle’s Early Italian Art, vol. i. chap, i.) 
 The symbols are placed above a 7th century 
 
 cross, and on close inspection of the photographs, 
 appear to have been repaired in fi-esco, or by 
 painting of some kind. The appearance of the 
 whole mosaic in fact is that of a quantity of 
 material of different ages, some doubtless very 
 ancient and of great merit, combined as a whole 
 
634 
 
 EVANGELISTS 
 
 EVENING HYMN 
 
 by a ixvinteT and mosaicist of the greatest skill 
 and power m the 16th century. However, the 
 use of the qua(lru])le symbols is universal, in 
 east and west, and tliroughout the Christian 
 world, in every kind of situation, and by use of all 
 vehicles and methods. They are vexy fx’equently 
 placed on crosses of the 7th centuiy, about the 
 same time as that in which the change took place 
 from the lamb at the iutex-ection of the limbs 
 of the cross to the human form crucified. They 
 occur on the ci’oss of Velitrae, and on some ancient 
 German crosses mentioned under Crucifix, as the 
 station cross of Planig, &c. But the most intei- 
 estiug 6th centurv rt*presentation of them known 
 to us is the quaintly but most grandly-conceived 
 tetramorph of the Rabula MS., which represents 
 the Loi’d at the ascension, mounting a chaxdot of 
 many wings and cherubic foi’m. It shows that 
 the Syrian miniaturist had a most vivid ima¬ 
 gination, and the highest power of I'eaiising his 
 conceptions, as appeal’s in so many parts of that 
 extraordinary work. The wheels of the chariot, 
 as well as the cherubic foi’ms, connect the vision 
 of Ezekiel with the griffins of Lombai’d Chui’ch- 
 art as at Verona. Mrs. Jameson gives a very 
 intei’esting teti-amorph or chei’ubic foi’m bearing 
 the evangelic symbols, from a Greek mosaic. 
 This symbol is certainly not of the age of the 
 earlier catacomb paintings, and occurs first with 
 frequency in the tessellated apses and tribunes 
 of Byzantine churches, and is of course specially 
 worthy of note as explaining the connexion be¬ 
 tween the vision of Ezekiel and that of St. John. 
 The four animals separately represented occur 
 passim, both in Eastern and Western Church- 
 work. (See Ciampini, Vet. Mon. i. tab. 48.) There 
 are grand examples in the spandrils of the dome 
 of Galla Placidia’s chapel in Ravenna, as in St. 
 Apollinai’is in Classe, and particularly in the 
 chapel of St. Satyrus at Milan. [For a singular 
 specimen of Carlovingian grotesques of them 
 see Miniature.] (The woodcuts, p. 633, are 
 from the latter.) The eagle given below is 
 taken from the Evangeliary of Louis le De- 
 bonnaire ; but the Hours of that emperor and 
 the MS. of St. Medard of Soissons, also contain 
 whole page emblems of the four evangelists. 
 
 In St. Vitale at Ravenna the .symbols of the 
 evangelists accompany their sitting figures. St. 
 Matthew has the man, St. Mark the (wingless) 
 lion ; the calf, also wingless, belongs to St. Luke, 
 and the eagle to St. John. The nimbus is some¬ 
 times added, and sometimes the creatures bear 
 the rolls or books of the gospel (Ciampini, V. M. 
 H. XV. ; in St. Cosmas and Damian. See also ibid. 
 H, xxiv. for St. Apolliiiaris in Classe, temp. Felix 
 IV. about 530). 
 
 There is a very strange missal painting referred 
 to by Martigny, where the human forms of the 
 evangelists in apostolic robes are surmounted by 
 the heads of the creatures. This occurs also, he 
 says, in an ancient church of Aquiloia (Bartoli, 
 Le Antichita di Aquileia, 404). Two examples 
 are given in woodcut by Mrs. Jameson, Sacred 
 and Legendary Art, 83. One is by Fra Ange¬ 
 lico, and the hands, feet, and drapery of the other, 
 which is not dated, seem too skilfully done to be 
 of early date. 
 
 But the four creatures occur alike in bas-reliefs 
 on altars, on sacred vessels and vestments, and 
 even on bronze medals. See Paciaudi de Cultu 
 S. Joan. Bapt. p. 163, for a bronze coin with the 
 
 man and the eagle on one side, the lion and call 
 on the other, lettered respectively NA0EOC 
 {sic), lOHANNIS, NAPC, LVCAS. Nothing is 
 known of the history of this relic. It may be 
 supposed that where the Lord is surrounded by 
 saints and apostles the bearers of books are 
 intended for the evangelists, especially if they 
 are four in number, though on the sai’cophagus 
 in Bottari cxxxi. t. only tiiree are represented. 
 
 probably St. Mattliew and St. John, with St. 
 Mark as companion and interpreter of St. Peter. 
 Four figures in the baptistery at Ravenna hold¬ 
 ing books, and placed in niches of mo.saic ara¬ 
 besques, are considered of doubtful meaning by 
 Ciampini {V. M. i. tab. 72); but Martigny is 
 perfectly satisfied that the evangelists are in¬ 
 tended by them (Martigny, Dictionmire s. v. 
 Evangelistes). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 EVE. [Vigil.] 
 
 EVENING HYMN. In the vespers of tlie 
 Eastern church, after certain fixed psalms, con¬ 
 cluding with Ps. cxxiii., expressive of intense 
 expectation, followed by the “Entrance,” so 
 called, of the Go.spels considered as enshrining 
 Chri.st Himself, with an exhortation to the ac¬ 
 knowledgment and hearing of Him as there 
 present (“Wisdom, stand up”)—the Evening 
 Hymn is appropriately sung; the triumphant 
 “ Hymn of the Evening Light,” at once giving 
 thanks for the gift of artificial light, and praising 
 the true “ Light that shiiieth in darkness, in 
 Whom is Life, and the Life is the Light of men ” 
 —hence called by St. Basil iiriXvxvms evxapi- 
 a-Tia. “Joyful Light of the holy glory of the 
 immortal Father, the heavenly, the holy, the 
 blessed Jesu Christ, we having come to the 
 Setting of the Sun and beholding the Evening 
 light, praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 It is meet at all times that Thou shouldst be 
 hymned with auspicious voices. Son of God, 
 Giver of Life : wherefore the world glorifieth 
 thee,” 
 
 There is reference to the “Evening Psalm” 
 
EVENTITJS 
 
 EVOVAE 
 
 635 
 
 (_Tov iiriKv'x^vioi' \pa\/ubi '; t. <?. Ps. cxli.) in the 
 Apostolical Constitutions, which may be consi¬ 
 dered to represent the Eastern system of the 3rd 
 or 4th century (lib. viii. c. 35). 
 
 So in the West, Hilary (in Ps. Ixiv.) writes— 
 “ The day is begun with prayers, and the day is 
 closed with hymns to God.” 
 
 Bingham; Palmer, Orig. Lit.; Freeman, Prin¬ 
 ciples, of Divine Service. [H. B.] 
 
 EVENTIUS, presbyter and martyr at Rome 
 with Alexander the pope and Theodulus the 
 presbyter, under Trajan; commemorated May 3 
 {Mart. Bedae, Mart. Eon. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi, Cal. Frontonis). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EVIGILATOR CAcpuTryia-Tijs), an officer in 
 Greek monasteries whose duty it was to waken 
 the monks for nocturnal and matutinal services. 
 Another officer of the kind was the “ excitator,” 
 who had to waken a monk asleep in church (Du- 
 cange. Gloss. Lat. et Gr. s. vv.). [I. G. S.] 
 
 EVILASIUS, martyr atCyzicus with Fausta 
 the Virgin, under Maximian; commemorated 
 Sept. 20 (Mart. Porn. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EA^IL SPIRITS. [Demon: Demoniacs: 
 Exorcism.] 
 
 EVODIUS. (1) Martyr .at Syracuse, with 
 Hennogeues; commemorated April 25 (^Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 ( 2 ) Bishop, and martyr .at Antioch ; comme¬ 
 morate! May 6 {Mart. Pom. Vet., Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi). 
 
 ( 3 ) M.artyr at Nicaeca, with Theodota his mo¬ 
 ther and her two other children, under Diocle¬ 
 tian ; commemorated Aug. 2 {lb.. Mart. Bedae). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EA’OVAE is an artificial word made out of 
 the vowels in the words “ seculorum Amen,” 
 which occur at the end of the Gloria Patri. Its 
 object was to serv'e as a kind of memoria tech- 
 nica to enable singers to render the several Gre¬ 
 gorian chants properly; each letter in Evovae 
 standing for the syllable from which it is ex¬ 
 tracted. It must be borne in mind that psalms, 
 &c., were sung under antiphons, and that the 
 music of the antiphon, being constructed in a 
 particular ‘ mode ’ or ‘ scale,’ such as Dorian, 
 Phrygian, and the like, the chant or ‘ tone ’ 
 (i. q. ‘ tune ’) to the psalm, being not intended 
 to represent a full stop or close, might (and 
 usually did) not end on the fin.al belonging to 
 the mode, leaving that for the concluding anti¬ 
 phon : thus different forms of the same mode or 
 tone would arise, and these were called Evovae 
 and sometimes differentiae, finitiones, conciusiones, 
 and species seculorum. This only applies to the 
 latter half (cadence) of the chant, as in the ‘me¬ 
 diation’ (at the middle of the verse of a psalm) 
 scarcely any variety was admitted, except such 
 as arose from local use. Thus in the various 
 works on the subject, and in service books, 
 varieties of endings are to be found of greater or 
 less antiquity. Gerbert mentions the fact that 
 in some cases the peculiar distinctive marks of 
 the tones had become confused, notably in the 
 1st and 6th ; and the only possible distinction 
 would seem to be in the assignment of ac¬ 
 cents. It does not appear however that accent, 
 in the modern musical sense of the word, was 
 
 recognised to any extent by the ancients, Ac- 
 CENTUS being equivalent to what we should now 
 call inflection. [Acoentus Ecclesiasticus.] For 
 the first few centuries of the Christian era 
 rhythm w<as regulated by quantity, which gra¬ 
 dually gave place to accent; and it seems to the 
 w'riter th.at musical .accentuation remained in a 
 very uncertain state until the 17th century. 
 Still the Evovae must be regarded .as containing 
 the germ of the present accepted views respecting 
 accent, as may be seen by comparing the follow¬ 
 ing forms. 
 
 (1) Full form of the 1st tone, which is in the 
 Dorian mode ; the dominant or reciting note being 
 a, and the final note D. 
 
 
 
 (<yx - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sic - ut erat in principio, et nunc, et seni - per: 
 
 et in secula secu - lo - rum. A - men. . . . 
 
 This ending would be written thus: 
 
 E V O V A E. 
 
 The accents are supplied by the writer. Before 
 the invention of notes the same would be ex¬ 
 pressed thus: 
 
 a a G F G a G F E D 
 
 E V O V A E 
 
 (2) A shortened form of the 1st tone, whicn 
 does not end on the proper final D, leaving that 
 correct cadence to be supplied by the antiphon. 
 
 ]^l ^ 
 
 ----- 
 
 : 
 
 ----- 
 
 Sic • ut erat in principio, et nunc, et sera • per 
 
 
 irz ^ ^ .. 
 
 
 «•;. ■ ■ 1 
 
 
 
 
 et in secula secu • lo - rum, A - men. 
 
 
 The accents are as before, and the Evovae thus : 
 
 1 
 
 E V O V A E. 
 
 (3) Sixth tone, in the Hypolydian mode; domi¬ 
 nant a, final F. 
 
 
 4sE 
 
 iz^r: 
 
 <S>-' 
 
 -rs- 
 
 Sic - ut erat in priucipio, et nunc, et sem - per : 
 
 et in secula secu - lo - rum. A'- men. 
 
 The Evovae would be expressed thus (accents 
 being supplied): 
 
 E V O V A K. 
 
EVUllTIUS 
 
 EXAMINATION FOR ORDEKS 
 
 6oG 
 
 Any one acquainted with music can see how 
 nearly identical, so far as notes are concerned, 
 tiiese two last forms are, and that the only dilfer- 
 euce of character they can assume is by reason 
 of different accentuation. 
 
 From the uncertainty of accent already men¬ 
 tioned, it will easily be seen that in different 
 cases the same tone, ami the same ending of it, 
 would receive dilferent accentuations according 
 to the feeling of the compiler of the Psalter of 
 the church in question; and this gives authority 
 for the dilferent versions that will be found in 
 the modern books of Gregorian tones which are 
 very accessible, and to which the reader is re¬ 
 ferred, as for example the following ending of 
 the sixth tone (the one most commonly heard) 
 compared with the one given above : 
 
 EV 0 V A E. 
 
 and these, which are both alleged to be the cor¬ 
 rect ending of the second tone : 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 I an< 
 
 - 
 
 EVOV 
 
 A 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 ^ - 1! 
 
 EVO V A E. 
 
 It is almost needless to say that modern notation 
 IS here adopted for the sake of greater simplicity 
 and definiteness. 
 
 The chief authority made use of here is the 
 supplemental essay in Dyce’s edition of the Book 
 of Common 1‘ruyer^ with plain tune (now rare) 
 which gives ancient authorities, Elias Salomonis, 
 Adam de Fulda, and the Tonale of St. Bernard, 
 all I’eferred to by Gerbert. Although these are 
 of later date than the 8th century, the number 
 of variations which they recognise, and the man¬ 
 ner in which their recognition is made, seem to 
 make it tolerably clear that these differences or 
 Evovae are of much prior date to them. The 
 view here taken by the writer receives some 
 confirmation from the fact that a modern imita¬ 
 tion of the word Evovae proposed by Mr. Dyce 
 has never got into use, and is a mere curiosity, 
 inasmuch as our means of expressing accent are 
 more obvious. [J. R. L.] 
 
 EVURTIUS, or EVORTIUS, bishop of Or¬ 
 leans, and confessor; deposition at Orleans, Sept. 
 7 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EWALDUS, or EGUALDUS, name of two 
 English presbyters, martyrs among the ancient 
 continental Saxons; commemorated Oct. 3 (d/arf. 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EXACTIONES are extraordinary revenues, 
 whether drawn from a new form of impost 
 (census de novo impositus), or from raising the 
 rate of an old source of revenue (augmentatio 
 census). Such exactions were in early times 
 condemned by the church ; thus the 33rd canon 
 of the third council of Toledo (a.d. 589) and 
 the fifth of the sixteenth (a.d. 693) forbade 
 bishops to levy exactions upon their dioceses; 
 
 pope Leo IV. (a.d. 853) also stigmatized as 
 “ exactioiies illicitae ” any demands for suppEes 
 made by bishops “ultra statuta patrum.” Simi¬ 
 lar decrees were also made by later authorities. 
 It is laid down by canonists that an “ exaction ” 
 must have manifest justification (manifesta et 
 rationabilis causa) and be limited to the sum 
 absolutely necessary to be raised (moderatum 
 aiixilium). (Corpm Juris Canon., Decret.'V. ii. 
 causa X. qu. 3, c. 6; and Beer. Greg., lib. iii. tit. 
 39 ; Herzog, Real-Enajcl. iv. 280.) [C.] 
 
 EXAFOTI. The Lher Pontif. tells us (p. 
 250, D. ed. Muratori), that Benedict llf. “obtulit 
 canistra exafoci ex argento purissimo,” where the 
 true reading no doubt is exafota (i. e. i^d(pwTa) 
 coronae of six lights. Compare Enafotia. The 
 same authority .speaks of a corona of sixteen 
 lights, “ canistrum excaedecafotii ” (€|/fai5e/fa- 
 (puTiov) (Ducange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 EXA POSTEILARIA QE^aTroaTeiXdpia) are 
 Tropaiua, which probably received their name 
 from the fact that the w^ord e^aTrSaTeiXov fre¬ 
 quently occurred in them, as they were mainly 
 supplications to God to .send forth His Holy Spirit 
 upon the worshij)pers. When other subjects 
 were introduced into them another etymology 
 was imagined, that the word “ exaposteilarion ” 
 referred to the “ sending forth ” of God’s ser- 
 v^ants into the world to ])reach the gospel. 
 
 (Neale’s A'asfmi Church, Introd. 845 ; Daniel’s 
 Codex Liturg. iv. 701.) [C.] 
 
 EX A CUSTODIAN US CE^aKovarwhiavhs'), 
 
 one of the seven sleepers of Ephesus, A.D. 408 ; 
 commemorated Oct. 22 (Cal. Buzant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EXALTATION OF THE CROSS. 
 [Cross, Exaltation of the.] 
 
 EXAMINATION OF COIMIM UNI¬ 
 
 CANTS. [Communion, Holy, p. 417.] 
 
 EXAMINATION FOR ORDERS. It ap¬ 
 pears always to have beefi the intention of the 
 church that there should be a cai’eful examination 
 into the fitness of candidates for orders. As re¬ 
 garded their moral character, this was in some 
 degree provided for by the public testimony of 
 the people at the time of ordination [Election of 
 Clergy]. So it is said that wdien Alexande*’ Seve- 
 rus was about to appoint any governors of pro¬ 
 vinces or other officials, he ordered that public 
 enquiry should be made into their character, add¬ 
 ing that this w’as the custom both of Jews and 
 Christians in the selection of their priests (Ael. 
 Lamprid. Vita Alex. Sever, c. 4:b). In some cases, 
 as in that of Augustine (Possid. Vita Augud. c. 4), 
 it appears that this may have supplied the place 
 of any further examination. The third council 
 of Carthage (c. 22), decreed that a candidate 
 for ordination must be approved either by the 
 testimony of the people or the examination of 
 the bishop. But in general the duty of exami¬ 
 nation appears to have rested with the bishop. 
 Chrysostom (irepl lepwavrrfs iv. 2, § 376), speaks 
 of the duty of the ordaining bishop to make 
 diligent enquiry into the characters of those 
 presented to him by the electors. The 6th 
 canon of Theophilus, archdeacon of Alexandria 
 (Balsamon, ii. 170), provides that when the 
 candidates have been selected by the clergy, 
 the bishop shall examine them. Basil how- 
 
EXARCH 
 
 EXCLUSIVA 
 
 637 
 
 ever (-£/>. 181), speaks of an examination con 
 dacted by presbyters and deacons, and then 
 referred to the chorepiscopi. The canon too of 
 Theophilus, already quoted, mentions the 
 orthodox clergy of the district as having the 
 right of examination m certain cases. Thomas- 
 sin ( Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discip. ii. 1, c. 32, § 11-12), 
 thinks it probable that the task of examining 
 candidates was delegated in the first place to the 
 • cathedral clergy, and afterwards, in the ])roviuces, 
 to the priests and deacons. 
 
 The examination in these cases appears to have 
 been chiefly an enquiry into the moral charac¬ 
 ter and general fitness of the candidates. The 
 fourth council of Carthage (c. 1), directs that 
 every bishop should be examined before ordi¬ 
 nation, as to his personal qualitie.s, such as 
 prudence, morality, and learning, both profane 
 and sacred, and also as to his holding the right 
 faith as contained in the creeds. It is not said 
 by whom the examination was to be conducted. 
 The council of Narbonne (c. 11), forbids any 
 bishop to ordain either a priest or deacon who is 
 utterly unlearned. This appears to imply a 
 previous examination into literary as well as 
 moral qualifications. [P. O.] 
 
 EXARCH. Generically the word ''E^apxos 
 is applied to any one who takes the lead. Hence 
 it is used of one who is chief in any department 
 or undertaking. So Plutarch in his life of Numa 
 has ''E^apxos tcov lepaiu in the sense of sacrorurn 
 prinecj)s, or suniinus pontifex.^ In its specific 
 ecclesiastical application it has more than one 
 sense. 
 
 1. It is perhaps most commonly and most 
 strictly applied to the great prelates who pre¬ 
 sided over the ‘dioceses’ {AioiK-fjo-eis, see Dio¬ 
 cese), as they were called, which were formed 
 in imitation of the civil dioceses of Constantine. 
 Each of these ‘ dioceses ’ comprehended several 
 ‘provinces’ (eTrapx'^O? f^e metropolitans of 
 these latter were subordinated to the exarchs of 
 the former. The 9th and 17th canons of the 
 council of Chalcedon recognise, or give,'- a right 
 of appeal from the decision of the metropolitan 
 to the exarch. The word therefore became nearly 
 synonymous with patiiarch. Accordingly, in 
 the Novels of Ju.stinian, when imperial sanction 
 is given to the principle expressed in the canons 
 of Chalcedon, the word exarch is turned into 
 patriarch.Yet though every patriarch had 
 the power of an exarch, every exarch was not, 
 properly speaking, a patriarch, the latter name 
 being given only to the heads of the more eminent 
 dioce.ses. Thus in the ‘Notitia’ given in Bing¬ 
 ham, book ix. ch. 1, § 6, which seems to repre¬ 
 sent the state of things at the end of the 4th 
 century, we find the patriarchs of Antioch and 
 Alexandria, but the exarchs of Asia, Pontu.s, 
 Thrace, Macedonia, Dacia, and others.** [Notitia.] 
 
 » A well-known application of the term in secular 
 government is the title of the exarch of liavenna. 
 
 b “ Utrum omnes exarchi hanc potestatem ante hoc 
 concilium exercuerint necne, incertum est: Hoc tamen 
 certum, earn ab hoc concilio illis prinib confirmatam esse.” 
 Beveridge, Pandect. Annot. in Canon. Concil. Chafe. 
 p 115. 
 
 c Si vero contra metropolifcim tails aditio fiat ab 
 episcopo, aut clero, aut alia quacumqae persona, dio- 
 ceseos illius beatissimus patriarcha simili modo causam 
 judicet ."—yovel 123, C. 22. 
 
 d Beveridge thinks that Balsamon and Morinus are in 
 
 I Subsequently Constantinople absorbed Pontus, 
 i Asia, and Thrace, becoming a patriarchate. (See 
 Neale, IIol;/ East. Church, General Introduction.) 
 
 2. The word is also sometimes used in refer¬ 
 
 ence to metropolitans. For we find the phrase 
 exarch of the province {e^apxos rrjs iirapx'ias^ 
 as well as exarch of the diocese Sioi- 
 
 Kr](Tc<jos). It is used, for in.stance, in the 6th 
 canon of the council of Sardica, where the sense 
 seems beyond doubt.*' But the word is hen 
 probably used in its general sense of chief, rathei 
 than in any technical signification. 
 
 3. In later times the name exarch was also 
 applied to certain legates of the patriarch ol 
 Constantinople, who apj>ear to have been charged 
 by him with the general maintenance of his 
 rights and authority, and also entrusted with 
 the visitation of mona.steries subject to him. 
 The name is also given to ecclesiastics dej)uted 
 by him to collect the tribute payable by him to 
 the Turkish government. These legates ap¬ 
 pear to have had large powers, and might even 
 excommunicate, dei)ose, or absolve in the name 
 of the patriarch. (See Beveridge, Pandectac Ca- 
 nonum. Annotations on the Canons of Chalcedon, 
 
 pp. 120, 121.) 
 
 Authorities. —Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. ‘'E^apxos ; 
 Beveridge, Pandeetae Canonum, Oxon. 1672; 
 Bingham, Antiquities, hk. ii. ch. 17, and bk. ix.; 
 Thomassinus, Veins et Nova Eccles. Discip. part i. 
 lib. 1, cap. 17. [B. S.] 
 
 EXCAECATIO. To deprive of sight was 
 not a mode of punishment sanctioned by the 
 Benedictine rules. But in the 8th century some 
 abbats had recourse to this barbarity in the case 
 of contumacious monks. It was forbidden by 
 Charles the Great (Capitul. a.d. 789, c. 16) and 
 by the council of Frankfort (a.d. 794, c. 18); 
 and abbats were strictly ordered to confine them¬ 
 selves to the infliction of punishments ))rescribed 
 in their rule (cf. Peg. Bened. Comment, c. 25 ; 
 Mabillon, Ann. Ord. Bened. Saec. IV. Praef. i. 
 139). [I. G. S.] 
 
 EXCEPTOR. (1) The word excipere was 
 used in later Latinity to express the “ taking- 
 down ” of a person’s words. Thus Augustine 
 (^Epist. 110), “a notariis ecclesiae excipiuntur 
 quae dicimus.” Hence a reporter of judicial 
 acts and sentences—as in the case of Christian 
 martyrs—was called exceptor. A gloss on Pru- 
 dentius (a/>?<cf Ducange) speaks of “ excej)tores ” 
 who took down the dicta of the judge and the 
 answers of the martyr. Compare NorARV. 
 (Ducange’s Gloss, s. v.; Bingham’s Antiq. HI. 
 xiii. 5). 
 
 (2) The word is occasionally used as equiva¬ 
 lent to auddoxos [Sponsor], for which “suscep¬ 
 tor” is more commonly employed. [C.] 
 
 EXCLUSION FROM COMIMUNION. 
 
 [Communion, Holy : Excommunication.] 
 
 EXCLUSIVA designates, in modern times, 
 the right claimed by certain Roman Catholic 
 
 error in speaking of a kind of metropolituis set over 
 whole dioceses, and yet not p.atriarchs. May they not 
 have meant such as the exarchs of Asia and Pontus.’ (See 
 Bev. Pandect. Can. Annot. in Cone. Chat p. 121.) Valc- 
 sius (06s. on Socrates’ Hist. Kccles. lib. 3, cap. 9) cal's 
 these exarchs “ minores patriarchas,” and says “ Pairi- 
 archae nomen interdum usurjiarunt.'’ 
 
 ® The words arc fiia ypaixfcdniiv ~ov i^ap\ov errap^ias, 
 Aeytij fie too ent.a'KoiTOv rri^ juTjTpoTrdAecj?, 
 
638 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 powers of exclmling a particular cardinal from 
 being elected pope, 
 
 Tlie j)resent form of this right is of course 
 modern, and arises from the political circum¬ 
 stances of the age in Europe; but traces of the 
 very decided influence exerted by princes in re¬ 
 straining the liberty of papal elections are found 
 at a comparatively early date. The emperor 
 Ilonorius, for instance, in the case of the double 
 election and consecration of Eulalius and Boni¬ 
 face, decided (a.d, 418) in favour of Eulalius, 
 afterwards drove him from the city, and (a.d, 
 419) ordered the installation of Boniface {Auctu- 
 arium Sijnimacliianum, Epistt. 19-31 ; Baronius, 
 an, 419, §§ 2 and 11, etc.). The same emperor, 
 at the request of Boniface, made an ordinance 
 that for the future, in case two candidates di.s- 
 puted the papal chair, neither should be pope 
 but a fresh election should be held (^Corpus Juris 
 Canon. Dist. xcvii., cc. 1 and 2 ; Hardouin, Concil. 
 i. 1237). Nor was the influence of the temporal 
 power diminished when Germans ruled in Italy, 
 Odoacer (a.d. 483) desired that no papal election 
 should take place without his concurrence (sine 
 nostra consultatione), and little heed was paid 
 by subsequent princes to the canon of a Roman 
 synod under pope Symmachus (a.d. 502) con¬ 
 demning such interference of the secular arm 
 (Hardouin, ii. 977 ; C. J. C. Dist. xevi. c. 1, § 7). 
 Theodoric repeated the enactment of Odoacer. On 
 the reconquest of Italy under Justinian the con¬ 
 firmation of the papal election fell into the hands 
 of the emperors, who exacted considerable sums 
 in consideration of it, until the fee was given up 
 by Constantine Pogonatus in the yearG78 (^Liber 
 Fontif., in Agatho; C. J. C. Dist. Ixiii. c. 21). 
 Somewhat later, in the case of Benedict II. 
 (a.d. 684) the claim to confirm the pope was 
 also resigned by the same emperor. This, how¬ 
 ever, le I to so much disorder, that it was found 
 necessary again to invoke the co-operation of the 
 civil power; and the fact of the necessity of the 
 emperor’s concurrence is recognised in the Liber 
 Eiurnus Pontiff, Rom. (c. ii. lib. 3; see also 
 Garnier’s Dissertation in his edition of the Lib. 
 Diurn.), probably of the end of the seventh or 
 the betjinnint; of the eighth century. The neces- 
 sity for the confirmation of the emperor con¬ 
 tinued when the Frankish chiefs acquired the 
 imperial dignity. Compare Pope. (Jacobson in 
 Herzog’s Real-Encgclop. iv. 280.) [C.] 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION (^Abstentio, Anath¬ 
 ema, Ex^o.nmunicatio, audOffxa, a(popia'iJi.6s). The 
 partial or total, temporary or perpetual, exclu¬ 
 sion of a member from the privileges of the 
 church. 
 
 I. Ordinary Excommunication. 
 
 Excommunication belongs to the class of 
 corrective or medicinal penalties (poenae medi- 
 cinales or censurae), not to the vindictive 
 (poenae vindicativae). Augustine (Serm. 351, 
 c. 12), distinguishes between “ prohibitio medi- 
 cinalis,” and “prohibitio mortalis,” meaning 
 (apparently) by the one, exclusion from the 
 mysteries, by the other, exclusion from the 
 church and Christian fellowship altogether. 
 The canon law {Corpus J., c. 37, can. xxiv. 
 qu. iii.), lays down generally that excommunica¬ 
 tion is “disciplina, non eradicatiothe excom¬ 
 municated person is capable of being restored to 
 his privileges, upon repentance [Penitence]. 
 
 The exclusion of peccant members from social 
 privileges is a right inherent in all societies; it 
 was in practice among the Jews at the Christian 
 era, and was incorporated by our Lord into the 
 constitution of His church. It is no part of our 
 purpose to discu.ss the theological bearing of the 
 language in which our Saviour conveyed this 
 power (St. Matt, xviii. 15-18, xvi. 19), nor to 
 inve.stigate the traces which the New Testament 
 contains of the use to which the apostles put it 
 (Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. vi. 14, 17; Gal. i. 8, 9; 
 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14; Tit. iii. 10; 2 John 10, 11) 
 (See Art. Excommunication in Diet, of the Bible). 
 It is sufficient to note that a power of cutting 
 off ofl'enders was conferred on the apostles as 
 rulers of the church, and was by them made a 
 systematic part of church government. There 
 are however two instances of direct ex- 
 communication by St, Paul, which must be 
 noticed in more detail, because they supplied at 
 once the language and the model after which 
 the church framed in subsequent ages her 
 censures. The apostle by a formal jmlgment 
 delivered the incestuous Corinthian “ to Satan, 
 for the destruction of the flesh ” (1 Cor. v. 5) ; a 
 sentence which cannot signify' less than this— 
 that the man was thrust outside the Christian 
 fold. When St. Paul wrote his second epistle, 
 some six or nine mouths later, the man on his 
 repentance was readmitted into the church. A 
 similar sentence, but producing no similar peni¬ 
 tence, was delivered against Hyraeuaeus and Alex¬ 
 ander (1 Tim. i. 20). Hymeuaeus is mentioned in 
 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18, as a teacher of heresy. His 
 case therefore formed a precedent for excom¬ 
 munication for heretical opinion, as that of the 
 Corinthian for immorality. The authority for 
 the use of the formula, Anathema, {avaBejia), 
 so common afterwards in the Penitential Canons, 
 is to be found in 1 Cor. xvi. 22; Gal, i. 8, 9. 
 
 The proofs that the church has always 
 claimed and exercised the power of excouimuni- 
 catiou, are everywhere patent. Fathers {e.g., 
 Irenaeus, Ilaeres. iii. 3; Cyprian, Dc Orot. Dom. 
 c. 18 ; Epist. 41, c. 2 ; 59 cc. 1,9, 10, 11 ; Basil, 
 Epist. 61, ad Athanas.; Leo the Great, Epist. 
 32, ad Faustum ; Ambrose, Epist. 40, ad Theodos.), 
 and councils {e.g., Cann. Apostt. c. 8, A'C. ; 
 iv. Carth. c. 73; W. Arles, c. 8; ^ enet. c. 3; 
 Toledo, cc. 15, 16, 18), all claim the power oi 
 excommunication, of greater or less severity and 
 duration, in the case of offenders, whether 
 against morality' or against orthodoxy'. The 
 Penitential Books mention numberless cases 
 in which excommunication is the penalty'. See 
 for instance the Penitential of archbishop Theo¬ 
 dore (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Docu¬ 
 ments, iii. 173). 
 
 Persons subject to Excommunication. —The 
 power of excommunicating was held to be in 
 some measure correlative to that of baptising; 
 those who could admit into the church could also 
 exclude. The unbaptised were never excommu¬ 
 nicated, though catechumens might be, and were, 
 put back into a lower grade, and their baptism 
 postponed. Children were not excommunicated, 
 nor (commonly) reigning princes or large sec¬ 
 tions of the church. With these exceptions all 
 Christian people, men or women, might be cut 
 off' from communion with the faithtul. But 
 the .sentence was invarial)ly' a personal one for 
 personal offences; the innocent were not ])unisbcd 
 
EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 639 
 
 with the guilty. Such a process as laying a 
 whole nation under an interdict for some sup¬ 
 posed offence of the people or their rulers was 
 not known in the early ages, nor before the 12th 
 century. 
 
 According to the Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 
 cc. 37, 38, 39) the course of discipline was that if 
 any offender did not voluntarily come forward and 
 acknowledge his guilt he was to be summoned by 
 the bishop, first in privacy, then in the pi’esence 
 of two or three witnesses ; then if he would not 
 yield, the case was to be told to the church, 
 and if he was still obdurate, sentence would 
 proceed against him. No one was to be excom¬ 
 municated before he had been several times 
 admonished, according to the apostolic injunc¬ 
 tion, “him that is an heretic, after the first or 
 second admonition, reject.” Nor could any 
 offender be excommunicated in his absence, nor 
 without legal conviction either by his own 
 admission or by credible witnesses. On this 
 safeguard against abuse of power, Van Espen 
 quotes a passage from St. Augustine, “ We can¬ 
 not reject any from our communion unless they 
 have either voluntarily confessed or been charged 
 and convicted before some secular or ecclesiastical 
 tribunal ” (St. Aug. Serm. 351 de Poenitent.). 
 One witness was not received as sufficient evi¬ 
 dence of guilt, even though the one was a 
 bishop. No one could incur excommunication 
 for anything temporal ; such matters wei'e left 
 to the civil courts, and excommunication in the 
 early ages was a spiritual weapon, cutting off 
 from spiritual privileges. Gregory the Great, 
 writing to some bishop whose name has been 
 lost, severely rebukes him for using for his own 
 private ends, power conferred upon him for the 
 good of the souls of his flock (^Epist. ii. 34). It 
 was forbidden also to excommunicate for sins of 
 infirmity and frailty. “ There are some sins,” 
 says St. Ambrose {in exhort, ad Poenit.\ “ which 
 may be daily pardoned by mere supplication to 
 God, in that petition ‘ forgive us our trespasses, 
 as we forgive them that trespass against us.’” 
 And it was necessary that the offence should be 
 public; for it was always a maxim “ De occultis 
 non judicat Ecclesia.” So St. Cyprian, “We so 
 far as it is committed to us to see and judge, 
 look only at the face (the conduct) of each one, 
 his heart and his conscience we cannot investi¬ 
 gate (Cypr. Epist. 55). 
 
 It would be impossible within reasonable limits 
 to enumerate the graver crimes for which the 
 church cut off her unworthy members. They may 
 in general be reduced under one of the three heads 
 of uncleanness, idolatry, bloodshed. Upon the 
 treatment which men guilty of these crimes 
 should receive, many of the early controversies on 
 discipline hinged. There were, moreover, many 
 breaches of each of the commandments which ren¬ 
 dered the offender subject to the highest censure 
 of the church, which cannot be brought under this 
 classification. Of these it will be sufficient to 
 point out a few which were peculiar to the 
 times, or which the opinion of the present day 
 would deal with more leniently. The principle 
 underlying the whole system of ecclesiastical 
 censures, was the preservation of sound members 
 of the Christian body from the evil example and 
 contagion of the unsound. Hence, heresy was 
 ever reckoned among the gravest sins. Haidly 
 less dangerous, and hardly'^ less rigorously puu- 
 
 i.shevf in times c * persecution, or during thr 
 barbarian invasions, was apostasy either tr 
 heathenism or to Judaism. Any tampering with 
 idolatry w'as i^gidly prohibited. A Chri.stiac 
 was forbidden to be a public actor, or to be 
 present at any theatrical representation, which 
 commonly in that age ministered to lasci¬ 
 viousness ; or to frequent the circus, for it 
 was regarded as an appendage of false worship, 
 and detrimental to the majesty of God; or to 
 use divination or astrology, for that was to put 
 destiny in the place of divine providence; or to 
 follow any trade, such for example as the train¬ 
 ing of gladiators, which in its nature was scan¬ 
 dalous ; or to be a talebearer, a gambler, or 
 a vagrant. See Gregory Nyssen’s canonical epistle 
 to Letoius bishop of Melitina, which contains an 
 elaborate cla.ssification of sins, and the penalties 
 to be allotted to them. 
 
 Degrees of Excommunication. —Morinus dis¬ 
 tinguishes three degrees of excommunication : 
 1st. All those who were guilty of lighter sins 
 were punished by exclusion from the offering of 
 the oblations and partaking of the communion; 
 2nd. Those who sinned moi’e grievously were not 
 only altogether shut out from partaking of the 
 communion, but also from being present at that 
 service, and were moreover “ delivered unto Sa¬ 
 tan,” i.e. to certain bodily austerities and mortifi¬ 
 cations ; 3rd. Those who persisted in offending, or 
 fell into deadly sin, were expelled alike from all 
 share in the sacred mysteries, and from the very 
 building of the church. (Morin, de Poenitent., 
 lib. 4, c. 11.) Van Espen considers that there 
 were two degrees only, one of which was called 
 “ medicinalis,” the other “mortalis,” (Aug. Horn. 
 lib. 1.), or more commonly, “Anathema” (Van 
 Espen Jiis Eccl. Pars iii. Tit. xi. c. iv.); Bing¬ 
 ham also discovers two degx-ees, lesser and 
 greater excommunication (a(f>opi(r,ahs, acpopicrpos 
 TravTeXrjs'). The foiauer, which corresponds with 
 the first two classes of Morinus, excluded offen¬ 
 ders from the eucharist, and the prayers of the 
 faithful, but did not exclude them from the 
 church, for still they might stay to hear psalms 
 and the reading of the scripture, and sermon and 
 prayer of catechumens and penitents, and depart 
 when the service of catechumens ended. Greater 
 excommunication was a rejection not only from 
 the eucharist but from any presence in church 
 whatever, and any association with Christian 
 men (Bingham, Antiq. lib. xvi. c. 11). There 
 remains a still moi'e terrible form of censure, 
 which undoubtedly was sometimes imposed, and 
 which was an absolute and final excision from 
 the church. St. Cyprian {Epist. 55 ad Anton.) 
 speaks of some of his predecessors who closed 
 the door for ever against adultei’ers, but adds, 
 that other bishops admitted similar offenders 
 after a period of penitence to the grace of the 
 church. There are various canons in the 
 council of Elvira (circa 305 A.D.), which utterly 
 debar offenders from conimunion with the faith¬ 
 ful for the remainder of their lives, “ nec in fine 
 communionem accipere ” (Con. Eliber. cc. 1, 12, 
 13, 71, 73). Can. 46 declares that if any persist 
 in sin after having been already punished, he 
 should be totally cast out, “ penitus ab ecclesia ab- 
 jiciatur.” The council of Ancyra(cc. 9, 16 ; circa 
 315 A.D.) fixes a limit to the penalty attached to 
 those very crimes for which that at Eliberis had 
 decreed final excision. It would ajq>ear there- 
 
610 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 fore that total and irreniodiable exclusion was*at 
 Qo time a universal practice, but nevertheless, at 
 certain periods, and in cei'tain localities, where 
 nossibly the magnitude of otl'eiices required to 
 be dealt with by a jjenalty of equal magnitude, it 
 was unhesitatingly employed. The practice of 
 exconfiinunicating the dead had no existence in 
 the early centuries, or if here and there it existed, 
 was supported by no canonical authority. The 
 second council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), first 
 introduced it into the Eastern church, and about 
 100 years later it crei^t into the Western (Morin. 
 de Fomitent. lib. x. c. 9). 
 
 Effect of Sentence. —The punishment inflicted 
 by a sentence (tf excommunication varied not only 
 with the gravity of the offence, but with the dis¬ 
 cretion of the bishop, tlie customs of the diocese 
 or province, and still more with the age of the 
 church in which the offender lived. In the early 
 centuries the church was ruled with a gentler 
 discipline than was possible when her ranks were 
 filled up promiscuously from the multitude. The 
 incestuous man, whom St. Paul expelled from 
 among his Corinthian converts with such solemn 
 denunciation, was received again on his repen¬ 
 tance, probably within a few months, certainly 
 v/ithiu the year. And up to the time of Mon- 
 tanus, punishments even for grave breaches of 
 the law of the gospel were equally lenient. 
 The term of the penalty was left to the discre¬ 
 tion of the bishop. Through the whole of 
 Tertullian’s Treatise de Poenitentid, and in the 
 Apostolic Canons, with one exception, there is 
 no mention of any time for the duration of the 
 censure. And even in the increasing severity 
 which prevailed for the next hundred years, 
 purrishmeuts scarcely ever exceeded one or two 
 years (Morin, de Poenitent. lib. iv. c. 9). 
 Thenceforward, years would not suffice where 
 weeks or months had been deemed sufficient 
 before. Ten, fifteen, twenty years, were no 
 uncommon penalties. St. Basil excludes a 
 murderer from the church for twenty years 
 (can. 56). The council of Ancyra decrees that 
 a murderer should be a penitent for the rest 
 of his life, and be received back into com¬ 
 munion only at the hour of death (can. 22). 
 For murder combined with other great crimes 
 the council of Elvira (can. 11), forbids com¬ 
 munion ev'en in death. But at no period did 
 any hard and fast law prevail; if an offender 
 voluntarily confessed his guilt, a shorter term of 
 exclusion was measured out to him ; if on the 
 other hand, a man who had before caused 
 scandal was further rebelliouri and obdurate, his 
 sentence was doubly .severe. The le.sser excom¬ 
 munication carried with it only an exclusion 
 from communion, and from the inner mysteries 
 and privileges of the faith. Three weeks of this 
 separation was the punishment assigned by the 
 council of Elvira to those who wilfully ab¬ 
 sented themselves from church for three succes¬ 
 sive Sundays; a year for some more venial forms 
 of unchastity; another period for eating food 
 in company with a Jew ((7on. Eliber. cc. 21, 
 14, 50). And when the term expired they were 
 received again to all the privileges of full com¬ 
 munion, without being called upon to submit to 
 public penance. Very different from this was 
 the punishment attending the greater excom¬ 
 munication, anathema. For the first 300 years 
 the punishment was exclusively spiritual, laid 
 
 EXCOISIMUNrCATION 
 
 upon the souls, not the bodies of men, depriving 
 them of sjnritual blessing.s, and in no way inter¬ 
 fering with their political relations. Horesiarchs 
 however, and dangerous heretical teachers, were 
 at all periods treated with exceptional severity ; 
 the church was forbidden to hold any intercourse 
 with them, to receive them into their houses, or 
 to bid them God speed. It was only gradually, 
 after the empire became Chri.stian, that the 
 weapons of the church’s warfare began to be 
 more carnal, and the .secular power was invoked 
 to uphold the ecclesiastical. At no time before 
 Theodosius, who declared apostates either to 
 Judaism or heathenism incapable of making 
 wills or receiving bequests, and whose C(jdex de 
 Haereticis attaches other pains and penalties to 
 heretics, were any civil disabilities imposed 
 upon those whom the church had cast off. 
 Whatever rights a man had from the laws of 
 God or man, as father, master, magistrate, these 
 he retained after the door of the church was 
 closed against him. Yet in the primitive ages, 
 when the congregations of Christians were com¬ 
 paratively small and the membejs known to 
 each other, and the spiritual censure was fol¬ 
 lowed by an immediate and literal banishment 
 from all sacred offices, from the society of their 
 brethren in the faith, from all association what¬ 
 ever with holv men and holv things, the 
 sentence fell with overwhelming severity. All 
 the man most valued was taken from him. 
 He was looked upon as under the ban of God’s 
 wrath; he was cut off' from the kingdom of God 
 on earth ; like the leprous man among the Jews, 
 he had the visible plague-spot of sin upon him; 
 there had been passed upon him what was re¬ 
 garded as a presage of the future judgment, for 
 what God had by his ministers bound on earth, 
 he would certainly, it was believed, unless the 
 man repented, bind in heaven. The Ajx)stolical 
 Canons (c. 11) forbad any one even to pray in a 
 house with a man under anathema. The first 
 council of Toledo (400 A.D.), ordered (c. 15), 
 that “If any layman is under excommunication, 
 let no clergyman nor religious person come near 
 him nor his house. Also if a clergyman is 
 excommunicated, let him be avoided, and if any 
 is found to converse or to eat with him, let him 
 also be excommunicated.” His name was erased 
 from the Diptvchs, [p. 561]; and there are in¬ 
 stances of the erasure having been made after 
 the man had died, and his sins had not come to 
 light while he lived. His oblations were not 
 received at the altar, and even gifts which he 
 had presented to the church were rejected with 
 him. Plis books might not be read, nor might 
 any intermarry with him. And when his end 
 came he was refused all sacred offices on his 
 deathbed, and no Christian man might attend 
 his funeral, and no Christian rite be performed 
 at it, unless he had given proof of repentance 
 and passed away before being formally absolved. 
 Nor coiild any one hope to avoid judgment by a 
 voluntarv exile, for notice was sent to other 
 congregations, and in the discipline of the early 
 church, a stranger was not admitted into com¬ 
 munion unless he brought with him Commen¬ 
 datory Letters from his own diocese. A roan 
 once excommunicated was never ordained, or 
 if it was discovered after his ordination, that 
 he had been previously censured, he was removed 
 from the ministry (Cone. Eliber. can. 30; Cone 
 
EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 641 
 
 Nic. 10). This latter strictness was not invari¬ 
 ably enforced, but the axiom “ Poenitentes 
 ordinari non debent,” became universal in the 
 Western church, although not always in practice 
 in the Eastern. 
 
 Excommunication of Clergy .—In some cases 
 the clergy, for offences for which laymen were 
 excommunicated, were suspended and reduced to 
 lay communion [Dkgradation] ; but they might 
 incur both degradation and excommunication. 
 The clergy were brought to trial with morfe legal 
 formalities than tlie laity, because if found guilty 
 they were deprived not only of spiritual privi¬ 
 leges but of oHice and emolument. The Apos^o^^c 
 Canons (30) decree that any bishop, priest, or 
 deacon guilty of simony shall be cut off from all 
 communion whatever. Mention is also made of 
 reducing clergy to “ peregrina communio,” com¬ 
 munion of strangers, which would seem to 
 signify that they were to be treated as strangers 
 who came without commendatory letters, allowed 
 a mere subsistence from the offerings, but de¬ 
 nied communion [Communion, Holy, p. 417]. 
 By the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) monks 
 wore subject to the same discipline as laity. 
 
 Form or Hite .—Judgment was delivered in 
 the indicative mood, inasmuch as it decreed a 
 punishment then and there inflicted. It was 
 declared after the reading of the gospel, the 
 bishop standing on the ambo. There is no re¬ 
 cord of any ceremony attending the delivery of 
 the sentence in the early ages; but Martene 
 publishes a MS. of about the year 1190 ^which 
 prescribes that twelve priests ought to stand 
 round the bishop with lamps or toi-ches in their 
 hands, and that after the conclusion of the sen¬ 
 tence they should cast them on the ground and 
 stamp out the light beneath their feet, and that 
 the bishop should then explain to the people the 
 meaning and effect of the ceremony they had 
 witnessed. No recognised rite of excommunica¬ 
 tion was in general use before the 9th or 10th 
 century. The formula ordinarily employed was 
 founded on our Lord’s words, “ Let him be as an 
 heathen man and a publican.” The council of 
 Ephesus degraded Nestorius in these terms. 
 “ Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ, whose ma¬ 
 jesty he by h’s blasphemous words has assailed, 
 pi’onounces Nestorius, through this sacred synod, 
 deprived of his episcopal rank and degraded from 
 the fellowship and office of the priesthood 
 throughont the world.” The sentence of excom¬ 
 munication of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais, 
 by his bishop, Synesius (410 A.D.), gives a more 
 detailed account of the penalties involved in the 
 sentence. “The church of Ptolemais makes this 
 injunction to all her sister churches throughout 
 the world. Let no church of God be open to An¬ 
 dronicus and his accomplices; but let every sa¬ 
 cred temple and .sanctuary be shut against them. 
 The devil has no part in paradise ; though he pri¬ 
 vily creep in he is driven out again. I therefore ad¬ 
 monish both private men and magistrates neither 
 to receive them under their roof nor to their table : 
 and priests more especially, that they neither 
 converse with them when living nor attend their 
 funerals when dead. And if any one despise this 
 church as being only a small city, and receive 
 those that are excommunicated by her, let them 
 know that they divide the church by schism. 
 And whosoever does so, whether levite, presbyter, 
 or bishop, shall be ranked in the same class with 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 Andronicus. We will neither give them the 
 right hand of fellow.ship, nor eat at the same 
 table with them, and much less will we com¬ 
 municate in sacred mysteries with those who 
 choose to take part with Andronicus” (Synes 
 Epist. 58). [See Penitencu.] 
 
 The following, from an Anglican Pontifical 
 preserved at Gemblours, considered by Martene 
 (^De Hit. Ant. ii. 322; ed. Vcnet. 1783) to have 
 been written in the 8th century, may serve 
 as a specimen of the later forms. The bishop, 
 denouncing certain persons who, not having the 
 fear of God before their eyes, had plundered the 
 property of the church, and who, after being 
 thrice summoned, contumaciously refused to 
 appear, proceeds : “ These therefore we, by the 
 authority conferred upon us by God .... and 
 the statutes of the canons, excommunicate and 
 cut off from the bounds of the Holy Church of 
 God, and expel from the congregation of Chris¬ 
 tian men ; and unless they speedily come to a 
 better mind and make satisfaction to us, we con¬ 
 found them with eternal malediction and con¬ 
 demn with perpetual anathema. May they incur 
 the wr.ath of the heavenly judge; may they be 
 deprived of the inheritance of God and His elect; 
 may they neither in this present life have com¬ 
 munion with Christians, nor in the life to come 
 obtain part with God and His saints; but may 
 they be numbered with the devil and his ser¬ 
 vants, and receive the punishment of avenging 
 flame with everlasting mourning. In heaven 
 and earth may they be abominable, and he tor¬ 
 tured for ever with the pains of hell. Cursed be 
 they in the house, cursed in the field; cursed 
 be their food and their fruit; cursed be all that 
 they possess, from the dog that barks for them 
 to the cock that crows for them. May they 
 have their portion with Dathan and Abiram, 
 whom hell swallowed up quick, and with An¬ 
 anias and Sapphira, who lied unto the apostles of 
 the Lord and fell down dead, and with Pilate, 
 and Judas who betrayed the Lord ; may they be 
 buried with the burial of an ass, and so may 
 their light be quenched in the midst of darkness. 
 Amen.” 
 
 Minister of Excommunication .—The officer en¬ 
 trusted with the power of excommunication was 
 the bishop of the diocese to which the offender 
 belonged. [Bishop, p. 231.] The administration 
 of discipline was originally entirely in his hands; 
 it was he who bound and he who loosed. As the 
 church increased, the infliction of other forms of 
 penance was delegated to the inferior clergy, but 
 the great sentence of excommunication was a 
 weapon which the bishop kept exclusively in the 
 power of his own order. Within his diocese his 
 jurisdiction was supreme; he might mitigate or 
 increase censure at his discretion. In the exercise 
 of this authority he was independent of his pres¬ 
 bytery ; he sat indeed with it to hear confessions 
 which might criminate others, or to receive accu¬ 
 sations against the brethren, or to decide rights 
 and causes brought before him, and offences might 
 then be divulged which would expose the offender 
 to excommunication, but when once guilt was 
 established, either by confession, or conviction, 
 or notoriety, the bishop alone imj)osed the sen¬ 
 tence. Instances also abound of bishops consult¬ 
 ing with one another in special emergencies, and 
 deciding amongst themfelves the period of peni¬ 
 tence to be allotted t' special sins, but such 
 
642 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION 
 
 EXECUTORES 
 
 advice or support put no limitation on each 
 bishop’s original jurisdiction. The council of Nice 
 (can. o) forbids any one bishop to receive delin¬ 
 quents cut off by another bishop, which clearly 
 points to each bishop posse.ssing the power to act 
 alone. The end of the same canon decrees that 
 a synod of bishops shall be held in each province 
 twice a year, before Lent and in the autumn 
 (compare Apost^ Can. 38), to examine into the 
 cases of excommunication which had taken place 
 in the province. There was thus a right of 
 appeal against the sentence of an individual 
 bishop, but only to the bishops of the province. 
 This probably explains instances of synodical ex- 
 communication, which do not imply that the 
 bishop had not an independent power to excom¬ 
 municate, but that an appeal was made from his 
 judgment to the provincial synod, whose sentence 
 was onlv a more solemn confirmation of the 
 bishop’s. 
 
 The Apostolical Canons (74) decree that, if a 
 bishop is accused he is to be summoned by the 
 synod of bishops, and if he refuse to come two 
 bishops are to go for him, and on his second re¬ 
 fusal, to go again, and if he is still contumacious, 
 the synod may proceed against him in his ab¬ 
 sence. Accordingly the episcopal rank of Nes- 
 torius required a synodical censure, which was 
 pronounced by provincial synods under Cyril of 
 Alexandria and Celestine of Rome, and confirmed 
 431 A.D. by the council of Ephesus. And Euty- 
 ches, who was an abbot and so far allowed the 
 privileges of a bishop, was tried at the provincial 
 synod of Constantinople under Flavianus, and on 
 an appeal to a general council was again con¬ 
 demned and excommunicated at Chalcedon, to¬ 
 gether with Dioscorus of Alexandria. 
 
 Literature. —Marshall’s Penitential Discipline, 
 Lend. 1714, reprinted in ‘ Auglo-Cath. Library,’ 
 Ox. 1844; Bingham’s Antiquities, bks, xvi. 
 and xvii. ; iMorinus, De Disciplina in Administr. 
 Sacrament. Poenitentiae, Antv. 1682 ; V^'an Es^ieu, 
 Jus Ecclesiaslicum, Yen. 1789, vols. 4 and 9; 
 Martene, De Ant. Eccl. ritibus] Augusti, Denk- 
 u-iirdigkeiten aus der christliclien Archdologie, 
 Leip. 1817. [G. M.] 
 
 II. Monastic Excommunication. 
 
 By the Benedictine rule contumacious monks 
 incurred the penalty of the greater or the lesser 
 excommunication according to the gravity of the 
 offence, but not till admonition, first private and 
 then public, had been tried on them in vain, nor 
 in cases where, owing to moral stupidity, flogging 
 was likely to be more efficacious {Peg. Bened. 
 c. 23). These two kinds of excommunication 
 are further defined as excommunication only 
 from the common meal (a mensS) for slighter 
 ffiults, and excommunication from the chapel 
 also (a mensa et oratorio) for faults less venial. 
 Thus the subdivision of monastic excommunica¬ 
 tion corresponds in its main features with the 
 more minute subdivisions of ecclesiastical disci¬ 
 pline generally (7^6. ce. 24, 25). Even under the 
 lighter ban the offender was forbidden to officiate 
 in the choir as reader or “cantor,” and,’accord¬ 
 ing to some commentators on the rale, he was to 
 lie prostrate before the altar-steps while the 
 others were kneeling. In the refectory he was 
 to take his fo»)d alone after the rest had finished 
 (Martene, lieg. Comment, cc. 25, 44). 
 
 A monk under the graver excommunication 
 
 was debarred not only from the common board, but 
 also from all the chapel services as well as from 
 the benedictory salutation, and indeed from all 
 intercourse whatever with his brethren (^Peg. 
 Bened. c. 25). He was to lie outstretched at the 
 doors of the chapel till re-admitted bv the abbat; 
 nor even then might he take any public part in 
 the services without express permission (Martene, 
 u. s. c. 44). Any monk speaking to an excom¬ 
 municated brother was “ipso facto” excommu¬ 
 nicated himself (/I'e^. Bened. c. 26). But it was 
 kindly ordered by Benedict, that the abbat 
 should send some .sympathising brother to con¬ 
 sole the offender in his loneliness (/6. c. 27; 
 cf. Peg. Mag. cc. 13, 14; Peg. Caes. Arelat. c. 23; 
 Id. ad Virg. c. 10). 
 
 The duration of the punishment varied, the 
 intention being correctional rather than merely 
 penal. By the rule of Fructuosus, a monk for 
 lying, stealing, striking, false swearing, if incor¬ 
 rigible, was, after flogging, to be excommuni¬ 
 cated and kept on bread and water in a solitary 
 cell for three months {Peg. Fruct. c. 17). By 
 the rule of Ferreolus, a monk for bad language 
 was forbidden to be present at the mass or to 
 receive the kiss of peace for six months {Peg. 
 Ferr. c. 25). By the rule of Chrodegang a 
 canonicus was excommunicated for what seems 
 so slight an offence as sleeping after nocturns. 
 It was for the abbat to fix the degree of excom¬ 
 munication {Peg. Bene I. c. 24). Some commenta¬ 
 tors argue therefore, that the severest form of 
 monastic excommunication cannot be tantamount 
 to the severest ecclesiastical sentence of the kind 
 (Mart. Peg. Comm. c. 25). 
 
 Mabillon cites instances {Annal. x. 46) of 
 monks (Columbanus and Theodorus Studita) 
 excommunicating lay people not belonging to 
 their order. He relates an excommunication of 
 one of the sisterhood by an abbess in the 7th 
 century {Tb. xii. 36). Abbats and abbesses were 
 themselves liable to this penalty. Gregory the 
 Great reproves a bishop for harshness in excom¬ 
 municating an aged abbat of good repute. The 
 second council of Tours in a.d. 567 decreed sen¬ 
 tence of excommunication against any abbat or 
 prior allowing a woman to enter the monastery 
 {Cone. Turon. c. 16). See further Bened. Anian. 
 Concord. Pegul. cc. 30-34 with Menard’s Commen¬ 
 tary, and Ducange, Gloss. Lat. s. v. [1. G. S.] 
 
 EXCUBIAE. [Vigil.] 
 
 EXCUSATI. (1) Slaves who had fled for 
 refuge to a church, and then—on the owners 
 making oath upon the gospels that they would 
 not punish them—been restored to their masters, 
 were called excusati. If the master broke his oath 
 he was punished by excommunication. See Cone. 
 Aurel. I. cc. 1 and 3; ///. c. 13; IV. c. 24. 
 
 (2) Those who under some terror or oppression 
 had fled to a church or monastery and remained 
 there were also called excus ti (Charter of Charles 
 the Great, quoted by Ducange, s.r.). [C.] 
 
 EXECUTORES. A name given either to 
 the Defensores themselves or to officers who 
 performed analogous functions. In one of the 
 canons of a council held at Carthage, A.D. 419 
 {Co l. Eccl. Afric. c. 96), it is decreed that per¬ 
 mission should be demanded of the emperor for 
 the appointment of five “ executores,” who 
 should reside in the provinces, and be employed 
 on all occasions of necessity on behalf of the 
 
EXEDRA 
 
 EXILE 
 
 643 
 
 church, “in omnibus desideriis quae habet ' 
 ecclesia/’ These are evidently distinct from the j 
 “ defensores scholastici,” mentioned in the canon ' 
 that follows. In a capitulary of Charles the j 
 Great, quoted by Thornassin ( Vet. ct Nov. EccL 
 Discip. i. 2, c. 99, § 12), e.xecutores are men¬ 
 tioned in connexion with advocates and defen¬ 
 ders, “ executores, vel advocati seu defensores.” 
 Thornassin {Ibid. c. 98, § 8) speaks of tlie title 
 being given to certain officials when employed in 
 carrying into execution the will of the bishop of 
 Romo, who is himself the executor and protector 
 of the canons. [P. 0.] 
 
 EXEDRA is explained by Ducange, Binte- 
 rim, and others as a general term including all 
 buildings annexed to a church, or contained 
 within the consecrated area. In classical usage 
 an e.Tedra was a semicircular room, or large 
 alcove with seats against the wall for the pur¬ 
 poses of conversation (Cic. de Nat. Deorum, i. 6; 
 de Orat. iii. 5). Excdrae are spoken of by Vi¬ 
 truvius (vi, 5) in connection with oeci {oIkoi) as 
 rooms for conversation and other social purposes. 
 The two words, are similarly cou))led together 
 by Eusebius (/f. E. x. 4, § 44) when describing 
 the church of Paulinus at Tyre. Here Eusebius 
 writes “ he provided spacious exedrae and oeci 
 on each side (e^eSpas Kai o'ikovs rovs irap’ e/cd- 
 repa pLcyicTTOus) united and attached to the royal 
 fabric {^aaiXeicp) and communicating with the 
 entrance to the middle of the temple.” The 
 church built by Constantine at Antioch is also 
 described as “ being surrounded with a large 
 number of oeci and exedrae in a circle,” o^Kots 
 re irXe'ioo'iv i^4dpais t€ eV kvk\<p (Euseb. de yit. 
 Const, lib. iii. c. 50), Augustine uses the word 
 in the .sense of a large room or hall annexed to 
 the great church at Caesarea {de Gest. cum 
 Emerito). The sixth canon of the council 
 of Nantes prohibits interments except “ in atrio 
 aut portion, aut in exedris ecclesiae.”® Bingham 
 holds that baptisteries were included under 
 exedrae. The apse of a basilica was also some¬ 
 times termed exedra from its similarity in shape 
 to those of the baths. 
 
 (Bingham, Grig. Eccl. bk. viii. c. 7, § 1; Au¬ 
 gust! Chriit. Archaeol. i. 387 ; Valesius ad Euseb. 
 Vit. Const, lib. iii. c. 50.) [E. V,] 
 
 EXEiMPTION OF MONASTERIES. In 
 the earlier stage of their existence, monasteries 
 generally availed themselves gladly of the patro¬ 
 nage of the bishop of the diocese [Bishop, p. 231], 
 but as they increased in wealth and power, strug¬ 
 gled to emancipate themselves from his control. 
 For instance, towards the close of the 6th century 
 the abbess of Ste. Croix at Poitiers, after the 
 death ol' Radegunde the foundress, who had be¬ 
 come one of the nuns, requested the bishop to 
 take the convent under his protection. After 
 .some hesitation, on account of the royal rank of 
 the foundre.ss, or because .she had placed the con¬ 
 vent under royal jurisdiction, he consented “ to 
 govern it as the rest of his parishes” (Mabill. 
 Ann. 0. S. B. VII. xxxix. xl. ; Gregor. Turon. 
 Hist. ix. 46). On the other hand, in the middle 
 of the 7th century, or later, for the exact date 
 of the deed is uncertain, a monastery at Vienne, 
 apparently of monks and nuns under one consti¬ 
 tution, obtained absolute exemption from the 
 
 “ In Labbe (C'0J(Ci7. ix. 470) the nading is “extra cc- 
 clesiaiii.” 
 
 bishop’s authority. By this deed, no bishop had 
 any claim to any property of the monastery; 
 no bishop, unless by invitation of the abbot or 
 abbess, could consecrate altars or admit nuns, 
 nor was any fee to be required for performing 
 these ceremonies; and the diocesan was not to 
 hinder any appeal of the monastery to the see 
 of Rome (Mabill. Ann. 0. S. B. XIII. ii. cf. App, 
 tom. 1). In another fragment cited by Mabillou 
 in the same place no bishop even by invitation 
 was allowed to enter the more private parts of 
 the convent; nor was any bishop to be enter¬ 
 tained in the convent, lest this should be an 
 expense and a distraction to the inmates, nor to 
 interfere with the abbess in the correction of the 
 nuns, for she was to be responsible only to the 
 apostolic see. Instances might easily be multi¬ 
 plied of the almost continual collision in Western 
 Christendom between the bishops and the monas¬ 
 teries in their dioceses ; in which the monasteries, 
 almost invariably, had the support of the pope, 
 and, frequently, of the royal authority (cf. 
 Martene, Begul. Comment. Bcned. ap. l\Iigne, 
 Patrol. Lat. Ixvi. pp. 839, 840). And the same 
 struggle was going on at the same time in the 
 East.. Thus, in the 7th century, the emperor 
 Mauricius granted to the monasteries of Theo- 
 dorus Siceota entire exemption from all epi¬ 
 scopal authority, except that of Constantinople 
 (Mabill. Ann. 0. S. B. xiv. 23). Monasteries 
 subject only to emperor or king, were called 
 “ imperialia ” or “regalia” (Ducange, Gloss. 
 Lat. s. V.). [For exemption of monasteries from 
 taxes see Monastery.] [I. G. S.] 
 
 EXEMPTIONS. [Immunities of Clergy.] 
 
 EXEQUIES. [Burial of the Dead : 
 Obsequies.] 
 
 EXERCISES, PENITENTIAL. [Peni¬ 
 tence.] 
 
 EXHORTATION {Exhortatio), is used in a 
 special sense for the admonition on the duties of 
 their office addressed by the ordainer to a person 
 just ordained. See, for instance, the Coptic 
 ritual of ordination, in Martene, De Bit. Ant. I., 
 viii. 11, Ordo 23. [C.] 
 
 EXILE {Exilinm, Peregrinatio). For certain 
 offences a penitent was ordered to leave his 
 country and pass some period of his penitence in 
 distant lands. This mode of penance is found 
 among the canons ascribed to some of the British 
 councils of the 6th century ; but there are strong 
 grounds for believing that they are interpolations 
 of a later period, and that the penance of exile 
 cannot be traced to any earlier source than the 
 7th century. The Penitential of Theodore (1. ii. 
 16) appoints fifteen years of penance for incest, 
 of which seven are to be passed in a foreign land 
 (perenni peregrinatione). The Penitential of 
 Egbert (iii.) declares seven years of exile to 
 be part of the penance due to parricide; and 
 (v. 9) orders a cleric who begets an illegitimate 
 child to go into exile for either four, five, or 
 seven years. IMorinus, however, considers {de 
 Poenit. vii. 15) that these wanderings of peni¬ 
 tents soon led to abuses, and were checked in a 
 caj)itulary of Charles the Great (vi.-373). 
 
 The practice thus begun in submission to a 
 judicial penalty was continued as a voluntary 
 self-discipline, and in the 10th centuiy it began 
 to be considered a meritorious action to leave 
 
 2 ’]' 
 
644 
 
 EXOCATACOELI 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 home and country and make a pilgrimage to some 
 spot consecrated Ijy association with some holy 
 man ; tlie earliest of which places were Koine, 
 Tours, and the su])posed burial-place of St. James 
 at Composteila. This tendency received a great 
 impulse from the Crusades, and especially from 
 the decree of the council of Clermont {Cone. 
 Clarom. c. 2), which allowed a pilgrimage to Jeru¬ 
 salem to e.'ipiate all penance whatever. [G. M.] 
 
 EXOCATACOELI. Idve great dignita¬ 
 ries of the patriarchal church of Constantinople, 
 ■viz. the oeconomus or steward, the senior and 
 junior keeper of the pui'se (tra/feAXaptot), and the 
 senior and junior chartophylax, were anciently 
 called e^ooKardKoiXoi. To these, in the 11th 
 century, the defensor of the church was added. 
 The etymology of the word is uncertain. That 
 of Ducange {Class. Graec.) that they received 
 their name from having their scats of dignity 
 on a raised platform, not in the lower portion 
 of the floor {KaraKoiAi) where less distin¬ 
 guished persons sat, is perhaps as probable as 
 any. (Thomassin, Eccl. JDiscip. I. ii. 99, § 10; 
 Daniel, Codex Lit'irg. iv. 702.) [C.] 
 
 EXODIASTTCON (’E^oSiao'Tt/cJv). As the 
 departure of a Christian was frequently spoken 
 of as e|o5os, the service at the death-bed is ciilled 
 in Greek office-books k^o^iaariKov (Daniel, Codex 
 Lit. iv. 608, 634). [Burial of the Dead ; 
 Sick, Visitation of.] [C.] 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS {Exomologesis, Confessio, 
 i^o/noKoygcris, etayopevais). The verb in St. 
 Matt. xi. 25 expre.sses thanksgiving and praise, 
 and in this sense was used by many Christian 
 writers (Suicer’s Thesaurus., s. v. i^o/xoX.). But 
 more generally in the early fathers it signifies 
 the whole course of penitential discipline, the 
 outward act and performance of penance. From 
 this it came to mean that public acknowledg¬ 
 ment of sin which formed so important a part 
 of penitence. Irenaeus (c. Haeres. i. 13, §5) 
 speaks of an adulteress who, having been con¬ 
 verted, passed her whole life in a state of peni¬ 
 tence (e^OiUoAoyoL'yueVTj, in exomologesi) : and {i'k 
 iii. 4) of Cerdon often coming into the church 
 and confessing his errors {i^o/u.o\oyovfxevos). 
 Tertullian {de Poenit. c. 9) considers the Greek 
 word i^o/jLoXoyriaLS more suitable than the Latin 
 confessio; and proceeds to define the term as 
 “the discipline of humbling and prostrating a 
 man.” At the end of the same treatise he speaks 
 of the king of Babylon’s humiliation as an ex¬ 
 omologesis, and of the king of Egvpt’s neglect 
 of repentance and its attendant confession. The 
 term occurs twice in Cyprian (c?c Lapsis, cc. 11, 
 18), and six times in his Epistles {Epistt. 4, ad 
 Pompon, c. 3; 15, ad Martyr, c. 1 ; ad Clcr. 
 c. 2; 17, ad Laic. ; 55, ad Anton, c. 24; 59, ad 
 Cornel, c. 18, Oxf. ed.) in the sense of the course 
 of penitence and public humiliation ; three times 
 'Epistt. 18, ad Cler. ; 19, ad Cler. ; 20, ad Rom.- 
 Clcr. c. 2) referring to the confession of dying 
 penitents : and once {de Lapsis, c. 19) as applied 
 to Azariah and his companions, in the sense of 
 confession of the lips generally. St. Basil, de¬ 
 scribing the morning .service of his time {Epist. 
 207, ad Cler. Neocaesar.), says that after the anti- 
 phonal chant, at daybreak they all burst forth 
 into the psalm of confession {rhu rys e^opoKo- 
 yf](Teu>s ^aKphu tw Kuplcr dva<p4pav(Ti), meaning 
 jio 4oubt that which is emphatically a psalm of 
 
 confession, the fi:‘ty-first. This psalm is also 
 mentioned by Ca^^sian {De Instit. Cb<?no5. iij. (I) 
 as occurring at the close of matins. Paciau in one 
 place {Paraen. u.d Poenit. p. 372, Oxf. eil.) follow¬ 
 ing Tertullian, speaks of the degradation of Nebu¬ 
 chadnezzar as exomologesis; in another (tote/. 
 
 р. 373), in imitation of Cyprian, applies the 
 term to the song of the “ three children.” At 
 the council of Laodicea (can. 2) it is the 
 whole course of penitence: “As to those who 
 sin by divers offences and persevere in prayer 
 of confession {e^opoK.) and repentance.” With 
 Chrysostom it is in one place {Horn. 10 in S. Matt. 
 
 с. 4) the course of penitence ; elsewhere (Horn. 5, 
 de incomp. Dei nat. t. i. p. 490: Horn. 2, ad 
 ilium. Catech. t. i. ji. 240, Bened. ed.) it is confes¬ 
 sion to God only. Isidore of Seville {Etymol. vi. 
 19) defines exomologesis to be that by which we 
 confess our sins to the Lord. But at the end of 
 the same chapter he adduces an entirely dirierent 
 meaning of the word. “Between litanies and 
 exomologeses there is this difierence, that ex¬ 
 omologesis stands for confession of sins only, 
 litany for prayer to God, and imploring His 
 pardon; but now each word has the same mean¬ 
 ing, nor is there any difference between the use 
 of litany and exomologesis.” The 17th council of 
 Toledo, A.D. 694 (c. 6), orders litanies (exomolo¬ 
 geses) to be said fora whole year for the church, 
 for the sovereign, &e. kc. And the council of 
 Mayence, a.d. 813 {Cone. Mogunt. c. 32) quotes 
 the exact words of Isidore on exomoloo:esis being 
 equivalent with litany (Comp. Morin, de Poenit. 
 ii. 2; note L. on Tertull. de Poenit., in Oxford 
 Li'irary of the Fathers). 
 
 Of these meanings the first and last are Quite 
 foreign to the general ecclesiastical use of the 
 word and need not be pursued any further; that 
 which signifies the whole cour.se of j)enitential 
 discipline will be discussed under the article 
 Penitence : this article will relate to exomolo¬ 
 gesis only so far as it signifies oral confession. 
 
 Public Confession. —i. Of public sins. — This 
 was the first stage in the restoration of a peni¬ 
 tent. So long as di.scipline was in force, any one 
 guilty of a notorious crime which had subjected 
 him to censure [Excommunicaiton] was re¬ 
 quired to make an open acknowledgment of his 
 crime at the beginning of his course of penitence. 
 The confession took place after the Missa Cate- 
 chumenorum, and when they and the hearers had 
 been warned to withdraw fiom the church by the 
 deacon. Then if any one had been recently con¬ 
 victed of any open sin, he confessed and bewailed 
 it before the church, and in accordance with the 
 gravity of his offence, his penitential station was 
 assigned him by the bishop; sometimes, how¬ 
 ever, the bishop, yielding to the requests of the 
 clergy and people who had heard the confession, 
 allotted a less remote station. The bishop then 
 addressed the congregation on the nature of the 
 offence, and they offered up their prayers for the 
 offender’s repentance. This public confession 
 was addressed not merely to the bishop or the 
 priest in the pre.sence of the congregation, but in 
 a loud voice to the congregation at large. It 
 signified that as the church had been scandalised 
 by an open sin in one of its membei’s, reparation 
 should be made to it by an equally open admis¬ 
 sion of sin. It also manifested the earnestness 
 of the offender’s repentance that he was willing 
 to undergo this public humiliation. But the 
 
EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 645 
 
 cliict object was that the oft'ender might seek 
 tiie prayers of the congregation to support and 
 stimulate liis conversion. If any one who was 
 notoriously guilty failed or refused to confess, no 
 one would communicate with him, in accordance 
 with the apostle’s precept (1 Cor. v. 11; Ephes. 
 V. 11). Again, if he waited to be convicted, 
 his censure was heavier than if he had made a 
 sjiontaneous confession. The council of Elvira 
 {Cone. Elih. c. 76) orders that if a deacon before 
 his ordination had committed a mortal sin, and 
 afterwards confessed, he should be restored after 
 three years’ penitence ; but if detected, after five 
 years, and only to laj’^ communion. Basil {ad 
 Amphiloc. cc. 7, 61) allows alleviation of punish¬ 
 ment on three grounds, ignorance, confession, 
 and lapse of time. This encouragement to confes¬ 
 sion reappears in the 8th century in the Rule of 
 Chrodegand of Metz (c. 18), “ he who voluntarily 
 confesses his lighter sins shall be visited with 
 lighter censures.” And not only was an ofl'enJer 
 urged to confess for his own sake, but any who 
 was privy to his crime was under a similar obli¬ 
 gation to accuse him, for if he failed or even 
 delayed to do so, he was himself e.xposed to cen¬ 
 sure (Basil, ad Aiiiphiloc. c. 71). 
 
 ii. Of secret sins. —Such confession was at no 
 time obligatory. Sometimes, however, under the 
 direction of a priest who had been consulted, or 
 moved by a sudden contrition and remorse, some 
 would charge themselves with a secret sin before 
 the congregation. Thus (Iren. c. Haeres. i. 9) the 
 virgins seduced hy the heretic Marcus, and the 
 wife of the deacon Asian us made a public ac¬ 
 knowledgment of guilt which was known only 
 to themselves. One of the three men who had 
 calumniated Narcissus of Jerusalem (Euseb. II. E. 
 vi. 9) publicly acknowledged years afterwards, 
 when his two associates liad died from some 
 painful disorder, that his charge against the 
 bishop had been false. Some of the priests who 
 had joined Novatian {ibid. vi. 43) spontaneously 
 charged themselves before the church with 
 heresy and other crimes ; one of the bishops who 
 had been induced to consecrate him publicly ac¬ 
 knowledged his error, and Cornelius, in deference 
 to the intercession of the people who witnessed 
 the confession, admitted him to lay communion. 
 But public confession of secret sins needed at a 
 very early ])eriod to be checked and regulated ; 
 and the people were admonished to consult their 
 priests before divulging their sin.s to the church 
 [Pi3XiTt:NTi.\JtY]. Anything which would create 
 a scandal or endanger life or liberty was for¬ 
 bidden to be revealed. So Basil {ad Amphiloc. 
 c. 34) would not permit a woman who had pri¬ 
 vately admitted the guilt of adulteiy to acknow¬ 
 ledge it in the church or even to perform openly 
 the penance generally demanded for such a sin, 
 lest she should be murdered by her husband. 
 Similar precautions are laid down by Origen, 
 Augustine, and Caesarius of Arles (Morin, de 
 Poenit. ii. 13). In the 6th century the practice 
 arose of making coufes.sion of public sins to the 
 bishop, of private to the priest. 
 
 iii. Before the bishop and his presbytery. —Ter- 
 tullian {de Poenit. c. 9) says it is part of exomo- 
 logesis for the penitent “to throw himself upon 
 the ground before the presbytery, and to fall on 
 his knees before the beloved of God.” Cy{)rian 
 {de La/,sis, c. 18) praises the faith of those who, 
 having without any overt act meditated idola¬ 
 
 try, made a confession “ apud sacerdotes Dei.” 
 Gregory Nyssen {Ep. ad Lctoium, in Marshall 
 p. 195) speaks of a certain evil which had 
 been overlooked by the ancient fathers, from 
 whence it had come to pass, that no j)erson who 
 was brought before the clergy to be examined as 
 to his life and conversation was at all examined 
 upon that i)oint. Before the i)resbytery con¬ 
 fessions were made which criminated others; and 
 this frequently happened; for any one making a 
 public confession named his confederates, unless 
 by so doing he exposed them to legal penalties. 
 No ecclesiastical censure, however, tell on any 
 who denied a crime which his associate had ad¬ 
 mitted : on the principle that penitence was a 
 privilege not a punishment. The deacon and 
 virgin whose case is decided by St. Cyprian and 
 his presbytery {E/ns. iv, ad Pompon.) must have 
 had an information laid against them by some 
 associate, for their guilt had been secret. This 
 mode ot confession was ati'ected in the East by 
 the appointment of the Penitentiary ; but in the 
 West .so long as public penitence for secret faults 
 prevailed, so long did public confession to bishops 
 and their assistant priests. Probably this was 
 the origin of the custom introduced into the 
 Benedictine Rule of confession to the abbot sur¬ 
 rounded by his monks. 
 
 Private Confession .— i. General account .—The 
 testimony of the fathers will be discussed in 
 detail later; here it is sufficient to say that the 
 early fathers Irenaeus, Tert ullian, Cyprian, hhrdly 
 allude to private confession at all; and among the 
 writers generally of the first 500 years those who 
 mention it do so with some rcleience more or 
 less direct to public discipline. But it is certain 
 that public penitence was not assigned to all 
 sins which were secretly confessed, "but only to 
 such as in the discretion of the })riest required 
 it. It is easy to understand that otlences of a 
 trivial nature might be confided to a priest, or 
 ofteuces of such a character as would scandalise 
 the church were they openly divulged; and 
 until this spiritual direction had been given, 
 the offender would be in doubt whether or not 
 a public acknowledgment would be expected from 
 him. But it is equally clear that no absolution 
 was given after direction of this sort, or until 
 penitence had been performed. Such at least 
 for many centuries was the practice in the Latin 
 church (see Penitexck, under which the ques¬ 
 tion of absolution will be discussed): in the 
 Eastern church a practice arose of pronouncing 
 some preliminary absolution immediately after 
 the utterance of the confe.ssion, and a second 
 absolution when the penance had been performed. 
 The evidence of this practice is to be found in 
 the early Greek Penitentials at the end of the 
 6th century; but Alorinus xvould carry back its 
 origin to the time of the abolition of the office of 
 Penitentiary at the end of the 4th, To resort 
 to a spiritual guide for comfort and counsel 
 was one thing ; to obtain through his ministry 
 by confe.ssion penance and ab.solutiou, reconcilia¬ 
 tion with God and communion with the faithful 
 was another: and there is no proof that the two 
 were combined, and that private sacramental 
 confession had any existence in the first 500 
 years of the Christian church. The term itself 
 is not found in any of the documents of the first 
 eight centuries: and if the definition of'i'homas 
 Aquinas {Surnma, pt. iii. qu. 84-90) is to be 
 
646 
 
 EXOMOLOGKSIS 
 
 EXOMOI.OGESIS 
 
 accepted as a tlieological definition of the term, 
 its growth must be assigned to a much later 
 period. There existed undoubtedly from a very 
 early period private confession followed by no 
 penitence, but also by no aV)solution; there 
 was also private confession followed by public 
 penitence, and generally by subsc(juent i)ublic 
 confession, to which the private was a prelimin¬ 
 ary : and there was after the beginning of the 
 6th century private confession followed by j>ri- 
 vate penitence, but the penance was always ex¬ 
 acted, and differed only from public penance in 
 solemnity; there is nowhere to be found in canons 
 or sacramentaries or j)enitentials one j)unishment 
 for private penitence and another for public. 
 The sins thus privately confessed with a view to 
 penitence were those only of a grievous character, 
 sins which excluded from communion or public 
 prayer, or even from the church itself, Avhich 
 required a long and painful course of penance 
 before they were blotted out, and into Avhich if 
 the sinner relapsed, there was, certainly in the 
 rigour of the primitive ages, no second door of 
 reconciliation open to him. Sozomen indeed, 
 writing at the end of the 5th century, says in 
 reference to penitence that there is pardon for 
 these who sin again and again, but this is not 
 the language of antiquity. There was but one 
 admission to solemn penance. Moreover, sins for 
 which ])enance was to be performed were de¬ 
 scribed by canons and in canonical epistles, and 
 sins which did not fall within these canons were 
 neither confessed nor made subject to penance. 
 Sins of frailty incidental to mankind were to be 
 healed by daily prayer and confession to God 
 only. So, among numerous authorities that peni¬ 
 tence, and confession as a part of penitence, was 
 not exacted for venial sins, Augustine {de Symb. 
 ad Catech. t. vi. p. 555, ed. Autv.), “ those whom 
 you see in a state of penitence haxm been guilty of 
 adultery or some other enormity, for which they 
 are put under it: if their sin had been venial, 
 daily prayer would have been sufficient to atone 
 for it.” The Greek Penitentials of the end of 
 the 6th century, and the Latin ones of a cen¬ 
 tury later, give no hint of habitual confession of 
 common infirmities, or of private confession being 
 a matter of indispensable obligation, still less of 
 the doctrine that one may daily confess and be 
 daily and plenarily absolved. 
 
 ii. fa the Western Church .— In the times of Ter- 
 tullian and Cyprian public discipline was in full 
 vigour, and as part of it a public acknowledg¬ 
 ment of sins : the passages which have already 
 been adduced from these fathers contain nothing 
 to show that they regarded confession in any 
 other light than as one stage of the act of peni¬ 
 tence. 
 
 Ambrose (c?e Poenit. ii. 6) speaks of confession, 
 but it is confession to God. “If thou wilt be 
 justified confess thy sins ; for humble confession 
 looses the bonds of sin.” Another passage, 
 selected by Bellarmine to support secret confes¬ 
 sion, relates manifestly to the course of disci¬ 
 pline ; for having at the end of the previous 
 section said that “ very many, out of fear of 
 future punishment, conscious of their sins, seek 
 admission to penitence, and having obtained it 
 are drawn back by the shame of public en¬ 
 treat v,” Ambrose thus proceeds (ib. c. 10), 
 “ Will any one endure that thou shouldest be 
 ashamed to ask of God, who art not ashamed to ask 
 
 men ? that thou be ashamed to supplicate Him 
 from whom thou art not hid, when thou art not 
 ashamed to confess thy sins to man from whom 
 thou art hid ?” Another passage (m Luc, x. 22, 
 p. 5, 1787) commenting on St. Peter’s denial 
 of Christ and subsequent repentance, is incon¬ 
 sistent wdth the existence of a custom of pri¬ 
 vate confession in his time. “ Let tears wash 
 away the guilt which one is ashamed to confess 
 with the voice. Tears exjiress the fault without 
 alarm ; tears confess the sin without injuring 
 bashfulness; tears obtain the pardon they ask 
 not for. Peter wept most bitterly, that with 
 tears he might wash out his olience. Do thou 
 also, if thou wouldest obtain pardon, wash out thy 
 fault with tears.” 
 
 Augustine’s own confessions contain no hint 
 that he either practised or inculcated private con¬ 
 fession. “ What have I to do with men that 
 they should hear my confession, as if they could 
 heal all my infirmities” (x. 3). Bellarmine quotes 
 from the same writer (on Ps. 66, c. 7)—“ Be 
 downcast before thou hast confessed ; having 
 confessed, exult ; now shalt thou be healed. 
 While thou confessedst not, thy conscience col¬ 
 lected foul matter; the imjiosthume swelled, 
 distressed thee, gave thee no rest; the jdiysician 
 foments it with words, sometimes cuts it, em¬ 
 ploys the healing knife, rebuking by tribulation. 
 Acknowledge thou the hand of the physician ; 
 confess ; let all the foul matter go forth in con¬ 
 fession; now exult, now rejoice, what remains 
 will readily be healed.” But Augustine is 
 commenting on the text, “Sing unto the Lord 
 all the whole earth;” and confession can be con¬ 
 fession to God only, as surely the physician who 
 heals by tribulation can be none other than God. 
 In /S'cr7n.'181 (fin.) he speaks of daily prayer as 
 the sponge which is to wipe away sins of infir¬ 
 mity and contrasts them with death-bringing 
 sins for which alone penitence is jierformed. 
 Elsewhere (de Symb. cel Catech. tom. vi. p. 555, ed. 
 Antv.) he again speaks of the “ three methods of 
 remitting sins in the church, in baptism, in the 
 Lord’s Prayer, in the humilitv of the greater 
 penitence,” and he limits penance and conse¬ 
 quently confession to sins which deserve excom¬ 
 munication. And in many similar passages he 
 is a witness that up to his time no confession 
 was required of any sins but such as subjected a 
 man to penitential discipline. 
 
 Leo in his Epistle to Theodorus gives plain testi¬ 
 mony of the connection of confession with penance 
 {Ep. 91, c. 2). But in a letter to the bishops of 
 Campania he gives some directions which mark if 
 they do not make an era in confession in the Latin 
 church. The ejdstle is too important not to be 
 quoted at length (^Ep. 80, ce! Ejiisc. Camjxoi.). 
 “That ju’esumption,contrary to the apostolic rule, 
 which 1 have lately learned to be practised by 
 some, taking unduly ujion themselves, I direct 
 should by all moans be removed, an 1 that a writ¬ 
 ten statement of the nature of the crimes of each 
 should not be publicly rehearsed, since it suffices 
 that the guilt of the conscience be laid open to 
 the priests alone in secret confession. For al¬ 
 though that fulness of faith, which out of the 
 fear of God fears not to take shame betore men, 
 seems to be praiseworthy, yet because the sins 
 of all are not of such sort, that they who ask to 
 do penitence fear not their being published, let 
 so unaivisable a custom be done away, lest 
 
EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 647 
 
 many be kept from the remedies of penitence ; 
 either being ashamed, or fearing that actions for 
 which they may be ])iinished by the laws should 
 be discovered to their enemies. For that con¬ 
 fession suffices, which is made first to God, then 
 to the priest also, who draweth near to pray for 
 the sins of the j)enitents. For so at length may 
 more be stirred up to penitence, if the sins con¬ 
 fessed by the penitents be not published in the 
 ears of the people.” In the early ages imblic 
 confession was only remitted in case of danger 
 to the individual or scandal to the church : by 
 this constitution of Leo f.ecret confession to the 
 priest was to take the place of open confession, 
 and the priest’s intercession of the intercession of 
 the church. The door thus opened for esca})ing 
 from the shame of public confession was never 
 afterwards closed, and secret confession gradually 
 became the rule of the church. 
 
 In the pontificate of Gregory the Great, a 
 century and a half later, there is no evidence to 
 be found of the existence of public confession : 
 and even after private confession it was difficult to 
 bring men to submit to public discipline (^Lxpos. 
 in 1 Hcij. t. iii. 15, p, 34-2). “The sign of a true 
 
 confession is not in the confession of the lips, but 
 in the humiliation of penitence. The con¬ 
 
 fession of sin is required in order that the fruits 
 of penitence may follow. Saul, who con¬ 
 
 fesses and is not willing to humble and afflict 
 himself, is a type of those who make a sterile 
 confession and bear no fruit of penance.” 
 
 In the 7th century, the stern rule that solemn 
 confession as a part of penitence was received 
 only once, had become obsolete, but habitual con¬ 
 fession had not yet taken its place. The fii'st 
 council of Chalons, a.d. 650 (1 Gahil. c. 8), de¬ 
 clares that all agree that confession to the priest 
 is a proof of penitence. The Penitential of Theo¬ 
 dore (I. xii. 7) gives a rule which shows that 
 auricular confession was not yet obligatory. 
 “ Confession if needful may be made to God only.” 
 [COM.M UNION, Holy, p. 417.] Bede (tom. v. Exp. 
 in S. Jnc. v.) reverting to the old practice di-aws a 
 distinction between the confession of frailties and 
 of heinous sins. “ We ought to use this discretion, 
 our daily light sins confess to one another, and 
 hope that by our prayers they may be healed ; 
 but the pollution of the greater leprosy let us 
 according to the law open to the priest, and in 
 the manner and the time which he directs, 
 jmrify ourselves.” The second council of Cha¬ 
 lons, A.r>. 813 (2 Co7ic. Cabil. c. 32) complains that 
 people coming to confess neglect to do so full}'-, 
 and orders each one when he comes to examine 
 himself and make confession of the eight capital 
 sins which prevail in the world—which are then 
 enumerated—and by implication, of no others. 
 Theodulph’s Capitulary (c. 30) draws a distinc¬ 
 tion between confession made to a priest and that 
 to God only, and (c. 31) mentions the same eight 
 princi))al sins as the council, and appoints that 
 everyone learning to confess should be examined 
 on what occasions and in w'hat manner he had 
 been guilty of any of them, and consequently be 
 subjected co no further examination. Chrodegand 
 (c. 32) orders “ confession to be made at each of 
 the three fasts of the year, ‘ et qui plus fecerit 
 melius facitand monks to confess on each Sun¬ 
 day to their bishop or })rior.” But there is no 
 other document showing that confession had 
 yet become periodical. That secret confession 
 
 w’as not yet a matter of obligation is clear 
 from the canon of the council of Chalons 
 (2 Co7ic. C(bil. c. 33). “Some say they ought 
 to confess their sins to God only, and some 
 think they are to be confessed unto the priests, 
 both of which not without great fruit are jirac- 
 tised in the Holy Church .... the confession 
 which is made to God purgeth sins, that made 
 to the priests teacheth in what way those sins 
 should be purged.” And so it remained an ojien 
 question for the next 300 years, for Gratian 
 {de Poenit. Dist. i. 89) summing up the op'inions 
 of dillerent doctors on necessity of confession 
 leaves it still undecided. “ Upon w'hat autho¬ 
 rities or upon what strength of reasons both 
 these opinions are grounded, I have briefly de¬ 
 clared ; wdiich of them w-e should rather cleave 
 to is left to the judgment of the reader; for both 
 have for their favourers wise and religious men.” 
 And it w'as not determined till the famous de¬ 
 cree of the Lateran council, A.D. 1215 (4 Cone. 
 Latcran. c. 21) ordering all of each sex as soon as 
 they arrived at years of discretion to confess at 
 least once a year to their own priest. 
 
 iii. In the Eastern Church .—'fhe duty of con¬ 
 sulting a priest when the conscience is burdened 
 is urged more strongly by the Greek than by the 
 Latin fathers; there are consequently more dis¬ 
 tinct traces of secret confession to be found in 
 the Eastern than in the Western church. Origen 
 has one passage speaking directly of confession, 
 not to God only but to the ministers of the 
 church; the purpose of the confession however 
 is not to obtain absolution, but spiritual guid¬ 
 ance ; after having spoken of evil thoughts 
 which should be revealed in order that they 
 might be destroyed by Him who died for us, he 
 continues (//om. 17 in Luc. fin.), “ if we do this 
 and confess our sins not only to God, but to those 
 also who can heal our wounds and sins, our sins 
 will be blotted out by Him,” &;c. In anotlier 
 passage, which is even more explicit, he speaks 
 of the care required in choosing a discreet and 
 learned minister to w'hom to open the grief, and 
 the skill and tenderness required in him to whom 
 it is confided (Afom. 2 in Ps. 37, t. 11, p. 688, ed. 
 Bened.). 
 
 Athanasius (T7L Ant. Erem. p. 75, ed. Augs.) 
 narrates an injunction of Anthony to his fellow- 
 recluses, that they should write down their 
 thoughts and actions and exhibit the record 
 to one another, which probably was the be¬ 
 ginning of habitual confession among monastic 
 orders, where there are many grounds for sup¬ 
 posing it prevailed long before it became the 
 custom of the church. Basil lays it down even 
 more definitelv than Orisren, that in cases of doubt 
 and difficulty resort should be had to a ])riest; 
 and in his time such a priest was specially 
 appointed in each diocese, whose office it was 
 to receive such private confessions and decide 
 whether they should be afterwards oj)enly 
 acknowledged. [Pknitkntiary.] Thus in Basil, 
 Reg. breo. tract. (Q. 229) the question is pro¬ 
 posed, “ Whether forbidden actions ought to 
 be laid open to all, or to whom, and of what 
 sort?” And the answer is, that as with bodily 
 disease, “ so also the discovery of sins ought 
 to be made to those able to cure them.” Again 
 ((). 288) Basil asks, “ he who wishes to con- 
 fe.ss his sins ought he to (lonfess them to all, 
 or to any chance person, or to whom ?” and re- 
 
648 
 
 EX0M0L0GE8IS 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 plies, “ it is necessary to confess to those en- [ 
 trusted with the oracles of God.” There would | 
 have been no necessity for regulations like these 
 had not private confession been in frecjuent prac¬ 
 tice. In Senn. Ascct. (t. ii. p. 323, ed. Bened.) ; 
 monks are directed, by a rule similar to that 
 of Anthony, to tell to the common body any 
 thought of things forbidden, or unsuitable 
 words, or remissness in prayer, or lukewarmness 
 in psalmody, or desire after ordinary life,” that 
 through the common prayers the evil may be 
 cured. Like instructions are found in the lieg. 
 fus. tract. (Q. 26) “On referring everything, 
 even the secrets of the heart, to the superior.” 
 
 Gregory Nysseu (^Ep. ad Lctoium, in Mar¬ 
 shall, p. 100) in one place speaks of secret 
 confession which is to be followed by penance : 
 
 “ he who of his own accord advances to the dis¬ 
 covery of his sins, as by his voluntary accusation 
 of himself he gives a specimen of the change that 
 is in his mind towards that which is good, will 
 deserve lighter correction,” alluding to the well- 
 established rule that voluntary confession was 
 allowed to mitigate the subsequent penance: 
 in another place he writes as if he com¬ 
 mended the custom of confessing all transgres¬ 
 sion of positive law whether it involved penance 
 or not, “if lie who has transferred to himself the 
 jiroperty of another by secret theft shall unfold 
 his offence to the priest by secret confession, it 
 will be sufficient to cure the guilt by a contrary 
 disposition.” 
 
 The abolition of the office of the Penitentiary 
 made undoubtedly a great break in the practice 
 of confession in the Eastern church. The ac¬ 
 count is given in Socrates (^ff. E. v. 19) and 
 Sozomen {H. E. vii. 16). [Pexitenti.\rv.] 
 It is difficult to believe that the scandal which 
 had arisen in connection with the Peniten¬ 
 tiary had not some iuffiience on the teaching of 
 St. Chrysostom, who immediately afterwards suc¬ 
 ceeded to th<; see of Constantinoijle. He both 
 recommended and enforced penitence, but any 
 confession which had not immediate reference to 
 discipline, he taught should be made to God 
 alone. Xone of the fathers bear equally strong 
 testimony against auricular confession (^flom. 5 
 de incomp. Dei nat. p. 490). “ I do not bring 
 
 you upon the stage before your fellow-servants, 
 nor do I compel you to discover your sins in the 
 presence of men, but to unfold your conscience 
 to God, to show Him your ail and malady, and 
 seek relief from Him.” So {Horn. 20 in Gen. p. 
 175). “ He who has done these things (grievous 
 
 sins) if he would use the assistance of conscience 
 for his need, and.hasten to confess his sin, and 
 show his sore to the physician who healeth and 
 reproacheth not, and converse with Him alone, 
 none knowing, and tell all exactly, he shall 
 soon amend his folly. For confession of sins is 
 the effacing of offences.” For numerous other 
 examples compare Daille (iii. 14, iv. 25), Hooker 
 (vi. c. iv. 16), note on Tertull. de Poenit. in Ox¬ 
 ford Library of the Fathers, p. 401. 
 
 From the time of Chrysostom to the time of 
 the Greek Penitentials there is no material 
 evidence. Joannes Climacus (cited by Daille) 
 has a rule which points to the existence of con¬ 
 fession in the eastern monasteries of the 6th cen¬ 
 tury : a similar notice from Theodorus Studites, 
 
 •< ' 
 
 in his life of Plato, shows that the practice had 
 a greater hold on the monks of the 9th century. 
 
 It appears from the Penitentials that some 
 form of absolution was given in the east im¬ 
 mediately after confession, a piMctice of which 
 there is no trace for many centuries later in the 
 Latin church. Joannes Jrjunator orders that 
 immediately after the confession is over and the 
 priest has said tlie seven prayers of absolution. 
 i. e., absolution in the precatory form, he is to 
 raise the penitent from the ground and kiss him, 
 and exhort him thus—“ behold by the mercy oi 
 God who would have all men to be saved, you 
 have fled for refuge to penitence, and made a 
 confession, and been freed from all your former 
 wicked works, do not therefore corrupt yourselt 
 a second time, &c, &c.after this the j^enitence 
 is imposed, in the contemporary Penitential ot 
 Joannes Monachus the form of absolution directly 
 after confession is still stronger. “ May God 
 who for our sake became man, and bore the sins 
 of all the world, turn to your good all these 
 things which you, my brother, have confessed to 
 me. His unworthy minister, and free you trom 
 them all in this world, and receive you in the 
 world to come, and bring all to be saved, who is 
 blessed for ever.” But this absolution did not 
 entitle the penitent to Holy Communion, nor do 
 away with the necessity of subsequent penitence, 
 which often continued for years after this, and 
 at the end of it another and more formal and 
 perfect absolution was gi'anted. (Morin, de 
 Poenit. vi. 25.) On the practice of confession 
 among the sects which broke awav from the 
 Orthodox church, see Daniel (^Codex Lituryicus, 
 iv. p, 590). 
 
 iv. Confession before receiviny Holy Communion 
 may have been an occasional practice, but the pre¬ 
 sumption is very strong against its having been 
 a general one. Socrates (/f. E. v. 19), in his 
 account of the abolition of the office of the 
 Penitentiary, states that Nectarius was advised to 
 strike his name from the roll of ecclesiastical 
 officers, and allow each one henceforwai’d to 
 communicate as his own conscience should direct ; 
 a notice which seems to imply that in the time of 
 Nectarius, who was Chrysostom’s predecessor at 
 Constantinople, it had been the custom for the 
 people to consult with the Penitentiary before 
 presenting themselves to receive the eucharist. 
 But the passage is an isolated one ; it is supported 
 by no other authority ; and whatever value it 
 mav have, it is a two-edged testimony, for if it 
 proA'es that the custom prevailed at that time, 
 it also proves that after that time it ceased. 
 On the other hand there is this class of indirect 
 evidence, that no such preparation was generally 
 enforced. Eusebius (//. E. vi. 43). relates that 
 during the episcopate of Cornelius at Lome, 
 1050 widows and destitute people received alms 
 from the church ; the Roman church must 
 therefore at that time have consisted of many 
 thousands, to minister to whom were the bishop 
 himself and forty-six presbyters; and when the 
 frequency with which the faithful communicated 
 even at the latter half of the 3rd century, is 
 borne in mind, it would seem to be almost 
 physically impossible that each one should make 
 an individual confession before communicating. 
 Similar evidence is furnished from the ancient 
 liturgies, in which special directions are given 
 to the deacon to warn to depart from the church 
 the catechumens, penitents, and others who wei'e 
 not allowed to communicate, but no hint is 
 
EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 EXOMOLOGESIS 
 
 649 
 
 given that those who had failed to confess were 
 to be excluded. Stronger evidence is su})j)lied by 
 the absence of any mention of confession among 
 the preparations required for a worthy reception 
 of the sacrament. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
 !. 1, p. 318, Potter) seems to imply that some 
 ministers judged who were or were not worthy 
 [Communion, Holy, p. 413], though he himseif 
 thought the individual conscience the best guide. 
 tJhrysostom (//ow. 27 in Gen. p. 268, ed. Bened.) 
 similarly leaves each one to judge of his fitness, 
 “ If we do this [reconcile ourselves with the bre¬ 
 thren], we shall be able with a pui’e conscience 
 to approach His holy and awful table, and to utter 
 boldly those words joined to our prayers—the 
 initiated know what 1 mean ; wherefore I leave 
 to everyone’s conscience how, fulfilling that com¬ 
 mand, we may at that fearful moment utter 
 these things with boldness.” Augustine also 
 tells his hearers that their own conscience, and 
 that alone, must determine their fitness (Serm. 
 46 de Verb. Dom.), “ considering your several 
 degrees, and adhering to what you have professed, 
 approach ye to the flesh of the Lord, approach 
 ye to the blood of the Lord ; whoso proveth him¬ 
 self not to be such, let him not approach.” The 
 second council of Chalons (2 Cone. Cabil. c. 46), 
 gives detailed directions on the manner and order 
 of receiving, but no word about confession—an 
 omission which bears so much the more strongly 
 upon the question, because private confession 
 had undoubtedly begun to take the place of 
 penitential confession in the 9th century. 
 
 V. At the hour of death. — The evidence on 
 this head, still more than on the preceding, is 
 negative. If confession immediately before death 
 had been customary, some notice of it would 
 have found a place in the narratives of the last 
 hours of the saints and fathers of the early 
 church. But no such records appear. Cyprian 
 in three of his epistles (J^p. 18-20, Oxf. ed.), 
 allows the confession of the lapsed to be received 
 on their deathbed preparatory to imposition of 
 hands; but this was only to meet the emergency 
 of sudden illness overtaking penitents ; it was 
 no part of a systematic practice. Athanasius in 
 his account of the death of Anthony (in Vit. Ant. 
 Eremit. fin.), has no allusion to a previous con¬ 
 fession. Equally silent is Gregory Nazianzen 
 (Orat. 21), on the death of Athanasius; and 
 (Orat. 19), on the death of his own father, 
 Gregory bishop of Nazianzum; and (Orat. 20), 
 in the eulogy which he delivered at the tomb of 
 Basil. Gregory Nyssen (de Vit. Greg. Thaumat.') 
 has no account of the deathbed confession of 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus : nor has Ambrose (de 
 Obit. Theod.) of that of Theodosius. Augustine 
 (Confess, ix. 10, 11), records the last hours of his 
 mother, but he records no last confession; his 
 own last hours which Possidius (de Vit. Aug. 
 c. 31) has described, Avere spent in penitence, 
 but the only confe.ssion made was to God, “ He was 
 wont to say to us that even proved Christians, 
 whether clergy or laity, should not depart from 
 life without a full and fitting penitence, and this 
 he carried out in his last illness. For he had the 
 penitential psalms copied out and arranged against 
 the wall in sets of four, and read tnem as he lay 
 in bed, all through his sickness, and freely and 
 bitterly wept. And he begged that he might 
 not be interrupted, and that we would not go into 
 his room except when his physicians came, or he 
 
 needed food. And all that time we neither read 
 nor spoke to him.” Bede, narrating (Eccl. Jlis. 
 iv. 3), the death of bishop Ceadde, and (ib. iv. 23), 
 the abbess Hilda, and (Cuth. ] it. c. 39) Cuthbert, 
 states that each received the Holy Communion 
 at the last, but not that it was preceded by con¬ 
 fession. Similar is Eginhard’s account ( Vit. Car. 
 Mag.), of the death of Charles the Great (see 
 Daille' iv. 3, where the evidence is drawn out 
 in detail). 
 
 vi. 2\me and Manner. —The time of public con¬ 
 fession was originally whenever the penitent lelt 
 moved to acknowledge his sin before the church ; 
 afterwards, in common with the whole course of 
 discipline, the time was restricted to certain 
 seasons [Penitence]. Private confession not 
 being part of the recognized order of the church, 
 had necessarily no time assigned to it. The 
 capitulary of Theodulph (c. 36) indeed orders 
 confessions to be made the week before Lent, 
 but this is an excejdional instance. There is 
 an example of a confession made in writing by 
 Potamius, archbishop of Braga to the 10th 
 council of Toledo, a.d. 656, charging himself 
 with misdemeanours. The confession was entirely 
 spontaneous, for the council having no suspicion 
 of his guilt could not at fii-st believe him ; but on 
 his reaffirming the fact, he was deposed and 
 subjected to penitence for the remainder of his 
 life ; allowed, however, out of compassion to retain 
 his title, his successor signing himself bishop and 
 metropolitan. Robert, bishop of the Cenomani 
 (Le Mans), also made a written confession, but 
 the council to which it was made absolved him 
 (Morin, de Poenit. ii. 2 ; v. 10). 
 
 It appears from the Greek Penitentials that con¬ 
 fession was made sitting ; the penitent kneeling 
 only twice while making his confession, at the 
 beginning, when the priest asked the Holy 
 Spirit’s aid to move the man to disburden his soul 
 completely, and at the end, when a prayer was 
 offered that he might obtain grace to perform his 
 sentence conscientiously. The origin of this 
 custom was the great length to which the form 
 and process of confessing extended. The practice 
 has since continued in the Greek church, for both 
 priest and penitent to sit (Martene de Bit. i. 3 ; 
 Daniel Codex Ltturg. iv. p. 588). The Penitential 
 of Joannes Jejunator gives the following instruc¬ 
 tions on the order and manner of confessing; 
 “he who comes to confess ought to make three 
 inclinations of the body as he approaches the 
 sacred altar, and say three times ‘I confess to 
 thee 0 Father, Lord God of heaven and earth, 
 whatever is in the secret places of my heart.’ 
 And after he has said this he should raise himself 
 and stand erect; and he who receives his con¬ 
 fession should question him with a cheerful 
 countenance, which he who confesses should also 
 if possible present, and kiss his hand, esj)eciallv 
 if he sees the penitent to be depre.ssed by the 
 severity of his sorrow and shame, and after that 
 he should say to him in a cheerful and sentle 
 voice ” ... . and then follow 95 questions, and 
 the priest orders the penitent, if not a woman, to 
 uncover his head even though he wear a crown: 
 he then prays with him : after that he raises 
 him and bids him recover his head, and sits with 
 him, and asks him what penance he can bear. 
 The Penitential of Joannes Monachus directs 
 that the priest should invite the penitent into a 
 church or some other retired spot, with a cheer- 
 
650 
 
 EXONARTHEX 
 
 EXORCISM 
 
 fill countenance, as though he were inviting him i 
 to some magnificent feast, and exliort him to 
 make a confession of his sins to him : the priest 
 should then recite with him the C9th Psalm, and 
 the Trisagion, and bid him uncover his head, and 
 neither should sit down before the priest has 
 minutely investigated all that is in his heart. 
 The penitent should afterwards pi'ostrate himself 
 on the earth and lie there, while the ])riest prays 
 for him : the Jndest is then to raise him and kiss 
 him, and lay his hand upon his neck and comfort 
 him, after that they are to sit together. Alcuin, 
 or the author of l)e Dioinis oj^ciis, orders the 
 penitent coming to confess to bow humbly to the 
 priest, who is then on his own behalf to say 
 “ Lord be merciful to me a sinner,” and after¬ 
 wards to order the penitent to sit opposite to him, 
 and speak to him about his sins; the penitent is 
 then to rehearse the articles of his faith, and 
 afterwards kneel and raise his hands, and implore 
 the priest to intercede with God for all the sins 
 which have been omitted in the confession; he is 
 then to prostrate himself on the ground, and the 
 priest is to sutler him to lie there awhile, and 
 afterwards raise him and impose a penance upon 
 him: afterwards the penitent is again to pros¬ 
 trate himself, and ask the priest to pray that he 
 may have grace given him to persevere in 
 performing his penance ; the priest then offers a 
 prayer, which is followed by six others, which 
 are found in all the Western Penitentials ; the 
 penitent then rises from the ground and the 
 priest from his seat, and they enter the church 
 together, and there conclude the penitential 
 service. Compare Morinus (tfe Poenit. iv. 
 18-19). 
 
 Literature .—Morinus (ele Poenit. lib. ii. et 
 passim) who is however hampered by the Roman 
 doctrine of obligatory confession, and contains far 
 fewer details on this than on the other stages of 
 discipline. What is to be said on the distinctively 
 Roman side of the controversy will be found in 
 Bellarmine (de Poenit. lib. iii.); and on the 
 Protestant side in fJssher {Answer to a Challemje, 
 s.v. Confession, Pond. 1625). The subject is 
 more thoroughly treated from the same side in 
 Daille (de Auric. Confess. Genev. 1661), a very 
 learned controversial work, and the source of 
 most of the subsequent Protestant writings, 
 w'hich deal with confession. Also Bingham (Anli']. 
 xviii. o), Marshall (Penitential Discipline)., and 
 a long note on confession, founded on Daille, 
 appended by the editor of the Oxf, Lib. of Fathers 
 to Tertullian (de Poenit-)- [G. M.] 
 
 EXONARTHEX ('E(ct>rdp0riO< Monastic 
 churches sometimes have (besides the ordinary 
 Nautiiex at the west end) an outer narthex, 
 where the monks may say those portions of their 
 devotions which boar the character of penitence 
 without being disturbed by the influx of the 
 general congregation. Cedrenus says that the 
 great church of St. Sophia at Constantinople had 
 four nartheces, but other authorities attribute 
 to it only two (Daniel, Code-v Lit- iv. 202). [C.] 
 
 EXORCISM (f6pK'j3(TlS, i^OpKKrfxhs, iirop- 
 Ki<r/j.hs, a.(popKio‘p.hs- adjuratio, incocatio) is the 
 employment of adjuration, and ospooially the 
 naming the name of Jesus Christ, with a view 
 to expel an evil spirit. “ Exorcismus est sermo 
 increpationis contra immundum spiritum in en- 
 ergumeais sive catechumenis factus, per quern 
 
 i ab illis diaboli nequissima virtus et inveterata 
 malitia vel excursio violeuta fugetur ” (Isidore, 
 iJe Div. Off. ii. 20). 
 
 1. To the early Christians the heathen world 
 presented itself as under the dominion of evil 
 spirits; everywhere they recognized the need of 
 driving these sjnrits from their ancient seats, 
 whether in the bodies and souls of men, in the 
 brute creation, or in inanimate objects. They saw 
 themselves surrounded by squadrons and gross 
 bands of daemonia, sujjernatural beings who 
 worked for evil under their several captains 
 (Origen, contra Celsum, bk. vii. p. 378, Spencer; 
 viii. p. 399); daemonia were the great officers 
 of the evil world, and might well have fasces 
 and toga praetexta (Tertullian, De Idolol. 18); 
 the gods of the nations were daemonia (ih. 20; 
 Grig. c. Cels. p. 378, quoting Ps. xcvi. 5); dae¬ 
 monia were by some devilish magic compelled to 
 inhabit the statues in aiv idol’s temple (Minucius 
 Felix, Oct. c. 27; Tert. u. s. 7 and 15; Grig, 
 c. Cels. vii. p. 374); the theatre was the very 
 special dominion of evil spirits (Tertul. de 
 Spectac. 26). Demons ruled the flight of birds, 
 the lots, the oracles; they troubled men’s minds, 
 disturbed their rest, crept with their subtle in¬ 
 fluence into bodies and caused disease, distorted 
 limbs; they compelled men to worship them, in 
 order that, fed with the savour of the oHerings, 
 they might release those- whom they had boun.-l 
 (Minucius, Oct. c. 27). And the members of 
 this great supernatural army were driven 
 from their seats by the mere word of a simple 
 Christian naming over them the name of Christ 
 (Acts xix. 13; Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. c. 8; 
 JAcd. w. Trppho, c. 85; Tertul. ad Scapmlam. 
 cc. 2 and 4, Ajjol. c. 23; Grig. c. Cels. iii. p. 133) 
 with no parade of incantations or magic formulae, 
 by mere prayers and adjurations (opKouTfaiu, 
 Grig. c. Cels. vii. p. 334), or by sentences of 
 Scripture (ib. p. 376); and that not only from 
 the bodies and souls of men, but from haunted 
 places and from the lower animals; for these too 
 fell under the tyranny of demons (1. c.). Fruin 
 such expressions as these it is evident that 
 exorcism was practised from a very early period 
 in the church. 
 
 In one form, indeed, exorcism was practised 
 by the Lord Himself and His disci})les, namely, 
 in the casting out of evil spirits from those who 
 were in a special sense “possessed” or “de¬ 
 moniac;” and such exorcism was continued for 
 some generations in the church [Dkmoxiac: 
 Exoucist]. But we are at present concerned 
 with tho more general form of oxorci.-'.m, by 
 which tho inherent evil demon was to be ex¬ 
 pelled from some creature or substance not 
 specially “possessed,” but belonging to the “evil 
 world.” 
 
 2. It Is not wonderful that when the minds of 
 men were full of the conception of an all-per¬ 
 vading army of evil spirits in the world around 
 them, they should ouLleavour to tVee from this 
 influence those whom they received from hea¬ 
 thenism into tho holy ground of the church. 
 Hence, at a comparatively early period, we rind 
 candidates for baptism not only renouncing for 
 themselves all allegiance to Satan and his powers, 
 but having pronounced over them a formula of 
 exorcism. 
 
 It is probable that in the first Instance the use 
 of exorcism was confined to tho case of those 
 
EXORCISM 
 
 EXORCISM 
 
 651 
 
 who entered the chui'ch from heathenism ; but 
 in the 4th century, if not earlier, it was clearly 
 applied to all, for it is constantly appealed to as 
 a conclusive proof that the church recognized 
 the presence of original sin even in infants. 
 Thus Optatus((;. Donutist. iv. 6, p. 75) insists that 
 no one, even though born of Christian parents, 
 can be destitute of a foul spirit, which must be 
 driv'en out of the man bel'ore he comes to the 
 font of salvation ; this is the work of exorcism, 
 by which the foul spirit is driven forth into the 
 wilderness. And ])ope Celestiuus (A(i Episcop. 
 Gall. c. 12) says that none came to baptism, 
 whether infants or “juvenes,” until the evil 
 spirit had been driven out of them by the ex¬ 
 orcisms and insufflations of the clerics. Compare 
 Augustine, Epist. 194, ad Sixtum, § 46 ; De Stjm- 
 bolo ad Catechu)ne7ios, i. 5 ; Conti-a Jidianum, i. 4. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem {Procatechesis, c. 9, p. 7 : 
 Catech. i. c. 5, p. 18) begs his catechumens to be 
 earnest in receiving their exorcisms (iTropKia- 
 uovs); whether tlu v had been insufflated or 
 exorcised (/c&v epDi'arjdr]^ Khv kiropKiaOr]s\ he 
 prays that they luay he blessed. And again 
 (c. lo) he says, “ w 'oa ye have entered before 
 the hour of the exoi isms, let every one speak 
 things that conduce to piety,” as if the exorcisms 
 began the catechetic offlce on each occasion. 
 These instructions ai-e evidently for all the 
 catechumens, and not for those only \vho had 
 come over from heathenism. And Chrysostom 
 (^Catech. 1. ad Initial, c. 2, p. 227) speaks of 
 the catechumens, after instruction, proceeding 
 to hear the words of those who exorcise (rwv 
 i^opKi^ovTwy ); to this exorcism they went bare¬ 
 footed and stripj)ed of their upper garments. 
 There can of course be no doubt that the great 
 body of those whom Chrysostom catechised were 
 born of Christian families. 
 
 3. Formulae of Exorcism. —Celsus, who wrote 
 against the Christians probably in the middle of 
 the 2nd century, sa 3 's that he had seen in the 
 possession of certain presbyters “ barbaric books 
 containing names of daemons and gibbeidsh (repa- 
 Tcias) ” (Orig. c. Celsum, vi. p. 302); and again 
 the same opponent says that, “ to name the de¬ 
 mons in the barbarous tongue {^ap^apeos) is 
 efficacious; to name them in Greek or Latin is 
 useless” (fb. viii. p. 402), Origen, in answer to 
 this, alleges that Latin, Greek, or other Chris¬ 
 tians in their prayers use the name of God in the 
 tongue in which they were born; but he does 
 not deny the superior efficacy of names or for¬ 
 mulae in one language over those in another. 
 On the contrary, he admits (i6. i. p, 19) the 
 mystic power of Hebrew names, and declares 
 that Egyptian, Persian, and other names have a 
 peculiar efflearw over certain demons; and else-* 
 where (/ri Matt. ser. 110, p. 232, ed. VV4rceb.) 
 oomplains that those who practised exorcisms 
 (adjurationibus) used improper books, ns, for 
 instance, books derived from Jewish sources. 
 From all this it seems clear that formulae of 
 exorcism which to a Roman seemed “ barbaric ’* 
 were in use in the 2nd century. That written 
 forms of exorcism wore used in the 4th is clear 
 from the 7tli of the Statuta Antiqua [Couo. 
 Garth. /!'.]. which orders the bishop to deliver 
 to an ExoitciST on ordination a book containing 
 such forms. 
 
 With regard to the form of exmcism, we find 
 iu ancient authovities the following particulars. 
 
 VV« have already seen that to name the name 
 of Christ was regarded as being of the utmost 
 efficacy for the expulsion of evil spirits. The 
 passage of Justin Martyr (Jdial. c. 85; com))are 
 c. 30) which says that every spirit {batfj.6viov') 
 is conquered a-od subjected on being adjured by 
 the Name of the Sou of God and 7a-.st-born of 
 every creature. Who was born of the Virgin and 
 became Man cajiable of suffering (iradijTov), was 
 crucified under Pontius Pilate by your [the 
 Jewish] people, and died, and rose again from 
 the dead, and ascended into heaven,” renders it 
 probable that a recitation of the redeeming acts 
 of the Lord accompanied the na'ming of his name. 
 And the same thing seems to be indicated by the 
 words of Origen (c. Cels. i. p. 7), who says that 
 demons were expelled by the name of Jesus, 
 “together with the recitation of the acts related 
 of Him ” (jueTCL rf/s d7ra776A.fas Twr irepl aurhu 
 lo'Topiuv'). See Probst, p. 49. 
 
 The words of Tertullian again (^Apol. 23), that 
 the power of Christians over evil spirits derives 
 its force from naming Christ, “ and from the 
 making mention of those ]junishments which 
 await them from God through Jesus Christ the 
 judge,” make it probable that the awful punish¬ 
 ment which was to overtake the evil ones was 
 spoken of in the formula of exorcism. So Ter¬ 
 tullian : “representatione ignis illius” (^Apol. 23). 
 And if in another passage—“ Satanas . . . quern 
 nos dicimus malitiae angelum ”... (^De Testim. 
 Animae, c. 3)—we are to take “ dicimus ” in a 
 ritual sense, it would apjiear that the exorcists 
 of Tertullian’s time cursed and reviled Satan. 
 
 That prayer was added to the exorcism proper 
 we know from the testimony of Minucius Felix 
 (^Octav. c. 27, §5). 
 
 The actions which formed part of the rite of 
 exorcism were touching and breathing on the 
 afflicted, and signing them with the cross. 
 
 As to the fii'st, Tertullian tells us {A^l. 2.3), 
 that the evil spirits depart unwillingly from the 
 bodies of men at the touch and on-breathing of 
 Christians (de contactu deque afilatu nostro). 
 ^'incentius of Thibari (^Sententiae Episcoportim, 
 No. 37, in Cyjudan’s U’or/is), contending that 
 heretics require baptism at lea.st as much as 
 heathens, distinctly refers to the imj)osition of 
 hands in exorcism, quoting (incorrectly) Mark 
 xvi. 17, 18. So Origen {on Jo hua, Horn. 24, c. 1) 
 speaks of the imposition of the hands of the exor¬ 
 cists which evil spirits could not resist. Simi¬ 
 larly the Arabic canons of Hij)polytus {Can. 19, 
 § 6, and Can. 29, quoted by Probst, p. 50). The 
 same canon enjoins the exorcist, after the adju¬ 
 rations, to “sign” (no doubt with the cross) the 
 breast, forehead, ears, and mouth. And at an 
 even earlier date, when Justin {iJial. o. 131) 
 speaks of the outstretched arms of Moses ns a 
 type of Christ, and then immedlatel)' atlor of 
 the power of Christ cracifed over evil sj)irits, it 
 Is not Improbable that he alludes to the use of 
 the sign of the cross. So when we read (Origen 
 on Exodus, Horn. 6, §8) how the demons tremble 
 before the cross which they see on Christians, 
 we may well believe that the reference is to the 
 use of the cross in exorcism. Lactantius {l>iv. 
 Inst. iv. 27) di.stinctly mentions the use of the 
 sign of the cross (signum passionis) for the 
 expulsion of evil spirits. The first council of 
 Constantinople (c. 7) describes the course of 
 proceeding with those heretics who were to be 
 
652 
 
 EXORCISM 
 
 EXORCISM 
 
 received as non-Christians (is "EWtji/os) as 
 follows: “ the first day we make them Christians; 
 the second, catechumens; then the third we 
 exorcise them, after breathing thrice upon the 
 face and ears, and so we catechise them, and 
 cause them to stay in the church and hear the 
 Scriptures; and then we baptize them.” 
 
 The ceremony took place in the church. 
 
 “ Shameless is he,” says Pseudo-Cyprian (^De 
 Sj ectac. c. 4), ‘-‘who exorcises in a church de¬ 
 mons whose delights he favours in a theatre.” 
 During the exorcism the jiatient lay prostrate on 
 the ground (Origen on Mutt. Horn. 13, § 7). 
 
 Most of the characteristics of the form of 
 exorcism which we have traced in ancient times 
 are found in existing rituals. For instance, in 
 the ancient Roman form of receiving a heathen 
 as a catechumen (Daniel, Codex Lit. i. 171), 
 after the admonition to renounce the devil and 
 believe in the Holy Trinity, the priest “exsufflat 
 ab eo saevam maligni spiritus potestatem dicens— 
 ‘Exi, immuude sjiiritus, et da locum Spiritui 
 Sancto Paraclito.’ ” Then he signs him with 
 the cross on the forehead and breast. At the 
 seventh scrutiny [Scrutixicm], which took 
 place on Easter Eve, after the recitation of the 
 Creed by the candidates for baptism, the priest 
 lays his hand on the head of each severally, 
 saying—‘‘ Xec te latent, Satanas, imminei’e tibi 
 tormeuta, imminere tibi diem judicii, diem sup- I 
 
 plicii, diem qui venturus est velut clibanus 
 ardens, in quo tibi atque universis angelis tuis 
 aeternus veniet interitus. Proinde, damnate, da 
 honorem Deo vivo et vero: da honorem Jesu 
 Christo filio ejus et Spiritui Sancto, in cujus no¬ 
 mine atque virtute praecipio tibi ut exeas et 
 recedas ab hoc famulo Dei, quern hodie Dominus 
 Deus noster Jesus Christ us ad suam sanctam 
 gratiam et beuedictionem fontemque baptismatis 
 vocare dignatus est, ut fiat ejus templum per 
 aquam regenerationis in remissionem omnium 
 peccatorum: in nomine Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi, qui venturus est judicare vivos et mor- 
 tuos et saeculum per ignem ” (Daniel, u.s. 177). 
 Then follows the epheta [Ears, touching of], 
 and the anointing on the breast and between the 
 shoulders with holy oil. 
 
 In the Vetus Missale Gallkanum, published by 
 Thomasius and reprinted by Mabillon {Lit. Gail. 
 bk. iii. p. 338) the essential part of the form of 
 exorcism is as follows: “ Aggredior te, immun- 
 dissime damnate spiritus . , . Te, invocato Do¬ 
 mini nostri Jesu Christi nomine, . . . adjuramuf 
 per ejusdem majestatem adque virtutem, pas- 
 sionem ac resurrectionem, adventum adque judi¬ 
 cium ; ut in quacumque parte membrorum 
 latitas propria te confessione manifestos, exagi- 
 tatusque spiritalibus llagris invisibilibusque 
 tormentis vas quod occupasse aestimas fugias 
 expiatumque post habitationem tuam Domino 
 
 dei’eliuquas . . . Abscede, abscede quocunque es, 
 et corpora Deo dicata ne repetas. Interdicta smt 
 tibi ista in perpetuo. In nomine Patris et Filii 
 et Spiritus Saucti, et in gloria dominicae pas- 
 sionis, cujus cruore salvantur, cujus adventum 
 expectant, judicium confitentur. PerDomiuum.” 
 
 The Gelasiau Sacramentani (i. 33), in the 
 Exorcismi super Eicetoi-,^ gives the following 
 form. The acolytes, laying their hands on the 
 candidate, after praving God to send forth His 
 angel to keep them, proceeds : “ Ergo, maledicte 
 diabole. reccgnosce sententiam tuam, et da 
 honorem Deo vivo et vero, et . . . Jesu Christo 
 Filio ejus et Spiritui Sancto; et recede ab his 
 famulis Dei; quia istos sibi Deus . . . vocare dig¬ 
 natus est; per hoc signum sanctae crucis, fron- 
 tibus eorum quod nos damns, tu, maledicte 
 diabole, nunquam audeas violare. . . . Audi, 
 maledicte Satanas, adjuratus per nomen aeterni 
 Dei et Salvatoris nostri Filii Dei, cum tua victus j 
 iuvidia, tremens gemensque discede.” 
 
 And again, the foul spirit is adjured to 
 depart, in the case of the males, in the name of 
 
 Him who walked the water and stretched out His 
 right hand to Peter; in the case of the females, 
 in the name of Him \vho gave sight to him that 
 was born blind, and raised Lazarus from his four 
 days’ death. 
 
 The form given from the Roman ritual by 
 Probst (p. 53) presents a remarkable parallelism 
 with the passage of Tertullian {Apol. c. 23) be¬ 
 fore referred to. 
 
 Greek forms similar in character to those 
 given above may be seen in Daniel’s Codex 
 Liturg. iv. 493 f. 
 
 4. Representation of Exorcism. —Paciaudi (De 
 Christianorum Balneis, pp. 136 tf., 143 ff.) describes 
 an urn or water-vessel found near Pisaura, which 
 he believes to be not of later date than the 7th 
 century. One of the bas-reliefs on this vessel 
 (see woodcut) evidently represents an exorcism. 
 The contortions of the person on the ground 
 seem to show that it w.as an exorcism of one 
 possessed. Now, if the vessel was a font for 
 holding the baptismal water, it would seem more 
 appropriate to repre.sent upon it the ordinary 
 pre-baptismal exorcism. It seems therefore 
 more probable that it was intended for the 
 
 » i. c, the accepted c;mdidates for biiptism. 
 
EXORCISTS 
 
 EXPOSING OF INFANTS 653 
 
 Atrium of a church, where it might be used to 
 contain Holy Watiir. 
 
 5. Besides human beings, various inanimate 
 objects were exorcised. Of these we may men¬ 
 tion especially water [Baptism, §§ 30, 42 : Font, 
 Benediction of : Holy Water], salt for use 
 in sacred offices [Salt, Benediction of], and 
 oil for various uses [CiiRiSM : Oil, Holy]. 
 
 (i\iarteiie, De Ritibus Antiquis; Probst, Sakra- 
 viente vnd Sahrainentalicn, Tubingen, 1872 ; 
 F. C. Baur, Kirchcnjeschickte der Drei ersten 
 Jahrhwiderte, c. 6.) [0.] 
 
 EXORCISTS. Exorcists are only once men¬ 
 tioned in the New Testament (Acts xix. 13), and 
 then without any reference to the ])ower given 
 to Christians to cast out devils. [See Dict. of 
 Bible.] In the early days of the church, it 
 appears to have been considered that the power 
 of exorcising evil spirits was a special gift of 
 God to certain persons, who are therefore called 
 exorcists. In the Apostolic Constitutions 
 (viii. c. 26), it is said that an exorcist is not 
 ordained, because the power of exorcising is a 
 free gift of the grace of God, through Christ, 
 and that whoever has received this gift will be 
 made manifest in the exercise of it. It is added 
 that if expedient an exorcist may be ordained 
 bishop, priest, or deacon. Exorcists are not 
 named among those who received ecclesiastical 
 stipends, nor are they mentioned in the Aqjostolic 
 Canons, though probably their office is alluded to 
 in the direction that a Gentile convert who has 
 an evil spirit may not be received into the 
 church till he has been purified (KaOapiadds, 
 Can. 70). Thomassin ( Vet. et A'ov. Eccl. Discip. 
 \. 2, c. 30, § 1, 8), thinks that exorcists were 
 either priests or deacons. So Eusebius makes 
 mention of one Romanus, as deacon and exorcist 
 in the church of Caesarea in Palestine (^De 
 Martyr. Palest, c. 2). 
 
 Tertullian speaks as if all Christians were 
 exorcists, driving away evil spirits by the 
 exorcisms of their prayers. Thus (^De. Idol. c. 11), 
 he forbids Christians to hax'e anything to do 
 with the sale of things used for the purposes of 
 idolatry, asking with what consistency they 
 could exorcise their own inmates, to whom 
 they had offered their houses as a shrine 
 (cellariam); and in another place (^De Cor. Mil. 
 c. 11), uses as an argument against Christians 
 entering the military service, that they might be 
 called u{)on to guard the heathen temples, so as 
 to defend those by night whom by their exor¬ 
 cisms they had put to flight during the day. 
 
 But it is evident that in later times they were 
 reckoned among the minor orders of clergy. 
 Cyprian {Ep. 69, May. Eil.), speaks of exorcists 
 as casting out devils by man’s word and God’s 
 power, and in his epistle to Firmilian {E^x 75), 
 says that one of the exorcists, inspired by the 
 grace of God, cast out a certain evil spirit who 
 had made pretensions to sanctity. Cornelius in 
 his epistk- (Euseb. 11. E. i. c. 43) names forty- 
 two exorcists among the clergy of the church 
 of Rome. Epiphanius (^Expos. Fid. c. 21), men¬ 
 tions them among the clergy, ranking them 
 with* the hermeneutae, immediately after the 
 deaconesses. Paulinus of Nola (De S. Felic. Natal. 
 carm. 4), speaks of St. Felix as having been 
 promoted from the order of lectors to the oilice 
 of exorcist. The council of Eaodicea (c. 24), 
 
 mentions them among the minor clergy, placing 
 them between the singers and the doorkeejiers, 
 and, in another canon (c. 26), forbids anv to 
 exorcise either in church or in private houses, 
 who had not been ajipointed to the otlice by the 
 bishops. The council of Antioch (c. 10), places 
 them after the subdeacons, among the clergv 
 who might be appointed by the chore])iscopi. 
 The 4th council of Carthage (c. 7), provides an 
 office for the ordination of an exorcist. He was 
 to receive from the hands of the bishop a book, 
 in which were written forms of exorcism, with 
 the bidding, “ Take and commit to memory', and 
 receive power to lay hands on energumens 
 whether baptized or catechumens.” The same 
 council also provided that exorcists might lay 
 hands on an energumen at any time (c. 90), and 
 (c. 92) gave it into their charge to jirovide the 
 energumens with their daily food while remaining 
 in the church. [Demoniacs.] 
 
 The names of four exorcists, designating them- 
 seh'es by' no other titles, are found among the 
 signataries of the first council of Arles (Routh’s 
 lielliq. Sac. iv. p. 312). 
 
 There seems little reason for connecting the 
 exorcists with the form of exorcism that was 
 used in the case of all catechumens. Their work, 
 as expressly allotted to them by the 4th council 
 of Carthage (c. 7), lay' among all energumens, 
 whether baptized or not. [Ifi 0.] 
 
 EXPECTATION WEEK (Hehdomada Ex- 
 pectationis'), the week jireceding Whitsunday, 
 because in that week the aj)ostles uaited. for the 
 Comforter from on high, which the Lord had 
 promised at His Ascension. (Ducange, s. v. Heb- 
 dom ida.) [C.] 
 
 EXPEDITUS, martyr in Armenia with five 
 others; commemorated April 19 (Mart. Rem. 
 Vet., Ilieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EXPOSING OF INFANTS [compare 
 Foundlings]. The frequency of the exposi¬ 
 tion of infants among the ancient heathens is 
 a fact to which both the mythology and the 
 history of Greece and Rome bear frequent 
 witness. Among the early Christian writers 
 we find exposition, together with actual in¬ 
 fanticide,- constantly' cast in the teeth of their 
 Pagan oi)ponents. “I see you,” writes IMinucius 
 Felix, “ now casting forth the sons whom ve . 
 have begotten to the wild beasts and to the 
 fowls of the air” (Octavius, c. 30, § 2; 31, 
 
 § 4). Lactantius (bk. vi. c. 20) inveighs against 
 the false pity of those who expose infants. 
 Justin, Tertullian, Augustine and others might 
 be quoted to much the .same effect. 
 
 A law of Alexander Severus, wliich has been 
 retained in Justinian’s Code (bk. viii. t. lii., 1. i.; 
 A.D. 225), allowed the recovering of an infant 
 exposed against the will or without the know¬ 
 ledge of the owner or person entitled to the 
 services of its mother, whether slave or adscrip- 
 titii, but only on condition of rej)ay'ing the fair 
 cost of its maintenance and training to a trade, 
 unless theft could be established—an enactment 
 obviously' framed only to secure the rights of 
 slave-owners, and not insjured by any considera¬ 
 tion of humanity for the infants them.selves. 
 There is something of a higher spirit in a law of 
 Diocletian and Rlaximin, a.d. 295 (('ode, bk. v., 
 t. iv., 1. 16), enacting that where a female infant 
 had been cast forth by her father and brought 
 
654 EXPOSING OF INFANTS 
 
 EXPULSION FROM A ]\IONASTERY 
 
 up by another person, who sought to marry her 
 to his own son, the father was bound to consent 
 to the marriage, or in case of i-efusal (if we con¬ 
 strue the text aright), to pay for his daughter’s 
 maintenance. Constantine (a.d. 331), by a law 
 contained in the Theodosian Code (bk. v., t. vii., 
 1. 1), but not reproduced by Justinian, enacted 
 that whoever took up an infant cast forth from 
 its house by the will of a father or master, and 
 nourished it till it became strong, might retain 
 it in whatever condition he pleased, either as a 
 child or as a slave, without any fear of recoveiy 
 by those who have voluntarily cast out their 
 new-born slaves or children. The growth of 
 Christian humanity is shown in a constitution of 
 Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, adopted by 
 Justinian (Code, bk. viii., t. Hi., 1. 2; A.D. 374), 
 which absolutely forbade masters or patrons to 
 recover infants exposed by themselves, if charit¬ 
 ably saved by others, and laid down as a duty 
 that everv one must nourish his own offspring. 
 A constitution of Honorius and Theodosius, in 
 the Theodosian Code (a.d. 412), repeated the 
 prohibition, observing that “ none can call one 
 his own whom he contemned, while perishing,” 
 but required a bishop’s signature by way of 
 atte.station of the facts (bk. v., t. vii., 1. 2). 
 
 The law last referred to may seem in some 
 degree to explain a canon of the council or synod 
 of Vaison, a.d. 442. There is a universal com¬ 
 plaint, it says, on the subject of the exposition 
 of infants, who are cast forth not to the mercy 
 of others, but to the dogs, whilst the fear of 
 lawsuits deters others from saving them. This 
 therefore is to be observed, that according to the 
 statutes of the princes the church be taken to 
 witness; from the altar on the Lord’s day the 
 minister is to announce that the church knows 
 an exposed infant to have been taken up, in 
 order that within ten days any person may 
 acknowledge and receive it back; and any who 
 after the ten days may bring any claim or ac¬ 
 cusation is to be dealt with by the church as a 
 manslayer (cc. 9, 10). A canon almost to the 
 same effect, but in clearer language, was enacted 
 by the slightly later 2nd council of Arles, a.d. 
 452, indicating that which serves to explain 
 both the law of Honorius and the two canons 
 just referred to, viz., that it was the practice to 
 -expose infants “before the church” (c. 51). 
 The council of Agde, in 506, simply confirmed 
 former enactments. 
 
 In the East, the full claims of Chi'istian 
 humanity were at last admitted by Justinian, 
 as towards foundlings themselves, though with¬ 
 out sutficient consideration for parental duties. 
 He not only absolutely forbade the re-vindica¬ 
 tion of exposed infants under anv circumstances, 
 but also the treating of them, by those who 
 have taken charge of them, either as slaves, 
 freedmen, colord or adscriptitii, declaring such 
 children to be absolutely free (Code, bk. viii., 
 t. Hi., 1. 3 ; A.D. 529; see also bk. i., t. iv., 
 1.* 24; .4.D. 530). This applied to infants cast 
 away either in churches, streets or any other 
 place, even though a plaintitf should give some 
 evidence of a right of ownership over them (bk. 
 viii., t. Hi., 1. 4). The 153rd Novel, however, 
 shows that it was still the practice in certain 
 districts (Thessalonica is .specified ) to expose 
 new-born infants in the churches, and after they 
 had been brought up to reclaim them as slaves'; 
 
 and it again expressly •‘nacts the freedom of 
 exposed infants. 
 
 The Wisigothic law contains .some rather re¬ 
 markable provi-sions as to the exposition of 
 infants (bk. iv., t. iv., cc. 1. 2). Where a person 
 has out of compassion taken up a foundling of 
 either sex, wherever exposed, and when it is 
 nourished up the parents acknowledge it, if it 
 be the child of a free j>er.son, let them either 
 give back a slave in its ])lace or pay the price of 
 one ; otherwise, let the foundling be redeemed 
 by the judge of the territory from the owner¬ 
 ship of the parents, and let these be subject to 
 perpetual exile. If they have not wherewithal 
 to pay, let him serve for the infant who cast it 
 forth, and let the latter remain in freedom, 
 whom the pity of strangers has in-eserved. If 
 indeed slaves of either sex have cast forth an 
 infant in fraud of its masters, when he has been 
 nourished up, let the nourisher receive one-third 
 of its value, the master swearing to or j)roving 
 his ignorance of the exposing. But if he knew 
 of it, let the foundling remain in the power of 
 him who nourished it. 
 
 In a collection of Irish canons, ascribed to the 
 end of the 7th century, is one “on infants cast 
 forth in the church,” which enacts, in very 
 uncouth and obscure Latin, that such an infant 
 shall be a slave to the church unless sent awav: 
 az.d that seven years’ penance is to be borne by 
 those who cast infants forth (bk. xH., c. 22). 
 
 A capitulary of uncertain date (supposed 
 about 744) enacts, in accordance with the canon 
 of the synod of Vaison before referred to, that 
 if an infant exposed before the church has been 
 taken iq) by the compassion of any one, such 
 person shall affix—probably on the church door 
 —a letter of notice (contestationis ponat . . 
 epistolam). If the infant be not acknowledged 
 within ten days, let the person who has taken it 
 up securely retain it (c. 1). 
 
 The “ Lex Romana,” supposed to represent the 
 law of the Roman population of Italy in Lom¬ 
 bard times, contains a less liberal provision on 
 this subject, founded on the earlier imperial 
 law. If a new-born infant has been cast out by 
 its parents either in the church or in the pre¬ 
 cincts (platea), and any one with the knowledge 
 of the father or mother and of the master has 
 taken it uj) and nourished it by his labour, it 
 shall remain in his power who took it up. And 
 if a person knew not its father or mother or 
 master, and wished nevertheless to take it up, 
 >3t him present the infant before the bishop 
 (pontificem) or the clerics who serve that 
 church, and receive from the hand of that 
 bishop and those clerks an epMola coUectionis, 
 and thenceforth, let him have power either to 
 give such infant liberty, or to retain it in per¬ 
 petual slaveiT (bk. v., t. vii.). [J. M. L.] 
 
 EXPULSION FROM A MONASTERY. 
 So soon as there began to be any sort of disci¬ 
 pline among the ascetics who dwelt together in 
 a community, expulsion inevitably became r- 
 necessarv part of it. In the so-called “ Rule of 
 Pachoraius,” expulsion (or a flogging) was the 
 penalty for insubordination, licentiousness, quar¬ 
 relling, covetousness, gluttony (cf. Cass. Inst. iv. 
 16). Menard, however, thinlqs that this was 
 only expulsion for a stated time (Bened. Anian. 
 Concord. Jiegg. xxxi. 5). By the Begula Oricntalii 
 
FACITEKGIUM 
 
 EXSEGRATIO 
 
 655 
 
 (c. 35) obstinate offenders are to be expelled. 
 Benedict, with characteristic prudence, prescribed 
 expulsion for contumacy c. 71), on the 
 
 principle that the gangrened limb must be lopped 
 off, lest the rest of the body should be infected 
 with the poison (ib. c. 28), while with charac¬ 
 teristic gentleness he allowed such offenders to 
 be re-admitted, if penitent, so often as thrice, on 
 condition of their taking the lowest place among j 
 the brethren (/6. c. 29). Some commentators, 
 however, take this permission as not extending 
 to the case of a monk expelled for such vices 
 as could hardly fail to corrupt the community 
 (Mart. Beg. Comm. loc. cit.). The Benedictine 
 reformers generally made expulsion more com¬ 
 mon and readmission more dilHcult. Fructuosus ^ 
 orders all incorrigible oU'enders to be expelled 
 {Beg. cc. 8, 18); and the Begula Ctijusdam, still 
 more severe, enacts expulsion for lying, forni¬ 
 cation, persistent murmuring, and even abusive 
 language (cc. 8, 8, 16, 18). At a later period, 
 under the stern discipline of Citeaux, a monk 
 was to be unfrocked and expelled, even for theft 
 above a certain value (Mart. Beg. Comm. c. 33). 
 Obviously the frequency or infrequency of such 
 a penalty as expulsion depended on the monas- 
 terv beins: regarded rather as a reformatory or 
 as a place of ideal perfection. [I. G. S.] 
 
 EXSEGRATIO. [Anathema : Desecra¬ 
 tion.] 
 
 EXSUPERANTIUS, deacon and martyr at 
 Spoletum, with Sabinus the bishop, and others, 
 under Maximian; commemorated Dec. 30 {Mart. 
 Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EXSUPERIA, martyr at Rome with Simpro- 
 nius and others; commemorated July 26 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EX.8UPERIUS. ( 1 ) One of the Theban legion, 
 martyr at Sedunum in Belgic Gaul (the Valais), 
 under Maximian ; commemorated Sept. 22 {Mart. 
 Bom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 2 ) Bishop and confessor at Toulouse; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 28 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 3 ) Martyr at Vienna with Severus and Feli- 
 
 cianus; commemorated Nov. 19 {Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuanli). [W. F. G.] 
 
 EXTRExME UNCTION. [Sice, Visita¬ 
 tion OF THE: Unction.] 
 
 EX VOTO. [Votive Offerings.] 
 
 EYES, TOUCHING OF. 1. The fir.st 
 council of Constantinople (a.d. 381) laid it down 
 (c. 7) that Arians and certain other heretics 
 were to be received into the church, without re- 
 baptism, on renouncing their heresy and being 
 crossed or anointed with holy unguent {/xupcf}) 
 on tile forehead, eyes, &c. So in the form of j 
 baptism given by Daniel {Codex Lit. iv. 507) ] 
 from the Greek Euchologion, the priest after 
 baptism anoints the neophyte with holy unguent, 
 mak g the sign of the cross on forehead, eyes, 
 nostrils, mouth, ears, breast, hands, and feet, 
 saying, “ the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
 Amen.'' Compare Martene, De Bit. Ant. I. i. 17, 
 Old. 24, 25. 
 
 2. In extreme unction, the eyes are anointed 
 with holy oil. Thus, in the Katold MS. of the 
 Gregorian Sacramejitarg (p. 549, ed. Menard), tlie 
 priest is directed to anoint the eye.s, with the 
 words: “ Ungo oculos tuos de oleo sanctificato, ' 
 
 lit quicquid illicito visit deliquisti per hujus olei 
 unctionein expietur.” 
 
 3. It seems to have been the custom to touch 
 the eyes, as well as the other organs of sense 
 with the moisture remaining on the lips after com¬ 
 municating (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Myst. 
 V. 22 : see Communion, Holy, p. 413 ; Ears! 
 TOUCHING of). ■ rc.] 
 
 EZEKIEL, the prophet ; commemorated 
 April 10 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi); Miaziah 5 = March 31, and Hanile 27 = 
 July 21 {Cat. Ethiop.)', Sept. ^ {Cd. Armen.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 EZRA, the prophet; commemorated Jakatit 
 10 = Feb. 4, and Hamle 6 = June 30 {Cal. 
 Ethiop.), July 13 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 F 
 
 FABARIUS. The Cantores anciently fasted 
 the day before they were to sing divine offices, 
 but ate beans, as being supposed to benefit the 
 voice (Pliny, Nat. hist. xx. 6); whence thev 
 were called by the heathen Eabarii (Isidore, De 
 Dio. Off. ii. 12). [c.] 
 
 FABIANUS, the pope, martyr at Rome in 
 the time of Decius; commemorated Jan. 20 
 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Bedae, Hieron., Adonis, Usu- 
 
 [\V. F. G.] 
 
 FABIUS, martyr at Caesarea ; “ Passio ” 
 July 31 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FABRIGA EGCLESIAE. [Churches, 
 Maintenance of, p. 388.] 
 
 FACE, BRANDING IN THE. It was 
 enacted under Constantine {Code, lib. ix. tit. 47, 
 1. 17), that branding should not be in the face, 
 as disfiguring the heavenly beauty [Corporal 
 Punishments, p. 470]. [c.] 
 
 FACIPERGIUiM (also facietergium, facis- 
 iergium, facitergula; facialis, faciale). This, as 
 its name indicates, is a handkerchief for wipino" 
 the face (“ facitergium et manitergium, a ter- 
 gendo faciem vel manus vocatur.’’ Isidore, Etipn. 
 xix. 26). Mention of this is occasionally found 
 in various monastic rules. It is ajipointed as 
 part of the furniture of a monk’s couch in the 
 Rule of St. Isidore (c. 14; p. 127, part 2, in 
 Holstenius, Codex BegiUarum: ed. Paris, 1663). 
 See also Magistri Begula, cc. 17, 19, 81 {op. cit. 
 pp. 214, 216, 257). The last passage ordains 
 that there shall bo dealt out “singula facitero-ia 
 per decadam.” Gregory of Tours {Vitae Ba- 
 trmn, viii. 8; p. 1191, eel. Ruinart) .speaks of the 
 value set upon the “facitergium dependentibus 
 villis intextum, quo'd Sanctus [i.e. Nicetius Lucr- 
 dunensis] super caput in die obitus sui habuit.” 
 The facitergia used by nuns were at times em¬ 
 broidered (Caesarii Begula ad ]’irgines, c. 42; 
 Holstenius, part 3, p. 22). Again, Venantius 
 Fortunatus, in his life of St. Radegundis of 
 trance, describes her on one occasion as “circa 
 altare cum facistergio jacentem ])ulverem col- 
 ligons” (c. 2; /Vitro/.'ixxii. 653). One more 
 example may sullice, wliere the word, perhaps, 
 ajipears in the transitional state of its meaning: 
 “donata otiam particula sancti orarii, id est 
 
65G 
 
 FAITH 
 
 facialis” (Tli/pomnesticon de Anastasia Apocri- 
 siario, etc., in Anast. Bihlioth. Collectanea: Pa¬ 
 trol. cxxix. 685). For further c‘xamj)les, see 
 Ducange’s Glossariuin, s. vv. [R.S.] 
 
 FAITH. [SoiMiiA.] 
 
 FAITHFUL. The present article is in¬ 
 tended to give an account of the j)rincii)al names 
 a|)plied to Christians in early times, whether by 
 themselves or by others. 
 
 The names most common among Christians in 
 the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages seem to have 
 been Saints (ayioi), Elect (e/cAe/cTol), Brethren 
 (aSeA^oi), and Faithful (ttjo'toi), often followed 
 by the words, iv MrytroD Xpiarw. 
 
 The words iriarhs and Fidelis were also used 
 in a special sense to distinguish the baptized 
 Christian from the catechumen. Thus Augustine 
 (^Tract. in, Joan. 44, c. 9) says that if a man tells 
 us that he is a Christian, we have to ask further, 
 whether he is catechumen or “ fidelis.” Hence 
 such an inscription as CiiRiSTiAXA Fidelis (Le 
 Blant, Inscrijit. de la Gaule, i. 373) is not a mere 
 pleonasm. So the council of Elvira ((7. Elib. 
 c. 67) seems to distinguish between “fidelis” 
 and “ catechumena.” In the liturgies, the portion 
 of the office at which catechumens were not 
 allowed to be present was called Missa Fidelium, 
 and the Lord’s Prayer Fidelium Oratio. See 
 Suicer’s Thesaiu us, s.v. ni(rTds. Eusebius 
 Evang. i. 1) repudiates the charge that Chris¬ 
 tians were called ttkxtoI from their credulity. 
 
 Fidelis is a frequent epithet in inscriptions, 
 particularly in the case of young children, who 
 might otherwise be supposed to have died un- 
 baptized. Thus an inscidption given by Maran- 
 goni {Acta S. Victorini, 103) runs thus: me 
 REQVIESCrr IX PACE EILIPPUS 1| INFAS FIDELIS. 
 Similar inscriptions aiv given in the case of a 
 child who died at the age of a year and nine 
 months {fb. p. 109), and of another who died at 
 the age of five years and five months {Ib. p. 96). 
 Another may be seen in Cavedoni (Ant. Cimit. di 
 Chiusi, p. 33). On a marble at Florence (Gori, 
 Tnser. Ant. Etrur. iii. 314) it is said of a child of i 
 three years and three months, ITICTH ETEAET- 
 THCEN. In one case given by Marini {Frat. 
 Areal, p. 171), the inscription describes an 
 ancestress (major) begging baptism for a child at 
 the point of death: petivit ab ecclesia UT 
 FIDELIS DE SECVLO RECECISSET (i. e. recederet). 
 In another case (Oderico, Inscr. IVf. p. 267), one 
 of two brothers, who died at eight years old, 
 is described as NEOFItvs, while the brother, who 
 died at seven, is described as fidelis. And 
 again a guardian described as fidelis, erects a 
 monument to a nursling who was yet among 
 the “ audientes ” or catechumens: alvmxae 
 AVDIEXTI (Gori, u. s. i. 228). 
 
 Such inscriptions as VixiT IX PACE FIDELIS, 
 or REQVIESCIT FIDELIS IN PACE, are too common 
 to need particularizing (Martigny, Diet, des 
 Antiq. Chre't. s. v. Fidelis). 
 
 Other names given to Christians were perhaps 
 either (1) Designations of some peculiarity of their 
 practice or profession, rather than recognized 
 titles; more epithets than names; or (2) names 
 given them by the outside world, either in deri¬ 
 sion or by mistake. 
 
 1. Under the fii'st head may be classed (a) Te<r- 
 (ratc;, Jessaeans, a name which Epiphanius {Hacr. 
 29, n. 4) says may be derived from Jesus, or (as 
 
 FAITHFUL 
 
 seems far-fetched and improbable) from Jesse, 
 the father of David. Ejiiphanius (w. s.) considers 
 this name earlier than that of “ Christian.” 
 
 Another such name was (5) 'yvwa'TiKoi, applied 
 to Christians by Clement of Alexandria {Strom. 
 i. p. 294; ii. p. 383; vi. p. 665; vii. p. 748) as 
 having the true knowledge. Later we find 
 Athanasius (ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23) using 
 the term of the Ascetics of Egypt, and Socrates 
 {ibid.) tidls us that Evagrius Bonticus svrote a 
 book for the use of these Ascetics, called “The 
 Gnostic, or Buies for the Contemplative Life.” 
 
 (c) Qeo(p6poi, a name claimeil by Ignatius in 
 his interview with Trajan {Acta Ljn it. ap. Grabe, 
 Spicil. t. ii. p. 10), because he “ carried ilhrist in 
 his heart,” and seemingly conceded especially to 
 him, was commonly used of all Christians, as 
 Pearson {Vinl. [gnat. par. ii. c. 12, p. 397) 
 shows by quotations from many writers of the 
 2nd century. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, agreeing about the 
 meaning of the name, gives the varieties of it 
 Qeocpopcov and Qiocpopovfxfuos, and Eusebius (viii. 
 10) quotes a letter of Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, 
 to his flock, in which he calls the martyrs Xpia- 
 
 TO^SpOl. 
 
 {d) St. Ambrose {de obit. Valentin, t. iii. p. 12) 
 speaks of Christians as Christi, i.e. “anointed,” 
 and justifies his use of the title by reference to 
 Ps. cv. 15, “ nolite tangere Christos meos,” all 
 Christians receiving the unction of the* Holy 
 Spirit, and Jerome commenting on the passage 
 (Ps. civ. [cvxj), justifies it by the same refer¬ 
 ence. 
 
 {e) The name Ecclesiastici was used within 
 the Christian body (Bingham, i. 1, §8) to dis¬ 
 tinguish the clergy from the laity, and with a 
 modification of this meaning of the word Eusebius 
 (iv. 7) speaks of “ ecclesiastical writers;” and it 
 was also used of Christians generally in contrast 
 to those who did not belong to the e/c/cXrjo-i'a, as 
 Jew.s, infidels, and heretics. Bingham quotes 
 Eusebius (iv. 7, v. 27), and Cyril of Jerusalem 
 {Catech. 15, n. 4), as employing the word in this 
 sense, and Valesius (not. in Euseb. 1. ii. c. 25) 
 finds the same use of it in “ Origen, Epiphanius, 
 Jerome, and others” [Ecclesiasticus]. 
 
 {f) Bingham asserts that Christian.? were 
 called ot tov bSyparos, “They of the laith,” 
 giving as his authority for this statement the 
 rescript of Aurelian against Paul of Samosata, 
 quoted by Eusebius (vii. 30), in which the 
 bishops of Rome and of Italy are called iir'i- 
 (TKOTToi TOO dSy/aaros. 
 
 {g) Christians also called themselves Catholic 
 [see the word]; and (it) Pisciculi. alluding to the 
 mystic Fish [Baptism, p. 171 ; Fisii]. 
 
 It is to be observed, says Bingham (i. 1, §6) 
 that all these names express some relation to 
 God or to Christ, and that none of them were 
 taken from the names of men, as was the case 
 with the heresies and sects. He quotes Chry¬ 
 sostom {Horn. 33 in Act.), Epiphanius {f/acr. 42. 
 Marcionit., also Ilaer. 10.), Gregory Xazianzen 
 {Oral. 31, p. 506) and others as noticing the.se 
 opposite tendencies. The name ot Christian was 
 neglected by the heretics for the names of their 
 leaders, while the Christians thought it enough 
 without any other title derived from parents, 
 country, city, quality, or occupation; see the 
 case of‘ the deacon Sanctus martyred in the 
 reign of Antoninus, related by Eusebius (v. 1). 
 
FAITHFUL 
 
 FAITHFUL 
 
 657 
 
 II. Among (lie names given to Christians from ' 
 without (heir body arc probably to be reckoned | 
 
 (1) Xp^aroi, a name which would easily arise | 
 irom a misunderstanding or mispronunciation of 
 the name XpiffToi, and was naturally not refused 
 by Christians ; referred to by Justin Martyr 
 {Apol. i. 4), Lactantius (^Inst. iv. 7), Tertullian 
 (Apol. c. 3), and others. 
 
 (2) It was quite to be expected that they 
 would be called .lews by the heathen world, and 
 there is evidence of this. Bingham (i. I, § 10) 
 reiers to a passage in Dio’s Life of Domitian, in 
 which he speaks of the Christian martyr Ocilius ' 
 Glabrio (Baronius, an. 94, § 1), being put to 
 death for turning to the Jev:s' religion. 
 
 Again, Suetonius says (Claud, c. 26) that 
 Claudius “ expelled the Jews from Rome because 
 they made disturbances at the instigation of 
 Chrestus and Spartianus (in Caracal, c. i.) says 
 that Caracalla’s playfellow was a Jew, Caracalla, 
 according to Tertullian (ad Scapul. c. 4), having 
 been “ lacte Christiano educatus.” 
 
 (3) There remains to be considered the word 
 Christian, a name which differs from those 
 already spoken of in being traceable to a par¬ 
 ticular locality, and with great probability to a 
 particular year. Tiie reason why the name arose 
 when and where it did, is probably to be found 
 in the long stay—“ a whole year ”—(Acts xi. 
 26) made in Antioch by Paul and Barnabas after 
 their return from Tarsus, in the assembly of the 
 church there for the same time, and in the pub¬ 
 licity given to the teaching of Christ by frequent 
 addresses to the people. 
 
 The question whether the Christians assumed 
 the name themselves or received it from the 
 Jews, or from the Gentiles, can only be deter¬ 
 mined with an ajiproach to certainty. 
 
 (a) The only reason for thinking that the 
 Christians assumed this name is the language 
 of Acts xi. 26, \pT]ixaTi(Tai re 'wpwrop iv ’Avti- 
 oxeia Tovs padrjras Xpiariavovs, because XPV~ 
 paTi^w, when used of acquiring a name gener¬ 
 ally means to assume one; but on .the other 
 hand, both in the Acts and in the Epistles, 
 Christians speak of themselves as “ brethren,” 
 “ believers,” “ disciples,” “ saints,” and only in 
 three places in the N.T. is the word Christian 
 used (Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28 ; 1 Peter iv. 16), in 
 only one of which, and there doubtfully, is the 
 word used by Christians of themselves. 
 
 (&) Nor is it likely that the Jews would give 
 them a name which would virtually concede the 
 claim made by Christians, and so sti’enuously 
 denied by Jews. P’or “ Christ ” being the Greek 
 equivalent of “ Messiah,” to call the followers 
 of Christ “Christians” would be to acknowledge 
 Christ as the Messiah; nor would they have 
 used so sacred a name in derision even for the 
 sake of insulting a despised and hated sect. 
 When they wanted to designate them, they used 
 a name derived from a place they held in con¬ 
 tempt (John i. 46, vii. 41 ; Luke xiii. 2), and 
 called St. Paul “a ringleader of the sect of the 
 ‘ Nazarenes ’ ” (Acts xxiv. 5). 
 
 (c) But it is not unlikely that the Gentiles, 
 seeing the wide aim of this new community, its 
 readiness to admit all sorts of people, and even 
 to dispense with the rite of circumcision in its 
 converts, should have early come to distinguish 
 it from the sects of the Jews, with which they 
 very naturally at first confounded it, and so 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 should have attached to it a new name. And 
 this probability is increased when we remembej 
 that “.Christ” was the title of the head of the 
 new sect, represented his peculiar ofiice to them, 
 and was the name by which he was generally 
 known in their letters and conversation. It 
 would be adopted, of course, by the Gentiles 
 from them, as we know it was (Tacit. Ann. xv. 
 44), and in a city like Antioch, “notorious for 
 inventing names of derision, and for turning its 
 wit into channels of ridicule ” (cf. Procopius, 
 Bell. Bers. ii. 8, quoted by Conybeare and 
 Howson, vol. i. p. 130), the new society would 
 soon get its name. The form of tiie word indi¬ 
 cates its Roman origin (cf. Sullani, Pompeiani, 
 and later Othoniani and Vitelliani), and that it 
 was first used as a term of reproach may be 
 gathered from the use made of it by Tacitus in 
 the passage referred to above, “quos per flagitia 
 invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat.” The 
 great increase in the number of Gentile converts 
 would soon turn what was at first a nickname 
 into a title of honour, and the predominance of 
 Rome in the world naturally made the Roman 
 name what it has become, the universal one. It 
 is interesting to contrast with “ Christian ” the 
 name “Jesuit,” as unlike the other in its com¬ 
 paratively modern date and Greek form as in its 
 history and significance. 
 
 See Conybeare and Howson (vol. i. p. 129 ff.), 
 from whom this note on the word Christian is 
 derived. [E. C. H.] 
 
 HI. The following names were appellations of 
 scorn, or “nick-names,” given to Christians by 
 their enemies. 
 
 1. That they shoujd be called Atheists was 
 
 inevitable in an empire in which the vulgar at 
 least knew of no gods that could not be repre¬ 
 sented by art and man’s device. And Atheism 
 was in fact a common charge against them. See 
 Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christ, c. 3) and Justin 
 Martyr [ApA. I. c. 6). “ Down with the Athe¬ 
 
 ists ” (a?pe TOWS adiovs) was a mob-cry against 
 the Christians (Euseb. IL E. iv. 1-5, § 6). 
 
 2. From the time that Christians were first 
 recognised as a sect, they were contemj)tuously 
 called Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5; Epiphanius, 
 Haeres. 29, c. 1; Jerome on Isaiah XIjIX, ; 
 Prudentius, Peristeph. ii. 25). This no doubt at 
 first designated the suppo.sed origin of the Lord 
 and t’ne disciples from Nazareth ; but the variety 
 of ways in which the word is written (Na^iapTji/ol, 
 Na^apaToj, Xa^ojpaloi, Na^rjpaloi, Xa^ipaioi) 
 seems to show that in later times various senses 
 were attached to it. It was also, perhaps, some¬ 
 times used to designate a sect of Judaizing 
 Christians, rather than the whole body of the 
 church. 
 
 3. The name Galilaei was one which the phi¬ 
 losophic emperor Julian (EpiJt. 7) endeavoured 
 to fix upon the Christians (see Gregory Na- 
 zianz., Orat. iii. p. 81 ; Socrates, 11. E. iii. 
 12), meaning, no doubt, to exiuess the con¬ 
 tempt of a cultivated man for a sect which aro.se 
 in a despi.sed district of Palestine, among shep¬ 
 herds and fishermen. His last words were, ac¬ 
 cording to Theodoret (H. E. iii. 21). vfvlKrjKas, 
 FaXiXate, “Thou hast conquered, 0 Galilaean !” 
 Cyril of Alexandria (c. Jidian. iii. p. 39) sets 
 himself to show that the name “Galilaean,” if 
 it implied roughness and want of culture, was 
 
 1 no more applicable to Cliyistians than to Julian 
 
658 
 
 FALDESTOLIUM 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 and his friends (Gibbon’s Borne, ch. 23; iii. 162, 
 ed. Smith). 
 
 4. Graecuo, Graecuhis. It was probably with 
 reference to the falseness and want of principle 
 attributed to tlie Greeks, in the days of the em¬ 
 pire, that Christians came to be called “Gi'eeks,” 
 that is, impostors. The Christian in the streets 
 was saluted with the cry, 6 Tpainhs c-iriderris 
 (Jerome, Epiat. 10, ad Fiiran.). If his tunic was 
 not white, he was “impostor et Graecus”(/6. 
 
 Epist. 19, ad Marcell.). The recognising a Chris¬ 
 tian by the want of the “ tunica alba,” perhaps 
 imlicates a time when the Ai.n had become with 
 them almost wholly a ministerial dress. 
 
 5. Si/billists was an appellation given to Chris¬ 
 tians by Celsus (Origcn c. Cels. bk. v. p. 272, 
 
 Spencer). The early Christians did in fact pay 
 great respect to the Sib}lline books (Tertullian, 
 ad Nationes, ii. 12), and discovered in them clear 
 prophecies of Christ. Celsus accused them of sudden changes, except in those 
 
 and would better apply to a pulpit. Faldvitonum, 
 originally employed for any jiortable seat, be 
 came limited in ecclesiastical use to a low arm- 
 loss folding-chair, in which a bishop or mitred 
 abbot sat at the altar after his enthronisation, 
 or on other solemn occasions, offered himself to 
 the gaze of the people in his full official attire. 
 According to Macri (s. v.) it was also placed at the 
 epistle corner of the altar for the bishop, when 
 celebrating in a church in which he had no juris¬ 
 diction, or if a superior dignitary was present 
 (Macri, Ifierolex. s. v.; Ducange, s. v.; Augusti, 
 Hdbch. der Christ. Arch. iii. 556).* [E. Y.] 
 
 FALSE WITNESS, [Peiuury.] 
 
 FAIMILY. The influence of the Christian 
 religion upon the customs and habits of family 
 life was very considerable, even from the first": 
 although it did not aim at making anv abrupt or 
 
 things which 
 
 were necessarily sinful. 
 
 The great Christian doctrines which .so power¬ 
 fully afiect the feelings, hopes, and whole inner 
 life of those who heartily receive them, led at 
 once to the renunciation of idolatry in all its 
 forms, and of the exce.sses and licentiousnesses 
 then so common and so little thought of; and in¬ 
 culcated new principles of thought and action, 
 which operated more or less powerfullv in evcrv 
 called ovpavokaTpai, Coelicolae, sky-worship- j direction. But the ordinary usages of domestic 
 pers, seems somewhat doubtful; and the same ^ life, which were not directly connected with 
 may be said of Hijpsistarii. That they were ' the religious and moral obliquities of the old 
 called Siin-worshippers and Ass-icorshippers is * polytheism, were apparently left untouched bv 
 certain. [Asinarii ; Calumnies against Chris- j any positive interference or command. Chri.^- 
 ITANS.] 1 tiauity proved itself the salt of the earth bv 
 
 7. The miracles of the early church procured , gradually interpenetrating the surrounding ma.ss 
 Christians the reputation of being Magicians, of pagan civilisation, and not by shrinking from 
 [Magic.] Hence Suetonius (Xero, c. 16) calls * all contact with it. 
 
 Christians “ gens homiuum superstitionis male- The elevation of the female sex was one of the 
 ficae,” a set devoted to the black art. The stead- ^ most conspicuous of the indirect results which 
 fast endurance of torture was often thought * rapidly followed the reception of the new reli- 
 the effect of some charm. A.sclepiades (I’ru- ! gion. The position of women among the Jews, 
 dentius, Peristeph. xii. 868), ascribed to magic 
 the endurance of Romanus the martvr; and 
 
 having interpolated the^e books. 
 
 6. From peculiarities, or supposed peculiari¬ 
 ties, of their xvorship, they were called cross- 
 worshippers, crTavp6\aTpai, or Criicicolae, a re¬ 
 proach as old as the days of St. Paul, often 
 repeated (Tertul. Apol. 16 and Ad Xat. i. 7, 12), 
 and from which they were not slow to vindicate 
 themselves (Minucius Fel. Oct. 29). Whether 
 Christians in general, or a sect of them, were 
 
 St. Ambrose (Serm. 90, in Agnen) mentions 
 that the crowd shrieked against her, “Tolle 
 magam ! tolle maleficam ! ” 
 
 8. SeA'eral nick-names were criven bv the hea- 
 then to the Christians in consequence of their 
 inexplicable endurance of martyrdom. They 
 were ^loddyarot, as dying violent deaths, often. 
 
 ' and the manner in which Jesus had received them 
 as his disciples and friends, must have taught the 
 
 apostles, if they needed any such teaching, what 
 place women were entitled to hold in the social 
 economy of the church. And accordingly, 
 wherever Christ was proclaimed, women were 
 invited and welcomed into the Christian commu¬ 
 nities, and were admitted equally with men to all 
 Christian privileges. Hence in a Christian 
 
 as it Seemed, little better than suicides. They : family the wife and mother held an honourable 
 
 were Parabolani (-n-apa^oXaroi) and Desperati, 
 as freelv risking their lives. Thev were Sar- 
 mentitii, from the faggots (sarmenta) which con¬ 
 sumed them ; and Se^niaxii, from the stake 
 (semiaxis) to which they were bound. (Tertull. 
 Ajjof. 50). They were Cinerarii, from the re¬ 
 spect which they paid to the ashes of their 
 martyrs. 
 
 (Bingham’s Antiq. i. ii.; Augusti’s Handbuch 
 der Christl. Archdol. II. i.) [C.] 
 
 place; and the con jugal union, the source of all 
 other family relationships, being thus honoured, 
 ' communicated a happy influence throughout the 
 household. 
 
 I Another result, only less important than the 
 : foi’iner, was the amelioration, and, in the course 
 t,f time, the abolition of slavery. Apostolic 
 j Christianity did not endeavour to remove this 
 nefarious but inveterate evil by any direct or 
 ; violent denunciation, which, if successful, would 
 j have rudely upset the existing framework ot 
 
 FALDESTOLIUM, or FAI.DISTORIU^L society, and would have proved as ruinous to the 
 
 The first form of this word points to its true 
 etymology and signification. It is connected 
 with the German falden, “ to fold,” and itiihl, 
 “a chair,” and indicates a folding-chair, “sella 
 plicatilis,” answering to our modern “ camp- 
 stool” (Muratori, tom. iii. p. 646, not. 18). A 
 false etymology, often given, “ fandistolium 
 ciu.usi fandi locus” is at variance with its use. 
 
 slave, as it would have seemed to be unjust to 
 the master ; but it distinctly taught the equality 
 of all men in Christian privilege and religious 
 position ;—it taught most emphatically the duty 
 of caring for others;—it taught the master that 
 he had a Lord over him who was no respecter of 
 persons, and the slave that he was Christ’s 
 iVeedman. And thus slaverv in a Christian 
 
FAiNIILY 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 659 
 
 tamily was relieved from some of its most gall¬ 
 ing burdens. This ha]){)y change, however, it 
 must be remembered, depended entirely upon the 
 personal feeling and will of the master; for 
 slavery was not legally and publicly alleviated 
 to anv great extent, until the tin’e of Justinian, 
 who did much to promote its extinction, after 
 which it was gradually discontinued or changed 
 to serfdom (Milman, Hist. Christ, iii. 343, and 
 Latin Christ, i. 391 ; and Slavkky in this 
 work). In the mean time Christians in general 
 did not think it wrong to have bondmen in their 
 service (Clem. Alex. Paedag. iii. 12). 
 
 But besides particular results of this nature, 
 Christianity to some extent changed the general 
 habits of men, and tended to make them more 
 domestic ainl less public in their feelings and 
 pursuits. ^lore esjiecially, while Christians were 
 small communities separate and distinct from the 
 general mass of the poj)ulation, they f^lt it neces¬ 
 sary to withdraw themselves in some degree 
 from public aft'airs; they were less frequent in 
 their attendance on courts of law; they could 
 not, without scruples and repugnance, be present 
 at many of the ordinary amusements and popular 
 festivities, mixed up as they were with the 
 idolatry and some of the worst moral abomina¬ 
 tions of paganism. Thus they were thrown back 
 more upon the society of each other, and upon 
 their own family life. And although afterwards, 
 when the new religion became dominant, and 
 was at length the religion of the people, the 
 objections to public life greatly disappeared, the 
 family life with its attractions and its virtues 
 continued to maintain a wholesome influence, 
 which has indeed never since been lost. (See 
 Milman, Hist. Christ, iii. 134.) 
 
 But to look more closely at the family life of 
 Christianitv, it must be observed that the abne- 
 gat ion of idolatry caused a displacement of the 
 household and hearth gods—the Penates and 
 Lares of the Romans,—together with all family 
 rites which savoured of idol worship, and a sub¬ 
 stitution of Christian observances in their stead. 
 And as it seems to have been the custom of reli¬ 
 gious Romans to ofl’er their prayers the first 
 thing in the morning, in the Lararinm, or house¬ 
 hold shrine (Lampridius, Alex. Sever. 29. 31) ; 
 so family prayer, in which the difi'erent members 
 of a Christian household joined, appears to have 
 had its place from the beginning of the new 
 religion. Such united prayer seems to be alluded 
 to in the remark, “that your prayers be not 
 hindered ” (1 Pet. iii. 7). And Clement of 
 Alexandria, at the end of the second century, 
 testifies to the same thing when, commenting on 
 the words, “where two or three are gathered 
 together in my name,” he says that the three 
 mean a husband, a wite, and a child (^&vSpa, Kal 
 ywoTiKa, Ka\ t€kpou tovs rpus Stromat. 
 
 iii. 10). And the same author speaks expressly 
 of “prayer and reading of the Scrij)tures (eux'^ 
 Kal a.va.yvw(Tis) in Christian families (^Paedag. ii. 
 194). 
 
 it is evident from the words of Tertul .ian (ad 
 Uxorem, ii. 4) and subsequently of Cyprian [He 
 Lapsis, c. 26) that Christians were in the habit 
 of taking home portions of the eucharistic bread, 
 and eating a small piece of it every morning, as 
 an act of devotion [Bulogiae, p. 629]. 
 
 The practice also of making the sign of the 
 cross upon the forehead, to which at a later 
 
 period so much eflicacy ivas siq erstitiously 
 ascribed, had become before the beginning of the 
 third century a perpetually repeated ceremony 
 in Christian families, being u.sed “ on getting up 
 and going to bed, on putting on their clothes or 
 their shoes, on walking out or sitting down, at 
 table or at the bath in short in every act or 
 movement of the day (see Tertullian de Cor. Mil. 
 § 3). This little symbolical action may in the 
 early time# have been a useful memento to 
 Christians in the midst of so many things of a 
 contrary tendency, however much, like some 
 other practices once innocent and salutary, it 
 was subsequently used in the service of formalism 
 and error. And the same desire of being con¬ 
 stantly reminded of their Christian position led 
 them to adorn their goblets with the figure of a 
 shepherd carrying a lamb, and their seal-rings 
 with a dove, an anchor, and other similar 
 devices. (Neander, Hist. Christ, p. 399.) 
 
 Besides these there were other domestic 
 observances which from time to time interested 
 the piety as well as the natural all'ections of 
 Christian households, especially those which 
 were connected with the ba])tism of children, 
 mai’riages, and funerals, more particularly noticed 
 in separate articles [Baptesm, Children, Mar¬ 
 riage, Burial]. Christians cherished the me¬ 
 mory of departed relatives as those with whom 
 they trusted to be reunited in rest and glory, 
 and not unfrequently held family banquets over 
 their remains in a room provided for that pur¬ 
 pose [CellA Memoriae]. 
 
 But besides those festivals which were exclu¬ 
 sively Christian, there were some celebrations of 
 an older date, in which, as they were not mixed 
 up with any idolatrous rites, Christian families 
 might unite with their pagan neighbours, and 
 which they might retain for their own use. 
 Even Tertullian, w'ho was so strict in forbidding 
 all semblance of participation in idol worship, 
 saw no objection to Christians joining in the 
 domestic ceremony of “ putting on the toga 
 virilis,” which corresponded wdth our “coming 
 of age,” or to their being present at weddings, or 
 the “ naming of children ” (Nominalia or Dies 
 lustrici ; Tertul. de Idolol. 16). 
 
 As the facility of divorce was a primary prin¬ 
 ciple of corruption in Roman social and family 
 life ; so Christianity, having invested marriage 
 with a religious sanctity, and not allowing 
 divorcement under any circumstances, except 
 those mentioned by Christ himself, drew' more 
 closely together not only the husband and wife, 
 but all other members of the family. 
 
 The relationship between parents and children 
 was greatly influenced for good. The barbarous 
 practice of infanticide, which prevailed among 
 the Greeks and Romans, was immediately dis¬ 
 continued. Under the old Roman law parents 
 might at any time put their children to death, 
 or sell them as slaves ; but this .severity was at 
 once voluntarily softened in Christian families; 
 and the pow'er was afterwards taken aw'ay by 
 Christian emperors; who further directed that 
 in cases of great poverty, when parents might 
 be tempted to sell their children, relief might 
 be given them out of the public revenues, thus 
 affording an example of an inci])ient poor-law 
 (Cod. Thcod. vi. 27, in Bingham, xvi. ix. 1). 
 
 Parental authority, however, and family ties 
 W’ere strongly upheld. Children were not al- 
 
 2 U 
 
660 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 FAMILY 
 
 Jo\yo(l to in<in'y witliout tlie consent of their 
 ]);irents (Tertul. ml Uxor. ii. 9), an'l, under the 
 Christian emperors, in the case of daughters thus 
 marrying, the most dreadful })unishments were 
 ordered to be inflicted on all who were consenting 
 pai ties to the marriage {Cod. Theod. ix. 24). 
 
 The education of their children assumed a new 
 interest with Christian parents, but at the same 
 time caused them new anxieties and cares; since 
 in “bringing ti'em up in the nurture and ad¬ 
 monition of tlie Lord,” it was needful, more 
 especially in the earlier times, to guard them 
 from the evil influeuces in the midst of which 
 they lived,—from the contact of idolatry all 
 around them,—from the contagion of companions 
 on every side. Further difficulties too presented 
 themselves in connection with the future occu¬ 
 pation of their children, inasmuch as many em¬ 
 ployments open to others were closed against 
 them. For a Christian jiad to avoid all the 
 numerous trades and arts which were connected 
 with idols and idol-worship, together with some 
 offices of civil and military life. 
 
 While children were young their superin- 
 tendanoe and education engaged especially tne 
 mother’s care and vigilance ; but besides this 
 and other strictlv domestic duties, it was usual 
 for Christian women to devote a portion of their 
 time to doing good beyond their own homes ; 
 and Tertullian shows that in his days it was ex¬ 
 pected, as a matter of course, that they would 
 attend on the sick, go round to the houses of the 
 poor, relieve the needy, and visit imprisoned 
 martyrs (Tertul. ad Uxor. ii. 4). 
 
 One source of uneasiness was, it must be con¬ 
 fessed, introduced into the household in Christian 
 times, which had not existed previously. After 
 the institution of monastic orders, a husband, a 
 wife, or a cliild might desire to adopt the “ re¬ 
 ligious ” life, even without the consent of those 
 who had a claim upon their services and society. 
 Where the persons interested consented, as in 
 the cases of Ammon and his wife (Socrates, //. E. 
 iv. 23; Palladius, Hist. Laudac. c. 8), and of 
 Martianus and Maxima (Victor Uticensis [or 
 Vitensis], Be Persec. Vand d. i. 5), no harm was 
 done ; but in many cases monastic fanaticism dis¬ 
 turbed the peace of households and sundered 
 their members. It is evident from the references 
 to the matter (for instance) by Paulinus (liJjjist. 
 14, ad Celant.) and Augustine {Epist. 45 [al. 
 127], A rmentario et Paidinae; Epist. 199 [al. 
 262], ad Ecdiciarn), that in the 4th century the 
 question of the relative claims of domestic duty 
 and ascetic life was felt to be a pressing one. 
 Basil the Great in the Larger Rule (Qu. 12) 
 directs that a married person offering to enter a 
 monastery should be questioned as to the con¬ 
 sent of the other party; yet he thinks that the 
 precept about hating father, mother, wife, or 
 children to be Christ’s disciple (Luke xiv. 26) 
 applies to this case; and in anothei- place {Epist. 
 45, ad Monachum Lapsum) he certainly mentions 
 a man’s declining domestic cares and the society 
 of his yoke-fellow, for an ascetic life, without 
 the smallest censure. Jerome {Epist. 14, ad 
 Ecliod.) expresses similar views. The feeling of 
 the church on this subject was distinctly pro¬ 
 nounced in the 6th century, for the legislation 
 of Justinian {Codex, lib. i. tit. 3, Be Episo. et 
 Cler. leg. 53) allowed married persons to desert 
 their yoke-fellows for “ religion ” with impunity, 
 
 and to reclaim their own fortunes. So in the 
 case of children. The council of Gangra in the 
 4th century (c. 16) anathematized children— 
 especially children of Christians—who should 
 withdraw from their parents on prgtence of re¬ 
 ligion (fleocre/Setas) and refu.se them due honour. 
 So Basil {Rcq. Maj. qu. 15) enjoined that chil¬ 
 dren should not be received into monasteries un¬ 
 less offered by their parents, if the parents were 
 alive. But here again the legislation of Justinian 
 (u. s. leg. 55) betrays the presence of a feeling 
 that “religion” might override domestic obliga¬ 
 tions, in that it forbids parents to restrain their 
 children from becoming monks or clerics, or to 
 disinherit them for that cause alone. And this 
 feeling, in spite of the not unfrequent pi-otests 
 of jurists, was very prevalent from that time 
 onward. On the other hand, the power of parents 
 to devote their children to “ religion ” oecame 
 in time almost absolute; they who had been 
 devoted by their parents were as much bound as 
 those who had entered of their own accord in 
 mature age {Cone. Tolet. IV. c. 49, a.d. 633; 
 see OlJLATi). 
 
 In our view of the family life of Christians, 
 their use of music and singing must not be un- 
 noticed. Among the Greeks especially, and to 
 some extent among the Romans also, their songs 
 occupied a conspicuous place in their social life. 
 These, however, from their generally expressing 
 and encouraging some of the worst evils of the 
 old religions, could not be used in the Christian 
 family circle. But the want was rapidly sup¬ 
 plied. Christian songs and hymns were soon 
 composed and extensively multiplied; and these 
 became an abundant source of recreation to all 
 the members of the household, while at meal 
 times, and in all family or friendly unions, they 
 thus expressed their habitual faith, and hope, 
 and joy. 
 
 Before Christianity became the prevailing and 
 established religion, families were in continual 
 danger of being molested by popular violence, 
 and of being utterly broken up in times of legal¬ 
 ised persecution. But besides these dangers and 
 troubles there were sometimes others hardly 
 less painful within the family itself, when only 
 a part of the household had become Christians. 
 The antagonism and consequent discomfort, if 
 not positive misery, must then have been almost 
 perpetual ; and the difficulty of maintaining re¬ 
 ligious faithfulness, without losing family affec¬ 
 tion or breaking family ties, must have been 
 very great. Jesus him.self had warned his dis¬ 
 ciples beforehand that “ a man’s foes might be 
 those of his own household ;” and that his re¬ 
 ligion, in such cases, might bring “not peace but 
 a sword.” St. Paul, while desirous that this 
 difference of religion should not actually separate 
 a husband and wife, admitteil that it would and 
 must sometimes have this effect. Tertullian {ad 
 Uxor. ii. 4) describes in detail the sort of hin¬ 
 drances, opposition, and ridii:ule, which a Chris¬ 
 tian woman must expect if she married a hus¬ 
 band who was an unbeliever ; and how impos¬ 
 sible she would find it to fulfil in peace, if she 
 could fulfil at all, her Christian duties,—even if 
 nothing worse occurred. But in time; of perse¬ 
 cution, or of any strong excitement of antichris- 
 tian feeling, it was not merely difficulties and 
 discomforts that had to be encountered. The 
 strongest words of Christ were then often liter- 
 
FAMILY—THE HOLY 
 
 FAST IN (} 
 
 661 
 
 nllv i*ealised, when the most powerful natural 
 ii..e(tious were shattered, and Christians were 
 betrayed and denounced by their nearest rela¬ 
 tives and given up to the persecutor’s sword. 
 See an early instance of this in Justin Martyr, 
 Apol. li. 2. [G. A. J.] 
 
 FAMIIiY—THE HOLY. The subject which 
 bears this title in modern art is generally a 
 group consisting of the Virgin Mother bearing 
 the ftacred Infant, of St. Joseph, and frequently 
 of the younger St. John Baptist, and occasionally 
 of St. Elizabeth. It is frequently treated in an 
 academic or purely artistic spirit, and chosen 
 mainly for the sake of opposing the age of St. 
 Elizabeth or maturity of St. Joseph, to the high 
 ideal of feminine, infantine, or youthful beauty 
 in the Blessed V’irgin, the infant or St. John. 
 As a coin})lete and isolated group of this kind 
 the subject is hardly ever treated in art of the 
 earliest Christian age, unless the three Oranti 
 
 given by Martigny (from Bosio Roma Sott. p. 
 279; see woodcut) are to be considered as re- 
 j)resenting it. He is inclined to think so, though 
 Bosio, Aringhi, and Bottari consider the group 
 as an ordinary Christian family in the attitude 
 of prayer, and though the boy is more decidedly 
 in that attitude than either the father or the 
 mother. He mentions another lately discovered, 
 but also somewhat conjectural monument, in 
 the cemetery of St. Priscilla, and says that the 
 subject occurs on sarcophagi of the South of 
 France, naming one in the museum of Arles, j 
 No. 26, where St. Joseph leads the Saviour by j 
 the hand to the Virgin Mother, probably rejire- 
 senting Luke ii. 48, “Son, why hast thou thus 
 dealt with us?” [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FAMILY TOMBS. [Catacombs, p. 300 ; 
 Cllla Memoriae; Cemetery.] 
 
 FAN. [Flabellum.] 
 
 FANATICI. From their frequenting Fana, 
 shrines of heathen deities, all heathen were 
 sometimes called “ fanatici ”; thus Clovis be¬ 
 fore his conversion, is said {Gesta Reg. Franc. 
 c. 10), to have been “ fanaticus et paganiis.” In 
 a special sense, priests of idol-temples were 
 “ fanatici ” (Iso Magister on Prudentius, quoted 
 by Ducange, s.v.); and those who professed to 
 prophesy by the aid of the demon attached to 
 the place [Exorcism; and see Jerome on Isaiah, 
 
 c. 6, and Augustine on Psalm 40]; these were 
 condemned with others who piacti.sed such evil 
 arts (CooJt’, lib. ix. tit. 16, 1. 4; Macri, llierolex. 
 s. V. ; Bingham’s xvi. V. 4). [C.] 
 
 FANDILA, presbyter, martyr at Cordova; 
 commemorated June 13 (^Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FANON. (1.) A head-dress worn by the 
 pope when he celebrated ma.ss pontilically. It 
 is described by Ciampini (^Vct. Mon. i. 239) and 
 Macri {fJierolex. s.v.) as a veil variegated, like 
 the Mosaic ephod, with four colours, symbolising 
 the four elements, put over the head after the 
 j)ope was vested with the alb, and tied round the 
 neck, forming a kind of hood, the tiara or other 
 head-dress being put on above it. The lower 
 part was concealed by the planeta (Bona, Rer. 
 Litnrg. i. 24. 15). Ciampini gives the annexed 
 figure from a small brass statue on the doors of 
 the oratory of St. John Baptist at the Lateran. 
 At the PedilaKium the “Caerimoniale Komanum ” 
 directs that the pope should wear the fanon 
 alone without the mitre. 
 
 (2.) The napkin or handkerchief, mappula, 
 stidarmm, used by the priest during the celebra¬ 
 tion of the mass to wipe away perspiration from 
 the face, &c. (Bona, Rer. Liturg. i. 24. 5; Rab. 
 Maur. de Inst. Cler. i. 18; Augusti, Ilandbch. 
 der Christ. Arch. iii. 504). [Facitergium.] 
 
 (3.) In later times the white linen cloth in 
 which the laity made their oblations at the altar. 
 “Populus dat oblationes suas, id est panem et 
 vinum, et offerunt cum fanonihus candidis” Ordo 
 Roinanus; “cum fanonihus offerunt,” Amalar. 
 de offic. Miss. ;• Martene, de Eccl. rit. lib. i. c. 4, 
 § 6 ; Augusti, u. s. ii. 649. The word is some¬ 
 times erroneously spelt “favones.” 
 
 (4.) A still later use of the word is for the 
 church banners,“ vexilla Ecclesiastica,” employed 
 in processions. This is perhaps not earlier than 
 the French and German writers of the 11th cen¬ 
 tury (Augusti, V. s. iii. 348, 355). 
 
 (5.) The strings or lappets of the mitre (Wil- 
 lemin. Monuments ine'dits. pis. 68, 76, 90) [E. V.] 
 
 FARA, virgin, of Meaux; “Natalis” Dec. 7 
 (J/arf. Usuardiy [\\L I'. G.] 
 
 FARO, bishop, and confessor at !Meaux ; com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 28 (d/urA Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 FAST OF CHRIST IN THE DESERT, 
 THE, is commemorated in the Aethiopic Calen¬ 
 dar on Feb. 4 (Daniel’s Codex, iv. 252). [C.] 
 
 FASTING {vr](TTeia, jejunium, abstinentia'). 
 Fasting w’as total or partial abstinence from food 
 for a certain period; it also signified abstinence 
 from pleasure, or from the celebration of birthdays 
 or marriages or church festivals ; and it had the 
 further spiritual signification of abstinence from 
 
662 
 
 FASTING 
 
 FASTING 
 
 sin. See tlie passages collected in Gunning {Lent 
 Fast, pp. 130-150) on the spiritual meaning of 
 tasting. 
 
 1. The stated fasts of the Western church 
 were tliese: 
 
 (i.) The great ante-paschal Fast of Li:nt 
 {Quadra jrsiuia). 
 
 (ii.) The fasts of the first, fourth, seventh, and 
 tenth months, called also EMUiiu Fasts, or the 
 fasts of the four seasons {jejnnia quatuor tern- 
 'foruni). 
 
 (iii.) The weekly fasts of the Stations, Wed¬ 
 nesday and Friday {feria quart i et sexta, stationes, 
 seniijejunia, rerpas Ka\ irapaaK^vi}'). 
 
 (iv.) The Rogations {rogationes, litaniae'). 
 
 (v.) The Vigils or Eves of holy days {pernoc- 
 tationes, pervigi/ia). 
 
 2. The Greek church kept in addition to Lent 
 three fasts of a week each: 1st the Fast of 
 the Holy Apostles, immediately after Pentecost 
 [Apostlks’ Festivals and Fasts] ; 2nd the 
 Fast of the Holy Mother of God {Sanctae 
 Deiparae') in August; 3rd the Fast of the 
 Nativity (Suicer Thesaurus s, v. vgarTia', Neale 
 Introduction to Eastern Church, p, 731). Some 
 have supposed (Morinus de Penit., Appendix, 
 p. 124) that the Fast Sanctae Deiparae at one 
 })eriod lasted forty days, and began originally on 
 6th of July and afterwards on 1st of August, 
 and that the Fast of the Nativity was also one 
 of forty days, and began on 15th of November. 
 
 3. Other fasts had only a local or partial 
 observance. The council of Eliberis (c. 23) in¬ 
 troduced into Spain fasts of superposition (jejn- 
 niorum superpositiones) for every month in the 
 year except July and August. It does not appear 
 on what days of the month they were kept, but 
 their name implies that they were something 
 over and above the usual fasting days. Bingham 
 {Antiq. xxi. 11 § 5) quotes from Philastrius the 
 mention of a fast of three days before Epiphany. 
 In the Dialogue of Egbert of York (Haddan and 
 Stubbs’ Councils and Eccl. Documents, vol. iii. 
 
 р. 413) there is the appointment, in addition to 
 the Ember fasts, of a period of twelve days before 
 the Nativity to be spent in fastings, watchings, 
 prayers, and alms; on which twelve days not 
 only were the clergy but laity also, with their 
 wiA'es and households, exhorted to resort to their 
 confessors. The seventeenth council of Toledo 
 a.d. 694 (c. 6) orders litany-fasts (exomolo- 
 geses) to be kept every month in the Spanish 
 and Gallic churches to supplicate “ for the safety 
 of the sovereign, for the preservation of the 
 people, and the pardon of their sins, and the 
 expulsion of the devil from the hearts of the 
 faithful.” The fasts to be observed throughout 
 the vear in the western monasteries are given in 
 detail by the second council of Tours (a.d. 567, 
 
 с. 17): “ From Easter to Pentecost let dinner be 
 served to the brothers every day except on Ro¬ 
 gation-days ; after Pentecost let them fast an 
 entire week; thence till the 1st of August let 
 all, except those who are suffering from illness, 
 fast three days a week, second, fourth, and 
 sixth days. In August because the MSsa Sanc¬ 
 torum is daily celebrated, let them eat their 
 dinner; through the whole of September, Octo¬ 
 ber, and November, fast three days a week, and 
 in Decembe.' every day till the Nativity. And 
 because between the Nativity and the Epiphany 
 all days are festivals, with the exception of the 
 
 three when private litanies are to be said, they 
 shall eat their dinner ; and from Epiphany to 
 Lent fast three days a week.” 
 
 4. Special fasting was occasionally ordered or 
 advi.sed in a diocese by the bishop, as Tertullian 
 {de Jejun. c. 13), after he became a Montanist 
 unwillingly bears witness. It was also one of 
 the means used for preparing for the reception 
 of a sacred ordinance. Fasting before Holy (lom- 
 munion, if not invariable, had become a common 
 practice in the 4th century [Communion]. Fast¬ 
 ing before baptism can be traced to a much 
 earlier date. Justin Martyr {Apolog. i. 61) 
 mentions among the customs of the Christian 
 church that candidates “are taught to pray 
 fasting, we fasting and jn-aying with them.” Ter¬ 
 tullian {dp Bapjt. c. 20) exhorts those who are 
 about to receive baptism to pray with frequent 
 prayers and fastings. And the fourth council of 
 Carthage, A.D. 398 (c. 85), appoints abstinence 
 from wine and meat among the preparations for 
 baptism {Apost. Constt. vii. 22). The only 
 authority which Martene {de Hit. viii. 4) dis¬ 
 covers for the practice of fasting before ordination 
 is from Leo, who {Ep. ad Diosc.') with reference 
 to ordinations taking place on Sundavg sjieaks of 
 the Saturday’s fast continuing both for candidates 
 and bishop till the ordination was over. No 
 notice of fasting before confirmation is to be 
 found before the 13th century (Martene de Lit. 
 iv. 1). 
 
 5. Penitential Fasting. —For the first 500 
 years fasting does not appear to have been 
 imposed as a special penance, or to have taken 
 place of other penitential exercises; but in all 
 ages, so long as penitential discipline was in 
 force, a penitent was required to abstain from 
 delicacies of food as from all other bodily grati¬ 
 fications during his period of punishment. Ter¬ 
 tullian {de Penit. c. 9) defines a true exomologesis 
 to consist, among other duties, in “ the use of 
 simple things for meat and drink, and in cherish¬ 
 ing i)rayer by Lists.” Pacian {Paraen. ad Penit. 
 c. 19) makes his penitent, when invited to a 
 feast, reply, “These things belong to the happy, 
 but as for me I have sinned against the Lord.” 
 In the 6th century fasting began to be inflicted 
 as a special and separate mode of penance. One 
 of the canons of the council of Agde, a.d. 506 
 (c. 60), appoints to those who lapse into heresy, 
 in place of the longer term of penitence allotted 
 by the early church, a fast of two years, to be 
 kept on the third day of the week without any 
 break ; if at least that is the meaning of the 
 rather ob.scure language of the canon (ut biennio 
 tertio sine relaxatione jejunent). The jienance 
 of fasting is found in the early British penitential 
 canons attributed to Gildas ; and in the Peni¬ 
 tential of Theodore sentences of a fist of so many 
 davs or weeks, or even years, are verv common 
 {Penitential 1. viii. 3,4, 8, 9 ; xii. 8 ; xiv. 9), 
 and no less so in the Penitential of Bede (iii. 5; 
 vii. 11), and in that of Egbert (iv. 6; v. 3 ; xiii. 
 4). The crimes for which these sentences were 
 inflicted in these early English penitential books 
 are such as could exist only among a jieojde just 
 emerging from heathenism. In the Penitential 
 of Theodoi-e (II. xiv. i.) is found the first notice 
 of the appointment of three regular fasts of forty 
 days in the year (tria legitima quadragesima), 
 forty days before Easter, forty days before the 
 Nativity, and forty davs after Pentecost. The 
 
 W 7 vT • 
 
FASTING 
 
 FASTING 
 
 C63 
 
 Rule of Chrodegang (c. 32) with reference to the 
 same observance, orders confessions to be made 
 at each of these three annual quadragesimal fasts. 
 And the Capitularies of Charles the Great (vi. 
 184-) repeat in identical v^ords the injunction of 
 Theodore on the three quadragesimal fasts, and 
 add that “although some of them lack canonical 
 authority, yet it is well for all of us together to 
 observe this custom in accordance with the 
 practice of the people and of our forefathers.” 
 These fasts were probably first a])pointed as 
 a])propriate penitential seasons for the perform¬ 
 ance of long periods of penance; afterwards, as 
 may be inferred from the canon in the Capitu¬ 
 laries, they came into partial use with the ])eople 
 at large. There is no evidence that they existed 
 earlier than the 7th century, for the councils 
 prior to Theodore which are strict in ordering 
 the people to keep Lent (e.g. Cone. A()ath. c. 12; 
 4 Cone. Aurelian. c. 2), contain no hint of there 
 being move than one such season in the year ; 
 and the canon of the second council of Tours 
 which enumerates the fasts of the monks, and 
 ap})roaches nearer the time of Theodore, evidently 
 recognises no Pentecostal Quadragesima, for it 
 orders monks, whose self-denial would be more 
 severe than that of the rest of the church, to fast 
 only three days a week from Pentecost till 
 August. Hence it is probalrle that Theodore 
 introduced these as penitential fasts into the 
 Western church from the Last, for in the Greek 
 Penitential of Joannes Jejunator two fasts of 
 forty days in addition to Lent are imposed upon 
 penitents, the former of which was called the 
 Quadragesima of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the 
 latter the Quadragesima of St. Philip. One of 
 the councils of the Carlovingian kings, about 
 A.n. 821 (Gone, apud villam Theodonis cc. 2-5) 
 held for the purpose of devising means for the pro¬ 
 tection of the clergy, inflicts five quadragesimal 
 fasts on any one slandering or wounding a sub¬ 
 deacon, six on the slanderer of a deacon, twelve 
 of a priest, and a lifelong fiist on the slanderer of 
 a bishop. Even after absolution, a penitent was 
 sometimes ordered to fast one day a week for the 
 remainder of his life—a sentence opposed to the 
 earlier practice, by which admission to commu¬ 
 nion was a sign of the forgiveness of all past 
 ollences. 
 
 The penitential fasts were observed with 
 various degrees of severity. In the East the 
 Penitential of Joannes Jejunator allows })enitents 
 on the second, fourth, and sixth days of the week 
 to eat oil and beans with oil, but orders them to 
 abstain from cheese, eggs, flesh, and fish ; on the 
 third and fifth days eat ev^erything freely except 
 flesh; and on the first and seventh days use 
 wine and flesh as if under no punishment. In 
 the Anglo-Saxon church Egbert (^Pen tential iv. 
 15) directs penitents to fast three days each 
 week, without specifying the days, from wine, 
 mead (medo), and flesh, till the evening, and eat 
 only dry food ; and also keep three quadragesimal 
 fasts in the year on dry food, two days a week 
 till the evening, and three days till three 
 o’clock. Burchard {Decret. xix. 9, 10) referring 
 to this direction from the Penitential, states the 
 following to have been the manner in which a 
 fast of two years on bread ana, water was kept. 
 “For first year fast three days in each week, 
 second, fourth, and sixth, on bread and water ; 
 and three days, third, fifth, and seventh, abstain 
 
 f)-om wine, mead (medo), beer flavoured with 
 honey (rnellita cervisia) flesh and blood, cheese, 
 eggs, and rich fish of various sorts, and eat only- 
 small fish if they are to be got, but if not, fish 
 of one kind only, and beans, and herbs, and 
 apples, and drink beer.” This list makes no 
 mention of Lent, because it is assumed to be 
 spent entirely on bread and water. “ The next 
 year the penitent should fast two days, second 
 and fourth, till the evening, and then refresh 
 himself with dry food, i.e. bread and dry cooked 
 beans, or apples, or raw herbs; let him select 
 one of these three, and drink beer sparingly ; on 
 the sixth day let him fast on bread and water.” 
 In some cases no additional time of abstinence 
 was imposed, but only a greater rigour during 
 the ordinary ecclesiastical fasts. A very- old 
 sacramentary, assigned by Morinus to the 8th cen¬ 
 tury-, directs the actual incarceration of a penitent 
 through Lent; “Take him in the morning of 
 the first day- of Lent and cover him with ashes, 
 and pray for him, and shut him up till the 
 Thursday of Holy Week (feria quinta in coena 
 Domini), and on the Thursday of Holy- Week he 
 may- come forth from the place in which he has 
 performed his penance.” A Gothic codex from 
 the monastery of Kemigius of Kheims, dating 
 probably from the next century, also orders 
 imprisonment through Lent, but instead of the 
 whole body of the penitent being covered with 
 ashes, directs that a few should be sprinkled on 
 his head, and that they should be blessed. This 
 severity was relaxed before the 10th century-, 
 and penitents were assigned a parish or district 
 in which to confine themselves through Lent. 
 But both incarceration and confinement within 
 bounds were deviations from an older practice of 
 shutting up a penitent in a monastery- (1 Cone. 
 Matiscon. cc. 5, 8). 
 
 6. Exemptions from Fasting .—A superstitious 
 abstinence from flesh and wine on pretence of 
 keeping a stricter fast was forbidden. The 
 Ap jstolical Canons (cc. 52, 53) direct that if any 
 of the clergy abstain from marriage, flesh, or 
 wine, not for exercise, but abhorrence, forgetting 
 that God made all things very good, they shall 
 be deposed {Cone. Aneyr. c. 14; Cone. Gangr. c. 
 2). The first council of Braga, a.d. 563 (c. 14), 
 orders, under pain of excommunication, clergy 
 who have been in the habit of abstaining from 
 meat, to eat x-egetaoies boiled with meat, ic 
 order to avoid the suspicion of being infected 
 with the Priscillian heresy. 
 
 Fasting was strictly forbidden on all Sundavs 
 throughout the year in every part of the church. 
 The reason of this prohibition was that fasting 
 was held inconsistent with the observance of so 
 high a festival. [Lord’s Dav.] 
 
 The observ-ance of Saturday was, as is well 
 known, one of the points in dispute between 
 the Eastern and Western churches. In the East 
 it was always observed as a festival, with the 
 exception of the Paschal Vigil, the Great Sabbath, 
 in which Christ lay in the grave, which was 
 kept as a fast both in East and West {Apost. 
 Constt. ii. 59 ; v. 15. 20 ; vii. 23 ; viii. 33 ; Cone. 
 Laod. cc. 49, 51; Cone, in Trull, c. 55). [Sab¬ 
 bath.] 
 
 It was not customary to fast on any- festivals, 
 nor consequently- to hold festivals during seasons 
 of fasting. The council of Laodicea, A.D. 320 
 (c. 51), forbids the celebration of festivals of 
 
664 
 
 FASTING 
 
 FASTING 
 
 martyrs ia Lent, but orders them to be kept on 
 Saturdays and Sundays. Another canon (c, 52) 
 forbids the celebration of marriages or birthdays 
 in Lent. The Greek church lield no festival 
 through Lent excejjt the Annunciation, a festival 
 which the tenth council of Toledo, a.d. 656 (c. 1), 
 ordered to be held eight days before Christmas. 
 [Mary the Virgin, Festivals of.] The 
 church at Milan held no missa sanctorum what¬ 
 ever throughout Lent. 
 
 The non-observance of a fast was permitted in 
 the case of weakness or sickness (^Apost. Can. 68, 
 2 Cone. Turon. c. 17). To these grounds of 
 excuse the eighth council of Toledo, a.d. 653 (c. 9), 
 adds old age or strong necessity. The council of 
 Eliberis (c. 23) had allowed the Spanish churches 
 to omit the monthly fasts in the sultry heat of 
 July and August. 
 
 7. jilanner of Fasting. — A fast day in the early 
 church was kept by a literal abstinence from 
 food till the evening, and then a simple meal was 
 eaten. Ambrose (de Elia et Jejun. c. 10) speaks 
 of the fast during Lent continuing through the 
 whole day; and Chrysostom (//om. 6 in Gen. 
 
 р. 60; Bum. 8 m Gen. p. 79) rebukes the folly 
 of those who abstain all day from food and do not 
 abstain from sin. There was no restriction upon 
 the kind of food eaten at the evening meal, 
 provided only it was partaken of sparingly. 
 Many, no doubt, refused meat or wine during 
 the greater fasts, and contented themselves with 
 bread and water, Xerophagia (Tertullian de Jejun. 
 
 с. 11); but that there was no settled rule, and 
 that the choice of diet was left very much to 
 individual discretion is evident from the account 
 given by Socrates (//. E. v. 22) of the variety of 
 the observances of the Western church ; “ some 
 abstain from every sort of creature that has life ; 
 others eat fish only of living creatures; others 
 eat birds as well as fish, because, according to 
 the Mosaic account of the creation, they too 
 sprung from the Avater; others abstain from 
 fruit coA’ered with a hard shell, and from eggs; 
 some eat dry bread only, others not even that; 
 others again when they have fasted till three 
 o’clock eat varieties of food.” The Greek 
 church kept Lent very strictly, eating neither 
 fish, nor eggs, nor milk, nor oil ; but on the 
 other Lists, except on the fourth and sixth days, 
 these were allowed. The great Sabbath fast of 
 the Paschal Vigil was sustained not only till the 
 evening, but till cockcrowing on Easter morning 
 {Apost. Const. V. 18). But the other appointed 
 seasons were kept ivith less rigour than that of 
 Lent, and the fast, instead of continuing till the 
 evening meal, was broken at the ninth hour 
 (three o’clock), the hour on which our Lord 
 expired on the cross. This was the hour at 
 which the fast of the Stations ceased (Epiphanius 
 Expos. Fid. c. 22). And the English council of 
 CloA'esho, A.D. 747 (c. 16), orders the Rogations 
 to be kept till three o’clock. The food which 
 was thus saved by abridging the number of 
 meals it was considered a pious act to bestow 
 upon the poor (Origen, Horn. 10. in Levit. ; Leo, 
 Serm. 3 de Jejun. Pentecost.; Chrysol. Senn. 
 8 de Jejun.j. Another practice mentioned by 
 Tertullian (de Oral. c. 18) was refraining from 
 the kiss of peace while a fast lasted. A change 
 of dress during fasting was confined chiefly to 
 penitents [Penitence], although Tertuilian 
 (Apolog. c. 40), if his language is not merely 
 
 rhetorical, speaks of pious Christians in contrast 
 with heathen self-indulgence, “ being dried up 
 with fasting and prostrating themselves in .sack¬ 
 cloth and ashes.” And at a much later date the 
 council of Mayence, a<:d. 813 (c. 33), ordei-s the 
 greater Litany to be observed for three days by 
 all Christians, “ not riding nor clothed in rich 
 garments, but barefoot and clothed in sackcloth 
 and ashes.” [G. M.] 
 
 8. Fast after Communion. —St. Chrysostom, 
 on the First Epistle to the Corinthian.s, s])eaks 
 as follows: “ Before receiving thou fastest, that 
 thou mayest by any means appear worthy oi 
 the communion. But when thou hast received, 
 it being thy duty to persevere in self-control, 
 thou undoest all. Not that .sobriety before this 
 and afterwards are of equal importance. For it 
 is our duty, indeed, to exercise self-control at 
 both times, but especially after receiving the 
 Bridegroom ; before this indeed that thou mayest 
 be worthy to partake ; but afterwards that thou 
 mayest not be found unworthy of that of which 
 thou hast partaken. What! Ought we to fast 
 after partaking? I do not say so, nor do I use 
 constraint. For indeed this also is good, but I 
 am not enforcing it, only advising you not to be 
 self-indulgent to excess ” (//om. xxvii. ad c. xi. 
 V. 27.) \Ve should infer from this passage that 
 the hearers of St.* Chrysostom neither had them¬ 
 selves, nor knew of, any custom of abstaining 
 from ordinary food, for however short a time, 
 after receiving the Holy Communion. Nor have 
 we any evidence that his advice led to the for¬ 
 mation of such a habit in the members of the 
 Greek or Oriental churches. In the West, on 
 the other hand, we meet with occasional notices 
 of the practice from the 6th century downwards ; 
 and it is probable that it survived, as the pious 
 custom of a few, to the 14th, or even later. A 
 canon of the council of Macon held in 585 con¬ 
 tains the earliest reference, if the writer mistake 
 not, to this post-communion fast. We give the 
 decree in full: “ Whatever relics of the sacrifices 
 shall be left over in the sacrarium after the 
 mass is finished, let innocent children be brought 
 to the church on Wednesday or Friday by him 
 who.se business it is, and, let them, being enjoined 
 a fast, receive the said relics sprinkled with 
 wine ” (Can. 6; Labb. Co7ic. tom. v. col. 982). 
 Among the Forged Decretals is an epistle pur¬ 
 porting to be written by Clement of Rome to 
 St. James the Lord’s brother. The greater jiart 
 of this epistle appears to have been composed in 
 the 8th century, and in that earlier portion we 
 find a direction to this effect, viz. that the re¬ 
 mainder of the consecrated elements is not to 
 be kept till the morning, but is by the care of 
 the clerks to be consumed with fear and trem¬ 
 bling. But they who consume the remainder of 
 the Lord’s body, which has been left in the 
 sacrarium, are not to assemble forthwith to 
 partake of common food, nor to presume to mix 
 food with the holy portion .... If therefore 
 the Lord’s portion be given to them at an early 
 hour, let the ministers who have consumed it fast 
 till the sixth; and if they hax'e received it at 
 the third or the fourth, let them fast till even¬ 
 ing ” (I’l-aecepta S. Petri, inter 0pp. S. Leoni.s, ed. 
 Bailer, tom. iii. p. 674). There is a law of 
 Charlemagne, A.D. 809, Avith this heading, 
 “Touchinsr those who have communicated, that 
 they Avait three hours, on account of the mixing 
 
FATHER 
 
 FEBRONIA 
 
 665 
 
 of the food.” The decree itself says “ two or 
 three hours (^Capitularia Jx’egum Franconum, 
 tom. i. col. 1213. Similarly col. 1224). Regino 
 (Z)e Feel. Diseipl. lib. 1. c. cxcv.) at the begin¬ 
 ning of the 10th century, and Gratian {Deer. P. 
 iii. Dist. ii. c. xxiii.) in the 12th give the passage 
 from pseudo-Clement as above quoted. It was 
 therefore well known during the latter pai’t of | 
 the Middle Ages. In the loth centuiy we find 
 it cited from Gratian by Thomas Aquinas, who 
 acknowledges the principle, while he declares the 
 rule obsolete {Sumrna 2'heol. P. iii. Qu. Ixxx. Art. 
 viii. ad 6m). There is, however, as we have already 
 intimated, some reason to think that the practice 
 which Aquinas evidently considered altogether 
 gone by was yet observed by some long after his 
 time. In England John de Burgo, a.d. 1385, 
 refers to our subject in this manner: “ After 
 taking the eucharist it is meet for reverence 
 thereof to abstain for some time from food, but 
 not very long. For preparation by abstinence 
 and devotion is more required before receiving 
 the eucharist than after. For the sacrament has 
 its etlect at the reception itself, and therefore 
 actual devotion is required then; but after the 
 reception habitual devotion suffices” {Pupilla 
 Oeuli, P. iv. c. viii. ad lit. H.). It is also thus 
 mentioned by Duranti, who was murdered by 
 the partisans of the League in 1589, “ Not only 
 ought men to be fasting when about to sacrifice 
 and communicate, but they ought also in honour 
 of the sacrament to abstain from all food some 
 time after ” {De Fit. Feel. L. ii. c. vii. § 6.) 
 
 [W. E. S.] 
 
 FATHER {Pater). 1. A name rhetorically 
 given to the priests of any religion (Arnobius, 
 Adv. Gent. lib. 4, c. 19). 
 
 2. Commonly applied to Christian bishops. 
 Epiphanius {Haeres. Adv. Aerian. n. 4) says that 
 the reason of the title is that by their right of 
 ordaining they beget fathers to the church. 
 Jerome {Fp. 52, ad Theoph. ed. Migne) says that 
 bishops are content with their own honour, for 
 they know that they are fathers and not lords. 
 Augustine {Comm, in Ps. 44) says that the 
 church itself calls them fathers. Chrysostom 
 {Horn. 3, ad Pop. Antioeh.) speaks of looking to 
 the bishop’s throne and not seeing the father 
 upon it. The decrees of the council of Nice are 
 usually cited as those of the 318 fathers (/. Cone. 
 Fie. Proem.; 1. Cone. Constantin, c. 1). 
 
 3. To a godfather. In the life of Epiphanius 
 it is said that one Lucian became his fiither in 
 holy baptism {Epiph. Vita, n. 8). So Ruffinus 
 {in Micron. Inveet. c. 1) says that the same 
 person was his instructor in the creed and his 
 father. 
 
 4. It is said that Charles Martel sent his son 
 Pepin to Luitprand, king of the Lombards, who 
 cut his hair according to custom, “juxta morem,” 
 and thus became his father, “ ei pater efl'ectus 
 est ” (Paulus Diaconus, Hist. Longobard. vi. 53). 
 
 5. To the priest by whom baptism was ad¬ 
 ministered. Avitus of Vienne (//om. de Fogat.), 
 says that Mamertus was both his predecessor 
 and his spiritual father by baptism, “spiritalis 
 a baptismo pater.” So(Theodori Cantuar. Poeni- 
 tentiale, II. iv. 8) it is stated that one father is 
 sufficient to administer baptism, “ in catechumeno 
 et confirmatione et baptismo unus potest esse 
 pater.” 
 
 6. To a confessor. One of the Benedictine 
 rules provided that no monk should become a 
 spiritual father without the consent of the 
 abbot {Feg. Tarnat. a.d. circa 570; Migne’s 
 Patrol, t. 66, coll. 977). 
 
 7. The title “father of fathers ”-was some¬ 
 times assigned to eminent bishops. In one place 
 it is given to the apostle Paul {Quaest. ad Ortho¬ 
 dox. c. 119, apud Justin Mart. 0pp.). Athana¬ 
 sius {ad Solitar. Vit. Agent, c. 1) speaks of 
 Hosius as being by universal consent called the 
 father of bishops. Gregory Nazianzen {0}'at. 19 ; 
 De Funeb. Patr. § 44) says that his father was 
 called the father of all the bishops {apxiepeas). 
 Gregory the Great {Epist. vi.) addresses Lupus 
 of Troyes, as “ father of fathers, bishop of 
 bishops.” In a letter from the African bishops 
 which was read at the 1st Lateran council, at 
 the close of the epistle, Theodore, bishop of Rome, 
 is styled “father of fathers.” In a letter read 
 at the 6th council of Constantinople (Act 13), 
 Sergius is addressed in the same manner. At the 
 2nd council of Nice, A.D. 787 (Act 6), Gregory 
 Nyssen is said to have been called “ father of 
 fathers ” by universal consent. 
 
 8. The head of a monastery was naturally 
 
 called Pater by Latins, as Abbas by Orientals; 
 thus Augustine {De Mor. Feel. Cath. i. 31) 
 speaks of the respect to be paid by the Decani to 
 the one “ quern Patrem appellant;” and Gregory 
 the Great {Dial. i. 1 ; cf. ii. 3 ; iii. 23) speaks 
 of one who was “ Pater ” in a monastery over 
 200 monks. [P. 0.] 
 
 FAUSTA. [Evilasius.] 
 
 FAUSTINUS. (1) Martyr at Brescia ; com¬ 
 memorated with Jovita, vii'gin, Feb. 15 {Mart. 
 Usuardi), Feb. 16 {Mart. Hieron.). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome with Simplicius, his 
 brother, and Beatrix, his sister, in the time of 
 Diocletian ; commemorated July 29 {Mart. 
 Fom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. 
 AUatii et Frontonis). 
 
 (3) Martyr at Milan in the time of Aurelius 
 
 Commodus; commemorated Aug. 7 {Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 FAUSTUS. (1) [Felix (5).] 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome with Bonus the pres¬ 
 byter, Maurus, and seven others ; commemorated 
 Aug. 1 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Holy Father, A.D. 368 ; commemorated 
 Aug. 3 {Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Milan; commemorated Aug. 7 
 {Mart. Fom. Vet.). 
 
 (5) Saint, at Antioch; commemorated with 
 Timotheus, Sept. 8 {Mart. Usuardi, Hieron.). 
 
 (6) Martyr at Cordova with Januarius and 
 Martialis; commemorated Sept. 28 {Mart. Fom. 
 Vet., Adonis) ; “Passio ” Oct. 13 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Deacon and martyr; commemorated Nov. 
 19 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi); with Eusebius 
 {Mart. Fom. Vet.). 
 
 (8) [Dius (2).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 FEASTS OF CHARITY. [Agapae.] 
 
 FEBRONIA. (1) With Marina, virgins ; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 24 {Cal. Armen.). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Nisibis, a.d. 286; commemorated 
 June 25 {Cal. Bgzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
FELIX 
 
 660 FEET, WASHING OP 
 
 FEET, WASHING OF. [Baptism, §§ 34, 
 67; Maundy Thuksuay,] 
 
 FEILIKE, THE, of Aengus the Culdee. 
 Tlie word I'eilire, derived from “ feil ” the Irish 
 equivalent of vigilia, is applied to the metrical 
 festology composed by Aengus the Culdee about 
 the year 780. It is the most ancient of five 
 martyrologies belonging to Ireland. The others 
 are (1.) The -martyrology ofTamhlacht, which 
 must have been written after 845. (2.) That of 
 
 Maelmuire ua Gorman, dating from between 
 1156-1173. (3.) The Saltair na Rann, which, 
 
 however, contains only four Gaelic entries ; and 
 (4.) The Kalendar of the Drummond Missal, 
 published in Bishop Forbes’ Kalendars of the 
 Scottish saints. 
 
 Of the personal history of Aengus we know 
 that he was educated in Cluain Ednach in 
 Queen’s County, and travelling into Munster 
 founded Disert Aengusa in co. Limerick. At the 
 time of the expedition of king Aedh Oirdnidhe 
 against Leinster in 799 he was residing at Dis¬ 
 ert Bethec near Monasterevin. Latterly he went 
 to abbot Maelruain at Tamhlacht, when he from 
 humility concealed his gifts, and passing himself 
 as a serving man was entrusted with the charge of 
 the mill and kiln, till at last his learning was 
 discovered by accident. 
 
 The Feilire consists of three parts. 1. Five 
 quatrains invoking a blessing on the poet and 
 his work. 2. A preface of 220 quatrains; and 
 3, The festology itself in 365 quatrains for 
 every day in the year (O’Curry, Earlu EccL 
 MSS. of Ireland., pp. 359-371. [A. P. F.] 
 
 FELICIANUS. (1) Martp- at Rome with 
 Fortunatus, Firmus, andCandidus; commemor¬ 
 ated Feb. 2 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome with Primus under Dio¬ 
 cletian and Maximian; commemorated June 9 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. 
 Allatii et Frontonis, Sacramentarium Gregorii). 
 
 (3) [Victor (10).] 
 
 (4) Martyr in Lucania with Jacinctus, Qui- 
 ritus, and Lucius; commemorated Oct. 29 {Mart. 
 Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (6) [Exsuperius (3).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 FELICISSIMA, virgin, martyr at Falari 
 with Gracilianus; “ Passio ” Aug. 12 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FELICISSIMUS. ( 1 ) [Heraclius (3).] 
 
 (2) [Felix (14).] 
 
 (3) [Sixtus (2).] 
 
 ( 4 ) Martyr in Africa, with Rogatianus, the 
 presbyter, under Decius and Valerian; comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 26 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi). 
 
 (5) Saint, of Perugia in Tuscany; “Natalis” 
 Nov. 24 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FELICITAS. (1) Martyr at Tuburbo (at 
 Carthage, Bede') with Perpetua, Revocatus, Sa- 
 turninus, and Secundolus, under Severus; com¬ 
 memorated March 7 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Bucher.). 
 
 (2) Martyr under Antoninus; commemorated 
 Nov. 23 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FELICULA. (1) Martyr at Rome with 
 
 Vitalis and Zeno; commemorated Feb. 14 {Mart 
 Hieron., Adonis, Usu.ardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr at Rome; commemorated 
 June 13 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FELIX. ( 1 ) Saint, at Hei-aclea ; comme¬ 
 morated with Januarius, Jan. 7 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, confessor at Nola in Campania ; 
 commemorated Jan. \\{Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Carth.). 
 
 (3) [Dativus (1).] 
 
 (4) [Hilary (2).] 
 
 (6) Martyr at Caesaraugusta with seventeen 
 others: Apodemu.s, Cassianus, Cecilianus, Evotus, 
 Faustus, Fronto, Januarius, Julitis, Lupercus, 
 Matutinus, Martialis, Optatus, Primitivus, Pub¬ 
 lius, Quintilianus, Sucoessus, Urbanus; comme¬ 
 morated April 16 {Mart. Usuardi), April 15 
 {Mart. Adonis). 
 
 (6) Saint, of Alexandria; commemorated with 
 Arator, presbyter, Fortunus, Silvius, and Vita¬ 
 lis, April 21 {Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 7 ) Presbyter, martyr at Valence in France 
 with Fortunatus and Achilleus, deacons; com¬ 
 memorated April 23 { fb.). 
 
 ( 8 ) Bishop, martyr at Spoletum under Maxi¬ 
 mian ; commemorated May 18 {MaH. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 9 ) Martyr in Istria with Zoellius, Serviliu.s, 
 Silvanus, and Diodes; commemorated May 24 
 (76.). 
 
 ( 10 ) Saint, in Sardinia; commemorated with 
 Aemilius, Priamus, Lucianus, May 28 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Hieron., Adonis, U.suardi). 
 
 ( 11 ) The pope, martyr at Rome under the 
 emperor Claudius; commemorated May 30 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (12) Martyr in Aquileia with Fortunatus 
 under Diocletian and Maximian; “ Passio ” June 
 11 {lb.). 
 
 ( 13 ) Presbyter, martyr in Tuscany; comme¬ 
 morated June 23 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 14 ) Martyr in Campania with Aristo, Cre- 
 scentianus, Eutychianus, Felicissimus, Justus, 
 Martia, Symphorosa, Urbanus, and \italis; com¬ 
 memorated July 2 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 15 ) Son of Felicitas (2), martyr in the time 
 of Antoninus; commemorated with his six bro¬ 
 thers, Alexander, Januarius, Martialis, Philip, 
 Silvanus, Vitalis, July 10 {Mart. Rom. \et., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 16 ) Martvr in Africa ; commemorated with 
 Januarius, Marinus, and Nabor, July 10 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 17 ) [SCILLITA.] 
 
 ( 18 ) The pope, martyr at Rome under Con¬ 
 stantins Augustus; commemorated July 29 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Usuardi); “Passio” 
 Nov. 10; deposition Nov. 17 {Mart. Adonis). 
 
 ( 19 ) Martyr at Gerona in Spain; commemo¬ 
 rated Aug. 1 {Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (20) Martyr at Rome with Aprilis, Martialis, 
 Saturninus, and their companions; commemo¬ 
 rated Aug. 22 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 ( 21 ) [Georgius (4).] 
 
FEMORALIA 
 
 FERIA 
 
 667 
 
 (22) Presbyter, martyr at Rome with Adauctus 
 under Diocletian and Maximian ; commemorated 
 Aug. 30 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usu- 
 ardi, Cal. Allatii et Ft ontonis). 
 
 ( 23 ) Bishop ofTubzoca, martyr at Venixsia in 
 Apulia in the time of Diocletian, with Audactus 
 and Janxxarius, presbyters, Fortunatianus and 
 Septiminus, readers ; commemorated Aug. 30 
 (Mart. Bedae), Oct. 24 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, 
 IJsuardi). 
 
 (24) Bishop, martyr in Africa with Neme- 
 sianus and Lucius, bishops; also with Dativus, 
 Felix, Jader, Litteus, Polianus, and Victor, under 
 Decius and Valerian; commemorated Sept. 10 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 25 ) [Felix (24).] 
 
 ( 26 ) Martyr at Nuceria with Constantia, under 
 Nero; commemorated Sept. 19 (Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 ( 27 ) Martyr at Autun, with Andochius, pres¬ 
 byter, and Tyrsus, deacon, under the emperor 
 Aurelian ; commemorated Sept, ?4 (Mart. Bedae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 28 ) Bishop, martyr in Africa with Cyprian 
 and 4976 others, under Hunnericus; commemo¬ 
 rated Oct. 12 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usu- 
 ai’di). 
 
 ( 29 ) [Eusebius (8).] 
 
 ( 30 ) Martyr at Toniza in Africa; commemo¬ 
 rated Nov. 6 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 ( 31 ) Bishop, martyr at Nola in Campania with 
 
 thirty others; commemorated Nov. 15 (Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 FEMORALIA or FEMINALIA. These 
 are drawers or breeches covering the thighs and 
 loins, as the derivation implies. (See Isidore 
 Hispal. Etym. xix. 22.) They were an essential 
 part of the dress of the Levitical priesthood 
 (Ex. xxviii. 42, 43), and as such are often re- 
 feri’ed to by the fathei’s (see e. g. Jerome, Epist. 
 64, ad Fahiolam; i. 360, ed. Vallarsi), many of 
 whom are delighted to find a symbolical meaning 
 in this as in other vestments. 
 
 The injunction as to the wearing of breeches 
 during divine service is repeated in sundry 
 monastic rules. Thus the Buie of Fructuosus, 
 bishop of Bracara, when settling the dress to 
 be worn by monks, permits the use of femoralia 
 to all, but “ maxime his qui ministerio impli- 
 cantur altaris” (Uegula S. Fructuosi, c. 45: in 
 Holstenius, Codex Regularum, part 2, p. 139, ed. 
 Pari.s, 1663; cf. Grimlaici Solitariorum Begula, 
 c. 49; op. cit. p. 341). For general rules as to 
 this and other articles of monastic dress see 
 Magistri Begula, c. 81 (op. cit. p. 257). The 
 Rule of St. Benedict enjoins that monks who 
 were going on a journey should borrow femoralia 
 from the Vestiarium, and on their return should 
 restore them thither wa.shed:—“ femoralia, ii 
 qui diriguntur in via, de Vestiario accipiant, qui 
 revertentes lota ibi restituant” (c. 55 ; p. 117, ed. 
 Venice, 1723). For further references, see Du- 
 cange’s Glossarium, s. vv., and Menard’s note to 
 the Concordia Regularum (Patrol, ciii. 1235). 
 
 [R. S.] 
 
 FENCING-MASTERS. [Gladiators; La- 
 
 NISTAE.] 
 
 FERETRUM, a bier on which the corpse, 
 after washing, was placed and carried to burial 
 [Burial of the Dead]. It was as a rule made 
 of wood, in which Ambrose (in Luc. vii. 14) sees 
 a mystical allusion to the resurrection, drawn 
 from the miracle at Nain (Durant, de Bitib. lib. 
 i. c. 23). feretrum of Constantine the Great 
 appears to have been of gold, like his coffin 
 (Euseb. Vit. Const, lib. iv. c. 66). The bier was 
 covei-ed with a jjall, more or less costly, accord¬ 
 ing to the I’ank of the deceased. That of Con¬ 
 stantine was of purple (a\ovpytKf) aKoupyidi). 
 That of Blesilla, the daughter of Paula, was of 
 cloth of gold, against which Jerome remonstrated 
 vehemently as an unchristian extravagance 
 (Hieron. Ep. 25). Constantine’s bier was sur¬ 
 rounded with a circle ot lights burning in golden 
 candlesticks (Euseb. n. s.). The bier was carried 
 to the grave sometimes by relations or near 
 friends, sometimes by officials designated to that 
 duty (Copiatae, decani, lecticarii), and in the case 
 of persons of high dignity or sanctity by bishops, 
 and nobles, e.g., Basil by his clergy (Greg. Mag. 
 Orat. XX.), his sister Macrina by Gregory Nyssen, 
 and other clergy (Greg. Nys. Vit. Macr. tom. ii. 
 
 р. 201); Paula, by the bishops of Palestine, 
 
 “ cervicem feretro subiicientibus ” (Hieron. Ep. 
 27). [E. V.] 
 
 FERIA. The proper sense of this word is 
 that of a holyday, of a festival viewed in the 
 aspect of a day of freedom from worldly business. 
 It is in this meaning that we find the word in 
 classical Latin, though here it occurs exclusively 
 in the plural. Besides this, however, the xvoid 
 has been used in a special sense in the Christian 
 church from very early times to denote the days 
 of the week, feria secunda, tertia, &c., for Mon¬ 
 day, Tuesday, &c. 
 
 The origin of this svstem of notation cannot 
 be stated with absolute certainty. It is explained 
 by Ducange (Glossarium, s. v.) as arising from 
 the fact that the week following Easter Dav was 
 appointed by the emperor Constantine to be ob¬ 
 served as one continuous festival, and that origi¬ 
 nally the year began with Easter. Hence the 
 Monday, Tuesday, &c., of Easter Week would be 
 respectively secunda feria, tertia feria, Sio., and 
 in this way, following the example of the first 
 week of the year, the names passed to all other 
 Mondays, &c., of the year. The great objection 
 to this view, which seems to have found many 
 supporters (see e.g. Pelliccia, De Christianae Ec- 
 clesiae politia, i. 277, ed. Colon. 1829), is that 
 long before the time of Constantine we find Ter- 
 tullian speaking of Wednesday and Friday as 
 quarta and sexta feria (de jejunio adv. Psychicos, 
 
 с. 2). 
 
 It seems more reasonable to explain the phrase 
 as being akin to and probably derived from the 
 Jewish system of notation under which such an 
 expression as e.g. f) pia tuv (ra^^arwr (Mark 
 xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7, and often in the New Testa¬ 
 ment) means the “ first day of the week.” This 
 extension of the word Sabbath, which, besides the 
 instances adducible from the New Testament, 
 occurs also in the Targums(see e. g. Esther ii. 9), 
 is merely a natural transference of a word from 
 its primary meaning of the point of time, as it 
 were, to express the {)eriods marked out by such 
 points; and an exact parallel is found in the 
 Hebrew which is primarily the new 
 
6G8 
 
 FEHIALKS 
 
 FERMENT EM 
 
 nioou, and hence the month, or period between 
 two new moons. The real feriu then being Sun¬ 
 day, the other days of the week are reckoned as 
 in the above instances with reference to this. On 
 this view see Heinichen on Eusebius, Jfist. Eccles. 
 (vol. iii. p. 87). The explanation given by Du¬ 
 rand us (fixation fie dicinoruiu offi,cioram,\\\. 1. 11) 
 deserves to be quoted, though of course not ad¬ 
 missible as a solution—“ vocantur ergo feriae a 
 feriando, (j'Uta ^o^o temjtore a vitiis feriari, id est 
 V (care, debeitnis, non quod sit a uecessariis vitae 
 operibus feriandum.” 
 
 With the seventh day of the week the name 
 SEbattcin was so closeh' associated that it was 
 nearly always used instead of septima feria, 
 though Ducange (s. f ) gives an example of this 
 last phrase. In like manner, the first day of the 
 week, from its association with the Resurrection, 
 became “ the Lord’s Day ” from apostolic times, 
 and thus though the phrase prim i feria does now 
 and then occur (see e. g. in one of the spurious 
 sermons once attributed to Augustine, Patrol. 
 xxxix. 2005), Puiiiinica is the regular word for 
 Sunday in ancient liturgies. The days, however, 
 from Monday to Friday inclusive are habitually 
 designated as secumla fori i, &c., of which practice 
 an examination of, e. g., the Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary will furnish abundant examples. A 
 good illustration, showing how completely the 
 word feria had passed into this now sense, is fur¬ 
 nished by the use of the phrase feriae legitimae 
 in the Libri Poenitentiales of Theodore of Tarsus 
 and of Bede, as when for some offence a special 
 fast is enjoined “ praeter legitimas ferias ” (see 
 e. g. Patrol, xcix. 968), that is, in addition to 
 those days of the week which were fasts under 
 all circumstances. 
 
 For furthei remarks on this subject see Du- 
 cauge’s Glossarium, (s. v.), and Augusti’s Hand- 
 buch der christlichen Archdolo^ie, i. 467 sqq. 
 
 [ll. S.] 
 
 FERIALES (i.e. Libri) were books contain¬ 
 ing a record of the festivals of the martyrs. 
 Thus Chromatius and Heliodorus, writing to 
 Jerome (Hieron. Epist.), beg him to search for 
 the Feriales from the archives of Eusebius of 
 Caesarea, as a guide to the feast-days of the 
 martyrs [Calendar: Martyrology] (Ducange, 
 s. T.). [C.] 
 
 FERMENTUM. I. The earliest Ordo Po- 
 manus extant, which is supjiosed to represent 
 the ritual of Rome in the age of Gregory the 
 Great, a.d. 590, orders a portion of reserved 
 eucharist (Sancta) to be brought into the church 
 before the celebration by a subdeacon, to be de¬ 
 livered bv him to the archdeacon after the canon, 
 and to be ymt into the chalice by the latter, 
 saying, “The Peace of the Lord be with you 
 alway.” (^Ord. R. /. nn. 8, 17, 18, in Mus. Ital. 
 tom. ii. pp. 8, 12, 13). The bishop of Rome is 
 sup))osed to be present, and to celebrate. The 
 particle thus used was called Fennentum, the 
 leaven, n. 22, p. 16. If the pope was not pre¬ 
 sent, “a particle of the leaven, which had been 
 consecrated by the apostolical, was brought by 
 the oblatiouary subdeacon, and given to the arch¬ 
 deacon ; but he handed it to the bishop, who, 
 signing it thrice, and saying, • The Peace, &c.,’ 
 put it into the chalice.” The reason of the 
 name Fennentum is now obvious. Leaven is 
 dough reserved from one baking to be mixed 
 
 with that ])repareJ for another, and may be 
 said to make the bread of both one. The eucha¬ 
 rist ic leaven connected successive celebrations 
 with each other in the same manner, and was 
 at the same time a token of union between con¬ 
 gregations locally separated from each other. 
 If we may trust to the Liber Pontificalis, the 
 custom of sending the Fermentum to the several 
 churches in Rome originated with Melchiades. 
 A.D. 311. The same authority tells us that 
 Siricius, a.d. 385, “ ordained that no presbyter 
 should celebrate masses through the whole 
 week unless he received a certified (declaratum), 
 consecrated (portion) from the bishop of the 
 place appointed (for a station), which is called 
 the leaven ” (Anast. Biblioth. de Vitis Pont. 
 Rom. nn. 32, 39, pp. 12, 22). The custom is 
 noticed at some length in a letter ascribed to 
 Innocent L, a.d. 402, but apparently composed 
 by a later and inferior writer. From this docu¬ 
 ment we learn that the pope “ sent the leaven 
 per titulos,'’ i. e. the churches within the city 
 only (those without being in the suburbicarian 
 dioceses), and that it was done on Sundays, 
 “ that the presbyters who on that day could 
 not meet him (in worship) on account of the 
 people committed to them, might not, above all 
 on that day, feel themselves cut off from com¬ 
 munion with him ” (Innoc. Ep. ad Decent, in 
 Cigheri, F. PP. Theolog. Unit', tom. iv. p. 178). 
 The writer had been asked by another bishop, 
 if it was proper to send the Fermentum about 
 through a diocese (f. e. beyond the walls of an 
 episcopal city). The question shows that the 
 practice had spread. In the writings of Gregory 
 of Tours, A.D. 573, xve meet with a story which 
 proves incidentally that it was not unknown in 
 France. We are told of a certain deacon, in a 
 town in Auvergne, who, “ when the time to 
 offer the sacrifice was come, having taken the 
 tower in which was kept the my.stery of the 
 Lord’s Body, began to carry it to the door (of 
 the church), and entered the temple to place it 
 on the altar,” «S:c. (J/fme. L. 1. cap. 86). 
 
 Before the custom became obsolete, its observ¬ 
 ance was, it appears, reduced by authority to a 
 few days in the year. For in an ancient gloss 
 on the letter a.scribed to Innocent, found by 
 Mabillon in the library of St. Emmeran at Ratis- 
 bon, the following statement occurs: “ Touch¬ 
 ing the leaven, which he mentions, it is the 
 custom of the Romans that a portion be re¬ 
 served from the mass which is sung on Maundy 
 Thursday and the Easter-Eve, and on the holy 
 day of Easter, and at Pentecost, and on the 
 holy day of the Lord’s Nativity, throughout 
 the year; and that of the said mass there be 
 put into the chalice, everywhere at the stations, 
 if the pope himself be not present, when he 
 says. The Peace, &c. . . . and this is called Fer¬ 
 mentum. Nevertheless, on Easter-Eve, no pres¬ 
 byter in the baptismal churches communicates 
 any one before there be sent to him of that very 
 same holy thing which the Lord Pope hath 
 offered ” (Mabillon, Itin. Geiynan. Descript. p. 
 65; Hamb. 1717).. The rite was observed at 
 Rome under the second Ordo Romanus. now ex¬ 
 tant (pp. 43, 9), which is probably at least a 
 century later than the first. Amalarius, who 
 wrote about the year 827, cites some words that 
 relate to it from Ordo Tl. § 12 (ji. 49) ; but there 
 can be little doubt that he undei’stood them of 
 
669 
 
 FERREOLUS 
 
 the “ commixture ” of a particle of the newly- 
 consecrated oblate (^De Eccles. Off. lib. iii. c. 31). 
 
 II. There was another use of the reserved 
 element, somewhat similar to the above, at the 
 ordination of bishops and priests. The earliest 
 notice occui's in a very ancient Roman directory, 
 and refers (as indeed all the strictly Roman 
 documents doj to bishops only. The pope at the 
 communion which followed the consecration, 
 gave a whole, oblate to the newly-made bishop, 
 of which he took a part at the time, but “ re¬ 
 served the rest of it to serve for communions for 
 forty days” (Ordo VIII. p. 89). The practice 
 may haA'e spread from Rome, but it was at one 
 time so widely observed that we are compelled 
 to assign its origin to a very early though not 
 primitive date. In the opinion of Morinus (/><? 
 Sacr. Ordin. P. III. Exerc. VIII. c. ii. § iv.), it 
 sprang up in Italy in the 8th century. Fulbert, 
 bishop of Chartres, who was born in the 10th cen¬ 
 tury, asserts that it was observed by all the bishops 
 of his })i‘ovince at the ordination of presbyters, 
 and he believed it to be uirversal {Ep. IT. ad 
 Einard. apud Martene, de J ,<,t. Eccl. Bit. L. I. 
 c. viii. Art. IX. n. xx.). Rubrics presciibing it 
 at the consecration of bishops are found in old 
 pontificals of Concha, in Spain (Martene, u. s. 
 Art. X. n. xxi.); of Saltzburg (/'6'c/. Art. XI. 
 Ord. VIII.') \ of Toulouse, Rouen, Rheims (Mo¬ 
 rinus, de Sacr. Ord. P. II. p. 281 ; and B. III. p. 
 130), and the Latin church of Constantinople 
 (Mart. u. s. Ordo XIV. note at end), where the 
 term was foviy days ; and of Mayeneo (Morinus, 
 P. II. p. 278), where it was thirty. The pon¬ 
 tificals of Ccnipibgne (Mart. u. s. Ord. F/A) and 
 of Saltzburg (Ibid. Ord. IX.) testify to the cus¬ 
 tom at the ordination of priests, the former fix¬ 
 ing forty days for them, and the latter only 
 .seven. In the pontifical of the Latin church of 
 Apamea in Syria, the pope, who is supposed to 
 consecrate, is directed to give a “ whole Host ” 
 to the new bishop, but its use is not mentioned. 
 Afterward however, it is said that “ for forty 
 days from tl e day of his consecration he ought, 
 if possible, to sing mass daily for the people com¬ 
 mitted to him.” (Mart. u. s. Ord. XIV.). This 
 evidently indicates the original purpose, and 
 makes it highly probable that wherever in the 
 west we tin I an order that the newly ordained 
 shall celebrate for forty days (and this W'as a 
 common rule: see Morinus, P. III. Exerc. VIII. 
 c. ii. § vii. p. 132), there had also existed in con¬ 
 nection with it the custom of reserving for tho.se 
 celebrations from the communion at the ordina¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Mabillon {Co inn. in Ord. Bom. p. xxxix.) states 
 expressly that the particles of the reserved oblate 
 were put day bv day into the chalice by the 
 newly-made bishop or priest, as in the rite be¬ 
 fore de.scribe 1. d'his is more than probable; 
 but it is right to mention that he gives no refe¬ 
 rence, and that no direct evidence of the fact 
 has come within the knowledge of the present 
 writer. [VV. E. S.] 
 
 FERREOLUS. (1) Presbyter, martyr at 
 Bcsan 7 on with Ferrutio, the deacon ; comme¬ 
 morated .June 16 {Mart. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) IMartyr at Vienna; commemorated Sept. 
 18 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FERRUTIO. [Fkrreolus.] 
 
 FESTIVA L 
 
 FERTUM is “the oblation which i.s brought 
 to the altar, and sacrificed by the priest ” (Du- 
 cange, s. v. quoting Isidore and Papias); i. e. the 
 element of bread offered on the altar and conse¬ 
 crated. [(j.d 
 
 FERULA. [Narthex ; Pastoral Stafi .] 
 
 FESTIVAL (eopr-lf, festnm, dies festns). The 
 history of the fir.st ri.se of festivals in the Chris¬ 
 tian church is a subject involved in much 
 obscurity. During the first few year.s, while 
 the essentially Jewish character of the church 
 continued, the Jewish yearly festivals were 
 doubtlessly ob.served, especially the Passover and 
 Pentecost, which later events had raised to a far 
 higher pitch of dignity. The Sabbath also con¬ 
 tinued to be observed, and with it the first day 
 of each week became a le.sser Easter day. 
 
 As time went on, the Jewish element in the 
 church became proportionately diminished, with 
 the breach between it and the Gentile part con¬ 
 tinually widening. Indeed the tone of the 
 language used by Christian writers in the 2nd 
 century, Avith reference to the Jewish nation, is 
 on the Avhole one of undisguised hostility. It is 
 obvious therefore that the tendency would be 
 from the nature of the case to reject such Jewish 
 festivals as had not in some sort been made 
 Christian, and thus, e.g., though some have seen 
 in Christmas a higher form of the feast of the 
 Dedication, it may be considered that the inheri¬ 
 tance of the younger from the older church, 
 so far as festivals are com-erned, consists of the 
 ennobled PassoA'er and Pentecost. The “ first 
 day' of the Aveek ” Avas no doubt a Christian 
 festiA’al from the earliest times. Up to the end 
 of the 2nd century, Ave have no evidence of 
 the existence of any other festival than these 
 three. Gradually, hoAvever, from a belief in the 
 lessons of good deriA'able from a celebration of 
 great events in the history of our faith, and 
 perhaps too from the analogy of the numerous 
 festiA'als of the older religions, fresh commemora¬ 
 tions arose, the earliest being that of the Ei)iphany, 
 from Avhich afterwards arose the celebration 
 of Christmas as a separate festival. The exact 
 time ot the first rise ot these, and of the connec¬ 
 tion betAveen the tAvo, is uncertain ; reference 
 may be made to the separate articles. [Christ¬ 
 mas, Erirhany'.] The time, too, from Easter to 
 Pentecost came to be viewed as one long festal 
 season, and in this period a special distinction 
 began to be attached to Ascension-day, in the 
 3rd or more probably in the 4th century. To¬ 
 gether Avith these festiA'als and similar ones 
 Avhich Avere gradually added {e.g. those of the 
 Presentation and Annunciation in the 6th 
 century), all commemorative of the great events 
 in the foundation of the faith, we find also 
 festiA'als of another kind, the celebration of the 
 anniA'ersary of a martyr’s death, vieAved as his 
 natal day into the better life. These Avould be 
 at first confined more or less to special churches, 
 but Avould subsequently obtain in many cases a 
 general observance. Thus by the end of the 
 4th century we find a Avide-sj)read obsorA'ance of 
 fe.stivals of e.g., St. Stephen, SS. Peter and Paul, 
 and the Maccabees. ‘ The festi\'al of St. John the 
 Baptist, Avhich at an early period became one of 
 great importance (see e.g. the canon of the council 
 of Agde, cited beloAv), is not hoAvever of the above 
 class, being a commemoration of the actual birth- 
 
FESTIVAL 
 
 670 FESTIVAL 
 
 day, as one intimately associated with that of the 
 Saviour Himself. 
 
 We find, however, considerable diversity of 
 feeling in the primitive church on the subject of 
 festivals. On the one hand, it was most Justly 
 felt that a festival, as being a cessation from the 
 world’s everyday cares and pleasures, should 
 claim regard as a special means of help for the 
 soul in its heavenward way ; on the other hand, 
 it was urged with equal truth, that when the 
 shadows of Judaism had become the realities 
 of Christianity, to lay any special stress on the 
 observance of times and seasons was at any rate 
 to incur the danger of losing sight of the reason 
 why festivals were established at all, and the 
 rather that in Christianity every day was in a 
 new sense consecrated to God. It was the dis¬ 
 regard of one or other of these two co-ordinate 
 truths to which must be attributed much of the 
 false ideas that have been held on the subject of 
 festivals. Protests on the second point were 
 deemed necessary by our Lord Himself (Matt, 
 xii. 8; Mark ii. 27), and by St. Paul (Romans 
 xiv. 5, 6 ; Gal. iv. 9-11 ; Col. ii. 16). In like 
 manner too, Origen (contra Celsum viii. 22) 
 urges that the Christian who dwells on the 
 
 Omni theatrorum atque Circensium voluptate 
 per universal urbes earundem populis denegata.” 
 (2) In like manner all legal Imsiness had to be 
 suspended. (C>i<J. Theodor, lib. ii. tit. 8, 11. 1, 2 ; 
 vol. i. pp. 118, 121: C<A. Justin, lib. iii. tit. 12, 
 11. 7, 11 ; pp. 207, 208). A .special exemption 
 was allowed in the case of emancipation or manu¬ 
 mission (6W. Theodos. lib. ii. tit. 8, 1. 1; supra). 
 (8) The celebration of public w'orship was of 
 course a necessary concomitant ui a festival. 
 The council of Ehberis [305 a.i>.] condemns the 
 man who on three consecutive Sundavs was 
 absent from the church (can. 21 ; Labile i. 973). 
 The council of Agde (506 a.d.) while sanctioning 
 generally the juactice of communicating in 
 private chapels, forbids it elsewhere than in the 
 public assembly on the more im[iortant festivals* 
 These are specified in another canon of the same 
 council as Easter, Christmas, the Epiphanv, 
 Ascension-day, Pentecost, the Nativitv of St. 
 John the Baptist, “ vel si qui maximi dies in 
 festivitatibus habentur.” (cann. 18, 21 ; Libbe 
 iv. 1386: cf. Concil. Aurel. iv. [541 A.D.] can. 
 3; Labbe v. 382). (4) Fasting was a thing 
 
 utterly foreign to the idea of such days; indeed 
 it was a distinguishing mark of sundrv heretics 
 
 thought of Christ our Passover, and of the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost, is every day keeping an 
 Easter and a Pentecostal feast. Similar remarks 
 are found also in Chrysostom (Horn. i. de S. 
 Pentecoste, c. i.; vol. ii. 458, ed. Montfaucou : 
 cf. Horn. xv. in 1 Cor. c. 3; vol. x. 128). These 
 passages, however, are not to be viewed a.s objec¬ 
 tions brought against the celebration of festivals, 
 but rather as answers to those who saw in them but 
 a relic of Judaism. Tertullian, in very sweep¬ 
 ing language, condemns the practice of holding 
 festivals altogether on this ground ,—“ Horum 
 igitur tempera observantes et dies et menses 
 et annos, galaticamur. Plane, si judaicarum 
 caerimoniaruin, si legalium sollemnitatum ob¬ 
 servantes suinus. . . .” and asks why in the 
 face of St. Paul’s language as to times and 
 seasons, Easter is celebrated, and why the period 
 from thence to Whitsunday is spent as one long 
 season of rejoicing (dejejunio adv. Psychicos, c. 14). 
 Jerome, on the other hand, while endorsing such 
 views as those which we have referred to as 
 held by Origen and Chrysostom, proceeds further 
 to maintain the definite advantages arising 
 from the observance of festivals (Comm, in Gal. 
 iv. 10 ; vol. vii. 456, ed. Vallarsi: cf. Socrates, 
 Hist. Eccles. V. 22). 
 
 We sliall now briefly notice the chief points in 
 which a festival was specially distinguished in 
 its observance from ordinary days. (1) The essential 
 idea of a Christian festival was obviously such 
 as to make ordinary festivities, other than those 
 of a religious character, unseemly at such times; 
 and thus numerous imperial edicts were promul¬ 
 gated from time to time, prohibiting public 
 games, etc. on Christian holy days (Eusebius, 
 Vita Constantini iv. 18, 23 : Sozomen, Hist. 
 Eccles. i. 8: Cud. Theodos. lib. xv. tit. 5, 11. 2, 
 5; vol. iv. pn. 350, 353, ed. Gothofredus: Cod. 
 Justin, lib. iii. tit. 12, 1. li ; p. 2t8, ed. Gotho¬ 
 fredus). Of the two references to the Theodosian 
 Code, the former enjoins that “ Nullus Solis die 
 populo spectaculum praebeatthe latter specifies 
 Sundays, Christina-s, the Epiphany, Easter, and 
 the anniversary of apostolic martyrdoms as the 
 days to which the prohibition extended, “. . . . 
 
 to turn the festivals into seasons of fasting. The 
 
 so called Apostolic Canons censure those who 
 
 w'ould fast on the Lord’s dav or the Sabbath 
 
 •/ 
 
 (i.e. Saturday, which, it will be remembered, was 
 regarded in the East as a day of distinctly festal 
 character), and orders that any of the clergy who 
 does so shall be deposed (KadaipelaOu^, can. 65, 
 al. 66, Labbe i. 40); and a previous canon 
 (52 al. 51) had spoken of a bishop, priest or 
 deacon, who abstained from flesh and wine on 
 a festival as “ a cause of scandal to many.” (See 
 also Tertullian, de Cororux Militis c. 3; Cnicil. 
 Gajigrense [circa 324 A.D.] can. 18; Labbe ii. 
 424; Concil. Carting, iv. [398 A.D.] can. 64; 
 Labbe ii. 1205). On these days in earlier times 
 were held Agapae [Agapae], a custom which 
 was afterwards changed into the plan of the 
 richer members of a Christian community feeding 
 the poorer (cf. e.g., Tertullian, Ajol. c. 39). (5) 
 
 Among minor but significant ways of distinguish¬ 
 ing a festival it may be added that at such times 
 it was usual to ofler prayer standing, not kneel¬ 
 ing ; “ die dominico nefas . . . . de geniculis 
 adorare. Eadem immunitate a die Paschae in 
 Pentecosten usque gaudemus” (Tertullian, de 
 Corona Militis c. 3). Irenaeus, in referring to 
 the same practice, speaks of this absence of kneel¬ 
 ing as figurative of the resurrection (Frag. 
 7; vol. i. p. 828, ed. Stieren : cf. Justin ^Martyr, 
 Quaest. et Resp. ad OrthoJoxos 115: Jerome 
 Dialogus contra Luciferianos c. 8; vol. ii. 180: 
 Epiphanius Expos. Fidei c. 22 ; vol. i. 1105, ed. 
 Petavius: Isidore de Eccl. Off. i. 33 : Rabauus 
 Maurus de Inst. Cler. ii. 42. See also Concil. 
 Eicaenum i. [325 A.D.] can. 20; Labbe ii. 37 : 
 also Dr. Pusoy’s note to the Oxford tran>latiou 
 of Ephrem Syrus, pp. 417 s(jq.). 
 
 Festivals may be divided into ord'nary and 
 extraordinary (feriae statutae, indict le), accord¬ 
 ing as they came in regular course in the 
 Christian year, or were specially a])poiuted in 
 consequence of some particular event. The 
 former may again be divided into immoveable and 
 moveable (feriae hnmobiles, mobiles), according a* 
 they did or did not fall on the same day in every 
 year; those in the latter division obviously con- 
 
FESTUM 
 
 sisting of such as depended on Easter, the time of 
 which, depending on the Jewisli or lunar calendar, 
 to which the Paschal festival originally belonged, 
 varies with reference to its place in the Julian 
 or solar year [Easter]. It follows that the num¬ 
 ber of Suuilays between Christmas and Easter, 
 and again between Easter and Christmas, is vari¬ 
 able. Besides the obvious divisions of feriae 
 mnjores, minores, there is further that into 
 feriae integrae, intercisae, according as the festival 
 lasted for the whole or part of a day. Such 
 divisions as those made by the Roman church 
 of festum simplex, duplex, semiduplex, to say 
 nothing of further subdivisions (princApale du¬ 
 plex, majus duplex, etc.), fall quite beyond our 
 period. (For information concerning them see 
 Ducange’s Glussarium, s. c. Fettum). On the 
 subject of the repeated commemorations of the 
 more important festivals, see Octave, and for 
 the preliminary preparation for festivals, see 
 Vigil. 
 
 Among the literature on the subject of Chris¬ 
 tian festivals may be mentioned the following :— 
 Hos])inianus, Festa Christianorum; Tiguri, 
 1593. Dresser, de festis diebus Christianorum, 
 Judaeo um ct Ethnicorum liber, quo origo, causa 
 ritus ct usus eorum exponitur. Lipsiae, 1594. 
 GrQisQY, de festis Christianorum, Ingolstadt, 1612. 
 Gueti, Hcortologia. Parisiis, 1657. Lambertini, 
 Commentami duo de Jesu Christi matrisque ejus 
 Festis et de Missae Sacrifeio. Patavii, 1752. 
 August!, die Feste der alten Christen. Leipzig, 
 1817. Ullmann, Vergleichende Zusommenstellung 
 des Chrittlichen Fefcyclus mit Vorchristlichen 
 Festen, als Anhang zu Creuzers Sgmbolik. Leipzig, 
 1821. Nickel, Die heiligen Zeiten und Feste 
 nach ihrer Geschichte und Feicr in der Katholi- 
 schen Kirche. Mainz, 1825-38. Binterim, 
 Denknurdigktiten dec Christ-Katholischen Kirche 
 (vol. V. part 1, pp. 119 sqq.) Mainz, 1825-38. 
 Staudenmaier, Der Geist des Christenthums, 
 dargestcllt in den heiligen Zeiten, heiligen Hand- 
 lungen und der heiligen Kunst. Mainz, 1838. 
 
 [R. S.] 
 
 FESTUM. [Festival.] 
 
 FESTUS. (1) [Januaries (10).] 
 
 (2) Saint in Tuscany; commemoraftd with 
 Joannes, Dec. 21 (^Alart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Ado¬ 
 nis, LTsuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FIDKI ADVOCATES. [Advocates; De¬ 
 fensor.] 
 
 FIDKJUSSORES. [Sponsor.] 
 
 FIDEI.ES. [FAiTfiFUL.] 
 
 FIDELII'M MISSA. [Missa.] 
 FIDELIUM ORATIO. [Ia^rd’s Prayer.] 
 FI DES. (1) [Sophia.] 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr at Agen; commemorated 
 Oct. 6 (^Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FILIOLA (Spanish, Ilijuela), a name given 
 in the Mozarabic liturgy to the Veil of the 
 chalice. One of the rubrics relating to the 
 oblation of the elements is : “ [The Priest] jilaces 
 the chalice on the altar, and takes the Filiola, 
 and without blessing it puts it on the chalice.” 
 (Mabillon, Liturg. Gall. p. 42; Neale, Eastern 
 Church, introd. 439). [C.] 
 
 FIR-TREE (OR PINE) 671 
 
 FILLET, THE BAI>TISMAL. [Baptism, 
 p. 163; Chrismal.] 
 
 FINCHAT;E, COUNCIL OF {Finchallense 
 Concilium), held A.D. 798 or 9, at Finchale, near 
 Durham, and presided over by Eanbald,. arch¬ 
 bishop of York, in which, after the faith of the 
 fii'st five general councils had been rehearsed 
 from a book, a declaration of adhesion to them 
 was reiterated in the words of archbishop Theo¬ 
 dore, and the council of Hatfield, A.D. 680 (see c. 
 of H.), and other regulations for the good of the 
 church in Northumbria and elsewhere, and for 
 the keeping of Easter, were passed (Haddan and 
 Stubbs, Councils iii. 527). [E. S. FT’.] 
 
 FINES (mulcta, emenda, eViTiyuia). Mulcta 
 signified a fine paid by way of penalty to the 
 judge : emenda, satisfaction made to the Injured 
 party. On the variations from this usage, see 
 Du Cange, s. v. Emenda. Fines are found in 
 the records of the early English church among 
 the penalties inflicted for ecclesiastical offences. 
 The laws of Ethelbert of Kent, a.d. 597-604 
 (c. i.) require the following compensation to be 
 made for injuries ; “ to the property of God and 
 the church twelve fold, a bishop’s property 
 eleven fold, a priest’s property nine fold, a 
 deacon’s six fold, a clerk’s property three fold.” 
 The laws of lue, king of Wessex, a.d. 690 (c. 2), 
 order a man to have his child baptized within 
 thirty days, “if it be not so, let him make 
 ‘ bot’ with thirty shillings, but if it die with¬ 
 out baptism, let him make ‘bot’for it w’ith all 
 that he has;” (c. 3) a lord to pay thirty shillings 
 who compels his ‘ theouman’ to work on Sunday, a 
 freeman workinof w'ithout his lord’s command to 
 pay sixty shillings ; and (c. 13) any one committing 
 perjury before a bishop to pay one hundred and 
 twenty shillings. In the laws of Wihtred of 
 Kent, a.d. 696, it is decreed (c. 9) that if an 
 ‘ esne ’ do work contrary to his lord’s command 
 from sunset on Saturday to sunset on Sunday, he 
 must make a ‘ bot ’ of eighty shillings. The 
 Penitential of Egbert (vii. 4) directs an offender 
 for certain crimes either to do penance or pay a 
 flne to the church, or divide money among the 
 poor; and elsewhere (xiii. 11) allows a fine to 
 take the place of fasting ; but this latter instance 
 is rather of the nature of a Redemption than a 
 direct penance: (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils 
 and Eccl. Documents, vol. iii. pp. 42, 214, 233.) 
 
 [G. M.] 
 
 FINTANUS, presbyter, and confes.sor in Ire¬ 
 land; commemorated Feb. 17 (^Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FIR-TREE OR PINE. See Aringhi, vol. 
 li. p. 632-3. “ Praeter cupressum, et pinus 
 
 quoque et myrtus pro mortis symbolo, etc. 
 Et pinus quidem, quia semel excisa nunquam 
 reviviscit et repullulascit.” These are rather 
 general or human reasons for choice of the pine 
 as an emblem of death, than as conveying any 
 specially Christian thought. See Herodotus vi. 
 37, on the threat of Croesus to the people of Lamp- 
 sacus. But the fir, or some tree much resembling 
 it, accompanies the figure of the Good Shepherd, 
 Aringhi, ii. 293, from the cemetery of St. Pris¬ 
 cilla. Also at pp. 75 and 25; an I it is certainly 
 intended to be represented among the trees 
 which surround the same form in vol. i. 577. The 
 latter j)ainting is from the Callixtinc, and is 
 
672 
 
 FIRE, KINDLING OF 
 
 FIRST FRUITS 
 
 certainly an adaptation from the common fresco- 
 subjects of Orpheus. The she{)herd hears the 
 syrinx or leeds, but sits in a half-reclining posi¬ 
 tion, as Orj)hcus with the lyre; and various trees 
 are surrounding him. This association of the fir 
 or pilie with the Good Shepherd, and of both 
 with Orpheus, would account for the introduc¬ 
 tion of diderent species of “ trees of the wood,'*’ 
 the fir being also characteristic of the mountains 
 or wilderness in which the lost sheep is found. 
 Herzog thinks it was placed on Christian graves 
 (as well as others), as an evergreen tree, and 
 therefore a symbol of immortality; which is by 
 no means unlikely. 1_R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FIRE, KINDLING OF. In the first Ordo 
 lionianus (c. 32, p. 21 ; cf. p. 31), among the 
 ceremonies of Maundy Thursday, the following 
 IS mentioned. At the ninth hour fire is pro¬ 
 duced by a flint and steel sufficient to light a 
 candle, which ought to be placed on a reed; a 
 lamp lighted from this is kept unextinguished 
 in the church untl; Easter eve, to light the 
 Paschal tapei-, which is to be blessed on that day. 
 The directions of pope Zacharias {Epist. 12, ad 
 Bonif.) are different. He says, that the tradi¬ 
 tion of the Romish church was, that on Maundy 
 Thursday, three lamps of more than usual 
 capacity were set alight in some hidden spot in 
 the church, with oil sufficient to last till Easter 
 eve, and that from these on the latter day the 
 baptismal taj^ers were to be lighted. “ But,” he 
 continues, “as to the crystals which you mention 
 we have no tradition.” The latter words seem 
 to prove incontestably that the custom men¬ 
 tioned in the Ordo Rom. /., of striking fire from 
 flint or “ crystal,” was not introduced at Rome 
 in the time of Zacharias (t752), when it was 
 already practised in some churches—probably in 
 Gaul or Germany—known to Boniface. Pojie 
 Leo IV., however (fSoS), recognises it as an 
 established custom to produce fresh fire on Easter 
 eve, saying (//o/n. l)e Cura Past. c. 7), “in 
 sabl>ato paschae extincto veteri novus ignis bene- 
 dicatur et per populum dividatur.” Amalarius 
 {De Ord. Antiph. c. 44) says that he learned 
 from Theodorus, archdeacon of Rome, that no 
 lamps or tapers were u.sed in the Roman church 
 on Good Friday, but that on that d{\y new fire is 
 kindled, the flame from which is j^reserved until 
 the nocturnal office. Compare Martene, Pit. 
 Ant. IV. xxiii. 6. 
 
 For the kindling of tapers on Candlemas Day, 
 see MAJtY THE Virgin, Festivals of. [C.] 
 
 FIRE, ORDEAL OF. [Ordeal.] 
 
 FIRMAIMENT. The male figure observed 
 beneath the feet of our Lord, in representation^ 
 
 No. 1 
 
 of the dispute with the doctors (.see Bottari, 
 tav. XV., Sarcojihagus of Juniu.s Bassus, and wood- 
 cut No. 1) is said to be intended for Uranus, or 
 the firmament of heaven. It is always holding a 
 veil or cloth above its head, which ajipears to 
 symbolize the stretching out of the heavens like a 
 curtain, P.s. civ. 2 ; Is. xl. 22; and more parti¬ 
 cularly Ps. xviii. 9, of “ the darkness under 
 God’s feet.” 
 
 In another instance, from a tomb in the Vati¬ 
 can (Bottari, tav. xxxiii., woodcut No. 2), a 
 
 feminine bust is snown holding a floating drapery 
 over its head, which seems inflated by the wind. 
 The figure above seems to walk firmly over it. 
 On the significance of this, see Buonarruoti, 
 Vetri, p. 7 ; Bottari, i. p. 41 : Visconti, M.P.C. 
 tom. iv. pi. 418. Garrucci (^Hngi',gl;iptn, p. 92, 
 note 1) does not assent to the common belief that 
 this represents the firmament. (Martigny, Diet, 
 des Antiq. Chret., s. v. Ctel). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FIRMATUS, deacon ; depo.sition at Auxerre, 
 Oct. 5 (Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FIRMINUS. (1) Bishop, martyr at Amiens ; 
 commemorated Sept. 2.5 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop, confe.ssor at Uzetia; commemo¬ 
 rated Oct. 11 (?6.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FIRMUS. [Felicianus (1).] 
 
 FIRST FRUITS (Prvnitiae., of animals or 
 men, ttpcotStokw, of raw produce, irpoo'royevvr,- 
 pLura ; of prepared produce, atrapxui. Aug. 
 Quaest. in Num. xviii.). Compare Fruits, Of¬ 
 fering OF. 
 
 The custom of dedicating first fruits to God 
 obtained early in the church (Orig. c. Cels. viii. 
 33, 34). Irenaeus thinks that Christ enjoined 
 them when he took bread and wine at the last 
 supper (Uoer. iv. 32), and that they ought to 
 be paid (Oportet, ih. 34). Origen says their pay¬ 
 ment is becoming and expedient, and refusal is 
 unworthy and impiou.s, yet he distinctly states 
 that the Levitical law of first fruits is not bin 1- 
 ing in the letter upon the Christian church. 
 (Num. xviii. Horn. xi.). But as the idea grew 
 that the clergv had succeeded to the }K)sition 
 and to the rights of.the Levites, first fruits were 
 considered obligatory, to withhold them was to 
 defraud God; they are more incumbent upon 
 Christians than Jews, for Christ bids his followen? 
 to sell all they have, and also to exceed the 
 
FISH 
 
 FISH 
 
 673 
 
 righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees; the ! 
 priest whom they support will bring a blessing 1 
 on the house by his prayers, the ofl'erer by his 
 spirit of thankfulness. (.Jerome inEzek. xliv. ; in 
 Mai. iii.; Greg. Ni\z. Epist. 80, Oral. 15. Apost. 
 Const, ii. 25.) Yet, though the payment was so 
 vigorously pressed, we find in Cassian (Collat. 
 xxi. 1 seq.) that abbot John regards first fruits as 
 voluntary gifts, while Theonas says he has not 
 even heard the reason for paying them before. 
 The council of Friuli (a.d. 791, can. 14), quotes 
 Malachi iii. as conclusive proof of the obligation 
 of first fruits. 
 
 Most stress is laid upon paying first fruits of 
 the corn-floor and the wine-press, but the Aposto¬ 
 lic Constitutions mention others and regulate 
 their distribution. First fruits of the corn-floor 
 and wine-press, of sheep and oxen, of bread and 
 honey, of wine in cask, are to be paid for the 
 support of the priests, but of clothing, money, 
 and other possessions for the orphan and widow 
 (^Const. vii. 30). The bishop alone has the right 
 to receive and apportion first fruits (ii. 25). 
 At first they were brought with the other I 
 oblations at the celebration of the euchiu'ist. 
 This was found inconvenient, and it was ordered 
 
 I tural or anagrammatic meaning is perhaps the 
 most popular at the present day. In Matt, xiii 
 47-49; Luke v. 4-10; it is used in the parable 
 of the net for the members of the churcli ; and 
 our Lord there assigns it its significance; His 
 parabolic use of it is frequently imitated in early 
 Christian art, whei’e the fishes in the church’s 
 net, or caught by the hmik of the fisher, corres 
 pond exactly to the lambs of the fold, or to the 
 doves, which also re])resent the faithful on many 
 Christian tombs and vaultings (see s. vv.) But 
 the anagrammatic use of the word IX0TC ap¬ 
 pears to have been very early. H was derived, 
 as all know, from the initials o^ the word; 
 ’iTjcrous Xpiarhs ©eof Tihs '2,wri\p. This appears 
 to be in the mind of St. Clement of Alexandria 
 (^Paeda'j. iii. c. 11, p. 106), and to have been so 
 well understood in his time as to have required no 
 explanation, since he recommends the use of the 
 symbol on seals and rings, without giving an 
 explanation of its import. The other devices he 
 commends are the dove, ship, lyre, and anchor. 
 At so early a period as the middle of the 2nd 
 century, and under the continual dangers of 
 persecution, the use of such a symbol for the 
 person of the Lord was pei'fectly natural, as .it 
 
 {Canon. Ap, 4) that they should not be brought 
 to the altar, but to the bishop and presbyters, 
 who would distribute to the deacons and other 
 clerics. The church of Africa {Cod. Can. Afr. 
 37), made an exception in favour of honey and 
 milk, which were needed as accompaniments of 
 the sacrament of baptism. 
 
 The jvayment of first fruits was accompanied 
 by a special formula (Jerome on Ezek. xlv.); 
 lo, I have brought to thee first fruits of the pro¬ 
 duce of the earth, which thou hast given me, 0 
 Lord. The priest replied with the blessing 
 written in Deut. xxviii. 3. A special form of 
 thanksgiving is found in Apost. Const, viii, 40. 
 
 The amount of first fruits was not fixed by the 
 Levitical law, but left to the liberality of the 
 worshipper. Tradition handed down one-sixtieth 
 as the minimum, those who were more religious 
 gave one-fortieth, the rest something between. 
 (Jerome on.Ezek. xlv.; Cassian Coll. xxi. 3). [J. S.] 
 
 FISH. [See Eucharist in Christian Art, 
 p. 625.] 
 
 . The Pish IS a symbol of almost universal occur¬ 
 rence in the painting and sculpture of the primi¬ 
 tive church. Like the Dove or the Lamb it is 
 used in more than one sense; and its non-scrip- 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 would attract no notice from the outer world; 
 and in the same manner, with even more obvious 
 reasons, the form of the cross was frequently 
 disguised up to the time of Constantine. [See 
 Cross.] But see also Tertullian {De Baptismo, 
 c. 1) “ Nos ])isciculi secundum Ixdvv nostrum 
 in aqua nascimur.” Also Jerome ad Bonosnm, 
 Ep. 43, “ B. tanquam IxGvos filius aquosa petit.” 
 [Baptism, p. 171.] But the mystic senses as¬ 
 signed to the emblem by various fathers often 
 seem to the modern mind somewhat gratuitous 
 and ill-founded. They strain their imaginations, 
 apparently, to find reasons in the nature of things 
 for a devoutly ingenious arrangement of initial 
 letters ; and .seem to assume that there must be 
 real analogy between the Divine Lord and the 
 fish, because the initials of the name and titles of 
 the one made the Greek name of the other. The 
 pleasure derived from the anagram, or the facilitv 
 it may have given for concealing Christian 
 doctrine from the heathen, seem occasionally to 
 have overcome the thought that the Lord Him¬ 
 self used the fish as an emblem of His people 
 only, not of Himself—of the sheo^i, not the 
 Shepherd. Aringhi dwells more naturally on the 
 Scriptural meaning, and the various example.** 
 he gives (vol. ii. p. 684; ii. p. 620 ; also that 
 
674 FISH 
 
 from the inscription made in Stillcho’s consulsliip 
 A.D. 400, vol. i. p. 10) all speak of the fish in 
 the Scriptural sense as a type of the discijile. 
 The lamp in Aringlii (ii. 620; see woodcut) has the 
 monogram on the handle, and ilie two fishes on 
 the central part. He also refers to the dolphin 
 as king of fishes, speaking of its reported love 
 for its offspring; with reference to the tomb of 
 Baleria or Valeria hatobia, now in the Vatican. 
 Martigny states that because Christ is man, He 
 therefore is a fish of His own net, and gives 
 prophetic significance, following Aringhi, to the 
 story of Tobias and the fish which delivered 
 Sara from the power of the evil spirit. This 
 he literally accepts, and follows the various 
 attempted connexions of the anagram with the 
 fish of the last repast at the sea of Galilee ; and 
 sees in them the sacramental representatives of 
 the body of our Lord, quoting St. Augustine, 
 (Tract cxxiii. in Joann, xvi.) and Bede’s observ^a- 
 tion on the same passage, Piscis assus, Christus 
 est passus. These analogies are difficult to follow, 
 especially when we consider the Scriptural use 
 of the emblem from the Lord’s own mouth. 
 
 The fish as the believer, (Ambrose, iv. in Luc. 
 V. “ pisces qui hanc enavigant vitam ”) is more 
 frequently represented on the hook of the gospel 
 fisherman, than in the net of the church. [See 
 Fisherman.] Bread and fish are the universal 
 viands of the representations of earlier Agapae, 
 as frequently in the Callixtine catacomb. The 
 genuineness of some at least of these paintings is 
 generally allowed, and Dr. Theodore Mommsen 
 mentions in particular an Agape with bread and 
 fish, in the vault named after Domitilla, the 
 grand-daughter of Vespasian, on the Ardeatine 
 way and near the ancient church of SS. Nereus 
 and Achilles. In this painting so impai'tial and 
 accurate an observer has full confidence, as coeval 
 with the vault; though he thinks the case in¬ 
 complete for the vault itself being so early as 
 95 B.c.; and observes that the painting of this 
 subject, as of those of Daniel, Noah, and the 
 Good Shepherd, is less excellent than that of the 
 vine in the vaultings of the original chamber of 
 Domitilla without the catacomb, which is quite 
 like a work of the Augustan age. 
 
 The use of this emblem is connected by 
 j\Iartigny with the “disciplina arcani ” of the 
 early church. There can be little doubt that 
 reA’creut mystery was observed as to the eu- 
 charist, and that in ages of persecution, till Con¬ 
 stantine’s time, no public use of the cross was 
 made, as a sign of the person of the Lord. Till 
 then, the fish-anagram was perhaps in special 
 and pi-evailing use, and it may have yielded its 
 place from that time to the cross, the sign of 
 full confession of Jesus Christ. For the secret 
 discipline after the time of Constantine seems to 
 have consisted mainly in the gradual nature of 
 the instructions given to catechumens, and the 
 fact that for a time the chief doctrines of the 
 faith were not brought before them. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 The tesserae given to the newly-baptized were 
 frequently in the form of the symbolical fish, as 
 pledges or tokens of the rights conferred in bap¬ 
 tism (Allegranza, Opns •. Erud. p. 107). Of this 
 kind is ymobably the bronze fish given by Cos- 
 tadoni {Del 7‘csce, iv. 22\ inscribed with the 
 word CojCaIC. See woodcut. 
 
 FISHERMAN 
 
 Boldetti {Ossercazwnif p. 516) discovered in 
 the catacombs three glass fishes, with a numljer 
 inscribed upon each ; thus, x. xx. xxv. The pur- 
 pose of the numbers is altogether uncertain. 
 
 The custom of decorating baptisteries w’ith 
 fish has a similar origin. In the ruins of an 
 ancient baptistery near the church of St. Prisca 
 at Rome, two beautiful mosaics representing fish 
 were discovered, w’hich are now in the Kircher 
 museum (Lupi, Dissert, i. 83). See Baptism, 
 P-171. [c.] 
 
 FISHERIMAN. Our Lord or His disciples 
 are frequently represented as the fishers of men 
 in ancient art, St. Clement of Alexandria uses 
 the simile for both. Hymn to the Saviour, v. 
 
 24 sqq.; Paedagog. n\. \QQ. See also Aringhi, iu 
 620. Martigny gives an example (see cut No. 1.) 
 from an article by Costadoni, Del pesce (vol. 41, 
 p. 247, in the collection of Calogera, Venice, 
 1738-1787), representing a man clothed in the 
 skin of a fish, bearing a sporta or basket, which 
 may, as Polidori supposes, represent the divine 
 or apostolic fisher, or the fish of the church’s 
 net. The net is more rarely represented than 
 the hook and line, but St. Peter is represented 
 
 casting the net, in an ancient ivory in Mamacln 
 {Costumi \. prefaz. p. 1). The net of St. Peter, 
 w'ith the Lord fishing with the line, is a device 
 of the papal signets. In the Callixtine cata¬ 
 comb (De Rossi, IX0TC tab. ii. n. 4) the fisher¬ 
 man is drawing forth a huge fish from the 
 '.vaters which flow from the rock in Horeb (see 
 cut No. 2). See also Bottari, tav. xlii., and a cor¬ 
 nelian given by Costadoni, l^esce tav. xxx., on a, 
 small glass cup given by Garrucci ( Vetri, vi. 10), 
 a figure in tunic and pallium (supposed to re¬ 
 present the Lord) holds in his hand a large fish 
 
FISI1ER3IAN’S RING 
 
 FLABELLUM 
 
 675 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 as if just drawn fi'om the sea (cut No, 3). At I 
 St. Zcnonc in Verona, the patron saint is thus: 
 
 represented, and this sub¬ 
 ject, with those of Abni- 
 liam’s sacrifice, Noah’s ark, 
 and others, on the bronze 
 doors and marble front of 
 that most important church, 
 are specially valuable as 
 connecting the earlier Lom¬ 
 bard carvings with the most 
 ancient and scriptural sub¬ 
 jects of primitive church- 
 work. This symbol, like the Vine, is ado])ted 
 from Pagan decoration, wdiich of course proves 
 its antiquitv. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FISHERMAN’S RING. [Ring.] 
 
 FISTULA (called also calamus, canna, can- 
 nu’a, siphon, arundo, pipa, jnipilaris). A tube, 
 usually of gold or silver, by suction through 
 wdiich it w'as formerlv customary to receive the 
 wdne in communicating. The ancient Ordo Ro- 
 manus thus e.xplains its use : “ Diaconus tenens 
 calicem et fistulam stet ante episcopum, usque- 
 dum ex sanguine Cliristi quantum voluerit su- 
 mat; et sic calicem et fistulam subdiacono com- 
 mendet.” Among other instances, five silver- 
 gilt fstulae ad cornmunicandum are enumerated 
 among the sacramental vessels of the church of 
 IMayence ; and at a later date, pope Victor III. 
 left to the monastery of Monte Casino, “fistulam 
 auream cum angulo, et fistulas argenteas duas.” 
 Pojie Adrian I. is said by Anastasius to have 
 offered “ calicem majorem fundatum cum siphoiie 
 jiensantem libras xxx.” ; and the ancient Carthu¬ 
 sian statutes recite that the Order has no orna¬ 
 ments of gold or silver in its churches, “ praeter 
 calicem, et caiamum, quo Sanguis Domini 
 
 sumitur.” 
 
 The adoption of the fistula doubtless arose 
 from caution, lest any drop from the chalice 
 should be spilt, or any other irreverence occuh 
 in communicating. This seems intimated by 
 the rule of the Cistercian Order (Xf6. Us. Ord. 
 Cist. cap. 53), wdiich says that the fistula is not 
 necessary in J//ssa solennis, when the ministers 
 alone communicate; but that wdien more com¬ 
 municate it should be used, Gregory of Tours 
 (//<sf. Franc, iii, 31) states that it was the cus¬ 
 tom of the Arians to communicate by drinking 
 from the chalice, as if the use of the fistula was 
 for that reason preferred by the orthodox. 
 
 The fistula has fallen into disuse since the 
 practice of communicating in one kind has pre¬ 
 vailed. It is, however, still retained in solemn 
 papal celebrations for the communion of the 
 pope. The senior cardinal bishop purifies the ! 
 tube (caiamum aureum Papae) with wine, and, 
 after kissing it, places it in the chalice, which 
 he delivers into the right hand of the pope, W'ho 
 communicates by suction. Cardinal Bona states 
 that the fistula w'as used in his time in the Bene¬ 
 dictine monastery of the congregation of St. 
 l^Iaur, in France, wdiere also the assistants com¬ 
 municated in both kinds. 
 
 The fistula does not appear to have been 
 adopted in tlyi Pastern church, which made use 
 of a spoon for communicating. [See Voigt, 
 Ilistoria fistulae Eu''haristicae ; Krazer, Lit. ])p. 
 204--5; Bona, Rer. lAt. ; ^larteue, J)e ant. lit. 
 Lib. iv. ; Catalani, Caercnn. &c.] [H. J. H.] 
 
 FIjABELLUM (piTTiSioi/, piiriy). Among 
 the evidences of the Kastern origin of the Chris¬ 
 tian religion is the use of {nus, flabella, during 
 the celebration of the Eucharist. Having its 
 birthjilace and earliest home in a climate teem¬ 
 ing wdth insect life, where food expo.sed uncovered 
 is instantly blackened an<l polluted by sw'arms 
 of flie.s, it was natural that the bread and wine 
 of its sacramental feast should be guarded from 
 defilement by the customary precautions. The 
 jlabellum, or muscariu n, having been once intro¬ 
 duced among the furniture of the altar for 
 necessary uses, in process of time became one 
 of its regular ornaments, and was thus trans¬ 
 ferred to the more temjierate climates of the 
 West, wdiere its original purpose was almost 
 forgotten. 
 
 The earliest notice of the flabellun as a litur¬ 
 gical ornament is in the ApostolFal Cunstitxdions 
 (viii. 12), which direct that after the oblation, 
 before and during the prayer of consecration, 
 two deacons are to stand, one on either side of 
 the altar, holjling a fan made of thin membrane 
 (parchment), or of peacock feathers, or of fine 
 linen, and quietly drive away the flies and 
 toher small insects, that they may not strike 
 against the vessels. In the liturgies also of St. 
 Chrysostom and St. Basil, the deacons are 
 directed to fan the holy oblations during the 
 prayer of consecration. This fanning, according 
 to Germanus {Contemp. rer. Exl. ]». 157), tvho, 
 though a late authority (a.d. 1222), may be 
 taken as an evidence of earlier usage, ceased 
 wdt-h the Lord’s Prayer, and was not resumed. 
 Early writers furnish many notices of the use of 
 the flabelluni as'an essential jiart of the liturgical 
 ceremonial. Cyril of Scythopolis, in his Life of 
 St. Euthymius, § 78 (c. a.d. 550), describes 
 Domitian standing at the right side of the holv 
 table, while St. Euthymius wuis celebrating, wdth 
 the mystical fan ((Uera rys pvariuris ^nriSos) 
 just before the Trisagion. Moschus also {Prat. 
 Spirit. § 196) wdien narrating how some shepherd 
 boys near Apamea w'ere imitating the celebration 
 of the Eucharist in childish sport,'"* is careful to 
 mention that two of the childi-eu stood on either 
 side of the celebrant, vibrating their handker¬ 
 chiefs like fans (toTs (paKiok'iois [fasciolis] ippi- 
 TTi^ov). The life of Nicetas (ap. Suriutn, Aiiril 
 3) describes St. Athanasius assisting at the 
 divine mysteries, “ ministerii fiabellum tenens 
 erat enim diaconus.” Among the ornaments of 
 the church of Alexandria specified in the in¬ 
 ventory given. Chronic. Alexand. a.d. 624 (ap. 
 Menard, ad Sacr. Gregor, p. 319) are ripia 
 
 piTTi^ia. 
 
 As the deacons xvere the officers apjiointed to 
 wave the fan over the sacred oblations, the de¬ 
 livery of the jlabellum, or pi-Kibiov, constitutes a 
 part of many of the Oriental forms for the ordi¬ 
 nation to the diaconate. Thus Eucholog. p. 253, 
 after the updpiovor stole has been given and placed 
 on the left shoulder, the holy fan {dytov piiri- 
 Sior), is put into the deacon’s hands, and he is 
 placed “at the side of the holy table to fan;” 
 and again, p. 251, the deacon is directed to take 
 the piTvihiov, and stand at the right side of the 
 table, and wave it over the holy things 
 
 » We may compare with this the well known story of 
 St. Athanasius acting (he Iniy bishop and Ixipllslng hia 
 companions on the shore at Alexandria. 
 
 2 X 
 
G76 
 
 FLABELLUM 
 
 FLABELLUM 
 
 iTrdvco Twu ayiuv') (cf. M'U’tene, dc Hitlh. Keel. 
 ii. 525). Martene gives similar examples from 
 the ordination of the Maronite deacons (de Hit. 
 
 ii. 54:5), chorepiscopi (“dia- 
 coni tenentes flabella,” ib. 
 p. 554), and patriarchs 
 (z\ 559); as well as of the 
 Jacobite deacons ('b. 579, 
 580). Renaudot (ii. 80) 
 asserts that though men¬ 
 tioned in the ordination ser¬ 
 vices, the piTtihiov does not 
 appear in the Syrian litur¬ 
 gies. A jlabellum, formed 
 of a silver disk, was used 
 in the Armenian church, as 
 it still is. Neale {Eastern 
 Ch. p. 396) remarks that 
 the use of the jiahellurn 
 was much more frequent 
 amons: the Armenians than 
 ill the Greek church. 
 
 The flabellum in ordinary 
 use in the Greek church 
 From .Martiguy. represented a cherub or 
 seraph, with six wings, in 
 allusion to Is. vi. 2. These wings were by pre¬ 
 ference made of peacocks’ feathers, originally 
 on account of their beauty, subsequently with 
 
 N6. 2. Armenian Deacon, with Flahellum. From Martigny. 
 
 mystical reference to the living creatures of 
 the Apocalypse (Rev. iv. 6, 8). Goar {Euchol. 
 p. 137) gives the annexed figure of a Greek 
 
 No. 3. Flabella with pendent Bells. From the ‘ Book of Kells. 
 Westwood s /aig.-Sa.x. and Irish MSS. 
 
 by the six wings surrounding the tace (Bona, 
 Her, Liturg. lib. i c. 25, § 6). 'I'he flabella of the 
 Armenians and Maronites were formed of discs 
 
 No. 4. Figure holding Flahellum and the Holy Knife. From the 
 ‘Gosiajls of Treves.’ (Westwood, Ang-Sax. and Irish MSS.) 
 
 of silver or brass, surrounded with little bells. 
 The figure (No. 2) given by Martigny from Le 
 Brun (vol. v. p. 58) represents an Armenian 
 
 No. 5. Deacon with Flabellum. From Boldettl. 
 
 deacon with his flabellum. We give also similar 
 examples from the Book of Kells (No. 3) and the 
 Gospels of Treves (No. 4), derived from West- 
 
 No. 6. Deacon with Flabellum. From MS. in the 
 Barberini Library. 
 
 flabellum Qlo. 1), consisting of an angelic head wood.'^ Anglo-Saxon and hash MSS. fl\. 53, No. 7, 
 affixed to the end of a handle, the fan formed and pi. 20 (see also p. 153). 
 
FLABELLUM 
 
 FLABELLUM 
 
 677 
 
 Althoiif'li there is no mention of the flobcllum, 
 ill the Ordo liOmcrnus. or Latin ritual books, 
 there is no doubt that "it \yas used by the West¬ 
 ern church at an early time, ihis is evidenced 
 bv a story given by Jloschus (^Prat. Spiritual. 
 §“l50) of 'a deacon who had falsely accused his 
 
 bishop, being removed from the altar when he 
 was ho'ding the fan in the presence of pope 
 Agapetus, a.d. 535, because he hindered the de¬ 
 scent of the Holy Spirit on the gifts. An earlier 
 example is furnished by a gilded glass found in 
 the catacombs, representing a deacon fanning 
 the infant Saviour, seated on the knees of His 
 Virgin Jlother (Boldetti, Osservazioni, p. 202), 
 
 ment attached to a handle. Bona, u. s., cites 
 also the ancient Cluniac Consnetudiual, and that 
 of St. Benignus of Dijon, together with a Ponti¬ 
 fical Ceremonial of the time of Nicholas V. c. 
 1447. The flabellum often appears in inven¬ 
 tories of church furniture. In that taken at 
 St. Riiiuier, near Abbeville, in 831, mention is 
 made of a “flabellum argenteum ad muscas a 
 j sacrificiis abigendas.” Other later examjiles, 
 
 I including some from our own country, will be 
 found in RIi\ Albert W^iy’s pajier on the Flahelluin 
 (^Archaeol. Journ. v. 203), sulficiently establish¬ 
 ing its use in the churches of the West, where 
 it could be scarcely regarded as requisite as re¬ 
 garded its original intention. W^e may cite also 
 a letter of St. Hildebert of Tours, c. 1098 (^Ep. 
 2, 71), accompanying the present of a flabel- 
 lum made to a friend, in which the writer ex¬ 
 pounds its mystical signification; the flies repre¬ 
 senting the temptations of the devil to be driven 
 away by the Catholic faith. 
 
 The jiahellum appears to have gradually 
 fallen into disuse in the W^estern church, and 
 to have almost entirely ceased by the 14th 
 century. At the present day, the only relic of 
 the usage is in the magnificent fans of peacocks’ 
 feathers, carried by the attendants of the pope 
 in solemn processions on certain great festivals. 
 
 Though the original intention of the flabellum 
 was one of simple utility, various mystical mean¬ 
 ings collected round it. Reference has been already 
 made to the idea that these feather fans typified 
 the cherubim and seraphim surrounding the 
 heavenly throne, ot pnr'ides els tvttov eial rS>u 
 Xepov^'ifi (German, u. s. }>. 163), ra ^nriSia ual 
 ol diaKovoi ejxcpaivovcn ra. e^airrepaya 'S.epacp'ijj, 
 Kai rT]V Twv TroAvoixfidrcou XepovfSlfx ijXtpepeiai' 
 (^Ib. p. 169). Germanus also holds, according to 
 Neale (^Eastern Ch. p. 396), that the vibration 
 
 t7o. 8. The Monza Flabollnm. From • Archaeological Journal.’ 
 
 of which we give a woodcut (No. 5). The an¬ 
 nexed engraving (No. 6), showing a deacon vi¬ 
 brating his fan during the celebration of the 
 eucharist, is from a miniature in the Barberini 
 Library (Martigny, de V usage du flab'dluni). In 
 the next illustration (No. 7) from an illumina¬ 
 tion in a IMS. in the Public Library at Rouen, a 
 bishop is seen bowing his head in the act of ele¬ 
 vating the wafer, over which the attendant dea¬ 
 con waves a flabellum^ apparently made of parch- 
 
 of the flabella typifies the tremor and astonish¬ 
 ment of the angels at our Lord’s Pa.ssion. W^e 
 find the same idea in a passage from the monk 
 .Job, given by Photius (cod. ccxxii. lib. v. c. 25), 
 who also states that another purpose of the vi 
 bration of the flabella was the raising of the mind 
 from the material elements of the eucharist, and 
 fixing them on the spiritual realities. 
 
 . Two flabella are still pre.served, 1 hat of Theo- 
 deliuda of the latter part of the fifth century, in 
 
G78 
 
 FLABELLUM 
 
 FLAGELLATION 
 
 the treasuiy of the Cathedral of ^lonza, and 
 that of tlie Abbey of Toiirnus, now in the Mu¬ 
 seum of the Hotel deCluny, assigned by l)u Som- 
 inerard to the niiitli. The former (No. 8) is con¬ 
 structed like a modem lady’s tan, only cii'cular, 
 formed of j)ur|>le vellum, illuminated with gold 
 and silver, with an inscrijition round the up])er 
 edge on either side, describing its )>urpose, 
 which was evidently domestic and not liturgical. 
 The fan is contained in a wooden case, with silver 
 oi naments, probably a reconstruction on the ori¬ 
 ginal plan (W. Burges, ArchacoL Joiirn. xiv. jjp. 
 17-li'L The Tournus fan was liturgical (No. 9). 
 
 Ko. 9. riabel'ura of the Abbey of Tonmns. From Bn Sommemrd 
 ‘ Les Arts tlu iloyen Age.’ ’ 
 
 It is described by Du Sommerard, Arts du Moyen 
 Aye (ii. 195, iii. 251, v. 2.31), and figured in his 
 Atlas (ch. xiv. ))1. 4), and Album (ix. serie, p. 17). 
 It is circular wlien fully exptanded, and is orna¬ 
 mented with the figures of fourteen saints, in two 
 concentric zones on either side. On one side 
 are represented four female saints, the Blessed 
 Virgin with Our Lord in her arms, St. Lucy, 
 St. Agnes, and St. Cecilia, in one zone, and St. 
 Pettu’, St. Paul, and St. Andrew, in the second ; 
 on the other side, the two zones contain male 
 figures alone, St. Maurice, St. Denvs, St. Phili¬ 
 bert, 5t. Hilary, and St. Martin, with a “ Judex,’-’ 
 and a “Levita.” Latin hexameters and penta¬ 
 
 meters are inscribed on three concentric bands on 
 the fan, describing its use an I irs oblation in 
 honour of Ooel and St. Philibert. Tlie relics of 
 this saint, who died in 681, >vere ti-anslated to 
 the Abbey of Tournu.s, where he was held in 
 especial honour. The verses are very curious. 
 We give one of the three series. It will be 
 observed that some words have been misplaced 
 by the painter to the confusion of tiie metre :— 
 
 “Sunt (tno fpiae modicum confert fstate flabellum 
 lufestas ab git muscas et tnitigat e>tmu, 
 
 Kt sine dat tedio gu.stare nianu> citK.)nun. (.«'‘c) 
 Proi)t<Tea cali lum qui vult traii^ir- ptr annum, 
 
 Et tutus cupit ab atri.s existere niu-ci> t«ic) 
 
 Omni se studeat estate muniri fiatx-llo (nc) 
 
 Hoc quoque flabellum tranquillas exeit .t auras 
 Estus cum favet (f< rvet.') ventum tacit atque sercnuro 
 Fugat ct obscenas importun-isque volucres.” 
 
 The handle is of ivory, measuring about 2 tee'- 
 in length; round the )iommel is in.scribed the 
 maker’s name, “ -f- Johel me scae fecit in honore 
 Marine.” When shut up it goes into a case orna¬ 
 mented with ivories, repre.senting subjects from 
 Virgil’s Ecloyues. 
 
 The making of fans of palm leaves, both for 
 ecclesiastical and domestic jnirposes, employed 
 the leisure of the Syrian solitaries. .St. Pul- 
 gentius, bishop of Kuspium, while still an anclio- 
 rite, is recorded to have made fans for the use 
 of the altar (up. Surium, ad Jan. 1). The fans 
 sent by Marcella to the Roman ladies, for which 
 she is thanked by St. Jerome (lib. i. Ejnst. 41), 
 were for ordinary not religious use. 
 
 (Martigny, de I'usage du jiahelluin ; Bingham, 
 viii. 6, § 21, XV. 3, § 6; Bona, Her. Liturg. i. 
 25, § 6; Martene, ll. cc.; Augusti, Christ!. Ar~ 
 chdol. iii. 536 sq. ; Archaeol. Journ. v. 200, xiv. 
 17.) [E. V.] 
 
 FLAGELLATION {Flgelhtid). Flogging 
 was a punishment inflicted on certain orders of 
 the clergy, on monks, nuns, serfs, and slaves; 
 but all orders of the clergy were forbidden 
 (^Apost. Can. 28) themselves to strike' an ofl'ender 
 either for correction or in self-defence, Augustine 
 is a witness (Ap. 159 Marcell.) that this mode 
 of discipline was employed not only by school¬ 
 masters and parents, but by bishoj)s in their 
 courts. In the church of Mount Nitria (Palladius, 
 Hist. Lausiac. o, 6, quoted by Bingham) three 
 whips were kept hanging up; one for chasti.sing 
 offending monks, anotlier for robbers, and the 
 third for strangers who misconducted themselves. 
 The council of Agde, a.d. 506 (c. 38), orders 
 monks who will not listen to admonition to be 
 corrected with stripes, and (c. 41) the secular 
 clergy who are guilty of drunkenness to be 
 flogged. The 1st council of Macon (c. 8) sen¬ 
 tences any of the junior clergy wiio summon 
 an ecclesiastic before a lay tribunal to receive 
 “forty stri])es, save one” {Cone. \ enet. c. 6; 
 Cone. Ef.aonens. c. 15), The rule of Isidore of 
 Seville (c. 17) directs that minors snail not 
 be excommunicated but be beaten. The higher 
 orders of the clergy are exempted from the 
 degradation of personal chastisement by the 4th 
 council of Braga, a.d. 675 (c. 6). Tlie laws of 
 Ine king of Wes.sex, a. d. 690 (Haildan and 
 Stubbs, Councils and Eccl. Eocuuruts. vol. iii. 
 p. 214) grant a pardon from his scourging to any 
 one who takes ret'uge in a church. [G. M.] 
 
FLAMEN 
 
 FLOWERS 
 
 679 
 
 FLAIMEN. Bishops are supposed by Du- 
 cange (s. v.) to be called by the old ethnic title 
 of fianien in the second, thii-d, and fourth canons 
 of the council of Elvira. But the “tlaniines” 
 there mentioned are almost certainly priests of 
 heathen deities, who are waj-ned against relap¬ 
 sing into their former jfl-actices after conversion 
 (Bingham, An!i(j. X\'l. iv. 8). [C.] 
 
 FLAIMINA. A name occa.sionally u.sed for 
 the banners borne in a procession. Thus Wolf- 
 hard, in the life of St. Waljmrgis (iii. 11, in Acta 
 SS. Feb. 25) sjieaks of crosses and “.signifera 
 flamina,” being borne in a procession (Ducange, 
 s. V.). [C.] 
 
 FLATTERY. [Captatorks.] 
 
 FLAYIANA. virgin; deposition at Auxerre, 
 Oct. 5 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLAYIANUS, martyr; “Passio” Jan. 30 
 {.Vart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLAYILS, martyr at Nicomedia with Augus¬ 
 tus and Augustinus; “Passio” ]\Iay 7 {Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardil, [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLFiXTFS. [Penitence.] 
 
 FLORA, with Maria, virgins; martyrs at 
 Cordova; commemorated Nov. 24 {Mart. Usu¬ 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLORENTTA, martyr at Agde with Mo- 
 destus and Tiberius, in the time of Diocletian; 
 commemorated Nov. 10 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLORENTINUS. [Hilary (6).] 
 
 FLORENTIUS. (1) Martyr at Carthage 
 with Catulinus, the deacon, Januarius, Julia, and 
 Justa ; commemorated July 15 {Mart. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Presbyter, confessor in Poitou ; comme¬ 
 morated Sept. 22 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) jMartyr with Cassius and many othei's ; 
 commemorated Oct. 10 (i6,). 
 
 ( 4 ) Bi.shop of Orange ; commemorated Oct. 
 17 {^[art. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Trichateau in France; comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 27 (i6.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLORIAXUS, martyr in Austria; comme¬ 
 morated May 4 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLORUS. (1) Martyr ; commemorated with 
 Laurus, Aug. 18 {Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (2) [Demetrius (3).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 FLOWERS. 1. Use of natural flowers. —The 
 early Christians rejected the ancient heathen 
 custom of strewing the graves of the dead-with 
 flowers and wreaths. This is clear from the testi¬ 
 mony of Minucius Felix, \w\io{Octav. 12, §6 ; cf. 
 38, §3), makes the heathen Caecilius reproach the 
 Christians with refusing wreaths even to sepul¬ 
 chres. But thev had adopted the practice in the 
 4th century ; thus St. Ambrose {L>e obituValenti- 
 niani, c. 5o) says, as of a lawful custom, “I will 
 not sprinkle his tomb with flowers, but with the 
 sweet scent of Christ’s Spirit; let others sprinkle 
 basketfuls of lilies; our lily is Christ;” and 
 Jerome {Epist. 20, ad Pammachium) say.s, “other 
 husbands strew over the tombs of their wives 
 violets, roses, lilies, and purple flowers, and 
 
 soothe their grief of heart by the.se kind offices.” 
 So also Prudentius has an allusion to it {Cathe- 
 merin. hymn x., circa exequias Defunctorum, 
 177-8). 
 
 “ Nos tecta fovebimus ossa 
 Violis tt fronde frcqucnti.” 
 
 And the same writer again (Peristeph. ix. 
 201, fl‘.) exhorts the votaries of St. Eulalia on her 
 festival (Dec. 10), to pluck such flowers as the 
 genial winter yielded — the violet and the crocus 
 —to heap their baskets, while he (the poet) 
 would bring his garlands of verse, woven in 
 dactylic strain; “thus should we venerate the 
 relics, and the altar set above the relics.” 
 
 In course of time the churches, many of which 
 in their origin were but memorials or vast 
 sepulchres of martyrs, came to be adorned 
 with garlands of leaves and flowers. The 
 basilica of Paulinus at Nola, for instance, appears 
 to have been ornamented in this manner. 
 Jerome {Epist. ad Heliudoruni) notes it as especi¬ 
 ally praiseworthy in Nei)otianu.s, that he had 
 decorated both basilicas and memorial churches 
 of martyrs (basilicas ecclesiae et martyrum con- 
 ciliabula), with various flowers and foliage and 
 vine - leaves, mentioning distinctly the two 
 classes of churches, those which were built over 
 the i-emains of martyrs, and those which were not. 
 St. Augustine mentions {De Civ. I)ei, xxii. 8) a 
 blind woman bringing flowers to the tomb of 
 St. Stei)hen, when the relics were translated. 
 Venantius Fortunatus, in a poem addressed to 
 St. Khadegund {Carmina, viii. 9), gives a some¬ 
 what more detailed description of the floral 
 decoration of a church for Easter. In spring¬ 
 time (he says) when the Lord overcame hell, 
 vegetation springs more freshly. Then do men 
 decorate the door-posts and desks with flowers; 
 women All their laps with roses, these too for the 
 temples. The altars are covered with wreaths ; 
 the gold of the crocus is blended with the purple 
 of the violet; white is relieved with scarlet. So 
 rich are the flowers that they surpass gems in 
 colour, frankincense in odour. Gregory of 
 Tours {De Glor. Mart. c. 50) tells us that the 
 basilica of Severinus was decorated with lilies; 
 and further {u. s. c. 91), that at Menda, in 
 Spain, three trees were planted before the altar 
 of St. Eulalia, the flowers of which, being carried 
 to the sick, had often wrought miracles. lie 
 also informs us {De Gloria Confess. 31) that St. 
 Severus used to gather lilies and other flowers to 
 decorate the walls of his church.. 
 
 At Whitsuntide a profusion of flowers was 
 (in some places) showered down from some 
 elevated spot to the floor of the church, to sym¬ 
 bolize the outpoining of the gifts of the Si)irit 
 (Martene, De Bit. Ant. 1\L xxviii. 17). 
 
 2. Sculptured or painted flouers.—'fho word 
 “ paradise ” (meaning garden) having been used 
 in the church from an early period to designate 
 the future abode of the blessed, the custom 
 would easily and naturally arise of ornamenting 
 with flowers, the cemeteries and crypts contain¬ 
 ing the venerated remains of martyrs, and even 
 the humble graves of the faithful. Here accord¬ 
 ingly we find flowers lavished in every direction, 
 and in every device, in wreath.s, in bunches, in 
 crowns, in vases, in baskets. In the cemetery 
 of St. Agnes we trace a beautiful idea from the 
 antique in the decoration of the entrance to the 
 
680 
 
 FOIJATI 
 
 first chamber—little winged genii carrying on 
 their shoulders small baskets filled with flowers, 
 to be strewed on the graves of the saints who 
 repose within (l>ottari, Si:ult’ire e PiUure, tav. 
 cxxxix.). lu the churclies of Rome and Ravenna 
 the mosaics of the ajise usually represent the 
 delights of paradise ; there we find figures of 
 our Lord with the Virgin and other saints ujion 
 a groundwork of grass and flowers (Ciampini, 
 Ft'f. rnoiiiin. 1. tab. xlvi. et passim). The 
 bottoms of ancient glass cups have been found 
 embellished with the same subjects treated in 
 the same manner [Glass, Christian], 
 
 A flower rising out of a crown placed between 
 St. Peter and St. Paul in the place where the 
 monogram generally ajipears has been thought 
 to be a symbol of the Lord. An example may 
 be seen on a gilt vase (Buonarruoti, Franmenti 
 di Vetro, xvi. 1). 
 
 (Martene, iJe Fit. Ant. lib. iii. c. 10, § 13; 
 Binterim’s Dcnkt iirdujkeiten^ iv. 1, 130; Mar- 
 tigny, Dictionnaire, s. v. Fleurs). [C.] 
 
 FOLIATI. [Shoe.] 
 
 FONT, BAPTISMAL. In the article Bap¬ 
 tistery, full particulars have been given of the 
 building or chamber set apart for the admini¬ 
 stration of the sacrament of baptism. It remains 
 now to speak of the cistern or vessel for contain¬ 
 ing the water. This was known under different 
 names ; the general Greek appellation being koK~ 
 vfji^riQpa, the Latin, piscina. Other names were 
 K6y)(^ri, v7rou6p.os. lavacrum, natatorium (Du- 
 cange, Constantinopol. Christ, lib., iii. c. 81, p. 73). 
 
 The material in the Western church was, as 
 a iTile, stone ; frequently porphyiy, or other 
 rich marbles. It was permitted by the council 
 of Lerida, a.d. 524, that if the presbyter could 
 not procure a stone font, he might provide 
 himself with a “ vas conveniens ad baptizandi 
 officium ” of any material (Labbe, Condi, iv. 
 1615), which was to be reserved for that sacra¬ 
 ment alone (Leo. IV. de Cura Pastoral.; Labbe, 
 Condi, viii. 37). In the Eastern church the 
 font was usually of metal or wood, and seldom 
 or never possessed any beauty. (Neale, Eastern 
 Church, i. 214.) 
 
 The usual form of the font was octagonal, 
 with a mystical reference to the eighth day, as 
 the day of our Lord’s resurrection, and of re¬ 
 generation by the S})irit (cf. Ambros. Epist. 20, 
 44). This explanation of the octagonal form is 
 given in the following lines attributed to St. 
 Ambrose, first j)ublished by Gruter, Thes. Tnscr. 
 p. 1166, descriptive of the baj)tistery of the 
 church of St, Theda, in which Alypius and his 
 companions were baptized by him, Easter, a.d. 
 387. 
 
 “ Octachoruni sunctos templnm consurgit in usus, 
 Octagonus Kens est nmnere (Jignus eo. 
 
 ilcc inimero decuit sacri Baptismatis aulam 
 Surgerc qua populis vera salus rediit. 
 
 Luce resurgeniis Chi isti qui claustra resolvit 
 Slertis et a tuniulis suscipit exaniines, 
 
 Coiifes.sosque reos inaciileso criniiue solvens 
 Fontis puriflui diliiit irriguo.” 
 
 The })iscina is sometimes found of a circular 
 form, and is occasionally, though very rarely (as 
 at Aquileia) hexagonal (cf. Baptistery, wood- 
 cut, p. 175). Gregory of Tours (c/t? Glor. 
 Martyr, lib. i. c. 23), speaks of a font in the 
 
 FONT, BENEDICTION OF 
 
 shape of a cross in Spain. The form of a 
 sepulchre is stated to have been sometimes 
 adopted, in allusion to the Christian’s burial with 
 Christ in baptism (Rom. iv. 4). 
 
 The piscina usually formed a basin in the 
 centre of the baptistery, rather beneath the level 
 of the pavement, surrounded with a low wall. 
 It was entered by an ascent and de.scent of steps. 
 According to Isidore Hisjjal. {jJriy. xv. 4 ; de Die. 
 Off. ii. 24) the normal number was seven ; three 
 in descent to symbolize the triple renunciation of 
 the world, the flesh, and the devil ; three in 
 ascent to symbolize the coufe-ssion of the Trinity, 
 and a seventh, “sejdimus . . . qui et quartus ” 
 at the summit of the enclosing wall, for the 
 officiating minister to stand on. But the rule 
 concerning the number was not invariable. At 
 Nocera, the number of steps is five, two in 
 ascent, and three in descent. The descent into 
 the piscina of St. .John Lateran is by four steps. 
 We find frequent references in the fathers to 
 the catechumens going down into the font for 
 immersion, e.y. Cyril, J/ysL ii. § 4; “ye weie 
 led to the pool of Divine baptism .... and 
 descended three times into the water, and as¬ 
 cended again;” Id. Myst. iii. § 1. “After you 
 had come up from the pool of the sacred 
 streams”; Ambrose, de Sacr. lib. i. c. 2. “Ve- 
 nisti ad foutem, ingressus es.” The most detailed 
 description of a bajitismal font, is that given in 
 the life of St. Sylvester, in the Bihl. Pap. of the 
 so-called Anastasius (§ 37). This font is said to 
 have been presented by Constantine the Great 
 to the church of the Lateran, in which he is 
 falsely recorded to have been bajitized himself. 
 The description is at any rate of value as indi¬ 
 cating the decoration and arrangements of an 
 early font. The cistern is stated to have been of 
 porphyry, overlaid v.dthin and without with 
 silver. In the middle of the font were two 
 pillars of porphyry, carrying a golden dish, in 
 which the Paschal lamp burnt, fed with balsam, 
 and with an asbestos wick. A lamb of pure gold 
 on the brim of the basin, and seven silver stags, 
 in allusion to Ps. xlii. 1, poured out water; on 
 either side of the lamb were silver statues of 
 Christ, and the Baptist. The font erected by St. 
 Innocent at the church of SS. Gervasius and 
 Protasius, c. 410, was also ornamented with a 
 silver stag, pouring out water (Anastas § 57). 
 Over the fonts, doves of silver or gold were 
 sometimes suspended, in allusion to the circum¬ 
 stances of Christ’s baptism. [E. V.] 
 
 FONT, BENEDICTION OF. In the 4th 
 century, the ceremony of blessing the water to 
 be used in baptism was already regarded ns of 
 high antiquity. Basil the Great, says expressly 
 {De Spiritu S. c. 27), that the benediction of the 
 baptismal water was one of the rites which the 
 church had received from ecclesiastical tradition, 
 not directly from Scripture; i. e. it was then of 
 immemorial usage. The principal traces cf it 
 in the remains of early literature are the fol¬ 
 lowing. 
 
 The passage sometimes cited from the Ignatian 
 letter to the Ephesians (c. 18), that Christ was 
 oaptized to purify the water, is very far from 
 proving that any special benediction of the water 
 took place at the time of baptism. Nor is it by 
 any means certain that the heretics mentioned 
 by Irenaeus {Ilueres. i. 21, §4), who poured oil 
 
FOOTPEINTS 
 
 681 
 
 FONT, BENEDICTION OF 
 
 and water over the head of those whom they 
 baptized, did so as imitating the consecration of 
 the water by pourhig in chrism, as practised by 
 the orthodox. But when Tertullian (ii(? \ 
 
 c. 4), after speaking of the aboriginal consecra¬ 
 tion of the element of water at creation by the 
 Spirit of God, goes on to say, “Therefore all 
 waters acquire the blessing of consecration (sacra- 
 mentum sanctificationis) from their primaeval 
 ])rerogative, God being invoked (iuvocato Deo),” 
 he probably alludes to a special invocation of the 
 Holy Spirit upon the water which took place 
 before baptism. Some years later, Cyprian (^Epist. 
 70, C. 1) says that the water for baptism should 
 first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest. So 
 bishop Sedatus of Thuburbum (^^eatentiae Episc. 
 n. 18, in Cyprian’s Bbr/’s), speaks of baptismal 
 water consecrated by the prayer of the priest 
 (aqua sacerdotis prece in ecclesia consecrata). 
 The Arabic canons of Hippolytus (can. 19, p. 75, 
 quoted by Probst, p. 77), direct the candidates 
 for baptism to stand by the font of pure water 
 made ready by benediction. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 (^Catech. iii. 3) says that simple water, having 
 uttered over it the invocation of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Spirit, acquires a power of holiness 
 (^ayi6rriTos). Ambrose (De iis qui iuitiantur^ c. 
 5) mentions exorcism, benediction, invocation of 
 the Holy Trinity, and prayers. We have here, 
 perhai)s, the earliest distinct mention of the 
 exorcism of the baj)tism:Ll water. An example 
 of the form of exorcism jnay be seen in Baptis.v, 
 
 § 30, p. 158. 
 
 With regard to the form of benediction, we 
 have already seen that Tertullian speaks of an 
 invocation over the water. Probably the earliest 
 form extant, wjiich cannot be assumed with 
 certainty to be older than the beginning of the 
 4th century, is that of the Apostolical Constitu¬ 
 tions (vii. 43), in which the priest, after a recita¬ 
 tion of the mercies of God analogous to the 
 Preface of the eucharistic office, proceeds, 
 
 “ Look down from heaven, and sanctify this 
 water, and grant grace and power that he who 
 is baptized according to the command of Thy 
 Christ, may with Him be crucified and die and 
 be buried and rise again to the adoption which is 
 in Him, by dying unto sin, but living unto 
 righteousness.” Compare Dionysius Areop. Hier¬ 
 arch. Eccl. c. 2. 
 
 Another ceremony, the pouring in of chrism, 
 generallj’^ so as to form a cross on the surface of 
 the water, was probably of later introduction, 
 though it is found at least as early as the 6th 
 century [Baptism, p. 159]. Gregory of Tours 
 (^De Gloria Mart. i. 23) after a curious descrip¬ 
 tion of the miraculous filling of certain fonts in 
 Spain, proceeds to say that the water was sancti¬ 
 fied by exorcism and sprinkled over with chrism ; 
 a passage which proves that in the time of 
 Gregory (f594), the pouring in of chrism was 
 regarded as a matter of course. And it may be 
 mentioned in illustration, that according to Flo- 
 doard’s description of the baptism of Clovis 
 (//jsA Eemens. Eccl. i. 13), it was after the 
 benediction of the font that chrism was found 
 wanting, and supplied by the advent of the 
 miraculous Ampulla; on receiving which, St. 
 Remi sprinkled the font with chrism (chris- 
 mate fontem conspersit). 
 
 In Mabillou’s Vetus Missale Gallicanum (c. 25, 
 p. 362), we find exhortation, prayer, exorcism 
 
 of the water, preface, benediction of the font, 
 another preface (called Contest itio Fontis) 
 then the rubric, “ Postea facis tres cruces dc 
 chrisma.” In the Gallican Sacramcntnnj printed 
 by IMartene (1. i. 18, ordo 3) from a MS. at 
 Bobbio, a somewhat more explicit description is 
 given of the making of the cro.ss on the water 
 with chrism, “ Deiude in fonte chrisma decur- 
 reute signum f facis.” And again (Martene, 
 u. s. ordo 10), the priest “ accipiens vas anreum 
 cum chrismate fundit chrisma in fonte in 
 modum crucis, et exjiandit aijuae cum manu 
 sua.” It may be observed that in the Missale 
 Aethiojyicum quoted by Biiiterim (I. i. 86), where 
 the threefold infusion of oil in the form of a 
 cross is described, it is expressly stated to be 
 unconsecrated oil (oleum non benedictum). 
 
 The description in Amalarius {iJe Eccl. Off. i. 
 25) corresponds generally with that of these 
 sacramentaries. Amalarius expressly mentions 
 insufflation as one of the rites in Exorcism [see 
 that word]. After the expulsion of the evil 
 sjiirit by exorcism, he simply says, “ munitur 
 aqua crucis signaculo,” not distinctly mentioning 
 the pouring in of chrism in the form of a cross. 
 
 In the Gregorian Bacramentarxj (pp. 71-73) is 
 mentioned another rite, that of plunging tapers 
 into the water to be consecrated. 'I’wo lighted 
 tapers are carried before the bishop to the font; 
 
 after the benediction, the aforesaid two tapers 
 are plunged into the ftmt, and the bishop “ in¬ 
 sufflates ” on the water three times. After this 
 the chrism is poured into the font, and the 
 children are baptized. This dipping of the taper 
 into the font is represented in the accompanying 
 woodcut, from a Bontifical of the 9th century 
 [compare the cut on p. 159], where however 
 only one taper is given. The ceremony mentioned 
 by Amalarius {De Eccl. Off. i. 25) of plunging 
 the tapers of the neophytes [Baptism, p. 162, 
 §59) into the font, seems to be distinct from this. 
 
 (Martene, De Hit. Ant.; Binterim’s Denk- 
 viirdiyheiten; Probst, Sakramente u. Sak7'ainen- 
 talicn. ) [c.] 
 
 FOOTPRINTS ox sepulchral slaps, axd 
 
 SEAL RINGS. Sej)ulchral slabs have been found 
 in the catacombs and elsewhere, incised with foot- 
 prints.'^ The two feet as a rule j)oint the same 
 
 » The white marble slab preserved in the church of St. 
 Sebastian outside Rome, said to have been brought fn m 
 the chapel of “ Doniine quo vadis,” b. aring the prints of 
 two feet, piously believed to be those of our Blessed Lord, 
 when met by St. Pi ter coming to be crucified a second 
 time, in the city irom vhiih his apostle w as fleeing, ia 
 probably nothing more than a sepuKhral stone of the 
 kind described above, round which the exquisiUdy beau¬ 
 tiful legend, found first in .4nibrosc, has crystallized. It 
 
FOOTPRINTS 
 
 FORMA 
 
 682 
 
 way, though sometimes, hut rarely, they are | 
 tunied in oj)posite directions (Fabretti, Inscript. 
 Antiq. p. 47‘2). A slab in the Kircherian Museum, 
 given by hui)i {1‘lpitaph. Sever. Mart'ir. p. 68), 
 bears two pairs of footprints pointed contrary 
 ways, as of a person going and returning (fig._ 1). 
 Some of these slabs are certainly Christian, 
 thou<^h the fact in other cases is uncertain. A 
 slab given by Boldetti (c. vii. p. 419), inscribed 
 with lANOTPIA EN 0 (.Janmria in Deo) at 
 one end, bears the sole of a foot, with in di-:o 
 incised upon it, at the other. Perret gives ^a 
 slab erected bv a Christian husband to his wile, 
 with a pair of footprints incised on it, not bare, 
 as is customary, but shod in shoes or sandals 
 (^Catacombes, vol. v. pi. 26, No. 5o). Sometimes 
 but more rarely w^e find a single foot seen in 
 profile (/f>. ph 52, No. 37). 
 
 The signilication of this mai’k is much con¬ 
 troverted. Boldetti (p. 507) and others regard 
 the footprint as the symbol of pos.session, de- 
 notius: that the burial-place had been purchased 
 by the individual as his own. Ihis view' is 
 based on the folse etymology of “ possessio,” 
 quasi pedis positio,” given by Paulus {Dig. 41, 
 tit. 2, § 1), and probably needs no refutation. 
 
 The idea of Pelliccia {de Christ. Eccl. Polit. iii. 
 225) and Cavedoni {Ra jguagl. di mmum. dell' Art. 
 Crist, p. 40) that a sense of their loss and a deep 
 regret and aflection for the departed was thus 
 indicated, is a mere romantic fancy. More may 
 be said for Lupi’s view (it. s. p. 69), that as 
 such emblems w'ere sometimes dedicated as votive 
 offerings by travellers on their return from a 
 journey, they w'ere intended on a Christian slab 
 to indicate a holy thankfulness for the safe com¬ 
 pletion of the earthly pilgrimage of the departed. 
 Another more prosaic, but by no means improb¬ 
 able, interpretation, especially of a single foot, is 
 that found in Thomassinus (de Donariis, c. 7) and 
 Fabretti (Inscript. c. vi. p. 467), quoted by Lupi 
 (u. s.), that it was a thank-offering for recovery 
 from gout or other disease affecting the foot. 
 
 should he remarked that the basilica of St. Sebastian 
 was erected over one of the chief Christian cemeteries, 
 that from which the name catacomb has been trans¬ 
 ferred to the rest, so that the presence of such a memo¬ 
 rial slab is easily accounted for. In the church of St. 
 Radegund at Poitiers a well defined footmark in the 
 stone supposed to indic<rte the spot where our Saviour 
 appeared to that saint, pr..bably has a similar origin. 
 The Roman remains at Poitiers are numerous. The 
 footprints shown as our Lord’s in the church of the 
 Ascension on ihe Mount of Olives mentioned by Augus¬ 
 tine (in Joann. Horn, xlvii. 4; Jerome de locis Hebraic.; 
 Beda de noni. loc. in Act. Apost.) arc stated by Stanley 
 (S. ds P. p. 452) to be “nothing but a simple cjivlty in 
 the rock with no more resemblance to a human foot than 
 to anything else.” 
 
 The same emblem is froquenlly found on seal 
 rings. The sole of the loot bears .somelimes the 
 name of the owner, e.g., i-oitTVNivs (Boldetti, 
 p. 506; Perret, vol. iv. pi. .\i. No. 4); jvs'ivs 
 (Aringhi, ii. 698 ; Agincourt, jil. viii. No. 
 
 23), from the catacomb of St. Agnes; some¬ 
 times a Christian motto or device, c.//., si*i:s 
 IN DKO (fig. 2) (Perret, M. s.. No. 5), and the mono¬ 
 gram of Christ (/'>. No. 6). In an e.xample 
 given by Peiret (vol. iv. p. .xxiii. No. 21), we 
 see the stamp of such a seal bearing the sole 
 
 of a foot, with pavli incised on it, five times 
 repeated on the mortar in which a gilt glass 
 had been embedded, in the catacomb of St 
 Sixtus. [K. V,] 
 
 FORGERY is a particular case of the offence 
 called Falsum. 
 
 Falsum is any perversion or corruption of 
 truth done with malice (dolo malo) to the pre¬ 
 judice of another. It may be committed either 
 by word, as in the case of perjury; by act, as in 
 the case of coining base money; or by writing, 
 as in the case of forgery. In the case of the 
 latter, the crime of falenm is equally committed 
 w’hether a man has written a document which is 
 not w'hat it professes to be, or forged a sea! or a 
 signature, or erased or destroyed the whole or a 
 portion of a document maliciously to the preju¬ 
 dice of another. Falsum was punished under 
 the empire by deportation, or even (in extreme 
 cases) by death (Codex Tlieod. lib. ix. tit. 19, ll. 
 1 et 2). The special precautions taken by the 
 authorities of the church against the forgery of 
 ecclesiastical documents seem to belong to a later 
 jieriod than that with which we are concerned ; 
 but no doubt the falsarius, like other otlendcrs 
 against the laws of truth and justice, incurred 
 ecclesiastical censures. (Ferraris, Bibliotheca 
 Prompta, s. v. Falsum ; Bingham’s Antiq. xvi. 
 xii. 14.) [C.] 
 
 FORM.\. An impression or representation, 
 as (for instance) the stamp on coins, whether 
 effigy or mark. 
 
 (1.) It is used for the impression of a seal; and 
 it seems highly probable that liteme formatae 
 [COMMEND.4TORY LETTERS, DiMISSORY LeTT'ERS], 
 derived their name from the fact that seals were 
 appended to them. Sirmond quotes a Vatican 
 gloss w'hiiffi interprets the term “formata epi- 
 stola ” by “sigillata,” and the Greek iuterpretci 
 of the 23rd canon of the Codex Feel. Afric. [3 
 Garth, c. 28], renders “ formatam ” by Teri/Trco- 
 fxevpv, clearly in the sense of “ sealed.” The 
 second council of Chalons (c. 41), testifies to the 
 
6S3 
 
 FORMA RIUS 
 
 fact that seals wore appended to such docu¬ 
 ments. 
 
 And not only is the word fonrata used abso¬ 
 lutely for a scaled oHioial document, but forma 
 came to be used in the same sense. Thus Capi- 
 tolinus describes Antoninus as consulting his 
 friends before he drew up authoritative docu¬ 
 ments (formas); and the word is similarly used 
 by Christian writers (Ducange, s. vv. Forma, 
 Formafae). 
 
 (2.) From the same use of the word Forma 
 for an effigy or stamp, it arises that the word 
 Formata designates the formed or stamped bread 
 used in the Holy Eufcharist. The Ordo Eomanus 
 in the rite for the consecration of a bishop has 
 the following; “cum autem venerit ad com- 
 municaudum Dominus Pontife.x porrigit ei for- 
 matam atque sacratam oblationem integram.” 
 Menard takes this to mean an “ epistola for¬ 
 matabut it seems in the highest degree 
 improbable that the consecrator would present 
 an ofKcial document to the newly - ordained 
 bishop at the moment of communicating, and 
 Ducange (s. v. Formata') has shown that the 
 word is elsewhere used to designate the eucha- 
 ristic bread. 
 
 (3.) The word Forma is also used to designate 
 the scats or stalls used by clo’ks or monks when 
 saying their offices in choir The gloss on the 
 rule of St. Benedict {De Supellect.) explains 
 Forma as “sella arcuata, OpSvos.” The desk 
 in front of such a stall, on which its occupant 
 might lean, seems to be sometimes called for¬ 
 mula (Supplex Lib. Monach. FulJ. Car. Magno, 
 c 5, in Migne’s Patrol, cv. p. 419; compare 
 Gj-egory of Tciu’s, Do Glor. Confess, c. 92; Ifist. 
 Franc, viii. 31). [C.] 
 
 FORMARIUS, the person in a monastery 
 who was especially appointed to promote the 
 spiritual welfare of the brethren, and to be a 
 model of life to them, “ qui in bonis sit forma ” 
 (Pejula S. Ferreoli, c. 17); an elder brother 
 fitted to benefit the souls of the monks, who 
 should studiously devote himself to watching 
 over them (Peg. S. Benedict!, c. 68). The corre¬ 
 sponding person in a monastery of women was 
 called For maria {Erg. S. Caesarii ad Virgines, 
 0 . 37 ; Ducange, s. v.). [C.] 
 
 FORxMATA. [Forma.] 
 
 FORNICATION (^Fornicatio, rroprila) is de¬ 
 fined to be “ copula carnalis soluti cum soluta”; 
 a sin committed by two pei'sons, male and female, 
 who are not connected by blood within the prohi¬ 
 bited degrees of kindred, and are neither married 
 nor contracted. This is in substance, Augustine’s 
 definition (^Quaest. in JJeuteron. n. 37). The older 
 definitions of fornication seem to refer almost 
 entirely to the freedom of the woman from the 
 marriage bond, without regard to the condition 
 of the man [Adultkry]. Thus Basil (ad Amp/n- 
 loch. c. 21) regards the sin of a married man 
 with an unmarried woman as simple iropreia, not 
 goixFia', and Gregory of Ny.ssa (h'pist. Canonica) 
 defines fornication to be a gratification of lust 
 which takes place without wronging another; 
 which words Balsamon (in loco) explains to meas, 
 intercourse with a woman who is not married 
 (Tlopueia Xe-yeroi rj aSiKia^ kripov pl^is, 
 
 jjyouv r] nphs iKivdepav ardpbs yvvaina). To the 
 same effect Theophylact (on St. Matt. v. 32) says 
 that fornication is committed with a woman not 
 
 FORTUNATUS‘ 
 
 under marriage bond (e/’s aTroXeXvgfi r]i'). Am¬ 
 brose, however, lays down the wiiler and truer 
 principle, “ nec viro licet quod mulieri non licet ; 
 eadem a viro (luae ab uxore debetur castimonia ” 
 (Dc Patriarch, i. 4). Concul>inage, the continued 
 cohabitation of an unmarried man with an un¬ 
 married woman, is a sj/ecial case of fornication. 
 
 The word fornicatio is also used to designate 
 all kinds of sexual .sin and unnatural crime; see, 
 for instance, Theodore’s Peniterdud, I. ii. Forni¬ 
 cation in this wider sense is commonly called 
 luxurv by later canonists. 
 
 It was one of the first cares of the apo.stolic 
 church to repress this evil held so venial among 
 the Gentiles (Acts xv. 20; 1 Cor. vi. 18; Kph. 
 V. 3, 5); nor were the rulers of the church in 
 later times less anxious to put down all forms 
 of uncleanness. Basil (ad Amphil. c. 22) lays 
 down the rule, that men practising concubinage 
 after seduction should be excluded from com¬ 
 munion for four years, in the first of which 
 they are to be excluded from the i)rayer:q 
 and weep at the door of the church ; in the 
 second to be received as hearers; in the third to 
 penitence (els perdvoiar) in the fourth to attend 
 divine service with the congregation, abstaining 
 from the offering; and then to be admitted to 
 communion of the good (Koipooviav tov ayadov). 
 In the case of concubinage, the great bishop 
 evidently feels that the times will not bear due 
 severity. He holds (ad Amph. o. 2o) that it 
 is best that persons living together in fornica¬ 
 tion should be separated ; but if they persist in 
 living together', “ let them be warned of the 
 penalty of fornication; but let them not be 
 meddled with (dcpie/rOio/rap), lest a worse thing 
 come upon them.” So previously (c. 21) he 
 acknowledges the difficulty of treating certain 
 cases, and confesses that custom is too strong 
 to be contended against. For fornicators in 
 general he enjoins (7). c. 59) seven years’ 
 exclusion from the sacraments ; two among the 
 Flentcs, two among th& AuHcnfe<, two among 
 the Substrati, and one among the Consistentes 
 [Penitexce]. 
 
 The treatment of sins of uncleanne.ss occupies 
 a large, perhaps an undue space in later Peniten- 
 tials; as (e.g.) in those of Theodore (I. ii.), Bede, 
 (c. 3), Egbert (cc. 2 and 4), Halitgar (i. 16, 17), 
 and others. 
 
 Periods of penance are prescribed, varying 
 according to the condition of the offender, and 
 the nature of the offence. The offence of a cleric 
 was naturally more heinous than that of a simple 
 lay person, and might be punished by degrada¬ 
 tion, as well as by the same kind of penalties as 
 those inflicted on the laity. Ami it is evident 
 from the rejieated denunciations of such sins by 
 bishops and councils, and the elaborate provision 
 made to separate the clergy and the monks from 
 the society of women, that the celibate clergy 
 were only too liable to fall into the sin of incon 
 tiaence (Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Feel. JJiscip. 
 I. ii. 61, §< 8-12). [C.J 
 
 FORTUNATIANUS. [Feli.x (23).] 
 
 FORTUNATUS. (1) Martyr at Smyrna 
 with Kevocatus and V'italis; commemorated Jan. 
 9 (Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Feliciaxus (1).] 
 
 (3) [Felix (7).] 
 
684 
 
 FORT UNI'S 
 
 FOUNDLINOS 
 
 (4) [Fklix (12).] 
 
 (5) Martyr in Africa; commemorated with 
 Cre.scentianus and Lucianus, June 13 (J/urA 
 Bedae). 
 
 (6) [Hkrmagoii.vs.] 
 
 (7) Bishop at Todi ; “ Natalis ” Oct. 14 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (8) Saint, of Rome ; commemorated Oct. 15 
 
 {ih.). ' [\V. F. G.] 
 
 FORTUNUS. [Fklix (G).] 
 
 FORUM. [Jurisdiction.] 
 
 FOSSARII or FOSSORES. The grave¬ 
 diggers or sexton.s of early Christian antiquity 
 were known by these designations. [C0Pl.\TAE; 
 Decaxus.] 
 
 Padre Marchi has drawn a very definite picture 
 of guilds of fo.'sores, organized under special re¬ 
 gulations, attached to each of the titnli of Rome, 
 and acting under the directions of the bishops 
 and presbyters. {Mointm. rrimit. pp. 87-91.) 
 But the evidence he adduces is of the slightest 
 texture; and the good father probably did not 
 intend his description to be regarded as more 
 than a pleasing hypothesis. 
 
 The term fossor is of frequent occurrence in 
 the inscriptions of the catacombs. IMai'chi, p. 91, 
 gives several epitaphs of fossores. Boldetti, i. 15, 
 gives the following from St. Callistus : “Sergius 
 et Junius Fossores |1 B. N. M. in pace bisom.” 
 But the most common appearance of the term 
 is in the later epita})hs, which testify to the 
 purchase of gi'aves from individuals of this class. 
 The burial of the departed was probably at first 
 a work of Christian charit}', performed without 
 fee or reward by their surviving brethren. 
 Afterwards, when the church had become more 
 numerous, it was carried out at the public ex¬ 
 pense under the special care of the presbyters of 
 the tituii of Rome. When Christianity became 
 the established religion, the fossores evidently 
 established a kind of property in the catacombs, 
 which authorized them to sell graves either to 
 living persons fur their own burial, or to the 
 friends of the deceasedi This state of things 
 seems to have had a wide-spread but transient 
 existence. The examples are almost innumerable 
 in which the purchase of graves of the fossores 
 is plainly stated in the epitaph. No trace of such 
 bargains appears before, the latter years of the 
 4th century, nor later than the first quarter of 
 the 5th century. According to l)e Rossi {E. S. 
 i. p. 2U)), the last known mention of fossores is 
 A.D. 42G. As examples of these bargains, belong¬ 
 ing to the time when interment had become the 
 private enterprise of the fossores, and Christian 
 burial had been degraded into a trade, we mav 
 refer to the instances already given under 
 Catacomrs. The eager craving after sepulture 
 in the iwoximity of the holy dead, to which some 
 of these epitaphs bear witness, has been the 
 cause of the desti'uction of many j)aintings of 
 high interest. The. fossores could not afford to 
 have a taste either archaeological or artistic, and 
 pierced the painted walls to make new highly- 
 priced loculi, as rei;klessly as the exquisite 
 carved work of so many of our cathedrals has 
 been cut away for the erection of tasteless 
 monuments. 
 
 The fossor at his work appears frequently in 
 
 the fre.scoes of the catacombs. (Bosio, pp. 305, 
 335, 339, 373; Aringhi. ii. pj). 2.3, 63, 67, 101.) 
 
 Bottari, tom. ii. tav. 118, gives two pictures 
 from the catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter. 
 One represents a young man, his beaid closely 
 shaven, in a short tunic, girt round his waist, 
 his legs and feet bare, excavating the rock with 
 his pick, a lamp hanging by his side. The other 
 depicts an older man in a long tunic, not at 
 work, holding a lamp a/fixed to a long handle 
 ending in a sharp jjoint, and a little below' on the 
 shaft a hook for susj)eusion. 
 
 The most curious and interesting of these re¬ 
 presentations is that of a fossor named Diogene.s, 
 from the cemetery of Callistus (see woodcut). 
 
 He wears a tunic m.arked with garnmadia on its 
 hem, carries a pick over his right shoulder, and a 
 lamp in his left hand, and is surrounded by a 
 heap of levers, picks, and other tools employed 
 in his work. Above is the inscription : “ Dio¬ 
 genes Fossor in pace depositus Octabu Kalendas 
 bctobris.” (Boldetti, lib. i. cap. 15; Bottari, tom. 
 ii. p. 126, tav. 99.) A fossor's pick has been dis- 
 coA'ered by De Rossi in the cemetery of Callistus, 
 much oxidised, but still recognizable. (Martigny, 
 Diet, des Antiq. Chret. p. 281.) [E. V.] 
 
 FOUNDATION. [Endow^ment ; Property 
 OF TJiE Church.] 
 
 FOUNDER. [Patron.] 
 
 FOUNDLINGS {Alumni). Compare Ex¬ 
 
 posing OF Infants. 
 
 From an early period the church provided 
 Orphanages [see the word] for the reception of 
 children left destitute by the death or desertion 
 of their parent-s But, independently of such 
 institutions, it also maintained a large number 
 by appeals to individual charity, and exhorted 
 the faithful to feed and shelter the innocent 
 creatures in their own houses. The number of 
 these alumni, “ nurslings,” was large ; the rescue 
 of a deserted infant being considered as an act 
 specially inspired by Christian charity. The 
 word .alumnus consequently occurs much oftener 
 in Christian than in pagan inscriptions. Some¬ 
 times we find the adopting parents raising a 
 tomb to their alumnus (Perret, Catacombes, v. 
 xlvi. 13). In the cemetery of Pontianus the 
 name of a young person de})arted is inscribed 
 upon a circular ivory tablet thus: kmerinvs H 
 victorinae 11 ALVXINAE SVAE (Fabretti, /?»- 
 
FOUNTAi:N OR WELL 
 
 FOUNTAINS AT CHURCHES 685 
 
 script. Antiq. iii. 331). In other instances the 
 titulus is a token of the child’s gratitude to his 
 benefactors, whom he calls father and mother 
 (Ferret, .\lii. 4). Felicissuivs Alvmnvs in the 
 following inscription expresses the happiness of 
 the adopted sou under the care of his tutelary- 
 parents. 
 
 ANTONIVS DISCOEIVS FILIVS ET BIBIVS 
 
 FEI.ICISSIMVS ALVMNVS VALEBIE CRESTENI 
 
 MATUI BIDVE ANNORVM INTERIANTOS. 
 
 De Rossi (^Inscript. Christ, i, 46) gives the 
 epitaph of an alumnus of the date a.d. 340. 
 Le Blant {fascr. Chret. de la Gaule'), mentions an 
 inscription at Treves to the memory of an 
 alumna who survived only one month and a few 
 days. Infants were generally exposed at the 
 doors of churches {Cone. Arles II. can. 51, a.d. 
 451). 
 
 A person wisiiing to adopt an exposed child 
 was required to place in the hands of the 
 minister of the church near which it was found 
 a written statement giving the sex of the child 
 with the time and place of its discovery, in order 
 that it might he restored to its parents if they 
 wished to reclaim it. If no such claim were put 
 forward within ten days after its exposure, the 
 child belonged by right to those who had given 
 it shelter (Wartigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret.., s. v. 
 Infants 2'romes). [C.] 
 
 FOUNTAIN OR WELL. [See Rock, and 
 Evangelists, Representations of.] Our Lord 
 is represented (in Bottari, tav. xvi.; Buonarotti, 
 ^ctri, tav. vi. et passhii) as the Source of the 
 Gospel and Fons Fietatis, from under whose feet 
 flow the four Rivers of Faradise. [See Four 
 Rivers.] In the Laterau [Cross, p. 496] and 
 other baptismal crosses the Holy DoA^e is the 
 fount or source from which the sacred rivers 
 flow. The well springing in the wilderness is 
 rather a Hebrew, Arab, or universally Eastern 
 image, than a specially Christian one. In some 
 early baptisms of our Lord, as that in the ancient 
 baptistery of Ravenna, the river-god or presiding 
 deity of the source of Jordan is introduced. For 
 the fountain or stream flowing from the Rock of 
 Moses, and fishes therein. [See Fisherman.] 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FOUNTAINS AT THE ENTRANCE OF 
 CHLHICHES. The natural symbolism which 
 required external purity in the worshippers, as 
 an index of the cleanness of heart necessary for 
 approaching God with acceptance, dictated the 
 erection of fountains or cisterns of water in.the 
 atria, or forecourts of the jirimitive churches, for 
 the peojile to wash their hands, feet, and faces, 
 before they entered the sacred building. Such a 
 fountain was known by different designations, 
 Kpi]vr] (Euseb. H.E. x. 4 ; Chrys. Ilom. 57, Ed. 
 SaviL), fppiap (Socr. //. Zf. ii. 38), <pid\r} (Faul. 
 Silentiar. ii. A^ers. 177), ip-^arps (Theophanes), 
 Kokvp^iiou (Eucholog.), Cantharus (Faul. Nolan. 
 Ep. xiii. xxxii.), Nijmphaeum (Anastas. § 69). 
 The earliest notice we have of this arrangement 
 is in Eusebius’ description of the church erected 
 by Faulinus at Tyre (Euseb. FI.E. x. 4). He 
 speaks of “ fountains ” being placed as “ symbols 
 of puriflcalion ” in the centre of the cloistered 
 atrium, affording means of cleansing to those 
 who Avere going into the church. A similar 
 basin Avas erected by Faulinus of Nola, in the 
 
 atrium of the basilica of St. Felix, its purpose 
 being expressed by the following A'erses over 
 one of the arches of the opposite cloister— 
 
 “Sancta nifens fanmils inttrluit atria lyniphis 
 Cantharus, Inlrantumquc inanns luA'at amne ministro.” 
 
 Paul. Nolan. Ep. 32 ad Sever. 
 
 This “cantharus” Avas protected by a brazen 
 canopy, or turret of lattice Avork — 
 
 “Quem Cixncc'llato tegit aerca culniine tiirris.” 
 
 Paulin. I’onn. 26 {.\at. x.) 
 
 Other brazen basins supjdied from the same source 
 stood in different parts of the forecourt, as Avel! 
 as a roAV of marble basins, conehae, at the 
 entrance of the church (ib.). 
 
 Faulinus also describes a “ cantharus ” in the 
 atrium of the basilica of St. Feter at Rome (^Ep. 
 13, p. 73), “ ministra manibus et oris nostris 
 fluenta ructantem.” This Avas covered by a 
 dome or thohis, of brass, suj)])orted on four 
 columns, typifying the fountain of living Avater 
 floAving from the four gospels, the foundation of 
 the eAumgelical faith. This cantharus and its 
 quadriporticus Avere adorned Avith marbles and 
 mosaic by Symmachus, c. 500, Avho also erected 
 another external fountain beloAV the steps of the 
 atrium for the convenience of the peojjle throng¬ 
 ing thither “ad usum necessitatis humanae ” 
 (Anastas, de Vit. Font. § 79). Another Avas 
 placed by Leo HI. c. 800, outside the silver gates 
 of the same basilica {ib. § 360). The popes vied 
 Avith one another in the magnificence of these 
 fountains. Leo the Great, c. 450, ])laced a A^ery 
 remarkable one in the atrium of the basilica of 
 St. Faul, on the Ostian way, for the supply of 
 Avhich he recovered a long-lost spring, as re¬ 
 corded in the verses of Ennodius. 
 
 “Perdiderat laticum longaeA’a incuria cursns 
 Quos tibi nunc pleno cantharus ore vomit. 
 
 Provida pastoris per totum cura Leoiii.-' 
 
 Haec ovibus Chrisli larga fluenta dedil." 
 
 Eiinod. Carm. 149, ed. Sirmond. 
 
 Anastasius also describes a “nymphaeum” 
 erected by Hilarus, c. 465, in the triportictis of 
 the oratory of St Cross, adorned Avith columns of 
 A'ast size, and pillars of jxuqxhyry from apertures 
 in Avhich the Avater floAved into a porj)hyry basin 
 (Anastas, u. s. § 69). Ennodius also («. s.) speaks 
 of the Avater of the baptistery of St. Stephen 
 coming through the columns, “ per columnas.” 
 In other cases the Avater i.ssued from a statue 
 in the centre, sometimes of grotesque form, or 
 from lions’ mouths, from Avhich arrangement the 
 basin erected by Justinian in front of St. Sophia 
 at Constantinople Avas called Xearrapiov (Du- 
 cange, Constantniop. Christ, lib. iii. c. 22). 
 This fountain Avas made of jasj)er, Avith incised 
 crosses. There Avere other smaller basins in the 
 cloisters for the lustrations of the people (Du- 
 cange, u. s.). A cantharus discovered at Cou- 
 stantino])le bore the palindrome giA'cn by Gruter 
 {^[moript. p. 1046). 
 
 NITON ANOMHMA MH MONAN OTIN. 
 
 These fountains Avere usually supplied Avith 
 Avater from running springs, as that at St. Faul’s 
 already mentioned. Where springs Avere ab.sent, 
 the sui)ply came from rain water tanks, as at 
 the basilica of St. Felix at Nola (Faul. Nolan. 
 loein. 27 {Nut. ix.) v. 463, sq.). 
 
 Such fountains Avere .solemnly con.secrated and 
 
G86 
 
 FRACTION 
 
 FOUR RIVERS, THE 
 
 
 blesse'l on the nnnuiil T'ccurrence of tlie vigil of 
 the Kpipliany (idontifieil in j)i iinitive times with 
 tl)e (lay of our Cord’s baptism, 
 when the element of water 
 was hallowed, Chrys. Hom'd, 
 ia liiijit. Christ, vol. ii. p. 869, 
 fdontf.), or of the festival 
 its(.df (Itucange, u. s.)- The 
 odiee is given in the Eucho- 
 logion. 
 
 We find frequent reference 
 in the early fathers to this 
 custom of washing the hands 
 and fa(;e befoi-e entering the 
 church, c.(j. Tertuli. dc Oral. 
 c. 11; Chrysost. Homil. 51, 
 i:i }Antt. ; in Joann. 72 ; 
 Homil. 8, in Ephcs.; in Psalm. 
 140, ad Pop. Ant. 86, ifcc. Cf. 
 also Baronins, al ann. 57, No. 
 106-110. [Holy Watkr.] 
 The accompanying woodcut 
 from one of the mosaics of 
 
 Fn Ill a Mosaic, St. Vitale, 
 Itavenna.i 
 
 St. Vitalis at Ravenna, re¬ 
 
 presenting the dedication of 
 that church by Justinian and Theodora, gives 
 a contemporary picture of one of these foun¬ 
 tains. [E. V.] 
 
 FOUR RIVERS, THE. In ancient art our 
 Cord is frequently represented, either in person 
 or under the figure of a lamb, standing upon a 
 hillock from whence issue four streams of water. 
 (See woodcut.) These are siipposed by many 
 to signify the four rivers of Eden, which went 
 forth to water the earth (Gen. ii. 10); others 
 (Cyprian, Ep. 73, § 10, ad Jubaiun.; Bede, 
 Expos, in Ocn. If. ; Theodoret, In Psalm. 
 XL V.; Ambrose, Pe Paradiso, c. 3) discern 
 in them the four gospels, flowing from the 
 source of eternal life to spread throughout the 
 world the riches and the life-giving powers 
 
 The lour liivcio under the Lord's feet. From Martig^y. 
 
 St. Ambro.se again 
 
 of the doctrine of Christ. 
 
 (m. s .) is ot opinion that the four rivers are 
 emblems of the four cardinal virtues. The 
 four first oecumenical councils, so often by 
 early writers jdaced on a jiar with the gos- 
 
 the 
 Amiens 
 
 in the eighth century, in writing to his clergy, 
 thus illustx-ates the veneration due to these 
 
 \ni a jj<ii WILU IJlti ^ 
 
 pels themselves, are sometimes compared to t 
 tour rivers of Paradise. Jesse, bisht'p of Ami( 
 
 This fountain is incorrectly represented at p. 4C6. 
 
 august assemblies (Eongueval, Hist, de I'Egl. 
 Gallicane, tom. v. j). 144). 
 
 In several sal cojihagi of ancient Gaul, we find 
 two stags (juenching their thirst at these streams; 
 these are sufiposed to represent Christians par¬ 
 taking in the gosjiels ainl the eucharist of the 
 “well of water .sjiringing up into everla.sting 
 life.” [Cross, p. 496.] The two stags are occa¬ 
 sionally found in mosaic.s, in that of the ancient 
 Vatican for example^ (Ciampini, JJe Sacr. Aedif. 
 tab. xiii.). 
 
 However we explain it, this subject was ex¬ 
 tremely jiopular in the primitive church ; we find 
 it re[»eated over and over again in the catacombs, 
 either in fre.scoes or in the sculptured ornaments 
 of sarcophagi, and sometimes on the bottoms of 
 gla.ss cups, which have been di.scovere 1 therein. It 
 ajipears also in the mosaics of some basilica.s, for 
 instance, in that which is described bv Paulinas 
 {Epist. 32, ad Pete .\ and in that mentioned 
 by Floras, deacon of Lyons (Habillon, Analect', 
 p. 416, ed. Paris. See also Ciampini, Vet. Mon. 
 ii. tab. xxxvii. xlvi. xlix. Hi., &c.). To illus¬ 
 trate this passage of Paulinus, 
 
 “Petrani superstat ipsf? Petra Ecclesiae 
 De qua sonori quatuor fontes meant,” 
 
 Rosweid refers to the mo.saic of St. John Lateran, 
 and the sarcophagus of Probus and Proba, as re¬ 
 presented by Bosio. We are informed by Spon 
 Xjiecherches curieuses., p. 34) that the four rivers 
 of Paradise in human form, with their names be¬ 
 neath, are represented in mosaic on the pave¬ 
 ment of Rheims Cathedral (Martigny, Diet, des 
 Antiq. Ghret.'). [C.] 
 
 FRACTION. The rite of breaking the bread in 
 the celebration of the Holv Eucharist istechnicalh' 
 so called. There are three kinds of fractions, 
 wdiich are in use at the present time ; though 
 but one of them is essential to the sacrament, 
 and can be traced with certainty to the infancy 
 of the church. The three are, (1) a fraction 
 illustrative of the words of institution, and 
 therefore a direct imitation of our Lord’s action, 
 (2) purely symbolical fractious after the conse¬ 
 cration has been completed, (3) the necessarv 
 fraction for the distribution of the bread among 
 the communicants. 
 
 (1) The first of these has a jilace in the English 
 office, the celebi-ant being ordered to “break the 
 bread” while he utters the w'ords, “He brake 
 it.” Nothing could be more natural than that 
 in reciting the words of institution, the priest 
 should “suit the action to the word,” and break 
 the bread as “ He brake it.” It is very jirobable, 
 therefore, that this was a common, if not the 
 universal, practice, in wdiat we may call the first 
 ritual period. Traces of it are found both in the 
 East and West. In the Cojitic liturgy of St. 
 Basil, the celebrant is ordered at those words 
 to “break the oblation into three parts;” but he 
 is at once to reunite them, “so that they be in a 
 manner as not divided.” (Renaudot, Litnrp. 
 Orient, i. p. 15.) They are put together again with 
 a view to a later au(l purely .symbolical fraction. 
 There is but one extant Latin missal, which is 
 reported to contain an order for the actual fraction 
 at this time, viz., that of Rheims, of the middle of 
 the 16th century, in which the following rubric 
 occurs, “ Dicens fregit fraugit modicum.” (De 
 Vert, Explication des Ce'remonies de OEglise, tom. 
 i. p. 262.) In our ow'u country the missals of 
 
FRACTION 
 
 FRACTION 
 
 687 
 
 Sarum and York to the last ordered tne celebrant 
 to “touch the host,” while a nianuscri])t I\Ianual 
 in the possession of the Rev. W. J. Blew goes 
 furtluM-, and ])rescribes “the sign of a fraction.” 
 The frequeiK^y of the latter custom in England 
 may be likewise inferred from its condemnation 
 •by John de Burgo, A.i). 1385 (^Pupilla Oculi, 
 jiars iv. cap. x.), and its prohibition in the 
 ]\Ianual authorised by Cardinal Pole in the reign 
 of iMary. Tlic foregoing facts are mentioned 
 because they ajipear to support the antecedent 
 probability that the fraction, which is now 
 peculiar to the English and Coptic liturgies, was 
 once general. The reason for giving it u|) need 
 not be sought for. When the bread was once 
 broken, it would not be possible for the priest to 
 perform the subsequent symbolical fraction, 
 introduced at a later period, with the same con¬ 
 venience and effect. 
 
 (2) From an early period we find other cere¬ 
 monial fractions, more or less elaborate, em¬ 
 ployed, the evident intention of which was to 
 develope and enforce the devotional allusion to 
 our Lord’s sufferings on the cross. No frac¬ 
 tion of any kind is mentioned in St. Cyril’s 
 account of the liturgy of Jerusalem (^Cute- 
 chesis Mystafj. v. cc. 17, 18), nor in the Cle¬ 
 mentine liturgy, which exhibits the ritual and 
 worship of the 3rd or 4th century. [Aposto¬ 
 lical COXST’ITUTTONS.] Ill that of St. Mark, 
 which from its long disuse has undergone less 
 change than any other which was ever in actual 
 use, the fraction for distribution is alone men¬ 
 tioned (Renaudot, tom. i. p. 162). In St. 
 James, which is still used at stated times, and 
 has been much altered in the course of ages, the 
 celebrant “ breaks the bread, and holds half in 
 his right hand, half in his left, and dips that in 
 the right in the cup, saying, ‘the union of the 
 all-holy body and the precious blood of our Lord 
 and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ ” (Assemani, 
 tom. V. p. 54.) In the Office of Prothesis in the 
 common Greek liturgy, there is a preparation of 
 the bread by the aid of a knife (^oyxv), accom- 
 jianied by symbolical allusions. [Protiilsis.] 
 After the Sancta Sanctis, which follows close 
 upon the Consecration, “The priest dividing it 
 (‘the holy loaf’) into four parts with care and 
 reverence says ‘The Lamb of God, the Son of the 
 Father, is dismembered and divided, &c.’ Then 
 he takes the uppermost part of the holy loaf 
 (which is stamped with the letters ic, for ’I 77 - 
 (Tovs'), and holds it in his hand, and the deacon 
 pointing with his orarion to the holy cup, says, 
 Fill, iMaster, the holy cup. And the priest says. 
 The fulness of faith of the Holy Ghost. And he 
 makes the sign of the cross and casts it into the 
 holy cup” (^Eucholojiuin, Goar, pp. 60, 81, 175). 
 These rites, though not perhaps in their present 
 form precisely, must have been in use before the 
 separation of the Nestorians and Eutychians 
 from the church; but whether they were known 
 to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, the alleged re¬ 
 modellers of the Greek liturgy, it is impossible 
 to say. On the first })art of the foregoing 
 ceremony, Symeon of Thessalouica, the mys¬ 
 tical expositor of that rite, observes, “ He 
 divides the bread into four parts, and these he 
 arranges in the form of a cross, and in this 
 he beholds Jesus crucided.” JJe Tc.aplo ^-c. 
 printed in Goar, p. 228. In the Coptic liturgies 
 the rite is still more elaborate. There is lirst a 
 
 special prayer, Prooemiumante fraciionem, prece¬ 
 ding it ; wliich is in fact an act of thanksgiving, 
 and ^is called a lienediction in the office itself. 
 After crossing both the bread and the cup with a 
 finger dijiped in the latter, he says a “ Prayer of 
 Fraction.” Later on, in preparation for the com¬ 
 munion, “ he divides the body into three parts, as 
 he had done before at the words lie brake it 
 but this time transversely to the former fractures. 
 The piece from the middle of the Corban is the 
 largest, and from this he takes a small jiiece 
 (Isbodicon, or in the Greek Alexandrian liturgies 
 SttouSikoV, corruptions of Afo-TroriKiJj/, tlie Lord’s 
 body), which he sets aside. The larger piece 
 from which it is taken is put in the middle of 
 the paten, and the other eight are jilaced about it 
 so as to form a cross. Tiie allusion to the 
 Passion is thus expressed by an act rather than 
 by words. The priest next breaks uji, in pre¬ 
 scribed order, all but the large piece in the 
 middle, and “collects about that the holy body 
 which he has broken.” The Is'todicon is put 
 into the cup; a rite corresponding to the Corn- 
 mixtio of the West. The fi'action how described, 
 into which a devout pidest could evidently infuse 
 great solemnity is common to the three Coptic 
 liturgies; which fact implies that the former 
 fraction at the words lie brake it is so also ; 
 although it is only prescribed in that of St. 
 Basil. (See Renaud. tom. i. ])p. 19-23; and 
 Gabriel’s Riturdi<, ibid. p. 258.) Whether the 
 same ceremonies were observed in the Greek 
 liturgies of Egypt cannot be decided, owing to 
 the brevity of the rubrics and the absence of 
 commentaries ; but the Coptic of St. Basil carries 
 us up to a period earlier than the conquest of 
 Amrou in the 7th century. The rubrics of the 
 Ethiopic liturgy do not prescribe any fraction, 
 but as it was derived from the Coptic, and 
 retains the Coptic Gratia Fr ictionis, we may 
 infer that it had a solemn fraction similar to 
 that which we have described. 
 
 In the Syrian rite the priest (in a short office 
 of Prothesis) “divides the bread into as many 
 pieces as may be necessary, censes them, and 
 sets them on the altar, saying, He was led like a 
 lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep, etc.” 
 (Renaudot, tom. i. p. 3.) After the consecration 
 he breaks a small piece off with the words, 
 “Thou art Christ our God, who on the top of 
 Golgotha in Jerusalem wast j)ierced in Thy side 
 for us, etc.,” or something conveying the same 
 allusion, {[bid. pp. 22, 40, etc.) Before the com¬ 
 munion he dips this particle (pearl) “into the 
 chalice and siirns the rest with it crosswise, sav- 
 ing, The Blood of the Lord is sprinkled on His 
 Body, in the Name of the Father,” etc. The 
 pearl thus used is then put into the chalice with 
 a prayer alluding to the union of the Godhead 
 and Manhood in Christ (Renaudot, tom. ii. pp. 
 3, 41). Another .symbolical action, viz. that of 
 touching the body in the jjaten with the 
 moistened pearl, is not marked in the rubrics. 
 It is done in allusion to the piercing of our 
 Lord’s side with a si)ear (Barsalibi, ibid. p. 111). 
 Among the Nestorians the consecrated oblate is 
 broken into two parts. One of these is laid on 
 the paten, and with the other the priest crosses 
 the cup. He then dips the latter to the middle 
 in the cuj), and “signs with it the body which is 
 in the paten.’' Both signs are m.ide with 
 appropriate words. He then unites the two 
 
688 
 
 FRACTION 
 
 FRACTION 
 
 j)ieces of the oblate; and it is here that we find 
 the passion symbolized, the wounded and bleed¬ 
 ing body of our blessed Lord being evidently 
 represented by the broken and wine-stained bread. 
 He further with his right thumb crosses the 
 oblate “so as to make a slight crack in it, where 
 It has been dipped in the blood, and puts a part 
 of it into the chalice in the form of a cross.” 
 (Renaud. tom. ii. p. .'394.) The Armenian cele¬ 
 brant breaks the oblate into two parts over the 
 chalice, .saying, “The fulne.ss of the Holy Ghost, 
 'i’hen dividing one part into three he casts them 
 into the chalice of the blood in the form of a 
 cross ” (Le Brun, ExiAkatvya de In Messe, Diss. x. 
 Art. XX.). 
 
 There are no directions for any fraction in the 
 early Roman sacramentaries, nor for the com¬ 
 mixture which now follow's the symbolical 
 fraction; but in the first Ordo Romanus, a 
 directory of worship of the 8th century, if not 
 earlier, we find the following method prescribed, 
 'i'he bishop (for a pontifical celebration is de¬ 
 scribed) “breaks an oblate on the right side, and 
 leaves on the altar the piece (particulam) which 
 he breaks off.” It is explained that this is done 
 “ in order that the altar be not without .sacri¬ 
 fice,” while the mass is performed, a piece (fer- 
 mentum) reserved from a foinuer celebration, 
 and placed on the altar before the service began, 
 having just before been put into the chalice. 
 Thi.s is the only fraction before that for dis¬ 
 tribution, and there is nothing to give it a 
 symbolical character (^Ordo Rom. i. § 19, p. 1.3). 
 There a])pears to have been no symbolical or 
 merely ritual fraction in the primitive liturgy 
 of Milan, although for “many ages” an oblate 
 has been broken before the Lord’s Prayer, with 
 the words, “ Thy Body is broken, 0 Christ,” etc. 
 (Muratori, Liturjia Rom. T^et. Diss. c. x. tom. i. 
 col. 134). An anthem, called Confractorium, is 
 sung during this fraction, but with no special 
 reference to the Passion (Paraelii Liturgicon, 
 tom. i. p. 304). There is some evidence of a 
 symbolical fraction in the Galliciin church before 
 its liturgy was tyrannically suppressed by 
 Adrian 1. and Charlemagne. In an exposition of 
 the old Galilean liturgy written by Germanus 
 bishop of Paris, A.D. 555, or one of his disciples, 
 we read, “The confraction and commixture of 
 the body of the Lord was set forth of old by the 
 holy fathers ” (Martene de Ant. Eccl. Rit. i. 
 c. iv.; Art. xii. Ord. i.). The sacramentaries are 
 wdthout rubrics; but several of the prayers, 
 post seercta, which were said immediately after 
 the fraction, refer expressly to the sufferings of 
 the cross. Thus, for example, in the Missale 
 Gothicum in the Post Secreta for Christmas: 
 “We believe, 0 Lord, Thy Advent; we com¬ 
 memorate Thy Passion. For Thy Body was 
 broken (confractum) in the remission of our sins ; 
 Thy holy Blood w^as shed for the price of our 
 redemption” (Mabillon, Liturgia Gallicana., 
 p. 192). In the semi-Oriental ritual of Gothic 
 Spain and Gallia Narbonensis, the priest broke 
 the oblate in halves and divided one-half into 
 fiv-e part.s, the other into four. He then formed 
 a cross with seven of them, putting five in a line 
 to make the stem, and one on each side of the 
 second from the top to mak6 the arms. Each 
 piece had a name given it. The uppermost in 
 the stem was called Corporatio (i.e. Incarnation). 
 Then followed in order Katii>itas^ Circumcisio, 
 
 ' Apparitio (Epiphan)'), Passio. The piece which 
 formed the left arm of the cro.ss (taken from the 
 spectator) was called Mors; that on the right 
 Resurrectio. The two remaining pieces Gloria 
 and Regnum were, placed in the jiaten below 
 Resurrectio in a line with it. See the illustra- 
 j tion below. Thus the whole course of our Lord’s 
 I being, acting, and suflering in the flesh, with the 
 ; fruits of it, was in a manner repre.sented (.I/fs- 
 i sale Mixtum dictum Mozarahes, ed. Leslie, i)p. 
 5, 6, 230-1). 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 Corporatio 
 
 1 
 
 Mors 
 
 Nativltas 
 
 1 
 
 Resurrectio 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 Circumcisio 
 
 Gloria 
 
 
 Apparitio 
 
 Regnum 
 
 
 Passio 
 
 
 In some of the ancient liturgies the fraction 
 now described took place before, and in some, 
 after the Lord’s Prayer which followed, or more 
 properly closed, the prayer of consecration. In 
 the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian St. Mark it 
 comes after. In the Gallican (JLitnrg. Gall. 
 p. 192), the ^Milanese, Mozara.bic, Coptic, and 
 apparently in all the Syrian liturgies (Renaudot, 
 tom. ii. ])p. 22, 38, 131, 138, etc.) it comes 
 before. To these we may add the Ethiopic, but, 
 in that liturgy, as in our own, the Lord’s Prayer 
 is .said after the communion (Renaud. tom. i. 
 
 р. 518). 
 
 (3) The earliest notices of, or allusions to, a 
 fraction refer only to the necessary division of 
 the bread for distribution among the commu¬ 
 nicants. St. Augustine : “ That which is on the 
 Lord’s Table ... is ble.ssed and hallowed, and 
 broken small (comminuitur) for distidbution ” 
 (Epist. cxlix. ad Paulin. § 16). Clement of 
 Alexandria: “Some having divided the eucharist 
 according to custom, permit every one of the 
 people to take his own share ” (^Ptrom/da, L. i. 
 
 с. i. § 5). Pseudo- Dionysius : “ Having exposed 
 to view the bread that was covered and undivided, 
 and divided it into many parts, and having 
 divided the oneness of the cup unto all, he symbol¬ 
 ically multi])lies and distributes unity.” Again : 
 “ Bringing into sight the covered gifts, and 
 dividing their oneness into many parts ... he 
 makes those who partake to have communion 
 (with each other) in them ” (De Eccles. Hier¬ 
 arch. c. iii. § iii. nn. 12, 13). In the liturgy of 
 St. Mark, in immediate preparation for the 
 
FiiACTION 
 
 coniinunion, “ the prie.st breaks tlie bread, and 
 says, Praise ye God in [«'.<?. Psalm cl. as in the 
 Stptuagint]. The priest divides the bread, say¬ 
 ing to those present [h e. to the deacons, &c. 
 who assist], The Lord shall bless and minister 
 with you,” &c. Then, after a few versicles 
 entirely free from any mystical allusion, he 
 communicates. In St. .lames the later Greek 
 rite of putting the bread into the chalice has 
 been adopted. “ When he distributes a single 
 ])ortion into each chalice, he says, A holy por¬ 
 tion of Christ, full of grace and truth, of the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory, 
 &c. Then he begins to divide [i. e. the bread 
 in the chalices with a spoon], and to say. The 
 Lord is my Shepherd,” &c. (Ps. xxiii.). In the 
 common Greek rite, a second part of the pre¬ 
 pared loaf which is stam])ed XC (for XpiaTSs) is 
 divided for the communion of the priest and his 
 assistants, who receive the elements separately. 
 The other two (marked NI and KA; see Elk- 
 MENTS, p. 603) are also divided according to the 
 number of the other communicants, and put into 
 the chalice. As intinction began to appear in 
 Spain in the 7th century (see Can. ii. Cone. 
 Braccar. Labb. tom. vi. col. 563), the method of 
 fraction now described as attendant on it was 
 probably in use among the Greeks so early as the 
 6 th. In the 4th and 5th we find Cyril of Jeru¬ 
 salem, Basil, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexan¬ 
 dria, still recognizing the practice of receiving 
 - in the hand (see Scudamore’s Notitia Eucliaris- 
 tica, p. 632, and Cojimunion, Holy, p. 416), 
 which is incompatible with intinction. We 
 have already de.scribed the last fraction in the 
 Coptic liturgy. The rubrics do not specify any 
 further preparation for the communion. Nor are 
 those of the Ethiopic, Armenian, or Syriac more 
 explicit. The last named liturgy, however, may 
 receive illustration from the Nestorian, in which 
 “another fraction of the same Host into lesser 
 particles for the distribution of the communion” 
 is expressly ordered, though no method is pre¬ 
 scribed (Renaudot, tom. ii. pp. 595, 611). 
 
 In the West the Rlozarabic priest preparing 
 for the communion put the “ particle ” called 
 Begniim into the.chalice, received himself that 
 called Gloria, and if any others received must, it 
 is presumed, have used the remainder for their 
 communion, breaking them up as the number of 
 communicants might require. We sajpresumed, 
 for the present rubrics, which recognize but one 
 Host, divided as before described, direct him 
 afterwards to consume all the particles in order. 
 The tract of Eldefonsus, printed by IMabillon in 
 an appendix to his dissertation De Pane Eucha- 
 ristico (^Analecta Vttera, p. 549), prescribes the 
 use of several Hosts, the number varying with 
 the f estival or season. We have no information 
 respecting the early practice of the Gallican and 
 Italian churches. In an Ordo Pomamis which 
 probably carries us up to the 7th century, and 
 certainly to the 8th, the last fraction is thus de¬ 
 scribed. The bishoj) of Rome, it should be said, 
 is the chief officiant. “Then the acolytes go 
 behind the bishops about the altar ; the rest go 
 down to the presbyters ; that they may break 
 the Hosts [which were then small loaves]. A 
 paten goes before near the throne, two regionary 
 subdeacons carrying it to the deacons, that they 
 may break. But they look on the face of the 
 pontiff that he may give the signal to break. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 FEAXKFOIIT, COUNCIL OF 689 
 
 And when he has given it by a mofion of the 
 head, having again saluted the ])ontifL they 
 break them” (^Ordd. Pom. i. ii. iii. pp. 14, 49, 
 59). [W. E. S.] 
 
 FKANKFOET, COUNCIL OF (Franco^ 
 ford ense concilium'), held at Frankfort, a.d. 794, 
 “ by favour of God, authority of the pope, and 
 command of Charlemagne, who was ])resent and 
 attended by all the bishops of the kingdom of 
 Fi-ance and Italy, with the province of Aijuitaine” 
 (300 in number, according to later writers), as 
 we read in the first of the fifty-six canons 
 ascribed to it. From the same canon we learn 
 that the first thing discussed in it was the heresy 
 of the Spanish j)relates Felix and Elipand, since 
 called Adoptionism, which was condemned; and 
 from the second canon that a decree of a recent 
 synod of the Greeks, visiting all with anathema 
 who would not worship and serve the images 
 of the saints as they would the 'I'rinity, was 
 repudiated as well as condemned. This is about 
 all we know of what passed at Frankfort ; at 
 any rate we have no direct authentic record 
 extant of its proceedings beyond its canons. And 
 of these the second has been made a subject of 
 hot controversy both in ancient and modern 
 times. Contemporaries aver that bishops Theo- 
 phylact and Stejihen (without naming their sees) 
 represented pope Adrian at Frankfort, and that 
 the council repudiated there was that “falsely 
 called the 7th.” In the modern heading to this 
 council, on the other hand, it is asserted that 
 “the acts of the 2ud Nicene council respecting 
 images were confirmed there.” There are four 
 dogmatic epistles printed in the collections of 
 councils as having emanated from Franktort. 
 (1) A letter from pope Adrian to the bishops of 
 Spain. (2) Another from the bishops of Italy 
 against Elipand. This is better known as “ the 
 sacrosyllabus ” of Paulinus of Aquileia, but it is 
 said to have been published at Frankfort, and 
 sent by order of the council into Spain. (3) A 
 third is from the bishops of France and Germany 
 to the bishops of Spain. (4) A fourth from 
 Charlemagne to Elipand and the rest of the 
 Spanish bishops. In this the three preceding arc 
 stated to have been sent by him after holding a 
 council, and conferring with the pope on the 
 subject of which they treat, without however 
 naming Frankfort. Still, after reading the 1st 
 canon of Frankfort, we may not dunl t their 
 having been brought out there. As little can we 
 doubt another work having been brought out 
 there also, for the light it throws upon canon 2. 
 The title given originally to this work was “the 
 capitulary respecting images;” but it is in four 
 books, now known as the “Caroline.” It has 
 been ascribed to Alcuin, Angilbert, and Angil- 
 ramn in turn; it is ascribed to Alcuin still 
 fBibl. Per. Germ. tom. vi. 220). What it savs 
 of itself (/Vne/.) is, that it was jointly composed 
 by Charlemagne and his prelates in refutation 
 of two councils “ held in the parts of Bithyni;; ” 
 (both calling themselves the seventh ); one icono¬ 
 clastic (tnat of Constantinople, a.d. 754), the 
 other in favour of images (the 2n<l Nicene, 
 A.D. 787), and within three years of this last (oi 
 four years before it was brought out). But, 
 in reality, there was no need of refuting the 
 first of them, as this had been already done by 
 the last (Art. Cone. Etc. ii.). The last alone 
 
FRKSCO 
 
 GOO FKATEIl, FRATEUNITAS 
 
 chevetore, now stood for refutation. “Decw_/?<s| 
 dcstructione,” says Ilincinar (i'n cci’i^d Ilinc. L. c, 
 20), “non inodicuni volunien, quod in palatio 
 adolesoentulus legi, ab eodeni iinperatore Roinain 
 est i)er ([UGsdam episcopos inissuin ”—and then 
 follows a refej-ence to c. 28 of the fourth book, 
 which identities it at once. Further, not only 
 was it .‘ient to Rome, but it elicited a formal 
 reply from the poi)e,as pope, vindicating in detail 
 the teaching of'the 2nd Kiceue council which ho 
 had continued himself (Mansi xiii. 759 and seep). 
 In this work it is the 2nd Kicene council accord¬ 
 ingly which is attacked all through : the creed of 
 Pelagius the heretic (St. Aug. Up. x. App. pt. ii. 
 Ivl. lien.) is paraded in the opening c. of the 3rd 
 book as St, .Jerome’s, and called “the tradition 
 of the Cathhlic faith in its integrity,” in o])po- 
 sition to that of the 2nd Niceiie council, which 
 is attacked further on for wanting the “ Filioque” 
 clause (c. 8): while c. 17 of the same book un¬ 
 ravels the statement of canon 2 of this council, 
 by shewing that what is condemned there as 
 having been decreed by the 2nd Nicene council 
 under anathema, was no more than the informal 
 utterance of one of the bishojis who spoke there, 
 named Constajiitinus. If the jiope then was 
 really rejiresented at F'rankfort by his legates, 
 they must have left after the condemnation of 
 Adoptionism, or, at all events, before this canon 
 was framed. Most of the other canons, indeed, 
 are couched in a style of their own, “Statutum,” 
 or“detinitum est a Domino Rege, et a sancta 
 synodo.” The 33rd canon runs thus : “Ut Catho- 
 lica lilies sanctae Trinitatis, et oratio Dominica, 
 et symbolum lidei omnibus praedicetur et 
 tradatur.” It has been assumed that what was 
 me.int here by “Catholica tides” is the Atha- 
 nasian Creed. Rut it would seem, rather, from 
 the two verbs which follow, that as by the 
 Loi’d’s Prayer and Creed are meant what had to 
 be delivered,” no by the “Catholic faith” is 
 meant merely what had to be '■‘'preached.” 
 Besides, this jihrase was ajqdied to so many 
 things then (Ffoulkes’ Ath. C. Ajipend. p. 32 and 
 seq.), that its actual meaning cannot be assumed 
 where the context is not ex})licit. The 55th is 
 remarkable as shewing how Angilramn had been 
 employed. “ Dixit Dominus rex . . , se a sede 
 apostolical . . . licentiam habuisse, ut Angilram- 
 num archiepiscopum in suo iialatio assidue 
 haberet, jiroptei' utilitates eccdesiasticas.” Now 
 the only work extant with which his name is 
 associated, is a collection of canons said to have 
 been given by him to the pope, or received from 
 the pope when he was at Rome, containing indis¬ 
 putable germs of the false Decretals. In the 
 next canon Alcuin is commended to the fellow- 
 .ship and prayers of the council. There is a 
 strong family likeness, in conclusion, between 
 this council and that of Paris, A.D. 825, which 
 should not be overlooked by anybody wishing to 
 form a just nation of either (Mansi xiii. 859 and 
 8G3 and seq.). [F. S. Ff.] 
 
 FRATEIl,JFRATERNITAS. 1. The name 
 
 Fruter was applied among themselves to all 
 Christians [Faithful]. Tertullian (^Apolog. c. 
 39) says that those who recognise one God as 
 their lather, and have drunk of one Spirit, are 
 called brethren. Jerome {De Perpet. Pirg. c. 
 15) says that all Christians are called brothers. 
 The Pseudo Clemens {Epist. ad Jacob. Proem.) 
 
 speaks of the priests and deacons, and all the 
 other brethren. Hence the titlewas 
 commonly aj)plied to all the members of the 
 church, or of a ]jarticular church, regarded col¬ 
 lectively ; as }>y Tertullian {Apolog. c. 39; and 
 ))erhai)s Ve Virg. Vel. c. I t), and Cyprian (Epiit. 
 51, c. 1) where “ fraternitas” is equivalent to 
 “ clems et ])lebs.” 
 
 Fiater and Fraternitas, in this sen.se, are fre¬ 
 quently found in inscriptions. Thus, in an Alge¬ 
 rian in.scrij)tion (Reinier, /ns. de VAlgerie, No. 
 4025), a church is designated kccllsia fkatkvm. 
 In a tlreek epitaph copied by Jlarini (^Arval. 
 Prefaz, )>. xx.), from the Olivieri collection at 
 Pesaro, the body of the faithful is addres.sed with 
 the salutation, “ peace to the brethren,’’ EIPHNHN 
 EXETE AAEAd’OI. Another (Muratori, 'Ihesaur. 
 t, iv. p. JiDCCCXXiVL 9) is dedicated by “the 
 brethren” (fratres reddiderunt) to Alexander, 
 their brother. Another (Rrunati. ]>. 108) appeals 
 to the “good brothers” (fratres boni). In 
 another, from the cemetery of Priscilla, “the 
 brethren ” bid farewell to Leontius. 
 
 Some ju'oper names appear to have arisen from 
 this idea of brotherhood. As that of Adelphius, 
 which is found on a marble in the mu.seum of 
 Lyons (Boissieu, p. 597, Ixi.). (Martigny, JJiction- 
 naire des Antiq. Chre't. ; Art. Fraternity). 
 
 2. Persons of the same oOicial body styled 
 each other Fratres; thus, not only does Cyprian 
 s})eak of fellow-bishops as Fratres, but he ad¬ 
 dresses jtresbyters and deacons by the same title 
 (e. g. Epist. IG). When in the same epistle (c. 2), 
 he says, that “fraternitas nostra ”. has been 
 deceived by certain persons, it seems douJjtful 
 whether he means the body of bishops, or the 
 members of the church in general. Hosius (Cone. 
 Sardic. c. 8) speaks of a fellow-bishop as “ frater 
 et coei)isco])us.” h'rom this official use of the 
 word “ Frater,” it arose that the members of a 
 council speak of themselves as “ concilium frater- 
 nitatis”(/'. Cone. Lugd. c. 6), i. e. of the epis¬ 
 copal brotherhood. So I. Syn. liom.c.2", I\'. 
 [///.] Syn. Pom. c. 1. 
 
 3. A monastic order is emphatically a brother¬ 
 hood (fraternitas), and its members Fratres, or 
 Fratres Sjrir it ■tales (Fructuosi Pegula, cc. 4 and 
 8). See Buothkrhood, Monastery. [P. 0.] 
 
 FRATERNUS, bishop and confessor at 
 A.uxerre ; commemorated Se 2 )t. 29 (J/arL Usu- 
 ardi); de 2 )Osition Sept. 29 (J/arf. Hieron.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FRESCO. The object of this article is tc 
 furnish a brief historical sketch of the rise and 
 progress of 2 )ictorial decoration in the religious 
 buildings of the early Christians. Kmbellishments 
 in mosaic will be treated of in a se 2 )arate article, 
 but all other wall decorations will be included, 
 not those only strictly comprehended under the 
 title fresco,'^ i. e. when the colours are mixed 
 
 * The woxA fresco is by a poi)ular on-or commonly used 
 for ail kinds of wall-painting. Accurately sj-ieaking it is 
 restricted to that which the word indicates, painting on 
 /m7iZy-/aut plaster, executed while the wall is still damp, 
 in wabr colours and pigments not liable to be injured by 
 the lime. Dry fresco is painting on old plaster wetted 
 afresh. Distemper (a tempera) is on a dry wall with 
 opaque colours, made uji with some viscous medium, 
 size, whit ' of egg, milk, or gum, diluted or “ tempered “ 
 witli water. Lncaiisticpainting is painting with wax aa 
 a vehicle, the colours being burnt in afterwards. 
 
FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 691 
 
 with water simply, and applied to fresh plaster 
 while wet. This was the ordinary mode of 
 colouring walls amon? the wealthier Romans: 
 
 O V ' 
 
 but the care and skill it required, and the tedious 
 processes necessary for preparing the walls for 
 the colours, forbade its use where economy was 
 an object. In the better-class houses at Pom¬ 
 peii, Rome, and elsewhere, the wall-decorations 
 are executed in fresco; but the greater part of 
 the paintings in ordinary dwellings are in dis¬ 
 temper of various degrees of excellence. We 
 are at present deficient in accurate information 
 as to the exact process em)>loyed in the paintings 
 of the catacombs; but considering the general 
 absence of wealth among the primitive Chris¬ 
 tians, it is probable that the less expensive me¬ 
 thod would be adopted. Whenever paintings 
 were repainted or touched up, the plaster being 
 dry, the distemper process must have been ne¬ 
 cessarily employed. That encaustic painting in 
 wax was also employed in early religious pic¬ 
 tures is certain from the references in the fathers 
 to that process. Chrysostom and Basil (^C^ntra 
 Sabelliun. p. 805) in the East, and Paulinus in the 
 West, may be cited. The latter speaks of “ima¬ 
 gines ceris liquentibus pictas ” (^Ep. xxx. § 6), 
 while Chrysostom more than once refers to Kr)p6- 
 XVTos ypa(f)r]. Hermogenes, the African painter, 
 is reproached by the vehement Tertullian as 
 being “ bis falsarius, et cauterio et stilo ” (Adc. 
 Hennog. c. 1). The fact is that Christian art 
 followed the technical rules of the period, and 
 adopted whatever processes were in use among 
 the artists of the day, and were most suited to 
 the particular work in hand, whether fresco, 
 tempera, or encaustic. 
 
 Nor was it only in the processes adopted but 
 also in the character of the pictorial decorations 
 themselves that the early Christians conformed 
 to the practice of the age in which they lived. 
 Indeed, it could not be otherwise. As has been 
 remarked with perfect truth by Raoul Rochette, 
 “ un art ne s’imj)rovise pas.” A school of paint¬ 
 ing is the result of a long previous train of edu¬ 
 cation, and cannot spring into existence in a 
 moment “ fully formed, like Minerva from the 
 brain of Jupiter ” (Xorthcote, Bom. Soft. p. 198). 
 There was nothing exceptional about Christian 
 art. It was no more than the continuation of 
 the art Christianity found already existing as 
 the exponent of the ideas of the age, with such 
 modifications as its purer faith and higher mo¬ 
 rality rendered neces.sary. The artists employed 
 were not necessarily Christian ; indeed, in most 
 cases, esj)ecially in the earliest times, they would 
 pi'obably be pagans, working in the style and 
 depicting the subjects to which they were ac¬ 
 customed, only restricted by the watchful care 
 of their emj)loyers that no devices were intro¬ 
 duced which could offend the moral tone of 
 Christians. In the earliest examj)les there is 
 absolutely nothing distinctive of the religion 
 professed. “ At first,” writes ^Ir. Burgon (/,<?i- 
 ters from Borne., p. 250), “they even used many 
 of the same (levices for mural decoration as the 
 pagans had used, always excepting anything that 
 was immoral or idolatrous; introducing, how¬ 
 ever, every here and there, as the ideas occurred 
 to them, something more significant of their own 
 creed, until by-and-by the whole was exclu¬ 
 sively Christian.” The deep-rooted aversion of 
 the early Christians to all sculptured or pictorial 
 
 representations, natural in a community that had 
 sprung from the bosom of the Jewish church, 
 for a considerable period forbade all attempts to 
 depict the person of the Saviour or the events" 
 of either Testament, and limited the efforts of 
 Christian art to the simple naturalism of the 
 decorations already common, or the arabesques 
 in which the fancv of the arti.sts loved to indulge. 
 The earliest Christian fi-escoes with which we 
 are acquainted present the same subjects from 
 pastoral life and the vintage, the trellised vines 
 and bunches of grapes, the bright-plumaged birds 
 and painted butterflies, the winged genii and 
 gracefully draped female figures, with which we 
 are familiar in the wall-decorations of the Roman 
 baths and the houses of Pompeii. By degrees 
 the natural instinct for the beautiful asserted 
 itself, and the desire to make the eye a channel 
 for the reception of the truths of revelation led 
 to the introduction of symbolic representations, 
 which, without attempting directly to depict 
 sacred things, conveyed to the initiated the ex¬ 
 pression of the truths believed by them. The 
 actual change in the character of the subjects 
 represented was at first inconsiderable. The 
 vine laden with clusters became a recognised 
 symbol of Christ “the True Vine ” and the “much- 
 fruit,” by which Chri.stians, as “branches,” 
 were called to glorify the Father. The pastoral 
 subjects, especially those in which the Shepherd 
 was the principal figure, at once led the mind of 
 the worshipper to the contemplation of Christ 
 the “ Good Shepherd.” To the devout imagina¬ 
 tion a Fish represented at once the Saviour Him¬ 
 self, the anagrammatic IX0T2, and the human 
 object of His salvation, the Christian deriving 
 his life from the waters of baptism (cf. Tertull. 
 de Baptism, c. i.), while the Fisherman spoke of 
 Him who bj' the Gos])el-hook takes men for life, 
 not for death.’’ [Fish; Fisherman.] Not only 
 were these natural emblems made to breathe a 
 Christian spirit by the infusion of a new element 
 of life, but even directly mythological personages 
 were pressed into the service of the church. 
 Orpheus captivating the wild beasts by the sound 
 of his lyre was adopted as a symbol of Christ 
 subduing the savage passions of men by the 
 melody of the gospel, and Ulysses deaf to the 
 alluring voices of the sirens repi'e.sented the be¬ 
 liever triumphing over the seductions of worldly 
 and sensual pleasure (Martigny, Bkt. des Ant. 
 Chret. pp. 447,.643; De’ Ros.si, Bulletino, 1863, 
 p. 35). The hold which the old forms still main¬ 
 tained long after the ideas of which they were 
 the exponents had pa.ssoci away, is seen in the 
 combination with Scriptural scenes of those 
 personifications of Nature under the human form 
 so frequent in ])agan times, which lasted even 
 down to a late date. In the delineation of the 
 ascension of Elijah, one of the most frequently 
 repeated subjects of early Christian art, the 
 Jordan is represented as a river god, with his urn. 
 
 b This image is beautifully developed in the grand 
 Orphic hymn attributed to Cl ment of Alexandria, thus 
 nobly rendered by Dr. W. L. Alexaiider {Ante Skem 
 Fathers, vol. i. p. 344):— 
 
 “ Fisher of men whom I'hou to life dost bring; 
 
 From evil sea of .Mn, 
 
 And from the billowy strife. 
 
 Gathering pure fishes in 
 
 Caught with sweet bait of life.” 
 
 2 Y 
 
692 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 Tims also “a mountain is occasionally repre¬ 
 sented by a mountain god, a city by a goddess 
 with a mural crown, night by a female figure 
 with a torch and star-bespangled robe, &c.” 
 (Kugler, Handhook of Paintmj, j)art i. p. 9). 
 
 So slow and timid was the commencement of 
 Christian art. The profane abuse of sculpture and 
 painting which had associated these forms of art 
 with idolatry and licentiousness formed an almost 
 insuperable barrier to its recognition as the hand¬ 
 maid of religion. The earlier fathers viewed all 
 sculptural or pictorial representations with sus¬ 
 picion if not decided disapprobation. The stern 
 Tertullian, transferring the prohibitions of the 
 Old Testament to theKew, absolutely condemned 
 ail representations of religious objects, and re¬ 
 proached Hei'mogenes as vehemently for painting 
 as for his defence of second marriages : “ pingit 
 illicite, nubit assidue, legem Dei in libidinem 
 defendit, in artem contemnit ” (Tertull. adv. 
 Hennog. c. i.; De Iddolatr. c. 5; cf. Xeander, 
 Antignosticus, Bohn’s tr. pp. 225, 451). We find 
 similar but milder condemnations of the pictorial 
 art in Clement Alex. {Frotrept. c. 4) and Origen 
 (co/tf. Cels. lib. iv. c. 31). Sacred art being thus 
 frowned on it was only by gradual and cautious 
 steps that symbolism gave way to direct historical 
 representation, the events selected to be depicted 
 being, at first, themselves symbolical of those 
 great gospel facts which a deep-seated reverence 
 as yet forbade them to porti-ay. The persons 
 and incidents of the Old Testament included 
 within the limited cycle in which Christian art 
 originally moved had all a typical or allegorical 
 reference to the leading doctrines of Christianity, 
 and reminded the devout worshipper of the Sa¬ 
 crifice, Resurrection, and Redemption ot Christ. 
 This will be apparent from the cycles of 0. T. 
 subjects given in the latter part of this article. 
 
 It was something that in spite of the profane 
 and licentious associations of pictorial art, and 
 the aversion of some of its most influential 
 teachers, painting should have secured admission 
 thus far into the service of Christianity. But it 
 was still halting at the threshold, and timidly 
 shrinking from the province of its greatest tri¬ 
 umphs, so long as it was restricted to allegory. 
 It could only accomplish its object in elevating 
 the mind, and connecting beautiful and ennobling 
 ideas with the external facts on which the faith 
 is founded, when it adequately depicted the Person 
 of tlie Saviour and chief events of His saving life. 
 Referring to the article Jesus Christ for fuller 
 details of the pictorial history of the Redeemer, 
 and of the slow degrees with which the pious 
 horror of any direct delineation of His outward 
 form was broken down (of the persistence of 
 which feeling the notorious decree of the council 
 of ElAdra,‘= A.D. 305, forbidding the depicting of 
 the objects of w'orship and adoration on the 
 walls of churches is a remarkable evidence), it 
 will ! e enough here to say that portrait-like re¬ 
 presentations of bur Blessed Lord are found 
 among the early wall-paintings in the Roman 
 catacombs, and that a limited number of events 
 from His life on earth, belonging to a strictly- 
 defined cycle, are of constant occui-rence in the 
 same localities. It deserves notice that this 
 
 = “Placuit picturasin ecclesia esse non debere, ne qued 
 colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur " {Cone. Illib. 
 can. 3t!; Labbo, Concil. vol. i. p. 974). 
 
 cycle does not include any representations of the 
 history of the Passion or Crucifixion. A feelin? 
 of awful reverence forbade any attempt to por¬ 
 tray the atoning death of Christ in any but a 
 symbolical or allegorical form. “The catacombs 
 of Rome . . . offer no instance of a crucifixion, 
 nor does any allusion to such a subject of art 
 occur in any earl v writer ” (Hilman, v.. s. p. 398). 
 The most ancient instance known does not date 
 earlier than the 8th century (Hunter, 
 p. 77). Beyond the domain of sacred allegorv 
 and Scriptural painting, Christian art busied 
 itself in the representation of saintly' personages 
 and of the martyrdoms, the memory of which 
 was .still so vivid in the church. It is difficult 
 to point to indubitably early examples of the first 
 cla.ss, and all traces of the latter class have 
 perished. That representations of holy persons 
 were not unfrequent in the time of St. Augustine 
 is certain from his reference to wall-paintings of 
 St. Peter and St. Paul as commonly existing, 
 “ pluribus locis . . . pictos ” {de Consens. Evang. 
 i. 10). But the paintings of St. Cornelius and St. 
 Cyprian, in the crypt ofCornelius, in theCallistine 
 catacomb, are in the style of the 8th century, while 
 the Oranie called St. Cecilia by De’ Rossi, in the 
 crypt bearing her name, is of the 9th; and the 
 figure of St. Urban, in the same crypt, “can hardly 
 have been executed before the 10th or 11th” 
 (Northcote, u. s. p. 159). The paintings of saints 
 in the catacombs of Naples may be assigned to an 
 earlier period : some belonging to the 5th, others 
 to the 8th century. Although all representa¬ 
 tions of martyrdoms have perished, there is no 
 doubt that such existed. Prudentius (c. 405) 
 speaks of a picture of the martyrdom of St. Cas- 
 sianns, of which he says expre.ssly', “ Historiam 
 pictura refert ” {F’eristeph. Hginn. ix. v. 5), and 
 he elaborately’describes the paintings of the mar¬ 
 tyrdom of St. Hippolytus, which embellished the 
 walls of the chapel in which the body oT the 
 saint had been deposited {Peristepdi. Hgmn. xi. v. 
 141 sq.). Pauliuus of Nola also at the commence¬ 
 ment of the 5th century, decorated a chapel 
 erected by him with martyrs {Poein. xxviii. v. 
 20, 21). At a still earlier period we have the 
 testimony of St. Gregory Nyssen as to tlie pre¬ 
 valence of this practice in the Eastern church. 
 He describes the martyrdom of St. Theodore as 
 painted on the walls of a church dedicated to 
 that saint, “ The fiery furnace, the death of the 
 athlete of Christ . . . the painter had expre.ssed 
 by colours as in a book . . . The dumb walls 
 speak and edify” {Orat. in Theod. tom. iii. p. 
 579).“ 
 
 Early Christian paintings mav be conveniently 
 treated of under three divisions, Roman, Byzan¬ 
 tine, and Lombardic. 
 
 I. Roman .—All the earlier Christian buildings 
 above ground having yielded to time and human 
 violence, the catacombs are the only source of 
 examples of primitive Christian art. In them, 
 as has been already remarked, the earliest ex¬ 
 amples offer nothing exclusively Christian, and 
 differ hardly at all from the contemporaneous 
 pagan decorations. Agincourt long since called 
 attention to this fact in his great work {L'lIisPirt 
 de VArt par les Ilunninem), proving by compai-a- 
 tive representations in successive plates {Peinture, 
 
 <1 See Pusey, Xote to Ttrtiillian's Apology, Lib. of the 
 Fathers, vol. x. p. 109 sq. 
 
FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 693 
 
 pi. y. vi.), that the first Christian sepulchral 
 chambers were arranged and decorated after 
 heathen models. The artists probably adhered 
 to the old faith ; and even if this were not so, 
 they were only accustomed to work in one style, 
 and could not extemporize a new one. In some of 
 the most ancient chapels of the catacombs it has 
 been truly said that “ you are not certain 
 whether you are looking on a pagan or a Chris¬ 
 tian work. There is the same geometrical divi¬ 
 sion of the roof, the same general arrangement 
 of the subjects, the same fabulous animals, the 
 same graceful curves, the same foliage, fruit, 
 flowers, and birds in both” (Burgon, Letters 
 from Borne, p. 250 ; Northcote, u. s. p. 190). 
 Agincourt could discover no difference in style, 
 except, perhaps, what was not unnatural, greater 
 signs of hurry, and coarser execution. It is only 
 the occurrence of the figure of the Good 
 Shepherd, which usually occupies the central 
 position, or some Scriptural subject, such as 
 Jonah or Daniel, or some Christian symbol, that 
 clears up the doubt as to the religion of the art 
 we are studying. The entire absence of all 
 
 No. 1. Painting on Ceiling. From the Cemetery of St. Domitllla. 
 
 gloomy associations in connection with death 
 deserves remark. The cheerful symbolical 
 decorations which adorn the sepulchral chambers 
 —the graceful vine, the clustering grapes, the 
 birds and bright landscaj)es—be.speak a faith 
 which nerved its posse.ssors to meet the most 
 terrible sufferings with calmness and even with 
 delight, as the path to never-ending joys, and to 
 view death as the door to eternal life, the true 
 birthday of the soul. Every thing that meets 
 the eye excites pleasurable emotions, and indi¬ 
 cates a heart full of peace and happiness. 
 
 As an example of Christian mural decorations 
 of the very earliest period we may instance the 
 Catacomb of Domitilla on the Ajipian way (see p. 
 314). This catacomb is attributed to Flavia Domi¬ 
 tilla, a near relative of the emperor Domitian— 
 perhaps his niece, the daugliter of his sister who 
 bore the same name. She was the wife of Flavius 
 Clemens, the cousin of Domitian, and his colleague 
 in the consulship a.d. 95, who was accused of 
 “atheism,” by which we are almost certainly to 
 understand Christianity, and put to death by 
 the emperor. Domitilla was banished on the 
 
 same charge to the island of Pontia (Di-ilionary 
 of Christian Biography, Domitilla). In thi? 
 burial-place, therefore, we have work of the end 
 of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century 
 The frescoes which ornament the walls and ceil¬ 
 ings of the sepulchral chambei'sand their reces.ses 
 or cubicnla, are clearly contemporaneous with 
 the original building, and are, especially in the 
 
 No. 2. Spring. From tbe Cemetery of SS. Nereus and Achiileus. 
 
 subordinate embellishments, of rare beauty 
 There is a vaulted roof, over which a vine 
 trails with all the freedom of nature, laden with 
 clusters, at which birds are pecking, while winged 
 boys are gathering or pressing out the grapes, 
 of which no decorative artist of the Augus¬ 
 tan age need be ashamed (Mommsen, Contemp 
 Bev. May 1871, p. 170). The annexed wood 
 cut (No. 1) gives a faint idea of its exquisite 
 grace and beauty. Traces of landscapes also still 
 exist here, which are of rare occurrence in later 
 Christian burial vaults. In the portion of this 
 catacomb known by the names of St. Domitilla’s 
 chamberlains, St. Nereus and St. Achilleus, a 
 painted cubiculum exhibits representations of the 
 four seasons, which are very curious. They are 
 represented as female figures, with small butter- 
 flv wings attached to their shoulders. ^Ye give 
 woodcuts of Spring and Ai^tumn (Nos. 2, 3). 
 
 No. 3. Autumn. From the Cemetery of SS. Nereus iind Ac)iii!eus 
 
 The latter has an attendant genius emptying out 
 a cornuco])ia of fruit. There is an entire absence 
 of anything distinctively Cliristian in the.se deco¬ 
 rations, which reproduce the wall-paintings of 
 the best period of Greco-Koman art. On the 
 walls, however, we find the usual allegorical and 
 Scriptural subjects — the Good Shepherd, the 
 
694 FRESCO 
 
 Fisliermau, an Agape, Daniel in the Lions’ Den, 
 
 Another equally beautiful specimen of the 
 vine ornamentation is exhibited on the vault of 
 a square chamber of the cemetery of Praetextatus, 
 otherwise known as that of St. Urban, lieneath 
 the church of the same name, lying to the east 
 of the Via Ajipia,. near the circus of Maxentius, 
 This burial-p'ace belongs to the earliest period, 
 and the character of the decorations corresponds 
 with heathen art of the 2nd century, and is not 
 at all inferior to the best w'orks of the age. 
 The accompanying woodcut (No. 4) gives an 
 imperfect notion of the elaborate beauty of the 
 design. The vault of the chamber is divided 
 into foul' bands, each containing a continuous 
 wreath of foliage and flowers, among which are 
 nests, and the birds visiting their young. The 
 highest wreath is of laurel or bay, a symbol of 
 victory, indicative of the Christian triumph. 
 Immediately round the arch of the arcosolium is 
 a band of reapers cutting down corn and Iiinding 
 up the sheaves. The plafond of the recess origi- 
 nallv bore the Good Shepherd with a sheep upon 
 his shoulders; but the design has been almost 
 
 destroyed by the excavation of later loculi. The 
 paintings are small and exquisitely beautiful, 
 even in their present state of decay. The family 
 to whom this burial-place belonged was evidently 
 one of considerable wealth and dignity. But the 
 specimens already adduced seem to have been 
 surpassed by the great vine of the Callistine 
 catacomb (Bottari, vol. ii. tav. 15), the “antique 
 style of beauty ” of which is noticed by Kugler. 
 A stem of a vine encircles each side of the arch 
 of an arcosolium with its graceful spirals, lovely 
 little naked boys standing on its branches and 
 plucking the clusters. The soffit of the arch is 
 similarly decorated with vintage scenes. The 
 wall of the recess presents what is commonly, 
 but erroneously, designated the Dispute icith the 
 Doctors. Clirist, represented as a beardless 
 young man seated on a curuie chair, holds a 
 scroll in his left hand and turns towards a 
 number of hearers, probably intended for his 
 
 ® The very early date of these decorations Is acknow- 
 'ledged by Le Normant, who considers some of the 
 paintings in St. Domitilla’s cemetery to be of the same 
 .style as those in the well known pyriunidal tomb of Caius 
 €e.\tlu% B,c. 32 , 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 apostles, some of whom are seated and others 
 standing (woodcut No. 5). 
 
 The general arrangement of the mural deco¬ 
 rations of the sepulchral chambers or cxdncula of 
 the Roman catacombs is remarkably uniform. The 
 arch-headed tiujib recesses or arcosolia, which 
 occupy three .side.-, of the square chambers, have 
 the back wall, the soffits of the arches, and the wall 
 above them ]<ainted, in the earlier examples with 
 mere ornamental arabesques, in the later with 
 subjects drawn from the narrow .Scriptural or 
 symbolical cycle to which reference has alreadv 
 been made. The ceilings are even more richly 
 decorated, the subjects being usually depicted in 
 panels distributed round a central picture, which 
 most commonly exhibits a representation of the 
 Saviour under a tyj»ical form. The general 
 appearance of these cubicul t, and the distribution 
 of the paintings, is shown in the accompanying 
 illustration from the cubiculum of the Ocean in 
 the catacomb of St. Callistus (No. 6). The 
 paintings are early—probably of the 3rd century 
 — representing trellis work overgi'own with 
 flow'ers, peacocks and other birds, and winged 
 genii. In the centre of the vault is the head of 
 Ocean, giving its name to the chamber. The 
 ornamentation of an early ceiling is exhibited in 
 woodcut No. 7, repre.senting the roof of the 
 chapel of St. Callistus, The central panel con¬ 
 tains Christ under the typical form of Orpheus. 
 Four of the eight circumscribing panels contain 
 Biblical .siibjects—(1) Moses smiting the Rock; 
 (2) Daniel in the Lions’ Den; (3) The Raising 
 of Lazarus ; (4) David armed with his Sling. 
 The intermediate panels represent pastoral sub¬ 
 jects—two of sheep, two of cattle. Another 
 chamber, depicted by De’ Rossi (vol. i. pi. 10), 
 called that of Orj)heus, is quite Pompeian in 
 character. The ceiling is a beautiful work of 
 art. Orpheus is seen in the centre, surrounded 
 by heads of genii wdth dishevelled and flowing 
 hair, and suj)ported by eight oblong panels, two 
 containing the Good Shepherd, two female orantes, 
 and the remaining four winged genii bearing 
 crooks, floating lightly in the air. The panelled 
 walls are embellished with a rich profu.sion of 
 arabesques, combining doves, peacocks, and other 
 birds, dolphins, and sea monsters, the only un¬ 
 mistakably Christian emblem being the lamb 
 bearing the eucharistic bread. 
 
 The style of these earliest efforts of Christian 
 art has been unduly depreciated. They are cha¬ 
 racterized by Lord Lindsaj'(///sf. of Christ. Art, 
 vol. i. p. 39) as “ poor productions,” where “ the 
 meagreness of invention is only equalled by the 
 feebleness of execution,” “ inferior, genei-ally 
 speaking, to the worst specimens of contemporary 
 heathen art.” Such a verdict evidences but 
 slender acquaintance with the paintings which are 
 the subjects of his criticism. The earlier Christian 
 frescoe.s, as we have seen, are quite on a level 
 with the best specimens of pagan art of the time, 
 and the ra})id decadence manifested in the later 
 examples belongs not to Christian art alone but 
 to art in general. The judgment of Kugler is 
 far more favourable. He speaks of the “grandeur 
 of arrangement ” exhibited by the earliest paint¬ 
 ings, and admires tiie “peculiar solemnity and 
 dignity of style ” which characterize them, 
 though he acknowledges that these excellencies 
 are “accompanied by certain technical defi¬ 
 ciencies,” chiefly such as naturally arose from 
 
FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 695 
 
 slight hasty execution (Kugler, u. s. p. 14). 
 The mode of execution, according to Crowe 
 and Cavalcaselle was as follows (^Hist, of 
 
 outlines of their figures with strong dark lines. 
 The eyes, nose, and mouth were similarly defined 
 with black lines. A dash of warm yellow-red 
 
 No. 5. Arcosoliunu From tlic Cemetery of St. Callistus. 
 
 No. 6. The Cubiculum of Ocean. From the Cemeterj of St. CaUiatos. From Ue’ Itoeel. 
 
 Painting, vol. i. p. 3, note). The artists boldly 
 stained the rough-coated walls with light water¬ 
 colours of a lively tint, and rapidly defined the 
 
 tone was thrown over the flesh portions of tlie 
 figure, the shadows being worked in in broad 
 masses with a deeper tint of the same warm hue. 
 
m 
 
 FKESCO 
 
 FKESCO 
 
 The details were almost eutirely left to the ima¬ 
 gination of the beholder. The dra))eries were 
 coloured in the primary keys, indicating a tole- 
 lable acquaintance with the laws of harmony. 
 The general efl'ect of these simple processes is 
 pronounced by the same critics to be good. The 
 “attitudes are not without grandeur, nor the 
 masses of light and shade without breadth, nor 
 the drapery without simplicity.” The artists 
 were evidently capable of much better things. 
 
 With the lapse of time and the general decay 
 of artistic power in liome, corresponding to the 
 universal deterioration of taste and genius which 
 characterized the later days of the empire, we 
 notice a very sensible decline in the decorations 
 of the catacombs. The design becomes increas¬ 
 
 ingly rude and clumsy, and the execution shows 
 greater carelessness and neglect of detail. The 
 figures are ill-proportioned — sometimes square 
 and short, at others inordinately elongated. The 
 free play of the earlier designs is succeeded by a 
 lifeless rigidity. This mechanical stiffness was 
 fostered by the narrowness of the cycle of Scrip¬ 
 tural subjects represented, and the unimaginative 
 sameness of the mode of representation. Each 
 subject had received a well-defined traditional 
 type, consecrated by repetition, from which it 
 was deemed irreA'erence to deviate. Thus Chris¬ 
 tian art became “almost hieratic in its character, 
 as in ancient Egypt or modern Greece, so fixed 
 and immovable were its types; always like one 
 
 another and always unlike nature” (Northcote, 
 u. s. p. 197). In fact, as Dean Mi'rnan has 
 truly remarked (Lat. Christ. A'i. OO.o), the 
 characteristic of Christian painting was not 
 art but worship, and its highest aim was tc 
 awaken religious emotion and suggest religious 
 thought. Thus imitation took tlie place of in¬ 
 vention, and imagination was crushed by prece¬ 
 dent. The gradual decadence of the art may be 
 clearly traced in the chronological series given 
 in Agincourt’s ))lates (^I'einture, i>l. v.—xii.). flie 
 exceller''-e of design, freedom of drawing, and 
 harmony of colouring which mark the earlier 
 frescoes gradually disajtpear as we advance. We 
 find proofs of declension at the end of the 3rd 
 century (PI. viii.). The drawing is noj. bad, but 
 
 there is no movement and little expression, and 
 the treatment is monotonous. In the two succeed¬ 
 ing centuries the deterioration proceeds, though 
 the decline is not so rapid as might liave been 
 anticipated. Classic forms continued till the 
 end of the 5th and first half of the dth centuries. 
 Cavalcaselle instances as an example of the art 
 of this period a chapel in the catacomb of St. 
 Peter and St. Marcellinus (otherwise called St. 
 Helena). The vault is decorated with a large 
 figure of Christ seated in a curule chair, in the 
 act of benediction. The .head is very fine and 
 pure. Below, above the tomb, are figures of St. 
 1 Peter and St. Marcellinus and two others ranged 
 ; on either side of the Holy Lamb standing oc a 
 
 No. 7, Ceiling of the Cubicnlum of St. Caliistns. From Ferret, 
 
FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 697 
 
 rock, whence issue the four rivers of Paradise. 
 The frames are long and attenuated, the heads 
 small, the hands and ft^t defective in drawing. 
 Another typical e.xample is the colossal head of 
 Christ in the act of benediction, from the ceme- 
 terv of St. Pontianus. For the first time the 
 jewelled nimbus bears the Greek cross. The 
 Saviour is of imposing aspect, but conventional. 
 The execution is hasty, and the decline marked. 
 It probably belongs to the 7th century, but is 
 assigned by Martigny to Hadrian 1. 772-775. 
 The celebrated paintings which decorate the well 
 or baptistery, the jewelled cross, and the Baptism 
 of Christ are described in the articles Baptistery, 
 p. 174; and Catacomhs, p. 313. These pic¬ 
 tures, in their present state, are probably restora¬ 
 tions of the originals, coarsely painted over an 
 older underlying picture at the time of the repair 
 of the catacomb by Hadrian I. (cf. Tyrwhitt, Art 
 Teaching of Primitive Church, p. 173). These 
 
 duces the original painting, and that any argu¬ 
 ments founded upon such uncertain data must be 
 precarious. The words of IHr. St. John Tyrwhitt, 
 with regard to a jjarticular instance, may be 
 applied to a large number of these frescoes, “ the 
 workmanship is so grossly ru<lc and careless, 
 that one is led to suspect that ancient retouchings 
 have taken place at some time in the bathos of 
 art; and the addition of the coarsest outlines, 
 both on the lighted and shaded side of the objects, 
 seems to show that the original jiainting had 
 nearly vanished from the wall when some well- 
 meaning and totally-ignoraut restorer made an 
 attempt at securing its meaning’’ (Ait 'Teaching, 
 &c., p. 130). The fact of these restorations has 
 been lately made jiatent to those who have no 
 opportunity cf examining the originals by the 
 invaluable series of photographs taken in the 
 catacombs by the magnesium light, which we 
 owe to the unwearied zeal and munificent libe- 
 
 No. 8. Ceiling of the Vestibnle of the Cataoomba of Naples. From Bcllerraann. 
 
 restorations may be taken as examples of the 
 retouchings and repaintings of earlier originals 
 which prevailed so extensively when the cata¬ 
 combs became the objects of religious visits, and 
 which render it so difficult accurately to de¬ 
 termine the date of any particular picture. In 
 the catacombs at Naples which have not been 
 so much cared for, and are less tampered with 
 by modern restorers, the wall-pictures may be 
 seen in several instances peeling off, disclosing 
 successive strata one behind another. There is 
 no reason to question the good faith of the 
 original restorers, who probably followed the 
 outlines of the decaying subjects as far as they 
 could make them out, and only supplied forms and 
 details when the original had quite disappeared. 
 But it must always be borne in mind, in examin¬ 
 ing the frescoes of the catacombs, that we are in 
 all probability looking at a w’ork of the 8th or 
 even a later century, which only partially repro- 
 
 rality of Mr. J. H, Parker. The rude later 
 touches and hard outlines are in many instances 
 clearly to be traced over the original painting. 
 It is needless to pursue the melancholy history 
 of the decline of religious art any further. The 
 power of drawing grew feebler and feebler, all 
 sense of beauty of form perished, proportion 
 was disregarded, the colouring became crude 
 and inharmonious, until, with the close of the 
 8th century, a period of darkness set in, when 
 Christian art was lost in the Western world, 
 and only dragged on an unnatural and mechanical 
 existence in the traditional Byzantine art of the 
 East. 
 
 The remarkable series of frescoes which em¬ 
 bellish the catacombs of Naples must not be 
 passed over. They have, however, been so fully 
 described in a previous article (Cat.4.combs, 
 p. 316), that it is needless to enlarge upon them 
 here. The chief authorities for these paintings 
 
698 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 are the plates of Bellermann’s work (Hamburg, 
 1839). The greater part there given are no 
 longer visible. T)ie vault of the vestibule is 
 painted in the Pomj'eian style, and probably by 
 pagan artists, some of the subjects being dis¬ 
 tinctly heathen. It belongs to the first half- 
 century of the Christian era (No. 8). The vault 
 has been sub.setiuently plastered over, and a 
 second set of subjects of the 8th century painted 
 over it. But the new coat did not adhere well, 
 and has fallen off to a large extent, exhibiting 
 the first painting below it. Thei'e is also 
 a good painting of a peacock, with vases 
 and flowers, belonging to the first period. 
 Among the paintings that decorate the chapels 
 we may eall attention to one presenting full- 
 length figures of St. Paul with a scroll, and St. 
 Laurence with his crown of martyrdom in his 
 hand. They are not nimbed, and are assigned 
 by Mr. J. H. Parker to the 5th century (No. 9). 
 Half-lengths of St. Desiderius and St. Agutius, 
 in another recess, deserve notice as exemplifying 
 the bad drawing of the 8th century. The faces 
 are elongated, the sockets of the eyes exaggerated 
 in size, the hands enormous and clumsy, and the 
 whole displays a barbaric ignorance of form and 
 blindness to beauty. 
 
 No. 9. SS. Paul and Laurence, Catacomb at Naples. 
 
 11. Byzantine. —Up to the commencement of 
 the 7th century there was no decided difference 
 between Eastern and Western art. Wherever 
 Roman civilization extended Christian art was 
 essentially the same. It was not-till the middle 
 of the 7th century that the distinction between 
 Roman and Byzantine art began to arise. That 
 was the epoch of the greatest decadence of art in 
 the West, crushed by the Lombard invasion, while 
 in the East, under the emperor Justinian, a new 
 and vigorous intellectual life was rapidly deve¬ 
 loping itself and manifesting its energy, as else¬ 
 where, in the domain of art. This new influence 
 rapidly made itself felt through the civilized 
 world. The style of art universally preA-ailing 
 in the latter part of the 7th and the 8th cen¬ 
 turies and onward was that which, as dis¬ 
 tinguished from the Roman school, is known by 
 the title of Byzantine (Kugler, Handbook of 
 Painting, i. p. 47). The characteristic mental 
 difterences of the West and the East were 
 reflected in their artistic works. The con¬ 
 templative prevailed in the productions of the 
 Byzantine art schools, as the practical did in 
 those of Rome. The idea of dramatic historical 
 painting was alien to the Byzantine genius. 
 Even the movements of life were distasteful. 
 Calm, motionless figures offered themselves to 
 the doyotjon of the worshippers in dignified 
 
 repose. Ease stiffened into rigidity, tradition 
 usurped the place of invention, the study ol 
 nature was laid aside, and the artist followed a 
 strictly prescribed type which allowed no scope 
 for the play of the imagination, and ended in a 
 system of mere mechanical copying, where, in 
 Kugler’s words (u. s. p. off), “the capacity of 
 the artist was only regulated by the number and 
 quality of the ti-acings which he had been able 
 to procure from the works of his predecessors.” 
 A fuller discu-ssion of Byzantine art and the 
 chief examples remaining, must be reserved for 
 the article treating on mosaic decorations 
 (Mosaics). Byzantine frescoes of the 6th, 7th, 
 and 8th centuries, it is believed do not exist; 
 though, from the permanence of the traditional 
 type, and the strict adherence to artistic rules, 
 there is no doubt that later compositions enable 
 us to realise their character with great accuracy. 
 We have no account of catacomb paintings in 
 the East, though it is possible that such are only 
 awaiting more thorough research. One such 
 was not long since discovered at Alexandria, and 
 is described by De’ Rossi {Bulletino, Novemb. 
 1864; Agost. 1865), and Northcote {Rom. Sott. 
 p. 221). It contains a liturgical painting, appa¬ 
 rently representing the particijiation in the 
 eucharist, together with the miracle at Cana 
 and the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, 
 with Greek inscriptions over. But it belongs to 
 a period anterior to the development of Byzan¬ 
 tine art, and differs little, if at all, from the 
 paintings of the Roman catacombs. 
 
 III. Lombardh. —The relics of the new style of 
 art consequent on the Lombard invasion in the 
 6th and 7th centuries are A-ery scanty, and quite 
 insufficient to furnish data for determining its 
 character with any minuteness. It is probable, 
 hoAvever, that the “ naturalism and insistence on 
 fact, the vigorous imao'inatiou of truth and Avild 
 play of fancy in fiction, the delight in action, 
 motion, and contest, the taste for hunting and 
 battle, the irresistible or unresisted taste for 
 the humorous grotesque,” described so vividly 
 by Mr. Ruskin (»S'ffi?ies o/ Venice, Ami. i. append. 8), 
 as characterizing their more lasting Avorks in 
 architecture and sculpture, Avere exhibited in 
 their pictorial efforts, in Avhich, with all their 
 rudeness and total license of style, there lay, as 
 Kugler remarks (p. 45), “a germ of freedom from 
 Avhich, later, a ncAV school of deA'elojunent aa'us to 
 spring.” The historical subjects which Queen 
 Theodelinda caused to be painted on the walls of 
 her palace at Monza, at the beginning of the 7th 
 century, have unhappily perished, if, indeed, 
 they were frescoes and not mosaics. 
 
 Some account is giA'en by Von Rumohr {Itul. 
 Forschung. Ami. i. p. 193, Berl. 1827) of the 
 examples of the Lombardic style still existing in 
 the remains of the frescoes in the tribune of the 
 subterranean church at Assisi, and in the crypt 
 of SS. Nazaro e Celso at Verona. The former 
 are pLaceil by him in the 8th century. The 
 lights are laid on in impasto, an art subsequently 
 lost. The frescoes at Verona are very similar in 
 design and execution. SoA'eral Biblical scenes arc 
 there rudely painted on a coarse white ground. 
 
 IV. Cycles of Scriptural Subjects .—Attention 
 has been already draAvn to the remarkable fact 
 that out of the almost infinite Avealth of his¬ 
 torical subjects in the Old and Ncaa^ Testa- 
 raeuts suitable for pictorial representation, by 
 
FIIESCO 
 
 FKESCO 
 
 which important doctrines are set forth or 
 holy lessons imparted, a comparatively small 
 number were selected, and that the limits thus 
 laid down were scarcely ever transgressed by 
 the artists. Nor were these, generally speak¬ 
 ing, precisely the subjects that we should have 
 a priori expected to have been the object of ex¬ 
 clusive ])refereiice. Many of the most striking 
 events of the 0. T., and the most characteristic 
 incidents of the life of Christ are entirely passed 
 ov'er, -while some which appear to us subordinate 
 are repeated times without number. The ex¬ 
 planation of this procedure is to be sought in the 
 principle of typical parallelism which guided the 
 church from the first in her choice of subjects 
 for delineation. Her leadino- idea was to veil 
 the great facts of Redemption “ under the parallel 
 and typical events of the patriarchal and Jewish 
 dispensation—admitting no direct representations 
 from gospel history but such as illustrated the 
 kingly office of the Saviour and the miracles by 
 which He prefigured the illumination of the 
 spirit and the resun-ection of the body” (Lord 
 Lindsay, Christian Art, vol. i. p. 48). It fol¬ 
 lowed therefore that even these events were not 
 treated so much as facts of history, to be por¬ 
 trayed with any idea of rej)rodncing the incident 
 as it may bt conceived to have occurred, but as 
 types in which the spiritual meaning was pre¬ 
 dominant. Consequently, not the choice of the 
 subject alone but the mode of treating it was 
 matter to be regulated by authority. Nothing 
 beyond the minor details and the mode of exe¬ 
 cution was left to the artist. The church dic¬ 
 tated what should be painted and how. “The 
 symbolical system of this hieratic cycle,” says De’ 
 Rossi, “is established beyond all dispute, not 
 only by the choice and arrangement of subjects, 
 but also by the mode of representing them.” 
 “ Christ’s resurrection, with that of the church in 
 His Person, is the theme on which in their pecu¬ 
 liar language the artists of the catacombs seem 
 never weary of expatiating” (Lord Lindsay, n. s. 
 p. 51), and representing to the eyes and hearts 
 of the beholders under every varied form of 
 symbol, type, and allegory. The earliest allusion 
 
 699 
 
 1 every sarcophagus of the early Christian church. 
 I The same events, with the others belonging to 
 } this cycle, are'continually referred to in the 
 writings of the early fathers, who thus evi¬ 
 denced the hold they had taken of the popular 
 mind, as familar illustrations of the truths of 
 revelation. 
 
 We may select one or two of the subjects of 
 most frequent recurrence in eaidy Chri.'.tian arr, 
 to illuij^rate what has been said as to the ad¬ 
 herence to a traditional type, even when quite 
 at variance with all historical probability. No 
 subject meets us more constantly than Noah in 
 
 the ark receiving the dove with the olive-branch, 
 in evident allusion to the sacr.mieut of baptism 
 and salvation in the church (1 Pet. iii. 31). But 
 with slight modifications of detail the type never 
 varies. As in the illustration given above (No. 
 10), the ark is always a small square box with 
 an open lid, out of which a man many sizes too 
 large for his recejitacle appears, and welcomes 
 back the dove. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is 
 of peiqietual recurrenceJ Both are usually clad 
 in tunics. In an example from the cemetery of 
 Priscilla, Abraham wears high])! iest ly robes. 
 
 to a cycle of this kind, not, it is true, containing 
 
 any reference to pictorial representation, occurs 
 
 in the Apostolical Constitutions (lib. v. c. 7). 
 
 Some of the Scriptural events there spoken of as 
 
 types or pledges of the resurrection of man, viz. 
 
 tlie deliverance of Jonah trom the whale’s belly, 
 
 * ' 
 
 the preservation of the three children in the 
 fiery furnace, and of Haniel in the lions’ den, 
 from the 0. T., and the cure of the man sick of 
 the palsy, and of the blind man on whose eyes 
 Christ laid clay, the feeding of the five thousand, 
 the miracle of Cana, and the raising of Lazarus, 
 are those which meet us peiqietually jiaiifted in 
 almost every cubiculwn, aivl carved on almost 
 
 The ram is a frequent accessory. The his 
 tory of Jonah, the tyjie of His work, death, 
 and resurrection, chosen by Christ himself, 
 in its three scenes, when once seen will be 
 universally recognised, from the sameness of 
 the form of the sea-monster and the details of 
 the picture. In our illustration (No. U) all 
 these typical events are combined into one 
 jiicture. Daniel in the lions’ den, infinitely re¬ 
 peated, adheres on the whole to the same form 
 and arrangement. One given by Perret repre- 
 
 f Augustine speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac, “ tot loclfl 
 picturo ” (f/wL /'(iMsf. lib. x,\ii, c. 7'.^). 
 
700 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 FRESCO 
 
 sents him as wearing the Phrygian cap, which 
 also usually distinguishes hi" companions the 
 three children in the furnace, another of the 
 most commonly occurring types of deliverance 
 (No. 12). The permanence of one type sanctioned 
 bv ecclesiastical tradition exhibited in the.se and 
 almost every other Scriptural representation in 
 these early paintings, anticipates the authorita¬ 
 tive statement of the church made some centuries 
 
 Ko. 12. riie TLiee Clixldren. From the Cemetery of Sf. Hermes. 
 (Bosio, p. 565.) 
 
 later in the iconoclastic controversy, “ Non est 
 imaginum structura picturarum inventio, sed 
 ecclesiae catholicae probata legislatio et traditio” 
 (Cone. Nic. ii. art. vi., Labbe Concil. vol. vii. p. 
 831). 
 
 The same restriction to one c)'cle and adhe¬ 
 rence to one authorised pictorial form are seen 
 in the frescoes from the N. T. (See Jesus 
 Christ.) 
 
 The following may be accepted as a tolerably 
 complete account of the cycle of the 0. T. subjects 
 found in the catacombs. We have only included 
 those which had received a fixed traditional 
 form, and were constantly repeated, excluding 
 those only occurring once or twice :— s 
 
 I. (1) The Fall, with Adam, Eve, the tree, and 
 the serpent. (2) The Offering of Cain and Abel. 
 (3) Noah receiving the Dove. (4) The Sacrifice 
 of Isaac. (5) Moses removing his Shoes. (6) 
 Closes striking the Ifiak. (7) David with his 
 Sling. (8) Elijah’s Translation. (9) The Three 
 Children in the Fiery Furnace. (10) Daniel in 
 the Lions’ Den. (11) Jonah («) Swallowed by 
 the Whale ; (6) Disgorged ; (c) Reposing under 
 his Booth. (12) Job on the Dunghill; to which 
 ma)'- be added, though of much rarer occurrence, 
 (13) Tobias with the Fish, and (14) Susanna and 
 the Elders. 
 
 The New Testament cycle, under the same 
 restriction, is as follows :— 
 
 II. (1) The Adoration of the Magi. (2) The 
 Jliracle at Cana. (3) Christ and the Woman of 
 Samaria. (4) The Healing of the Paralytic, the 
 man cai'rying his bed. (5) The Healing of the 
 Blind Man. (6) The Cure of the Woman with 
 
 g The most detailed description of the members of ‘hese 
 Scriptural cycles, with references to the localities in 
 which they may be .‘•ouxht for, is supplied by the Danish 
 bishop Dr. Fred. Munter, in his work of learned re^earch, 
 Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstdlungen der alter Chnslen, 
 Altoua, 1825. 
 
 the Issue of Blood. (7) The Multiplication of 
 the Loaves and Fishes. (8) The Raising of La¬ 
 zarus. (9) Zacchaeus. (10) The Triumphal 
 Entry into Jerusalem. (11) Christ before 
 Pilate, the latter washing his hands. (12) 
 Christ and the Ajmstles on the Shore of the 
 Sea of Galilee, after the Resurrection, with 
 bread and fish. To these may be added, though 
 not strictly belonging to the cycle, (13) the 
 Annunciation (Bottari, tav. 176), (14) Our Lord’s 
 Baptism, in the catacomb of St. Pontianus, and 
 (15) the Five Wise Virgins, from St. Agnes 
 (Perret, ii. 42). 
 
 We must not omit to mention the frescoes 
 rej^resentiug tho, A(jape which so frequently meet 
 us. In many of these there is nothing dis¬ 
 tinctively Christian, and ^Ir. Tyrwhitt remarks 
 on the close resemblance between the Agape of 
 the catacombs of St. Domitilla, and St. Callistus, 
 and the confessedly heathen banquet of the seven 
 priests in the Gnostic catacomb. That of which 
 we give a woodcut (No. 13), from the catacomb 
 of SS. Marcellinus and Peter, already described 
 (p. 312), presents nothing by which we can de¬ 
 termine whether the feast depicted had a reli¬ 
 gious character or not. In other.s, however, the 
 decussated loaves, the bread and fish in seven 
 baskets, and the seven persons, in evident allu¬ 
 sion to the interview between Christ and seven 
 of hii disciples at the sea of Galilee, evidence the 
 Christian origin and purpose of the painting. 
 
 No. 13. AfjHpe. From the Cemetery of SS. Marcellinus and Petins 
 
 (Bosio.) 
 
 We have already lamented the entire absence 
 of all examples of religious paintings derived 
 from churches or basilicas, owing to the destruc¬ 
 tion of the buildings themselves, or of the decay 
 or removal of the pictures. This want however 
 is in some degree compensated for by contem¬ 
 poraneous lists of the subjects represented, and 
 to some extent of the manner in which they 
 were depicted, for which we are indebted to St. 
 Ambrose and St. Paulinus of Nola. 
 
 In the latter half of the 4th century the Am- 
 
 •/ 
 
 brosian basilica at Milan was decorated with a 
 cycle of 21 Scriptural paintings, all but four 
 of which represented 0. T. subjects. They are 
 described in the “ Disticha ad picturas sicras in 
 Basilica Amhrosiana'' given in the ’"Tnni Since ndi 
 Sant’ Ambrojio,” published by Biraghi (Milano, 
 1862). The subjects are (1) Noah and the Dove. 
 (2) Abraham beholding the Stars. (3) Abra¬ 
 ham entertaining the Angels. (4) The Sacrifice 
 of Isaac. (5) The Meeting of Isaac and Rebecca. 
 (6) Jacob craftily obtaining the Birthright. (7) 
 Jaco? and the Speckled and Ring-straked Flocks. 
 (8) Joseph’s Coat shown to Jacob by his Sons. 
 
FliESCO 
 
 701 
 
 (9) Joseph sold by his Brethren. (10) Joseph 
 and Potiphar’s Wife. (H) Joseph’s Dreams. 
 (12) Absalom caught by his Hair. (13) Jonah 
 swallowed by the Great Fish. (14) The Wolf 
 lying down with the Kid. (15) Jeremiah’s 
 Prophetical Commission. (16) The Ascension 
 of Elijah. (17) Daniel in the Lions’Den. (18) 
 The Annunciation. (19) Zacchaeus in the Syca¬ 
 more Tree. (20) The Transfiguration. (21) 
 St. John reclining on Christ’s Breast. This 
 cycle is remarkable as including several subjects 
 seldom or never occurring in existing remains. 
 Subjects (1), (4), (13), (10), and (17) are among 
 the most frequent, but all the rest are found 
 most rarely, while of the majority it would be 
 dilfioult to name an example. 
 
 The most detailed accounts of the decoration 
 
 of a church with Scriptural paintings are those 
 
 given by Pauiinus of Nola in the early years of 
 
 the 5th century, when describing the basilica 
 
 erected by him in honour of St. Felix (Poem, 
 
 xxvii.L We here find the first direct enunciation 
 / 
 
 of the principle set forth by Joannes Damascenus 
 (Orat. I. de Iitvxgin. vol. i. p. 314), and con¬ 
 stantly repeated since, that “pictures are the 
 books of the unlearned.” The festival of St. 
 Felix, which occurred in the winter, gathered 
 together an immense concourse of country folk, 
 who thought to do honour to the tomb of the 
 saint by passing the night in feasting, too usually 
 resulting- in a gro-ss debauch : 
 
 “ male crcdula sanctos 
 Perfusis halante mero gaudere sepulcbris.” 
 
 (/6. V. 563.) 
 
 In the hope of beguiling the gross minds of 
 these illiterate peasants from the sensual de¬ 
 lights which were their chief attractions, and 
 awakening purer thoughts and holier aspirations 
 by the examples of the holy personages there 
 depicted, and at the same time with the view of 
 imparting to them some knowledge of the chief 
 facts of sacred history, and at any rate of leaving 
 them less leisure for their coarser pleasures, 
 Pauiinus adopted the somewhat unusual expedient 
 (raro more) of embellishing the portico of the new 
 basilica with a series of Scriptural paintings. They 
 occupied either the ceiling or the upper portion of 
 the wall, only to be seen with up-turned face 
 and head thrown back (ib. vv. 511-513), The 
 series embraced subjects from the Pentateuch, 
 Joshua, and Ruth. Those particularised by Pau- 
 linus (ih. vv. 515 -535, 607-635) are the Creation 
 of Man, Abraham’s Departure from Ur, the 
 Angels received by Lot, Lot’s Wife, the Sacrifice 
 of Isaac, Isaac opening the Wells, Jacob’s Dream, 
 Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, the Crossing of 
 Jordan, Naomi and her Daughters-in-law, and 
 the Passage of the Red Sea. The titles of the 
 various pictures were written over them : 
 
 “ ut litt ra monstret 
 Qiiod manus exp icuit.”—(/b. 5S4 ) 
 
 The description of the last two subjects indicates, 
 as Dean Milman remarks (Hist, of Christianity, 
 vol, iii. p. 399 note), if it was drawn from the 
 picture itself, considerable talent on the painter’s 
 part for composition and landscape as well as for 
 the drawing of figures. Not content with these 
 pictorial embellishments of his new basilica, 
 Pauiinus decorated the old basilica of St. Felix 
 in a similar manner, selecting subjects from the 
 
 FRIULI, COUNCIL OF 
 
 New Testament, that thus “ that which was new 
 might be an ornament to the old, and the old to 
 the new.” These occupied a lower position, and 
 could be viewed “ lumine recto ” (/^o<?/n. xxviii. 
 vv. 167-179). Three nari-ow chapels (cellae') 
 opening out of the atrium, exhibited examples of 
 male and female virtue. One was painted with 
 the history of Job and Tobit; another with those 
 of Esther and Judith. That in the centre com¬ 
 memorated martyrs of both sexes (ib. vv. 15-27). 
 The paintings in the apse of the basilica at Fondi 
 are also described by Pauiinus in a letter to his 
 friend Severus (Ep. xxxii. 17). The subjects 
 were of the same nature as many still extant in 
 the apses of basilicas; a crowned cross standing 
 in the flowery meads of Paradise, and the Holy 
 Lamb anointed by the Dove and crowned by the 
 Father, with the shec-p and goats on either hand. 
 These may have been worked in mosaic. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that the walls of 
 civil and domestic buildings were also decorated 
 with paintings, .sometimes secular, sometimes re¬ 
 ligious. Those of the 2 >^»hice of Queen Theode- 
 linda at Monza have been already referred to. 
 Sidonius Apollinaris describes the villa of his 
 friend Pontius Leontius at Bourg, at the conflu¬ 
 ence of the Dordogne and Garonne, as profuselv 
 ornamented with wall-})aintings, one series repre¬ 
 senting the Mithridatic camj)aign of Lucullus, 
 another the eai-ly history of the Jewish nation, 
 “ recutitorum primordia Judaeorum.” Sidonius 
 expresses his astonishment at the lustre and 
 durability of the colours (Sid. Apoll. Carm. xxii.). 
 We learn from Ernandus Nigellus (lib. iv.) that 
 the whole Scripture history vv-as painted on the 
 walls of Charlemagne’s palace at Ingelheim. It 
 is needless to say all these have perished. 
 
 Authorities. —Alt, HeUiyenbUder ; Bellermann, 
 Katakomben zu Neapel; Bingham, Oriyines, bk. 
 viii. c. 8; Boldetti, Osservazioni; Bosio, PiOma 
 Sotterranea ; Bottari, Scxdtnre e pithire; Ciam- 
 piui, Vetera Mowimenta; Kugler, Handbook of 
 Paintiny ; Lindsay, Lord, Sketches of Christian 
 Art; Munter, Sinnbilder; Northcote and Brown- 
 low, Iloma Sotterranea ; Parker, J. H., Photo¬ 
 graphs : Perret, Les Catacombes de Pome ; Pij)er, 
 Mythol. u. Symbol, der Christlich. Kunst; Raoul 
 Rochette, Tableau des Catacombes ; Discours; Rio, 
 Art Chre'ticnne; Rossi, De’, Roma Sotterranea; 
 Seroux d’Agincourt, UHistoire de VArt par les 
 monumens; Tyrwhitt, Art Teaching of the Primi¬ 
 tive Cnurch. [E. V.] 
 
 FRIDAY, GOOD. [Good Friday.] 
 
 FRIULI, COUNCIL OF (Forojuliense con¬ 
 cilium), held at Friuli, A.D. 796, not 791, as Pagi 
 shews (Mansi xiii. 854) under Pauiinus, j)atriarch 
 of Aquileia, whose letter to Charlemagne, for¬ 
 merly misconnected with the synod of Altino, 
 A.D. 802 (ibid. p. 827), assigns three causes for 
 its meeting: (1) the orthodox faith; (2) eccle¬ 
 siastical discipline, and (3) recent outrages, ]>ro- 
 bably by the Huns. The first of tiicse is exj)lained 
 in his speech, which is an elaborate aj)ology for 
 the reception into the Western creed of tlie 
 “Filioque,” which Charlemagne had attacked, 
 and the jiope vindicated, the 2nd Niccne council 
 two years before for not having in theirs : Pau- 
 linus him.self endeavouu-ing to prove both right 
 The resemblance between parts of this speech 
 and the .4thanasian creed has been remarked 
 and is very close. Besides which it is observable 
 
702 FRUITS, OFFERING OF FRUITS, OFFERING OP 
 
 that all priests are required to commit to memory 
 the entire exj)osition of “the Catholic faith,” 
 with which he concludes: while, for everybody 
 else, the learning by heart of the Creed and 
 the Lord’s Prayer is jirescribed. Of the canons, 
 the 1st threatens simony; the 2nd drunken¬ 
 ness; the 4th and 5th deprecate secular employ¬ 
 ments and amusements for the clergy. IJy 
 the 10th divorced couples are forbidden to 
 remarry till one of the two dies ; and by the 
 13th all are inhibited from working on Sundays 
 and holidavs (Mansi xiii. 830 and seq.). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 FRUITS, OFFERING AND BENEDIC¬ 
 TION OF. I. The Eastern Hite .—In the so- 
 called Apostolical Constituti' ns (vii. 29) the duty 
 is inculcated of giving to the jiriests the first- 
 fruits of the press and of the fioor, of honey, 
 grapes, shell-fruits, &c., and the firstlings of the 
 flock and herd, that the stores of the giver and 
 the jiroduce of his land may be blessed (eoAo- 
 yqOwffLv). As this precept or exhortation comes 
 in the midst of others r«kUiting to the Holy Com¬ 
 munion, we might, perhaps, infer from it alone 
 that in the East those things were offered and 
 blessed during the celebration of that sacrament. 
 They were at least brought to the altar, and at 
 that time; for the third (or, as in some editions, 
 the second) apostolical canon forbids anything 
 but ears of new corn and grapes in their seasons, 
 oil for the lamps, and frankincense, to be 
 “ brought to the altar at the time of the holy 
 sacrifice.” At a later period they certainly were 
 blessed during the liturgy; for the council in 
 Trullo (a.d. 391) found that in some churches 
 the grapes brought to the altar were “joined to 
 the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and both 
 distributed together to the peojile ;” whereui)on 
 it decreed that “ the priests should bless the 
 graj)e separately” (^Can. xxviii.). In book viii. 
 c. xl. of the Constitutions is a thanksgiving for 
 first-fruits offered. In the book it follows the 
 “ morning laying on of hands; ” but as it comes 
 after the dismissal, it is clearly independent of 
 that. It might, for aught that appears, be used, 
 when occasion required, at the celebration or any 
 other service. It begins thus, “We give Thee 
 thanks, 0 Lord Almighty, Creator and Provider 
 of all things, through Thine only begotten Sou 
 Jesus Chi ist our Lord, not as we ought, but as 
 we can, for the first-fruits offered unto Thee.” 
 The whole form, which is rather long, is a 
 thanksgiving in this strain. Later forms, though 
 apparently of very great antiquity, are conceived 
 in a different spirit, and approjndately entitled, 
 “ Prayers on behalf of those who offer first- 
 fruits ” (^Euchologion, pp. 655, 656, ed. Goar). 
 They are, with one exception, I’ather petitions 
 for a benefit, than ascriptions of praise. They 
 are used at the benediction of “ grapes, figs, 
 ))omegranates, olives, ai)])les, ])eaches, plums.” 
 Grajjes, if ripe, were blessed in the Greek church 
 on the 6th of August (Euchologion, p. 695). 
 
 11. 27ie Western Hite .—One proof of the great 
 antiquity of the benediction of grapes is that it 
 took place in the West (as a rule) on the 6th 
 of August, as well as among the Greeks {^Sacram. 
 Gregor, in Lit. Rom. Vet.; Muratori, tom. ii. col. 
 109). The earliest extant forms are in the Ge- 
 lasian sacramentary. the substance of which is 
 at least as old as the fifth century. There, 
 
 among the Orationes et TGcces for Ascension 
 Day, we find this rubric and prayer: “Then a 
 little before the end of the canon thou shalt 
 bless the new fruits (fruges novas). The Bene¬ 
 diction follows: Bless, 0 Lord, these new fruits 
 of the bean, which Thou, 0 Lord, hast vouch¬ 
 safed to ripen, &c., in the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ; by whom Thou, 0 Lord, dost 
 alway create all these good things, &c. Finish 
 the Caii'-n” (Muratori, tom. i. col. 588). Else¬ 
 where, in the same sacramentary, the praver 
 occurs again slightly altered, and with the alter¬ 
 natives, “ grai)e or bean” {Ibid. col. 746). It is 
 here followed by another benediction of first- 
 fruits' of any kind (piimitias creaturae Tuae), 
 and by a “ Benediction of Apples.” From some 
 MSS. of the later Gregorian sacramentary, we 
 learn that aj)iJes were blessed on the viii. Kal. 
 Aug., i.e , on St. James’ Day (Marteue, Ee Antiq. 
 Eccl. Hit. L. iv. c. xxxiii. § xi.). The prayer from 
 which we have quoted above is preserved in the 
 last-named sacramentary as a iJenedictio Uvae 
 (Muratori, tom. ii. col. 109). The oldest MS. of 
 the Gelasian does not reach beyond the eighth 
 centurv, nor that of the Gregorian bevond the 
 ninth; but we have proof that the custom was 
 known in the West before the eighth century, 
 and therefore that the recognition of it in the 
 Roman sacramentaries was not an interpolation 
 of that period. The prayei' above cited from the 
 Gelasian occurs with the title, Benedictio omni 
 (sic) croaurae (sic) Homorum, in the manuscript 
 Gallican sacramentary, written in the seventh 
 century, if not earlier, found by Mabillon in the 
 monastery at Bobio, in Italy, and probably 
 carried thither fi'om Luxeuil by its founder, St. 
 Columbanus, a.d. 613, or by one of his followers 
 (see the Alusaeum Italicum, tom. i. p. 390; or 
 Muratori, u. s. tom. ii. col. 959). In the Lec¬ 
 tionary of Luxeuil, another ha})py discovery of 
 Mabillon, we find the Eucharistic lessons Ad 
 Missam de novos Fructus (sic). The prophecv is 
 taken from Joel ii. 21-27; the epistle from 
 1 Cor. ix. 7-15; and the gospel from St. John, 
 vi. 49-52 {De Liturgiu Gallicanu, p. 161). From 
 this coming after the I^egenda of the Passion of 
 St. John the Baptist, Sept. 24 {Liturg. Gall. 
 p. 458), and from the internal evidence of the 
 lessons, we infer that it is the benediction of the 
 new corn for which jirovision is here made. The 
 rite was ])robably carried by our countryman 
 Boniface (Winfred), a.d. 723, with the common 
 Roman offices, to his converts in Germany ; ibr 
 we find the Gelasian benedictions of fruit, &c., 
 with certain others, among the 3Ionumenta 
 Veteris Liiurgiae Alcmannicae, published by Ger- 
 bert (Part I. p. 307). A very brief examj)lc 
 peculiar to this collection may be given:— 
 “Bless, 0 Lord, this fruit of now trees, that 
 they who use thereof may be sanctified ; through, 
 &c.” It is interesting to add that similar bene¬ 
 dictions were practised in our own country. In 
 the pontifical of Egbert, who became archbishop 
 of York in 732, are the six following formu¬ 
 laries :-J(i.) Benedictio ad omnia quie volhcrts; 
 (ii.) Benedictio ad Fruges not as ; (iii.) Benedictio 
 Homorum; (iv.) Alia ; (v.) Benedictio Hani<t novi; 
 (vi.) Alia. There is, of course, no mention of 
 grajies, nor is the Gelasian j)rayer that we have 
 cited given with any other application. Of the 
 above, ii. and v. are not in the Roman sacra¬ 
 mentaries. The last runs thus; “Bless, 0 Loi'd, 
 
FEONTAL 
 
 this creature of bread, as Thou didst bless the 
 five loaves iu the wilderness, that all who taste 
 thereof may receive health both of body and of 
 soul; througl), &c.” {J^ontijicale Ecgberhti, p. 
 115; ed. Surtees Society, 1854). 
 
 It will be perceived that in the West, as well 
 as East, the offering of first-fruits as a token of 
 gratitude to tlie Giver of All soon degenerated 
 into a mode of asking for a blessing on the con¬ 
 sumption of His gifts. It should be understood, 
 also, that both iu the East and West the first- 
 fruits brought to be blessed were left for the use 
 of the priests. “ It is becoming and expedient,” 
 says Origen, A.D. 230, “ that the first-fruits be 
 offered also to the priests of the Gospel.” “ For 
 if one believed that the fruits of the earth were 
 given to him by God, he would surely know how 
 to honour God from His gifts and benefits by 
 giving thereof to the priests ” (^Hom. xi. iu Num. 
 §2, tom. X. pp. 105, 106; ed. Loinmatzsch). 
 Similarly St. Jerome, commenting on Ezekiel 
 xliv. 30: “The first-fruits of our foods are 
 offered to the priests ; that we may taste nothing 
 of the new fruits, before the priest has tasted 
 them. For we do this, that the priest may lay 
 up a blessing and our offering in his house ; or 
 that the Lord may bless our houses at his 
 prayer.” 
 
 We have already quoted a rubric from the 
 Gelasian sacrameutary, which orders that the 
 benediction of fruits shall take place “ a little 
 before the end of the canon.” The prayer was in¬ 
 serted immediately after the words, “ not weigh¬ 
 ing our merits, but pardoning our offences ” (now 
 in our first Post-Commuiiion Collect), and im¬ 
 mediately before the concluding clause, “ through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord.” This clause (altered in 
 this manner, “in the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ”) was thus made to close the benediction. 
 After it the priest added, “ Per quern haec omnia, 
 Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, 
 benedicis et praestas nobis. Per ipsum,” &c. 
 These words are now a permanent part of the 
 canon; but they do not seem to belong to it. 
 The words, “haec omnia” cannot with any pro¬ 
 priety be applied to the eucharistic elements 
 alone. Hence some ritualists, as e. g. Grancolas 
 {Ancien7ies Liturgies, p. 657), and De Vert (^Ex- 
 plic. des Ceremon. tom. iv. Remarque xxx.), &c., 
 suppose that this doxology was at first only used 
 when other things were oflered to be blessed, and 
 formed no part of the service of the mass. Le 
 Bruu (^Explication, p. iv. art. xvi.). Bona (^Rer. 
 Lit. 1. 2, c. xiv. § V.), D’Achery (^SpicV. tom. iv. 
 Praef.), and others, maintain that it was a con¬ 
 stant part of the liturgy, but that when there 
 was a benediction of fruits, it applied to them 
 as well as to the elements. [W. E. S.] 
 
 FRONTAL {Frontalis or Frontale) is defined 
 by Lindwood to be “ apparatus pendens in fronte 
 altaris,qui aliasdiciturPa//a.” [Altar-cloths; 
 Antependium.] The word is not uncommon in 
 ancient documents. Thus, for instance, a charter 
 of Chindasuintha, king of the Goths, of the year 
 645 A.D. (quoted by Ducange, s. v.) runs: “ of- 
 ferimus . . . vestimenta altaris omnia ad ple¬ 
 num, sive frontalia, sive principalia ...” A 
 later charter, quoted by the same authority, 
 speaks of “ quatuor/Vonfa/cs de serico.” [C.] 
 
 FUGITIVES 703 
 
 commemorated April 14 (J/arf. Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Felix (5).] 
 
 (3) Bishop at Petragoricas; commemorated 
 Oct. 25 (Mart. Adonis, Hsuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FRUCTUOSA. [Do.xatus (8).] 
 
 FRUCTUOSUS, bishop, martyr at Tarra¬ 
 gona with Augurius and Eulogius, deacons, in 
 the time of Gallienus; commemorated Jan. 21 
 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.j 
 
 FRUCTUS MEDII TEMPORIS. [Va- 
 
 CANCr.] 
 
 FRUMENTIES. (1) Martyr in Africa with 
 Victorianus and another Frumentius, under Hun- 
 nericus ; commemoi'ated March 23 (Mart. lioin. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) or Salama ; commemorated Maskarram 23 
 = Sept. 20 (Cal. Eihiop.) [Salama]. [W. F. G.] 
 
 FUGITIVES (from a monastery). Monastic 
 codes shew that their framers had to guard on 
 the one hand against a leniency which might 
 encourage desertion on the part of monks tired 
 of their seclusion and eager for the world, and 
 on the other against a severity which might close 
 the door too fast against deserters wishing to be 
 readmitted. The rule of Benedict, as always, 
 is very lenient on this point. A monk who escapes 
 from a monastery, like one who is expelled, is 
 to be received again if he vows amendment, even 
 after three desertions (Leg. Den. c. 29, cf. Deg. 
 Cuj. ad Virg. c. 21), but only into the lowest 
 grade (Reg. Ben. ib. cf. Reg. Rachom. c. 79, Reg. 
 Fruct. c. 20, Reg. Cuj. ib.). Some commenta¬ 
 tors, indeed, take this rule as implying, that 
 the abbat may readmit even after a fourth de¬ 
 sertion, though the culprit has no right to 
 require it (Martene, Reg. Coiwment. in loc.). But 
 later commentators (e.g. Menard, Haeften) in¬ 
 terpret it more strictly (IMartene, Reg. Comm, 
 ib.) The first council of Orleans, A.D. 511, cen¬ 
 sures abbats lenient to fugitive monks, or who 
 receive monks from other monasteries (Cone. 
 Aurel. i. c. 19). The second council of Tours, 
 A.D. 567, allows fugitives to be re-admitted on 
 doing penance. 
 
 In the same spirit of wi.se tolerance Benedict 
 is silent as to the steps to be taken to bring 
 back the fugitive, apparently judging it best to 
 leave him alone, if without any desire to return 
 (Mart, Reg. Comm. ib.). But Ferreolus pi-e- 
 scribes that the I'ugitiye is to be recalled (Leg. 
 Ferr. c. 20), and Fructuosus forbids him to be 
 admitted into another monastery ; and orders 
 him to be broqght back, by force if necessary, 
 as a criminal, with hands tied behind his back 
 (Reg. Fruct. c. 20). It was enacted by Justi¬ 
 nian that a monk returning to the secular life 
 should be degraded by the bishop and governor 
 of the province from his civil ])osition, and be 
 sent back with his worldly goods to his monas¬ 
 tery ; if he deserted again, he was to be 
 drafted into the army (Novell. 123). A similar 
 decree was passed by the seventli council of 
 Toledo, A.D. 646 (Cone. Tolet. c. 5). The second 
 council of Constantinople, A.D. 553, sentenced an 
 abbat who should be remiss in .seeking to bring 
 back the stray sheep into the monastic fold to 
 deprivation. 
 
 Later enactments are very severe against fugi- 
 
 FRONTO, (1) Abbot, martyr at Alexandria ; 
 
70-i 
 
 FULGENTIUS 
 
 FUSCOLUS 
 
 tivcs. The Cistercian rule forbids the reception 
 • even into the lowest rank of a monk who has 
 deserted twice, or has stayed awa}' more than 
 eleven days. The renegaile is in any case to 
 wear a distinctive dress, as badge of his disgrace, 
 and to be excluded from the choir; the abbat 
 who fails to enforce this rule is to do penance. 
 The original statutes of the Carthusians unfrock 
 the renegade ; the modern compel him to re¬ 
 sume the dre.ss of his order. The Augustinian 
 rule tempers severity with merc 3 ^ The rene¬ 
 gade is to live outside the monastery itself, but 
 under the care of the bishop, and the abbat is 
 to shew kindness to him, if penitent (Mart. Beg. 
 Comm, in loc. cit.). [1. G. S.] 
 
 FULGENTIUS, bishop in Africa ; comme¬ 
 morated Jan. 1 (^Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usu- 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 FUNERAL. [Burial OF THE Dead ; Obse¬ 
 quies.] 
 
 FUNERAL-FEAST. [Catacombs, p. 312; 
 Cella jMemoriae.] 
 
 FUNERAL-SERMONS {Bpitaphia, \6yoi 
 i-TTirdcpLOi). Christians followed the old custom 
 of many of the heathen nations, of holding an 
 oration over the remains of famous men departed 
 [Burial of the Dead, p. 253]. To say no¬ 
 thing of the discourses—triumphal rather than 
 sorrowing—delivered overthe remains of martyrs, 
 Gregory of Nyssa held funeral orations on the 
 death of the empresses Pulcheria and Placilla, and 
 of bishop Meletius. On the death of Constantine 
 the Great, several bishops celebrated his praises, 
 conspicuous among whom was Eusebius of 
 Caesarea. Gregory of Nazianzus exercised his 
 pathetic eloquence over the bier of his brother 
 Caesarius, of his father and his sister, and over 
 that of Basil the Great; Ambrose preached on 
 the death of his brother Satyrus, of Valentinian, 
 and of Theodosius.^ The tone of these orations 
 is, for the most, eulogistic of the “famous men ” 
 througii whom “ the Lord hath wrought great 
 glory ” (Ecclus. xliv. 1, 2). 
 
 Jerome (^Epist. ad Heliod. c. 1) says that the 
 old custom was for sons to speak the funeral 
 orations over parents. He alludes here probably 
 to a pagan custom, of which there are many 
 examples (Kirchmann, Be Fun. Bom. lib. ii. c. 
 18); but Chri.stianity also (as we have seen) 
 furnishes examples of a similar practice. Nor 
 were the clergy the only orators in such cases; 
 Constantine himself did not disdain to pronounce 
 a funeral oration on one of his court, in which, 
 says Eusebius ( Vica Const, iv. 55) he spoke of 
 the immortality of the soul, of the blessings of 
 the righteous, and the misery of*the wicked. 
 
 Funeral sermons were not always delivered at 
 the time of the burial, though some—as several 
 of Gregory Nazianzen’s—contain indications that 
 the}^ were so delivered. Eusebius ( Vita Cmst. 
 iv. 71) gives us to understand that the funeral 
 orations over Constantine A'ere delivered while 
 the remains of the departed lay in state on a 
 lofty bier [Feretrum]. Ambrose evidently de¬ 
 livered his sermon over Satyrus (see § 78) while 
 the body was yet waiting to be carried to the 
 grave. His oration on Valentinian, on the con- 
 
 • Wo might almost include in funeral orations Jerome's 
 Epituphiuni NepoLiani, though it is in form a letter to 
 Heliodorus. 
 
 trary, was delivered two months (see Opera, ii. 
 1170, ed. Beued.), that on Theodosius forty days, 
 after the death of the ])erson commemorated. 
 The death of bishop Meletius was the occasion of 
 sermons everywhere (Theodoret, II.E. v. 8); 
 that of Gregory of Nyssa was ])robably delivered 
 on the day when the remains of Meletius, brought 
 from Constautinoj)le, were received at Antioch. 
 That ot Chrysostom on the same bishop, was de¬ 
 livered on the fifth anniversary of his death. 
 The oration of Gregory Nazianzen on Basil was 
 delivered over his tomb on the fii'st anniversary 
 of his death, in the presence (it is said) of 150 
 bishops. 
 
 When the sermon took place at the time of a 
 commemorative service for the dead, it probably 
 took place at the point in the liturgy where the 
 sermon was ordinarily introduced. The Pseudo- 
 Dionysius (^Hierarch. Eccl. c. 7) speaks of the 
 funeral-sermon being delivered after the catechu¬ 
 mens had departed, but while the penitents 
 remained. The eulogy of Hilary of Arles on 
 Honoratus (quoted by Binterim, Vi. lii. 442), 
 which proves incidentally that the corpse was 
 carried uncovered, and that the oeoj/le ]>ressed 
 round to kiss the face, or the coffin of the 
 illustrious dead—was probably delivered at the 
 end of some office. The orations over the remains 
 of Constantine were clearly delivered after the 
 funeral service (Euseb. u.s. iv. 71; Binterim’s 
 Denkvciirdigkeiten, vi. iii. 435, ff’.). [C.] 
 
 FURNACE. In Bottari (clxxxvi. 6) the three 
 Hebrew brethren are represented standing in 
 something like a kiln or smelting furnace (see 
 woodcut); also cxcv. and perhaps cxliii. Ixi.; 
 also in Parker’s photographs from the catacomb 
 of St. Marcellinus. The furnace is literally in¬ 
 sisted on, in a way which, as it appears to the 
 
 author, may possibly have been adopted from one 
 of the ustrina (or ae) used for cremation in Rome. 
 One of these, or its remains or traces, the author 
 believes he saw in Pompeii, Christmas 1859. See 
 Murray’s Handbook for South Itah/, p. 327. 
 
 ^[R. St. J. T.] 
 
 FURSEAS, bishop, confessor at Peronne; 
 commemorated Jan. 16 {3Iart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FUSCIANUS, martyr at Amiens; comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 11 (J/a/ f. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 FUSCOLUS. (1) Bishop, martyr at Orleans; 
 commemorated Feb. 2 (J/arf. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Doxatianus (2).] [W. F. G.] 
 
GABALUM 
 
 GALLERIES 
 
 705 
 
 G 
 
 GABALUM, COUNCIL OF {Gahilitanum 
 concilium), at which the wife of the count of 
 Auvergne was condemned for adultery, says Sir 
 H. Nicolas {Chron. p. 222), A.D. 590. Gabalum, 
 where it was held, was not far from Mende, on 
 the river Lot {Gall. Christ, i. 83). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GABATHA or GABATA. A name of pen¬ 
 sile lamps suspended in churches. The word is of 
 uncertain orthography and etymology. We find 
 the forms Grabata, Gavata, and Carata, which last 
 points to the derivation given by Isidore His- 
 palensis (Eti/mol. lib. xx. c. 4) from cavns 
 “hollow.” The original meaning of the word is 
 “ a dish ” or “ bowl; ” in which sense it is used 
 by Mai-tial {Epujr. vii. 47 ; xi. 32), and of which 
 'the Glossary of Ducange furnishes abundant ex¬ 
 amples. From its shape it came to be employed 
 for a lamp, which is its most usual ecclesiastical 
 signification. The annexed woodcut from Maori 
 
 Gabbatlia, from Maori 
 
 shows one of two bowl-shaped preserved 
 
 in the pontifical chapel of the Lateran, in which 
 in his time a wax light was always burning 
 before the sacrament. Gab.ithae frequently occur 
 in the catalogues of papal gifts to the churches 
 of Lome contained in Anastasius. Thus Leo III. 
 (a.p, 795-816) gave to the basilica of St. Peter’s 
 15 gabathae of purest gold set with gems, to 
 hang on the screen (pergula) before the altar 
 (§ 382), and 6 of silver with, an appended cross 
 to hang before the Arch of Triumph, 3 on each 
 side (§ 389). These gabathae were of different 
 metals, gold, silver, brass, and electrum. They 
 were frequently embossed {anaglgpha § 392, 
 fcc.), or decorated in bas-relief (interrasiles), and 
 ornamented with lilies (liliatae) heads of gry¬ 
 phons (§ 366) or lions (as in the w’oodcut), or 
 even fashioned in the form of that animal “ in 
 modum leonis.” Like the coronae used for light- 
 ing, they very often had crosses attached to 
 them {sijnochristae, § 418, &c.). The epithet 
 filopares is frequently applied to gabathae in 
 Anastasius, and would seem, from a comparison 
 with the exj)ression pari flo (Lucr. ii. 341), to 
 signify of equal size or thickness. The epithet 
 saxicae or saxiscae is irterpreted by Ducange to 
 mean of Saxon workmanship; but tiiis interpre¬ 
 tation is precarious. [E. V.] 
 
 GABINIUS. (1) Presbyter, and martyr at 
 Rome in the time of Diocletian; commemorated 
 Feb. 19 {Mart. Ron. Vet.. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Sardinia with Crispedus, under 
 Adrian; commemorated May30(/6.). [W. F.G.] 
 
 CIIftlST. A N'T. 
 
 GABRA. (1) Mantis Kodus (*. e. servant of 
 the Holy Spirit), saint of Ethiopia; commemo¬ 
 rated Magabit 5 = March 1 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (2) Maskal (t. e. servant of the Cross), king of 
 the Ethiopians ; commemorated Hedar30 = Nov. 
 26 {Cal.Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GABRIEL, IN ART. [Angels.] 
 
 GABRIEIj, the archangel ; commemorated 
 March 26 and July 13 {Cal. Byzant.) ; Magabit 
 30 = March 26, Senne 13 = June 7, Taxas 19 = 
 Dec. 15 {Cal. Ethiop.)', also with John, July 12 
 {Cal. G<Kjrg.), a^d with Michael and All Angels, 
 Nov. 8 {Cal. Armen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAIANA, and companions, virgin-martyrs ; 
 commemorated June 4 {Cal. Armen.) [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GAIUS, saint at Bologna ; commemorated 
 with Aggeus and Hermes, Jan. 4 {Mart. Usu- 
 ardi). See Caius. [W. F. G.] 
 
 GALACTION. [Episteme.] 
 
 GALATA, martyr at Militana in Armenia, 
 with Aristonicus, Caius, Expeditus, Hermogenes, 
 Rufus; commemorated April 19 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Adoni.s, Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GALILAEI. [Faithful.] 
 
 GALILEE. [Narthex.] 
 
 GALNABIS (also Galnape, Galnapes [Isid 
 Hispal. Ettym. xix. 25], Gaunape). This is a kind 
 of rough blanket or rug, forming part of the 
 furniture of a monk’s couch, which according to 
 the Rule of St. Isidore is to include “ storoa et 
 stragulum, pellesque iauatae duae, galnabis 
 quoque et facistergium, gemiuusque ad caput 
 pulvillus” {Regula 8. Isidori, c. 14; in Hols- 
 tenius. Codex Regularum, part 2, p. 127, ed. 
 Paris, 1663). Similarly the Rule of Fructuosus, 
 bishop of Bracara in Spain, speaks of “ calnabes 
 yillatus ” (c. 4; op. cit. part 2, p. 139). The 
 galnabis was apparently used sometimes as an 
 article of personal dress, for in the testament 
 of Caesarius, bi.shop of Arles, we read “ simul 
 cum casula villosa et tunica vel galnape, quod 
 melius dimisero” {Patrol. Ixvii. 1140). 
 
 The etymology of the word is doubtful : wc 
 may perhaps connect it with the word gaunac’nn, 
 used by Varro, and possibly also with the Greek 
 yavi/dKTfs, Kavj/aKrjs, which is defined by Hesychius 
 (under the latter spelling) (npwgara, 1) ini- 
 fioKaia iTepopaWri. Another derivation has 
 been suggested, connecting the word with galba- 
 num, and making it descriptive of the colour, 
 but this is very improbable. For further refer¬ 
 ences, see Ducange’s Glossarium s. v. [R. S.] 
 
 GALLERIES. The only galleries known in 
 early ecclesiastical architecture were construc¬ 
 tional integral parts of the building, not additions 
 to it. In this they corresponded to the triforia 
 of mediaeval churches, which in their original 
 idea were galleries for the reception of worshij)- 
 pers or auditors, for which purpose they are 
 still used in Germany, and where they exist in 
 Italy {e.g. St. Ambrogio at Milan), and to some 
 extent in England. The first Christian churches 
 in the West were either basilicas, or buildings 
 erected on the basilican plan, and they naturally 
 retained the upjier gallery, running entirely 
 I'ound the building above the principal colonnade, 
 
706 
 
 GALT.ERIES 
 
 GALLERIES 
 
 for the accomiiiodation of s])ect:itors, inen on one 
 side and women on tlie other, which we know 
 to have formed an essential portion of the basi¬ 
 lican arrangement (Vitruv. v. 1). Like them 
 
 the cliurch galleries w^ere reached by an outside 
 staircase, and were protected towards the nave 
 by a low wall or balustrade (plutens). The 
 only Roman basilican churches that exhibit this 
 arrangemeut are those of St. Agnes (tig. 1), 
 
 Sophia, (or SS. Sergius and Basilius,) erected by 
 Justinian (fig. .3), also exhibits a gallery or up))er 
 story running all round it. In the churches, in 
 what is commonly known as the Bvzantine stvle, 
 of which St. Sophia is the most magnificent 
 example,' the side gallery played a very imjior- 
 tant part. There is a good examjjle in the 
 church of St. Vitale, at Ravenna (see woodcut, 
 p. .376). 
 
 Its usual designation was gunneconitis, from 
 being the place where the women were accom¬ 
 modated. It was also called the cutbchumeniurn, 
 because the women assembled there to listen to 
 instruction (Leo. Novell. 73, apud Ducange Con- 
 stantinopol. Clo'ist.), or simply “ the upper cham¬ 
 bers,” vTrepcf>a (Raul. Silent, i. 2.36). These gal¬ 
 leries ran along the side of the, trapeza or nave, 
 sometimes quite up to the .sanctuary or hema. The 
 Pseudo-Amphilochius records that- St. Basil, 
 having detected a xvoman making signs to the 
 deacon attending upon him at the altar, gave 
 orders that curtains should be hung over the 
 gallery to prevent such indecorum. 
 
 The women’s galleries at St. Sophia are of 
 vast size (fig. 4), ranged to the north an 1 south 
 
 No. 2. Section of St. Michele, Pavia. 
 
 St. Laurence, in its more ancient portion, and 
 the church of the Quattro Santi Coronati, on the 
 Coelian. A similar upper gallery occurs also in 
 the Lateral! baptistery of Constantine. The 
 passion for mosaic pictures of sacred subjects 
 led to the abolition of th’s gallery in the basilican 
 churches, the space it should have occupied being 
 devoted to pictorial representations, as at St. 
 Maria Maggiore, St. Paul’s, and the old St. 
 Peter’s, at Rome (see illustrations on pages 
 370, 371), and S. Apollinai-e in Classe, and St. 
 Apollinare Nuovo, at Ravenna. But it reap¬ 
 peared in the early Lombard churches, as at 
 S. Ambrogio at Milan, and S. Michele at Pavia 
 (fig. 2), where there are well developed triferial 
 galleries. But the arrangement never took root 
 in Italy, and was soon lost. 
 
 In the East, when the “ dromic ” or basilican 
 form was adopted, it carried with it the upper 
 gallery above the side aisles. Of this we have 
 an example in the church of St. John at Con¬ 
 stantinople (a.d. 463), illustrated in Salzenburg’s 
 work. The domical church of the lesser Santa 
 
 of the central area, occupying the upper story of 
 the transeptal .space. Each gallery is supported 
 by four monolithic colunAis of Egy))tian granite, 
 and is itself faced by an arcade of six smaller 
 
 No. 3. Section of the Church of SS. Sergiue anil Ilasilins, 
 Conalantinople 
 
 pillars. The galleries are vaulted and paved 
 with marble, and protected towards the church 
 by a low marble wall, four feet high, shajed 
 
GALLERIES 
 
 GALLERIES 
 
 707 
 
 like a desk, on which, according to Paul the 
 Silentiary, the women reposed their arms. 
 
 “"EvOa KKiOelarai, 
 
 ipyonouovi ayKMvaf enripeCaavTO ywaiKei.—i. 263 . 
 
 of the cupola. On the same level as the women’s 
 galleries, further east, were tw^o large vaulted 
 apartments to the right and left of the bema, in 
 one of which the empress had her position with 
 
 [□□□□ 
 
 onnn 
 
 
 
 •^ 0 . 0*0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 J 
 
 
 These galleries were approached by external 
 staircases contained in the immense buttresses 
 
 her ladies at the time of divine service. In the 
 Eastern church the women’s gallery by degrees 
 
 2 Z 
 
708 GALLICAN COUNCILS 
 
 GAMING-TABLE 
 
 became disused, the narthex serving its purpose. 
 (Ducange, Constantinopol. Christ, lib. iii. c. 38-40 ; 
 ■ SNWWs, Arch, of the Middle Ages., p. 109, sqq.; 
 Neale, Eastern Church, art. i.; Evag. Hist. Eccl. 
 lib. iv. c. 31; Paul. Silentiar. i. 256-263 ; ii. 125.) 
 
 [E. V.] 
 
 GALLICAN COUNCII-S; councils known 
 to have been celebrated in France, but at some 
 place unknown. 
 
 1. A.D. 355. At Poitiers or Toulouse possi¬ 
 bly: 3 vhere St. Hilary, writing to the Easterns 
 A.D. 360, says he five years before then with 
 the bishops of France withdrew from the 
 communion of the Arian bishops Ursacius and 
 Valens, and of Saturninus of Arles, who had 
 espoused their cause. The opening chapters 
 of his work addressed to Constantius are 
 thought, in shoi’t, to have emanated from this 
 council (Mansi, iii. 251). 
 
 2. A.D. 376. At least there seems a reference 
 to one such in a law of that year, dated Treves, 
 in B. xvi. tit. ii. § 23, of the Theodosian code ; 
 but it is not known where or for what object 
 (Mansi, iii. 499). 
 
 3. A.D. 444, in which Hilary of Arles pre¬ 
 sided, and Chelidonius of Besan^on, where this 
 council may have met therefore, was accused of 
 being husband of a widow and deposed. On 
 appealing however to St. Leo he was restored; 
 as having been condemned on a false charge. 
 Both their letter to him and his answer are 
 preserved among his epistles {^Ep. xcix. and cii.; 
 comp. Mansi, vii. 873). 
 
 4. A.D. 678, at some place unknown: when 
 St. Leodegar or Leger bishop of Autun was 
 degraded as having been accessory to the death 
 of king Childeric II. five years before (Sirmond, 
 Cone. Gall. i. 510; comp. Mansi, xi. 173 and 
 1095). 
 
 5. A.D. 678 or 679, against the Monothelites: 
 as appears from the reference made to it by the 
 Gallican bishops subscribing to the Roman synod 
 under pope Agatho, preserved in the 4th act of 
 the 6th council (Mansi, xi. 175 and 306), but 
 they do not say where. 
 
 6. A.D. 796, at Tours possibly, where Joseph, 
 bishop of Mans and a suffragan of Tours, was 
 deposed for cruelty (Mansi, xiii. 991). 
 
 7. Three more councils may be grouped under 
 this head, usually called councils of Auvergne, 
 but this name is misleading, as it means the town 
 formerly so called, not the province. When, 
 however, the town changed its name to Clermont, 
 councils held there subsequently were styled by 
 its new name, while the earlier retained its old. 
 We may save confusion, therefore, by classing 
 them under Gallican. Of these the first met 8th 
 November, A.D. 535, in the second year of king 
 Theodebert, and passed sixteen canons, to which 
 •Qfteen bishops, headed by Honoratus, metropolitan 
 of Bourges, subsci'ibed: his suffragan of Auvergne 
 subscribing second. Their canons deprecate lay 
 influences in the appointment of bishops, and 
 lay interference between bishops and clergy. No 
 furniture belonging to the church may be used 
 for private funerals or marriages. The appoint¬ 
 ment of Jews as judges, and marriages between 
 Jews and Christians are denounced. Presbyters 
 and deacons marrying are to be deposed. In a 
 collective note to king Theodebert, the bishops 
 entreat that neither the clergy, nor others. 
 
 living in his dominions may be robbed of their 
 rightful possessions, and in their fifth canon they 
 declare all spoliations of church pnqierty null 
 and void, and the spoilers excommunicate, where- 
 ever it occurs. Several other canons are given 
 to this council by Burchard (Mansi, viii. 859- 
 67). 
 
 The second, A.D. 549, was attended by' ten 
 bishops, but only to receive the canons passed 
 at the 5th council of Orleans (Mansi, ix. 141-4). 
 
 The third, A.D. 588, was occupied solely with 
 a dispute between the bishops of Nodes and 
 Cahors (Mansi, ix. 973). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GALLICANUS, martyr at Alexandria under 
 Julian; commemorated June 25 (J/arf. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GALLICIA COUNCIL OF, held a.d. 447 
 or 448, in the proA'ince of that name in Spain on 
 the north-west against the Priscillianists: in 
 consequence perhaps of the letter of St. Leo to 
 Tuv.-ibius, bishop of Asturia, who had appealed 
 to him for advice (^Ep. xv. ; comp. Mansi, vi. 
 491) ; but is that letter genuine ? [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GALLUS, presbyter and confessor in Ger¬ 
 many ; commemorated Feb. 20 (J/arf. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAMALIEL, invention of his relics at Jeru¬ 
 salem, Aug. 3 (J/arf. Horn. Vet., Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAMING. [Dice.] 
 
 GAMING-TABLE (Tabida lusoria, irXiv- 
 Olov). Besides the natural feeling which led the 
 survivors to place in the tombs articles dear to 
 the deceased in his lifetime, the comparison of 
 the life of man to a game of chance was a fiimi- 
 liar thought to the ancients. We mav trace it 
 through all their literature, whether Greek or 
 Roman (see Raoul-Rochette, Me'm. de I' Academ. 
 dcs insc7'ipt. tom. xiii. p. 634). Hence astragali 
 and dice occur more frequently in the Greek and 
 Roman tombs of the Campagna than playthings 
 of any other description, though the amuse¬ 
 ments of every age and condition are there 
 represented. The dice (tali, tesserae,) are usually 
 made of ivory, occasionally of bone; the dice- 
 box (fritillus, turricula) is generally of ivory, 
 and the gaming-table marble. 
 
 Five of these gaming-tables have come down 
 to our times with inscriptions which leave no 
 doubt of their use. It is a curious circumstance 
 that in several Christian cemeteries in Rome 
 sepulchral niches have been found closed with 
 
 ^vicTvyjl Olebate^ 
 ^ tVDERBjf^ C15 
 
 inA'LVSO^ ^'^■^ORlLOCVi^ 
 
 these marble gaming-tables, as occasionally with 
 other incised marbles. One ot the tables taken 
 from the cemetery of Basilla may' be seen in the 
 Kircher museum, and was firsu described by Lupi 
 (^Dissert, in nuper invent. Sevirae epitaph, p. 57, 
 tab. ix. n. 6). An engraving A it is given above. 
 
GAMMADIA 
 
 709 
 
 The inscription, which was turned inside the 
 tomb, is easily read: VICTVS lebate \\ lvdere 
 NESCIS II DA LVSORI LOCV 1|. 
 
 Boldetti (Osservazioni, p. 449) gives a second 
 from the cemetery of St. 
 Agnes bearing, the following 
 inscription: domine frater 
 II ILARIS SEMPER || LVDERE 
 TABVLA II—; also a dice-box 
 found elsewhere, used for the 
 same game. The interior of 
 the box is here shewn, di¬ 
 vided into three sections as 
 I -j a security against fraud in 
 I S throwing ; .two dice are lying 
 ■^^■1 at the bottom. 
 
 A third table of the same 
 kind from the Capponi museum is reproduced in 
 ^luratori’s collection (i. dclxi. 3), and bears 
 an inscription almost identical with the fore¬ 
 going : SEMPER IN HANG 1| TABVLA HILARE \\ 
 LVDAMVS AMICI ||. The fourth table, from the 
 cemetery of Calixtus, is given by JIarangoni 
 (^Acta S. Victorini in append, p. 140). The 
 words of the inscription, though evidently re¬ 
 lating to play, are difficult of interpretation. 
 Of the remaining table the place of discovery 
 is uncertain. Cardinal Passionei '^Inscr. Ant. 
 appendix, p. 176) transcribes a gaming-table 
 inscription which Raoul-Rochette quotes as an 
 additional example, but it appears more likely 
 to be that of the Kircher museum incorrectly 
 copied. 
 
 These having all been discovered in Christian 
 sepulchres, it seems natural to suppose that they 
 were in use amongst Christians. Nothing in 
 the gaming-tables themselves, nor in their in¬ 
 scriptions militates against such a supposition ; 
 and in fact it is well known that the business of 
 making dice, and articles of a similar nature, 
 was one followed by Christians. Boldetti, for in¬ 
 stance, gives (p. 416) a Christian sepulchral in¬ 
 scription over an artifex artis tessalarie, 
 who is generally considered to have been a maker 
 of dice. (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret., s. v. 
 “ Jeu, Tables de.”) See Dice. [C.j 
 
 GAMMADIA (yafx^d'Bia, or yaiJLfxdTta). A 
 cruciform ornament, embroidered on the borders 
 or woven into the texture of ecclesiastical vest¬ 
 ments, both in the West and East. It takes its 
 name from being composed of four capital gammas 
 placed back to back, thus forming a voided 
 j Greek cross. The gammas were also some- 
 
 nr 
 
 times placed face to face, so as to consti¬ 
 
 tute a hollow square, in the centre of 
 which a cross was inscribed. Vestments so 
 decorated were known by the name of poly- 
 stauria (TroAocTaopja). St. Nicholas and 
 . + I St. Basil are depicted in robes (thus semee 
 ^ of crosses) in the illustrations to Ducange 
 (Gloss. Graec. lig. vii.). Balsamon a.ssigns, among 
 other marks of the patriarchal dignity, the 
 “ robe distinguished by gammas,” Sia yafxfidrwv 
 (TTixdpiov (de Patr'arcU. p. 446). These crosses 
 were peculiar to the white eucharistic vest¬ 
 ments, those of a i)urple colour being destitute 
 of them (Ducange, s. v. Tro\v(TTavpiov). In the 
 Western church the word gammadia is of fre¬ 
 quent occun-encc in the later papal biographies 
 in Anastasius, in the lists of oflerings made to 
 the basilicas and churches, e.g., Leo IIL, among 
 
 GAXGRA (Council of) 
 
 gifts to the church of St. Su.sanna, gave a purple 
 vestment, “ habentem in medio crucem de chry- 
 soclavo , . . atque gammadias in ipsa veste 
 dtrysocAavets quatuor ” (§ 366), and Leo l\\ to 
 the church of St. Mary at Anagni, “ vestem . . . 
 cum gammadiis auro textis ” (§ 536). These 
 gammadia were of gold, others were of silver 
 (§ 397), or of Tyrian velvet (§ 46ii), (cf. Goar, 
 Eucholog. p. 315, col. 2). Not gammas alone 
 but other letters also are fivquently seen em¬ 
 broidered on the borders of the robes of the 
 sacred personages represented in early Christian 
 mosaics and frescoes, especially H. 1. T. X. The 
 precise meaning of these marks has not been 
 satisfactorily determined (cf. Bosio. Rom. Rott. 
 c. xxxviii. p. 638). [Letters on Vestments.] 
 
 [E. V.] 
 
 GANGRA (Council of), for which widely 
 different dates have been assigned; some placing 
 it before that of Nicaea, some not long after; 
 others indefinitely, between it and that of 
 Antioch, a.d. 341 (see the notes of Valesius and 
 Reading on Soc. ii. 43, and Mansi, ii. 1095): all 
 which discrepancies may be traced to the fact 
 that one of the Latin versions of the synodical 
 letter addressed by the assembled bishops to their 
 colleagues in Armenia contains the name of 
 Hosius of Corduba amongst the former. But 
 the episcopate of Hosius, as Cave shews (Hist. 
 Lit. i. V.), extends over a ])eriod of seventy years, 
 ending with A.D. 361: accordingly Pagi finds it 
 possible to place this council as late as A.D. 358 
 and admit Hosius to have been there, on his way 
 back to Spain. And this was unquestionably 
 the year of the council, as we shall see from 
 other considerations, so that the absence of his 
 name in the Greek heading of the letter need 
 not be pres.sed. His presence was always coveted 
 by the Easterns; but as his name occurs among 
 the last on the list, we may assume that he 
 attended in no other capacity than that of a 
 simple bishop. The object of holding the council 
 is stated in its synodical epistle to have been to 
 condemn the errors of Eustathius—otherwise 
 written Eustasius or Eustachius—and his fol¬ 
 lowers ; and him Socrates and Sozomen are 
 doubtless correct in making identical with 
 Eustathius bishop of Sebaste in Armenia Minor 
 —else why should the bishops of either Armenia 
 have been addressed on the subject ? The father 
 of bishop Eustathius was Eulalius bishop of 
 Caesarea, or rather Neo-Caesarea, in Pont us, nnd 
 it was at a council held there under his own 
 father this same year, according to Pagi, that he 
 was first deposed. Sozomen indeed seems to say 
 that he had been already condemned as a pres¬ 
 byter by his father; if so, this would account 
 for the severity of the new sentence passed upon 
 him, particularly had he been propagating his 
 errors as bishop in his father’s see. Then, on 
 his resisting this sentence, as there seems fair 
 reason for supposing he would, his father would 
 naturally have recourse to the provincial synod, 
 which we may assume to have met on this 
 occasion at Gangra, as the first bishop on the 
 list is Eusebius, clearly the metropolitan of 
 Caesarea in Cappadocia, whom St. Basil suc¬ 
 ceeded, and in whose jurisdiction Gangra lay, 
 while the name of Eulalius occurs further on. 
 Dius (probably Dianius, the predecessor of 
 Eusebius^ is intended) whom the LiMlus synod- 
 
710 
 
 GATES OF CHURCHES 
 
 GANGRA (Council of) 
 
 icus asserts to have presided, is not found in [ 
 either version. Gangra therefore was held to , 
 confirm what had jjassed at Neo-Caesarea respect¬ 
 ing Eustathius. The similarity of names seems 
 to liave led Sozomen to assert that he was first 
 deposed by Eusebius of Constantinople, who died 
 as far back as a.d. 342 : and Socrates, who says 
 in one place (ii. 43) that the synod of Gangra 
 was -ubsequent to the Constantinopolitan synod 
 of A.D. 330, contradicts himself in the very next 
 chapter by telling us that Meletius succeeded 
 Eustathius at Sebaste, and then either as bishop 
 of Sebaste or Beroea—it does not much matter 
 which—attended the council of Seleucia, which 
 we know met A.D. 359, and in so doing fixes the 
 true date of the synod of Gangra, namely, mid¬ 
 way between it and that of Neo-Caesarea the 
 year before. These places Avere not remote 
 from each other; and it Avould appear that 
 there had been synods held at Antioch, that, for 
 instance, of a.d. 358 under Eudoxius, and at 
 Melitine in Armenia, unfavourable to Eustathius, 
 whose judgments he had set at nought equally 
 with that of Neo-Caesarea. Hence the greater 
 solemnity with which that of Gangra Avas con¬ 
 vened, far enhanced hoAvever by the Aveight 
 Avhich has attached to it eA'er since ; Pope Sym- 
 machus in a Roman synod A.D. 504 going so far 
 as to say that its canons had been framed by 
 apostolic authority, meaning that of his see - in 
 other Avords, that his predecessors had receiv'ed 
 and approA’ed them (Pagi ad Baron. A.D. 319, n. 
 A\). Of these there are tAventy in number, and 
 almost all in condemnation of the errors ascribed 
 to Eustathius and his folloAvers in the synodical 
 letter before mentioned, “ foi'bidding to marry, 
 commanding to abstain from meats,” and so 
 forth. Their reception by Rome lends additional 
 interest to canon 4, Avhich says; “ Should any 
 separate himself from a jiresbyter that ho.s 
 married— AS though it AA’ere not right to partake 
 of the oblation Avhen he is celebrant—let him be 
 anathema.” And the epilogue, reckoned in some 
 collections as a 21st canon, is Avorth tran¬ 
 scribing, not only for “the admirable temper 
 and good sense” Avhich distinguishes it, as*Hr. 
 Johnson remarks ( Vude Mecum, ii. 86), but 
 because it may Avell be thought to account for 
 their having been incorporated into the code of 
 the universal church. The rulings of fifteen, or, 
 if Hosius Avas there, sixteen bishops only, must 
 haA^e owed their place there to some great in¬ 
 trinsic excellence. “ We commit these canons 
 to Avriting,” so they terminate, “ not as if we 
 would cut off those Avho exercise themselves in 
 works of severity and mortification in the church 
 of God according to the Scriptures: but those, 
 Avho under pretence of such exercise, do insult 
 those Avho liA’e in a more plain and simple man¬ 
 ner, and Avould bring in inuoA^ations contrary to 
 the Scriptures and the canons of the church. 
 We therefore admire virginity, if attended Avith 
 humility and a regard for continence, if accom¬ 
 panied Avith true piety and gravity, and a retreat 
 from Avorldly business, Avith a modest humble 
 temjier. But at the sime time we honour 
 honest marriage, nor do Ave despise riches Avhen 
 employed in good Avorks and in doing justice. 
 We commend a plain and coarse habit, Avithout 
 art or gaudiness, and have an aversion to all 
 luxurious ostentation of apparel. We honour 
 the houses of God, and affectionately embrace 
 
 [ the assemblies made therein as holy and bene- 
 ; ficial; not as if we confined religion within those 
 houses, but as having a respect to every plao; 
 that is built to the name of the Lord, and 
 approve of the church assemblies as being for 
 the public good ; and pronounce a beatitude ujjou 
 signal acts of charity done to our brethren, as 
 being done to the poor of the church according 
 to tradition; and to say all in a Avord, Ave can¬ 
 not but Avish that all things may be done in the 
 church according to the traditions of Holv 
 Scripture and the apostles.” [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GARLANDS. [Baptism, p. 1G4; Cuown, 
 p. 511; Flowers.] 
 
 GARDEN OF EDEN. Represented by 
 trees in A’^arious bas-reliefs of the Fall of Man, 
 as on the tomb of Junius Bassus (Bottari, 
 taA^ XV. &c. &c.). A most ancient ^13. picture 
 of the Garden of Eden occurs in the Vienna MS. 
 of the Book of Genesis Avhich is giA'^^n by D'Agin- 
 court. Professor WestAvood has shoAvn the jtre- 
 sent Avriter an extraordinary reiu-esyntation of 
 the Fall of Man, from a Greek MS. of the Old 
 Testament noAv in the Vatican of the 7th or 8th 
 century, Avhere the garden is much dAvelt on. 
 There is a quadruped serpent or dragon looking 
 up at the tree of knoAvledge. These pictures 
 were brought to this country in facsimile by 
 bishop Forbes. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE. During 
 the first four centuries and a half at least the 
 subject of our Lord’s passion seems to have been 
 ajjproached, but not entered upon—as by repre¬ 
 sentations of the betrayal, the scene before 
 Pilate, &c. In No. 90 of Professor WesI Avood’s 
 ivory carvings, he is brought before Pilate and 
 Herod together, or perhajts Annas and Caiaphas. 
 This is a part of the great casket of the Biblio- 
 teca Quiriniaua at Brescia, and is referred to the 
 5th or 6th century, to the period immediately 
 preceding that of the Rabula MS. Avhen the cruci¬ 
 fixion began to be represented (see Crucifix). 
 The Garden of Gethsemane is one of the earliest 
 of these approaches to actual delineation of our 
 Lord’s sufferings. The MS. Gospel of St. Augus¬ 
 tine, A"ery possibly made use of by the bishop 
 himself, contains a most interesting picture of 
 the betrayal in the garden, Avhich is represented 
 not only by trees, but by a curious serpentine 
 representation of the brook Kedron, bursting out 
 of a rock like the Barada at Ain Fifi, or the 
 Jordan at Tell-el-Khady. This subject is carved 
 on the casket of the Brescian library (WestAvood, 
 ivory casts. No. 90), dating from the 5th or 6th 
 century. 
 
 Indications of a garden occur in various Greek 
 representations of the crucifixion combined Avith 
 the resurrection. See crucifixion in the liabula 
 3IS. in Assemani, Bibli. Laurent. Catalogus, Avhere 
 olive-trees are certainly intended. 
 
 In later MSS. it occurs in the Bible of Alcuin, 
 and in a IMS. giA’en by count Bastard, Avhich 
 belonged to Drogon, grandson of Charlemagne. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.j 
 
 GATES OF CHURCHES. Our Lord’s .le- 
 signation of Himself as “ the Door ” of His 
 church (John x. 7, 9) impressed a deej) religious 
 signification in the minds of the early Christians 
 on the entrances to their sacred buildings, Avhich 
 they evidenced by the care displayed in their 
 constructio’’ and the richness of their ornamenta- 
 
GATES OF CHIJECIIES 
 
 GELASIUS 
 
 711 
 
 tiou. As a rule the actual gates (valvac) of 
 churches were of wood of the most excellent and 
 durable kind. The doors of the basilica of St. 
 Paul at Home were, until its destruction by fire 
 in 1823, of wood, roughly chiselled, and were 
 reported to have been brought from Constantin¬ 
 ople. The doors of the church of St. Sabina on 
 the Aventine are of cypress wood, carved in re¬ 
 lief with subjects from the Old and New Testa¬ 
 ments. They are of great antiquity, though 
 Mamachi, the annalist of the Dominican order, 
 gives them too early a date in placing them 
 before the 7th century. The church of the 
 monasteiy of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai re¬ 
 tains the ancient richly-carved doors of cypress 
 wood erected by the emperor Justinian, stated 
 by Mr. Curzon to be as perfect as when first set 
 up (Neale, Hist, of East. Gh. Introd. p. 258). 
 Doors of wood were very commonly overlaid 
 with plates of the precious metals and inlaid 
 with ivory (Hieron. Ep. ad Demetr. viii.), for 
 the purpose of decoration. These plates were 
 frequently richly sculptured with scriptural 
 subjects in relief. Thus Paulinus of Nola speaks 
 of “aurea limina ” {Poem. xiv. 98), and com¬ 
 mends the piety of those who covered the doors 
 of the church of St. Felix with metal plates— 
 
 " Saiictaque praefixis obducant limina lamnis.” 
 
 { Poem , xviii. 34). 
 
 The papal memoirs of Anastasius supply re¬ 
 peated references to this mode of ornamentation. 
 [Doors, § 3, p. 574.] The “portae argenteae ” 
 of St. Peter’s are often mentioned. These were 
 overlaid by pope Hadrian (a.d. 772-795) with 
 silver-gilt plates embossed with the effigy of our 
 Lord and othei's (Anastas. § 332). Pope Hilary 
 (a.d. 461-467) erected silver gates at the Con- 
 fessio of the basilica of Holy Cross, and gates of 
 bronze inlaid with silver at the oratory of St. 
 John Lateral! {Ih. §69). This last is arw early 
 example of those doors of bronze of which we 
 have in later times so many magnificent ex¬ 
 amples, bearing representations of Biblical events 
 in high relief, which reached their artistic climax 
 in the western doors of the cathedral of Pisa and 
 those of the baptistery, “le porte del Paradiso ” 
 at Florence. We have another early example in 
 the gates of the “ eso-narthex ” of St. Sophia. 
 These are of bronze exquisitely embossed with 
 floriated crosses set in doorcases of marble. The 
 great central doorway has above it ail image of 
 Christ in the act of giving benediction to a 
 kneeling emperor with the virgin and St. John 
 the Baptist on either hand. The chief entrance 
 of the cathedral of Novgorod has bronze doors of 
 very early date. They are de.scribed by Adelung 
 {die Korsun’schen Thiiren zu Nougorod) as 11 feet 
 high by 3 feet broad, divided into 24 comi)art- 
 ments containing scriptural reliefs. 
 
 Church doors were often furnished with in¬ 
 scriptions either upon or above them. These 
 included texts of Scripture, doxologies, prayer.s, 
 pious aphorisms, &c. Paulinus of Nola {Ep. 
 xxxii. § 12) gives the following inscription placed 
 by him over the principal entrance of the basi¬ 
 lica of St. Felix :— 
 
 “ Pax tibi sit qnicumque Del penetralia Christ! 
 
 Pectore pacifii.o Candidas ingrederls.” 
 
 Above the entrance, he informs us, was a crowned 
 cross with these lines :— 
 
 Cerne coronatam Domini super atria Christi 
 Stare cruceni duro s-poiidentem celsa labor! 
 lYaemia. Tolle crucem qui vis auferre coronam.” 
 
 The door of the outer basilica, which was en¬ 
 tered through a garden or orchard, he also tells 
 us, has these inscriptions on the outer face :— 
 
 “ Coelestes intrate vias per amoena vireta 
 Christicolae: ei lac tis decet hue ingressus ab hoi tis 
 Unde sacrum mentis datur e.xitus in paradisum." 
 
 And this on the inner :— 
 
 “Quisquis ab aede Dei p'^rfectis ordine votis 
 Egrederis, remea corpore, corde mane.” 
 
 Church doors were also often inscribed with 
 the names of the builders and the date of the 
 building. [E. V.] 
 
 GATIANUS, bishop and confessor in Tou- 
 raine; commemorated Dec. 18 {Mari. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAUDENTIA, virgin,.saint at Rome ; com¬ 
 memorated Aug. 30 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAUGERICUS, bishop and confessor at 
 Cambray (f619A.D.); commemorated Aug. 11 
 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GAZA in Palestine (Council of), a.d. 541, • 
 to which Pelagius the first pope of that name, 
 then a deacon and envoy from Rome, came by 
 order of the Emperor Justinian, ivith letters 
 ordering the deposition of Paul bishop of Alex¬ 
 andria, which was accordingly carried out 
 (Mansi, ix. 706). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GAZOPHYLACIUM. The treasury or 
 storehouse attached to a church, for the recep¬ 
 tion of the offerings of the faithful, made either 
 in bread and wine, or in money, for the service 
 of the altar, the sustentation of the ministers, 
 or distribution among the poor (Possid. Vit. S. 
 Augustin, c. 24). These oblations were depo¬ 
 sited in the gazophylacium either after having 
 been offered on the altar, or until enquiry had 
 been made by the deacons whether the offerers 
 were orthodox and persons of good life, that the 
 table of the Lord might not be profaned by the 
 gifts of the unholy (Binius in Can. iv. Apost. 
 Labbe i. 53). By the 93rd canon of the fourth 
 council of Carthage, a.d. 399, the reception 
 before enquiry even into “ the gazophylacium or 
 sacrarium ” (the modern sacristy) was forbidden. 
 Chrysostom {Homil. 22 de E/eenios.) speaks of 
 treasuries in the churches, to ya^o(pu\dKia rd 
 evTavOa Keipeua', Augustine appears to recognize 
 their existence “quid est gazophylacium? Area 
 Dei ubi colligebantur ea quae ad indigentiam 
 servorum Dei mittebantur” {Homil. in Ps. 63); 
 and Possidius in his life of that father {u. s.) 
 records his having warned his hearers, as Am¬ 
 brose had also done, of the neglect of the 
 “ gazophylacium and secretariuni, from which 
 the necessaries for the altar are brought into the 
 church.” Cyprian refers to the place of oflering 
 as corbona {de Op. et Eleemos. c. 5), and Paulinus 
 of Nola, as mensa, which he complains stood too 
 often for sight rather than u.se, “ visui tantum 
 non usui ” {Serm. de Oazophijl. Ep. 34). [E. V^.] 
 
 GELASIUS, martyr at Rome with Aquili- 
 nus, Donatus, Geminus, JIagnus; commemorated 
 Feb. 4 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
712 
 
 GEMELLIONES 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMELT.IONKS. Among the vessels to 
 be borne before the pope in the great Easter 
 procession are mentiorei (J)nlo Rom. I. c. 3) 
 “ geinelliones argentei.” The purjiose ot‘ these 
 is uncertain, but it seems probable that (like the 
 “ urceola argentea ” mentioned elsewhere) they 
 were water-vessels (Binterim’s Denkwurdijkeiten, 
 iv. i. 18 4-). [C.] 
 
 GEMINIANUS, martyr at Rome with 
 Lucia under Diocletian; commemorated Sept. 16 
 (J/arL Rom. Vet.,, Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GEMIXUS. (1) Martyr in Africa with 
 A'luilinus, Eugenius, Martianus, Quintus, Theo- 
 dotus, Tripho; commemorated Jan. 4 (J/arL 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Gelasius.] [W. F. G.] 
 
 GE^IS were employed in very early times 
 for a great variety of ecclesiastical purjwses, 
 some articles being made wholly of stones more 
 or less precious, and others being decorated 
 therewith. Thus Chalices and other sacred ves¬ 
 sels w’ere occasionally made of precious stones, 
 but more frequently ornamented with them; and 
 little crystal Fish, probably used as hospitable 
 emblems, have been found in the catacombs of 
 Rome. The walls, the Altaks, the Altar- 
 cloths, the service-books [Liturgical Books], 
 and other furniture of churches wei’e from the 
 fourth century onward often ornamented with 
 gold, silver, and precious stones, as were also 
 Crosses and the Crowns and diadems of Christian 
 sovereigns. In the following article, however, 
 account will be taken of such gems only as are 
 engraved, and these wei'e mostly used as orna¬ 
 mental or signet rings, more rarely for other 
 purposes. 
 
 The following passage of Clemens Alexandrinus 
 {Paed tg. iii. 11, p. 246 d) is the locus classicus 
 relating to Christian signet gems:—“ A man 
 should not wear the ring on the finger joint, for 
 this is effeminate, but upon the little finger, as 
 low down as possible; for the hand will thus be 
 most free for action, and the seal least likely to 
 slip off, as being guarded by the larger joint. 
 But let our signet devices be a dove or a fish, or 
 a ship coursing against the sky, or a musical 
 lyre, which Polycrates employed, or a ship’.s 
 anchor, which was the seal of Seleucus, or if it 
 be a fisherman, it will remind us of an apostle 
 and of boys saved from water.” Subjects de¬ 
 rived from heathen mythology or representa¬ 
 tions of weapons and drinking vessels he con¬ 
 demns as unfit for Christians. A little before he 
 allows Christians only one ring as a signet, 
 saying that all other idngs should be eschewed : 
 a wife also may have a gold signet ring for the 
 safe keeping of her husband’s goods. 
 
 The number of engraved stones which can be 
 securely referred to the early Christian centu¬ 
 ries is not very considerable, but their rarity has 
 perhaps been somewhat exaggerated.* 
 
 “ “ Intagli representing purely Christian subjects are of 
 the rarest possible occurrence, that is in works of indu¬ 
 bitable antiquity” (King, Antique Gems, p. 352, London, 
 1860). Some that have been published are now known 
 to be false (Martigny, Diet. p. 39). The Christian gems 
 beiiring Greek inscriptions have been published by 
 Kircboff in Bdekh’s Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 9077-9109. 
 
 The principal subjects of extant works if this 
 kind, including all those mentioned by C.ement, 
 are as follows; various specimens of oacli tyjie 
 are described at length, others more brieflv. 
 
 (i.) Christ as the Good Shepherd. —Tiiis type, 
 though not mentioned by Clement, deserves to 
 hold the first place, being so often toand in very 
 early Christian works of art of different kinds. 
 Mr. Fortnum, who observes that forgeries of 
 this subject are frequent, describes and figures 
 a red jasper in his own possession (purchased at 
 Rome) in its original octagonal bron/.e setting : 
 the shepherd is standing on his left leg, the 
 right leg being bent ; he supjwrts himself by a 
 staff in his hand, and holds out a branch (per¬ 
 haps of olive, as a symbol of peace) to two sheep 
 at his feet. Behind him is an olive (?) tree. 
 Christian work of the third or fourth century 
 (^Archaeological Journal, xxvi. 141 [1869]; xxviii. 
 275 [1871]). The British Museum has seven 
 intagli in which the Good Shepherd bears a 
 lamb on his shoulders. In one of them (a tiny 
 onyx) he stands between two fish, or rather ]>er- 
 haps between a fish and a palm-branch ; in two 
 others (red and brown jaspers) he holds a staff, 
 haAung a dog at his feet, which looks up at him, a 
 tree being behind ; in a'^urth (cornelian) are tw'o 
 dogs at his feet, looking up, and an obscure and 
 barbarous legend, which has been read ESIVKEV 
 (Hertz, Cat. n. 2344; King, An'^icnt Gems, p. 
 353), “ in which the name of Jesus appears to be 
 intended, together with some other appellation 
 or title,” perhaps Lord{Kvpie) Jesus (King, Gnos¬ 
 tics, p. 142), or Jesus, Son of God (lESSV VE 
 TEV, Greek in Latin letters and barbarised); an¬ 
 other of the same type (niccolo) has no legend : 
 the sixth has only the shepherd bearing the 
 lamb, but is inscribed IH. XP. (plasma); in 
 the seventh (red jasper) he is accompanied by 
 sheep and a dove on a tree. One in the Bib- 
 liothfeque Impe'riale, in niccolo, set in a silver 
 
 Among them are several which may be referred with 
 little or no doubt to a period later than that with which 
 we are concerned; and as nothing is said about the pro¬ 
 bable antiquity of almost all of them, it has been neces¬ 
 sary to employ the work with some caution. Possibly 
 the hooks referred to under the particular gems may give 
 some information upon this point. In the Biitish Mu¬ 
 seum are contained upwards of twenty early Christian 
 gems seen by the writer, and there ma}’ probably at this 
 time (1874) be more. In various private collections in 
 this country (as of Messrs. Fortnum, King, and Lewis) 
 are contained a fair number of others. The Bibliotheque 
 Imperiale at Paris contiiined, in 1858, only eight purely 
 Christian engraved stones, excluding Byzantine Ciimei 
 (Chaboaillet, Catal. pp. 191, 282, who says that Chri^tian 
 intagli are ” d'une grande narete ”). About fiftj- casts of 
 Christian gems have been received from Signor Saulini, 
 Via Babuino, Rome, some of which are in the Vatican, 
 others in the Museo Vettori, now aatuired for the Vatican; 
 but the general absence of indication either of the collection 
 or the kind of stone employed greatly detracts from their 
 value: fourteen of them give the Good Shepherd, eight 
 have an anchor (with or without accompaniments), three 
 have a boat or ship, five bear a dove, others have fish 
 (written in Greek, or depicted), the chrisma. or the CVi>ss. 
 Others which are of large size, exhibiting the Crucifixion 
 or the figure of Christ or the Virgin, are probably later 
 than 800 a.d. Among some casts from gems in Rome, 
 received from Signor Odelli of Rome, are a few which 
 are evidently Christian, the most remarkable being an in 
 taglio representing the raising of Lazarus in a stylo of 
 art like that which we have in the catacombs, where the 
 same subject is represented. 
 
GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 713 
 
 ring, has the Good Shepherd as before bearing 
 a sheep on his shoulders, with two other sheep 
 at his feet (Chabouillet, Cat. p. 282, n. 2166). 
 Another examjde, in red jasper, represents 
 the shepherd still as before, having two dogs, 
 
 or rather perhaps having 
 one dog and one sheep, 
 at his feet and a star 
 and crescent in the field, 
 with retrograde legend 
 lAHN, perhaps for Jah 
 is his name. This fine 
 gem is considered by Mr. 
 King, who possesses it, 
 to be a work of about 
 the end of the second 
 century. He considers 
 The Good Shepherd (King). the Suii and Moon Con¬ 
 joined ” as “ emblems of 
 the Divine presence ” (Prccibws pp. 160, 
 
 431); they may, however, be indications of 
 astral genii, and if so, the gem may be the work 
 of a Christian Gnostic. “ The most interesting 
 of all examples of this type,’-however, he ob¬ 
 serves {Ant. Gems and Rings, vol. ii. p. 30, 
 London, 1872), “ occurs on a large cornelian 
 brought recently from the North of India (Col. 
 Pearse), on which the Good Shepherd stands, 
 bearing his lost and found lamb across his 
 shoulders, surrounded by the mystic letters 
 I.X,0.T.C., the reverse engraved with XPICTE 
 CcoZE KAPniANON AEOOTE (sic) : ‘ 0 Christ, 
 save Carpianus for ever.’ This is cut in exactly 
 the same coarse lettering and similarly arranged 
 in consecutive lines as the Gnostic legends of 
 
 the fourth century.” Three others are men¬ 
 tioned in Bockh’s Corp. Inscr. Graec. One 
 (n. 9084) figured by Ferret {Catac. de Rome, 
 iv. t. xvi. n. 12), where the shepherd bears a 
 lamb accompanied by a dove and branch, and 
 by an anchor and fishes, with legend IX0TC ; an¬ 
 other (n. 9098), figured by Paciaudi {De Bain, 
 Christ, on the title-page) in a square hematite, 
 having on one side the Good Shepherd with 
 tvvom^ws, and ai4egend on the other, seemingly 
 meant for ^h'ya.Quiva Bovdr] ; and a third (n. 
 9107), figured by Le Plant {Bull, de I’Athen. 
 Fran^. Feb. 1856, t. 1, n. 10), on plasma, where 
 the Good Shepherd is accompanied by the legend 
 AOTKI[OT], the owner of the gem. There are 
 sev^eral other gems on which this subject is re¬ 
 presented slightly differing from the preceding. 
 (See note at the beginning.) 
 
 (ii.) The following five types are mentioned by 
 
 Clement; of which Christ 
 as the Fish occurs per¬ 
 haps more frequently 
 than any other. The 
 examples here given may 
 suffice, but the enumera¬ 
 tion might be extended. 
 One on some burnt stone, 
 Fish. (King.) figured by Mr. King, is of 
 
 good early wmrk, repre¬ 
 senting some large-heaued fish, and reads bou- 
 strophedon HA EIC | SX HI, i. e. Jesus Christ j 
 is one God (El); see his ingenious remarks in ' 
 Ant. Geins and Rings, ii. 27. A similar fish, ac- i 
 companied by a crook and palm branch is on a sard 
 preserved in the British Miuseum, which also con- i 
 tains the following intagli: A fish on which rests a j 
 cross; a dove on each limb IHCQTC above and 
 
 Fish supporting a Cross; Dovo 
 on each limb. (Urlt. Museum.) 
 
 below, in a broken cornelian : a fi.sh upon which 
 is a dove, a sprig behind her; to the left is the 
 chrisma (;^) to the right the owner’s name, 
 RVFl, in cornelian : also 
 a fish well engrav'ed, 
 in an emerald set in a 
 massive gold ring of 
 angular form; on the 
 opposite side, a dove 
 seated on a branch 
 between the letters 
 AE 1 Ml I LIA, cut on 
 the bezel itself. An 
 intaglio, the stone is 
 not particularised, in 
 the Kircherian Museum 
 at Rome bears the en¬ 
 graving IX0YC MT 
 “around an anchor in 
 
 the loop between its lower arms, which are 
 recurved, and upon the stem of which a fi.sh is 
 placed ” {Archueol. Journ. 
 xxviii. 288 [1871]). A sard 
 published by Le Plant has 
 a representation of a fish, 
 with IX0YC (retrograde) 
 below it: the Copenhagen 
 Museum possesses a gem 
 having the same type and 
 legend, but written in the 
 usual way : and the legend 
 only, the X being converted 
 into the chrisma, is found on a gem in the Vati¬ 
 can (Bbckh, nos. 9083, 9085, 9086). The 
 legend IX0TC inclosed in a wreath is inscribed 
 on a cornelian in the British Museum. A sard, 
 figured by Ficoroni {Gcrnm. litt. t. xi.), has 
 IX0TC only. A very curious ancient gem, 
 which is best mentioned in this place, is figured 
 by Martigny {Diet. p. 546). It represents an 
 
 Fish, Peve. and Chrisma, 
 inscribed KVFI. (Brit. 
 Museum.) 
 
 episcopal chair with legend IXT0 (for IX0YC) 
 inscribed upon it, besides a monogram on either 
 side, as being the chair of Christ, in which the 
 bishop sits. The same chalcedony is figured by 
 Passei’i, who has a dissertation upon it {I'hes. 
 Gemm. Astrif. iii. 221), and is now, having under¬ 
 gone various fortunes, in the Berlin Museum 
 (Bockh, n. 9o80). 
 
 Other gems which are of this type, but with 
 out any suggestive adjuncts, are either known 
 or suspected to be Christian. Mr. King ((??iosijcs, 
 pi. V. n. 3) figures a fish neatly engrav’ed on a nic- 
 
 i* Badly figured by Ferret, u. s. n. 26, and misdescribed 
 in Bockh, C. J. G. 9039. 
 
714 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 colo, bearing the owner’s name, T. ACI. AGLAVS, 
 whom he regards as a Christian. The LTzielli Col¬ 
 lection (Robinson’s Catal. n. 293 [277]') had an 
 intaglio of bloodstone in its original bronze 
 setting, bearing a dolphin, which is considered 
 to be “ probably early Christianand Signor 
 Castellarii possesses a tine amethyst cameo** 
 about 1.^ inch by presumed to be Christian, 
 from one side of which, the more convex, a fish 
 of the form of a carp projects boldly, the 
 other side bearing the name of the possessor, 
 VALERIAE, in incised letters. But the most 
 interesting exami)le of this kind is the epis- 
 coj)al ring of Arnulphus, consecrated bishop 
 of Metz in a.d. 614, now preserved in the cathe¬ 
 dral treasury ; it is set with “ an opaque milk- 
 white cornelian,” about half an inch in diameter, 
 representing a fish whose head appears above the 
 containing basket, on either side of which is a 
 smaller fish : the work is presumed to be earlier 
 than the fourth century. This is regarded by 
 Cav. de Rossi as a curious illustration of a pas¬ 
 sage in Tertullian (Zle Ikipt. c. 1) : “ Nos pisci- 
 culi secundum Piscem nostrum in aquis nasci- 
 mur, nec nisi in aquis permanendo salvi sumus ” 
 (Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. tom. iii. p. 578, tab. iii. 
 n. 4. Paris, 1855. Waterton in Arc7t. Journ. xx. 
 237 [1863]; Fortnum, ibid, xxviii. 274 [1871]; 
 Marriott, Test, of Catac. p. 123 [with a figure], 
 Lond. 1870). This type occurs also in subordina¬ 
 tion to that of the anchor, about to be mentioned. 
 Besides the gems of the fish type here enume¬ 
 rated, the writer is acquainted with the casts of 
 some others, and would also direct the reader to 
 Didron, Christ. Icon. p. 345 (Millington’s trangl. 
 in Bohn’s Scient. Libr.) ; Perret, v. s. ; Martigny, 
 Diet. s. V. “ Poisson ”; and Fortnum, Arch. Journ. 
 xxviii. 274, for further information and refer¬ 
 ences. “ De Rossi alone ” [in his De Christ, 
 monum. IX0TN exhib. in Spicil. Solesm. iii. 555, 
 576, 577 ; see Pitra’s Auct. 578, Paris, 1855], 
 says the last-named author, “ describes about 
 
 thirty genuine gems 
 on which the fish 
 and variations of the 
 word IX0TC occur.^ 
 Some others Rave 
 since been found. . .. 
 It is moreover,” he 
 tells us, “ more fre¬ 
 quently forged than 
 perhaps any other.” 
 A remarkable sard 
 intaglio, in the pos¬ 
 session of the writer, 
 may be mentioned as 
 a kind of postscript. 
 The device is a fan¬ 
 tastic compound animal, a gryllus of the common 
 type, being probably Roman work of the second 
 or third century. Some Christian possessor has 
 written the word IX0TC about it, in order, it 
 
 ' The number in the brackets is that of the sale cata¬ 
 logue (compiled from Mr. Robinson’s privately printed 
 catalogue), London, 1861 . 
 
 d A drawing has been sent by the Rev. C. W. Jones. 
 With the exception of late Byzantine works Christian 
 camei are very rare. Signor Saulini sends a cast of a 
 cameo (?) gem, stone not specified, of a still larger size, 
 representing two similar fishes, looking opposite ways, 
 the lower inverted; it is also figured by Perret, u. s. 
 
 Christianised Gryllns. (In the 
 Collection of the writer.) 
 
 would seem, to christianize such a heathen 
 production. See IX0TC. 
 
 (iii.) Anchor. —The anchor, originally as Cle¬ 
 ment observes, the signet ofSeleucus (see Eckhe!, 
 Doct. Num. Vet. iii. 212), and frequently oc¬ 
 curring on the coins of the Seleucidae, whence it 
 passed over to the Jewish money, was frequently 
 employed as a gem type by the Christian.s, and 
 so much the more readily from its resemblance 
 to the cross; whence the motto. Crux mea an- 
 chora. This type occurs both in connection with 
 the preceding and also independently of it. Of 
 the former sort the British Mu.seum contains 
 the four following examples, all probably of 
 Christian work ; anchor 
 between two fish, around it 
 the letters APP, in black 
 jasper; another with dol¬ 
 phin twisted round it, like 
 the modern Aldine device, 
 about it the preceptive 
 legend EniTTXANOY 
 (^Laxj hold) in red jasper; 
 anchor between two fishes, 
 in niccolo; another be¬ 
 tween two branches and 
 two fishes, on whose arms 
 two doves are seated, in 
 chalcedony. But the fol¬ 
 lowing are more important and unquestionably 
 Christian. A sai»d figured by Miinter {Antiq. 
 Abhandl. 1816, p. 57, t. i. n. 3), of an octa¬ 
 gonal form, gives an anchor with two fishes and 
 the legend IHCOT (Bockh, n. 9090). The Berlin 
 Museum has recently acquired a gem bearing an 
 anchor and a sheep and the legend IX0TC : upon 
 
 ADchor and Dolphin. 
 (British Moseoni.) 
 
 the anchor sits a dove with an olive branch in 
 its mouth (Bockh, n. 9081). Passeri (^Thes. 
 Gemm. Astrif. iii. 278) figures a ring cameo in 
 the Vettori Museum, inscribed IHCOYC above, 
 XPEICTOS below, having between the words an 
 anchor, with a fish hanging from each end of 
 the stock. An ojial in the same museum, figured 
 by Martigny (Diet. p. 545), has on one side a cru¬ 
 ciform anchor, on the other, enclosed in an orna¬ 
 mented border, the legend IX0TC written Kiovrj- 
 SoV. The Berlin Museum has a red jasper 
 having the word IX0TC and the letters MT, 
 perhaps the owner’s initials, disposed around an 
 anchor (Bockh, n. 9079). But the anchor has 
 also other accompanying symbols. Thus an¬ 
 other gem in the same museum (Bockh, n. 9082) 
 has around the figure of an anchor the boustro- 
 phedon legend IH | (Jesus Christ)., and also 
 the accompanying symbols of a tree, a sheep, 
 doves, a palm, and a human hand. (F'or others 
 see above under the Good Shepherd.) There are 
 also gems, presumed to be Christian, of which 
 casts have been received from Signor Saulini, in 
 which the anchor is figured by itself alone. 
 
GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 715 
 
 (iv.) Dove. —This type, usually symbolical of 
 the Holy Spirit, has been already mentioned as 
 occurring on gems in conjunction with other 
 Christian types. Besides these, Passeri (^Thes. 
 Gemm. Astrif. iii. 235) describes and figures, 
 after Mamachi, a gem in which occurs the dove 
 on a palm branch, a star above, and the chrisma 
 on the left. The British Museum has a 
 garnet with the same device, but no chrisma; 
 and also a portion of a cornelian ring, on the flat 
 bezel of which is engraved a dove holding a 
 branch, considered by Mr. Fortnum to be Christian 
 work of the second or third century (^Arch, Journ. 
 1869, p. 140). A sapphire in the same collection 
 bears the same device. The French collection con¬ 
 tains a cornelian, the work of which appears to be 
 of the sixth century, on which is engraved a dove, 
 a palm, and a crown, with a monogram of 
 Veranus (?), in style resembling those of the 
 Ostrogothic kings of Italy (Chabouillet, Catal. 
 n. 2167). The dove occurs also on Christian 
 gems found in Rome or preserved in the Roman 
 collections, in most cases accompanied by the 
 chrisma (Saulini, Ferret). A pale sard * * intaglio 
 in the possession of Mr. Ready has two rudely- 
 engraA'ed doves with a cross between them. 
 “ One of the prettiest devices of the class 
 that has come to my knowledge,” says Mr. King 
 (^Ant. Gems and Rings, vol. ii. p. 26, note), 
 “shews the dove with olive twig in beak, 
 perched upon a wheat-sheaf, apt emblem of the 
 
 Church, having for supporte rs an^erpent. 
 It to be wise as 
 
 serpents and harmless as doves. (In possession 
 of F. Taylor.)” The British Museum, in fine, has 
 a gem of large size and late work, reading in 
 minuscule letters avaaraai. rov Sg/jLov', below 
 the legend is a sheaf of corn, and two doves 
 with olive branches below, indicating that the in¬ 
 gathering of the harvest of souls w'ill be in peace. 
 Other examples are named by Martigny, u. s. 
 
 (v.) Fisherman .—The typ6 alludes to the 
 Saviour and the apostles as fishers of men. It is 
 rarely found on Christian gems, but we have a 
 feAV examples. M. de Belloc, in his work en¬ 
 titled La Vierge au Poisson de Raphael (Lyon, 
 1833)^ figures an engraved cornelian, which he 
 considers to be Christian, upon which is a fisher¬ 
 man holding a basket in one hand, and in the 
 other a line from which a fish is suspended; the 
 word IX0T2 is written near the fish (Didron, 
 Christian. Iconogr. pp. 345, 364 in Bohn’s Illustr. 
 Libr.). This would seem to be a different gem 
 from a cornelian mentioned by Vallarsi in his notes 
 on St. Jerome (i. 18), of the same type with the 
 same inscription (Didron, u. s. p. 349); Martigny | 
 speaks of it as excellent in workmanship and 
 probably of great antiquity: he regards tlie 
 fisherman as the Saviour (Z>»ci. p. 518 ; Garrucci, 
 
 * [This proves to be a paste, and belongs to glass, $ 
 iii. c.a) - j 
 
 Hagiogl. p. 111). A sard intaglio, regarded by 
 Mr. King as “ purely Christian,” in his own 
 collection is figured in his Gnostics, pi. x. n. 7 ; 
 it gives two winged figures, probably Cupid.s, in a 
 boat, one fishing, the other steering; “ the mast 
 with the yard, making a true cross, forms a 
 significant and conspicuous feature in the design ” 
 (p. 224). Its Christianity, however, seems 
 rather questionable.® 
 
 (vi.) Boat or Ship. —These occur on Christian 
 gems, as being typical of the church, and then 
 sometimes resting on a fish, or of the voyage 
 of the soul to the harbour of eternal rest. 
 Mr. Fortnum describes and figures a fragment 
 of a ring of dark green jasper, probably of the 
 second or third century, purchased in Rome, on 
 the bezel of which is engraved a boat bearing a 
 bird and a branch, probably a cock and palm 
 branch. The boat is supposed to be the church, 
 and the victory of the soul over the world to be 
 indicated by the other types^ (^Arch. Jour. 1869, 
 p. 140). Aleander (lYav. Eccles. Ref. Symh. p. 13, 
 Rom. 1626) figures a ring-stoneand Ficoroni 
 gives another {Gemme Antiq. p. 105, t. xi. 8), on 
 which the ship seems to rest on a fish. A ring 
 figured by cardinal Borgia(Z)e CruceVclit. p. 213) 
 is set with an antique jasper intaglio, the subject 
 of which is a ship, having six rowers on one side, 
 which, supplying the corre¬ 
 sponding six on the other, would 
 represent the twelve apostles; 
 there is also a pilot, or helms¬ 
 man, and the name IHCOT in¬ 
 scribed on the reverse (Fort¬ 
 num in Arch. Journ. 1871, pp. 
 
 274, 275; ^lart. Diet. p. 432). 
 
 A cornelian in the British JIu- 
 seum (intaglio) has a ship with 
 mast and yard-arm in the form of a cross, bear¬ 
 ing also a cross at the prow. A fine black jasi)er 
 intaglio, in the possession of Rev. S. S. Lewi;, 
 shows a boat with a 
 Greek cross in the 
 centre. A cornelian, 
 belonging to count 
 Marcolini, an impres¬ 
 sion of which is pub¬ 
 lished by Lippert (iii. 
 
 361), bears a trireme 
 with the labarum, on 
 which is the chrisma 
 and two palm trees; 
 the prow is in the 
 form of a bird’s head ; 
 the vessel enters into 
 port, and the sea is marked by a fish : in the 
 field are two stars and the unexplained letters 
 E. T. RA.; below, VGBP. (Raspe’s Cat. of Lassie’s 
 Engraved Gems, n. 2715). Other gems, whose 
 
 e The gem reproduced by M.irtigny (u. s.) from Co.sta- 
 doni, showing a 6sh in human form holding a baskeL, 
 which Polidori interprets to be the Saviour, is rather, to 
 judge by the figure, an A.ssyrian or Babj’lonian gem, re¬ 
 presenting Dagori (see Smith’s Diet, of the Bible, vol. i. 
 p. 381). 
 
 * With this may be compared an antique paste in the 
 Hertz Collection (No. 2525), having a ship with cock- 
 shaped prow, rowed by four benches of sailors; a butter¬ 
 fly above. The allusion to the immortality of the soul 
 can hardly be doubted, but the emblem is pagan rather 
 than Christian. 
 
 e This gem Is more fully described below, ^ xii. 
 
 Boat with Crucifoim Mast. (In the 
 Collection of Rev. S. S. Lewis.) 
 
 Boat with Cross. 
 (British Museum.) 
 
716 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 impressions have been sent from Home, bear a 
 boat with the chrisma, or tlie chrisma accom¬ 
 panied by a jialm above. A sard (intaglio) with 
 the same type is set in a ring in the Naples 
 Museum (^Arch. Journ. 1871, ]). 280). 
 
 It will now be seen that we have examples of 
 all the types mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinins, 
 the lyre only excepted, occurring on gems which 
 are either certainly known or reasonably pre¬ 
 sumed to be Christian. This type also occur.s, 
 but it is uncertain whether any gem on which 
 it is found is to be considered of Christian work. 
 
 (vii.) Ayre.—Employed probably as the type 
 of harmony and concord. The only example 
 known to Martigny {Des Anneaux chez les pre¬ 
 miers Chretiens, Macon, 1858) which he could 
 regard as Christian is one in the Royal Library 
 of Turin, of very indifferent work, in a style like 
 many Christian gems, figured by Ferret, Cata- 
 comhes (vol. iv. pi. xvi. n. 60). Nor can he add 
 another in his Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 
 written seven years later (p. 40).'* 
 
 The following types are not mentioned by 
 Clemens; the first three of them have been 
 already indicated in connection with those gems 
 which have been described 5 but they occur on 
 other gems also. 
 
 (viii.) Falm. —This symbol of victory, among 
 Pagans, Jews, and Christians, occurs frequently 
 on engraved stones and metal rings, and it is 
 sometimes difficult to decide whether a given 
 engraving is to be considered Pagan or Christian 
 {Arch. Journ. 1871, pp. 275, 276, 280, 282). It 
 has already been noticed that the palm occurs 
 as an accessory type on some of the Christian 
 gems above described ; it occurs also in other 
 combinations. On a cornelian in the British 
 Museum a hand holds a palm 
 branch erect, the chrisma is 
 above and MNHMONETE 
 below. In the same museum 
 is a cornelian, presumably of 
 Christian work, on which is 
 a palm branch placed verti¬ 
 cally, inclosed in a wreath of 
 laurel: on opposite sides of the 
 branch are the proper names 
 ZoTIKOC and TEPTVAAA, 
 who may possibly have been 
 in the Rev. C. W. King’s 
 palm branch placed horizon- 
 
 IVin, and Chrisma above 
 (llritisli Museum;. 
 
 martyrs. 
 
 collection 
 
 A sard 
 bears a 
 
 tally, and below it the acclamation (probably 
 Christian), SVLE VIVE (letters partly in¬ 
 verted). The palm branch occurs also by 
 itself or accompanied by inscriptions on various 
 other gems and rings, which are reasonably 
 supposed or suspected to be of^ Christian work, 
 Avhich is distinguished, in Mr. Waterton’s 
 opinion, by the rude manner of the representa- 
 truly figuring the natural object 
 
 tion, more 
 
 Among those bearing this type described by Raspe 
 (it.s. Nos. 30.32-3044), or contained in tiie Hertz Collec¬ 
 tion (Nos. 1094-1097), there is not one which can safely 
 be pronounced to be Christian, but there are two antique 
 pastes in the latter (Nos. i094, 1095) in which the sides of 
 the lyre are formed of dolphins or fishes. The sounding- 
 board of one of these has the form of a sleeping animal. 
 The original, as it would seem, of this, a plasma intaglio. 
 Is In the collection of the Rev. S. S. Lewis. The occur¬ 
 rence of fish in this connection suggests that the gems 
 may be Christian, but as the dolphin is connected willi 
 Apollo the inference is hazardous. 
 
 {Arch. Journ. 1871, p. 276). For some of these 
 see King’s Cat. of Leake's Gems in Fitzwilliam 
 Museum, Cambridge, p. 9. Fortnum in Arch. 
 Journ. 1869, p. 142; and 1871, ]>. 276. 
 
 (ix.) Cross. —This tyjje, in connection with 
 the dove, or in a di.sguised form as yard and 
 mast, has been more than once described above. 
 But it occurs on other gems without disguise.* 
 A Greek cro.ss in conjunction with a lion, suj)- 
 posed to allude to the church of St. Mark at 
 Alexandria, occurs on an onyx intaglio in the 
 possession of Mr. Fortnum {Arch. Journ. 1869, 
 p. 147). An iron ring, set with a cornelian in¬ 
 taglio (burnt), is contained in the British 
 Museum ; the device is a cross, accompanied by 
 some animal very rudely engraved (Fortnum, 
 Arch. Journ. 1869, p. 146). Beger ( T/tes. Pa/af.) 
 figures a gem, having a tall Latin cross, from the 
 arms of which hang two fishes.''‘ Garrucci(VM- 
 mism. Costantin. p. 261, (at the end of his Vetri 
 Ornati, Rom. 1864) mentions other gems with the 
 cross type, three of which are in the posse.ssiou of 
 M. Van den Berghe. Mr. Fortnum describes a 
 massive gold ring in the Castellani collection, 
 embossed with figures of doves in the shoulders, 
 which is set with a garnet, on the face of which 
 is engraved a draped figure seated betw'een two 
 Greek crosses potent {Arch. Journ. 1871, p. 281). 
 It is now in the British Museum, and seems late 
 work. The Museum has also a burnt cornelian 
 inscribed TATPINOC, where a female holds a 
 cross. A gem is figured by Garrucci {Ilagio- 
 glyqda, praef. p. v.), where a Greek cross is pre¬ 
 fixed to the acclamation Vivas in (Deo, sc.), 
 Martigny, in fine, observes that on several gems 
 (one is figured by Ferret, vol. iv. jil. xvi. n. 74), 
 some of which appear to be considerably older 
 than Constantine, we haA'e engraved representa¬ 
 tions of the cross * {Diet. p. 185). See also § xvii. 
 
 (x.) Chrisma, or Alonogram of Ghribt. —This 
 emblem which is thought by high autho¬ 
 
 rities to, be ei^djer than Constantine (^lart. 
 Diet. p. 416), IS fouM'’¥!T111W‘f>y*i4isMf or in 
 various combinations upon a considerable number 
 of gems, and somewhat varying in form. A fine 
 spherical sapphire, “ where the preciousness of the 
 material attests the rank, perhaps patriarchal, of 
 
 > De Corte (Syntag. de Anmdis, p. 125, Antv. 1706) 
 thinks that Eusebius {Demonstr. Evangel, vi. 25) speaks 
 of an universal custom of Christians wearing the life- 
 giving sign (i. e. the cross) on their rings, “ Salutari sigiio 
 pro annuli nota utentes.” This is taken from the Batin 
 version of F. Viger: the Greek, however, has 
 xpeagevot? ; and the allusion seems rather to belong to 
 the practice of signing themselves with the cross. 
 
 Referred to by King (^Gnostics, p. 142). • 
 
 1 It may perhaps just be wonh mentioning here that 
 certain iarge pieces of crystal bearing tlie figure of the 
 cross may be as early as the period embraced in the pre¬ 
 sent work. Douglas (Xaen. Brit. t. xx. f. 11) figures a 
 crystal exhumed in 1758 in a barrow near Lowestoft 
 along with coins of Avitus (a.d. 456) and other money 
 of the Lower Empire, now in the Ashmolean llluseuni at 
 Oxford. It is a boat-shaped piece (1 X in.), on which is 
 engraved in intaglio a Latin cross potent. It may pro¬ 
 bably be of the Saxon ivrioii, and it looks as if it might 
 once have been inserted in a liturgical book cover or in 
 the lid of a box. But it is not eas}' to speak of the dates 
 of these crystals and oilier stones, some of which, en¬ 
 graved or plain, have been also found m Ireland (Val- 
 lancey. Coll, de Beb. Ililcrn. vol. iv. pi li. n. 13; Wilde, 
 Cat. of Mus. of Roy. Irish Acad. pp. 127, 128). Most of 
 them appear to have been amulets. 
 
GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 717 
 
 the possessor” (King, Antique Gems and Rings, 
 ii.' 28), in the British Museum gives the mono¬ 
 gram, having a straight line at right angles to 
 the P on its summit ^ which forms a 
 
 Tau, allusive to the cross. This is also the case 
 with a crystal signet ring, “ annulus vetustis- 
 simus,” formerly in cardinal Barberini’s museum 
 (its resting-place being now unknown, Fortnum, 
 in Arch. Journ. 1871, p. 272), figured by De Corte 
 (Syntag. de Ann. p. 120), where a serpent, pecked 
 by two cocks, entwines itself about the base of 
 the Tau : on either side of the upper part are 
 the letters A and w, and the stone is also in¬ 
 scribed beneath the bezel with the word SALVS. 
 
 Mr. Fortnum has a ring of excellent workman¬ 
 ship, purchased at Athens, of massive gold, set 
 with an onyx intaglio bearing the chrisma, “ the 
 P being crossed w'ith the third stroke ” (Arc/t. 
 Journ. 1869, p. 142). Mr. King {Gnostics, p. 142) 
 mentions a ring cut out of crystal, bearing the 
 chrisma alone, on the face of an oblong tablet, 
 said to have been found in Provence. The same 
 author {1. c. p. 141) mentions an elegant device 
 given in Gorl. Dactyl. 211, where the sacred 
 monogram, cut on the face of a solid crystal 
 ring, rests upon the head of a Cupid (or angel?) 
 on each side of whom stands a dove. This style 
 he considers to have been derived from the 
 Sassanian stone rings. Passeri {Thes. Gown. 
 Astrif. vol. ii. p. 220, t. cc.) figures a gem on 
 which the chrisma is surmounted by a star, the 
 X being formed b)"^ two branches of palm. This 
 symbol is also sometimes accompanied by inscrip¬ 
 tions both Greek and Latin. Martigny {Diet. 
 p. 418) mentions a cornelian given by Macarius 
 {IJieroghjpta, p. 235, ed. Gar.), inscribed with the 
 word IX0TC, the X being combined wdth a P to 
 express the chrisma ; possibly the same gem as 
 that described above under § ii. The Berlin 
 Museum has a heliotrope in w^hich the chrisma 
 is accompanied by a fruit-bearing tree and the 
 following inscription : iwiKaKovfjLai Arjo'ovi' Xpei- 
 (TThv 'Nu^apTjuhi/ riarepa . . . (Bockh, n. 9094 ; 
 the fragment is here given in part only and in 
 
 minuscules). The Bri¬ 
 tish Museum contains a 
 cornelian bearing the 
 acclamation, Devsdedit 
 VIVAS IN Deo, to the 
 right of w'hich is the 
 chrisma, and to the left 
 a small wreath. Mr. 
 King figures a gem in 
 the Vernon Collection 
 {Antique Gems and Rings, 
 ii. 28, 37) where the 
 chrisma of a not quite 
 usual form appears in 
 the middle of an olive- 
 garland, with the name 
 of the pos.«essor, 4>01BEIwN, Pheebion (like 
 Hephaestion, from Hephaestus), of which the 
 work is unusually fine. The sacred monogram 
 under various foi’ms is found, as Mr. Fortnum 
 observes {Arch. Journ. 1871, p. 271), “more fre¬ 
 quently than any other on Christian rings. . . . 
 We fibd it alone and accompanied by almost 
 all the other emblems, with inscriptions and 
 monograms.”™ 
 
 “ Various Impressions of gems bearing the chrisma, 
 which are more or less similar to those described abo\e, 
 
 (xi.) Animals. —It has been already noticed 
 that “ a lion,” which Mr. Fortnum connects with 
 St. Mark, occurs on an onyx accompanied by a 
 Greek cross. Ennodius, bishop of I\avia about 
 511, has an epigram, De annulo Firminae, from 
 which we learn that it bore a lion.: 
 
 “ Gestandus manibus saevlt leo." 
 
 Whether the lion was intended to have any 
 Christian significance is uncertain. The jihenix 
 occurs on an engraved stone in conjunction with 
 the palm, a combination wdiich occurs on other 
 monuments which arc indubitably Christian, 
 Perret (vol. iv. pi. xvi. 68; Martigny, Diet. 
 p. 534). In the British Museum are more than 
 one gem bearing sheep, from the collection ot 
 the abbe Hamilton, of Rome, whkh are pre¬ 
 sumed to be Christian. On one are two sheep, 
 on each side a dolphin ; on another are two 
 sheep and palm branches. It might not be 
 difficult to increase the enumeration of these 
 ambiguous tyjies ; but they are scarcely worthy 
 of a more extended notice." 
 
 Before proceeding further we may observe that 
 the British Museum cpntains a large pale sard 
 in which the pastor, the chrisma, dove and 
 branch, fish, dolphin, ship, and various adjuncts 
 are combined; another, of smaller size, in two 
 compartments, has the jiastor, dove, anchor, 
 fishes, with other figures and animals ; they w^ere 
 formerly in the Hamilton Collection, and are 
 figured (with several others from the same col¬ 
 lection, which is now in the British Museum) by 
 Ferret (iv. pi. xvi. figs. 5, 8). 
 
 The following subjects appear to have been 
 introduced upon gems at a later period than the 
 types already mentioned.® 
 
 have been sent from Rome by Signor Saulini; on one the 
 X is formed of two fishes, one holding a wreath (crown of 
 thorns?) the other having a dove on its tail; palm on 
 either side of the monogram. 
 
 “ Mr. King {Antique Gems and Rings, ii. p. 2S) men¬ 
 tions that the frog, whose body passes through so many 
 stages, was employed for a Christian signet as an emblem 
 of the Resurrection; he does not however refer to any 
 authority for this. In Raspe’s Catalogue, of Tassie’s Gems 
 (No. 13,355) is a gem bearing a frog with palm and a 
 serpent; these adjuncts rather suggest that the work 
 may be Christian. See Glass. 
 
 ° The first place would be due to representations of 
 God the Father, if such really existed in the period em¬ 
 braced in this work, abhorrent as such images may appear 
 to many. Mr. King ( Antique Gems aend Rings, ii. 32) 
 mentions “ a large niccolo in an antique massy gold ring, 
 engraved with the Heavenly Father enthroned amidst the 
 twelve patriarchs, the work canfully finished and well 
 drawn.” This gem, which he saw in the possession of 
 the late Mr. Forrest, appeared to him to date from the 
 times of the Western Empire. But there seems to be 
 some error here. “ During the first centuries of Christi¬ 
 anity," says Didron {Christian Iconogr. p. 201, Engl, 
 trans.), “ even as late as the 12th century, no portraits of 
 Go<l the Father are to bo seen.” The hand seems to have 
 been the only permitted symbol. Either, therefore, the 
 work is likely to be later than the 12th century, or (more 
 probably) the interpretation of the group is erroneous. 
 One might suspoct the Saviour aisd the apostles to be 
 intended. Upon a cornelian formerly in thq possession 
 of Dr. Nott, the Saviour is represented on a column, with 
 extended arms, liaving six figures on each side, in the 
 exergue a sheep: in the field and exergue EHCO (»ic, for 
 IHCOTC) XPECTOC. It is obvious that these are 
 tlv twelve apo'tles, but the Jewl-h ami Gentile churchts, 
 as symlxdised by them, are most probably intended. See 
 ^ .\iii. and Gl.vss. (A cast sent from Rome l y .Signcf 
 Saulini.) 
 
 (Thrisma. (King.) 
 
718 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 (xu.) The Saviour .—In the earlier gems the 
 Saviour appears only in the form of emblems, 
 as tlie Good Shej)lierd and the Fish, and (more 
 rarely) as the Fisherman; but from about the 
 fourth century onwards the rejjresentations 
 become more realistic. Le Blant has a sardony.v, 
 bearing a dead Clirist, with the inscription, 
 SALVS KLSTITVTA, ascribed to the fourth 
 century (Martigny, Des anneaux chez les prem. 
 Chret. p. dO). An ancient onyx, figured by Ferret 
 (iv. pi. xvi. 85), exliildts the Saviour reaching 
 out his hand to St. Peter as he is about to sink 
 in the waves; their names (in an abbreviated 
 form) are written near them in Greek charac¬ 
 ters: IHC. riET. ; the boat is seen tossed by a 
 storm, a fish just below (Mart. 5d9. See 
 
 also Aleander, ic. s.; Mamachi, Ori;j. et Antiq. 
 Christ, t. iv. p. 260, ed. Matr., and Garrucci in 
 Macarius, Ilagiogl ij ta, p. 237). A green jasper 
 intaglio in the British Museum, considered by 
 Mr. King to belong most probably to the date of 
 the Western emjiire, exhibits Christ’s entry into 
 Jerusalem, the Saviour being accompanied by 
 tliree figures, one bearing a palm ((7«osf. p. 140). 
 When the coffin of bishop Agilbert, of Paris 
 (seventh century) was opened, De Saussay, who 
 was present, saw on his finger a gold ring with 
 a jewel, on which was a likeness of our Lord and 
 St. Jerome (j\Iarriott, Vestiar. Christ, p. 222, 
 London, 1868). A cameo in agate, probablv 
 early mediaeval Italian work of uncertain date, 
 represents the Saviour teaching the three 
 favoured disciples, one by his side, the others 
 fronting him ; two angels behind : the disciples 
 are bearded, the Saviour beardless; in the Bibl. 
 Imperiale (Chabouillet, n. 294; King, Antique 
 Gems and Rings, ii. 35, 36). With the excep¬ 
 tion of Byzantine cameos, and of one or two gems 
 presumed to be Gnostic, “ no ancient portraits 
 of the Saviour exist on gems ” (King’s Gnostics, 
 p. 137).P Among the earlier Byzantine camei 
 is to be mentioned a fine oval plaque of lapis- 
 lazuli, probably the gift of the emperor Hera- 
 clius to king Dagobert (A.D. 628-638), which 
 remained in the Treasury of St. Denys for a 
 thousand years: on one side was the bust of the 
 Saviour, on the other that of his mother (King, 
 Handbook, p. 104; id. in Arch. Journ. 1870, 
 p. 185). 
 
 The French collection contains several Byzan¬ 
 tine camei bearing portraits of Christ. Some 
 of these on amethyst and jasper, with legend, 
 ic^ )CC. (i- 6 . 'It](to\!s XptcTos), represent Him 
 with a cruciform nimbus, in a long robe, holding 
 the gospels in the left hand, and giving the 
 benediction with the right (Chabouillet, Cat. 
 nos. 258-260). These remind us of the coins 
 of Justinian H. (a.d. 685-711), and may perhaps 
 
 p For the Emerald Vernicle of the Vatican (now lost), 
 said to preserve a true likeness of the Saviour, executed 
 by command of Tiberius, which Bujazet II. gave to pope 
 Innocent VI il. about a.d. 1188, see C. W. King in Arch. 
 Journ. 1870, pp. 181-190, and A. Way in Arch. Joum. 
 1872, pp. 109-119. The gem was probably a plasma of 
 the early Byzantine school. Paintings copied from the 
 Vernicle In the 16th century exist; and also engravings 
 professedly copies of the same gem, from which photo¬ 
 graphs have been made which are now everywhere in 
 circulation. But the engraving is In fact a mere repro¬ 
 duction of the Saviour’s head in Baphael's cartoon of the 
 Miraculous Draught of Fishes, which, however, may have 
 been influenced by these paintings. 
 
 be earlier than a.d. 800. So much can hardly 
 be said of a large bloodstone in the Briti.sh 
 Mu.seum, which repre.seuts the bust of the 
 Saviour in high relief; the stvle rather re¬ 
 sembles that of the age of John Zimisces (tenth 
 century), (King s Gnostics, p. 141). A chalcedony 
 in the .same museum, representing the Saviour, 
 half-length, holding a book, and in the act ot 
 blessing (IjfjX^ inches) appears to be earlier. 
 
 (xiii.) Christ as the Ijiimh of God .—Garrucci 
 (in Macar. //a^. pp. 222,244; Martigny, Diet. 
 p. 226, with figure) has published an annular 
 engraved stone, representing the Lamb of God 
 surrounded by a nimbus which includes the 
 chrisma, standing ou a column, the symbol of 
 
 I-1 
 
 The Lamb of God. Garrucci.) 
 
 the church; twelve gems (Rev. xxi.) on it repre 
 sent the twelve apo.stles; at the base of the 
 column on either side are two lambs, the Jewish 
 and Gentile believers, looking up at Him : around 
 is the acclamation, lANVAKl VIVAS. For the 
 same subject see Glass. 
 
 (xiv.) The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin. 
 —The British Museum has a small sardonyx 
 cameo of black and white strata (from the Hertz 
 collection, n. 1825), of very neat Byzantine work, 
 and possibly of very high antiquity,** represent¬ 
 ing the Annunciation. The Virjjin stands in- 
 dined towards the winged Cupid-like angel: 
 above is the legend, O XAIPETICMOC, and the 
 names of the figures, FABPIHA and MP. ©Y. 
 {fjiilTrip 0eoG, Le. mother of God) are written near 
 them. The British Museum, the Hertz collec¬ 
 tion (n. 1824), and the Paris collection (Cha¬ 
 bouillet, nos. 262, 283), have other larger camei 
 on sardonyx (an inch or more wide), representing 
 the same subject, bearing the barbarous legend, 
 XAIPE (or XEPE), KEXAPITOMENH (or KAI- 
 XAPITOMENH), O KC. META COT (Luke i. 28). 
 The second of these is referred to “ the oldest 
 Christian period”*" (Hertz, Catalogue, p. 125); 
 
 q Mr. King (Ant. Gems and Bings, il. 31) thinks that 
 it may probably date as far back as Constantine’s reign. 
 But It may be doubted whether the title, /arj-i-rjp (>eov, 
 goes so far back. See Pearson, On the Creed, Ari III. 
 With regard to the style of the gtm itself, ihe writer 
 is inclined to put it considerably later than the fourth 
 century. 
 
 - This gem passed into the Uzielli Collection (Robiu- 
 son’s Cat. No. 1119 [646, a.]), where it is called “ Byzan¬ 
 tine Greek work of uncertain period.” 
 
GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 719 
 
 the others are considered by Chabouillet to be 
 of the fifth century. Perhaps they may be 
 rather regarded as early mediaeval (see King’s 
 Handbook, p. 111). 
 
 (xv.) The Virgin and Child. —An intaglio in the 
 British Museum, green jasj)er, of very rude work¬ 
 manship, “ executed with the peculiar technique 
 of Gnostic work,” and, if this be admitted, ap¬ 
 parently about the fourth century® (see King, 
 Antique Gems and Rings, ii. 31), represents the 
 Virgin and Child seated, with an angel on each 
 side, two others hovering overhead. The Ma¬ 
 donna and child in her arms (both with nimbus), 
 accompanied by their names, xc. MP. 
 0 T., is represented on a Byzantine cameo of red 
 jasper, in the Paris collection (Chabouillet, 
 u. 265). A similar one on bloodstone (IfgXlj'g 
 inches) is in the British Museum. These may 
 perhaps be early mediaeval. 
 
 In the Uzielli collection (n. 284 [300]) was an 
 intaglio on cornelian (^ by | of an inch), with the 
 
 Virgin and Child, with XAIPE and ^., 
 
 which INIr. J. C. Robinson calls “ Byzantine or 
 mediaeval Greek work of uncertain date.” A 
 gem, published by Oilerico, giA'es the Virgin and 
 Child with legend, MP. 0T. H nHFH, i.e. the 
 image of the Madonna in the church of the Foun¬ 
 tain, erected at Constantinople by Justinian, but 
 this gem may be of much later date (Bockh, 
 C. I. G. n. 9109). It is probable that this 
 general type would be engraved on Byzantine 
 gems during a great part of the middle ages, 
 from the sixth or seventh century onwards. 
 
 (xvi.) Saints or persons tmknown. —Bosio and 
 ^Mamachi (Dei costumi dei primit. Grid. Prefaz.) 
 
 figure a cornelian, on 
 which are engraved the 
 heads of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul (Mart. Diet. pp. 40, 
 539). A red jasper inta¬ 
 glio, a graceful new year’s 
 gift, exhibits a female 
 saint, perhaps St. Agnes, 
 kneeling before an execu¬ 
 tioner, who is about to 
 cut off her head with a 
 great razorlike sword ; be¬ 
 fore her a dove holds a 
 branch; above is the 
 chi isma, to declare the presence of her Redeemer 
 in the hour of trial; in the field are the letters 
 AN FT (Annum noium felicem tihi): good work, 
 probably about the age of Constantine ‘ (King, 
 Jino. Gems, pp. 352, 353, figured). 
 
 A cameo in the British Museum, cut in a 
 beautiful sardonyx, possibly as early as the 
 fourth century,“ gives a full-length 'figure of 
 St. John the Baptist with his name (King, 
 Antique Gems and Rings, ii. 31)r The same 
 saint is represented on a cornelian, published by 
 Vettori (pars ii. c. ix.). The Berlin I\Iuseum has 
 a black jasper intaglio, reading EIC 0EOC, and 
 having rudely engraved upon it a female with 
 
 » In this case also it s''eni8 possible that the date may 
 be much later. 
 
 ‘ In his lat"St work (Antique. Getns and Rings, ii. 33) 
 Mr. King thinks that it “cin Imrdly be placed lower than 
 the age of Tli- odosius, wliose best coins it certainly re¬ 
 sembles both in style and workmanship.*' 
 
 " It seems, however, that it may, with at least equal 
 probability, be assigned to about the tenth century. 
 
 hands uplifted in prayer (Bockh, C. I. G. n. 
 9103). The British Museum has a Virgin, half- 
 length, with circular nimbus, and uplifted hands, 
 a cameo on bloodstone, with the legend MP. 0T.; 
 which may perhaps be erady medieval. Besides 
 these examples still existing, wc have the fol¬ 
 lowing literary notices of rings bearing similai 
 types being worn by bishops and others. 
 
 St. Chrysostom tells us that in his time many 
 Christians of .4ntiooh wore in their rings the 
 likeness of St. Meletius (who died a.d. 381), and 
 impressed it on their seals (Horn, de S. Mclet, 
 t. ii. p. 519, ed. Venet. 1734). St. Augustine, 
 writing to bishop Victorinus, says that his 
 epistle is sealed “ annulo qui exprimit faciem 
 hominis attendentis in latus ” [Epist. 59 [217]). 
 Ebregislaus, bishop ofMeaux in 060, wore in his 
 ring an intaglio representing St. Paul, the first 
 hermit, on his kxiees before a crucifix, and above 
 his head the crow, by which he was miraculously 
 fed (Annal. S. Benedict, t. i. p. 456 ; Waterton in 
 Arch. Journ. 1863, p. 225).* 
 
 To the above should perhaps be added a By¬ 
 zantine cameo, nearly two inches in diameter^ 
 of streaked jasper, representing St. John the 
 Evangelist, with the nimbus, seated, and holding 
 the gospel in his hand. In the field O A (5 
 ayios) Iw O 0EOAOrOC ; in the Biblioth&que 
 Imperiale (Chabouillet, Cat. n. 266). This gem 
 may possibly fall within oxir ])eriod, and is 
 classed near to some that probably do so: but 
 the difficulty of fixing the particular age of 
 medieval Byzantine caniei is almost insuperable. 
 The greater part of thoTu, in T\Ir. King’s skilled 
 judgment, belong to the age of the Comneni 
 (Ant. Gems and Rings, i. 307). 
 
 (xvii.) Imperial or Rogal Personages with 
 Christian Accessories. — The art of cameo-en¬ 
 graving, which had fallen into complete abey¬ 
 ance from the time of Septimius Severus, who 
 has bequeathed to posterity many fine camei- 
 portraits of himself and his family, sprang into 
 a new but short life uniler Constantine. Camei 
 portraits of himself and his sons, “ admirable for 
 the material, and by no means despicable for 
 the execution,” are found in various private 
 and public collections, on .saialonyx stones of 
 laige, sometimes very largo, dimensions (King, 
 Ant. Gems and Rings, i. 304). One fine gem, at 
 least, marks the change of the imperial religion ; 
 it is not however exactly a cameo, but a solid 
 
 » A sardonyx, published by F. Vettori, has on the ob¬ 
 verse a portrait of the Virgin with the usual letters 
 MP. ©Y., and on the reverse a cross with contracted 
 legend KEB. (for Kv'pie PogOei), AEOTI AECnOT., 
 i.e. 0 Lord! help Lord Leo! Conjeclurally referred to 
 Leo (the Wise'l a.d. 8S6-911, but without sufficient rea¬ 
 son ; it is just possible that the gem may have been exe¬ 
 cuted within the period embraced in this work. See 
 Bockh, C. I. G. n. 9100. A very interesting gem is in¬ 
 serted in a silver plate (gilt) of the age of Justinian; the 
 great martyr (jneyaAopiapTVs) Demetrius is invoked as a 
 mediator with God (p.ecriTevcrov Trpb? 6ew') to aid Justi¬ 
 nian, "king of the Romans upon earth,” and in the midst 
 of the plate, just above a picture of St. Demetrius, “opere 
 tesselato,” is “amethystus insculpta, more carneolae fiicie 
 imberbi.” This may probably be meant for Demetrius 
 aLo, but as ic XC (Jesus Chri.st) NIKA (viKq) occtirs 
 higher up, it is not very clear wliether it may not be a 
 portrait of the Saviour. The inscription is g’ven at length 
 in Kickh’s C.I.G. n, 8012, from Marlni’n p.ip''T8, pub¬ 
 lish'd by Mai. (o'eript. Vet. A'or. ("oil. v. 30, no figures.) 
 
 Martyrdom of a Soiat. 
 (King.) 
 
720 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 bust. An ngate, measuring nearly four inches, in 
 the Liibliotheque Iinperiale, shows his bust with 
 the paludamentum and cuirass, on the latter is a 
 cross. His head is naked, and his eyes are raised 
 to heaven, as on some of his coins. Formerly 
 the ornament of the extremity of the choir-statF 
 (loth-century work) in La Sainte-Chapelle. 
 
 Chabouillet, Cat. n. 287, who refers to Morand’s 
 Hist, dc la Sainte fChaidle da J'ahns, (p. 56) for 
 a figure of the gem incorporated with the baton.) 
 Besides this noble piece we have several others 
 also, but of inferior execution. 
 
 Passeri describes and figures a gem, preserved 
 at Venice, representing a horseman spearing a 
 dragon with a long lance terminating in a cross 
 above : he regards it as a representation of a 
 Christian emperor, conquering his enemies with 
 the cross; a star, an emblem of Divine pi'ovi- 
 deuce, in his judgment, is seen above i^T/ies. 
 Gemm. Astnf. t. 2, })p. 289-297). This inter¬ 
 pretation is somewhat confirmed by the types 
 of certain coins of the fourth centurv, to which 
 age this coin may probably be assignel. 
 
 The Mertens-Schaufl’haussen collection pos¬ 
 sessed an agate intaglio, which passed into the 
 Leturcq cabinet, exhibiting a full-faced bust of 
 the emperor IMauritius, wearing the imperial 
 crown of the lower empire, and holding a globe, 
 on which rests a Greek cross inscribed, D. N. 
 MAVRITIVS P. P. A. Supposed to be a work 
 of the sixth century, Leturcq, Catal. n. 210.^ 
 The Leturcq collection contained also a green 
 jasper intaglio, giving full-faced portraits of Con- 
 stans 11. (crowned) and of his son Constantine IV. 
 (Pogouatus), both bearded, with a Greek cross 
 between their busts, having a scorpion engraved 
 on the back in the rude style of the so-called 
 Gnostic gems (n. 211). The same collection in 
 fine had an agate intaglio bearing busts of Leo IV. 
 and his son Constantine VI. (Flavius), inscribed, 
 D. X. LEO ET CONSTAXTINVS P. P. A., both 
 full-faced and crowned, and holding between 
 them a double-handled cross (n. 212). These 
 rare portraits of the Byzantine Caesar.s, of the 
 si.xth, seventh, and eighth centuries, appear to be 
 in the same general style as those which appear 
 on their money (see Sabatier, Monn. Bjz. pi. 
 xxiv. xx.viv. xli.). 
 
 There is one more gem of this class, which 
 falls a few years later than the chronological 
 limits of this work, but which ought hardly to 
 be passed over here in consequence of its extreme 
 interest in helping to fix the limits of gem- 
 engraving in the West before the age of the 
 Renaissance. The magnificent gold cross of king 
 Lotharius, said to be of about the date 823, now 
 preserved in the treasury of the cathedral ofAi.x- 
 ia-Chapelle, is remarkable for the variet}’^ of 
 gems, rubies, sapphires, amethysts, and emeralds 
 with which its surface is studded. At the in¬ 
 tersection of the arms is inserted a verv fine j 
 onyx cameo of Augustus, probably a contem¬ 
 porary work, and just below this an OA'al intaglio 
 of rock crystal, of Frankish work and of very l 
 tolerable execution, two inches long and an inch 
 and a half wide, giving the bust of Lotharius, 
 
 r Mr, King, however, has some doubt about its genuine¬ 
 ness (^Antique Gems, pp. 163, 164). The Leturcq Oibinet 
 was sold by Messrs. .Sotheby, )Vilkinson, and Hodge, in 
 18(4, the accompanying catalogue by the owner being 
 m French and English. 
 
 “his head covered with a close-fitting lielmet, 
 with a slightly-projecting frontlet, like those ot 
 the latest Roman period; around the bnst is the 
 legend, in well-formed Roman letters, -|- XPE 
 ADIVVA HLOTH.UilVM REG.” (figured in 
 Cahier et Martin, Mel. d’Arch. vol. i. pi. xxxi.; 
 King’s Ant. Gems, p. 305; King’s Handbook of 
 Engraved Gents, p. 116). 
 
 There still remain to be considered some an¬ 
 cient gems bearing manifest traces of Christianity, 
 which may be separately classed, viz., the Gnostic 
 and the Sassanian. 
 
 Gnoitic Gems. —A Gnostic origin has been 
 hesitatingly a.ssigned to one or two gems alreadv 
 mentioned, and a great number of gems called 
 Gnostic have been described in Chal*ouillet’s 
 Catalogue. (See also Akrasax in the Dic¬ 
 tionary OF Christian Biography.) Of these, 
 a considerable number boar the word ABPA- 
 CAH, more rarely (in the Greek) ABPAHAC, (vari¬ 
 ously written in Latin); and this in itself, in 
 the judgment of some, proves a Gnostic origin. 
 Assuming that Basilides, a Christian Gnostic of 
 the second century, be the inventor of the werd,* 
 as St. Jerome evidently thought and as several 
 other Christian writers appear to intimate (see 
 the authorities collected by Jablonski, Opvsc. 
 t. iv. pp. 82-86, and Bellermanu, Ueher die 
 Gernmen der Alten init dem Abraxas-Bilde, Erst 
 Stiick, pp. 10-28), the numerous stones on which 
 the word is written must either be looked on as 
 Gnostic or else as derived through Gnosticism to 
 other forms of faith or superstition. The latter 
 view seems on the whole to be the more probable ; 
 for there is no doubt that the word, as tran.s- 
 formed into the magical Abracadabra, passed 
 OA’er to the pagans, and was even employed in 
 Christian times until quite lately as a charm 
 against various forms of disease (Passeri, He 
 gemm. Basilid. in Thes. Gemm. Astrif. vol. ii. 
 p. 236, sqq.; King in ArJi. Journ. 1869, p, 33; 
 Halli well. Diet, of Archaic IVorrfs, s. v. Abraca¬ 
 dabra). We have Abraxas occurring in connec¬ 
 tion with the names, lAH (Jehovah), CABAce©, 
 AAwNAI, and with the titles or representations 
 of Harpocrates, Mithras, Mercury, &e. (see Pas¬ 
 seri, a. s. ^'c.), but in no single instance known 
 to the writer, though very possibly such may 
 exist,® does this word occur on any engraved 
 stone in any connection which can be safely 
 counted upon as Christian. These stones con¬ 
 sequently, as well as all others which have been 
 called Gnostic, but shew no manifest sign of 
 Christianity are passed over in this article. 
 Very few of them, if any, can be fixed to any 
 particular Gnostic sect or to Gnosticism gene- 
 
 » Some, as Mo.^sbelm (De Reb. Christ, ante Constant. 
 p. 350) have thought that the word is probably older than 
 Basilides: on what grounds we know not. This matter 
 deserves a searching examination. 
 
 » A very few monuments, which must needs b® 
 Christian, boar the word ABP.A.C.\S. A large ivory 
 ring, found at Arles, bears the monogram of Christ be¬ 
 tween and il (as it appeiU'S on the coins of Constantius JI. 
 kc. of the fourth century), but accompanied by the title 
 ABPAC.AH, “a sufficient proof of the identity of the two 
 personages in the estiination of its owner” (King's A»j- 
 tique Gems, p, 358). A cop^rer amulet found at Keff 
 (Sicca Venerea), which is very distinctly Christian, con¬ 
 tains the same word app;rrently, but in a corrupt form 
 (PA.XCACA), See Lnscbiitioxs. 
 
GE-NTS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 721 
 
 rally,’’ by much the greater part appear to 
 have been charms. The following very scanty 
 list, however, of unmistakeahly Christian gems 
 may be with some reason looked on as Gnostic :— 
 (1.) A portrait of Christ, beardless, to the 
 right ; XPICTOT above, 
 a fish underneath. Figured 
 by Raoul-Rochette (^2'ablea't 
 des Ciitaconibes de Home, 
 frontispiece. Raids, 1853) 
 who regards it as Gnostic 
 (p. 265) from the original 
 in the possession of the 
 marquis de Fortia d’Urban, 
 formerly in the Lajard 
 collection. The stone is 
 white chalcedony, the form 
 is oval; ascribed to the second or third century 
 (Mart. Diet. p. 40). 
 
 (2.) Another portrait with the same types and 
 legend, on a truncated cone of white chalcedony, 
 in the Bibliotheque Impe'riale (Chabouillet, n. 
 1334). This gem, probably of Eastern fabric, 
 is considered to be not later than the middle of 
 the fourth century, and “presents the combina¬ 
 tion of the ancient Oriental form and of Greek 
 decoration in the same monument ” (King, 
 Gnostics, p. 143). Figured by Ferret, u. s. n. 
 47 ; very similar to the pi'eceding. 
 
 Epiphanius makes it a charge against the 
 Carpoci’atians that they kept painted portraits 
 and images in gold and silver, and other mate¬ 
 rials, which they pretended to be portraits of 
 Jesus (f[acres, c. 27, § 6 ). These gems, therefore, 
 may probably be the work of some Gnostic sect.' 
 
 b The seven vowels, the “ Music of the Spheres” occur 
 frequently on this class of stones, and are also mentioned 
 in tlie lately discovered Gnostic work entitled Pistis, 
 Sophia ; but their veneration or magical use can hardly 
 be regarded as exclusively Marcosian or Gnostic (see 
 Walsh, Essay on Ancient Coins, Medals, and Gems, pp. 
 48-51; King’s Gnostics, p. 93; King in Arch. Journ. 
 1863, pp. 105-107). From the names of the angels men¬ 
 tioned Matter (//ist. Crit. du (>nost. Pi. p. 16, t. 1. E. 9) 
 thinks that a gem wliich he figures after Chifflet (fig. 24) 
 may belong to the sect of the Ophites. One of the very 
 few gems which really appear to savour of the Gnostic 
 philosophy is a sard, of which an impression has been 
 sent by the Rev. W. T. T Drake; reading o 6ia navTwv 
 vov<;. aiOrjp, irup, 7ri/eU|aa. eKoietu, eAweij/; i. e. Elohim ; 
 there was also an inscription round the edge which has 
 been a good deal brokett; in the field are monograms or 
 mystic characters. The letters may be of the third or 
 four.h century. 
 
 If indeed we could with Bcllermann (Gemmen mit 
 dem Abraxas-Bilde, iii. pp 11,12) interpret the letters 
 CEMEC EIAAM (misread by him) occurring on gems with 
 the ABPACAH legend or figure, to mean, This is the Mes¬ 
 siah of God, n' n’'*k^D nt. the number of Gnostic gems 
 might be increased considerably; but in truth the words 
 signify in Hebrew Eternal 'tun (Matter, u.s, pp. 17,29, 
 1.1. F, 5 ; King, Gnostics, p. 76) 
 
 c The numerous portraits of the .Saviour which existed 
 in St. Augustine’s time difTered much from each other; 
 so that his face “ innumerabilinm cogitationum diversl- 
 tate variatur et fingitur, quae tamen una erat, quaecum- 
 que erat” (Aug De Trinit. viii. 4). A poitraitquite dif¬ 
 ferent from the above is nulely engraved, apparently by 
 a much later hand, on the back of a tiny ancient cornelian 
 in the possession of M. Forgt t, which bears on the other 
 side a fi.*^h only; it is figured by Le Blant, Inscr. Chret. 
 de la Gaule, vol. 1. p. 371. The realistic represeniation is 
 here, as in both the preceding gems, combined with the 
 symbol. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 (3.) Tlie sun between two stars, EICVVC. 
 XP i' . rABPlE[A.] ANANIA. AME[N.] in 
 two lines (Passeri, T/ies. Gcmm. Asirif. ii. jn 277, 
 who does not name the stone). The names of 
 angels, as planetary or astral genii, were in¬ 
 voked by the Ophites, and j)robably by other 
 Gnostic sects ; Gabriel presided over the serpent 
 (King, Gnostics, j). 88 ). This gem (n. 155 in 
 the Cappello Museum), which is doubtless 
 magical, may well have been produced by some 
 Christian Gnostic, perhaps of the fourth century, 
 when similar barbarous orthograjdiy occurs. 
 
 (4.) Four-winged deity, standing on a circle 
 formed by a serpent, holding two scei)tres ; legend 
 obliterated. R. The chrisma in the midst o. 
 a circle formed by a serpent biting its tail. 
 Hematite, in the Bibliotheque Impe'riale (Cha¬ 
 bouillet, n. 2178). The figure is a good deal 
 similar to one on another gem, bearing the in¬ 
 scription ABPAHAC (Chabouillet, n. 2176); 
 the reverse shows it to be the work of a Chris¬ 
 tian, perhaps of a later Basilidian. 
 
 (5.) lao (Jehovah) under the form of a four- 
 wdnged mummy, which has the heads of a jackal, 
 a vulture, and a hawk; in the field three stars, 
 legend effaced; below on a cartouche, lAfl. R. 
 Trophy between a monogram made up of I and 
 N (possibly for Jesus of Nazareth) and the 
 chrisma; at the base of the trophy is another 
 chrisma. In the Bibliotheque Impe'ri.ale; ser¬ 
 pentine (Chabouillet, n. 2220). 
 
 Chabouillet regards the trophy as a figure of 
 the cross triumphant, and thinks the gem belongs 
 to one of the Gnostic sects, who especially re¬ 
 vered the Saviour. 
 
 Later Persian and Sassanian Gems. —This is a 
 class of enjiraved stones, which mav best be 
 treated separately as being of a different 
 form, conical or hemi.spherical, to those already 
 named; and bearing legends, when legends are 
 present, in the Pehlevi character The following 
 meagre list consists wholly of intagli; those in 
 the French collection are thought by Chabouillet 
 to be earlier than the middle of the fourth cen¬ 
 tury ; but some aj)pear to be later. 
 
 (1.) Ihe Sacrifice of Abraham. —The patriarch 
 holds the knife to slay his son lying on an altar 
 (shaped like a Persian fire-altar); he turns back 
 and sees the angel pointing out the ram ; striped 
 sardonyx. Bibl. Impe'riale (Chabouillet, n. 1330). 
 Another gem, of which ]\Ir. King sends an im¬ 
 pression, represents an aged Jew, in the field 
 a child: whether this be the same subject or 
 not, is uncertain. 
 
 (2.) Hie Visitation of the Virgin. —St. Elizabeth 
 
 Po; trait of Ctirist. (Raoul 
 Uocliette.) 
 
722 
 
 GEMS 
 
 GEMS 
 
 and the Virgin standing, joining hands ; star 
 and crescent (sun and moon) between them: 
 Pehlevi legend, characters connected; cornelian; 
 French collection (Chabouillet, n. 1332). Same 
 subject probably, but without legend ; long ci’oss 
 between the figures; sard (King, Anti'iue Gems 
 and liinjs, ii. ]). 45, pi, iv. n. 13). The latter 
 gem is supposed by ]\Ir. King, its owner, to be 
 “ the signet of Some Nestorian Christian.” 
 
 (3.) The Vinjin and Child. —The Virgin Maiy 
 seated, holding the infant Saviour: Pehlevi le¬ 
 gend ; garnet ; Biblioth^que Impe'riale (Ohabou- 
 illet, n. 1331). The cursive form of the Pehlevi 
 character indicates a late age, i. e. that it is 
 probablv of Nestorian work (King, Handbook, 
 p. 103).' 
 
 (4.) The Fish. —Fish placed in the middle of 
 the Christian monogram, which is formed of the 
 letters IX (Jesus Christ). Annular seal; cor¬ 
 nelian ; same collection (Chabouillet, u. 1333), 
 
 (5.) The Cross. —An elegant cross patee, en¬ 
 graved on a seal, accompanied by a Pehlevi 
 legend in the latest character (E. Thomas, Notes 
 on Sass inian mint-marks and Gems, with a figure ; 
 King, Gnostics, p. 144). 
 
 Before bringing this account of Christian gems 
 to a close, it remains to be mentioned that some 
 of them bear inscriptions only, both Greek and 
 Latin, and these may better be named here than 
 under the article Inscriptions. 
 
 (1.) Greek Inscriptions. —A red jasper in the 
 British Museum, in an antique gold setting of 
 corded wire, is inscribed, 0EOC ©EOT TIOC 
 THPEI, i.e. 0 God, Son of God, guard me! A 
 gem, figured by Ficoroui, has XPICTOY, sc. 
 SouAoy (Bockh, C. I. G. n. 9091). On a sar- 
 donvx, published by Le Blant, we read — 
 XPEICTOC IHCOTC MET EMOT, i.e. Jesus 
 Christ be with me! (^Td. n. 9096). A broken 
 gem in the Copenhagen Museum, reads more 
 at length to the same effect {Id. 9095). An 
 inscription on a gem published by Qiiaranta, at 
 Naples, whose date, though uncertain, may be sus¬ 
 pected to be late, very possibly later than the 
 period embraced by this work, reads, inCHd* 
 CYNnAPACTAGHTI 1 EMOI KAI TOIC EP- 
 rOIC I MOT KAI AOC MOI XAPIN, i.e. 0 
 Joseph, aid me and my works, and grant me grace! 
 (/cf. 9099), A few other unimportant gems bear 
 inscriptions, sometimes in raised lettei’s, which 
 may probably be Christian, such as MAPIA 
 ZHCAIC nOAAOIC ETECIN, and the like (see 
 Bockh, nos. 9104—9106). 
 
 (2.) Latin Inscriptions. — The acclamation 
 VIVAS IN DEO occurs (varied) on several 
 engraved stones, figured by Ficoroni (Gemm. 
 A7it. Lit. tabb. vii. xi.; Martignv, Diet. p. 8); 
 we have also MAXSENTI VIVAS TVIS F. 
 (for cum tuis feliciter). (Perret, t'ol. iv. t. xvi. 
 11 . 58 ; Martigny, u. s.y On a cameo sard found 
 in a Christian grave we read ROXANE D 
 (^dulcis), B (bene), QVESQVAS (quiescas), (Buon- 
 arotti, Vetr. Cimit. p. 170, t. 24). Occasionally 
 the inscription is figured in metal round the 
 st-me, as in a gold ring inscribed VIVAS IN DEO 
 ASBOLI, found in the Soane, the stone of which 
 is lost; supposed to be of the third or fourth 
 
 d This gem bears three heads, doubtless those of 
 Alaxentius and his family: it does not strictly fall 
 ■within this section, bat is placed here to accompany the 
 other timilar acclamations. 
 
 century (Le Blant, Inscr. Chr€t. de la Gaule, 
 tom. i. p. 64, pi. n. 6 ). It was not uncommon 
 from the sixth century onwards for signet rings, 
 both in stone and metal, to be marked with the 
 owner’s name in monogram. Avitus, bishop of 
 A^ienne, had such a signet in iron; and a red 
 jasper of the Lower empire, in the Bosanquet 
 collection, reads, AKTONINVS, in monogram, 
 which may not improbably be Christian (King, 
 Handbook, p. 107). One of the earliest episcopal 
 gems extant is probably one which was found at 
 Villaverde in Spain, set in a bronze ring, inscribed 
 FEBRV'ARiVS | EPiSCOPVS (the stone is not 
 specified); it may in all likelihood be referred 
 to the Visigothic period (Hdbner, Inscr. Hispjan. 
 Christ, n. 205). The series may fitly close with 
 a red cameo gem, preserved in the public library 
 at Madrid, reading in three lines, the text of 
 Joh. xix. 36. OS NON COMINVEIIS ES (sic) 
 EO. (Hiibner, u. s. n. 208). 
 
 The preceding enumeration, though profess¬ 
 edly incomplete, is more full, it is believed, 
 than any hitherto published; the great rarity 
 of Christian gems renders an apology for a de¬ 
 tailed catalogue uunecessarv. A few words in 
 conclusion on the materials and the style of art 
 and uses of these gems. The most usual material 
 is the sard, of which the cornelian ® is only an 
 inferior form, and the allied stones, the onyx, 
 sardony.x, and chalcedony ; next to these in point 
 of number may be placed other kindred stones, 
 the jaspers, whether red, green, or black. Some¬ 
 times the stone is heliotrope (or bloodstone), 
 niccolo, ciystal, amethyst, plasma, emerald, opal, 
 lapis lazuli, serpentine, and, very rarely, sapphire. 
 Garnet is occasionally found, a stone in which 
 the Sassauian gem-engravings are often formed, 
 and among these we have a Christian example. 
 The hematite is especially the material on which 
 the syncretistic designs, commonly called Gnostic, 
 are engraved ; and one of the few Christian gems 
 of that class in this enumeration is of that 
 material. 
 
 In engravings which range in all likelihood 
 from the second to the ninth century (and some 
 of those here mentioned, being of uncertain 
 date, may be later even than that), we must 
 expect that there will be a considerable amount 
 of variation in the stvle and excellence- of the 
 workmanship. When the work is fine, the fact 
 has been recorded, if known to the writer. Much 
 more commonly the work is mediocre. “ The 
 
 ® These are not well distinguished in the preceding 
 enumeration; the nomenclature here adopted is that of 
 the author who names the gem ; and this remark must be 
 extended to the other stones mentioned. For much in¬ 
 formation in a small space on the materials of gems 
 Prof. Story Maskelyne’s Introduction to the Marlborough 
 Gems (f'p. xxvii.-xxxvi. 1870), may be consulted; as well 
 as Mr. King’s elaborate work on Frecious Stones and 
 Gems, London, 1865. 
 
 I It is but rarely that anything s.ive the work of the 
 stone itself supplies date for conjecturing its age. How¬ 
 ever the fine emerald bearing a fish, described above, 
 is enclosed in an hexagonal gold setting, which Mr. King 
 calls “ a pattern announcing for date the early years of 
 the third century” (Antique Gtms and Kings, ii. 29), 
 De Rossi admits the great difficii’ty of fixing the age of 
 Christian gems, but thinks that a good many of those 
 which bear the fish (type or legend)- and anchor are of 
 the fourth and fifth centuries, none being later (in Pitra’s 
 Spicil. Solesm. iii. 555, 556). 
 
GENERALIS 
 
 GENUFLEXION 
 
 723 
 
 art exhibited in early Christian gems is almost 
 invariably of a low order,” observes Mr. Fort- 
 num ; “ they were for tlie most part the pro¬ 
 duction of a period of decadence. The greater 
 number have been cut by means of the wheel. 
 Hence arises an additional dilficulty in distin¬ 
 guishing the genuine from the false. Their 
 rude workmanship is easy to oojiy with the same 
 instrument as that with which they were cut ; 
 antique stones are abundant at hand, and Roman 
 artists are apt and facile in imitation ” (^Arch. 
 Journ. 1871, p. 292). 
 
 Bv much the greater part of the gems men¬ 
 tioned were used for finger-rings, those in intaglio 
 being also employed as seals. Others, however, 
 especially the Gnostic, were amulets, and carried 
 about the person, suspended or otherwise, as 
 charms. The larger camei, of the Byzantine 
 period, appear to have been made for the purpose 
 of decoi'a^ing church plate or other ecclesiastical 
 objects. (Martigny, Bes anneanx chez les pre¬ 
 miers Ghre'tiens et de Vannean episcopal en par- 
 ticulier^ Macon, 1858; Fortnum in Arch. Journ. 
 1869 and 1871; Earhj Christian Finger-rings; 
 and King, Antipie Gems and Jtings, vol. ii. pp. 
 24—37 {Farlg Christian Glyptic Art), Bond. 1872, 
 as well as his eariier books referred to above.^ 
 Much information also is to be gleaned from 
 various catalogues of gems and other books, 
 to which reference is made in the above w'orks 
 and in this paper.) [C. B.] 
 
 GENERALIS. [Victor (14).] 
 GENEROSA. [Scillita.] 
 
 GENEROSUS. [Scillita.] 
 
 GENESIUS. ( 1 ) Martyr at Rome in the 
 time of Diocletian; commemorated Aug. 25 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi); Aug. 24 
 {Mart. Hieron., Cal. Allatii et Frontonis). 
 
 (2) Martyr, of Arles (circa a.d. 303); comme¬ 
 morated Aug. 25 {Mart. Hieron., Rom. Vet., Ado¬ 
 nis, Hsuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GENETHLIA. [Calendar; Festival.] 
 
 GENETHLIACI, says Augustine, who con¬ 
 demns all such arts {De Doc. Christ, ii. 21 ), 
 were so called on account of their founding their 
 predictions on the jilanets which ruled a man’s 
 birthday {ysuedAia) ; a more common name was 
 Mathematici [Astrologers ; Divination]. He 
 again I’efers, in the Confessions (i\L 3; vii. 6 ), 
 to the folly and impiety of supposing that a 
 man’s vices were attributable to the fact that 
 the planets Venus, Mars, or Saturn presided over 
 his birth. The passage relating to this matter 
 given in the Decree of Gratian (causa 26, qu. 
 4, c. 1) as from Augustine, is in fact from 
 Rabanus Maurus De Mag. Praestig., and was 
 by him compiled mainly from Augustine and 
 Isidore. In another passage of Augustine 
 {Conff. iv. 3, quoted in De ret. can. 26. qu. 2 , 
 c. 8 ) Gratian seems to have read “ j)lanetarios ” 
 for the “ pianos ” of recent editions. All augurs, 
 aruspices, mathematici, and other impostors of 
 that kind w'ere condemned bv a law of Con- 
 
 a' 
 
 g To the last-named author the writer is deeply in¬ 
 debted for impressions of several gems and for the 'oan of 
 his beautiful plates for the present article: they are 
 drawn, like all the others (when not copied from other 
 books), to twice the diameter of the originals. 
 
 stantius, A.D. 357 {Code, lib. v.; De Malefcis et 
 Mathematicis, in Van Esj)en, Jus Ecclesiasticum, 
 
 р. iii. tit. iv. cc. 12-14). [C.] 
 
 GENIUS OF THE EMPEROR. In the 
 
 early centuries of the church, one of the tests 
 by which Christians were detected was, to re¬ 
 quire them to make oath “by the genius or the 
 fortune of the emperor; ” an oath which the 
 Christians, however willing to pray for kings, 
 constantly refused as savouring of idolatry. 
 Thus Polycarp (Euseb. II. E. iv. 15, § 18) was 
 required to swear by the fortune {Tvxvr) of 
 Caesar. And Saturninns {Acta Mrirtt. Scillit. 
 
 с. 1, in Ruinart, p. 86, 2nd ed.) adjured Speratus, 
 one of the martyrs of Scillita, “ tantum jura 
 per genium regis nostri; ” to which he replied 
 “ Ego imperatoris mundi genium nescio.” 
 
 Minucius Felix {Octavius, c. 29) reprobates 
 the deification of the emperor, and the heathen 
 practice of swearing by his “ genius ” or “ dae¬ 
 mon ; ” and Tertullian {Apol. c. 32) says that, 
 although Christians did not swear by the genius 
 of the Caesars, they swore by a more august 
 oath, “per salutem eorum.” We do not, says 
 Origen (c. Celsum, bk. 8 , p. 421, Sj)encer), swear 
 by the emperor’s fortune {rvxw ^acriK^ws), any 
 more than by other reputed deities; for (as 
 some at least think) they who swear by his 
 fortune swear by his daemon, and Christians 
 would die rather than take such an oath (Bing¬ 
 ham’s Antiquities, xvi. vii. 7). [C.] 
 
 GENII. [Fresco, p. 693.] 
 
 GENOFEVA or GENOVEFA, virgin- 
 saint, of Paris (f circa 514 a.d.); commemorated 
 Jan. 3 {Mart. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi); transla¬ 
 tion Oct. 28 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GENT ILLY, COUNCIL OF {Gentiliacense 
 Concilium), held A.D. 767, at Gentilly, near 
 Paris,-but authentic records of its proceedings 
 are wanting. Annalists of the next age say that 
 it was assembled by Pepin to consider a twofold 
 question that had arisen between the Eastern 
 and VV’estern churches respecting the Trinity and 
 the images of the saints {Pertz, i. 144). Quite 
 possibly the iconoclastic council of Constanti¬ 
 nople, A.D. 754, may have been discussed there, 
 but there is no proof that the dispute between 
 the two churches on the procession of the Holy 
 Ghost had commenced as yet. The letter of 
 pope Paul to Pepin (Mansi, xii. 614) is much too 
 vague to be relied on, and what embassies are 
 recorded to have come from the east in his reign 
 are still less to the purpose {Ibid. p. 677 ; comp. 
 Pagi, ad Baron. A.D. 766, n. 3). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GENUFI.ECTENTES. [Penitents.] 
 (4ENUFLEXION, PROSTRATION, ETC. 
 
 The early Christians used five ditfereut postures 
 in their worship. They stood upright, or with 
 the head and back bent forward, they knelt on 
 both knees, and they prostrated themselves at 
 length {prostrato omni corpore in terra ; said of 
 penitents at their reconciliation, Sacram. Gelas. 
 lib. i. nn. xvi. xxxviii. in Liturg. Rom. Vet. Mu¬ 
 rat. tom. i. coll. 504, 550). 
 
 Standing had been the more common posture 
 in prayer among the Jews (Neh. ix. 2-4 ; St. 
 Matt. vi. 5; St. Luke xviii. 11, 13); but they 
 knelt (2 Chron. vi. 13 ; Dan. vi. 10 ; Ezra ix. 5) 
 and prostrated themselves also (Xuni. xiv. 5; 
 
 3 A 
 
724 
 
 gexuflp:xion 
 
 genuflexion 
 
 Josh. V. 14 ; 1 Kings xviii. 39, &c.) ; and the first 
 converts to the gospel imported their former 
 customs into the church. Thus Stephen knelt 
 in his last j)rayer (Acts vii. 60); St. I'eter knelt 
 when he besought God for the life of Dorcas (ix. 
 40); St. Paul, when at Ej)hesus he prayed for 
 the elders (xx. 36); the brethren at Tyre and 
 their wives and cliildren knelt with him on 
 the shore, when he left them to go to Jerusalem 
 (xxi. .b). In the language of the same apostle, 
 “ bowing the knee ” to God is synonymous with 
 “praying” to liim (Eph. iii. 14). The Christian 
 knelt in prayer more than the unconverted 
 Jew ; and this was natural, for the greater know¬ 
 ledge of God produced a stronger sense of un- 
 worthiuess, and thus led to more marked and 
 frequent expressions of humility in drawing nigh 
 to him. “The bending of the knees is as a token 
 of penitence and sorrow ” (Cassian. Coll. xxi. c. 
 XX. p. 795). This was the recognized principle, 
 and it ruled the occasions on which the posture 
 was employed. “ The knee,” says St. Ambrose, 
 “ is made flexible, by which, beyond other mem¬ 
 bers, the offence of the Lord is mitigated, wrath 
 appeased, grace called forth ” (^Hexaemeron^ lib. 
 vi. c. ix. u. 74). 
 
 Before we proceed it should be explained that 
 the early church made no distinction in language 
 between “ kneeling ” and “ prostration.” It is 
 evident that men did not kneel upright, but 
 threw themselves more or less forward, so that 
 the posture might have either name. Some¬ 
 times indeed they so supported themselves by 
 putting their hands or arms on the ground, that 
 “ kneeling” was a position of rest compared with 
 standing. Thus Cassian complains that some 
 western monks, when prostrate on the ground, 
 “ often wished that same bowing of the limbs 
 (which he expressly calls genu flectere') to be 
 prolonged, not so much for the sake of prayer 
 as of refreshment” (^Instit. lib. ii. c. 7). The 
 same inference may be drawn from the fact that 
 the third class of public penitents were indiffe¬ 
 rently called kneelers or prostrators, were said 
 either yovv kKIvuv, genu flectere, or inroiriiTTeiv, se 
 suhsternere. Thus in a canon made at Neocaesarea 
 in Pontus about A.D. 314, we read, can. v., “ Let 
 a catechumen .... who has fallen into sin, if he 
 be a kneeler {y6vv kKIpwu), become a hearer.” 
 Similai'ly the eighty-second canon of the so-called 
 fourth council of Carthage held in 398: “ Let 
 penitents (the prostrators were especially so 
 called) kneel even on days of relaxation.” But 
 the same class were far more frequently described 
 as prostrators. For example, in the eleventh 
 canon of Xicaea, A.D. 325, it is decreed that cer¬ 
 tain offenders “ shall be prostrators (^viroir^aovr- 
 rat) for seven years.” (Compare can. xii.; Cone. 
 Ancyr. cann. iv. v. &c. ; Greg. Thaum. viii. ix. ; 
 Basil, ad Amphiloch. Ivi. Ivii. tS:c. ; and many 
 others.) A more direct piece of evidence comes 
 from the 7th century. Pseudo-Dionysius (Z)<? 
 Eccles. Hierarch, c. v. sed. iii. § 2, tom. i. p. 364) 
 says that “ the approach to the Divine altar and 
 the prostration (of candidates for holy orders) 
 intimates to all who are admitted to priestly 
 functions that they must entirely submit their 
 personal life to God, from whom their consecration 
 comes,” &c.; whereupon his scholiast Maximus, 
 A.D. 645, explains “prostration” to mean “ kneel¬ 
 ing ” (p. 375). So in the West, as late as the 
 9th centur}', in the same canon, “ fixis in terram 
 
 genibus ” and “ humiliter in terram prosterni ” 
 (Cbnc. Turon. .a d. 813, can. 37) are employed 
 to describe the same posture. Other indications 
 of similar usage will be observed in some passages 
 below. 
 
 Kneeling or prostration was probably the 
 general posture of the early Christians in prayer 
 not regulated by public authority. Thus Cle¬ 
 mens Romanus, in a general exhortation, “Let 
 us fall down before the Lord, and beseech Him 
 with tears,” &c. (Epist. i. rd Cor. c. 48). When 
 St. Ignatius prayed for the churches before his 
 martyrdom, it was “cum genuflexione omnium 
 fratrum ” (^Martyrium S. fgn. c. vi.). Hermas 
 represents himself, before his first vision, “ kneel¬ 
 ing down and beginning to pray to God and con¬ 
 fess his sins” (lib. i. vis. i. § 1). Hegesippus, 
 A.D. 170, relates that St. James the Just “ u.sed 
 to enter the temple alone, and to be found lying 
 on his knees (Kfipevos eVl toTs ^Jj/arrt)” (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. xxiii.). He adds that his 
 knees from continual kneeling became callous 
 like tho.se of a camel. When Eusebius relates 
 the story of the Melitine legion in the Mar- 
 comauuic war, about 174, he says of the Christian 
 soldiers, “ They put their knees on the ground, 
 as our custom is in prayer” (/ 6 u/. lib. v. c. v.). 
 Tertullian, having referred to the same event 
 some sixteen years after its occurrence, asks, 
 “ When have not even droughts been driven 
 awa}*^ by our kneelings and fastings ? ” (AJ 
 Scaptdam, c. iv.). We read in the Life of St. 
 Cyprian, by Pontius his deacon, that on his way 
 to death he “ knelt on the earth, and prostrated 
 himself in prayer to God ” ( Vit i 0pp. praefixa). 
 Eusebius tells us that Constantine the Great 
 used “ at stated times every day, shutting him¬ 
 self up in secret closets of his palace, there to 
 converse alone with God, and falling on his knees 
 to ask importunately for the things whereof he 
 had need ” ( Vita Constant, lib. iv. c. xxii.). In 
 his last illness, “kneeling on the ground, he was 
 a suppliant to God,” &c. {Ibid. c. Ixi.). Gregory 
 Nazianzen, speaking of his sister’s habits of devo¬ 
 tion, mentions “ the bowing of her knees become 
 callous, and as it were grown to the ground” 
 {Orat. viii. § 13. Compare St. Jerome in Epist. 
 ad Marcellam de Aselld). Augustine, relating a 
 miraculous answer to prayer in the healing of 
 a sick person, says, “ While we were fixing our 
 knees and laying ourselves on the ground (terrae 
 incumbentibus) in the usual manner, he flung 
 himself forward, as if thrown heavily down by 
 some one pushing him, and began to pray,” &C. 
 {De Civ. Dei, lib. xxii. c. viii. § 2). Elsewhere 
 the same father, speaking of private prayer, 
 says, “They who pray do with the members 
 of their body that which befits suppliants, when 
 they fix their knees, stretch forth their hands, or 
 even prostrate themselves on the ground” {De 
 Curd pro Mortnis, c. v.). Only in this last passage, 
 it will be observed, are kneeling and prostration 
 distinguished from each other. 
 
 But the early Christians knelt or prostrated 
 themselves as each chose, in the stated common 
 worship of the church also. Thus Arnobius :— 
 “To Him {i. e. Christ) we all by custom prostrate 
 ourselves : Him with united (collatis) pra\'ers we 
 adore ”(4c?u. Cent. lib. i. c. 27). EpipLanius: 
 “ The church commands us to send up prayers 
 to God without ceasing, with all frequency, and- 
 earnest supplications, and kneeling on the ap- 
 
GENUFLEXION 
 
 GENUFLEXION 
 
 725 
 
 printed days, by night and in the day, and in 
 suine places they celebrate si/nnxes even on the 
 sabbath,” &c. (JJe Fide, § 24). St. Jerome says 
 that it is according to “ ecclesiastical custom to 
 bend the knee to Christ ” (Uoz/jm. in hai. c. xlv. 
 
 ' V. 23)-. St. Chrysostom {Horn, xviii. in 2 Cor. 
 viii. 24), of the celebration of the Holy Commu¬ 
 nion :—“ Again, after we have shut out from the 
 saci’ed precincts those who cannot partake of the 
 Holy Table, there must be another kind of prayer, 
 and we all in like manner lie on the door {d/xoiws 
 iF (Sdfpous Kel/xeda), and all in like manner rise 
 up.” We understand this better on a reference 
 to the liturgy in tlie so-called Apostolical Con- 
 stit'itions. There we find (lib. viii. c. ix. Coteler. 
 tom. i. p. 396) that the “ first prayer of the 
 faithful” was said by all kneeling, the deacon 
 crying out, “ Let us, the faithful, all kneCl.” 
 During the rest of the liturgy all stood. 
 
 At other times of service the rule was for all 
 to kneel in prayer, except on Sundays and be¬ 
 tween Easter and Whitsuntide. Few customs 
 are more frequently mentioned by early writers, 
 and none perhaps more frequently said to be de¬ 
 rived from the age of the apostles. The earliest 
 witness is Ireuaeus, in a fragment of his work on 
 Easter preserved in the “Questions and Answers 
 to the Orthodox,” Quae t. 115, ascribed to Justin 
 Martyr. Irenaeus traced it to the apostles. In 
 answer to a question respecting the reason and 
 origin of the custom, ttie latter writer says, 
 “Since it behoved us always to remember both 
 our own fall into sins and the grace of oui-Christ 
 through which we have arisen from the fall, 
 therefore our kneeling on the six days is a sign 
 of our fall into sins, but our not kneeling on the 
 Lord’s day is a sign of the rising again, through 
 which, by the grace of Christ, we have been 
 delivered from our sins and from death, their 
 due, now itself ])ut to death.” Ibid. Other wit¬ 
 nesses are Tertullian, speaking both of Sunday 
 and the paschal .season {De Cor. Mil. c. iii.; 
 similarly, De Oral. c. xxiii.); Peter of Alex¬ 
 andria, A.D. 301, can. xv. of Sunday only. The 
 council of Xicaea, 325, both of Sunday and the 
 days of Pentecost, can. xx.; St. Hilary, also of 
 the “ Week of Weeks ” and the Lord’s day both 
 (^Prolog, in Psalm. § 12), who refers it to the 
 apostles. His expression is, “No one worships 
 with his body prostrated on the ground.” E])i- 
 phanius, also of both {De Fide, § 22). St. Basil, 
 of both, as an apostolical tradition {De Spiritu 
 Saacto, c. Ixvi., al. xxvii.). St. Jerome, likewise 
 of both {Ditd. contr. I.uciferianos, c. iv.); and 
 again, of the fifty days, in Prooem. in Fp. ad 
 Fph., “ We neither bend the knee nor bovv our- 
 telves to the ground.” St. Augustine, after 
 giving the Scriptural reason, says, “On this 
 account both are fasts relaxed [during the 
 paschal quinquagesima] and we pray standing, 
 which is a sign of the resurrection, whence also 
 the same is observed at tlie altar on all Lord’s 
 days.” {Fp. Iv. ad .lanuar. c. xv. n. 28. Compare 
 c. xvn. n. 32.) From St. Maximus of Turin, 
 A.D. 422, we learn the same facts and the reason 
 {Horn. iii. De Pentec.). Cassian, a.d. 424, men¬ 
 tions the restriction on kneeling at those times 
 {Tnstit. lib. ii. c. xviii. ; Collat. xxi. c. xx.). In 
 the collection of canons put forth by Martin, a 
 Pannonian b}' birth, but bishop of Bracara in 
 Spain, A.D. 560, the same prohibition occurs, 
 borrowed from a Greek or oriental source (can. I 
 
 Ivii.) His words are, “non prostrati, nec hum!- 
 liati.” The 90th canon ol' the Tnillan council, 
 held at Constantino})le in 691, forbids kneeling 
 “from the evening entrance of the juicsts to the 
 altar on Saturday until the next evening on the 
 Lord’s day.” The council does not mention the 
 longer period, and its object seems to have been 
 merely to .settle the hours at which tlie obser¬ 
 vance should begin and end. 
 
 From the fact that the 20th canon of Nicaea 
 is not found in the abridgement of canons by 
 Ruffinus {Hist. Eccl. lib. x. c. v.), nor in an 
 ancient codex supposed to be the authorised col¬ 
 lection of the church of Rome, Quesnel {Diss. 
 xii., at the end of St. Leo’s Works, c. v.) supposed 
 that the custom of not kneeling on Sunday, &c. 
 was never received at Rome. See Routh, 0/ US- 
 cula, tom. ii. p. 444, or Reliquiae Pacriie, tom. iv. 
 p. 75, ed. 2. We find, however, that the prohi¬ 
 bition was enforced in the dominions of the 
 Frankish princes after they had imposed the 
 Roman office on their subjects. Those times 
 were excepted from the general order for kneel¬ 
 ing at prayer made by the third council of Tours, 
 A.D. 813, can. 37. It was forbidden by a capitu¬ 
 lary of Louis the Godly, a.d. 817 {Capit. Reg. 
 P'ranc. tom. ii. col. 586, cap. li.) during “the 
 Pentecost week.” Rabanus Maurus, also, at 
 Mentz, A.D. 847, says, as if vouching for a present 
 fact, “On those days the knees are not bent in 
 prayer.” “ On the Lord’s day we pray standing ” 
 {De Distit. Cler. lib. ii. cc. 41-2). It is verv 
 improbable, therefore, that the custom was not 
 known and observed at Rome. 
 
 In all the ancient liturgies except the Roman, 
 if, indeed, that be an exception (see Scudamore’s 
 Notitia Eucharistica, p. 579), the bishop gave a 
 blessing before the communion. In all but the 
 Clementine this was preceded bya'monition from 
 the deacon: e.g., in St. James and St. Basil, 
 “Let us bow down our heads unto the Lord;” 
 in St. Chrysostom, “ Bow down your heads unto 
 the Lord” {LPurg. PP., pp. 32, 66, 102); in 
 St. Mark, “ Bow your heads to Jesus Christ ” 
 (Renaud. tom. i. p. 160); in the Mozavabic, 
 “Humiliate vos benedictioni ” {Missale, Leslie, 
 pp. 6, 246); in a Roman Ordo, earl), but of un¬ 
 certain date, “Humiliate vos ad benedictionem ” 
 (Ord. Au. § 11, Mus. Ltal. tom. ii. p. 75). Several 
 liturgies had a benediction after the communion 
 also, for which the people bowed themselves. 
 In some, indeed, the deacon here repeated his 
 direction. See St. James {Lit. PP. j). 39); the 
 Greek Alexandrine of St. Basil and of St. Cyril 
 (Renaud. tom. i. pp. 85, 125). In Egypt, for this 
 reason, benedictions were usually called “ Prayers 
 of Inclination,” or “ Of Bowing the Head ” (Re¬ 
 naud. u. s. pp. 35, 36, 50, 77, &c.). The same 
 gesture, similarly bidden by the deacon, was em¬ 
 ployed in other parts of the service. See St. 
 James, u. s. p. 9, and Renaud. u. s. })p. 77, 79, 
 105, &c. In particular, the catechumens bowed 
 while the prayer j)roper to them was said before 
 their dismissal. Thus the deacon, in St. Basil 
 and in St. Chrysostom : “ Ye catechumens, bow 
 down your heads unto the Lord” {Lit. J*P., pp. 
 48, 87). The Malabar: ‘Incline your heads for 
 the laying on of hands, and receive the blessing” 
 {Llist. Eccl. Malab. Raulin, p. 304). 
 
 Two sermons of Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 
 A.D. 602, illustrate our subject, as regards the 
 habits of the people, in a graphic manner:—“I 
 
720 GEOGRAPHY, ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 intreat and admonish you, dearest bretlueii, that I 
 as often as ))rayer is said by the clergy at the 
 altar, or j)rayer is bidden l)y the deacon, ye faith¬ 
 fully bow, not yo\ir hearts only, but your bodies 
 also; for when I often, as 1 ought, and heedfully 
 take notice, as the deacon cries, ‘Let us bend our 
 knees,’ I see the greater part standing like up¬ 
 right columns.” “Let it not be grievous to 
 him, who from some weakness cannot bend his 
 knees, either to bow his back or incline his head.” 
 Again: “In like manner 1 admonish you of this, 
 dearest brethren, that as often as the deacon 
 shall j)roclaim that ye ought to bow yourselves 
 for the benediction, ye faithfully incline both 
 bodies and heads ; because the benediction, 
 though given to you through man, is yet not 
 given from man.” (^Scnn. Cues. Ixxxv. 1, 5; 
 Sim. Ixxxiv. §§ 1, 2.) 
 
 The priest himself often inclined his head 
 during the prayers. (See St. James, u. s. pp. 7, 
 13, 17, &c., and St. IMark, u. s. pp. 150, 153.) 
 Many observances of this kind are lost to us 
 from the want of rubrics in the ancient liturgies, 
 or from their incompleteness. This is especially 
 the case with those of the West; but there is one 
 Ordo of the age of Charlemagne in which the 
 priest is directed to say the prayer In spiritu 
 humilitatis “ bowed before the altai*.” (Martene, 
 Be Ant. Eacl. Hit. lib. i. c. iv. art. xii. ord. v.). 
 We might here also cite the Mozarabic and 
 Milanese missals, if the antiquity of their rubrics 
 vere not generally uncertain. 
 
 From pseudo-Dionysius we learn that while 
 bishops and ))riests at their ordination knelt on 
 both knees, deacons knelt on one only {Be Keel. 
 Ilier. c. V. § ii. tom. i. p. 364). [W. E. S.J 
 
 GEOGRAPHY, ECCLESIASTICAL. [No- 
 
 TITIA.] 
 
 GEORGIUS. ( 1 ) Chozebita, Holy Father, 
 A.D. 820; commemorated with Aemilianus, Jan. 
 
 8 {Cal. Byzant.'). 
 
 (2) Of Malaeum, Holy Father’, (saec. v. vi.) ; 
 commemorated April 4 {fb.). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Mitylene (f circa 816), Holy Fa¬ 
 ther ; commemorated April 7 {lb.). 
 
 (4) Deacon, martyr at Cordova with Aurelius, 
 Felix, Nathalia, and Liliosa, A.D. 852 ; commemo¬ 
 rated Aug; 27 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 ( 6 ) MeyaXofxdpTvp Kal rpoiraiocpSpos, A.D. 
 296; commemorated April 23 {Cal. Byzant.)'^ 
 “Natale,” April 23 (d/arL Bedae); the dedica¬ 
 tion {iyKOLivia) of his church in Lydia is comme¬ 
 morated on Nov. 3 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (6) De monte Atho; commemorated June 27 
 {Cal. Georg.). 
 
 (7) Victoriosus; commemorated Sept. 28 {Cal. 
 
 Armen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GKRASIMUS, Holy Father, b ivAopUvy, 
 in the time of Constantine Pogonatus; comme¬ 
 morated March 4 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GEREON, martyr with 318 others at Co¬ 
 logne under Maximian; commemorated Oct. 10 
 {Mart. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GERMANICA CONCILIA, councils cele¬ 
 brated in Germany, but at places unknown. 
 
 1. A.D. 743, probably, being the first of five 
 .'■•aid to have met under St. Boniface by his 
 biographer, but great obscurity hangs over their 
 date, number, and canons, to say the least. 
 
 GERONA, COUNCIL OF 
 
 Mansi really settles nothing (xii. 355 and seq.\ 
 and tlie Oxford editors of Wilkins still less (iii. 
 382, note). Again, in the ))reface to this 
 council it is Carloman, mayor of tlie j)alace who 
 sjjeaks, and its seven canons, besides running in 
 his name foim the first of his capitularies 
 (Mansi, ib. 366, and App. 104). Certainlv, 
 the first of them constituting Boniface arch¬ 
 bishop over the bishops of his dominions cannot 
 have been decreed but by him. True, there is a 
 letter from Boniface to pojje Zachary requesting 
 leave for hohling a synod of this kind, which 
 was at once given (Mansi, ib. 312-19), and in 
 another, purporting to be from Boniface to arch¬ 
 bishop Cuthbert (Haddan and Stubbs, Couneih, 
 iii. 376), three sets of canons are quoted as 
 having been decreed by the writer, of which 
 these form the second. Still, even so, when and 
 where were the other two sets ])assed ? What 
 Mansi prints (xii. 38.’)) as “ statutes of St. Boni¬ 
 face ” in one place, were probably tlie work of a 
 later hand, as he says in another {ib. 362). 
 
 2. A.D. 745, at Mayence possibly, where Alde- 
 bert and Clement were jn onounced heretics, and 
 Gervilion of Mayence deposed to be succeeded by 
 Boniface (l\Iansi, ib. 371). 
 
 3. A.D. 747, at which the first four general 
 councils were ordered to be I'eceived. Possibly 
 the tenth of the letters of po})e Zachaiw may 
 relate to this (Mansi, ib. 409 and 342). 
 
 4. A.D. 759, at which Othmar, abbot of 
 
 St. Gall, xvas unjustly condemned (Mansi, ib. 
 660). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GERMANICUS, martyr at Smyrna under 
 Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius ; comme¬ 
 morated Jan. 19 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis. Usu¬ 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GERMANUS. ( 1 ) Bishop of Paris and 
 confessor (tb76 A.D.) ; commemorated l^Iay 28 
 (J/arL Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi); translation {de¬ 
 position, Ado) July 25 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Bishop of Auxerre and confessor ; “ iran- 
 situs ” commemorated July 31 {Mart. Jlieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi); Aug. 1 {Mart. Bedae); trans¬ 
 lation {natalis, Ado) Oct. 1 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) [Donatiakus (2).] 
 
 (4) Martyr in Spain with Servandus; com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 23 {Mart. Bom. 1 et., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Caesarea in Cappadocia, with 
 Caesarius, Theo])hilus, andYitalis, uudei’Decius: 
 commemorated Nov. 3 {Ib.). 
 
 (6) Of Constantinople, a.d. 730 ; commemo¬ 
 rated May 12 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GERONA, COUNCIL OF {Gerundense eon- 
 eilium), held a.d. 517, at Gerona in Catalonia, 
 and passed ten canonS on discipline, to which 
 seven of the ten bishops present at the synod of 
 Tarragona the year before subscribed. By the 
 first the order laid down for celebrating mass and 
 saying the psalter and ministering in general 
 throughout the province of Tarragona is to be 
 that of the metropolitan church. By the last 
 the Lord’s prayer is to be said on all days after 
 matins and vespers by the priest. By the 
 second and third rogation days are to be kept 
 with abstinence twice a year: viz., the three last 
 davs of Whitsun week, and the first three davs in 
 November ; or, one of the’.u being a Sunday, ttie 
 
GERONTIUS 
 
 GIRDLE 
 
 727 
 
 three last days of the week following (Mansi, 
 viii. 547 and seq.). [K. S. Ff.] 
 
 GERONTIUS, bishop of Sevilla la Vioja in 
 Spain (saec. i.); commemorated Aug. 25 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). F. G.] 
 
 GERTRUDIS, virgin, martyr in Ireland; 
 commemorated March 17 (Mart. Bedae, Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GERUNDENSE CONCILIUM. [Gerona, 
 Council of.] 
 
 GERVASIUS, martvr at Milan with Prota- 
 sius, his brother, under Nero ; commemorated 
 June 19 (Mart. Bedae, Flieron., Cal. Carthaj., 
 Cal. et Sacrament. Frontonis, Mart. Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi); also with Nazarius, and Celsus, June 19 
 (Mart. Bom. Vet.), and Oct. 14 (Cal. Biizant.). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 GERVASIUS AJND PROTASIUS, SS., 
 IN Art. The ba.silica of St. Ambrose in Milan 
 was dedicated by him, June 19th 387, to these 
 martyrs, whose bones he transferred to it. The 
 name of the church has, however, been derived 
 by posterity from that of its founder. The 
 author may refer to the personal testimony of 
 Father Ambrose St. John of the Oratory, as to 
 a late discovery of bones in the Basilica of St. 
 Ambrose, which seems strongly to confirm the 
 tradition of the burial of actually martyred 
 persons among its foundations.* 
 
 St. Gervasius api)ears repeatedly in the 
 paintings of the Ambrosian basilica, especially 
 m the great mosaic of the apse (Sommerard, 
 Album des Arts, pi. xi-x:. 9 serie). St. Protasius 
 is with him, as in other parts of the church. 
 This mosaic cannot be later than the 9th century, 
 and may probably be of the same date as that in 
 the great church of St. Apollinaris in Classe at 
 Ravenna, 7th century. (See Ciampini Vet.Monu- 
 menta, tom. ii. pi. xxv. No. 11, and p. 95 in text.) 
 Two portrait medallions of these saints are to 
 be seen in the church of St. Vitale in the same 
 city. [R. St, J. T.] 
 
 GETULIUS, martyr at Rome with Aman- 
 tius, Cerealis, and Primitivus, in the time of 
 Adrian (circa 124 a.d.) ; “ passio,” June 10 
 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GIDEON or GEDEON, the prophet; com¬ 
 memorated with Joshua, Sept. 1 (Mart. Bom. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GIFTS. [Arrhae; Elements, p. 600.] 
 
 GILBERTUS, “in territorio Parisiacensi, 
 VICO Christoilocommemorated with Agoadus, 
 and innumerable others of both sexes, J^ine 24 
 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GILDARDUS, bishop of Rouen (fpost 508); 
 “ natalis ” June 8 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GILDING. A frequent mode of decorating 
 the interiors of churches was by gilding. The 
 earliest reference we have to it is in the letter 
 of the emperor Constantine to Macarius, bishop 
 of Jerusalem, relating to the church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre, which he was about to have built, 
 consulting him, among other points, as to the 
 
 * See note, p. 433, J. II. Newman’s Historical Sketches, 
 Pickering, 1872. A letter of the greatest interest, which 
 seems to leave little room for doubt as to the authenticity 
 of the bodies of St, Ambrose and the two martyrs. 
 
 character of the ceiling he wished to have con¬ 
 structed. The emperor evidently inclined to a 
 ceiling divided into panels (Aa/cwvapia, laqucata), 
 inasmuch as it could be decorated with gold 
 (Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. c. 32). This ])lan was 
 carried out on the most magnificent scale, and, 
 “ bv means of compartments, stretched its vast 
 expanse over the whole basilica, covered through¬ 
 out with resplendent gold, so as to make the 
 whole temple dazzling as with a blaze of light ” 
 ([b. c. 36), The beams of the roof of the basilica 
 of St. Paul at Rome were originally, A.D. 386, 
 covered with gold-leaf. 
 
 “Bracteolas trabibus sublevit. ut omnis aurulenta 
 Lux esset intus. ceu jubar sub ortu.” 
 
 (I’fctron. I’assio Beat. Apost.) 
 
 The church built by St. Paullnus at Nola had 
 also a panelled ceiling, “ alto et lacunato cul- 
 mine ” (Paulin. Epist. xxxii. 12), but gilding 
 is not expressly mentioned. References to these 
 ceilings of gilded panelling are freciuent in 
 Jerome, who speaks of “ the laquearia and roofs 
 gleaming with gold,” “the gilded ceilings,” and 
 the like, with some expression of regret that so 
 much that might have been devoted to Christ’s 
 poor was lavished on architectural decoration 
 (Hieron. lib. ii. in Zach. viii.; Epist. ii. ad Nepot.; 
 Epiit. viii. ad Demetriad.). From the last-quoted 
 passage we learn that the capitals of the pillars 
 were also gilt, and that the altai’s were orna¬ 
 mented with gold and jewels. In the moi-e mag¬ 
 nificent churches erected in Justinian’s reign, 
 the altars were often of silver plated with gold. 
 The altar given by Pulcheria, a.d. 414, to the 
 church at Constantinople was elaborately con¬ 
 structed of gold and precious stones (Soz, II. E. 
 ix. 1). This was surpassed by the altar given 
 by Justinian to St. Sophia, which w'as all of gold 
 resplendent with gems (Ducange, Constantinop. 
 Christ, lib. iii. p. 47). The altar at St. Ambrogio, 
 at Milan, made A.D. 835, is covered with plates 
 of gold and silver, with subjects in high relief 
 [Altar, p. 64]. The domes which crowmed the 
 early churches in the East were often gilt ex¬ 
 ternally. (Bingham, Grig. Eccl. VIII. viii. 5; 
 Neale, Eastern Church, Introd. p. 182.) [E. V.] 
 
 GIRDLE (^dov-f]', balfeus, cingulum, zona). 
 Amonv nations who wore long flowing robes, it 
 is obvious that the use of the girdle w’ould be 
 necessary for convenience in walking, or in active 
 W’ork. This very way, how'ever, of using the 
 girdle would cause it to be more or less hidden 
 by the dress: and thus w'C are a priori prepared 
 for the fact that, while in the early Christian 
 centuries we continually meet with the girdle 
 used as a matter of practical convenience, it 
 is not till the eighth century that we find it 
 recognized as an ecclesiastical vestment strictly 
 so called. The use of it in these earlier times 
 seems not unfrequently to have carried with it 
 the idea of an imitation of the ancient Jewish 
 prophets, and thus to have been worn by those 
 who followed a monastic life, and those who 
 profe.ssed, in reality or in seeming, to imitate 
 their austerities. We find, for example, pope 
 Celestinus I. (ob. 432 a.d.) finding fault with 
 those who, by affecting this style of dress 
 (“amicti pallio et lumbos praecincti’*), seemed 
 to claim for themselves a .sanctity of life not 
 rightly theirs (E/Avt. 4 ad Episc. Vienn. et 
 Narh. c. 2; Batrol, 1. 431). Salvianus (ob, 
 
728 
 
 GIRDLE 
 
 GLADIATORS 
 
 circa 495 a.d.) refers to the same idea, in the 
 words addressed to an unworthy monk, “ licet 
 fideni cingulo afferas ” {Adv. avaritiam iv. 5; 
 I'otrol. liii. 232). See also Basil (Epist. 45 ad 
 mona»hum lipS'im; Patrol. Gr. xxxii. 366). To 
 take an instance of a dilferent type, Kulgentius 
 (ob. 533 A.D.) on his elevation to the see of | 
 Ruspe, is said in his biography (formerly attri- j 
 buted to Ferrandus Diaconus) to have retained 
 the girdle with the re.st of the monastic habit— 
 
 ‘‘pelliceo cingulo tanquam monachus utebatur” 
 (c. 37; Patrol. Ixv. 136). The Rule of St. 
 Benedict forbad the laying aside of the monastic 
 girdle even at night; for the monks were to 
 .sleep “ vestiti . . . et cincti cingulisaut funibus ” 
 (^Regula S. Benedicti^ c. 22 : see also Regula S. 
 Donati, c. 65). 
 
 It may further be remarked that the gii*dle 
 was commonly worn as an ornament by so¬ 
 vereigns and nobles. Thu.s, in a homily once 
 assigned to Chrysostom, but now generally be¬ 
 lieved to be a work of the sixth century, the 
 girdle is spoken of as an ordinary ornament of 
 kings, and with this royal use of it is compared the 
 girdle of our Lord (i/om. de Uno Legislatore, c. 3 ; 
 vol. vi. 409, ed. Montfaucon). It will readily 
 be seen how important a bearing the above facts 
 have on the main general question, to which we 
 can only refer thus in passing, as to whether 
 the dress of the early Christian ministry -was 
 derived from that of the Levitical priesthood. 
 In this last, it will be remembered, the girdle 
 was a very important element. 
 
 It has been said that it was not till the 8 th 
 century that v/e meet with the girdle as an eccle¬ 
 siastical vestment in the strict sense of the 
 word. It is true that we do meet with references 
 to it at an earlier period, as to tiiat worn by 
 Gregory the Great, which later generations are 
 said by his biographer to have regarded as a 
 precious relic (Joannis Diaconi Vita S. Greg. 
 Magni^ iv. 80; Patrol. Ixxv. 228). Still, it must 
 be remembered, the use of an article of dress by 
 ecclesiastics is a totally different thing from their 
 use of it because they are eccle.siastics; and for 
 instances of this latter we must pass on to 
 a later period. 
 
 Perhaps the earliest reference of this kind is 
 one by Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople 
 (ob. 740 A.D.), in his description of the various 
 priestly vestments (^Historia Ecclesiastica et 
 Mystica Contemplatio; Patrol. Gr. xcviii. 394), 
 in which he also alludes to the napkin attached 
 to the girdle worn by deacons (r-h 
 € 7 rl rys Rabanus Maurus, in his trea¬ 
 
 tise de Institutione Clericorum (i. 17 ; Patrol. 
 evii. 306), a work probably written about the 
 year 819 a.d., refers to the girdle as one of the 
 regular Christian vestments, and dwells on the 
 svmbolism of it at some length. A curious in- 
 junction, for which a curious reason is given, as 
 to the wearing of the girdle, is found in one of 
 the so-called Arabic canons of the council of 
 Nicaea, edited by Abraham Ecchelensis (can. 66 ; 
 Labbe ii. 335). According to this, the clergy 
 are forbidden to wear a girdle during divine 
 service. 
 
 In earlier times the girdle was often doubt¬ 
 lessly richly adorned: the reference we have 
 already given to its regal use is illustrative of 
 this, and we may further cite Chrysostom {Horn, 
 in Psal. 48; vol. v. 521), where, inveighing 
 
 against various articles of luxury in dre.«s, he 
 speaks of golden girdles. Apparently, too, this 
 state of things juevailed after the girdle became 
 a recognised eccle.siastical vestment, the exces¬ 
 sive ornamentation being, it would seem, viewed 
 as a secular element in the ecclesiastical dress. 
 Thus we find Durandus (ob. 1296 A.D.) speaking 
 of the clergy in the time of the emperor Louis 
 I., the son of Charlemagne, as laying aside 
 “ Cingula auro texta, exquisitas vestes, et alia 
 secularia ornamenta ” {Rata/nale Die. Off. iii. 1). 
 A further illustration of this is furnished by the 
 will of Riculfus, bishop of Helena (ob. 915 a.d ), 
 n which he bequeaths, among other precious 
 articles, “ zonas quinque, una cum auro et gem- 
 mis pretiosis, et alias quattuor cum auro ” {Patrol. 
 cxxxii. 468). 
 
 Later liturgical writers Houorius Augus- 
 todunensis {Gemma Aninuie, i. 206 ; Patrol. 
 clxxii. 606), Innocent iii. {de Sacra Altaris mys- 
 terio, i. 52 ; Patrol, ccxvii. 793), and Durandus 
 {Rat. Div. Ojff. iii. 4)] speak further of an under 
 girdle {subcingulum^ suhcinctorium., succincto- 
 rium), and generally as a vestment peculiar to 
 bishops. So in the ancient mass given bv 
 Menard {Greg. Sacr. col. 249) from the Cd. 
 Ratoldi, the bishop puts on both a cingulum and 
 a halteus, the former perhaps the unseen anc 
 simple primitive girdle, the latter the elaborate 
 ornament of later times. This subject, however, 
 falls beyond our limits; reference may be made 
 to Bona de Rebus Liturg. i. 24. 15. 
 
 A brief remark may' be made in passing as to 
 the special significance of the girdle in reference 
 to the bestowal or deprivation of office. Thus 
 Gregory the Great congratulates a friend “ ju-ae- 
 fecturae vos suscepisse cingula ” {EpVt. x. 37 ; 
 Patrol. Ixxvii. 1094). Atto, bishop of Ver- 
 cellae (ob. circa 960 a.d.), writing to one bishop 
 Azo, orders that a man who should contr;:ct a 
 marriage within the prohibited degrees “ t i:;_nli 
 sui patiatur amissionem ” {Epist. 5; P t‘r>.l. 
 cxxxiv. 107). Similar references are often 
 found in the Theodosian code, and elsewhere 
 (see e.g. Cod. Theodos. lib. viii. tit. i. 1. 11 ; lib. 
 X. tit. 26, 1. 1), in a way that often suggests the 
 belt of knighthood of later times. 
 
 For further references to the subject of the 
 girdle in its different aspects, see Ducange’s 
 Glossarium s. vv. ; Marriott’s Vestiarium Chris- 
 tianum, p. 213, etc. ; Hefele, Die liturgischen 
 Gewander, pp. 178 sqq.; Bock, Geschichte der 
 lituraischen Geudnder des Miiteldlters, ii. pp. 50 
 .sqq. [R. S.] 
 
 GLADIATORS. A passion for gladiatorial 
 combats had a strong hold upon the popular 
 mind of pagan Rome; and under the empire 
 magnificent amphitheatres were built for such 
 exhibitions, and others of an almost equally 
 barbarous nature, w'hich seem to have presented 
 a peculiarly fascinating attraction both to men 
 and women in those times. 
 
 Augustine mentions a case in which even a 
 Christian, having been induced to be present at 
 one of these exhibitions, and having kept his eyes 
 closed for a time—on opening them, at a sudden 
 outcry which he heard, instead of being shocked 
 or disgusted at the sight, was hurried along with 
 the spirit of the assembled people—was over¬ 
 come with a wild and savage delight at beholding 
 the scene of bloodshed and death, and carried 
 
GLADIATOES 
 
 GLASS 
 
 729 
 
 away with him an inextinguishable desire to 
 witness the same spectacles again (August. 
 Conf. vi. 8 ). 
 
 Some pagan moralists expressed more or less 
 strongly their disap])robation of the gladiatorial 
 shows, as being inhuman and demoralizing 
 (Seneca, Ep. vii. and Pliny, Ep. iv. 22); but 
 they were too popular to be checked by such 
 remonstrances; and nothing effectual was done 
 to stop them until they were opposed and finally 
 suppressed by the intervention of Christian prin¬ 
 ciples and Christian heroism. 
 
 The church expressed its abhorrence of these 
 barbai'ous games as soon as it came in contact 
 with them, not only by discountenancing attend¬ 
 ance at them, but by refusing to admit gladiators 
 to Christian baptism (see Constit. Apostol, viii. 
 32). In this canon, charioteers, racers, and many 
 others, are included in the same condemnation; 
 probably because the public exhibitions in which 
 they took a part were more or less connected 
 with idolatry. And for the same reason such 
 persons, if they had already been received into 
 the church, were to be punished by excommuni¬ 
 cation {Concil. Are!at. i. 4). 
 
 The first imperial edict prohibiting the exhi¬ 
 bition of gladiators was issued by Constantine in 
 A.D. 325, just after the council of Nice had been 
 convened {Cod. Theod. xv. 12 , 1 ). Forty years 
 later Valentinian forbade that any Chi'istian 
 criminals should be condemned to fight as gladi¬ 
 ators; and in A.D. 367 he included in a similar 
 exemption those who had been in the imperial 
 service about the court (Palatini) {Cod. Theod. 
 ix. 40, 8 and 11). 
 
 Honorius, at the end of this century, ordered 
 that no slave, who had been a gladiator, should 
 be taken into the service of a senator ((7o(7. Theod. 
 XV. 12, 3). 
 
 All these edicts resulted from the operation of 
 Christian principles and feelings, and they show 
 the rise and growth of a more civilized opinion, 
 which these imperial utterances also helijed to 
 promote; but they produced little or no direct 
 effect in putting a stop to such exhibitions. 
 
 The decree of Constantine seems to have ap¬ 
 plied only to the province of Phoenicia—to the 
 pi-efect of which it was addressed; or, at any 
 rate, it very soon became a dead letter; for a 
 few years later Libanius alludes to gladiatorial 
 shows as still regularly exhibited in Syria 
 (Libanius, de vita sua, 3). And although they 
 ^were never seen in Constantinople — where a 
 passion for chariot races seems to have supplied 
 their place — yet at Rome and in the Western 
 empire they continued unrestricted, except by 
 some trifling regulations. Even Theodosius the 
 Great, though in some things very submissive to 
 church authorities, compelled his Sarmatian 
 prisoners to fight as gladiators; for which he 
 was applauded by Symmachus, as having imi¬ 
 tated approved examples of older times, and 
 having made those minister to the pleasure of 
 the people, who had previously been their dread 
 (Symmachus, Ep. x. 61). 
 
 Thus these sanguinary games held their place 
 among the popular amusements, and afforded 
 their savage gratification to the multitude until 
 their suppression was at last effected by the 
 courage and self-devotion of an individual 
 Christian. 
 
 In the yeai’ 404, while a show of gladiators 
 
 was being exhibited at Rome in honour of the 
 victories of Stilicho, an Asiatic monk named 
 Telemachus, who had come to Rome for the 
 purpose of endeavouring to stoj) this barbarous 
 practice, rushed into the amphitheatre, and 
 strove to separate the combatants. Tlie spec- 
 tatoi's—enraged at his attempt to dej)rive them 
 of their favourite amusement — stoned him to 
 death. But a deep impression was produced. 
 Telemachus was justly honoured as a martyr, 
 and the emperor Honorius—taking advantage of 
 the feeling which had been evoked—elfectually 
 put a stop to gladiatorial combats, which were 
 never exhibited again (Theodoret, H. E. v. 26). 
 
 [G. A. J.] 
 
 GLASS, (i.) Window glass. —The use of glass 
 in windows in Roman times was much more 
 common than was formerly supposed, and ex¬ 
 amples of such glass have been met with not 
 only in Pompeii, but in our own country in 
 various places. It was also used by Christians 
 in early times, though perhaps not very com¬ 
 monly, for the windows of their churches, and then 
 it was sometimes coloured. Thus Prudentius, 
 speaking of the Basilica of St. Paul, built by 
 Constantine, says : “ In the arched window ran 
 (panes of) wonderfully v'ariegated glass : it shone 
 like a meadow decked with s{)ring flowers.” “ 
 Glass, probably of the church destroyed A.D. 420, 
 has been lately found at Trfeves {Archaeol. xl. 194). 
 Venantius Fortuuatus {circa 560) thus speaks 
 (lib. ii. poem. 11) of the windows of the church 
 in Paris : 
 
 “ Prima capit radios vitreis oculata fenestris; 
 
 Ai tificisque manu clausit in arce diem." 
 
 From Gaul artists in glass were first introduced 
 into Britain (a.d. 676) by Benedict Biscop 
 for the church windows at Weremouth in Dur ¬ 
 ham, “ ad cancellandas ecclesiae porticuumque et 
 coenaculorum ejus fenestras ” (Bed. Vit. S. Bene¬ 
 dict. § 5). Other early examples nmy be seen 
 in Ducagge, s. v. Vitreae, and Bentham’s Bist. 
 and Antiq. of Ely, p. 21 (ed. 2). Pope Leo III. 
 {circa 79b) adorned the windows of the apse of 
 the basilica of the Lateran with glass of sevei-al 
 colours, “ ex vitro diversis coloribus ” (Anastasius 
 Vitae Pordiff. p. 208, C. ed. Murat.); and this, 
 as some think, “ is the earliest instance of the 
 kind that can be cited with confidence” (Winston, 
 Anc. Glass Paint., }).’2 ; Fleury, H. E. xlvi. 20). 
 
 Painted glass belongs apparently to an age 
 a little later than the present work embraces. 
 “ It is a fact,” says M. Labarte, “ acknowledged 
 by all archaeologists, that we do not now know 
 any painted glass to which can be assigned with 
 certainty an earlier date than that of the 11th 
 century ” {Handbook, p. 69). The invention 
 itself, however, may perhaps have been somewhat 
 earlier.® 
 
 “ “ Turn camuros liyalo Inslgni varle cucurrit arcus. 
 
 Sic prata vernis florlbus renident.” 
 
 I'erisUph. xii. 53, 54. 
 
 The above interpretation, which is substantially that of 
 Emeric David and Labarte, seems much preferable to that 
 which makes hijalo mean mosaics (Labarte, Handbook of 
 Arts of Middle Ages, c. ii. p. 66, ICngl. trans.). 
 
 b Two examples only, Ixjlonging lo this century, are 
 figured by M. l.aisteyrie in his great work, Ilistoire de la 
 Ptinture. sur Vert e. 
 
 c 'I'he art is described with many details by the monk 
 Theophilus, whose age is unfortunately uncertain. Lessing 
 
730 
 
 GLASS 
 
 GLASS 
 
 (ii.) Glass vessels. —These were used by the 
 Christians as well as by the heathen for inter¬ 
 ment with the dead, and the so-called lacryma- 
 tories, which are really ungtient bottles, hav^e been 
 found in the catacombs of Home (Seroux d’Agin- 
 court, /list, de VArt 'par ses Monum. t. viii. f. 21, 
 “Sculpture”), and elsewhere, as Todi, Villeja, 
 and Sardinia: the vessels are of various kinds, 
 and are sometimes ornamented with letters and 
 sometimes with palm-branches (De Rossi, Bull. 
 Arch. Crist. 1864, p. 89). Ferret figures a long 
 drinking-glas.s, copied here, ornamented with 
 palms (incised), from the catacombs; at the 
 bottom is some red substance: see below. The 
 Slade Collection, recently acquired by the British 
 Museum, contains a vessel of the same general 
 form, of white glass, found at Cologne, probably 
 of the 4th or 5th century, with incised figures 
 of Adam and Eve, and of Moses striking the rock. 
 
 The Sloane Collection in the same museum has 
 a plain glass beaker from the catacombs em¬ 
 bedded in the original plaster: likewise a glass 
 ampulla marked with a cross and on each side, 
 also from the catacombs. At the bottom of some 
 of the.se small vessels has been found a dark 
 crust, and it has been made a question whether 
 this is the sediment of the blood of the martyr 
 buried there or of some other substance. There 
 are even some vessels inscribed SANGVIS, or 
 SANG, or SA (Aringhi, Rom. Suht. t. i. p. 499); 
 but De Rossi, Garrucci, and Martigny (^Dict. 
 p. 592 q. V.) are agreed that they are forgeries. 
 These, however, do not necessarily prove that 
 the substance found in genuine glass vessels is 
 never in any case blood ; and according to Mar¬ 
 tigny, the chemical researches of Broglia in 1845, 
 
 gupposed that he wrote in the 9th century; if this were 
 BO, the invention may have been before 800; but it is 
 now generally admitted tliat his age must be later; La- 
 barte thinks that he probably lived in the 12th century. 
 His Diversarum artium Scfiedula does not speak of the 
 art of glass as being a new invention, See Labarte u. s. 
 pp. 4S--51, 
 
 and others, have shewn that at the bottom of 
 glass veo.sels found in Christian tombs at Milan 
 blood is still to be recognised. Without im¬ 
 pugning the honesty or the correctness of these 
 researches, although as regards the latter it 
 would be satisfactory if some confirmatory 
 evidence should be discovered, it is allowable to 
 suppose that the usual unguents (or perhaps 
 wine) may have been contained in other of these 
 vessels. The early Christians al.so employed 
 glass as one of the materials for chalices.** See 
 Chalice. Their most remarkable gla.ss ve.ssel.s, 
 however, are those which have figures in gold leaf 
 inside their flat bases; and these have hitherto 
 been found almost e.\clusively in the Roman 
 catacombs, and are generally considered to have 
 been made in Rome alone. Of these some (about 
 thirty) are in the British Mu.seum, a smaller 
 number in Paris, a few others in various Italian 
 museums and in private continental and English 
 collections, more particularly that of Mr. Wil- 
 shere; from which last the South Kensington 
 Loan Court, and the Leeds Art Exhibition in 
 1868, having been largely enriched, these curievs 
 relics have become tolerably familiar to many of 
 our countrymen. It i.s, however, in the Kirche- 
 rian Museum and in that of the Propaganda, and 
 above all, in the Vatican at Rome, that the 
 greatest number are preserved. From these 
 vaiious sources, and from the works of Aringhi, 
 Buonarotti, Boldetti, &c.. Padre Garrucci drew 
 up his great work on the subject, entitled \etri 
 ornati di figure in oro, fol. with 42 plate.s, com¬ 
 prising figures of about 320 specimens,^ many, 
 however, being quite fragmentary and of little 
 value. The first edition appeared in Rome in 
 1858, the second (much enlarged) in 1864. As 
 nearly all that is known,of them is contained in 
 this one work, which has been also used in illus¬ 
 tration of various articles in this Dictionary, 
 a somewhat slight notice may suffice for this 
 place. The greater part of these glasses are 
 manifestly the bottoms of drinking cups (the 
 inscriptions on many of them implying as much), 
 some few have been plates. “ Their peculiarity,” 
 say Messrs. Northcote and Brownlow, “ consists 
 in a design having been executed in gold leaf on 
 the flat bottom of the cup, in such a manner as 
 that the figures and letters should be seen from 
 the inside. . . . The gold leaf was protected by a 
 plate of glass which was welded by fire, so as to 
 form one solid mass with the cup. These cups, 
 like the other articles found in the catacombs, 
 were stuck into the still soft cement of the 
 newly closed gi’ave ; and the double glass bottom 
 imbedded in the jdaster has resisted the action 
 of time, while the thinner portion of the cup, 
 exposed to accident and decay by standing out 
 from the plaster, has in almost every instance 
 perished. Boldetti informs us that he found two 
 or three cups entire, and his representation of 
 one of them is given in Padre Garrucci’s work, 
 t. xxxix. 7%?'’” {Roma Sotterranea, p. 276). 
 
 d The far-famed Sacro C.itino of Genoa, taken by the 
 Crusaders at Caesarea in 1101, made of glass (not, as for¬ 
 merly supposed, of a single emerald) has been fabled to be 
 the dish used at the Saviour’s Last Supper; but although 
 it is undoubtedly very ancient, it-> history is quite un¬ 
 known. Some account of it is ftivni in Murray’s Hand¬ 
 book of ^'ortheni Italy, under “ Genoa.” 
 
 e About twenty others arc described only; the genuine 
 neps of some of them is suspected. 
 
GLASS 
 
 The cup. whose figure is referred to, is a species 
 ol’cylix, \vitli two small hiindles (their l>ases being 
 recurved) at the sides, without a stem : upon its 
 flat bottom are two three-quarter-length figures 
 in a medallion, inscrilied PETRV^S, PAVLVS, 
 the two apostles who, above all persons, are 
 by far the most freciuently represented in the 
 glass of the catacombs. Garrucci figures a frag¬ 
 ment of another vessel with channelled ribs, 
 which must have been nearly of the shape of our 
 tumblers (t. xx.xviii. f. 9, b). He thinks that 
 others must have been in the form of a half-egg 
 {Pref. p. vii.). Many of the medallions found in 
 the catacombs are of very small size, little more 
 than an inch in diameter; these were long sup¬ 
 posed to be centres of the bottoms of small 
 drinking-cups, but the discovery in 1864 and 
 1866 of two flat gilded glass plates at Cologne 
 (both broken) has revealed their real character. 
 
 On one of these plates, found near the church of 
 St. Severinus.Libout 10 inches in diameter, made 
 of clear glass, were “ inserted, while in a state 
 of fusion, a number of small medallions of green 
 glass exactly similar to those found in Rome, 
 and which together form a series of scriptural 
 subjects.*: These medallions being of double glass 
 
 f “The patcna found near the church of St. Ursula 
 differs from the other discovered two years before, in 
 having the subj ct-; depicted in gold and colours on the 
 surface of the glass in>t( ad of being within medallions of 
 double jjlass. The drawing Is aLso of a better style of 
 art. It is now in the Slade Collection’’(Brownlow and 
 Northcote, u.s. pp. 277 294 ; figured in Catalogue of Slade 
 Collection, p. 50) The subjects represented on this glass 
 arc Moses at the Red Sea, Jonah, Daniel in the lions’ den. 
 the three children in the fiery furnace, the sacriQce of 
 Isaac, the Nativity, and the healing of the man sick of 
 the palsy. 
 
 g A figure of the two fragments of this plate is given 
 by Messrs. BrownU w and Northcote, u.s. p. 290. They 
 
 . GLASS 731 
 
 h.avc resisted the r.avages of time .and .accidents, 
 which have destroyed the more thin and fragile 
 glass of the patcna. De Rossi has seen in the 
 jrlaster of loculi in the catacombs the impression 
 of large plates of this descrijition, which have 
 probably perished in the attemjit to detach them 
 from the cement” (Brownlow and Northcote, 
 u. s. p. 291). 
 
 The cups, whose bottoms (or parts of them) 
 now remain, were of various dimensions ; the 
 largest hitherto found have medallions of about 
 five inches in diameter, others are about half 
 that size: around the painted juirt there was a 
 margin of plain glass. Sometimes, but very 
 rarely as it would seem, the .side of the cup as 
 well as the bottom was ornamented with figures 
 in gold leaf. Garrucci figures one fragment of 
 such a side which is preserved in the Kircherian 
 Museum ** (t. xxxix. f. 9). The figures on the 
 gold leaf were rendered more distinct by edging 
 the outlines and other parts with dark lines; 
 and other colours as green, white, and red of 
 various tints were sparingly introduced : also 
 on the outside of the glass bottoms various 
 colours are found, especially azure, also green, 
 violet, indigo, and crimson (Garrucci, Pref. 
 p. vii.).i 
 
 The subjects represented on these glasses may 
 now be considered. A few of them are taken 
 from the cl.assical mythology or rejiresent secu¬ 
 lar subjects, whether games or trades, and these 
 may probably not have been the works of Chris¬ 
 tian artists .at all.*‘ It is indeed an unexplained 
 
 contain twenty medallions. Eight of these have only 
 a star in the centre. Three others appear to have the 
 three children in the Babylouian furnace, one figure in, 
 each medallion. Four others have the history of Jonah 
 in as many parts;—in the ship; under the gourd; swal¬ 
 lowed by the whale; and vomited out by the same. 
 Another gives Adam and Eve, the serpent round the tree 
 being between them. The interpretation of the others is 
 less certain. One has a figure holding a rod, w hich is 
 supposed to be the Saviour ; probably another medallion 
 contained Lazarus. It is in the possession of Mr. I’epys of 
 Cologne. See De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Crist. 1864, pp. 89-91 „ 
 and a beautiful figure in gold and colour. 
 
 h He observes : “ b I’unico esempio di figura dipinta in- 
 torno al corpo di una tazza e non sul fondo... .Ihippre- 
 senta poi I’estremo lembo di un p.illio orlato di una 
 striscia di porpora, e notato ancora del segno I in color di 
 porpora ” p. 82. 
 
 i The figures in Garrucci’s work are uncoloured, at least 
 no coloured copy has been seen by the w riier. in Messrs. 
 Brownlow and Northcote’s w. rk, so often laid under 
 contribution, are two beautiful plates (.wii. and xviii.) 
 shewing the pale bluish colour of the glass and the pen¬ 
 cilling of the gold leaf with deep green, ^lartigny gives 
 examples of the use of colour in the follow ing specimens, 
 figured by Perret, vol. iv. Purple in bands on the dra¬ 
 pery (pi. xxxiii. 114) : green in the sea-waves (xxix. 76): 
 flesh-colour in the face of the Saviour (xxxiii. 102). 
 Silver is occasionally used for white garments and the 
 bandages of a corpse (Lazarus), in other cases we have 
 gold or silver figures on an azure ground {l)kt. p. 279). 
 
 ^ Garrucci aud Wiseman consider this art to have been 
 exercised by tin* Christians a'one; Imt this is both^Wmd 
 facie improbable and does not very well acc. rd with the 
 existence of pagan types on some spi ciinens " such as no 
 Christian artist of the early ag s would ever have thought 
 of depiiting,” being w holly incapable of any Christian 
 adaptation. S^e Brownlow and Northcot", u.s. p. 278. 
 It must be confess d, however, thatG irriicci (pref. p. xiv.) 
 is able to refer to a silver casket hearing Christian em¬ 
 blems and also a triton and a nereid; as w 1 11 as to -Sidoniue 
 
GLA;^S . 
 
 GLASS 
 
 7r>2 
 
 ditliculty how such glasses as represent Hercules, 
 Minerva, Serapis, and the like shouM have been 
 found in Christian catacombs at all ; if indeed it 
 be cerlain that they were found there.* It is 
 beside the present purpose to say more of these."’ 
 The greater j)art of the designs, however, are 
 connected with the Jewish or Christian religion; 
 and, as has been already seen in part, subjects 
 from the Old and New 'J'estaments are sometimes 
 grouped together on the sanie glass. A descrip¬ 
 tion of two perfect bottoms of cups, forming in 
 each case a circular medallion, will show the 
 mode of treatment. 
 
 (1) A bust draped in the centre, enclosed in a 
 circle with legend ZKShS (Am.' / i.e. enjoi/ life!). 
 Around, without distinction into compartments, 
 but with leaves and pellets interspersed, are: 
 Jesus turning the water into wine; Tobit and 
 the fish ; Jesus ordering the man sick of the 
 palsy to carrv his bed ; Jesus present with the 
 Three Children in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace 
 (Garrucci, t. i. f. 1). 
 
 (2) Two busts (a man and his wife ?) draped 
 in the centre, enclosed in a circle as before, with 
 
 Group of Scriptural subjects on bottom of a glass vcscol, 
 (Garrucci.) 
 
 legend PIE ZESES {Drink! live!). Around, in 
 the same style as before, are the following sub-_ 
 
 Apollinaris and Ennodius for examples of the same kind 
 of thing: yet without dwelling on the fact that the mo¬ 
 nument no less than the authors very possibly belongs to 
 a period when paganism had no longer any vigorous life 
 (Visconti, Opere \'arie, t. 1, p. 212, thinks it is of the 
 fourth or fifth century, the latter, to judge from the 
 monument itself, which now reposes in the British 
 Museum, seems at h-ast as probable as the former), and 
 might therefore, as now, afford subjects for Christian 
 artists, yet the paganism on these glasses is more seriously 
 pronounced: e.p. t. XXXV. 1, “ In nomine llerculis Acher- 
 omini (wrongly written Acerontino) . , . felices bibatis.” 
 See also t. xxxvr 8. 
 
 I Mes^rs, Brownlow and Northcote observe' of the 
 Vatican Collection of Christian Antiquities, that but very 
 rarely has any account of the locality in which they have 
 been discovered been preserved. It is to be suspected 
 that some glasses with pagan subjects are from unknown 
 localities, ami have been assumed to come from Christian 
 catacombs where so many works of this fabric have been 
 discovered. 
 
 “ They are figured in Garrucci, t. xxxiii.-xxxvi., and 
 are briefly noticed in Brownlow and Northcote, u. s. 
 p. 279. 
 
 jects: Christ foretelling redemption to Adam 
 and Eve ; the sacrifice of I.saac; Moses striking 
 the rock ; Jesus telling the sick man to carry his 
 bed ; Jesus raising Lazarus (id t. i. f. 3). 
 
 More usually, however, a single subject occu¬ 
 pies the bottom of the glass. Thus we have on 
 one (t. vi. f. 1) Christ as the Good Shepherd bcar- 
 
 The GcxmI Shepnera. (Garrucci.) 
 
 ing a lamb on his shoulders, with a sheep and tree 
 on each side, all enclosed in a circle ; and the 
 Greek legend enclosed in another circle outside, 
 POY4>E niE ZHCAIC META TwN CcuN 
 nANTcoN BOIT (for BIOT ?), i.e. Drink, Fufus, 
 may you enjoy life with all yours! long life to 
 you! On another glass (t. vi. f. 9) occurs the 
 same subject treated a little differently, with 
 the nearly equivalent Latin legend: Dignitas 
 AM i(X>RVM VIVAS CVM TVis FELiciTER, i.e. Here’s 
 to our worthy friends ! may you live hapjyily with 
 all yours ! Diynitas ainicorum, a frequently re¬ 
 curring acclamation on these glasses, is thought 
 to be equivalent to diqni amici, the form in 
 
 Christ turning Water into Wine. (Garrucci.) 
 
 which a Roman host drank his friends health. 
 On another (t. vi. f. 7), bearing the same subject 
 enclosed in a square, we have the legend: Bibas 
 (doubtless for vivas) IN PACE Dei concordi, a 
 double border of dentels being enclosed in another 
 outside square. On another, Christ is repre¬ 
 sented at full length in the midst of seven water* 
 
GLASS 
 
 GLASS 
 
 733 
 
 pots (for the six of the Gospel are invariably 
 changed into seven, probably from a symbolical 
 feeling, and with a secret reference to the 
 eucharist), surrounded by the legend Dignitas 
 AMICORUM VIVAS IM (sic) PACE DkI ZkSES : 
 where vivas may either be taken for b^as, or 
 (which seems better) zeses may be regarded as 
 a superfluous repetition o( vivas (t. vii. f. 2). 
 
 It will now probably be thought sufficient to 
 indicate briefly the subjects from the Old Testa¬ 
 ment including the Apocrypha and from the 
 New, w’hich can be recognised with certainty or 
 probability upon these glasses, excluding those 
 on the Cologne fragments. They are all con¬ 
 tained in the first eight plates of Garrucci’s 
 work, but are here set down nearly in their 
 Biblical order. Adam and Eve; Noah in the 
 Ark; Sacrifice of Isaac; Joseph in the pit (?); 
 Moses striking the rock ; Moses lifting up the 
 brazen serpent- (?); the candlestick and other 
 instruments of Mo-saic worship; the Spies bear¬ 
 ing the grapes of Canaan ; Joshua commanding 
 the Sun to stand still (?); Jonah’s history (in 
 several parts); the Three Children in Nebu¬ 
 chadnezzar’s furnace; Daniel and the lions; 
 Daniel destroying the Dragon; Susannah and 
 the Elders (?); Tobit and the Fish. 
 
 The Wise Men offering gifts (?) ; Christ turn¬ 
 ing water into wine ; Christ healing the sick of 
 the palsy; Christ multiplying the seven loaves; 
 Christ raising Lazarus; Christ as the Good 
 Shepherd. 
 
 The chrisma or monogram of Christ is also of 
 frequent occurrence, sometimes in connection 
 with Saints, sometimes interposed between a 
 husband and wife, sometimes between a and w 
 (taw, i. vii. xi. xiv. xvii. xx. xxv. xxag. xxix. 
 xxxix.). 
 
 The only representation of the Crucifixion 
 (t. xl. 1) is considered to be false. 
 
 “The Blessed Virgin is represented sometimes 
 alone, with her name (MARIA) over her head, 
 praying between two olive-trees, sometimes with 
 the apostles Peter and Paul on either side of her ; 
 sometimes accompanied by the virgin martyr 
 St. Agnes” (Brownlow and Northcote, u. s. 
 p. 280). The apostles most frequently repre¬ 
 sented (on more than seventy glasses) are St. 
 Peter and St. Paul, their names being added; 
 sometimes singly, more often conjointly. “ The 
 two apostles are represented side by side, some¬ 
 times standing, sometimes seated. In .some in¬ 
 stances Christ is represented in the air .... 
 holding over the head of each a crown of vic¬ 
 tory ; or in other instances a single crown is 
 suspended between the two, as if to show that 
 in their death they were not divided. This 
 crown becomes .sometimes a circle surrounding 
 the labarum or chrisma, which is often sup¬ 
 ported on a pillar, thus symbolising ‘ the pillar 
 and ground of the truth ’ ” (Brownlow and 
 Northcote, u. s. p. 285)." We have also single 
 
 “ These learned writers try to persuade themselves 
 that these glasses gi\e us real portraits of the apostles, 
 “excepting a few wliich are of very inferior execution.” 
 Thej’ rely principally on their resemblance to a bronze 
 medal said to have lieen found in the cemetery of Domi- 
 tilla, now in the Vatican, of which they give a beautiful 
 figure (pi. xvii), and which they say " has every appear¬ 
 ance of having been executed in the liine of the Flavian 
 emperors, when Grecian art still flonrishetl in Home.” 
 De Kossi, who also figures this medal (^Bull. Arch. Crist. 
 
 exam|)les of the names of John, Thomas, Philip, 
 and Jude, most probably the apostles; and two 
 or three other names which occur in the New 
 Testament, are also found : Lucas. Silvanus, Timo- 
 theus, Stephen (written Istephanus); these are 
 probably the same persons whose names are men¬ 
 tioned in the New Testament. (For the gla.sses 
 on which these names occur, see Garrucci’s Index, 
 p. 109.) 
 
 There are, besides the persons mentioned in 
 Scripture, a good many others which are of note 
 in ecclesiastical history. St. Agnes occurs more 
 than a dozen times, St. Laurence seven times, 
 and St. Hippolytus four times; the following 
 among others occur less frequently, St. Cal- 
 listus, St. Cyprian, and St. Marcellinus, the last 
 of whom was martyred under Diocletian, a.d. 304 
 (see Garrucci’s Index, as above). Besides these, 
 many other proper names, probably of the pos¬ 
 sessors, occur either along with their miniatures 
 or without them (see Garrucci’s Index, as before). 
 There is nothing which deserves to be called a real 
 portrait in any of these representations, which 
 are mostly, perhaps all, executed in the debased 
 style of the 4th century ; and as the saints have 
 no emblems attached their figures have but little 
 interest. We have also on these glasses scenes 
 of domestic Christian life—married life, and 
 family life. The occurrence of the chrisma 
 makes their Christian character certain: where 
 this or the name of Christ or God does not occur, 
 it is rash to say anything definite (Garrucci, 
 tavv. xxvi.-xxxix.). 
 
 A few more words may suffice for the inscrip¬ 
 tions. The acclamations, of which several speci¬ 
 mens have been given, are mostly of a convivial 
 character, and either in Greek (rarely), or in 
 Latin (most usually), or in a mixture of the 
 two (not unfrequently): ° none of them at all 
 favour the supposition that they were used as 
 chalices. Other acclamations, as Vivatisin Deo; 
 and Martvra Epectete vivatis, express good 
 wishes to the married couple {id. t. xxvi. 11, 12). 
 On a x'ery few of the gla.sses we have, as it ap¬ 
 pears, invocations of saints or legends which 
 acknowledge their ])atronage. Thus a broken 
 fragment has PETR VS PROTEG.; whether any 
 letters followed, it is impossible to say: the 
 word may either be protegit or protegat or even 
 protege {id. t. x. f. 1). Another fine but meagre 
 fragment exhibits the Saviour (apparently) with 
 the chrisma and the a and w, bearing a Latin 
 cross with legend, ,. .. ane (iSa/rfanc, or some 
 other proper name) vivas I^r Cr[isto et] Lav- 
 rentio( 2 J. t. XX. f. 1) Another ('/. s. f. 2), which 
 is also broken, but slightly, has ViTO (or perhaps 
 Victor) [viv]as IN nomine Lavreti (for Zuw- 
 renti). The inscrijjtion PETRVS, written in two 
 instances against Moses striking the rock {id. t. x. 
 
 Nov. 1861), tliinks it Is of the second or third centurj-. 
 Notwiihstanding these high but somewhat discordant 
 authorities, the writer ventures to express his own strong 
 suspicion that the style of th'* medal bespeaks the age of 
 the Ilf-ndis.sance: it is most probably of the 15th century 
 or thereabouts. 
 
 o We give here two or three of this mixed character; 
 CV.M TVIS FKLICITKB ZKSHa (Garr. t. xii. 1); DltiXITAS 
 ASIICOKVM riE ZIBES CVM TVIS OMMBVS lilBE KT PBO- 
 riNA (t. xii. 2). (Both the above glasses have figures of 
 Peter and Paul, with their names added.) On the same 
 plate are other examples of bilingu.il reiiundancy: such 
 as— Vivas i*ie ZKSts, viva.s cvm tvis zkses. 
 
 
734 
 
 GLASS 
 
 GLASS 
 
 f. 9; Brownlow and Northcote, w. s. pi. xvii. 2, 
 and p. 287), i.s also of some theological import¬ 
 ance as indicating tliat Peter was then looked 
 upon as the Moses of the new Israel of God, as 
 Prudentius speaks. The honour, however, ap¬ 
 pears to be divided between Peter and Paul on 
 another glass, unfortunately mutilated. Christ 
 stands on a hill between Peter and Paul. Above 
 is the common ' legend PIE Z[ESES] : below are 
 the words IKRVSALE . lORDANES . BECLE 
 (for Bethlehem. C- 0 ?). Peter is here the apostle 
 of the Jew.s, Paul of the Gentiles, who first wor- 
 .'hipped the Saviour at Bethlehem. Below are 
 sheep adoring the Lamb on a hill between them, 
 symbolising both churches (Garrucci, t. f. 8.) 
 
 The orthography of the legends is sometimes 
 barbarous.? Thus Jesus is written ZESVX 
 (viii. 5); Zesvs (vii. 17), &c. Christvs is 
 spelt Cristvs (viii. 5, .xii. 1, &c.); Timothevs 
 becomes Timoteys (xvii. 2); Hippolytvs, Epo- 
 LITVS (xix. 7), or Ippoltvs (xxv. 5); Cypriaxvs, 
 Cripranvs (xx. 6); SvciNVS, Tzvcixvs (xxviii. 
 6); Severe, Sebere (xxix. 5); Philippvs, 
 Filpvs (xxv. 6). We have also Bibas for Vivas 
 (vi. 7); ViBATis for ViVATiS (xxix. 4); Im pace 
 for In Pace (vii. 2, xv. 3); PIE for niE 
 
 (i. 3, kc.) ; PiEZ for TTipj (xxvi. 10). There are 
 a few other instances of similar orthographic 
 changes, to say nothing of such blunders as 
 Digntias for Dignitas, and Critsvs for Cristvs 
 (^Christus) (Garr. p. 53). 
 
 The dates of these works are defined to some ex¬ 
 tent by their subjects. On one of them (xxxiii. 5) 
 a heap of money is depicted, among which we re¬ 
 cognise the coins of Caracalla and one of the Faus¬ 
 tinas. On another, as has been said, occurs the 
 name of Marcellinus, probably the bishop of 
 Rome, martyred a.d. 304.* *! The martyrdom of 
 St. Agnes, who is so often represented, probably 
 took place about the same time. The appear¬ 
 ance of the dress, arrangement of the hair, and 
 of the general art and orthography induces Gar¬ 
 rucci (/Vc/. p. ix.) to consider them all anterior 
 to Theodosius (a.d. 380). De Rossi attempts a 
 
 P Garrucci lays stress on this orthography for fi.xing 
 the date: “ questa nianiera di scrittiira coA costante rin- 
 via al secolo quarto"’ (prcf. p. i.\.). He appears to con¬ 
 sider that these glasses all bek ng to that century. 
 
 *1 The martyrdoms ot Vincentius and of Genesins, 
 whose names similarly occur, also tovk place under Dio¬ 
 cletian (Garrucci, pref. pp. viii. ix.). 
 
 more precise limitation, and thinks that thev 
 range from the middle of the 3rd to the be¬ 
 ginning of the 4th century (Brownl.)w and 
 Northcote, u. s. p. 279). We shall probably be not 
 far wrong in saying that few or none of them are 
 much earlier or later than the 4th century.'' The 
 art of the coins of that century, as well as of the 
 MS. illuminations which are assigned to about 
 the same age. strongly remind us of these glasses, 
 more especially of those on which the chrisma 
 is dei)icted.® The execution of some glasses is 
 indeed better than that of others, and occasion¬ 
 ally reaches considerable excellence ; but to speak 
 generally, they belong to a period m which taste 
 and vigour and correctness of drawing have sen¬ 
 sibly declined. They po.s.sess, however, apart from 
 their main subjects, much interest as showing the 
 styles of borders and other ornamentations then 
 prevalent, besides giving costume and a variety 
 of domestic objects.* 
 
 With regal’d to the uses of these glasses a con¬ 
 sideration of the types, coupled with the inscrip¬ 
 tions, will lead us to secure conclusions. Eve.n 
 if it were well established “ that in Tertullian’s 
 
 >■ Mr. Marriott {Testim. of the Catacombs, p. 16), after 
 observing that “ these gla.sses, with few exceptions, belong 
 to a period of very degraded art, ’ couAders that “ there 
 are very strong reasons of a technical kind, in reference to 
 the use of the nimbus, for assigning many of them to the 
 5th, if not to the 6lh century.” Hut if these glasses were 
 found in the catacombs, it is hardly possible to place any 
 of them later than the first quaner of the 5th century: 
 after the year 410 no inscriptions occur in the catacombs, 
 and they have become rarer and rarer from the b ginning 
 of the last quarter of the 4th century. See Jnsckiitioxs. 
 It is true that “ Popes Syinmachus Vigilius and John III. 
 did their best to repair the damage which had been done 
 in the catacombs by the Lombards and others” in re¬ 
 storing the inscriptions of Pope Dair.asus, but they would 
 scarcely have replaced the glass vessels which had bee-n 
 stuck into the cement which closed the graves. See 
 Brownlow and Northcote, u.s. p. 170. 
 
 * The chrisma with the a and tu (xxxix. 1) is identicril 
 in treatment with the same types up<jn the coins of Cou- 
 stantius II., Magnentius, and Decentius. And thi-i mono¬ 
 gram, whenever it occurs, with scarcely an exc ption (see, 
 however, xvii. 7, where the general style and art differ 
 also), is of the same form that is usual on the coins 
 of the fourth ceuturj': another form is said to 
 
 occur on a coin of Licinius jun. (Garrucci, Xurnism. Con¬ 
 stantin. p. 102; appendix to his Vetri Omati) . 
 
 » Martigny observes that those of the best work (in¬ 
 stancing the Good Shrplierd, Garr. vii. 1, rei'roduced here, 
 which is perbapj the best executed of all and the oldest) 
 have Greek legends, being probably the work of Greek 
 artists (Diet. p. 279). 
 
 “ Is it altogether certain that calices are chUices for 
 the communion? St. Ambrose sp>eaks of those “qui 
 calices ad sepulcra martyrum deferunt atque illic in 
 vespei'am bibunt ” (De obtest, et sacr. pUont.). If not, it 
 may then well be that Tcrtullian is alluding to some 
 such glasses as these: but scarcely any which remain to 
 us can be so early as a.u. 200. Chrysostom (l/oniil. in 
 S. Mdel.) says that the portrait of .Meletius was de¬ 
 picted ev eKTTu>aa<TL <cal (fuoAais; such vessels may pos¬ 
 sibly have been similar to those of which we have speci¬ 
 mens; if so, the art will pro^iably be Asiatic as well as 
 European. We have indeed a bt)ttom of a small glass 
 vessel which simply reads Mf.liti (for .Meleti prolvxbly) 
 DVLCis AXiMA (xx.xviii. 4): j'et this can hardly be the 
 same person; it may be a present from a parent to a 
 child, or the like. The remark of Cardinal Wiseman 
 appears to be well founded, that “ not a single author, 
 Certainly not a single profane author, mentions the 
 
GLASS 
 
 GLASS 
 
 735 
 
 time the Good Shepherd was depicted on chalices, 
 possibly r/fess chalices (“ jiroceilant ipsae picturae 
 calicuni vestrorum, si vel in ill is perlucebit inter- 
 pretatio,” Dc pudicit. c. 7 ; see also c. 10), there 
 is certainly nothing in these glasses bearing that 
 type or any other type, which would bear out 
 the conclusion that they were chalices tor the 
 communion.* They were at once sacred and con¬ 
 vivial, and must therefore have been used in 
 meetings which were both one and the other. 
 Such wei-e the aqapae such were the commemo¬ 
 rations of martyrs, such were Christian mar¬ 
 riages. On all such occasions, and perhaps others, 
 these glasses were used ; more especially, it may 
 be, in the commemorations of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul (so often represented thereon), which were 
 “ observed as a general holiday in Rome during 
 the fourth century, very much as Christmas now 
 is among ourselves ” (Brownlow and Northcote, 
 u. s. p. 28.'3). In a well-known passage of St. 
 Augustine (Confess, vi. 2), he mentions that his 
 mother Monica never took more than one cup 
 (pociltuin) to the commemoration of the various 
 martyrs—implying that some took more ; per¬ 
 haps bearing effigies of the particular martyrs to 
 be commemorated. 
 
 With regard to the plates, large fragments of 
 which have been found at Cologne and smaller 
 ones at Rome, as well as impressions in mortar 
 of entire plates at the latter place, the most 
 obvious and natural interpretation of them would 
 be that they were made use of in the same fe.s- 
 tivities as those in which the glass cups were 
 employed. Monica, at Milan, as her son informs 
 us, “brought to the commemorations of the 
 Saints, as was the custom in Africa, pulse and 
 bread and wine” (Confess, vi. 2). We may then 
 reasonably suppose that these plates were for the 
 purpose of holding the bread or other solid food 
 used in the same commemorations as those in 
 which wine was drunk. A different view, how¬ 
 ever, as was ))erhaps to be expected, is taken of 
 them by those who (like Messrs. Brownlow and 
 Northcote) think that “ it is quite possible that 
 some of our crfiisses mav be fracrments of chalices” 
 (u. s. p. 29.3). Anastasius in the Vitae Pontif. 
 s. V. Zephyrinus, says “that he made it a consti¬ 
 tution of tlie church, that ministers should carry 
 glass pa'ens (patenue vitreaf) into the cliurch in 
 front of the priests, while the bishop celebrated 
 mass with the jrriests standing before him, and 
 that in this manner . . . the ])riest should re¬ 
 ceive the bread to administer it to the people.” 
 ]\Ies.srs. Brownlow and Northcote, commenting on 
 this passage, say (u. s. p. 29ii) : “The fragments 
 of the two large patenae discovered at Cologne, 
 corres})ond exactly to the kind of glass here men¬ 
 tioned. The scriptural subjects and the absence 
 of any allusions to secular feasting ” there are no 
 inscriptions at all on these glasses “accord well 
 with so sacred a purj)Ose, and we may therefore 
 fairly presume that those other smaller glasses” 
 found in Rome, “ of which we have also spoken, 
 may also be remains of the patenae used to 
 
 e.xistenco of tliis art" {lecture, p. 7). 'I'he most that 
 can be said is that Tertnllian and Chiysostom may i)Os- 
 sibly allude to it. the ptissage quoted by Garrucci from 
 the monk Tlicophibis UHu. .Art. Sched. c. 13), who pio- 
 bably lived about the 12 h century, refers to a different 
 mode of decoration, as he bimsi If of sn ves (pref. p. vi.). 
 
 » As Boldettl and various otliers have thought. Their 
 arguments are discussed by Garrucci (pref. p^r. x.-xill.) 
 
 convey the Blessed Sacrament from the pope’s 
 altar to the pari.sh churches of Rome. Padre 
 Garrucci thinks this not im[>robable, although 
 he does not admit that any of our catacomb 
 glasses ever formed portions of eucharistic cha¬ 
 lices.” The reader must be left to form his own 
 opinion, but the subjects on the patenae being 
 much the same as those on the bottoms of the 
 cups, it seems to be by far the most probable 
 supposition, that the purpose of the plates and 
 of the cups was one and the same, whatever that 
 purpose was. (Garrucci, Vetri ornati di figure in 
 oro, Roma, 1858 and 1864 (ed. 2), fol. 42 plates: 
 the preface contains an account of the literature 
 of the subject, pp. xvii. xviii. and a discussion 
 of the date and use of these ve.ssels; De Rossi, 
 Bidl. Ai'ch. Crist, for 1864 and 1866; Brownlow 
 and Northcote, Roma Sotterranca., c. vii. 1869. 
 Wiseman (Card.), Lecture delivered in Dublin, 
 1858, published by M. Walsh, Dublin, 1859 ; cer¬ 
 tainly not revised by the Cardinal himself, but 
 giving a fair view of the subject in a short 
 space.) 
 
 (iii.) Glass pastes. — Another use of glass 
 among Christian as well as other artists was to 
 make imitations or copies of gems therein. A 
 few such have come down to our time.s. A paste 
 iu imitation of red jasper, published by Le Blunt, 
 which exhibits a Pastor Bonus of the usual type, 
 with the legend AOTAOC XPICTOT, may serve 
 as an example (Bbckh, C. T. G. n. 9093). Other 
 gem pastes in imitation of niccolo and garnet 
 exhibit varieties of the chrisma (British Museum, 
 Castellani Collection). Of more importance are 
 the following. A Nativity, in green glass, pub¬ 
 lished by Venuti (Acad, di Cortona, t. vii. p. 45), 
 and described and figured by Martigny (Diet. p. 
 431), which is ascribed to the 6th century ; it 
 is a semicircular plaqtie, bearing tne words H 
 FENNHCIC above, and a defaced legend below: 
 the Magi adore the Saviour, at whom an ox and 
 an ass are gazing: Mary is lying on a bed, and 
 Joseph is seated in meditation. The Vettori Mu¬ 
 seum, now in the Vatican, has a large oval plaque 
 of coloured glass (Vettori, Nurn. Aer. expl. p. 37 ; 
 Martigny, Diet. p. 431, with a figure), which 
 seems to be early medieval; it is also a Nativity : 
 the infant Saviour has a cruciform nimbus ; two 
 oxen look at him in the manger; Joseph and 
 Mary are seated near him; the moon and the 
 star of the Magi are in the field. (A cast sent 
 from Rome; the British Mu.seum has three other 
 examples cast from the same mould ; one is red, 
 in imitation of jasper; the others are of deep 
 colour.) See Nativitv. A large glass plaque 
 of the same general form, but less regular (IJ 
 by 2^ inches), now, it is believed, in the V^atican, 
 of uncertain date, represents a dead saint pros¬ 
 trate; in the centre a semiaureole resting upon 
 her, including the Virgin with cruciform nimbus 
 and Child without any nimbus, a glorified head 
 with circular nimbus (Joseph ?) near the Virgin’s 
 knees, li’; XG in field : outside the aureole on 
 both sides saints and angels (both with circular 
 nimbus) in the act of adoration : ])erhaps early 
 medieval. (A cast sent from Rome.) We have 
 also glass pastes nearly an inch in diameter 
 which are supposed to have been pendants for 
 necklaces, and are consiilered to go back to the 
 early Christian centuries: one in green glass 
 shews two Israelites contemplating the brasen 
 1 sei’pent; another, a red paste, has the Saviour 
 
736 
 
 GLEBE 
 
 GLORIA IN EXCELBIS 
 
 blessing the twelve apostles; a third, probably 
 Christian, has a frog, which was sometimes taken 
 as a svmbol of the Resurrection, being found on a 
 Christian lamp, accompanied by a cross and the 
 inscription, EFtu EIMI ANACTACIC (Chabou- 
 illet, nos. 3474, 3475, 3453). M. Le Blant has 
 a small oblong glass plaque, which he acquired 
 in Rome, which was once, he thinks, part of an an¬ 
 cient Christian necklace ; it bears 
 in golden characters the word 
 in two lines, enclosed in a paral¬ 
 lelogram and a crenulated outer 
 margin. He regards it as a 
 “ concise expression of the charity which should 
 unite all men ” (//isc. Chrec. de la Guide, vol. i. 
 p. 43, with a figure). The British l\Iuseum 
 and the French Collection contain various other 
 Christian works in this material, some of 
 which are more or less similar to those which 
 have been already described, or to the Byzantine 
 camei named under Gems ; but as they are of 
 uncertain date (perhaps none of them being 
 earlier than the 9th century^' while some may 
 probably be much later) they need hardly be 
 mentioned here. 
 
 (iv.) Mosaics. —Glass, in fine, was employed 
 from very early times in the construction of 
 mosaics. The cubes were sometimes coloured; 
 sometimes, in the ages of the Lower Empire, 
 underlaid with a ground of gold or silver leaf, 
 “ b)*^ this means shedding over the large works of 
 the artists in mosaic a splendour before un¬ 
 known ” (Labarte, u. s. p. 94). See Mosaics. 
 
 [C. B.] 
 
 GLEBE. The word Gleba is used for a farm 
 or estate in the Theodosian Codex (Leg. 72, De 
 Deciirion .); but the technical sense in which 
 it is used by English writers, to designate certain 
 lands belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, is 
 later than our period. See Endowment, Pro- 
 PERTV OF THE ChURCH. [C.] 
 
 GLORIA. [Nimbus.] 
 
 GLORIA IN EXCELSIS. There is con¬ 
 siderable difficulty in tracing out the history of 
 this hymn, because at one period both it and the 
 Sanctus were entitled indiscriminately Hymnus 
 Angelicus. In later years the latter is called 
 Uymnus Seraphicus; whilst the title Hymnus 
 Angelicus or Hymnus Angelorum is confined to 
 the former. The hymn is found in various 
 forms. 
 
 1. We have simply the words of St. Luke, ii. 
 14. This is of course the primitive form, every¬ 
 thing that has been added to it having been 
 composed,—as the 4th council of Toledo (a.d. 
 633, !Mansi, x. 623) reminds us,—by the 
 ecclesiastical doctors. For this reason the coun¬ 
 cil would not allow any expanded form to be 
 sung in the churches. In this short form the 
 words were recited by the priest, according to 
 the liturgy of St. James, when the priest 
 ‘‘ sealed ” the gifts. (Daniel, Codex Littcrgicus, 
 iv. 103.) The s.ame simple form may be seen 
 elsewhoi’e: and is continued to this day in the 
 
 y A tust of the Saviour (to be compared with the 
 earlier Byzantine coins) on a ciaular plaque of blue glass 
 (li inch in diameter) brought from Constantinople, now 
 in the Slado Coll'^etion: aud a paste polychr<jrae rosette, 
 inscribed BENEDICAT NOS 1J3 (Chabouillet, n. 3478) 
 may probably not be later than that century. 
 
 morning service of the Horolovv (p. 35, ed. 
 Venice, 1870). 
 
 2. The .seventh book of the Apostolic ConsGtu- 
 lions, c. 47, contains an enlarged form of the 
 hymn,—without any introduction in the oldest 
 manuscript; but two, of the 14th and 16th cen¬ 
 tury respectively, entitle the chapter “ Morning 
 Prayer.” (Lagarde, p. 229.) This version has u 
 peculiar reading: “ VV'^e worship Thee through 
 the great High Priest, Thee who art one God, un¬ 
 begotten, alone, inapproachable.” We read too 
 “ 0 Lord, only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and 
 Holy Spirit,” The hymn ends “Thou only art 
 holy. Thou only art Lord, Jesus Christ, to the 
 glory of God the Father. Amen.” 
 
 3. The treatise which is ascribed to Athana¬ 
 sius “ de Virginitate ” (Migne, xxviii. 251) is un¬ 
 doubtedly spurious, but it gives some insight 
 into the life of a Greek virgin, within our chro¬ 
 nological limits. In § 20 (Migne, ut sup. 275) 
 we read “ In the morning, say the Psalm 0 God, 
 my God, early will I seek Thee (Psalm Ixii.). 
 At dawn, the ‘Benedicite’ and Glory to God in 
 the Highest, and the rest.” This is the reading 
 of the Basle and English MSS. But others j»ro- 
 ceed with the first three clauses: “We hvmn 
 Thee, we bless Thee, we worshij) Thee, and the 
 rest.” As this dilference of the text maybe due 
 to a late interpolation, we are left in uncertainty 
 as to the words of the hymn when this treatise 
 was comj)oseJ. (Mr. Palmer, Orff/. Liturg.ii. 158 
 does not note the doubts regarding this passage.) 
 
 4. The famous Cod x Alexandrinus in the 
 British Museum, of the close of the 5th century, 
 puts some of our doubts at rest. This manu¬ 
 script, after the psalms, contains the thirteen 
 canticles of the Greek church: i. the song of 
 Moses in Exodus; ii. ditto in Deuteronomy; iii. 
 the prayer of Hannah ; iv. prayer of Lsaiah 
 (xxvi. 9-20): v. prayer of Jonah ; vi. of Habak- 
 kuk; vii. of Hezekiah (Isaiah, xxxviii.); viii. of 
 Manasseh ; ix, prayer of the three children 
 (€u\6yriTos, Daniel iii. 26) : x. hymn of the three 
 children (our Benedicite) entitled “ Hymn of our 
 fathers;” xi. pra)'er of Mary, the Mother of 
 God; xii. ofSymeon; xiii. ofZachariah (compare 
 Canticles). These conclude with the Gloria in 
 Excelsis in Greek, the hymn being entitled 
 vfjLVOs icvUipos. This •'•ersion has been often 
 printed, as by Usher, m his tract De symbolo 
 Romano: Bunsen, Analecta ante-Xicaena, iii. 86; 
 Dr. Campion, Tn'erleax ed Prayer Book. 1873, p. 
 321. It differs slightly from the version of the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, and proceeds with words 
 which distinctively mark it as a morning hymn, 
 some of which words have passed into our Te 
 
 ! Deum. It is thus found in the beautiful Zurich 
 psalter reprinted by Tischendorf in his Monu- 
 menta Sacra, and in other great psalters ; and, 
 in a form very nearly resembling this, it is used 
 m the Greek communion to this day (Horology, 
 ut sup. pp. 69, 70). 
 
 5. A Latin translation of this Greek version of 
 the “ Gloria in Excelsis,” adapted for evening 
 praver, is contained in the book of hymns of the 
 
 I ancient Irish church, which once belonged to 
 
 I Archbishop Usher, and which has been edited for 
 the Irish Archaeological and Celtic Society by 
 Dr. Todd (part ii. p. 179). In the famous Bangor 
 antiphonai'y discovered at Milan by Muratori, 
 and reprinted imperfectly by him in his 
 tom. iv. pp. 121, kc. (see Migne, tom. 72) wt 
 
 O M N 
 I B V S 
 
GLOEIA IN EXCELSIS 
 
 GOD THE FATHER 
 
 tmd at the very end “ ad vesperum et ad niatu- 
 tinum : Gloria in Excelsis Deo et in terra pax &c.” 
 but Muratori unhappih^ did not copy it out. 
 Thus we are ignorant of the text. However, the 
 hymn given by Thomasius (Psalterium cum 
 canticis, Rom. 1G97, p. 760, or Oper. tom. iii. p. 
 613) as the Ilymnus Anyelicus of the Ambrosian 
 breviary, is another and independent translation 
 of the Greek form of the hymn. It was directed 
 to be used daily at matins. 
 
 6. Thus it seems clear that when the well 
 known Latin form of the hymn was inserted in 
 the Latin psalters, it was used in the daily or 
 weekly hour services of the clergy. We have 
 additional evidence of this in the rule of Caesa- 
 rius, c. xxi. and in that of Aurelian. It is 
 there ordered to be used at matins on Sundays. 
 
 7. This Latin form Bunsen considered to have 
 been as old as Hilary of Poictiers, to whom 
 indeed Alcuin ascribed the additions to the scrip¬ 
 ture words. The Roman Catholic ritualists are 
 not satisfied with the testimony of Alcuin, and 
 seem to consider that the hymn in the modern 
 Latin form is of more recent origin. Yet it is 
 found in this form in a very interesting manu¬ 
 script in the British Museum—Royal 2 A xx.— 
 which is of the eighth century: in the famous 
 Codex Bobiensis, from which Mabillon extracted 
 the “ Sacramentarium Gallicanum ” (^Museum 
 Italicum, i. 273; Muratori, Liturg. Bom. Vet. ii. 
 776; or Migne, 72, p. 455): in the so-called 
 Mozarabic liturgy ascribed to St. Isidore (see 
 Migne, 8-5, p. 531) and in a form very slightly 
 different in the Gothic breviary (Migne, 86, p. 
 886). 
 
 8. The first introduction of the “ Gloria in 
 Excelsis ” into the Eucharistic service has been 
 ascribed to Telesphorus, but no confidence can be 
 placed in the tradition. The sacramentary of 
 Gregory directed that a bishop might use the 
 “ Gloria in Excelsis ” on all Sundays and festi¬ 
 vals : a presbyter only at Easter. This rule 
 continued long in the Roman church, and con¬ 
 stituted one point of difference between the 
 Roman and Gallican churches, in the latter of 
 which no such difference between bishop and 
 presbyter had been observed. Etherius and 
 Beatus shew that in Sj)ain they always sang it 
 on Sundays and festivals ; but they quote only 
 the scriptural words, and if we bear in mind the 
 decree of Toledo, we may suppose that only 
 these words were used (the Mozarabic liturgy 
 shews many marks of interpolations). In the 
 liturgies the hymn was generally sung at the 
 commencement of the service; but Mr. Palmer 
 notes that in the Gallican sacrameiitary (see 
 above) it was used amongst the thanksgivings 
 after communion. 
 
 9. The absence of the hymn from St. Ger- 
 manus’s account of the Gallican liturgy has been 
 noted. He says that the words at the end of the 
 gospel, “ Glory be to Thee 0 Lord,” were uttered 
 in imitation (.?) of the angels’ words “ Glory to 
 God in the highest ” (clamantibus clericis Gloria 
 tibi Domine in specie angelorum qui nascente 
 Domino Gloria in excelsis pastoribus apparenti- 
 bus cecinerunt. Migne, 72, p. 91). St. Herma¬ 
 nns died about the year 585 or 587. This 
 seems to give a superior limit to its introduction 
 into the eucharistic service. 
 
 10. It is worthy of notice that whilst the 
 Alexandrine manuscript has in the text of St. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 rrO "7 
 tot 
 
 Luke ei/SoKias (the reading of B* D) yet in 
 the morning hymn it as well as all the other 
 copies of the hymn read (vboKia. [C. A. S.] 
 
 GLORIA PATRI. [Doxology.] 
 
 GLOVES. (x^‘p(>^VKr] ’ Chirotheca, Gantus, 
 Gwantus., Vantus, Wanhis, Wanto.') It would 
 seem that gloves in the strict sense of the word 
 were unknown to the early Greeks and Romans. 
 (See on this point Ca.saubon’s Aniimidv. in Athe¬ 
 naeum, xii. 2.) That they were in use, how¬ 
 ever, among the ancient Persians apjiears from 
 Xenophon {Cyropaedia, viii. 8. 17). The Euro¬ 
 pean custom of wearing them seems to have 
 originated with the German nations, as the 
 Teutonic origin of the common Latin word for 
 them clearly shews: and although, as an eccle¬ 
 siastical vestment, properly so called, gloves do 
 not appear till the 12th century (the first extant 
 mention of them in that character being in 
 Honorius Augustodunensis, ob. circa 1152 a.d.), 
 they had been used for centuries as articles of 
 practical convenience. Thus we find them men¬ 
 tioned in the life of St. Columbanus, by Jonas 
 Bobbiensis (formerly included among the works 
 of Bede) — “ tegumenta manuurn quae Galli 
 wantos vocant” {Vita S. Colnmbani, c. 25; 
 Patrol. Ixxxvii. 1026). In the above instance, 
 the gloves are spoken of as used “ ad operam 
 laboris,” but sometimes they were obviously of 
 a costly nature, for in the will of Riculfus, 
 bishop of Helena (ob. 915 a.d.), in a long list of 
 valuable articles, he mentions “annulum aureum 
 unum cum gemmis pretiosis et vuantos paria 
 unum ” {Patrol, cxxxii. 468). 
 
 The employment of a glove in connection with 
 the granting or bequeathing of land, is a custom 
 which hardly falls within our present limits: 
 an example may, howev'er, be given. (See 
 Notgeri Leodiensis [ob. 1008 a.d.] Vita S. Had i- 
 lini, c. 10; Patrol, cxxxix. 1146: also Martene, 
 Anecd. i. 57.) For further early references to 
 the subject of gloves, see Ducangc’s Glossarium. 
 s. vv. [R. S.] ■ 
 
 GLYCERIA, martyr a.d. 141 ; commemo¬ 
 rated May 13 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GNOSTIC. [Faithful.] 
 
 GOAR, presbyter and confe.ssor at Ti’eves 
 (saec. VI.); “natalis” July 6 {Mart. Pom. Vet., 
 Usuardi); deposition July 6 {Mart. Adonis). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 GOD THE FATHER, Rkprkskntations 
 
 OF.* For the first four centuries, at least, no 
 attempt was made at representing the actual 
 Presence of the First Person of the Trinity. It 
 was indicated invariably by the symbolic HAND 
 proceeding from a cloud. Martigny quotes the 
 words of St. Augustine {Epist. cxlviii. 4), “Quum 
 audimus mauus, operationem intelligere dcbe- 
 mus,” from which it would seem that the great 
 father saw a tendency to anthropomorphic mis¬ 
 application of the words hand and eye, or ear 
 of God, as they are frequently used in the Old 
 Testament. The distinction between analogy 
 and similitude has been so (.ftcn neglected, that 
 bodily parts as well as passions (like those of 
 anger, repentance, &c.) are often attributed to 
 
 a MoEt representations of the Divine preseno« have 
 their proper place under the word Trinitv. 
 
738 
 
 GODFATHERS 
 
 GOOD FRIDAY 
 
 the incorporeal and infinite being. This has 
 been repeatedly noticed, as(e. q.) by Drs. Whately 
 and Maiisel. St. Augustine’s expressions show 
 that he was thoroughly awake to the miscon¬ 
 ception, and consequent irreverence, involved in 
 the forgetful use of such terms as the Divine 
 hand or eye for the Divine power or know¬ 
 ledge. “ Quidquid,” he says, “ dum ista cogitas, 
 corporeae siinilitudinis occurrerit, abige, abnue, 
 uega, respue, fuge.” 
 
 The symbolic hand appears in Christian repre- 
 .sentatious of several subjects from the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, principally connected with events in the 
 lives of Abraham and Moses. The two are found 
 corresponding to each other in Bottari (Sculture e 
 Pitt, s igre, vol. i. tav. 27 ; also i. tav. 89). Moses 
 is receiving the book of the law in ii. tav. 128. 
 Elsewhere Abraham is alone (vol. ii. tav. 59, 
 and i. tav. 33, fi'om the Callixtine catacomb). 
 In vol. iii. 37 (frcin cemetery of St. Agnes), the 
 Deity appears to bo represented in human form. 
 He is delivering to Adam and Eve respectively 
 the ears of corn and the lamb, as tokens of the 
 labours of their fallen state, and their sentence 
 to “ delve and si)in.” See also Buonaruotti, p. 1. 
 Cardinal Bosio, and latterly M. Ferret (vol. i. 57 
 pi.), give a copy of a painting of Moses striking 
 the rock, and also in the act of loosening the 
 shoe from his foot. Ciampini’s plates ( J/on. 
 t. ii. pp. 81, tav. xxiv. also taw. xvi. and xx. 
 tav. xvii. D.) are important illustrations of this 
 symbol, more especially those of the mosaic of 
 the Transfiguration in St. Apollinaris in Classe, 
 and of the Sacrifice of Isaac in St. Vitale. The 
 author does not find the hand as representing 
 the First Person of the Trinity in pictures of the 
 baptism of our Lord; but it probably occurs in 
 that connexion. 
 
 The hand proceeding from clouds appears in 
 the Sacrameutary written for Drogon bishop of 
 Metz, and son of Charlemagne, above the Canon 
 of the Mass. 
 
 The Creator is represented in the MS. of Al- 
 cuin. See Westwood’s Palaeographia Sacra. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 GODFATHERS. [Sponsors.] 
 
 GOI.DEN NUMBER. [Easter.] 
 
 GOOD FRIDAY. The anniversary of 
 Christ’s Passion and Death was from very early 
 times observed with great solemnity by the 
 church. It was known by various names, qfxepa 
 Tov (XTavpov, crwT'qpia, or ra (XWTTjpia ; Trctcxa 
 crravpaKTiixov, in contrast to Tvdaxo. duaffTaaipLou, 
 Easter Day; or, adopting the Jewish designation 
 (Joh. xix. 14, 31, 42), rrapaaKevri, either alone, 
 or with the adjectives /xeyaXg, or dyia : in the 
 Latin church Parasceue, Feria Sexta in Para- 
 scene (^Antiphonar. Gregor.')., Sexta Feria Major, 
 in Ifieriisalem (Sacramentar. Gregor.). The day 
 was observed as a strict fast, which was conti¬ 
 nued by those who could endure it to beyond 
 midnight on the following day {Apost. Constit. 
 V. 18). The fourth council of Toledo, a.d. 633, 
 severely condemned those who ended their fast 
 on this day at 3 p.m. and then indulged in 
 feasting, and ordered that all save the very 
 young and the very old and the sick should ab¬ 
 stain from all food till after the services of the 
 day ^*ere concluded. All who refused obedience 
 to this rule were denied a participation in the 
 
 I Paschal Eucharist (can. viii.; Labbe, Concil. v. 
 1707). Not food alone, but the use of oil and 
 the bath were forbidden by a canon of Gangra 
 (Nomocanon, can. 434, apud Coteler. Eccl. 
 Graec. Monum. i. 1.38) with the indignant apo¬ 
 strophe, 'O XpiCTOi iu Tcp (TTavpcp Kai av 4v Tip 
 ^aXaviiip ; In process of time the day came to 
 be distinguished by a peculiar ritual and cus¬ 
 toms marking the solemn character of the day. 
 The bells were silent from the midnight of Wed¬ 
 nesday {Ordu Poman. ajmd IMuratori, ii. 714). 
 The kiss of peace was ju-ohibited (Tert. de Orat. 
 18). The altar was stript of its ornaments, and 
 even of its covering. The processions were without 
 chanting (^Sacrum. Gelns. Muratori i. 559). The 
 lamps and candles were gradually extinguished 
 during matins (Ordo Pi.oman. u. s.). A long 
 series of intercessory collects was used. A cross 
 was erected in front of the altar, bles.sed, and 
 adored {Sacram. Gelas. «. s.). There w'as no 
 consecration of the Lord’s Supper, but the re¬ 
 served eucharist of the j)revious day was par¬ 
 taken of by the faithful. 
 
 This communion subsequently received the 
 name of “ the Mass of the Presanctified,” Missa 
 Praesanctificatorum, but incorrectly, the terra 
 Missa usually implying consecration. Thus 
 Amalarius states that on Good Friday “ the mass 
 is not celebrated ” (de Eccl. Offic. iv. 20; Rab. 
 Maur. de Instit. Cler. ii. 37'; pseudo-Alcuin, 
 Hittorp col. 251). The rea.son of this prohibi¬ 
 tion of celebration is evident. The eucharist 
 being the highest Christian feast, was deemed 
 out of harmony with the penitential character 
 of the day, for “ how,” says Balsamon (Bevereg. 
 Pandect, i. 219), “can one mourn and rejoice at 
 the same time ?” As early as the council of 
 Laodicea, c. a.d. 365, this prohibition was ex¬ 
 tended to the whole of Lent, with the exception 
 of Saturdays and Sundays (can. 49 ; Labbe Concil. 
 
 i. 1506). In the letter to Decentius ascribed to 
 Innocent 1. c. a.d. 402, but probably not to be 
 placed so early, the restriction is limited to 
 Good Friday and Easter Eve, on which days the 
 tradition of the church was that the sacraments 
 xvere not to be celebratetl at all; “ isto biduo 
 sacramenta penitus non celebrari ” (Labbe Concil. 
 
 ii. 1246). At this period there was no com¬ 
 munion of any kind on Good Friday. How' early 
 the natural desire to receive the sacrament of 
 the Lord’s Bodv and Blood on the dav when it 
 
 s' y 
 
 was offered for us on the cross, led to the reser¬ 
 vation of the previously consecrated elements for 
 the purpose of communion, we have no certain 
 knowledge. It is evident from a decree of the 4th 
 council of Toledo, a.d. 6.33, that in the first half of 
 the seventh century, there was no celebration of 
 the Lord’s Supper on Good Friday in Spain. At 
 that time it was a wide-spread custom, which 
 the council condemned, to keep the doors of the 
 churches closed on Good Friday, so that there 
 was no divine service, nor any preaching of the 
 Passion to the people. The council ordained that 
 the Lord’s death should be preached on that day, 
 and that the people should pray for the pardon 
 of their sins, that so they might be better fitted 
 to celebrate the resurrection and partake of the 
 eucharist at Easter (can. viii. Labbe Concil. v. 
 1707). We learn also from the acts of the 
 16th council, held sixty years later, A.D. 693, 
 that on that day “ the altars w'cre stript and 
 no one w'as permitted to celebrate mass ” (Fo. vi. 
 
GOOD FRIDAY 
 
 1355). In the Greek church the custom of 
 commviniciiting in the ])revicu.sly consecrated 
 elements was established before the middle of 
 the seventh century, for we find it mentioned 
 as a general j)ractice during the whole of Lent, 
 in the acts of the Trullan (or Quinise.xt) 
 council A.D. 692 (can. 52, Labbe vi. 1165). It 
 first aj)})ears in the West in the Bcqnla Magistri^ 
 a monastic rule compiled probably in the seventh 
 century, printed by Lrockie {Codex IleguL 1. ii. 
 p. 269). It was established in Rome before the 
 end of the eighth century, when the ritual of 
 Good Friday is prescribed in the Ordo liornanus 
 (Muratori Liturg. Lorn. Icf. ii. 995). The observ¬ 
 ance of Good Fri(lay commenced at midnight, when 
 all rose for service. Nine Psalms were said with 
 their responsions, these were followed by three 
 lections from the Lamentations, commencing 
 Lam. ii. 8, “ Cogitavit Dominus dissiparethree 
 from the Tractatus of St. Augustine on Psalm 
 63, aiid three from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 beginning c. iv. 11, “ Festinemus ergo &c.” 
 IVlattins then followed, during whicli the lights 
 in the church were gradually extinguished, 
 beginning at the entrance, until by the end of 
 the third nocturn only the seven lamps burning 
 at the altar were left alight. These were also 
 put out, one by one, alternately right and left at 
 the commencement of each Psalm, the middle 
 lamp, the last left burning, being extinguished at 
 the gospel. At the third hour all the presbyters 
 and clergy of the city assembled in expectation 
 of the pontiff. On his arrival the subdeacon 
 commenced the lection from Hosea v. 15, “ Haec 
 licit Dominus Deus ; in tribulatione sua, &;c.,” 
 and then was sung as an antiphon Hab. iii. 1-3, 
 Domine audivi, &c.” After some prayers said 
 b}" the jjontifi', and the second lection, Exod. xii. 1, 
 “ In diebus illis dixit Dominus ad Moy.sen et 
 Aaron, &c.,” Ps. xci. or cxl. was sung, and the 
 Passion according to St. John was recited by the 
 deacon. This over, two deacons stript the altar 
 of the white linen cloth, previously put on 
 “ sub evangelio,” in a stealthy manner, 
 “ in modum furantis.” The pontiff came 
 before the altar and recited a series of eighteen 
 prayers, a portion of which form the ba.sis of the 
 Good Friday collects of the church of England. 
 The first and last collect stand alone. The other 
 sixteen are in pairs. Before each pair the deacon 
 warned the people to kneel and after it to rise. 
 “ Adnuntiat diaconus Jlc^tamus genua; iterum 
 dicit levate.” These collects are—(1) for the 
 peace and unity of the church ; (2) for perse¬ 
 verance in the faith ; (3) for the pope and chief 
 bishop (antistes); (4) for the bishops of thair 
 diocese ; (5) for all bishops, priests, deacons, sub¬ 
 deacons, &c. ; (6) for all orders of men in the 
 holy church ; (7) for the emperor; (8) for the 
 Roman em])ire ; (9) (DDfbr catechumens; (11) 
 against sicKne.'S, lamine, pestilence, and other 
 evils; (12) for all in trouble; (13) (14) for 
 heretics and schismatics; (15) (16) for Jews; 
 (17) (18) for pagans and idolaters. A direction 
 is given that the j)rayers for the Jews are not to 
 be said kneeling. The collects are given in the 
 Sacramentary of Gregory, as printed by Pamelius, 
 and in that of Gelasius, :is well as in the old 
 Gallican missal. This last contains the direction 
 to the celebrant “ eadem die non Siilutat (i.e. 
 does not say pax_ rohiscutu), nee i)sallet.” These 
 collects finished, all were to leave the church 
 
 GOODS, COMMUNITY OF 739 
 
 in silence: the pi'e.sbyters going to jierform the 
 same service in their own churches. 
 
 “ Adoration of the cross succeeds.” The 
 cross is placed a little distance in front of the 
 altar, supported on cither side by acolytes. A 
 kneeling stool being placed in front, the pontiff 
 kneels, and adores and kisses the cross, followed 
 by the clergy and j)eople in order. The Ambro¬ 
 sian missal given by Pamelius contains four 
 prayers for the ceiemony : “ Oratio super 
 
 crucem ;” “ Benedictio crucis “Oratio ad 
 crucem adorandam;” “Oratio post adoratam 
 crucem.” In the Antiphonarium of Gregoi-y also 
 given by Pamelius we have an “ Antiphon ad 
 crucem adorandam.” The adoration of the cross 
 was followed by the communion of the pre¬ 
 sanctified. “Two presbyters enter the sacristy 
 or other place in which the Body of the Lord 
 which remained from the previous day was placed, 
 and put it in a paten, and let a subdeacon hold 
 before them a chalice with unconsecrated wine, 
 and another the paten with the Body of the 
 Lord. One presbyter takes the paten, the other 
 the chalice, and they carry and .set them on the 
 stript altar” {Ord. Rom. u. s.). The cross is 
 meanwhile saluted by the laity, while the 
 hymn Ecce lignum Crucis is sung, and Ps. cxix. 
 recited. The salutation of the cross being com¬ 
 pleted, the Lord’s Pj-ayer is recited, “ and Avhen 
 they have said Amen the pontiff takes of 
 the holy thing, and puts it into the chalice 
 saying nothing (nihil dicens), and all communi¬ 
 cate cum silentio,” The rubrics of the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary agree in the main with the Ordo, 
 except that they speak of the reservation of the 
 Blood as well as of the Body of the Lord, and 
 direct that the reserved sacrament be brought 
 out of the sacristy and set on the altar by 
 deacons instead of presbyters. The adoration of 
 the cross by the clergy succeeds the placing of 
 the consecrated elements on the altar, and is 
 followed by the actual communion (Muratori n.s. 
 i. 559, sq.) It merits notice that all early 
 authorities prescribe a general communion on 
 Good Friday, “ all communicate silently.” This 
 custom had entirely ceased in Rome at the 
 beginning of the 9th century (Amalar. de Eccl. 
 Off. i. 15), and though it lingered for a long time 
 in some parts, it gradually died out in the West, 
 and at the present day in the Roman church no 
 one but the celebrant communicates on Good 
 Friday. The ])ontiff })ronouuces peace to them 
 “ in the name of the Father, &c.” The people 
 answer, “and with thy spirit.” “After a little 
 space each says his vespers ])rivately, and .so they 
 go to table” (Muratori ii. 995-996). [E. V.] 
 
 GOODS, COMMUNITY OF. The idea 
 that all property should belong to a communitv 
 and not to individuals may be traced to a verv 
 high antiquity. The Pythagorean .society is 
 commonly suj)posed to have been constituted on 
 the basis of a community of goods, though pro¬ 
 bably only those who had reached the highest 
 grade of the initiated I’enounced all private 
 posse.s.sions (Ritter and Preller, Hist. /Vo7.,p. 58). 
 Plato, also, in his imaginary Rej)ublic, condemns 
 the institution of juivate ])ropeity in the 
 strongest manner, as the source of all greed and 
 meanne.ss; he therefore allows it onlv to the 
 third and lowest class of his citizens—those who 
 are bv nature qualified to seek onlv low and 
 
 3. ii • 
 
f40 GOODS, COMMUNITY OF 
 
 material ends in life, and arc consequently 
 excluded from all share in the government of 
 the state. The two higher classes are to live 
 wholly for the state, a coinlition — the philosopher 
 holds — Incompatible with the possession of 
 prfvate property (^Politia^ iv., p. 421 C fl'.; 
 
 LC'ies, V. j). 7;>9 I5.). 
 
 To turn from heathen to Jewish social insti¬ 
 tutions, Josephus- tells us (^Dellurn Jud. ii. 8, 
 § 3) of tlie Essenes, that each member on 
 entrance tlirew liis goods into the common stock, 
 so tliat tliere was found among them neither 
 poverty nor riches. In like manner the Thera- 
 peutae on Lake Moeris had all things in common. 
 
 It was while the Therapeutae and Essenes 
 were still flourishing communities that the 
 gosjiel of Christ was first proclaimed. And here, 
 too, we read of the earlier church of Jerusalem, 
 that they “had all things common” (Acts ii. 
 44)—a passage which has often served fanatical 
 sects as a justification of their communism. And 
 yet it is clear from the book of the Acts itself 
 that property made over to the community 
 was of the nature of a voluntary gift; those 
 who entered the church were not deprived of 
 the right to jiossess property (Acts v. 4); 
 Ananias was not punished for failing to con¬ 
 tribute the whole of his property, but for fraud 
 and lying in jiretending to give the whole while 
 he only gave part. 
 
 In the a[)osto]ic age generally it is past all 
 controversy that nothing like a community of 
 goods existed in the church. The churches are 
 eridently contemplated as containing the .same 
 variety of wealth and station as ordinary society ; 
 contributions are made of freewill ; the rich are 
 charged to “ be rich in good works, ready to 
 distribute, willing to communicate;” the cheer¬ 
 ful giver is commended (2 Cor. ix. 7 ; 1 Tim. vi. 
 17, 18). The disturbed state of the Thessalonians, 
 and their unwillingness to labour while they 
 expected the immediate advent of Christ, had 
 (so far as appears) no connexion with any com¬ 
 munistic views. Nor does the testimony of the 
 next age favour the idea that the earliest 
 Christian society was communistic. The writer 
 of the Epistle to Diognetus (c. 5) speaks of a 
 “ common table,” and no more. Tertullian, in¬ 
 deed (Apolog. c. 39), says, in so many words, 
 that Christians had all things in common except 
 their wives (omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos 
 praeter uxores); but it is evident that this is 
 nothing more than a characteristically violent 
 expression for their mutual love and charity; 
 for in the very same chapter he states expi-essly,. 
 that the contributions of the brethren to the 
 common fund were wholly voluntary (modicam 
 unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel quum 
 velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit). 
 i.actantius {/.'pit. Div. Institt. c. 38) especially 
 condemns communism as one of the cardinal 
 vices of Plato’s Republic, which he would hardly 
 have done if he had supposed the same principle 
 to have animated the first society of believers. 
 The interpretation of Acts ii. 44 as relating to 
 an absolute community of goods seems in fact to 
 have taken its rise from Chrysostom {Horn. xi. 
 in Acta Appi). Some writers in modern times 
 have seen in this supposed communism of the 
 early Christians at Jerusalem an indication of an 
 Essene iiiriuence. (See against this view Yon 
 Wegnern, in Illgen’s Zdtschrift xi. 2. p. 1 ff.). 
 
 GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 As, however, within the church so strong an 
 expression was given to the duty of mutual love 
 and succour, and of the brotherhood of man in 
 Christ, it could scarcely fail but that here and 
 there enthusiastic sects would exaggerate and 
 develope these ])rinci]jles into absolute renun¬ 
 ciation of property. This was in fact the case. 
 During the ecclesiastical troubles in Africa in 
 the 4th century, the Donatists were never wearv 
 of rej'roaching their orthodox opponents with 
 the wealth and power which they derived from 
 their connexion with the state. Some of their 
 own adherents, in consequence of these denun¬ 
 ciations, renounced private po.ssessions altogether 
 —a renunciation which led to vagabondage and 
 mendicancy rather than to holiness. These 
 CiRCUMCELLiONS —as they came to be called— 
 became the nucleus of a band of discontented 
 peasants and runaway slaves, whose excesses at 
 last required the forcible interference of the 
 government to put them down. And other sects 
 also rejected the idea of property ; the Apotactici 
 or Apostolici, as they arrogantly called them¬ 
 selves (says St. Augustine, De JIneres. c. 40), 
 admitted none into their community who lived 
 with wives or possessed private property (res 
 proprias iiabentes) ; and, a common characteristic 
 of heresy, denied salvation to all outside their 
 own sect. The Eustathians also, who were con¬ 
 demned at the council of Gangra about the year 
 370 {Cone. Gangr. Praef.) held that those who 
 did not give up their private wealth were beyond 
 all hope of salvation. The laws of the empire 
 imposed upon Apotactici the same penalties that 
 were laid upon other heretics, except the con¬ 
 fiscation of goods ; they could not be deprived of 
 that which they had already renounced {Codex 
 Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5, de H <eret. 11. 7 et 11). 
 
 When Pachomius (f 348) first drew together 
 into one body [Coexobtum] a number of an¬ 
 chorites and wandering mendicants at Tabennae 
 in Upper Egypt, he instituted a system of 
 organized labour and common participation in 
 the fruits of laboui-. Stewards [Oecoxomus] 
 managed the proj)erty of the society for the 
 benefit of the whole, and distributed the excess 
 of income to the poor and needy of the neigh¬ 
 bourhood. St. Basil, St. Benedict, and other 
 founders of monastic orders, enjoined the same 
 rule of individual poverty on the members 
 their societies, and so there arose throughout 
 Christendom, in East and West, religious societies 
 of celibates organized on communistic principles 
 [Moxasticism]. From the 8th century onward 
 the secular clergy also, who lived the canonical 
 life, adopted, to some extent, the principle of 
 community of goods [Caxoxici]. [C.] 
 
 GORDIANUS. (1) [Epimaciius (1).] 
 
 (2) Martyr with Macrinus and Valerianus at 
 Nyon; commemorated Sept. 17 {Mart. Usuardi, 
 llieron.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GORDIAS, martyr, circa 320 A.D. ; comme¬ 
 morated Jan. 3 {Cal. /igzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 GORGONIUS. [Dorotueus (3).] 
 
 GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL. I. In¬ 
 troduction .—Among the Jews, certainly from the 
 time of the Maccabees, and })robably before, one 
 les.son from the Pentateuch and another from the 
 “Prophets” {i.e. from some of the later histo¬ 
 rical books, and from those more properly called 
 
GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 prophetical) were read in the synagogues every 
 sabbath dav. Fifty-four jwrtions from the Pen¬ 
 tateuch (called Paraschioth), and as many from 
 the “Prophets” (Haphtoroth), were appointed 
 for this ]>urpose. As the Jews intercalated a 
 month everv second or third year, this number 
 was required. When there were not fifty-four 
 sabbaths in a year, they read two of the shorter 
 lessons together, once or twice in the year, as 
 might be necessary; so that the whole of both 
 selections was read through annually. The 
 Pai-aschioth are generally very long, some ex¬ 
 tending over four or five chapters; but the 
 Haphtoroth are as a rule short, often only a 
 part of one chapter. Tables of both may be 
 seen in Horne’s Introduction to the Scriptures, pt. 
 iii. ch. i. sect. iv. The foregoing facts will enable 
 the reader to judge how far the first Christians 
 were indebted to the traditions of the synagogue 
 for the practice of reading Holy Scripture in 
 their synaxis, and for the method of reading it. 
 At all events we may be certain that the Old 
 Testament, so long the only known repository of 
 the “ oracles of God,” and still acknowledged to 
 be “able to make men wise unto salvation 
 through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 
 iii. 15), would be no more neglected in tlieir 
 common exercises of religion than it was in their 
 private study. At the same time it was in¬ 
 evitable that, when the New Testament came to 
 be written, lessons from that should be read 
 either in addition to or instead of those from the 
 Old. There was, however, a short period during 
 which the Old Testament only would be re id in 
 Christian assemblies, viz. before the events of 
 the Gospel wei’e committed to writing; and 
 there is in the most ancient liturg}’-, that of St. 
 James, a rubric, evidently genuine, which ap¬ 
 pears to have been framed during this interval. 
 “Then the sacred oracles of the Old Covenant 
 and of the Prophets are read at great length (Sj- 
 (^o^iKcl'TaTa, some understand “ consecutively,” 
 but the Jewish precedent favours the former 
 reading); and the incarnation of the Son of God, 
 and His sufferings, His resurrectiosn from the dead, 
 and ascension into heaven, and, again, His second 
 coming with ^lerv, are set forth.” As Mr. 
 Trollope points out (^The Greek Liturgif of St. 
 James, j). 42), we have here the Old Testament 
 read, but the great events of the Gospel related 
 to'the ]teo|)le as it' not yet in writing. 
 
 II. E'ideiice if ire. —Justin Martyr, a.d. 140, 
 describing the celebration of the Eucharist, says, 
 “ The commentaries of the apostles and the 
 writings of the prophets are read as time per¬ 
 mits” {Ap 'l.\. c. 67). A lesson from the gospels 
 was without doubt included under the former 
 head. St. Cypidan, a.d. 250, speaks of a con- 
 fe.ssor whom he had ordained lector, as “ reading 
 the precept.s and the gospel of the Lord ” from 
 the stand (pulpitum) {Ep. xxxix.). Eusebius, 
 A.D. 315, says that St. Peter authorised the use 
 of the gospel of St. ^lark “in the churches.” 
 For this he refers to the J/gp itgposcs of Clemens 
 of Alexandria (not of Home, as Bona and others) 
 and to Papias; but elsewhere he cites both pas¬ 
 sages, and neither of them contains the words 
 “in the churches.” W'hat he says,^ therefore, 
 does not, as many have imagined, prove from 
 Papias the custom of the apostolic church, but 
 is only a proof of the practice of his own age, in 
 the light of which he read those earlier writers j 
 
 GOSPEL, THE LiTURGICAL 741 
 
 (see /list. Ecd. nb. ii. c. xv.; and compare lib. v.. 
 c. xiv., lib. iii. c. xxxix.). Cyril of Jeru.salem, 
 A.D. 350, speaks vaguely of the “ reading of 
 Scripture” (Praef. in Catech. §§ iii. iv.); nor 
 are any of his catechetical homilies on le.ssons 
 from the gospel. Optatus, A.D. 368, addressing 
 the Donatist clergy, says, “ Ye begin with the 
 lessons of the Lord, and ye expand your ex¬ 
 positions to our injury; ye bring forth the 
 go-pel, and make a reproach against an absent 
 brother ” (/><? Schism. Dunat. lib. iv. c. v.). Th» 
 so-called Constitutions of the Apostles put an 
 order into their mouths, which begins thus: 
 “ After the reading of the law and the prophets 
 and our epistles, and the acts and the gospels, 
 let ” &c. (lib. viii. c. v. Cotel. tom. i. p. 392). 
 Pseudo-Dionysius tells us that in the liturgy, 
 after the Psalms, “follows the reading of the 
 tablets of holy writ by the ministers ” {De 
 Eccles. Hierarch, c. iii. § ii. tom. i. p. 284). 
 These tablets are explained by Maximus the 
 scholiast on Dionysius, a.d. 645, to be the Old 
 and New Testament {Ibid. p. 305). St. Chry¬ 
 sostom frequently gave notice of the text on 
 which he proposed to preach some days before ; 
 but in one homily he says, “ On one day of the 
 week, or on the sabbath (Saturday), at least, let 
 each take in his hands, and, sitting at home, read 
 that section {TrfpiKoirrir) of the gospels which is 
 going to be read among you ” {Horn. xi. in St.Joh. 
 Ev. § 1). This implies that they knew what the 
 lesson from the gospels would be ; and therefore 
 that a table of such lessons was drawn up and 
 acce.ssible to all. St. Augustine, in Africa, often 
 preached on the gospel. Thus one of his ser¬ 
 mons begins, “The chapter of the holy gospel 
 which we heard, when it was just now read,” 
 &c. {Serm. Iv. § 1). Another : “ VVe heanl, when 
 the gospel was read,” kc. {Serm. Ixii. § 1). The 
 council of Laodicaea, probably about 365, has a 
 canon ordering the “ gosjjcls to be read with 
 other scriptui’es on the sabbath” (Can. xvi.). 
 The omission of the gospel on Saturdaj" had 
 without doubt been merely a local custom. A 
 council of Orange, a.d. 441, can. xviii., ordered 
 that thenceforward the gospel should be read to 
 the catechumens, as well as the faithful, in all 
 the churches of the province. That of Valen¬ 
 cia, A.D. 524, ordered that “ the most holv gospels, 
 be read in the mass of the catechumens before 
 the illation of the gifts, in the onler of lessons 
 after the apostle,” i.e. the epistle (Can. i.). 
 In France, 554, a constitution of Childebert 
 mentions the gospels, prophets, and apostle, as 
 read from the altar {Capit. Peg. Franc, ed. 
 Baluz. tom. i. col. 7). Germanus of Paris, 
 A.D. 555, in his exposition of the liturgy, simi¬ 
 larly recognises the prophecy, apostle, and gospel 
 (printed by Martene, De Ant. Eccl. Hit. lib. i. c. 
 iv. art. xii.). Gregory of Tours, A.D. 573, tells a 
 story of certain clerks in the days of Childebert, 
 who “having laid the three books, i. c’. of the 
 prophecy, the apostle, and the gos/jels on the 
 altar,” prayed for an augury from the passages 
 at which they should open, each “ having made 
 an agreement among themselves that everv one 
 should read at mass that which he first opened 
 on in the book” {//ist. Franc, lib. iv. c. xvi.). 
 This implies that in Gaul at least the les¬ 
 sons were still left to the choice of those who 
 were to read them. In the next century, how 
 ever, the Gallicau church had a lectionaiy, a 
 
GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 742 GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 copy of which, nearly complete, in Merovingian 
 charactei's, was found by Mabillon in the monas¬ 
 tery at Luxeuil. It i)]-ovides a gospel for every 
 mass {Jjitur(j. Gall. lib. ii. pp. 97-173). Luxeuil 
 is in the j)rovince of Besanf/on; but the eucha- 
 ristic lessons (of which the gosj)el is always one) 
 in the Sacramentarv found at Bobio, which is 
 believed to be of the use of that province, and is 
 certainly of about the same age as the lectionary, 
 differ nevertheless from those in that book. 
 From this we may perhaps infer that although 
 the lessons were then generally fixed, every 
 bishop was at liberty to make his own selection. 
 There is another ancient lectionary, ascribed to 
 St. Jerome, and known as the Liber Comitis, or 
 Comes Hierowjmi; but from internal evidence 
 shown to be the work of a Gallican compiler in 
 the 8th century. This has been printed from 
 two MSS., one of which provides three lessons 
 for above two hundred days and occasions ; the 
 other for the most part only two ; but the gospel 
 is never omitted in either. The shorter recen¬ 
 sion may be seen in the Ilitiiilis SS. Patrum of 
 Pamelius, tom. ii. pp. 1-61. The longer is 
 printed by Baluze in the Cap'tnlaria Itegum 
 Frunconnn, tom. ii. coll. 1309-1351. 
 
 III. Provision for use. —In the West, generall}’’, 
 a gospel has been always provided for every 
 Sunday and for other holy days. The number 
 of gospels (and other lessons) in the Liber Comitis 
 already mentioned suggests that at one time 
 there was a partial attempt to assign proper 
 lessons to every day in the year. However tliis 
 may be, the Roman use retained them for every 
 day in Lent, and the Mozarabic for every Wed¬ 
 nesday and Friday (except the first) during that 
 season (see Mismle Mixtum, Leslie, pp. 89-154). 
 There was no such provision in the Gallican 
 Sacramentary found at Bobio (see Mui’at. Liturg. 
 Pom. Vet. tom. ii. coll. 815-835, or Mns. Ital. 
 tom. i. pp. 301-319), nor, so far as we can judge 
 in the Lectionary of Luxeuil (Mabillon, Liturg. 
 Gall. p. 124). Eight leaves are missing in this 
 MS^. between Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday, 
 but they could hardly have contained more than 
 the Sunday lessons. The ancient Irish Sacra¬ 
 mentary, of which but one copy exists in manu¬ 
 script, ]>robably of the 6th century, is singular 
 in the West in having but one gospel and e])istle 
 for the whole year, the former being the' sixth 
 chapter of St. John, the latter the eleventh 
 chapter of St. Paul’s first Epistle to the 
 Corinthians. See O’Connor’s Append, to vol. i. 
 of the Catal. of the MSS. at Stowe, p. 45. The 
 fact is also attested by Dr. Todd (see Pref. to the 
 Liber. Loci, de B. Terrenaui de Arbuthnott, 
 p.'xxiv.). 
 
 In the West the gospels appear to have been 
 chosen without any reference to their place in 
 the books of the New Testament. But, in the 
 Greek church, those four books have been 
 divided into lessons {rjxigxaTa, fxfpr}, Tr^piKoirds, 
 auayruxTuara, arayruxreis) • so that they may 
 be read through in order, only interrupted when 
 a festival with its proper lesson intervenes (Leo 
 Allatius, De lAbr. Led. Gr. Diss. i. p. 35). It 
 is probably in accordance with this arrangement 
 that the canon of Laodicaea, already cited, does 
 not order le.ssons from the'gospels, or sections, 
 or portions, or the like, to be read on Saturday 
 with other scriptures, but themselves, 
 
 i.e. the four books so called. From this it may 
 
 be inferred that the Greek meihod was the 
 normal practice of the whole Eastern church 
 before the separation of the Nestorians and 
 Monophysites. There was an excejjtion, how¬ 
 ever, at one period, whether beginning before or 
 after that separation, in the church of Malabar, 
 the ancient liturgy of which jn-esents but one 
 epistle and gos])el for every celebration—the 
 former compo.sed from 2 Cor. v. 1-10, and Heb. 
 iv. 12, 13; the latter taken from St. John v. 
 vv. 19-29. As neither have any special refe¬ 
 rence to the Eucharist, it may be inferred that 
 the peculiarity was, unlike that of the Irish 
 missal, \inintentional, and resulting, probably, 
 from the destruction of sacred books in a season 
 of persecution, and from the ignorance that 
 followed it. 
 
 IV. The Book of the Gospels. —The book which 
 contained the four gospels as divided for eucha- 
 ristic use was called by the Greeks Ei»a 776 A(oj/. 
 The oldest writer cited as using the word in this 
 specific sense is Palladius, a.d. 400 : ‘‘He bring.s 
 the ‘ gosjiel ’ to him and exacts the oath.” (Hist. 
 Ixtusiac. c. 86.) Another proof of the antiquity 
 of the usage is the fact that the Nestorians, 
 who were cut off from the church in the 5th 
 century, retain the term Euanghelion in this 
 limited sense to the present day (Badger’s Xesto- 
 riuns, v. ii. p. 19). The book is similarly called 
 “ the gospel” in the liturgy ofSt. Mark (Ilenaud. 
 tom. i. p. 136) and others. 
 
 V. Bg whom read. —In Africa the eucharistic 
 gospel was read by those of the order of readers 
 in the 3rd century (see Cypr. Ep. xxxix. and Ep. 
 xxxviii.). It was generally, however, assigned 
 to a higher order: “After these {i.e. the other 
 lessons), let a deacon or presbyter read the gos¬ 
 pels ” {Constit. Apmtol. lib. ii. c. Ivii.). Sozomen, 
 A.D. 440, tells us that among the Alexan<lrians 
 the “archdeacon alone read that sacred book (of 
 the gospels); but among others the deacons, aud¬ 
 io many churches the priests only” {Hist. Eccl. 
 lib. vii. c. xix.). He adds that “ on high days 
 bishops read it, as at Constantinople, on the first 
 day of the paschal feast.” The liturgies of St. 
 Mark (Renaud. tom. i. p. 138), St. Basil, and St. 
 Chrysostom (Goar, pp. 161 and 69) give this 
 office to the deacon. This was also the common 
 practice in the West. Thus St. Jerome says to 
 Sabinian, “Thou wast wont to read the gospel 
 as a deacon ” {Ep. xciii.). St. Isidore of Seville, 
 writing about the year 610, is a witness to the 
 same practice {De Eccl. Off. lib. ii. c. 8). We 
 observe it also in the most ancient “ Ordines 
 Romani” (J/ms. Ltal. tom. ii. pp. 10, 46); and it 
 became the rule throughout Europe, when a 
 deacon was present. 
 
 VI. Where read. — The gospel was perhaps 
 generallv read from a stand called Ambo (’A/x- 
 /Scei/) or Pulpitum even in the earliest ages. It 
 certainly was so when the celebrant him.selt did 
 not read it. Thus St. Cy])rian, as before (juoted. 
 sj)caks of Celerinus, the reader, as officiating 
 “on a })ulpit, i.e. on the tribunal of the church,’’ 
 and generally of confessors raised to that order 
 as “ coming to the puljut after the stocks ” 
 (Epp. xxxviii., xxxix.). The Ordo Romanus in 
 use in the 8th century orders the gospel to be 
 read from the higher step of the ambo, the epistle 
 having been read from a lower {Ord. ii. nn. 7, 8). 
 In some churches there was a separate ambo for 
 the gospel. An example occurred in the church 
 
GOSPEL, THE LITUKGICAL 
 
 of St. Clement at Eoine, where also the gospel 
 ambo was a “little liigher and more ornate’’ 
 (Martene, De Ant. Ecd. Hit. lib. i. c. iv. art. iv. 
 n. iii.). This became to some extent a rule 
 (Scu larnore, Kotiti i L'ucharistica, p. 222). We 
 hear jf the ambo in the East also. Thus Sozo- 
 men, speaking of a tomb over which a church 
 had been built, says that it was “near the ambo, 
 that is to say, the rostnun (^rjjua) of the readers’* 
 {Nisi. Eccl. lib. ix. c. ii.). The same historian tells 
 US that St. Chrysostom, that he might be better 
 iieard, used to preach at Constantinople “sitting 
 on the of the readers ” (lib. v. c. v.), and 
 
 Socrates, referring to a particular occasion, 
 speaks of him as “seated on the ambo, from 
 which he was wont also before that to preach in 
 order to be heard ” {J/ist. Eccl. lib. au. c. v.). 
 The council in Trullo, A.to. 691, forbade any who 
 had not received the proper benediction to 
 “ proclaim the words of God to the people on 
 the ambo” (can. xxxiii.). In the liturgy of St. 
 Chrysostom, the deacon who reads the gospel 
 “stands elevated on the ambo or in the appointed 
 place ” (Goar, p. 69). 
 
 VH. Ec’d towards the South. — It w'as an 
 early, but we think not primitive, custom in the 
 West for the gospeller to “ stand facing the south, 
 where the men were w'ont to assemble” (Ord. 
 Horn. ii. c. 8). Amalarius, an early commentator 
 on the Ordo Romanus, suggests that this w'as 
 because the men were supposed to receive the 
 gospel first, and to teach it to their wives at home 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 35). See his Ecloga, n. xv. Mus. Ital. 
 tom. ii. p. 553. It is probable, however, that a 
 different custom prevailed at the same time in 
 France, or very soon after. For in the latter 
 pait of the 9th century Remigius of Auxerre 
 tells us that “the Levite (deacon), when about 
 to pronounce the w^ords of the gospel, turns his 
 face towards the north,” as defying Satan, who 
 was sujiposed (from Isai. xiv. 13) to dwell there 
 Celeb. Jh'ssae^ ad. calc. Libri Pseudo-Alcuini, 
 de Div. Off. Flittorp, col. 280). 
 
 VIII. Attendant rites. —From a very early 
 period the reading of the gospel was attended 
 with circumstances of solemnity. In the Greek 
 church it has for many ages been brought into 
 the church out of the chapel of Prothesis in a 
 rite known as the Little Entrance, the bringing 
 in of the gifts being the Great Entrance. While 
 the choir is singing the Glorij at the end of the 
 third anti]>hon the priest and deacon, after bow¬ 
 ing thrice before the altar, go out for the book 
 of the gospels. They return into the church, 
 the deacon carrving the gospel, preceded by 
 lights, and welomed by a special anthem. After 
 a circuit of some length on the north side of the 
 church they stop at the holy doors, where the 
 ])riest says, secretly, the “ Prayer of the En¬ 
 trance.” The deacon then asks for, and the priest 
 gives, a “ blessing on the Entrance,” trofiaria 
 being sung meanwhile. When they are ended, 
 the deacon shows the gospel to the people, say¬ 
 ing, “ Wisdom. Stand up.” They then enter 
 the bema, and the book is laid on the holy table 
 till required for use (Eucho'o</ium, Goar, pp. 67, 
 124, 160). This is found in the older liturgy of 
 St. Basil, hs well as that of St. Chrysostom, but 
 it is imj)os.sil le to say how much of it was ))rac- 
 tised in the j,ge of those great bishojis. There 
 i.s no trace of the Little Entrance in the liturgy 
 of Jerusalem, from which that of Caesarea (St. 
 
 GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 743 
 
 Basil) was derived, nor in the Nestorian litur¬ 
 gies, which came from an independent source 
 before the 5th century. C)n the other hand, 
 there is a simpler fnim of the rite in the 
 Armenian liturgy, which was borrowed from 
 Caesarea in the time of St. Basil, and influenced 
 in its subsequent growth by the residence of 
 St. Clirysostom in Armenia, where lie died 
 (Le Brun, Eiss. sur les Liturgies, x. artt. iv. 
 xiii.). We observe, also, an elaborate render¬ 
 ing of the same rite in liturgies that can 
 hardly have been indebted to those of the Greek 
 church after the 6th century at least. “As the 
 book of the gospels,” remarks Renaudot, “ is 
 carried to the ambo with great ceremony among 
 the Copts, so it is certain that it is in like man¬ 
 ner done among the Syrians; and they received 
 it from the Greeks ” (tom. ii. p. 69). For the 
 Coptic Entrance see tom. i. p. 210. A short 
 rubric in the liturgy of St. Mark tells us when 
 the Entrance takes i)lace; but it is not de.scribed 
 (Renaud. tom. i. p. 136). 
 
 Another proof of the antiquity of the Little 
 Entrance is found in its resemblance to a cere¬ 
 mony practised at Rome in certain pontifical 
 masses of the 7th and 8th centuries. The gospel 
 was brought in a case or casket from the basilica 
 of St. John Lateran to the regionary church in 
 which the celebration took place by an acolyte 
 in attendance on the bishop, but under the care 
 of the archdeacon. It was made ready by the 
 reader at the door of the Secretarium, while the 
 bishop was within preparing for the service. 
 The acolyte then carried it “ into the presbytery 
 to before the altar,” preceded by a subdeacon, 
 who then took it from him, and “with his own 
 hands placed it with honour upon the altar” 
 (^Ord. ll(,in. i. §§ 3, 4, 5; ii. 2, 4, 5). 
 
 As an example of the ritual when the gospel 
 was to be read, we may, for the East, cite St. 
 Mark: “ The deacon, v:hen about to read the 
 gospel, sags, ‘ Bless, sir.’ The priest, ‘The Lord 
 ble.ss and strengthen, and make us hearers of His 
 holy gospel, wbo is God blessed now and ever, 
 and for ever. Amen.’ The deacon, ‘Stand, let 
 us hear the holy gospel.’ The priest, ‘ Peace be 
 to all.’ The people, '• Xi\<\ to thy spirit.’ Then 
 the deacon reads the gospel” —(Renaud. tom. i. 
 p. 138). At Rome, in the pontifical masses 
 before mentioned, the deacon having received a 
 blessing from the bishop, “The Lord be in thy 
 heart and on thv lips,” after kissing the gGS])els, 
 took the book off the altar, and went towards 
 the ambo, preceded by two subdeacons— one witli 
 incense—and followed by a third. There llie 
 acolytes made a passage for the })receding sub¬ 
 deacons and the deacon. The latter then rested 
 his book on the left arm of the subdeacon with¬ 
 out a censer, who oj)ened it at the j)lace already 
 marked. The deacon then, Avith his finger in 
 the jjlace, went up to that stage of the ambo 
 from which he was to read, the two subdeacons 
 going to stand before the steps by which he 
 would descend. The gos))el ended, the bishop 
 says, “Peace be to tbee,” and “The Lord be 
 with you.” Resp., “And with thy spirit.” As 
 the deacon came down, the subdeacou who had 
 opened the book took it from him, and handed it 
 to the third subdeacon who had followed. He, 
 holding it on his ])laneta, before his breast, offers 
 it to be kissed by all engaged in the rite, and 
 then puts it into the case or casket before 
 
GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 744 GOSPEL, THE LITURGICAL 
 
 mentioned, held ready by the acolyte who had | 
 brought it into the church )rd. Horn. i. §11). 
 An Urdo, somewhat later, but not lower than the j 
 8 th century, tells us that ‘‘the candles were ex- j 
 tinguished in their place after the gospel was | 
 read” i^Ord. ii. §9). The custom of lighting 
 candles at the reading of the gospel came from 
 tne East, where it prevailed in the 4th century. 
 “Through all the churches of the East,” says 
 St. Jerome, “ when the gospel is to be read, lights 
 are burned, though the sun be already shining ” 
 (^Contra Viijilant. §7). St. Isidore of Seville, in 
 a work written in 636, says that “acolytes in 
 Greek are called ceroferarii in Latin, from their 
 bearing wax candles when the gospel is to be 
 read,” &c. (^Etyrnol. lib. vii. c. xii. § 29). This 
 is probably the earliest notice in the West, 
 though the first Oi’do Homanus belongs almost 
 certainly to the same century. The symbolism 
 of the lights needs no e.vplanation (see St. John 
 i. 9; viii. 12). 
 
 IX. Heard stccnding. —It was probably from 
 the very first the custom for the people to hear 
 the gospel standing, out of reverence. Thus the 
 Apostolical Constitutiuns, lib. ii. c. Ivii.: “ When 
 the gospel is being read, let all the presbyters 
 and the deacons and all the people stand with 
 great quietness.” Philostorgius, A.D. 425, says 
 that Theophilus the Indian, when visiting his 
 native country, about the year 345, found that 
 the people “performed the hearing of the gospel 
 lessons sitting, and had some other practices 
 which the Divine law did not sanction ” {Hist. 
 Eccl. lib. iii. §5). His language shows how im¬ 
 portant the rite was considered. Isidore of Pelu- 
 siura, 412, says, in the same spirit, “ When the 
 True Shepherd becomes present through the 
 opening of the adorable gospels, the bishop both 
 rises and lays aside the habit (the w/aocpSpiot/') 
 which he wears symbolical of Him ” {Ep. cxxxvi. 
 Hermiao Comiti). In accordance with this, 
 Sozomen {Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. xix.) tells us that 
 there was “a strange custom among the Alex¬ 
 andrians, for, when the gospels were read, the 
 bishop did not stand up, which,” he adds, “ 1 
 have neither known nor heard of among others.” 
 The same rule prevailed in the West. Ama- 
 larius, writing about 827, says: “During the 
 celebration of these, i. e. the lesson (epustle) and 
 the prophecy, we are wont to sit, after the cus¬ 
 tom of the ancients.” Then, when he speaks of 
 the gospel: “Up to this time wo sit; now we 
 must rise at the words of the gospel ” {He Eccl. 
 Off. lib. iii. cc. 11, 18). At the same time all 
 turned to the East, and laid down the staft’ on 
 which, at that period, they commonly leaned, 
 
 “ nor was there crown or other covering on their 
 heads” {Ord. Horn. ii. § 8 ; Amal. u.s. c. 18). 
 
 X. The Doxologies. —The doxology now' com¬ 
 mon after the announcement of the gospel is 
 mentioned by w'riters within our period. Thus 
 Heterius and Beatws, in Spain, a.d. 785: “The 
 deacon commands all to be silent, and says, ‘ The 
 lesson of the holy gospel according to Matthew'.’ 
 All the people answer, ‘Glory be to Thee,0 Lord ’” 
 {Adv. Elip.md. lib. i. c. Ixvi.), Compare the 
 Mczarabic Missal (Leslie, pp. 2, 45, &c.). Ama- 
 laiius only recommends it. After advising the 
 pe-tple to pray for a profitable hearing, he 
 adds: “ Let him who is not quick to take in 
 the w'ords of the gospel, at least .say, ‘Glory,’” 
 &c. (lib. iii. c. 18). The practice probably 
 
 came through Spain, like several other riles, 
 from the East. In the homilv He Circo. ascribed 
 incorrectly to St, Chryso.stom, we read, “ When 
 the deacon is about to ojien the gospel, w'e all 
 fix our eyes on him and keej) silence; but when 
 he begins the course of reading, we forthwith 
 stand up, and resjiond, ‘ Glory be to Thee, 0 
 Lord’” {0pp. St. Chrys. tom. viii. p. 723, ed. 
 Gaume). Compare the liturgies of St. Basil and 
 St. Chry.sostom (Goar, pp. 161 and 69). The use 
 of this form w'as probably not verv extensive 
 before the 6th century, or w'e should have found 
 it in all the Nestorian and Eutychian rites. The 
 liturgy of Malabar (Nestorian), however, does 
 give “Glory to Christ the Lord” {Hi t. E cl. 
 Malah. Raulin, p. 306); the Ethiopic, “Glory 
 be to Thee alway, 0 Christ, our Lord and God,” 
 &c. (Renaud. tom. i. p. 510); and the Armenian, 
 “Glory be to Thee, 0 Lord, our God” (Neale’s 
 Eastern Church, Introd. p. 414). 
 
 Thei'e is no very early evidence of a doxology 
 after the gospel. The liturgy of Malabar repeats 
 that given above. The Ethiopic has, “The che¬ 
 rubim and seraphim send glory up to Thee.” 
 The Armenian, like the Malabar, has the same 
 after as before. There w'as none in the early 
 Roman liturgv, andA/ncn seems to have been the 
 common response in the middle ages {Xotitia 
 Eu 'h (ristica, p. 228). 
 
 XL In u'h/.d language read. —As the fir.st con¬ 
 verts to the gospel spoke Greek, all the liturgies 
 were originally in that language. It is not 
 know'n w'hen Latin w'as adopted in the services 
 at Rome, but the church there had been founded 
 more than a century and a half before it pro¬ 
 duced a single Latin w'riter. It was, therefore, 
 natural that Greek should be occasionally and 
 partially used in the services after the general 
 use of Latin had begun. In particular the 
 eucharistic lessons were on certain days roiid in 
 both languages. The chief evidence of this is 
 the fact that it continued as a traditionary cus¬ 
 tom throughout the middle ages (see Xotitia 
 Euch. p. 207); but w'e also find some early testi¬ 
 mony to the usage. Thus Amalarius; “ Six 
 lessons were read by the ancient Romans [on the 
 Saturdays of the Ember weeks] in Greek and 
 Latin (w'hich custom is kept up at Constan¬ 
 tinople to this day), for tw'o reasons, if I mistake 
 not; the one, because there were Greeks present, 
 to w’hom Latin w'as not known ; the other, be¬ 
 cause both peo])le w'ere of ’>ue mind ” {He Eccl. 
 Oif. lib. ii. c. 1). This statement obtains col¬ 
 lateral support from the earliest Ordo Romanus, 
 in W'hich the four lessons used at the general 
 baptism on Easter Eve are ordered to be read in 
 Greek and Latin (§ 40). Nicholas L. a.d. 85S, 
 writing to the emperor 4IichaeL con linns the 
 statement of Amalarius as to the practice at 
 Constantinople. He atfirms that “daily, or any 
 how, on the principal feasts,” the church there 
 was “reported to recite the apostolic and evan¬ 
 gelic lessons in that language (the Latin) first, 
 and afterw'ards pronounce the very same lessons 
 in Greek, for the sake of the Greeks” (/.p. viii., 
 Labb. Co)ic. tom. viii. col. 298). When John VllL, 
 in the same century, gave permission for the 
 celebration of the Holy Communion in the 
 Sclavonic tongue, he made this provi.svi, tliat, 
 “ to show it greater honour, the gospel should 
 be read in Latin, and afterwards published in 
 Sclavonic in the ears of the people who did not 
 
GOSPELLER 
 
 understand Latin; as appears to be done in some 
 churches ” (^Ep. ccxlvii.; Labb. Cone. tom. ix. 
 col. 177). In the chui'ches of Syria the gospel 
 and epistle ai-e still read both in the old Syriac 
 and in the better understood Arabic (Renaud. 
 tom. ii. p. 69); and in Egypt in both Coptic and 
 Arabic (Renaud. tom. i. pp. 5-8). When they 
 were first i-ead in Arabic we do not know; but 
 it was probably before the 9th century, as both 
 countries were conquered and overrun by the 
 Arabs in tlie former half of the 7th. 
 
 XII. From the 6th century downward we 
 meet with repeated instances of a custom of 
 inclosing the gospels in cases, covers, or caskets, 
 adorned with gems and the precious metals. 
 The Hrst Ordo Romanus, in giving directions for 
 the pontifical mass, to which we have referred 
 above, orders, that on festivals the keeper of the 
 vestry at St. John’s Lateran shall give out “ a 
 larger chalice and paten, and larger gospels 
 under his seal, noting the number of the gems 
 that they be not lost ” (§ 3). Childebert I., 
 A.D. 531, is said by Gregory of Tours to have 
 returned from an expedition into Spain, bringing 
 with him, among other spoils, “sixty chalices, 
 fifteen patens, twenty cases for the gos 2 :)els 
 (evangeliorum capsas), all adorned with pure 
 gold and precious gems ” (//ist. Eranc. lib. iii. 
 c. X.). The same writer tells us that ono of the 
 emperors of Rome caused to be made for the 
 church at Lyons “a case for inclosing the holy 
 gospels and a paten and chalice of pure gold 
 and precious stones” (De Glor. Confess, cap. 
 Ixiii.). Gregory the Great gave to the king of 
 the Lombards “ a lectionary (lectionem) of the 
 holy gospel inclosed in a Persian case (theca)” 
 (^Kpp. lib. xii. Ep. vii. ad Theodel.) [W. E. S.] 
 
 GOSPELLER. [Gospel, § V. p. 742.] 
 
 GOSPELS, ' BOOK OF. [Liturgical 
 Books: Gospel, § IV. p. 742.] 
 
 GOSPELS IN ART. [See Four Rivers, 
 Evangelists.] The sources of the four rivers, 
 rcpre.5euted continually on the sarcophagi (Bot- 
 tari, ScuUure c Pitture, tav. xvi. and passim) 
 have doubtless reference to the four gos^^els, as 
 well as to the streams which watered the garden 
 of Eden. See also the woodcut of the Lateran 
 Cross s. V. Cross. 
 
 Rolls of the gospels, or other sacred books 
 are often represented on glasses and cups (Buo- 
 uaruotti, Vetri, tav. ii. viii. 1, xiv. 2). A ca.se 
 containing the gospels is represented in the 
 chapel of Galla Placidia at Ravenna (see Ciam- 
 pini. Vet. Mon. I. Ixvii.). They are generally 
 rolls, sometimes with umbilici and capsae. In 
 Buonaruotti, Frammenti di vasi antichi, tav. 
 viii. 1, the rolls of the four gospels surround a 
 representation of the miracle of the seven loave.s, 
 with probable reference to ]\Iatt. iv. 4, “ Man 
 shall not live by bread alone, but by every word 
 that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” 
 
 The portraits or symbolic representations of 
 the Evangelists very commonly bear the gospels 
 from the earliest date : indeed the symbol of four 
 scrolls or books, j)laced in the four angles of a 
 Greek cro.ss, are asserted by Mrs. Jameson to be 
 the earliest type of the Four Evangelists, and 
 must certainly be among the earliest. In the 
 baptistery at Ravenna (Ciainpini, I'. M. I. p. 
 234)^ there is a mosaic of the four go.spcis 
 
 GRACE AT MEALS 74.5 
 
 resting on four tables, each with its title. This 
 dates B om a.d. 451. 
 
 The figures cf apostles, passim in ancient me¬ 
 diaeval and modern art, bear rolls or volumes in 
 their hands; but Martigny remarks very inge¬ 
 niously and thoughtfully, that in the earliest 
 examples of apostles the volume must be con¬ 
 sidered to be that of the Law and tlie Prophets, 
 to which and to whom they referred all men in 
 their preaching, even from the day of Psnteco.st. 
 In one instance a picture at the bottom of a cuj) 
 representing an adoration of the Magi (Buona¬ 
 ruotti ix. 3) the book of the gosj)els is i)laced near 
 one of the three, in token of their being the first, 
 with the shepherds, to bear Uie good tidings of 
 the Saviour of Mankind. 
 
 A symbol of the gospel, and of the evangelists, 
 of the highest antiquity (indeed, as Mr. Hemans 
 thinks, of the Constantinian period) is the paint¬ 
 ing of four jewelled books at the juncture of the 
 arms of a large cross, also jewelled, on the A^ault 
 of a hall belonging to the Thermae of Trajan; 
 consecrated for Christian worship by poj;e 
 Sylvester in the time of Constantine, and still 
 serving as a crypt-chapel below the church of 
 SS. Martino e Silvestro on the Esquiline Hill. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 GRACE AT MEALS. The Jews _were 
 wont to give thanks at table, one of the com¬ 
 pany saying the prayer “ in the i)lural number. 
 Let us bless, &c.,” and the rest answering Amen 
 (Beracoth cap. vii.; Lightfoot Horae Hebr. in St. 
 Matt. XV. 36). When our Lord was about to 
 feed the multitudes He took the loaves and fishes, 
 and “blessed” (St. Matt. xiv. 19; St. Mark vi. 
 41; St. Luke ix. 16) or “gave thanks” (St. 
 Matt. XV. 36; St. Mark viii. 6; St. John vi. 11) 
 before He distributed them. This was in accord¬ 
 ance with the Jewish custom, which thus, with 
 the sanction of our Lord’s example, passed into 
 His church. St. Chrysostom, commenting on 
 Matt. xiv. 19-21, says that He then “taught us 
 that we should not touch a table before giving 
 thanks to Him who provides this food ” (//om. 
 xlix.). In commenting on the account of the 
 Last Supper, he refers to the “Grace” said 
 after meat also :—“ He gave thanks before 
 distributing to the disciples, tliat we may give 
 thanks too. He gave thanks and sang liymus 
 after distributing, that we may do the same 
 thing ” (Tu St. Matt, xxvi, 30 ; Horn. Ixxxii.). 
 That this was the general practice of the early 
 Christians is proved by many testimonies. St. 
 Paul, to whatever else he may allude beside, 
 certainly recognizes it in 1 Tim. iv. 3-5. Meats, 
 he there teaches, were “ created to be received 
 with thanksgiving of them which believe and 
 know the truth.” Clemens of Alexandria, A.D. 
 192, both owns the principle, and vouches for 
 the observance. “As it is meet that before tak¬ 
 ing food we ble.ss the Maker of all these things, 
 so akso does it become us, when drinking, to 
 sing psalms unto Him ; forasmuch as we are 
 partaking of His creatures” {Paedmj. lib. ii. 
 c. iv’. § 44; see also § 77). Of the model Cliris- 
 tian, he says, “His sacrifices are jtravers ami 
 praises, and the reading of Scripture before the 
 banqueting ; psalms and hymns after it ” {Stt'om. 
 lib. vii. c. vii. § 49). Again : “ Refei-ring the 
 reverent enjoyment of all things to God, he ever 
 oilers to the giver of all things the first-fruits 
 of moat and drink and anointing oil, yielding 
 
746 
 
 GRACE AT MEALS 
 
 GRADUAL 
 
 thanks,” &c. (^Thid. § 36). Tertnllian, writing 
 probably in 202 : “ We do not recline (at an 
 entertainment) before prayer be first tasted 
 . . . After water for the hands and light-s, each, 
 as he is able, is called out to sing to God from 
 the Holy Scidptures. or from his own mini. In 
 like manner prayer puts an end to the feast” 
 {Liber Aj.ol.adv. Gentes, c. x.vxi.x.). St. Cyprian, 
 writing in 246 : “ Nor let the banqueting hour 
 be void of heavenly grace. Let the temperate 
 entertainment resound with psalms, and do ye 
 each undertake this wonted duty according to the 
 strength of your memory or excellence of voice ” 
 {Ad Don it. sub fin.). St. Basil, a.d. .370: “Let 
 prayers be said before taking food in meet ac¬ 
 knowledgment of the gift.s of God, both of those 
 which He is now giving and of those which He 
 has put in store for the future. Let prayers be 
 said after food containing a return of thanks for 
 the things given, and request for those pro¬ 
 mised ” {Dp. ii. ad Greg. Naz. § 6). Sozomen, 
 A.D. 440, says of the younger Theodosius, that he 
 would eat nothing “before he had blessed the 
 Creator of all things” {Hist. Eccles. Orat. ad 
 Imp. libro i. praefixa). 
 
 Examples remain of the early Graces, both of 
 the East and West. E.g. the Apostolical Con¬ 
 stitutions (lib. vii. c. 49) furnish the following 
 EL»xr? eV’ aplcTTw, Prager at the middag meal: 
 “ Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord, who feedest me from 
 my youth uj), who givest food to all flesh. Fill 
 our hearts with joy and gladness ; that always 
 having a sutficiency we may abound unto every 
 good work, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through 
 whom be glory and honour and power unto Thee, 
 world without end. Amen” {Patres Apostol.CoiGl. 
 tom. i. p. 385). This prayer (slightly varied) is 
 also given to be said after meals in the treatise 
 De Virginitate ascribed (most improbably) to St. 
 Athanasius. The writer first gives it and then 
 proceeds as follows : “And when thou art seated 
 at table and hast begun to break the bread, 
 having thrice sealed it with the sign of the 
 cross, thus give thanks, ‘ We give thanks unto 
 Thee, our Father, for Thy holy resurrection [f. e. 
 wrought and to be wrought in us, if the reading 
 be correct]; for through Thy Son Jesus Christ 
 hast Thou made it known unto us ; and as this 
 bread upon this table was in separate grains, and 
 being gathered together became one thing, so 
 let Thy church be gathered together from the 
 ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine 
 is the power and the glory for ever and ever. 
 Amen.’ And this prayer thou oughtest to say 
 when thou breakest bread and desirest to eat; 
 but when thou dost set it on the table and sittest 
 down, say Our Father all through. But the 
 prayer above written (Blessed art Thou, 0 God 
 [Lord, Const. Apost.'fi) we say after we have made 
 our me.al and have risen from table” (§§ 12, 13, 
 inter Athanas. 0pp.). A short paraphrase, as it 
 appears, of an Eastern Grace at meals may also 
 be seen in the anonymous commentary (probably 
 of the sixth century) on the Book of Job printed 
 with the works of Origen (lib. iii.). 
 
 The following examples from the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary are probably the most ancient 
 Graces of the Latin church now extant: Prayers 
 before Meat. (1) “ Refresh us, 0 Lord, with Thy 
 gifhs, and sustain us with the bounty of Thy 
 riches; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” 
 (2) “ Let us be refreshed, 0 Lord, from Thy 
 
 grants and gifts, and satiated uith Thy blessing 
 through, &c.” (3) “ Protect us, Lord oui 
 
 God, and afford needful sustenance to our frailtv • 
 through, &c.” (4) “ Bless, 0 Lord, Thy gifts." 
 
 which of Thy bounty we are about to take; 
 through, &c.” (5) “0 God, who dost alway 
 
 invite us to spiritual delight.s, give a blessing on 
 Thy gifts; that we may attain to a sanctified 
 reception of those things which are to be eaten 
 in Thy name; through, &c.” (6) “ IMay Thv 
 
 gifts, 0 Lord, refresh us, and I’hy grace console us'; 
 through, &c.” P ragers after Me tls. —(1) ‘Satis¬ 
 fied, 0 Lord, with the gifts of Thy riches, we 
 give Ihee thanks for these things which we 
 receive from 'I’hy bounty, beseeching Thv merev 
 that that which was needful for our boclies mav 
 not be burdensome to our min Is ; throucrh, &c.” 
 (2) “We have been satisfiel, 0 Lonl, with Thv 
 grants and gifts. Replenish us with Thy merev. 
 Thou who art blessed ; who with the Father and 
 Holy Ghost livest and reiguest Goa for ever and 
 ever. Amen.” Muratori, J.iturgia Rom. Vetus. 
 tom. i. col. 745. Compare the lienedictio ad 
 Mensam, and Benedictio po t Mensam levatam in 
 the Gallican Sacramentary of the 7th centurv 
 found at Bobio {Ibid. tom. ii. col. 959). 
 
 [W. E. S.] 
 
 GRACILIANUS. [Fklicissima.] 
 
 GRADO, COUNCIL OF {Gradense con¬ 
 cilium)., held A.D. 579 at Grado for the transfer 
 thither of the see of Aquileia, supposing its acts 
 genuine, but Istria was at this time out of com¬ 
 munion with Rome for not accepting the 5th 
 council, and the part assigned to Elias, bishop of 
 Aquileia, throughout is suspicious. A legate 
 from Royie at his instance exhibited a letter as 
 from po])e Pelagius II. to him authorising this 
 change, which was accordingly confirmed. Then 
 he requested that the definition of the 4th 
 council might be I’ecited, which was also done. 
 In the subscriptions which follow his own comes 
 first, after him that of the legate, nineteen 
 bishops or their representatives follow, and last 
 of all twelve presbyters in their own names. 
 Mansi regards it as a forgery (ix. 927). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GRADUAL {Responsorium Graduale or Gra- 
 dale; or simply Responsorium or Responsttm; 
 or Graduale. In mediaeval English Gragl 
 spelt variously.)—I. This was an anthem sung 
 after the epistle in most of the Latin churches. 
 Originally, it seems that a whole psalm was 
 sung, at least in Africa, as we gather from seve¬ 
 ral allusions in the Sermons of St. Augustine. 
 Thus in one he sa)"s, “To this belongs that which 
 the apostolic lesson (Col. iii. 9) before the can¬ 
 ticle of the psalm presignified, saying ‘ Put off, 
 &c.’ ” {Serin, xxxii. c. iv.). “ We have heard 
 
 the apostle, we have heard the psalm, we have 
 heard the gospel” {Senn. clxv. c. i.). Again :— 
 “ We have heard the first lo.ssou of the apostle, 
 
 ‘ This is a foithful saying, See.' (1 Tim. i. 15) 
 .Then wo sang a psalm, mutually ex¬ 
 horting one another, .saying with one voice, 
 one heart, ‘ 0 come, let us worship,’ &c. 
 (Ps. xcv. 6). After the.se the gospel lesson 
 showed us the cleansing of the ten lepers ” 
 {Senn. clxxvi. c. i.). In his Retractations (lib. 
 ii. c. xi.) St. Augustine speaks of a custom which 
 began at Carthage in his .ur^e of “saying hymns 
 at the altar from the Book of Psalms, either 
 
GRADUAL 
 
 GRADUAL 
 
 747 
 
 before the oblation or when that which had 
 been offered was being distributed to the people.” 
 The hyinn before the oblation has been under¬ 
 stood by some to be the j)salm before the gospel ; 
 but a hymn sung before the catechumens left 
 would hardly have been called by so precise a 
 writer as Augustine a hymn before the oblation. 
 He must rather have meant the offertory which 
 immediately preceded the offering of the ele¬ 
 ments. Nor was the Gradual sung at the altar, 
 but, as we shall see, from the lector’s ambo. We 
 infer, therefore, that the psalm after the epistle 
 was a custom of the church before the age of 
 St. Augustine. Gennadius of Marseilles, a.d. 
 495, tells us that Musaeus, a presbyter of that 
 city, A.D. 458, at the request of his bishop, 
 selected “ from the Holy Scriptures lessons suit¬ 
 able to the feast-days of the whole year, and 
 besides, responsory chapters of psalms adapted 
 to the seasons and lessons ” (^De Viris Illust. c. 
 Ixxi.v.). Another witness is Gregory of Tours, 
 who relates that on a certain occasion in the 
 year 585, his deacon “who had said the re- 
 spoosory at the masses before day ” was ordered 
 by king Guntram to sing before him, and that 
 afterwards all the priests present saug a respon¬ 
 sory psalm, each with one of his clerks {Hist. 
 Franc. L. viii. § iii.). The Antiphonary ascribed 
 to Gregory I. must have undergone changes 
 down to the 11th or 12th century, if it was not 
 originally compiled then. It contains Graduals 
 (there called Responsories) for use throughout 
 the year; but from our uncertainty about their 
 age, we need only state the fact. It was printed 
 by Pamelius {Litiirgicon., tom. ii. p. 62), and by 
 Thomasius at Rome in 1683. The earliest Ordo 
 Romanus extant, which describes a pontifical mass 
 of the 7th century, fully recognizes the use of 
 the Gradual: “After he (the subdeacon) has read 
 (the epistle) the cantor ascends [the steps of the 
 ambo] with the cantatory, and says the Re¬ 
 sponse” (§ 10; Mus. Ital. tom. ii. p. 9). Again : 
 “ With regard to the Gradual Responsory, it is 
 [in Lent] sung to the end by him who begins it, 
 and the verse in like manner” (§ 26, p. 18). 
 Compare Ordo ii. § 7. Amalarius {Prol. in Lib. 
 de Ord. Antiph. Hittorp. col. 504) explains the 
 term ‘cantatory.’ “That which we call the 
 Gradual {Gradate) they (the Romans), call Canta- 
 torium ; which in some churches among them is 
 still, according to the old custom, comprised in 
 one vmlume.” It was, in foct, a book containing 
 all the Graduals for the year. 
 
 II. Strictly only the first verse of the anthem 
 was called the Gradual. The rest was technically 
 called the “ vei'se.” The mode of singing it was 
 not everywhere the same; but Amalarius de¬ 
 scribes at some length how this was done at 
 Rome, whence, he assures us {De Eccles. Off. 
 L. iii. c. 11 ; De Ot'd. Ant. u.s.), the Gradual was 
 derived to other churches:—“ The precentor in 
 the first row sings the Responsory to the end. 
 The succentors respond {i. e. sing the Responsory) 
 in like manner. The jirecentor then sings the 
 verse. The verse being ended, the succentors a 
 second time begin the Responsory from the first 
 word, and continue it to the end. Then the 
 precentor sings, ‘Glory be to the Father and to 
 the Son and to the Holy Ghost.’ This being 
 ended, the succentors take up the Responsory 
 about the middle, and continue it to the end. 
 Lastly the precentor begins the Responsory from 
 
 the first word and continues it to the end. 
 Which being over the succentors for the third 
 time repeat the Responsory from the beginning 
 and continue it to the end.” Amalarius also 
 tells us that “ the Gloria was not sung with 
 Responsories from the first ” {J)e Ord. Antiph, 
 c. 18); from which we infer with probability 
 that they were in use before that doxology was 
 composed. 
 
 HI. The mode of singing adojifed for the Gra¬ 
 dual, in which one sang alone for a wliile and 
 many responded was probably in use from the 
 very infancy of the church, in the Aj.ostolical 
 Constitutions the apostles are made to direct 
 that at the celebration of the holy eucharist 
 one of the deacons shall “ chant the hymns of 
 David, and the people subchant the ends of the 
 verses” (L. ii. c. Ivii.). When Sf. Athanasius 
 (a.d. 356) found his church surrounded by more 
 than 5000 soldiers, and a violent crowd of Ari- 
 ans, he placed himself on his throne and “di¬ 
 rected the deacon to read a psalm, and the 
 people to respond, ‘For His mercy endureth for 
 ever’” {Apol. de Fugd sud, § 24). Eusebius, 
 too, citing Philo’s account of certain “ Ascetae ” 
 in Egypt, among other of their customs which 
 he declares to belong to the Christians, mentions 
 that one would “ chant a psalm in measured 
 strains, the I’est listening in silence, but singing 
 the last parts of the hymns together ” (Euseb. 
 Hist. L. II. c. xvii.). Whether those ascetics 
 were Jews or Christians the narrative of Philo 
 shows that the practice must have been known 
 to the Jewish converts of the 1st century, and 
 may even then have been adopted by them. 
 
 IV. From Easter Eve to the Saturday in 
 Whitsun week inclusively the Gradual was fol¬ 
 lowed, and at last supj)lanted by the Alleluia. 
 This had been long known in the West and used, 
 though not prescribed, on public occasions oi 
 religious joy. At Rome it was only sixng on 
 Easter day, as Sozomen informs us {Hist. Feel. 
 lib. vii. cap. xix.), and his statement is copied by 
 Cassiodorius(//isf. A’c’c/. Tripart. L. xiii. c. xxxix.), 
 who lived at Rome, a.d. 514. Their authority, 
 however, can only prove the fact for an age 
 before their own; for Gregory I. affirms that it 
 was introduced at Rome in masses by St. Jerome 
 (who had learnt it at Jerusalem) in the time of 
 Damasus, a.d. 384 {Fjdst. lib. vii.; Ep. Ixiv.). 
 This, of course, refers to its use between Easter 
 and Pentecost; as Gregory himself extended it 
 “ beyond the time of Pentecost ” {ibid.). In 
 the Antiphonary ascribed to him it is only 
 omitted between Septuagesima Sunday and 
 Easter (Pamel. Liturg. tom. ii. pp. 81-110). 
 Amalarius (u.s. cap. 13) speaks of it as “sung 
 on feast days.” 
 
 V. Tlie Tract was another anthem sometimes 
 sung after the epistle. Originally it was always 
 from the Book of Psalms; and like the Gradual 
 was a remnant and evidence of their early use 
 in celebrations as a part of Holy Scripture. 
 The Tract and Gradual differed at first, in all 
 probability, only in being sung dilferently; or 
 in other words the Tract was nothing more than 
 the Gradual as it was chanted in seasons of 
 humiliation. It is for this reason that we treat 
 of tliem together. Very soon, however, a Tract 
 was often sung after the Gra<tual; or, as it 
 would, wo presume, be then viewed, a third 
 verse was added to the anthem, which was sung 
 
748 
 
 GREETiyO-HOUSE 
 
 GRADUAL 
 
 tractim ; i. c. continuously by tlie cantor without 
 any assistance from the choir. Although the 
 language is obscure, we may ])erhaj)S infer that 
 they were sometimes sung together under the 
 first OrJo Komanus. “ If it siiall be the time 
 for the Alleluia tO be said, well; but if for the 
 Tract, well again; but if not let the response 
 (Gradual) only be sung” (§ 10). The Tract is 
 never used without a respousory in the so-called 
 Gregorian Antiphonary. Though properly 
 penitential (Amalarius De Keel. Ojf. lib. ii. c. 3), 
 the Tract was not always of a mournful cha¬ 
 racter. Sometimes,” says Amalarius, “ the 
 Tract e.xpresses tribulation, sometimes joy ” 
 lib. iii. c. 13). It was sung from the 
 same place as the Gradual (^Orcl. llom. /. § 10; 
 II. § 7), and at first by the same cantor (fJrd. T. 
 § 7) ; but later on by another (^Ord. III. § 9). The 
 origin of the name, from cantus traetus,n sustained 
 unbroken chant, appears certain. Honorius of 
 Autun, A.D. 1130, is the earliest extant authority 
 for it (^Gemma A^iimae, lib. i. c. 96); but it is 
 approved by all the best ritualists. 
 
 The mode of chanting the Tract w'as probably 
 borrowed from the early monks, who sang the 
 psalms by turns, one at a time. Thus Cassian, 
 A.D. 424, ‘‘ One rises to sing psalms unto the 
 Lord before the company ” {De Coenob. Instil. 
 lib. ii. c. V.). “ They divide the aforesaid num¬ 
 
 ber of twelve psalms in such a manner that if 
 two brethren be present, they sing six each; if 
 three, four; if four, three” {Ibid. c. xi.; see 
 also c. xii.). St. Jerome has an allusion to it 
 when, writing to a monk {Kp. xiv. ad Rustie. 
 J/o?i.), he reminds him of the obligation to rise 
 before sleep would natui'ally leave him and 
 “ say a psalm in his tuim.” 
 
 VI. The Gradual and Tract were sung from 
 the same step of the ambo from which the 
 epistle was read. According to the second Ordo 
 Romanus (§ 7), the Epistoler “went up on to 
 the ambo to read, but not on to its upper step 
 (or stage, gradum\ which only he who read the 
 gospel was wont to ascend. After he had read 
 the cantor ascended with the cantorium ( = can- 
 tatorium) .... not to a higher place; but he 
 stood in the same place as the reader.” It was 
 for this reason that tire anthem was called 
 Gradual: it was the chant from the step of the 
 ambo. This explanation of the term is given by 
 Rabanus IMaurus, A.D. 847, and is accepted b)' 
 Bona, Le Brun, Gerbert, Martene, and j^erhaps 
 all the great writers on ritual. 
 
 VII. The fact that the Gradual and Tract were 
 both sung from the lesson desk, and that by a 
 single cantor, detached thither, like the readers, 
 from the choir, seems to indicate their common 
 origin in that extended use of the Book of P.salms 
 with the rest of Holy Scripture which we know 
 to have prevailed during the first ages. Both 
 arrangements Avere appropriate and natural if 
 the psalms wei’e said in some sort as a lesson ; but 
 inappropriate as well as inconvenient for a mere 
 anthem. The sense of this at length led to the 
 Gradual being sung by the cantor in his usual 
 place. Amalarius, indeed, exhibits the cantor as 
 a teacher and preacher no less than those who 
 read the other Scriptures. “ By the office of the 
 cantor we may understand that of a prophet 
 .... By the resj)onsory we may understand the 
 preaching of the New Testament .... The cantor 
 discharges the functions of a faithful preacher,” 
 
 &c. {Dc Eecl. Off. 1. iii. cap. 11). This was, we 
 presume, the traditional view. It is suggested 
 by St. Augustine’s manner of referring (.see above) 
 to the psalms which in his day formed part of 
 the eucharistic service in Roman Africa, as well 
 as to the ejdstles and gospels. The .same thought 
 underlies the mystical comment of Pseudo-Dio¬ 
 nysius. The p.salms sung, according to him, put 
 the soul into harmony with things divine, and 
 then those things which have been mvsticallv 
 shadowed forth in them are plainly and fullv 
 taught in the lessons from the other ])arts of 
 Holy writ {De Keel, llier. c. iii. n. iii. § 5). 
 Psalms are to this day sung before the gospel in 
 the Coptic rite (Kenaud. tom. i. pp. 7, 210). In 
 the Armenian “ a suitable psalm is recited ” im¬ 
 mediately before the first eucharistic lesson 
 (the prophecy) is read (Le Brun, Diss. x. art. 
 xiv.). In the Milanese a Psalmellus (Pamelii 
 Liturgieon, tom. i. p. 295), and in the Mozarabic 
 an anthem headed Psallendo (Leslie, Miss. Moz. 
 pp. 1, 222), in Lent a Tractus {ibid. pp. 98, 101, 
 &c.) is sung between the prophecy and the 
 epistle. In these psalms or anthems we find 
 the evident remains, akin to the Roman Gradual 
 and Tract, of the psalmody which accompanied 
 the reading of the other Scriptures in the primi¬ 
 tive church. There was also, we may mention 
 in conclusion, a substitute for it left in the Old 
 Gallican liturgy in the Hymn of Zacharias, 
 often called the prophecy, which was sung be¬ 
 fore the Old Testament Lesson (S. German! 
 Expos. Brec. in Martene De Ant. Eeel. Bit. 1. 
 
 i. c. iv. art. xii. ord. i.; Mabill. Liturg. Gall. 1. 
 
 ii. pp. 251, 322, &c.), and in the Song of the 
 
 Three Children (Germanus, u. s.; Mabill. ibid 
 p. 107) which was sung between the epistle and 
 gospel. [W. E. S.J 
 
 GRANATARIUS, in a monastery, one of 
 the four deputies or assistants of the house- 
 steward (“suffraganei cellerario,” quaintly styled 
 ‘•’■solatia cellerarii” in the old Benedictine rule), 
 the receiver of the yearly corn-harvest of the 
 monastery, and keeper of the granary (Mart. 
 Reg. Bened. Comm. c. 31) and of the farm stock 
 (Isidor. Reg. c. 19). In some monasteries his 
 office was to provide all household necessaries 
 (Ducange Gloss. Lat. s. v.). The word is also 
 spelt “ granarius ” or “ granetarius.” [1. G. S.] 
 
 GRATA. [Photixcs.] 
 
 GRATIAS DEO. [Deo Gratias.] 
 
 GR AVES. [Arcosolium ; Area ; Bisomus : 
 Catacombs; Cemetery; Cella JIemoriae ; 
 Churchyard.] 
 
 GREAT WEEK. [Holy Week.] 
 
 GREEK, USED IN SERVICES. [Creed, 
 § 17 ; Gospel, § XL p. 744.] 
 
 GREEN THURSDAY. [Maundy Thup^ 
 
 DAY.] 
 
 GREETING. [Salutation.] 
 
 GREETING, THE ANGELICAL. [Hail, 
 Mary.] 
 
 GREETING-HOUSE, a reception-room 
 {aanoLcrriKos oIkos. reeeptorium, salutatorium, 
 salle d’entre'e, parloir) next to the proaula or 
 I proaulium (Ducange GIoe<. L t. s. v. saluta- 
 ! torium). In the narrative of the famous iuter- 
 [ view between Ambrose and Theodosius, the 
 
GREGOKIAN MUSIC 
 
 GRIFFIN 
 
 749 
 
 bishop is described as sitting in his reception- 
 room before going to the church (Theodoret, 
 Ecc. Hist. V. 18), and Gregory the Great speaks 
 of a bishop as proceeding from his rece))tion- 
 room to church (Greg. M. Ep. iv, 54). Bingham 
 corrects the opinion of Scaliger that the place 
 spoken of by Theodoret was a part of the bishop’s 
 palace used for entertaining strangers, and pro¬ 
 nounces it “ a place adjoining the church ” 
 (“ e.xedra ecclesiae adjuncta,” Ducange, v. s.) for 
 the bishop “ to receive the salutations of the 
 people ” coming for his “ blessing,” or on “ busi¬ 
 ness ” (Bingh. Grig. Eccles. viii. vii. 8; cf. 
 Vales. Annotat. in Theodoret. 1. c.). It is re¬ 
 corded of St. Martin of Tours that he sat on a 
 three-legged stool in a room of this kind, in pre¬ 
 ference to using the bishop’s throne which was 
 there (Snip. Sev. Vit. S. Mart.) ; and that on his 
 visitations he spent night and day in this room 
 (Snip. Sev. Ep. 1). In this “ salutatorium ” the 
 rule of the convent was read over to candidates 
 for admission (^E-eg. Aurel. ad Virgines, c. 1). The 
 nuns, and even the abbess, were forbidden to see 
 any stranger here alone (^Eeg. Donat, ad Virg. c. 57 ; 
 Eeg. Caesarii ad Vtrg. c. 35); and by the council 
 of Macon, A.D. 581, bishops, priests, and deacons, 
 as well as laymen, were prohibited from entering 
 the reception-room of a nunnery, .Jews especially 
 being excluded (Gone. Alatiscon. c. 2).“ On the 
 same principle, women, even nuns, were excluded 
 from the bishop’s “salutatorium”(Ducange,s.v.). 
 In a Benedictine monastery this chamber was 
 usually on the east side of the quadrangle, be¬ 
 tween the chapter-house and the south transept 
 of the church (Whitaker’s Hist, of Whalleg, 
 p. 124, 4th ed, 1874). 
 
 A room of this kind was used, according to 
 Mabillon, for robing, for hearing causes, for 
 synods, for keeping relics in, and sometimes for 
 temporary residence (Mabill. Ann. Bencd. Saec. 
 iv. i. p. 370, cited by Ducange Gloss. Lat. v. s.; 
 cf. Snip. vSev. Ep. i.). According to Menard, 
 there was a similar room for the use of the 
 priests ( Bened. Anian. Concord. Eegul. v. 25; cf. 
 Sulp. Sev. Dial. II. i.). 
 
 This receiving-room, or audience-chamber, 
 seems identical with the “ sacrarium,” or vestry, 
 where the vessels for use in church were kept 
 (Ducange Gloss. Lat. s. v.) See Diaconicum, 
 Gazophylacium. [I. G. S.] 
 
 GREGORIAN MUSIC. [Music.] 
 
 GREGORY. (1) Bishop of Nyssa in Cappa- 
 docia(t 390 A.D.); commemorated March ^{Mart. 
 i?om. T c^., Adonis) ; Jan. 10(Ga/. Bgzant.')\ Iledar 
 2(> = Xov. 22 (Ga/. Etliiop.)', dejiosition March 9 
 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Magnus, the pope, “apostolus Anglorum ” 
 (1 604 A.D.); commemorated with Innocent I., 
 March 12 (Mart. Eom. Vet., Ilieron.., Adonis, 
 Usu.ardi) ; deposition March 12 (Alart. Bedao). 
 
 (3) Bishoj) and confessor of Kliberis (Elvira) 
 (saec. IV.) ; commemorated April 24 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (4) T heologus, bishop of Naisianzus and of 
 Constantinople (f 389 A.D.); commemorated Jan. 
 
 » I’he reading in the text, “extra salutatorium,’’ ob¬ 
 viously wrong, is corrected by Ii;d)be in the margin to 
 “infra.” 'Ilie “ ovatoriuni ” here mentioned and in the 
 passage quoted above from the Rule of Donatus, is 
 perhaps another place. 
 
 25 (Cal. r>iizant., Mart. Bedae) ; May 9 (Mart. 
 Eom. B(?/., Adonis, Usuardi); Aug.3 (Ga/. Amen.). 
 
 (5) Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Caesare.a 
 and martyr (j circa^ 270 A.n.) ; commemorated 
 July 3 (J/a?’/. A’om.'Jc'/., Hieron., Adonis, Usu¬ 
 ardi); July 27 (Cal. Armen.)', Nov. 17 (Mart. 
 Bedae, Cal. Byzant.)', Hedar 21 = Nov. 17 (Cal. 
 Ethiop.). 
 
 (6) The Illuminator, bishop and patriarch of 
 Greater Armenia in the time of Diocletian 
 (t 325-330 A.D.), iepoudpTvs; commemorated 
 Sept. 30 (Cal. Byzant.)-, March 23 (Cal: Armen., 
 Cal. Georg.)’, Maskarram 19 = Sej)!. 16 (Cal. 
 Ethiop.)', invention of his relics, Oct. 14 (Ga/. 
 Armen.). 
 
 (7) Bishop of Agrigentum ; commemorated 
 Nov. 23 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 ' (8) Bishop of Auxerre ; commemorated Dec.* 
 19 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (9) Presbyter and martyr at Sj)oletum in 
 Tuscany, in the time of Diocletian and Maxi- 
 mian; commemorated Dec. 24 (Mart. Eom. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (10) Ab Shandzai ; commemorated Oct. 5 
 
 (Cal. Georg.). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GRIFFIN. See “ Cherub ” in Dictionary 
 OF THE Birle, vol. i. pp. 300 sqq.; and Buskin’s 
 Modern Painters, vol. iii. p. 112. 
 
 The connexion between the various symbolisms 
 of Cherub and GrilHn in Biblical and Northern 
 tradition is strengthened by the etymological 
 resemblance of the words. There is certainly a 
 great likeness- between the names ypvir (with s 
 afformative) and Both are titles of the 
 
 most ancient existing symbols of Divine om¬ 
 nipotence and omniscience; as it cannot be 
 doubted that the sphinxes of Egypt and winged 
 bulls or lions of Assyria conveyed kimlred ideas 
 to the hieratic, or indeed the popular mind. It 
 would seem that all the chief races of men have 
 been taught to set forth such mysterious forms; 
 as this composite idea is so nearly universal. 
 Some figure of this kind must have been the 
 ])opular shape of the cherub or gryiis known to 
 the children of Israel : and the fact that it was 
 a permitted and prescriheil imago, taken toge¬ 
 ther with the command to make the brazen 
 serpent, forms a very large jiortion of the sub¬ 
 structure of iconodulist arguments. See Johannes 
 Damascenus De fmaginib is, Orat. ii. Such in¬ 
 stances of griffin forms as ajipear in the earliest 
 Christian decoration seem to the writer to bo 
 in all probability merely ornamental; as, in 
 fact, unmeaning adajjtations of Gentile jiatterns. 
 See, however, Guendbault, Di< tionnaire leoao- 
 graphapie, s. v. “Griffon.” The use of the sym¬ 
 bolic griffin by the Lombard race, however, 
 dates from well within our period ; though the 
 great Veronese works so frequently mentioned 
 by Professor Buskin are {irobably as late as the 
 11th century. Those of the duomo of Verona 
 and the church of San Zenono deserve especial 
 mention. 
 
 That the grilfin is the Gothio-Christian lopre- 
 sentation of the cherub, the “ Mighty one,” or 
 the “Carved Imago” of Hebrew .scul|)tur6, 
 seiyus highly probable, further, rrom the Ibllow- 
 ing connexion of ideas in dilferent ages. 
 
 The glorified forms of living creatures and of 
 
750 GROTESQUE 
 
 wheels in the great oj)ening vision of I'^zekiel have 
 necessaiily been always connected with those of 
 the Zoia, the lieasts of the Apocalypse [See Ev'AN- 
 GKLISTS, p. Go8]. The latter, as representing 
 the writers of the four gosj)els, are an universal 
 symbol after the 5th century. It did not escape 
 the eye of Professor lluskin that the marble 
 wheel by the side of his Veronese griffin is an 
 indisputable reference on the part of the un¬ 
 known Lombard artist to the first chapter of 
 Ezekiel (Ezek. i. 21): “When those (Living 
 Creatures) went, these went: and when those 
 stood, these stood, and when those were lifted 
 up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up 
 over against them: for the spirit of the Living 
 Creatures was in the wheels.” And this is fully 
 confirmed (were that necessary) by Dr. Hay- 
 man’s researches in the Dictioxarv of the 
 Bihle. But the wheels appear in a more an¬ 
 cient work by a great and mystical genius 
 whose name and date alone remain to us, the 
 monk Rabula, scribe and illustrator of the 
 great Florentine MS., A.D. 586 (See Assemani’s 
 Cataloijuc of the Laurentian lAhrarii'). A wood- 
 cut of this is given in this work, p. 85. It 
 represents the Ascension; our Lord is borne up 
 by two ministering angels on a chariot of cloud, 
 under which appear the heads of the Four Crea¬ 
 tures : the flaming wheels are on each side, with 
 tw'O other angels, who are apparently receiving 
 His garments, the vesture of His flesh. The 
 sun and moon are in the upper corners of the 
 picture; which is one of the most important 
 works in Christian art as a specimen of imagin¬ 
 ative symbolism of the highest character, and 
 also as a graphic illustration of the connexion 
 between Hebrew and Christian vision, or Apoca¬ 
 lypse of the Unseen. And to this the Veronese 
 griffin and its wheel, and the whole Christian 
 usage of that composite form as a symbol, really 
 refers. “ The winged shape becomes one of the 
 acknowledged symbols of Divine power: and in 
 its unity of lion and eagle, the workman of the 
 middle ages always meant to set forth the unity 
 of the human and Divine natures. In this unity 
 it bears up the pillars of the church, set for ever 
 as the corner stone.” 
 
 In its merely ornamental use it is derived 
 simply from Heathen or Gentile art and litera¬ 
 ture. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 GROTESQUE. We have the authority of 
 Prof. Mommsen for assigning the word k^vtvtw 
 as the original derivation of this adjective, formed, 
 probably, immediately from grot or grotto, a 
 cavern or subterranean recess, and therefoi-e 
 connected in its use, as a word of Renais¬ 
 sance origin, with ideas of Pan, the Satyrs, and 
 other cavern-haunting figures, combining noble 
 with ignoble form. The very numerous and 
 various meanings of the word all point to the 
 idea of novel contrast; either between the noble 
 and ignoble, or less noble, or of the beautiful with 
 the less beautiful. In Christian art, moreover, 
 both of earlier and later date, a large number of 
 works may be called grotesque in the general or 
 popular sense of the word, because they are very 
 singular in their appearance. This may arise in 
 one or in two ways, or be caused by one or both 
 of two conditions: either by the difficulty of 
 the subject, or the archaic style of the workmen, 
 or by a mixture of originality of mind and im- 
 
 GROTESQUE 
 
 perfect skill in craft. Many heathen grotesques 
 of the earlier empire, as those of Pompeii, the 
 Baths of Hadrian, and the newlv-discovei'ed 
 frescoes of the Doria Pamphili Villa (see Parker, 
 Aniiiiuities of Lome, and appendix by the present 
 writer) are extremely beautiful and perfect in 
 workmanship, and come under the first or second 
 classes mentioned, where the less pleasing form 
 is contrasted with the more beautiful; this is 
 the principle also of much cinque-cento gro¬ 
 tesque. Early Christian work of this kind is 
 not unfrequent in the catacombs, as in the 
 “Seasons” of the catacombs of SS. Domitilla 
 and Nereus, in many of the mo.saic orna¬ 
 ments of St. Constantia and the other Graeco- 
 Roman churches. The emj)loyment of actual 
 ugliness for surprise or contrast seems to be a 
 characteristic of the art of the Northern race.s, 
 found in Italy only in the earlier work of the 
 Lombard race, and then always distinguishable 
 in its manner from that of the French or Ger¬ 
 mans. Excepting the carvings of St. Ambrogio 
 at Milan, and the churches of St. Michele at 
 Pavia and Lucca, this species of grote.sque is not 
 part of our period; but the most characteristic 
 and important of all the.se buildings, St. Zeuone 
 at Verona, cannot be altogether omitted. It 
 seems as well to classify the various meanings 
 of the Grotesque as follows, according to the 
 examjdes found in various places and periods. 
 
 1. Grotesque, whe]-e more elaborate or serious 
 representations are contrasted with easier and less 
 important work by the same hand, as in orna¬ 
 mental borders round pictures, fillings-up of 
 vaultings or surfaces round figures, ikc. 'Idiis 
 embraces all the earlier grotesque of ornament, 
 as in the fre.scoes of Hadrian’s villa, or the Doria 
 Pamphili columbarium. 
 
 2 . Grotesque where the importance of the 
 subject, and the workman’s real interest in it, 
 are for a time played with ; he being led to dc 
 so by the natural exuberance of his fancy, by 
 temporary fatigue of mind, or other causes—this 
 includes the Lombard work. 
 
 3. Grotesque where either the imperfection of 
 the workman’s hand, or the inexpre.ssible nature 
 of his subject, render his work extraordinary in 
 ap])earance, and obviously imperfect and unequal. 
 This applies to the j)roductions of all times and 
 places where thoughtful and energetic men have 
 laboured. Among its greatest and most cha¬ 
 racteristic examples are the Triumph of Death 
 by Orgagna at Pisa, and the Last Judgment of 
 Torcello ; its most quaint and absurd aj)pearance 
 may be in the strange Ostrogothic mosaic in the 
 sacristy of St. Giovanni Evangelista at Ravenna; 
 or see Count Bastard’s Peintures des iJSS. j)assim; 
 but this description of grotesqueness apjffies to 
 almost all the Byzantine apses and arches of 
 triumph where the s})iritual world is depicted, 
 and indeed to all Byzantine work in as far as it 
 attempts naturali.st representation, unless it be 
 in the single pictures of birds, found in MSS., 
 and occasionally in mosaic, as at St. Vitale at 
 Ravenna. 
 
 Few of the works of the catacombs have anv 
 pretence to beauty. The birds and vine orna¬ 
 ment of the tomb of Domitilla (perhaps the 
 earliest Christian sepulchre, which is known by 
 dated bricks to be certainly not later than Ha¬ 
 drian, and is very probably the actual grave of 
 a granddaughter of Vespasian) arc of the same 
 
GROTESQUE 
 
 GROTESQUE 
 
 751 
 
 date as the tomb, which is anterior to the cata¬ 
 comb. These, with some remains of the paint¬ 
 ings in the catacomb, and the 2nd century paint¬ 
 ings of the catacomb of St. Praete.xtatus, are 
 beautiful examples of playful naturalistic orna- 
 mtmt, probably the work of heathen hands, 
 under Christian direction, and taken in the 
 Christian sense. They are mentioned here, 
 rather as parallel works to the beautiful secular- 
 Roman grotesques, than as true grotesques 
 themselves. They are symbolic in the strict 
 sense (see J. H. Parker’s J'hotogrnphs and Anti¬ 
 quities of Home, and art. ‘ Symbolism ’ in this 
 Dictionary). 
 
 The grotesqueness of the early mosaics is of 
 the same nature as that of the forms and figures 
 in the best glass-painting. In both, the advum- 
 tages of light and shade, correct drawing and 
 oerspective, are sacrificed entirely to colour and 
 graphic force of impression. To exi)ress the 
 jdaiuest meaning in the brightest and most gem¬ 
 like colour is the whole object of the artist. Of 
 course in the works from the 5th to the 8th 
 century, down to the bathos of Graeco-Roman art, 
 the rigid strangene.ss of the mosaics may have 
 mucTi to do with the incapacity of the work¬ 
 men. Nevertheless the gift of colour is seldom 
 wanting ; and this, together with the painful 
 asceticism of faces and forms in these works, 
 points to an Eastern element in the minds and 
 education of these artists. The great Medici IMS. 
 of Rabula is perhaps the central example of the 
 genius and originality of design and graphic 
 power, possessed by some of the unknown ascetics 
 of Syria and the East. The mosaic of the Trans¬ 
 figuration at Mount Sinai, of the age of Justi¬ 
 nian and many of those in Rome, as the apses of 
 SS. Cosmas and Damiqnus, of St. Venantius, 
 and above all St. Prassede, are instances giving 
 evidence of necessarily imperfect treatment of a 
 transcendent subject. Those of Ravenna have 
 been already mentioned; but their workmanship 
 greatly excels that of the Roman mosaics, and 
 their quaiutness strikes one less than their 
 beauty. 
 
 The Lombard invasion of Italy dates 568 A.D., 
 and it is in the earliest work of this extraor¬ 
 dinary race that the Christian grotesque, pro¬ 
 perly speaking, may be said to arise. The best 
 account of some of its examples, in Pavia, Lucca 
 and Verona, is to be found in Appendix 8 of 
 Ruskin’s Stones of Venice, vol. i. p. 360-65, 
 accompanied by excellent descriptive plates, and 
 comparisons between the Lombard subjects and 
 workmanship in St. I\Iichele and St. Zenone, 
 and the Byzantine ma.soury and carvings of 
 St. Mark’s at Venice. Invention and restless 
 energy are the characteristics of the new and 
 strong barbarian race ; graceful conventionalism 
 and exact workmanshij), with innate but some¬ 
 what languid sense of beauty, belong to the 
 Greek workmen. Neither of them can ever be 
 undervalued by any one who is interested in the 
 bearings of art on history; for there can be no 
 doubt, that as the Lombard churches are the 
 first outbreak of the inventive and graphic 
 spirit which grew into the great Pisan and Ho- 
 rentine schools of painting and sculfiture, so the 
 Romauo-Greek or Eastern influence, generally 
 called Byzantine, extended over all the Christian 
 world of the early mediaeval ages. To trace the 
 (..'hristian grotesque northward and westward 
 
 through early MSS., bas-reliefs, and church deco¬ 
 ration would be to write a history of Christian 
 art in the dark ages. One of the first accom- 
 j)lishments of the denizens of a convent would 
 of course be calligraphy, and to multijdy Evan¬ 
 gel iaria and missals was a 
 earliest missionary work. 
 
 On the edge of every wave 
 of progre.ss made by the 
 Faith, the convents arose 
 
 part e ’en of the 
 
 things, and the 
 
 first of all 
 
 monks at once employed 
 them.selves on copies of the 
 Holy Scriptures. Now it 
 cannot be doubted, that a 
 Schola Graeca, a regular 
 set of artists working ac¬ 
 cording to Greek traditions 
 of subject and treatment in 
 art, existed in Rome from 
 the 6th century, if not be- 
 fore, and received a great 
 acce.ssion of strength in 
 the 8th during the Icono¬ 
 clastic struggle in Constan- 
 tinople, when many eccle¬ 
 siastical artists must have 
 withdrawn thence to Rome. 
 
 There in fact, as elsewhere, 
 the first faint revival of 
 
 •Christian art took })lace entirely in churches 
 and convent.s, and under what are called By¬ 
 zantine forms. Whether Bvzantinism he con¬ 
 sidered as the last embers of Graeco-Roman 
 art, kept alive by Christianity for the Northern 
 races, or as the first sparks of a new light 
 feebly struggling for existence through all the 
 centuries from the 6th to the 11th, there is no 
 doubt that the characteristics of Bvzantinism 
 
 No. 1. Mero7inf»ian Initial 
 and Bird. 
 
 No. 2. Carlovinpinn, 8th century. (Ba-stard, vol. i.) 
 
 —many of them characteristics of weakness, no 
 doubt—prevailed in Chri.stian ornamental work 
 of all Icinds, and were grotesque in all the senses 
 of the word. The beautifully illustrated works 
 of Prof. Westwood on Saxon, Irish and Northern 
 MSS. in particular, are of the highest value in 
 this connection, and are in tact almost the only 
 works generally accessible in this cottntry, whitrh 
 illustrate the connection between the Eastern and 
 English churches through the Irish, by way ot 
 Iona and Lindisfarne (see Miniaturk). 
 
 The splendid works ol D’Agincouri and Count 
 Bastard are the best authority and sources of 
 information on the Southern Grotesque in niinia- 
 
752 
 
 GUARDIANS 
 
 GYROVAGI 
 
 lure carving within the limits of our period, 
 and the art of photography is now bringing the 
 remains of tl)e ancient Lombai’d churches within 
 reach of most persons interested in them. De¬ 
 scriptions fail in great measure without illustra¬ 
 tion, and few pictures or drawings are really 
 trustworthy for details of ornamental work (see 
 Stones of Venice, App. vol, i. ubi suj).). Mr. 
 Rusk in has secured many valuable records by 
 his own j)encil and those of his trusted workmen. 
 Didron’s Annales Archeohgiques contain much 
 excellent illustration ; and a parallel work of 
 equal value is still, we believe, carried on in 
 Germany, called the .]ahrhu''h des Vereins von 
 Altertkums-freunden in Rheinlande. Mr. Parker’s 
 photogi'aphs and Roman Antiquities above men¬ 
 
 tioned, are of great value to the historical student 
 of art or of archaeology. The Northern Teutonic 
 grotesque of actual sj)ort of mind, ultra-natu¬ 
 ralism, and caricature extends far beyond the 
 limits of our period. But the term grotesque 
 is generally applied to so many things within 
 it, that some early specimens of Gothic humour 
 seem necessary for the purposes of this Dic- 
 tionaiy ; and three selections from Count Bas¬ 
 tard’s work are accordingly given. No. 1 is a 
 Merovingian initial letter; No. 2 Carlovingian 
 of the 8th century; and No. 3 is the initial 
 portrait of a monk-physician in a lettres-a-jour 
 jMS. of the 8th century of the medical works of 
 Orbaces, Alexander of Tralles, and Dioscorides. All 
 will be found in colour in Count Bastard’s first 
 volume, with innumerable others. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 GUARDIANS. The duties and liabilities of 
 guardians as defined by the old Roman laws, 
 were but slightly afiected by the Christian 
 religion [See Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. 
 s. V. 2'utor']. 
 
 The principal church regulation, which con¬ 
 cerned them, arose from the generally admitted 
 maxim, that the clergy ought not to be entangled 
 in secular affairs. Hence a guaiaVian was not 
 allowed to be ordained to any ecclesiastical func¬ 
 tion, until after the expiration of his guardian- 
 shifi. {Goncil. Carthag^ /. c. 9, A.D. 348.) For the 
 same reason none of the clergy were allowed to 
 be appointed guardians; and those who nomi¬ 
 nated any of them to such an office were liable to 
 church censures. Thus Cyprian mentions the 
 case of a person named Geminius Victor, who 
 having by his will appointed a presb 3 '^ter as 
 
 guardian to his children, had his name struck 
 out of the Dii'TVCHs, so that no praj'er or obia- 
 tion should be olfered {'vv him. (Cyprian 
 66 , ad Clentm Furnit.) 
 
 Under the old Roman law a guardian was 
 forbidden to marry his ward, or to give her in 
 marriage to his son, except by sj)ecial license 
 from the emperor (Cod. Justin, v. 6). 
 
 But Constantine altered this restriction, so far 
 as to allow such marriages, provided that the 
 ward was of age, and that l)er guardian had 
 offered her no injury in her minority, in which 
 case he was to be banished and his goods confis¬ 
 cated. (Cod. Tkeod. ix. 8.) [G. A. J.] 
 
 GUBA on the Euphrates (Council of), 
 A.D. 58.0, a meeting of the ]\lonophysites of 
 Antioch under their patriarch Peter the j'ounger, 
 to enquire into the opinions of an archimandrite 
 named John, and Probus, a so])hist, his friend, 
 and ending in their condemnation (Mansi, ix. 
 
 965-8). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 GUDDENE, martyr at Carthage, a.d. 203; 
 commemorated July 18 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GURIAS, martyr of Edessa, A.D. 288; com¬ 
 memorated with Abibas and Samonas, Nov. 15 
 (Cal. Ryzant., Cal. Armen.). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 GUTHBERTUS. [Cuthbert.] 
 GYNAECONITTS. [Galleries.] 
 
 GYROVAGI, vagabond monks, reprobated 
 by monastic writers. Benedict, in the very 
 commencement of his rule, excludes them from 
 consideration, as un worth)' of the name of monks 
 (Bened. Reg. c. 1). He pronounces them worse 
 even than the “ sara'baitae,” or “ remoboth ” 
 (Hieron. Ep. 22 ad Eustoch. c. 34), who, though 
 living together by twos and threes, without rule or 
 discipline, at any rate were stationaiy, and built 
 themselves cells ; whereas the “ gyrovagi ” were 
 always roving from one monastery to another. 
 After staying three or four days in one monas¬ 
 tery, they would start again for another ; for 
 after a few davs’ rest it was usual for strangers 
 to be subjected to the discipline of the monas¬ 
 tery, to the same fare," labour, &c., as the in¬ 
 mates (Martene Reg. Comm, ad loc. cit.)‘ always 
 endeavouring to ascertain where in the neigh¬ 
 bourhood they would be mo.st likely to find 
 comfortable quarters (Reg. Magist. c. 2; cf. 
 Isidor. Pelus. I. Ep. 41, Joann. Climac. Seal. Grad. 
 27). Martene (v. s.) and ilehard (Bened. Anian. 
 Concord. Re,ul. iii. ii.) identify these “gyrovagi” 
 with the “ circumcelliones,” or “ circelliones.” 
 [v. CiRCUMCELLiONES.l They were of import¬ 
 ance enough to be condemned in one of the canons 
 of the Trullan council, a.d. 691, and are there 
 described as wandering about in black robes and 
 with unshorn hair : thej' are to be chased away 
 into the desert, unless they will consent to enter 
 a monastery, to have their hair trimmed, and in 
 other ways to submit to discipline (Cone. Qui- 
 nisextum c. 42). Bingham (Origin. Eccles. vii. 
 ii. 12) and Hospinian (de Orig. Monach. ii. i.) 
 merely repeat what is contained in the rule of 
 Benedict. [I. G. S.] 
 
HABAKKUK 
 
 HAGGAI 
 
 753 
 
 H 
 
 HABAKKUK, the prophet; commemorated 
 oiutrt't 24 = May 19, and Hedar3 = 0ct. 30 (C'a/. 
 Ethiop)'^ also Dec. 2 (^Cal. Jhyxant.'). See also 
 Ahacuc. [W. F. G.] 
 
 HABIT, THE MONASTIC. {Habitus 
 
 monasti -US, tr^n/ua fj-ova^iuhv or pouaxiuSu). A 
 distinctive uniform was no part of monachisrn 
 originally. Only it was required of monks that 
 their dress and general api)earance should indi¬ 
 cate “ gravity and a contempt of the world ” 
 (Bingh. Oi’iij. Kccles. Vil. iii. 6). Hair worn 
 long was an effeminacy (August, de Op. Mon. c. 
 31. Hieron. Ep. 22, ad Eustoch. c. 28, cf. 
 Epiidian. adi\ Hacres. Ixxx. 7), the head shaven 
 all over was too like the priests of Isis (Hieron. 
 Comm, in Ezek. c. 44. Ambros. Ap. 58 ad Sabin.). 
 In popular estimation persons abstaining from 
 the use of silken apparel were often called 
 monks (Hieron. Ep. 23 ad MarcelL). The same 
 writer defines the dress of a monk merely as 
 “ cheap and shabby ” (Ep. 4 a t Rustic., Ep. 13 
 ad Paulin.). And the dress of a nun as “ sombre ’* 
 in tint, and “coarse” in texture (Ep. 23 ad 
 4[arccll.). He warns the enthusiasts of asceti¬ 
 cism against the eccentricity in dress, which was 
 sometimes a mere pretence of austerity, a long 
 untrimmed beard, bare feet, a black cloak, 
 chains on the wrists (Ep. 22 ad Eustoch. c. 28, 
 cf. Ballad. Hist. Laus. c. 52). So Cassian pro¬ 
 tests against monks wearing wooden crosses on 
 their shoulders (Coll. viii. 3). Hair closely cut, 
 and the cloak (j)allium), usually worn by Greek 
 philosophers and lecturers, were at first badges 
 of a monk in Western Christendom ; but even 
 these were not peculiar to him. The cloak was 
 often worn by other Christians, exposing them 
 to the vulgar reproach of being “Greeks” and 
 “impostors” (Bingh. Orig. Eccles. l. ii. 4), and 
 any one appearing in public with pale face, short 
 hair, and a cloak, was liable to be hooted and 
 jeered at by the unbelieving populace as a monk 
 (Salv. de Cube mat. viii. 4). 
 
 Ca.ssian is more precise on a monk’s costume, 
 and devotes to it the first book of his Institutes. 
 But he allows that the sort of dress suitable for 
 a monk in Egypt or Ethiopia may be very 
 unsuitable elsewhere, and he condemns sack¬ 
 cloth, or rather, a stuff made of goats’ hair or 
 camels’ hair (cilicina vestis) worn outside as too 
 conspicuous. He si)eaks in detail of the various 
 parts of a monk’s dress; the iiood"(cucu11us), 
 which is to remind the monk to be as a little 
 child in simplicity; the sleeveless tunic (COLO- 
 lUL'ii), in Egypt ma le of linen, which reminds 
 him of self-mortification ; the GIRDLE or waist¬ 
 band (cingulum), to remind him to have his “ loins 
 girdid ” as a “good soldier of Christthe cape 
 over the shoulders (mafors, palliolum); the 
 sheepskin or goatskin round the waist and thighs 
 (melotes, ))era, ])enula); and for the feet the 
 sandals (caligae), only to be worn as an oc¬ 
 casional luxury, never during the divine service 
 (Cassian Instit. i. cc. 1-10 cf. Ruffin. Hist. Mon. 
 c. 3). 
 
 Benedict characteri.stically passes over this 
 item in the monastic discipline very quickly; 
 summing up his directions about it in one of the 
 last chapters of his rule ; and discreetly leaving 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 questions of colour and material, as indifferent, 
 to be decided by climate and other ::ircumstances 
 He lays down the general princij le, that there 
 are to be no superfluities, adding, that a tunic 
 and hood, or, for outdoor work, a sort of cape to 
 protect the shoulders (scapulare), instead of the 
 hood, ought to suffice generally ; two suits of 
 each being allowed for each monk, and some 
 suits of rather better quality being kept for 
 monks on their ]»eregrinations. The worn out 
 articles of dress are to be restored to the keei)er 
 of the wardrobe, for the poor. Benedict, how¬ 
 ever, “ to avoid disputes ” aj)})P:ids a short list, 
 corresponding very nearly to Cassian’s, of things 
 necessary for a monk, all which are to be 
 supplied to the brethren, at the discretion of the 
 abbat, and none of them to be the propertv or 
 “ peculiare ” of any one. The only addition to 
 the Egyptian costume is that of socks (pedules) 
 for the winter; the Benedictine “bracile” 
 apparently corresponding with “ cingulum,” and 
 the “scai)ulare” with “palliolum.” Benedict 
 allows trowsers [femoralia] on a journe}', and 
 on some other occasions; underclothing he is 
 silent about; consequently commentators and 
 the usages of particular monasteries differ on this 
 point. To the list of clothing Benedict adds, as 
 part of a monk’s equipment, a knife (cultellus) 
 a pen (graj)hium), a needle (acus) a handkerchief 
 or handcloth (mappula), and tablets for writing 
 on (tabulae). He specifies also as necessaries 
 for the night, a mattress (matta), a coverlet 
 (sagum), a blanket (laena), and a pillow (capi- 
 tale) (Bened. Reg. c. 55). Martene quotes 
 Hildemarus for the traditional custom, by which 
 each monk was provided with a small jar of 
 soap for himself and of gi-ease for his .shoes 
 (Reg. Bened. Comment, ad loc.). 
 
 Laxity of mona.stic discipline soon began to 
 provoke fresh enactments about dress, sometimes 
 more stringent and more minute than at first 
 (e.g. Reg. Isidor. c. 14, Reg. Mog. c. 81). Coun¬ 
 cils re-enact, and reformers protest. The council of 
 Agde, A.D. 506, and the 4th council of Toledo, 
 A.D. 633, repeat the canon of the 4th council of 
 Carthage A.D. 398, “ ne clerici comam nutriaut ” 
 (Cone. Agath. c. 20 ; Cone. iv. Ihletan. c. 40; 
 Cone. iv. Carthag. c. 44). Ferreolus, in southern 
 Gaul, A.D. 558, repeats the old edict against 
 superfluities, and forbids his monks to use per¬ 
 fumes, or wear linen next the skin (Ferreol. 
 Reg. cc. 14, 31, 32). In Spain, Fructuosus of 
 Braga, A.D. 656, insists on uniformity of apparel. 
 Irregularity about dress seems with monks, as 
 in a regiment, to have been an accompaniment 
 of demoralisation. (See, further, ^lenard Cone. 
 Regul. Ixii.; Alte.serr. Asceticon. v.; IMiddendorp. 
 Origin. Ascet. Sylva. xiii.) 
 
 The Greek Euchologion gives an office for the 
 assumption of the ordinary habit of a mouK 
 (oLKoXovdia rod fxiKpov (rxvyarus), and another 
 for a.ssuming the greater or “angelic” habit 
 distinctive of those ascetics who were thought 
 to have attained the perfection of monastic life 
 (a.K. rod p^yaXov Kat ayyfXiKod uxT^uaros). See 
 Daniel’s Codex Lit. iv. 659 ff. [See Novice.] 
 
 [I. G. S.] 
 
 HAEREDIPETAE. [Cartatores.] 
 
 HAGGAI, the pr(q)het; commemorated Tak- 
 sas 20 = Dec. 16 (Cal.Ethiop., Col. Bezant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.J 
 
754 
 
 HAGIOSIDEROX 
 
 HAIL MARY 
 
 HAGtlOSIDP^RON. One of the .substitutes 
 for liKi.LS still used in the Hast is the Hagiosi- 
 dei'on (rb (Xibrjporv, Kpova/iia) [see SiCMANTilOX]. 
 These usually consist of an iron ))late, curved 
 like the tire of a wheel, which is struck with a 
 
 hammer, and produces a sound not unlike that 
 of a gong. They are occasionally made of brass. 
 The illustration is taken from Dr. Neale’s work 
 (Neale’s Eastern Church, Jnt. 217, 225; Daniel’s 
 Codex Lit. iv. 199). [C.] 
 
 HAIL MARY or AVE MARTA. An ad¬ 
 dress and prayer commonly made to St. IMary the 
 Virgin in the unrefornied Western churche.s. 
 
 it is, and vhen used .—It consists of two 
 parts: 1. The words used by the angel Gabriel 
 in saluting St. Mary, as rendered by the Vulgate, 
 slightly altered by the addition of St. Mary’s 
 name, Hail Mary, full of grace ; the Lord is 
 with thee followed by the words of Eliza¬ 
 beth, “ Blessed art thou among women, and 
 blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” 2. A 2 )rayer, 
 subsequently added to the salutation, “ Holy 
 Mary, IMother of God, pi'ay for us sinners now, 
 and at the hour of our death.” 
 
 This formula is ordered by the breviary of 
 po 2 )e Pius V. to be used daily, after the recita¬ 
 tion of compline, and before the recitation of 
 each of the other canonical hours, i.e., matins, 
 2 ')rime, terce, sext, nones, and vespers. It is also 
 commanded, on the same authority, to be u.sed 
 before the recitation of the “ Olhee of the Blessed 
 Virgin,” and before each of the hours in the 
 “Little Ortice.” It is also used nine times every 
 day in what is called the “Angelus.” It is also 
 used sixty-three times in the devotion Called the 
 “ Crown of the Virgin,” and one hundred and 
 fifty times in the “ Kosary of the Virgin.” It 
 also occurs in many of the public offices, and is 
 used before sermons, and it most commonly 
 forms a part of the sj^ecial devotions ap 2 )oiuted 
 by bishoj)s for obtaining indulgences. 
 
 Its —Cardinal Baronins and Cardinal 
 
 Bona have used an expression which, while not 
 committing them to a declaration of fact, or a 
 statement of their own belief, has yet led sub¬ 
 sequent writers (see Gaume, loc. inf. cit.) to claim 
 their authority for the assertion, that the second, 
 or jjrecatory, jrart of the Ave Maria was adopted 
 in, or immediately after, the council of Ephesus, 
 at the beginning of the 5th century. “At that 
 time,” says Baronins {(oc. inf. cit.'), “the an¬ 
 gelical salutation is believed to have received that 
 addition, ‘ Holy IBary, Mother of God, pray for 
 us, &c.,’ which came to be constantly repeated 
 by the faithful.” “ The angelical salutation,” 
 says Bona {loc. inf. cit.), “ is believed to have re¬ 
 ceived this addition in the great council of Ephe¬ 
 sus.” It is quite certain that the two cardinals 
 and their followers have ante-dated this jrart of 
 the Ave jMaria by more than a thousand years. 
 The first, or Scriptural, part, consisting of the 
 words of the angel and of Elizabeth, is older by 
 some five hundred years than the second, or pre¬ 
 catory, part, which has been attached to it, and 
 the first part did not become used as a formula 
 
 until the end of the 11th century. The earliest 
 injunction authorising its being taught together 
 with the previously existing formulas of the Creed 
 and the Lord’s Prayer, is found in theConstitutions 
 of Odo, who became bishoj) of Paids in the year 
 1196. The Benedictines of St. Stephen of Caer, 
 in 1706, maintained the following thesis: “The 
 angelical salutation began to be in use in the 
 12 th century, but these words ‘Holy Miry, 
 Mother of God, pray for us. See.,’ seem to have 
 been added a long time afterwards, in the 16th 
 century:” a thesis which was denounced bv the 
 then bishop of Bayeux as scandalous, but was 
 defended and maintained against him by P^re 
 Massuet. The earliest known use of the first, or 
 scriptural, part, is in the IJber Antiphonianvs, 
 attributed by John the Deacon to St. Gregory 
 the Great, and generally published with his 
 works. If St. Gregory is the author of the 
 lAher Antiphonianns, and if the antiphon m 
 which these words occur (p. 657, Ed. inf. cit.'\ 
 is not a later insertion (the same w'ords in the 
 previous i)age are undoubtedly a modern in¬ 
 sertion), the angelical salutation, as found in the 
 Bible, was used as early as the beginning of the 
 7th century; not, however, as a formula of 
 devotion, but as Ave might use an anthem on one 
 day of the year. This passage from St. Gregory 
 is the only thing which brings the Ave Maria 
 within the chronological limits assigned to this 
 Dictionary, for it is allowed (see IMabillon, loc. 
 inf. cit.) that similar words in the so-called 
 liturgy of St. James the Less are of late intro¬ 
 duction there. 
 
 The addition of the second, or precatory, part 
 of the Ave IMaria, is stated by Pelbertus to have 
 been made in consequence of a direct injunction 
 of St. IMary, who appeared to a pious woman, 
 and gave her instructions to that etiect. The 
 use of it sprang up in the 15th century, and is 
 first authorised in pojje Pius Vth’s breviary, in 
 the year 1568. 
 
 The “Crown of the Virgin ” consists of sixtv- 
 three recitations of the Ave I\Iaria, one for each 
 year that St. Mary was supposed to have lived, 
 with the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer after 
 every tenth Ave Maria. Its institution is attri¬ 
 buted by some to Peter the Hermit. It a])pears 
 to have sprung up and spread in the 12th and 
 13th centuries. 
 
 The “ Rosary, or Psalter of the Blessed Virgin” 
 consists of one hundred and fifty Ave Marias, 
 after the number of the Psalms of David, to¬ 
 gether with fifteen Pater Nosters, distributed at 
 equal intervals among the Ave Marias. Its in¬ 
 stitution is attributed by some to St. Dominic, 
 and to the year 1210; 
 
 The “ Angelus ” consists of three recitations 
 of the Ave Maria at the sound of the Angelus 
 bell in the morning, three at midday, and three 
 at night. On each occasion the first Ave IMaria 
 is to be preceded by the sentence, “ The angel of 
 the Lord announced to iMary, and she conceived or 
 the Holy Ghost;” the second, by “ Behold the 
 handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according 
 unto thy word ; ” the third, by “ The Word was 
 made flesh and dwelt among us.” The Angelus 
 appears to have been originated in the year 
 1287, by Buonvicino da Riva, of IMilan, of the 
 order of the Humiliati, who began the practice 
 of ringing a bell at the recitation of the .4ve 
 Maria. In 1318 John XXII. gave an indulgent'e 
 
HAIR, WEARING OF 
 
 of ten days for saying an Ave ^laria to the sound 
 of a bell rung at night. In 1 158, Calixtus 111. 
 gave thre< years and one hundred and twenty days’ 
 indulgence for reciting the Ave Mar*-"', and the 
 Pater Xoster three times a day. In 1.518, Leo 
 X. oi’dered that the Angelus bell should be rung 
 three times a day, and he gave 500 days’ in¬ 
 dulgence for saying the Angelus morning, mid¬ 
 day, and evening. Finally, Benedict XIII. and 
 Benedict XIV. gave a plenary indulgence, to be 
 obtained once a month, to all who recited it 
 three times daily. 
 
 The dates, therefore, are as follow :—• 
 
 The earliest known use (in the form of an 
 antiphon, or anthem) of the Scriptural 
 words, afterwards adopted as the first part 
 of the Ave ^laria—the 7th century. 
 
 The earliest known use of the same jiart as a 
 formula—the 11th century. 
 
 The earliest authoritative recommendation of 
 the said formula—the 12th centurv. 
 
 The Crown of the Virgin—the 12th century. 
 
 The Rosary or Psalter of the Virgin—the 13th 
 century. 
 
 The Angelus—the 14th centuiy. 
 
 The earliest known use of the prayer which 
 forms the second part of the Ave Maria— 
 the 15th century. 
 
 The earliest authoritative recommendation 
 and injunction of the same — the 16th 
 century. 
 
 Authorities and Ileferences.—Breviarium Bo- 
 manum Pii V. Pont. M. jussu editum ; Baro¬ 
 nins, Annal. Ecctes. ad anti. 431, tom. vii. p. 404, 
 num. 179, Lucae, 1741 ; Bona, Bivinae Psal- 
 modiae, c. 16, § 2, p. 497, Antverpiae, 1694; 
 Gaume, Catechismo di Ferseveranza, vol. iii. p. 
 506, !Milan, 1859; Marchantius, Hortus Fas- 
 torum, tract iv. Lugd., 1672 ; Bollandus, Acta 
 Sanctorum, Mar. 25, Aug. 4, pp. 539, 422, Ant¬ 
 verpiae, 1668, 1733 ; S. Gregorii Magni Ofera, 
 tom. iii. p. 657, ed. Ben. Venet. 1744; Hospi- 
 nianus, De Festis, p. 69, Genevae, 1674; Mabillon, 
 Fraefationes in Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Bene- 
 dicti; Praefatio in Sued. v. p. 439, Venet., 1740; 
 Migne, Summa aurea de Laudibus Virginis, tom. 
 iv., Liturgii Mariana: De cultu publico ah Ec- 
 clesia B. Marine exhi'ito: Dissertationes iv. v. vi. 
 vii. auctore J. C. Trombelli, p. 209, Parisiis, 
 1862 ; Zaccaria. Dissert izioni varie Italiane, Dis- 
 scrtazione vi. tom. ii. p. 242, Romae, 1780; 
 Enciclopedia delC Ecvlesiastico, s. v. “Ave Maria,” 
 Napoli, 1843. [F. M.j 
 
 HAIR, AVEARING OF. The regulations 
 of the ancient church on this subject may be 
 divide 1 into three distinct classes, as relating— 
 i. to the clergy; ii. to penitents; iii. to be¬ 
 lievers in general. 
 
 i. The hair in ancient times appears to have 
 been sometimes worn at great length. Thus 
 Eusebius (ff. E. ii. 23), speaking of James the 
 Apostle, notes that a razor never came upon 
 his head. But shortened hair appears to 
 have been considered a mark of distinction 
 between the heathen ])hilosopher and the 
 Christian teacher. Thus Gregory Nazianzen 
 (^Orat. 28) says of Maximus, that he brought no 
 qualification to the pastoral office except that of 
 shortening his hair, which, before that time, he 
 had worn disgracefully long. It is also recorded 
 of one Theotimus, bishop of Scythia, that he 
 
 HAIR, WEARING OF 75o 
 
 still retained the long hair which he had worn 
 when a student, in token that, in becoming a 
 bishop, he had not abandoned philo.sophy (Soz. 
 H. E. vii. 26). But this liberty waj restricted 
 by various decrees of councils. The fourth 
 council of C:irthage, a.d. 398 (c. 44), ju-ovides 
 that the clergy shall neither j)ermit their hair 
 nor beards to grow. Another reading of this 
 decree is, that they were neither to let their hair 
 grow nor shave their beards. The first synod of 
 St. Patrick, a.d. 456 (c. 6), ]>rovides that the 
 hair of the clergy should be shorn according 
 to the Roman fasliion, and (c. 10) that any 
 who allow their hair to grow, should bo ex¬ 
 cluded from the church. The council of Agde, 
 A.D. 506 (c. 20), ordains that clergy who retain 
 long hair, shall have it shortened, even against 
 their will, by the archdeacon. The first council 
 of Barcelona, A.D. 540 (c. 3), ])rovides that no 
 clergyman shall let his hair grow nor shave hi.s 
 beard. The first council of Braga, a.d. 563 (c. 
 11), provides that lectors shall not have love¬ 
 locks (granos), hanging down, after the heathen 
 fashion. The second council of Braga, a.d. 572 
 (c. 66), decrees that the clergy ought not to 
 discharge their sacred functions with long hair, 
 but with closely-cut hair and open ears. The 
 fourth council of Toledo, a.d. 633 (c. 41), 
 denounces certain lectors in Gallicia, who, 
 w'hile retaining a small tonsure, allowed the 
 lower portion of the hair to grow. The council 
 in Trullo, A.D. 692 (Gone. Quinisex. c. 21), 
 ordains that clergy who have been deprived of 
 their office, should, on their repentance, be shorn 
 after the fashion of the clergy ; if they refused 
 this, their hair was to be left long, in token of 
 their preference of a worldly life. At a council 
 held at Rome, A.D. 721 (c. 17), anathema was 
 pronounced against any of the clergy who should 
 allow his hair to grow. The same was repeated 
 at another Roman council, held a.d. 743 (c. 8). 
 
 These decrees, however, appear to have been 
 difficult of enforcement. Heretical sects espe¬ 
 cially appear to have been fond of adopting 
 eccentric fashions of wearing the hair and beard 
 as badges and tokens of their opinions. Epi- 
 phanius (Ilaeres. in Massil. n. 6, 7) denounces 
 certain heretical monks, dwelling in Mesopo¬ 
 tamia, in mona.steries which he calls “ Mandras,” 
 who w’ere in the habit of shaA'ing the heard and 
 letting the hair grow, and contends that such 
 practices are contrary to the apostolic injunc¬ 
 tions. Jerome (^Comm. in Ezek. c. 44) says that 
 the clergy should neither have their heads 
 closely shaven, like the priests of Isis and Sera- 
 pis, nor let their hair grow to an extravagant 
 length, like barbarians and soldiers, but "that 
 the hair should be worn just so long as to cover 
 the head. In another place 18, al. 22, 
 
 ad Eustoch.), he denounces certain monks who 
 indulged in beards like goats and ringlets like 
 women. In his ‘ Life of Hilarion,’ he commends 
 the saint for cutting his hair once a year, at 
 Easter. Augustine (j9<? Op. J/o/j. c. 31) sjieaks 
 of certain monks who, fearing lest thev mio'ht 
 lose reverence bv their shorn heads, “ ne vilior 
 habeatur tonsa saactitas,” allowed their hair to 
 grow, in order to suggest to those who saw 
 them a resemblance to Samuel and the elder 
 prophets. Against the.se he quotes the saying ot 
 the apostle, that in Christ the veil shall l^e 
 taken away (2 Cor. iii. 14). Gregory the Great 
 
756 
 
 HAIR-CLOTH 
 
 HAIR, WEARING OF 
 
 (PastoraL p. 2, c. 7) says that priests are rightly 
 forbidiien either to shave their heads, or to let 
 their hair grow long. The hair on the head of 
 a priest, is to be kept so long that it may cover 
 the skin, and cut so close that it may not inter¬ 
 fere with the eyes. The practice seems to have 
 been, to wear the hair short and the beard long. 
 Sidonius Apollinaris (^Epist. iv. 24) speaks of 
 one Maximus Palatinus, a clergyman, as wearing 
 his hair short and his beard long. Gregory the 
 Great is described as wearing a beard of the old 
 fashion and of moderate size, a large round 
 tonsure, and his hair neatly curled, “ intorto,” 
 and hanging to the middle of his ears (Joann. 
 Diac. Vita Greg. Max. c. 4, c. 83). Bede (^Eccl. 
 Hist. 1. 4, c. 14), describing a vision of SS. Peter 
 and Paul, says that the one was shaven (at- 
 tonsus), as a clergyman, the other wore his 
 beai d long. For other particulars regarding the 
 hair of the clergy, see Tonsure. 
 
 ii. Closely-cut hair was always enjoined on 
 penitents, as a condition of their reception into 
 the church. The council of Agde (c. 15) pro¬ 
 vides that no penitents shall be received unless 
 they have parted with their hair, “ comas depo- 
 suerint.” The first council of Barcelona (c. 6) 
 speaks of the shaven heads of male penitents. 
 The third council of Toledo (c. 12) provides that 
 the first step to the admission of a male penitent, 
 shall be to shave his head. So Optatus (^Contra 
 Donatist. 1. 23) finds fault with the Donatists 
 for having shaven the heads of certain priests 
 whom they had admitted to penance. With 
 regard to women, Ambrose (Ad Virg. Laps. 
 c. 8) speaks of cutting off the hair, which by 
 vain glory had tempted to the' sin of luxury; 
 but Jerome, in describing the repentance of 
 Fabioia (^Ep). 30, al. 84, ad Ocean.), speaks of her 
 dishevelled hair. But before their restoration, pe¬ 
 nitents and excommunicated persons were obliged 
 to let the hair and beard grow. Thus a certain 
 Lrsicinus, bishop of Cahors, being excommuni¬ 
 cated, was forbidden to cut either his hair or 
 his beard (Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. 1. 8, n. 20). 
 In general, neglected hair appears to have been 
 a sign of mourning. Chrysostom {Scrm. 3, on 
 Job) says that many in time of mourning let 
 the hair grow, whereas Job shore his. The 
 reason being, that where the hair is honoured, it 
 is a sign of mourning to cut it short, but where 
 it is worn short, it is a sign of mourning to let 
 it gi-ow, Baronius {Aniialcs, A.D. 631, n. 4) 
 speaks of a certain bishop, named Lupus, exiled 
 by Clothaire, who came mourning to the king with 
 long dishevelled locks, and the king, in token of 
 forgiveness, commanded his hair to be shorn. 
 
 iii. The laity were sometimes recognised as 
 usually wearing their hair long. The council in 
 Trullo (Co?^c. Quinisext. c. 21) ordains that de¬ 
 linquent and impenitent clergy should wear their 
 hair long, as the laity. Yet immoderately 
 lengthened hair apj^ears to have been considered 
 a token of effeminacy and luxuriousness. When 
 the emperor Heraclius succeeded to the throne, 
 his hair was immediately cut short (Baronius, 
 Annal. A.D. 610, n. 5). Many attempts were 
 therefore made to restrain tlie liberty of the 
 laity, in this respect, within due bounds, founded 
 partly on a sense of what was decent and 
 becoming, partly on the principle that it is not 
 right either for men or women to obliterate the 
 .characteristics of their sex. The council ia 
 
 Trullo (c. 96) a.sse’-ts that it is inconsistent with 
 the bapti.smal profession, that baptised men 
 should wear their hair in cunningly woven 
 piaits or tresses, and orders that such as would 
 not obey this admonition, should be excommuni¬ 
 cated. The council of Gangra (c. 17) anatlic- 
 matizes any women who, through pretended 
 asceticism, should cut close the hair which was 
 given to them as a token of subjection. The 
 decree was confirmed by the emperor Theodosius, 
 with the addition that any bishop who should 
 admit such women into the church, should be 
 deprived of his office (Soz. //. E. vii. 26). In 
 the Apiostolic Constihit ions (i. 3), the followers 
 of Christ are ordered not to ])romote the growth 
 of their hair, but rather to restrain and shorten 
 it. Men are forbidden to wear ringlets, or to 
 use ointments, or in any way to imitate the 
 adornments in use among women. They are al.so 
 forbidden to collect their hair into a knot or 
 crown, TToieiv els ev o i<TTi (rirardKiov, or to 
 indulge in ti'e.sses, either artfully dishevelled or 
 carefully arranged, ^ aTroxofia t) ixefxefnffpevqv., 
 or to curl and crisp it, or dye it yellow'. They 
 are also forbidden to shave the beard, as if 
 thereby obliterating the peculiar distinction, tt^v 
 pop<pnv, of manhood. Clemens Alexandrinus 
 (^Paedagog. ii. c. 8) speaks of the folly committed 
 hy aged w'omen in dyeing their hair ; and (/6. 
 iii. 3) reprehends the folly of which some men 
 were guilty, in eradicating the hair, apparently 
 not only from their beards, but from all parts ot 
 their bodies, with pitch plaisters. He also (/'>. 
 iii. 11) gives full directions for the arrangement 
 of the hair. The hair of men is to be cut close, 
 unless it is crisp and curlv, ovXas. Long curls 
 and love-locks are strictly forbid len, as effemi¬ 
 nate and unseemIv. The hair is not to be al- 
 
 V 
 
 lowed to grow over the e^'es, and a closely- 
 cropped head is alleged not only to be becoming 
 a grat'e man, but to render the brain less liable 
 to injury, by accustoming it to endure heat and 
 cold. The beard is to be allowed to grow, since 
 an ample beard becomes the male sex ; if cut at 
 all, the chin must not be left quite bare. The 
 moustache may be clipped with scissors, so that 
 it may not be dirtied in eating, but not shorn 
 with a razor. Women are to wear the hair 
 modestly arranged upon the neck, and fastened 
 with a hair pin. The habit of wearing false 
 hair is strongly denounced, since, it is said, in 
 such cases, wdieu the priest, in bestowing his 
 bene fiction, lays his hand upon the head, the 
 blessing does not reach the wearer of the hair, 
 but rests upon the person to whom the hair 
 belongs. [P. 0.] 
 
 HAIR-CLOTH (^Cilicium'). The rough hair¬ 
 cloth for which Cilicia was anciently famous 
 was used in several ways, both as an actual 
 instrument, and as a symbol, of mortification. 
 
 1. The hair-shirt has frequently been worn, 
 as is well known, as a means of mortifying the 
 flesh without ostentation. Thus Jerome (^Epn- 
 t'lph. Xepot. c. 9) says that .some other may 
 narrate how the young Nepotianus, when in the 
 imperial service, , wore hair-cloth under his 
 chlamys and fine linen. And Paulinus Petricor- 
 diensis (Vita S. Ma?’tini. ii. p. 1019 D, Migne) 
 says of the monks of St. Martin : 
 
 “ Afnltis v;stis erat setis contexta camelL" 
 
 So in Hucbald’s Life of St. Rictrudis, who died 
 
HALLELUJAH 
 
 a^out A.D. G88 (c. 9, in MabilIon’s Acta S3. 
 JJeaed. Saec. ii.), we read that the saint wore an 
 inner garment of hair-cloth (esoi)horio amicitur 
 cilicino). One of the saints who boro the name 
 of Theodore was distinguished as Tp'-x^pas from 
 his-constant habit of wearing a hair-shirt (Macri 
 Ilierolcx. s. V. Tric/nnas). 
 
 Monks frequently used the hair-shirt. Cassian, 
 however (histit, i. 1) dees not consider it suit¬ 
 able for their ordinary garb, both as savouring 
 of over-righteousness and as hindering labour 
 [Habit, the Monastic]. In his time—Cassian 
 died about A.D. 430—few monks seem to have 
 used it ; in after times we find it constantly 
 used, at any rate by those who claimed superior 
 sanctity. On the whole subject, see 0. Zockler, 
 Krit. Geschiclite der Askese, p. 82 [Frankf.-a.- 
 M. 1803]. 
 
 2. Of the symbolic uses of hair-cloth the 
 following are the principal:—The candidates for 
 baptism anciently came to the preliminary e.x- 
 amination [Scrutinium] with bare feet, and 
 standing on hair-cloth (Augustine, De Sijmb. ad 
 Catech. ii. 1; compare iv. 1). Penitents in the 
 ceremonies of Ash Wednesday were clothed with 
 a hair-cloth, as well as sprinkled with ashes 
 (Martene, Hit. Ant. IV. c. .xvii.; Ordd. 7, 16, 
 etc.). The altar was sometimes covered with 
 hair-cloth in times of affliction (/Z). Ill. iii. 2). 
 The dying were covered with a hair-cloth 
 blessed by ^he priest (/6. I. vii. 4, Ordo 19). 
 The bodies of the dead were sometimes wrapped 
 in hair-cloth; as, for instance, that of Bernard 
 of Hildesheim c. 43; in Surius, Nov. 20). 
 
 Cliarles the Great was buried in the hnir-shirt 
 which he had worn in life (Life by the monk or 
 Augouleme, c. 24; quoted by Martene, 111. xii. 
 13). In an ancient form for the reception ot 
 penitents on Maundy Thursday, given by Mar¬ 
 tene (IV. xxii. § ii. Ordo 6) from a Sarum missal, 
 a banner of hair-cloth (vexillum cilicinum) is 
 directed to be borne in the procession to the 
 church. [C.] 
 
 HALLELUJAH. [Alleluia.] 
 
 HAND, TPIE, is used as symbolic of the 
 manifested presence of the First Person of the 
 Holy Trinity, God the Father. 
 
 The declining skill of the earliest Christian 
 workman, and their utter technical incapacity 
 after the time of Constantine, appears in the 
 strongest light in their attempts to delineate 
 the extremities of the human figure. _ Mar- 
 tignv remarks that the hands of the martyrs 
 presenting or receiving their crowns in heaven 
 are covered or concealed in token of adoration; 
 but this applies only to the left h.and. The 
 eomparative skill, or want of skill, with whieffl 
 these parts of the body are treated, might 
 possibly be a test of ancient work in the cata¬ 
 combs, could paintings be discovered of very 
 ancient date, and thoroughly a.scertained authen¬ 
 ticity without modern retouch. 
 
 The hand representing God occurs in the 
 great Transfiguration of St. Apolliuaris in Classe 
 at Ravenna (Martigny, j). 639, s. v. Trausligu- 
 ration). Also in a carving of the same sub¬ 
 ject on the Ivory Casket of the Library at 
 Brescia (Westwood, FicGle Ivory Casts, 94, p. 37, 
 catalogue). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HANDS, IMPOSITION OF. [Imposition 
 OF Hands.] 
 
 HANDS, THE LIFTING OF 757 
 
 I HANDS, THE LIFTING OF IN 
 PKAYEU. I. The strict observance of this cu.s- 
 tom, and the importance attached to it among 
 the early Christians, will hardly be understood, 
 unle.ss we take into consideration the habits and 
 opinions of their Jewish and heathen forefathers. 
 It was a rite that had descended to them from 
 both. Among the children of Israel it accom¬ 
 panied acts of praise as well as prayer. Witness 
 the Book of Psalms:—“Thus will I bless Thee 
 while I live: I will lift up my hands in Thy 
 name” (Ps. Ixiii. 4); “Lift up your hands in 
 holiness, and bless the Lord ” (Ps. cxxxiv. 2). 
 Before Ezra read the law to the people after 
 their return from Babylon, he “ blessed the 
 Lord, the great God, and all the peo])le answered 
 Amen, Amen, with lifting up of their hands” 
 (Nell. viii. 6; compare 1 Esdr. ix. 47). In prayer 
 the gesture was so universal that to i)ray and to 
 lift up the hands were almost convertible terms. 
 Thus in Lamentations, “Lift up thv hands to¬ 
 wards Him for the life of thy young children ” 
 (Ch. ii. 19). Again in Psalm xxviii. 2: “Hear 
 the voice of m}'- sup])lications, when I cry unto 
 Thee ; when I lift up my hands toward Thy 
 holy oracle.” When Heliodorus came to take 
 away the treasures in the temple, the inhabi¬ 
 tants of Jerusalem “all holding their hands to¬ 
 ward heaven, made supplication ” (2 Macc. iii. 
 20; comp. xiv. 34; Ps. cxli. 2; Is. i. 15; 1 
 Esdr. viii. 73; Ecclus. li. 19). This gesture in' 
 prayer was without doubt so highly valued 
 among the Jews, partly in conse((uence of the 
 victory obtained over the Amalekites, while the 
 hands of Moses were held up (Exod. xvii. 11); 
 but it was nevertheless “ not of Moses, but of 
 the fathers.” We might infer this from the 
 manner in which the story is related; but more 
 conclusively from the fact that the same rite- 
 prevailed among the Gentiles. “ All we ot 
 human kind,” says Aristotle, “ stretch forth our 
 hands to heaven, when we pray ” (/><? Mundo, c. 
 vi. comp. Horn. IL viii. 347 ; Virg. Acn. iii. 176; 
 X. 667). Minutius Felix proves that it was 
 still common among the heathen in the 3rd 
 century, “1 hear the common people, when they 
 stretch their hands towards heaven, say nothing 
 but God ” ( Octavias, c. 5). 
 
 IL A practice thus universal and of such anti¬ 
 quity, could not fail to have a ])lace in the re¬ 
 ceived ritual of the first Christians. It is more 
 than once recognized in the New Testament 
 itself; as when St. Paul says, “ I will therefore 
 that men i)ray everywhere lifting up holy 
 hands” (1 Tim. ii. 8). Clemens of Alexandria, 
 A.D. 192, is an early witness to the continued 
 ob.servance of the rite. After defining prayer 
 to be “ converse with God,” he ju oceeds to 
 say that therefoie, as if reaching up to Him, 
 we “raise the head and lift the hands to¬ 
 wards heaven ” (Strom, vii. c. vii. § 40). Ter- 
 tullian, his contemporary:—“ Worshif)ping with 
 modesty and humility we the more commend 
 our prayers to God, not even lifting up our 
 hands too high, but with self-restraint and be¬ 
 comingly” [De (Jrat. c. xiii.). Again: “We 
 Christians, looking upwards, with hands out¬ 
 spread, because free from guilt; with he.ad bare, 
 because we are not ashamed; lastly, without a 
 remembrancer [of the names of the gotl-s], be¬ 
 cause we jn-ay from the heart” (Apol. c. xxx.). 
 Origen, A.D. 230, says that among the many 
 
758 HANDS, THE LIFTING OF 
 
 gestures of the body, we ought without doul)t 
 in ])rayer to prefer “the stretcliing forth of the 
 hands and the lifting uj) of the eyes ” {De Oral. 
 c. 31); and that when the devout man prays he 
 “ stretches forth his soul towards God, beyond 
 his hands, as it were, and his mind further than 
 his eyes ” (Ibid.). According to Eusebius, Con¬ 
 stantine had himself represented on coins and in 
 <)ictures “ looking up to heaven, and stretching 
 forth his hands like one praying” (Vita Con- 
 st'fiit. 1. iv. c. xv^). See the epitaph of Petronia, 
 under ToJin. 
 
 111. The hands when thus lifted up were 
 often, and perhaps generally, so extended on 
 either side as to make the tigure of a cross with 
 the body. See the boy in the group on p. 661. 
 “ We ” (Christians), says Tertnllian (in contrast 
 with the Jews), “not only lift up our hands, but 
 spread them out too, and disposing them after 
 the mode of the Lord’s Passion and praying, (so) 
 confess Christ ” (^De Orat. c. xi.). In allusion to 
 this he says elsewhere, “ The very attitude of a 
 Christian at prayer is prepared for every inflic¬ 
 tion ” {Apol. c. XXX.). Asterius Amasenus, A. D. 
 401 : “ The erect attitude of prayer, in which 
 one holds the hands outstretched, by its figure 
 represents the passion of the cross ” {Horn, de 
 Fh'tris. et Puhl. in Photii Bihiioth. cod. 271). 
 St. Haximus of Turin: “ We are taught to pray 
 with uplifted hands that by the very gesture of 
 our members we may confess Christ ” (/>e Cruce; 
 Horn, de Pass. ii.). St. Ambrose, when dying, 
 “ prayed with hands spread in the form of a 
 cross ” ( r«7a, a Paulino conscr. § 47). Pruden- 
 tius, describing the death by fire of certain 
 martyrs, relates that, when their bonds were 
 burnt, they lifted up the hands thus .set free 
 “ to the Father in the form of a cross ” {De 
 Coron. Hymn vi. 1. 107). Many Christian 
 writers believed that this was the manner in 
 which the hands of Moses were held up during 
 the battle with the Amalekites, and that the 
 victory was thus granted to the cro.ss. See 
 Ep. Barnah. c. xii. ; Justin M. Dialog, cum Trgpdi. 
 cc. 91, 111 : Tertull. Ado. Jud. c. x.; Cyi)rian 
 Adv. Jud. 1. ii. c. xxi.; Maximus Taur. u. s. 
 Gregory Xazianzen :—“ They held up the hands 
 of Moses that Amalek might be subdued by the 
 cross so long before shadowed forth and figured ” 
 {Oral. xii. §2 ; Sim. Carmina, lib. ii. § 1, c. 1). 
 
 IV. At baptism the early Christians lifted the 
 hand as in defiance of Satan. Thus Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, addressing the newly-baptized : 
 “ Standing with your face to the West, ye heard 
 yourselves commanded to stretch forth the hand 
 and renounce Satan as present ” {Catech. 
 Algstag. 1. c. ii.). Pseudo-Dionysius describes 
 the same thing; but from him we learn further 
 that after the candidate had thrice renounced 
 Satan, the priest “ turned him towards the East, 
 and commanded him to look up to heaven, and 
 lifting up (avarPivavTa) his hand to enter into 
 compact with Chidst ” (AVc/. Hierarch, cap. ii. 
 § 6 ; comp. c. iii. § 5). St. Basil, when exhorting 
 catechumeng not to defer their baptism, ajipears 
 to allude to this second lifting of the hands: 
 “ Why dost thou wait until bapti.sm becomes the 
 gift of a fever to thee, when thou wilt not be 
 able to utter the salutary words . . . nor to lift 
 up thy hands to heaven, nor to stand up on thy 
 feet?” (Horn. xiii. Exhort, ad S. Baj tism. § 3). 
 The office of the modern Greek church {Euchol. 
 
 HANDS, WASHING OF 
 
 Goar, i». 338) still witnesses to the lifting up of 
 the hands at the renunciation; but they are now 
 held down when the desire to take service under 
 Christ is professed. The reader will ob.serve 
 that the authorities now cited all belong to the 
 East. There is no evidence so far as the present 
 writer knows, to show that the custom before us 
 prevailed in the West also. [W. E. S.] 
 
 HANDS, WASHING OF. I. In the law or 
 Moses (Exod. xxx. 18-21) it was ordaineil that 
 “between the tabernacle of the congregation and 
 the altar” there should stand a brazen laver lull 
 of water, at which the priests were to “ wash 
 their hands and their feet ” before they entered. 
 When the temple was built, this laver was re¬ 
 placed by the “ molten sea,” “ for the priests to 
 wa.sh in ” (2 Chron. iv. 2, 6). Again, when murder 
 had been committed by an unknown jierson, the 
 declaration of innocence made by the elders of 
 the nearest city was associated with a ceremonial 
 washing of the hands (Deut. xxi. 6). These two 
 provisions of the law would, it is conceived, be 
 quite sufficient of themselves to create among 
 those subject to it a general custom of washing 
 the hands before drawing near to God in the 
 more solemn acts of worship and religion. That 
 such a rite prevailed and was held to be of a 
 highly sacred character may be inferred from 
 more than one allusion in the Book of Psalms. 
 “I will wash mine hands in innocency ; so will I 
 compass Thine altar” (Psalm xxvi. 6); “Verily 
 I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed 
 my hands in innocency ” (Ixxiii. 16). The 
 metaphor of “ clean hands ” to denote righteou.s- 
 ness could not have come into such frequent use 
 (Job ix. 30; xvii. 9; xxxi. 7 ; Ps. xviii. 20, 24; 
 xxiv, 4), if there had been no familiar rite ot 
 washing the hands befoi-e entering into God’s 
 presence. To give an example of later usage, 
 Josephus tells us that the seventy-two who 
 translated the Old Testament into Greek at the 
 instance of Ptolemy were wont each morning to 
 “ wash their hands and purify themselves,” 
 before they entered on their sacred task {Antiq. 
 b. xii. ch. ii. § 13). It is most j)robable, how¬ 
 ever, that the custom before us was much 
 older than the law of Moses, for it appears to 
 have been general among the heathen at an 
 early period. Thus Hesiod gives a warning 
 “never with unwashed hands to pour out the 
 black wine at morn to Zeus or the other im¬ 
 mortals” {Opera et Dies, line 722). He also 
 forbids the passage of a stream on foot before 
 washing the hands in it with })rayer {ibid. 1. 
 735). According to some ancient authorities 
 temples were called delubra from dehi ', because 
 they generally had fountains, or pools so called, 
 attached to them for the use of those who 
 entered (Servius ad Virg. Aen. ii. 225). Nor 
 was the kindred rite before mentioned unknown 
 to the heathen. Pilate “ took water and washed 
 his hands before the multitude,” when he ])ro- 
 tested his innocence of the blood of Christ 
 i^St. Matt, xxvii. 24). Compare Virg. Aen. ii. 719. 
 Generally, indeed, “it was a custom with the 
 ancients, after the killing of a man or other 
 slaughters, to wa.sh the hands with water to 
 remove the pollution ” (Scholiast, in Sophocl. 
 Ajac. 1.664, vol. i. p. 80; Lund. 1758). 
 
 II. A rite thus familiar to ail classes of the 
 early converts, and so patient of a Christian 
 
HANGINGS 
 
 759 
 
 HANDS, WASHING OF 
 
 adaptation, was certain to be retained in some 
 form or other. To facilitate its observance there 
 was in the atrium of many churches a foun¬ 
 tain or reservoir of water resembling those 
 with which the temples had been furnished. 
 Thus Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, at the beginning of 
 ‘the 4th century, in an ojien space before a church 
 which he buijt in that city, caused to be made 
 “ fountains opposite the temple, which by their 
 plentiful flow of water afforded the means of 
 cleansing to those who passed out of the sacred 
 precincts into the interior ” (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 
 
 1. X. c. 4). In the West, Paulinus of Nola, 
 A.D. 393, gives a poetical description of a basin 
 (cautharus) in the court of a church built by 
 him. “ With its ministering stream,” he says, 
 
 “ it washes the hands of those who enter ” {ad 
 Sever. Ep. xxxii. § 15). From the same writer 
 we' learn that there was a cantharus in the 
 atrium of the basilica of St. Peter at Rome, 
 which “spouted streams that ministered to the 
 hands and faces ” of the worshippers (ad I'am- 
 mach. Ep. xiii. § 13). St. Chrysostom says, “ It 
 is the custom for fountains to be placed in the 
 courts of houses of prayer, that they who are 
 going to pray to God may first wash their 
 hands, and so lift them up in jirayer” (Horn, de 
 Div. N. T. loc. n. xxv. on 2 Cor. iv. 13). Socrates 
 tells us that in a riot at Constantinople in the 
 reign of Constantins “ the court of the church 
 (of Acacius the martyr) was filled with blood, 
 and the well therein overflowed with blood” 
 (Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 38). 
 
 III. Frequent allusions to the practice for 
 which public provision was thus made occur in 
 Christian writers. For example, Tertullian, 
 A.D. 192: “What is the sense of entering on 
 prayer with the hands, indeed, washed, but the 
 spirit unclean ?” (De Oixit. c. xi.). This is said 
 of all prayer, private as well as public. i With 
 regard to private prayer in the morning, the 
 Apostolic d Constit dions give the following direc¬ 
 tion : “ Let every one of the faithful, man or 
 woman, when they rise fi’om sleep in the morn¬ 
 ing, before doing work, having washed [not 
 bathed the whole body, but yi\l/d/xeuut, having 
 washed parts of it, especially the hands] pray ” 
 (lib. viii. c. 32). St. Chrysostom in the follow¬ 
 ing passage is speaking of public worship in 
 general : “ 1 see a custom of this sort prevailing 
 among the many, viz , that they study how they 
 may come (into church) with clean clothes, and 
 how they may wash their hands, but consider 
 not how they may present a clean soul to God. 
 And I do not. say this to prevent your washing 
 hands or face, but because 1 wish you to wash, 
 as is beritting, not with water only, but with the 
 virtues correlative to the water ” (Horn. li. in 
 St. Matth. Ev. c. xv. 17-20). 
 
 More frequently it is spoken of as part of the 
 preparation for Holy Communion. For example, 
 ^t. Chrysostom: “ Tell me, wouldst thou choose 
 to draw near to the sacrifice with unwashen 
 hands? I think not; but thou wculdst rather 
 not draw near at all than with filthy hands. 
 ¥/ouldst thou, then, while thus careful in the 
 little matter, draw near having a filthy soul ?” 
 (Horn. iii. in Ep. ad Eph. c. i. 20-23). Similarly 
 in the West, Caesarlus of Arles, a.d. 502 : “All 
 the men, when they intend to approach the 
 altar, wash their hands, and all the women use 1 
 faij linen cloths on which to receive the body of j 
 
 Christ ... As the men wash their hands witli 
 water, so let them wash their souls with alms,” 
 &c. (Senn. ccxxix. § 5 in App. iv. ad 0pp. 
 S. August.'). Again: “If we are asha ned and 
 afraid to touch the eucharist with filthy hands, 
 much more ought we to be afraid to receive the 
 same eucharist in a polluted soul ” (Serm. ccxcii. 
 § 6 ; ibid.). 
 
 IV. The celebrant and his assistants washed 
 their hands between the dismissal of the cate¬ 
 chumens and the offering of the gifts. Thus in 
 the Apostolical Constitutions : “ Let one subdeacon 
 give water to the priests for washing their 
 hands, a symbol of the purity of souls consecrated 
 to God” (lib. viii. c. 11). Cyril of Jerusalem : 
 “ Ye saw the deacon who gave to the priest and 
 to the elders surrounding the altar of God 
 (water) to wash (their hands, yiil/aadat) . . . 
 The washing of the hands is a symbol of guilt¬ 
 lessness of sins” (Cutech. Mystug. v. § 1). 
 Pseudo-Dionysius: “ Standing before the most 
 holy symbols the high priest (i.e, the bishop) 
 washes his hands with the venerable order of the 
 priests ” (De Eccl. Hierarch, cap. iii. sect. 3, 
 § 10 ; sim. sect. ii.). We find the same rite in the 
 West. Thus in one of the Questions out of the 
 Old and New Testaments, probably compiled bv 
 Hilary the deacon, a.d. 354, it is implied that 
 at Rome the deacons did not “ pour water on the 
 priest’s hands, as ” (adds the writer) “we see in 
 all the churches ” (Qu. ci. On the Arrogance of the 
 Roman Levites in App. iii. ad 0pp. Aug.). We 
 may remark, in passing, that the Clementine 
 liturgy, as above quoted, assigns th« office to a 
 subdeacon. In the earliest Ordo Romanus ex¬ 
 tant, probably of the 7th century, it is ordered 
 that, after the reception of the gifts, the bishop 
 “ return to his seat and wash his hands,” and 
 that “ the archdeacon standing before the altar 
 wash his hands, when the receiving (of the obla¬ 
 tions) is completed ” (Ord. i. § 14; Miis. Ital. 
 tom. ii. p. 11; compare Ord. ii. § 9, p. 47). 
 
 Since the clergy, as well as the people, washed 
 their hands before they entered the church, it 
 may be asked, how they came to do so a second 
 time? Ancient writers give only a symbolical 
 reason, but it is not probable that the custom 
 originated in that. The words of the Ordo 
 Romanus suggest that the hands might be soiled 
 by the oblations, which at that time were large 
 and various in kind. They certainly wei’c 
 washed immediately after these were taken from 
 the offerers, and before the celebrant proceeded 
 to offer the elements selected out of them for 
 consecration. Another reason which might 
 make it necessary is suggested by Sala (Rota (1) 
 in Bona, Rer. Lit. 1. ii. c. ix. § 6), viz., that a 
 little time before the bishop and priests had 
 laid their hands on the heads of the catechumens 
 and penitents. The washing of the hands, or 
 rather fingers, by the celebrant after his com¬ 
 munion, now ordered in the church of Rome, 
 was not practised for more than a thousand 
 years after Christ. [W. E. S.] 
 
 HANGINGS. Some few notices may be 
 added to those already given under CURTAINS. 
 The curtains which closed the doors of the 
 chancel screen in later times often bore the 
 pictorial representation of .some saint or angelic 
 1 being. At the present day St. Michael is often 
 [ represented upon them as prohibiting all access 
 
7G0 
 
 HARE 
 
 to the bema (Neale, Eastern Ch. i. 19'>). it 
 was ou the curtain of the hema of the church at 
 Anablatha that Sf. Epiphanius saw the j)aiiited 
 figure which gave Ivim so much offence, and 
 caused him to tear the curtain, and desire that it 
 should be replaced by one of a single colour 
 (Epiphan. Epist. ad Joann, p. yi9). The censure 
 passed by Asterius of Amasia on the excessive 
 luxury displayed in the textile fabrics of his day 
 proves that at the end of the fourth century re¬ 
 presentations of sacred facts were woven in the 
 stuffs in ordinary use for hangings, and even for 
 dresses. The same author also describes the 
 painted hangings of the sepulchre of St. Euphe- 
 mia at Chalcedon representing the martyrdom of 
 that saint (Aster. Amas. Humil. de Divit. et 
 Lazaro; Enarrat. in martyr. Eaphem.). Paulinus 
 of Nola is another authority on the decoration 
 of these vela with pictorial designs :— 
 
 “Vela coloratis textum fucata figuris.” 
 
 A velum concealing the altar from the gaze 
 of the laity is mentioned in the office for the 
 dedication of a chui’ch in the Sacramentary of 
 Gregory. When the bishop, having brought the 
 relics which w'ere to be deposited within it, 
 had arrived at the altar, he was to be concealed 
 from the sight of the people by a veil, before 
 he proceeded to anoint the four corners with 
 the chrism (extenso velo inter clerum et popu- 
 lum, Muratori, ii. 481). An offering of hangings 
 vela was made to the church of St. Peter’s by a 
 lady of rank named Rusticiana, which were 
 carried to their destination by the whole body 
 of the clergy chanting a litany (Greg. Magn. 
 Epist. ix. 38). The supposititious Second Epistle 
 of Clement to James the l.ord's brother., “ de 
 sacratii vestibus et vasis,” gives minute direc¬ 
 tions for the washing of the altar cloths and 
 other vestments of the church by the deacons 
 and other ministers of the church, in vessels 
 specially set apart for the purpose, near the 
 sacristy. The door-keepers are also enjoined to 
 take care that no one thoughtlessly wiped his 
 hands on the curtain of the door, and to remind 
 those who were guilty of such irreverence that 
 “ the veil of the Lord’s Temple is holy ” (Labbe, 
 Concil. i. 99). Gregory of Tours informs us that 
 on the conversion of Clovis, solemn processions 
 were instituted in the streets, which were 
 shaded with painted veils, while the churches 
 were adorned with w'hite curtains (Greg. Turon. 
 Hist. Franc, ii. 31). According to Hefele (^Bei- 
 trdye zur Archdologie, ii. 252), tapestry curtains 
 were employed to protect the apertures of 
 windows in chui’ches before the general intro¬ 
 duction of glazing. [E. V.] 
 
 HARE. The boy who represents Spring 
 among the Four Seasons frequently carries a 
 haie in his hand. The idea of speed in the 
 Christian course was associated with it. It is 
 sometimes connected with the horse (Perret v. 
 Ivii.) or with the palm (Boldetti, 506). Its 
 presence in Christian decoration seems to be con¬ 
 nected with the Roman taste for ornamenting 
 their rooms with domestic, agricultural, or hunt¬ 
 ing subjects. Many places of assembly, no doubt, 
 contained pictures by Pagan hands in the earliest 
 days; and the ingenuity of Christian preachers 
 would in all probability make use of them for 
 type and metaphor; and so the animal or other 
 object would become a recognized and customary 
 
 HALF I ELD, COUNXTL OF 
 
 subject of Christian ornament, acquiring a sym¬ 
 bolical meaning. In such examj)les as the vine 
 or shej^herd, that meaning of course existed 
 before; and the distinction between scriptural 
 and all other symbols is on the whole sufficiently 
 well-marked in early work. [R. St. J. T.j 
 
 HARIOLI. [Astrology ; Divination.] 
 
 HARLOTS. Compare Fornication. The 
 maintaining and harbouring of harlots was 
 severely punished by the laws of the emi»ire; a 
 man who permitted his house to become a jdace 
 of assignation for improper purposes was jmnishe I 
 as an adulterer (^Pandect, lib. xlviii. tit. 5, 1. 8); 
 if a man discovered his wife to be a jirocuress, it 
 was a valid ground of divorce {Codex Theod. 
 lib. iii. tit. 16, 1.1); careful provision was made 
 against fathers or masters prostituting their 
 childi-en or slaves {Codex Just. lib. xi. tit. 40, 
 1. 6). Soci'ates {H. E. v. 18) commends Theo¬ 
 dosius the Great for demolishing the houses of 
 ill fame in Rome. Theodosius the younger jier- 
 formed the same service for Constantinojile, 
 enacting that keepers of infamous houses should 
 be publicly whipped and expelled the city, while 
 their slaves were set at liberty (Theodos. Hovel. 
 18, de Lenonihus'). All these laws were confirmed 
 by Justinian {Hovel. 14) who also increased the 
 severity of the punishments. 
 
 The church, as was natural, visited prostitu¬ 
 tion with the severest censure. Baptism was 
 denied to harlots {ir6pvas') and to those who 
 maintained them {-Kopvo^oaKovsf {Constf. Aptost. 
 viii. 32). The council of Elvira, A.T). 305, ordains 
 that if a parent, or any- Christian whatever, 
 exerci.se the trade of a procurer, forasmuch as 
 they set to sale the person of another, or rather 
 their own, they shall not be admitted to com¬ 
 munion, no, not at their last hour ; and the same 
 penalty is denounced (c. 70) by the same council 
 against a wife who prostitutes herself with her 
 husband’s connivance. [(b] 
 
 HATFIEI.D, COUNCIL OF {Haethfel- 
 thense, or HeJtfeldense, Concilium), 17 Sept. 
 A.D. 680, at Bishop’s Hatfield in Hertfordshire, 
 attended by all the bishops of Britain, Theo¬ 
 dore, archbi.shop of Canterbury, presiding, held 
 for making a declaration against Eutychian- 
 ism and Monothelism. Pope Agatho wished 
 that Theodore should have attended his council 
 of 125 bishops at Rome, March 27 of the same 
 year, preliminarily to the 6th general council, and 
 had sent John, precentor of his church of St. 
 Peter, with the acts of the Laterau council 
 under pope Martin I., A.D. 649, against Mono¬ 
 thelism, to invite him thither. But Tiieodore, 
 being either unable to leave for other reasons, or 
 unwilling to come from knowing that Wilfrid, 
 bishop of York, whose case had caused so much 
 strife, was already there, collected this council 
 instead, and despatched a copy of its synodical 
 letter to Rome by John, where it was ri;ad with 
 great satisfaction, and probably before the 6th 
 council, which met Nov. 7, had commenced. 
 Bede, who was about eight years old when this 
 synod took place, gives three different extracts 
 from its letter, in substance as follows:— 
 
 1. The bishops declare that “ they have set 
 forth the right and orthodox faith, as delivered 
 by our Lord to His disciple.s, and handed down 
 in the symbol of the holy fathers, and by all the 
 sacred and universal synods, and by the whole 
 
HAWKING 
 
 761 
 
 bouv of approved doctors of the Catholic church. 
 Following whom, they also confess the lather, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity in Unity, 
 consubstaiitial, and the Unity in Trinity, one 
 God in three consubstantial Persons of equal 
 honour and glory.” 
 
 2. They “receive the five general councils,” 
 mentioning each by name. 
 
 3. “ Likewise the synod of Rome, A.D. 649, 
 under Martin I.,” after which they say: “ We 
 receive and glorify our Lord Jesus, as they 
 glorified Him, neither adding nor subtracting 
 anything. We anathematise from the heart all 
 they anathematised, and receive all they re¬ 
 ceived: glorifying God the Father without be¬ 
 ginning, and His only begotten Sou, born of the 
 Father before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit 
 proceeding ineffably from the Father and the Son, 
 according to the preaching of the above-named 
 holy apostles and prophets and doctors, to all 
 which we have subscribed, who with archbishop 
 Theodore have expounded the Catholic faith.” 
 This assertion of procession from the Son as well 
 as the Father, which is not found in any docu¬ 
 ment received by the 6th council, may seem to 
 indicate that the inteiqiolated form of the creed 
 had got into Britain by then ; but it may be 
 explained in another way. We are told in 
 another place by Bede, that when Theodore was 
 consecrated at Rome by Vitalian, it was ex¬ 
 pressly stipulated that abbot Adrian should ac¬ 
 company him into England: “ Et, ut ei doctrinae 
 cooperator existens, diligenter attenderet, nequid 
 ille contrarium veritati fidei, Graecorum more, in 
 ecclesiam cui praesset, introduceret ” (A*.//. iv. 
 1). Adrian remained in that capacity till his 
 death, A.D. 710, and Theodore commenced work, 
 “ per omnia comitante et cooperante Adriano ” 
 (j6. c. 2). Now Adrian was a foreigner, as well 
 as Theodore. He was a learned African, and 
 Africa was the country that boasted of the 
 clearest authorities as yet, for procession from 
 the Son as well as the Father, in SS. Austin and 
 Fulgentius. In conclusion, Bede tells us that 
 John the precentor also took part in this synod, 
 and was flocked to by the whole country for 
 instruction in the Roman chant (Mansi, xi. 175- 
 80; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 141-51). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 HAWKING. [Hunting.] 
 
 HEAD, COVERING OF THE. Christian 
 men in ancient days prayed with uncovered 
 head, according to the apostolic injunction 
 (1 Cor. xi. 4, 5). Chrysostom’s comment on the 
 passage shows clearly that this was the practice 
 of his own time, as well as of the apostolic age. 
 Tertullian (^Apol. c. 30) says that Christian men 
 prayed with bare head, as having no need to 
 conceal a blush, insinuating that the heathen 
 might well blush for some of the prayers which 
 they uttered; and Cyprian may perhaps be al¬ 
 luding to the same custom, when he .says (^De 
 Lapsis, c. 2) that the head of a Christian was 
 uncontaminated by the head-covering of the 
 heathen sacrificer. On the other hand, as both 
 the apostolic precept and the custom of the East 
 made it indecent for women to be seen with un¬ 
 covered head, the women of the Oriental and 
 African churches covered their heads not only in 
 the congregati in, but generally when they ap¬ 
 peared in public. The breaking in upon this 
 
 HEATHEN, THE 
 
 custom led Tertullian to write his treatise De 
 Viryinibuis Velandis, in which he contends that 
 not only matrons, but maidens—who had been 
 allowed a somewhat greater licence—should 
 cover their heads effectually. He is especially 
 severe (c. 17) on those who wore a simple band 
 or fillet, which did not cover the top of the 
 head ; or laid a mere slip of linen on the top of 
 the head, which did not reach even to the ears; 
 he insists that the veil or head-covering shouhl 
 at any rate come down to meet the top of the 
 dress; the whole space which would be covered 
 by the hair if it were let down should be covered 
 by the A’^eil; and he holds up for admiration and 
 imitation the Arab women, who so covered the 
 head and face as to leave only one eye visible. 
 Contrary to Roman pi'actice, they preferred to 
 see rather than to be seen. But most of all does 
 he inveigh against those women who, even when 
 psalms are said and the name of God named, 
 continued uncoA'ered, or with veils thrown back 
 (retectae pei’.severant); who even in prayer fan¬ 
 cied them.selves covered with a strip of lace or 
 fringe on the top of the head. But Tertuilian’s 
 rigorous views were not those of the Church at 
 large; as a general rule Christian women have 
 worn the head-dresses of their country and 
 station, and have cov'ered their heads in the 
 place of assembly. Men, to speak generally, 
 have always prayed with uncovered head. Yet 
 about the 8th century the Ordo Fomanus 11. 
 (c. 8, p. 46) says that at the reading of the 
 Gospel neither crown nor any other covering is 
 kept on the head, an expression which seems to 
 imply that during the saying of some portions 
 of the office crowns or other coverings were 
 retained. 
 
 2. With regard to the head-covering of clerics, 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary (p. 38) lays down 
 the rule, that no cleric stands in the church at 
 any time with covered head, unless he have an 
 infirmity. In spite, however, of the generality 
 of the expression “ ullo tempore,” the meaning of 
 the sentence is probably limited by the words 
 which stand at the head of the rubric, “ per 
 totam Quadragesimam.” That some kind of 
 ceremonial head-dress was worn by bishops and 
 priests from the 4th century onward seems 
 certain. See Infula, Mitue. 
 
 3. For the head-covering of monks, see Cu- 
 
 CULLA, Hood. [C.] 
 
 HEAD OF ALL CHURCHES. The emperor 
 Justinian in a rescript {Codex, lib. 1, tit. 2,1. 24) 
 giv'es to the patriarchal church of Constantinople 
 the title of “ Head of all the Churches ”—“ Con- 
 tantinopolitana ecclesia omnium aliarum est 
 caput.” See Patriarch ; Pope. [C.] 
 
 HEARERS. [Audientes; Catechumens; 
 Doctor.] 
 
 HEATHEN, THE, in relation to the Church. 
 
 1. The duty of j)raying for the heathen was 
 amply recognized by the early Christians. Thus 
 in the Ignatian letter to the Ephesians (c. 10) 
 we find the exhortation, “pray abso without 
 ceasing for the rest of mankind ; for there is in 
 them a hope of repentance, that they may attain 
 to God.” St. Augustine {Epist. 217, orf Vitafem, 
 c. 2) declares that one, who did not believe that 
 the seed of faith was sown in the heart by God, 
 mu.st needs mock at the words of the priest at 
 the altar exhorting the people to pray fur un- 
 
762 HEATHEN, THE 
 
 believers, that God may turn them to the faith. 
 And again {l)e D^no Persev. c. 22, § 63) he asks, 
 “ When was not prayer made in the Church for 
 unbelievers aud for its enemies, that they might 
 believe?” Prosper {l)e Vocut. Gentium, i. 12) 
 tells us that “ the Church prays to God eveiy- 
 where, not only for the holy and those already 
 regenerate in Christ, but also for all unbelievers 
 and enemies of the cross of Christ, for all wor¬ 
 shippers of idols. . . . And what does she ask 
 for them, but that leaving their errors they may 
 be converted to God ?” Such prayers occur in 
 the liturgies ; in that of St. Mark, for instance, 
 we have (Kenaudot, Litt. Orient, i. 153), “Turn 
 back those who have gone astray, enlighten those 
 who are in darkness.” So the Clementine 
 ^Constt. Apnst. viii. 15): “We beseech Thee on 
 behalf of those who hate us and persecute us for 
 Thy Name’s sake, for those outside the Church 
 and in error, that Thou mayest turn them to 
 good and soften their hearts.” In the West, the 
 conversion of the heathen was an especial subject 
 of prayer—as it is still in the English church— 
 on Good Friday. Thus, in the Gelasian Sacra¬ 
 mentary (i. 41; Migne’s Patrol. Ixxiv. 1105 B) 
 the deacon, after bidding prayer for heretics, 
 schismatics, and Jews, proceeds, “ Let us pray 
 also for the pagans, that Almighty God may take 
 away the wickedness from their hearts, and that 
 forsaking their idols they may turn to the true 
 God and His only Son Jesus Christ.” So in the 
 Gregorian (p. 64), the prayers to be used on the 
 Wednesday and Friday in Holy Week include 
 one for the pagans.® 
 
 2. While it is clear that heathen were care¬ 
 fully excluded from the Christian mysteries, it is 
 equally clear that from the earliest times they 
 were admitted to that part of Christian worship 
 which consisted mainly of instruction. St. Paul 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 23) evidently contemplates the pos¬ 
 sibility of heathen entering the place where 
 preaching took place, whether it were in the 
 shape of an utterance in “tongues,” or prophesy¬ 
 ing. At the end of the 2nd century, all portions 
 of divine worship were not open to all alike ; 
 for Tertullian (^De Praescript. c. 41) reproaches 
 certain heretics with their want of order and 
 discipline, in that not only catechumens were 
 admitted to the same privileges as the faithful, 
 but even heathen, if they chanced to enter the 
 place, had equal access; so did the heretics cast 
 their mock-pearls before swine. In this it is 
 implied that the orthodox were more careful of 
 their treasure. [Disciplixa Arcani.] The 
 words of Origen (c. Cclsum, iii. p. 142, Spencer), 
 where, speaking of the care bestowed upon cate¬ 
 chumens, he says that Christians had in view to 
 l)revent persons of evil life from coming to their 
 common assembly (cttI rby Koivhv avrwv (rvWo- 
 you), seem to imply that some kind of scrutiny 
 took place before men were admitted to any 
 Christian assembly whatever; for he contrasts 
 the Cynic practice of receiving all comers to their 
 harangues with that of the Christians, and the 
 word avWoyos does not appear to be taken (like 
 avva^is) in the limited sense of “ the Eucharistic 
 mystery.” However this may be, it is certain 
 that at the end of the 4th century the African 
 canons (/E. Cone. Garth, c. 84) specially provide 
 
 For the substance of this paragraph the writer is 
 indebted to the Kev. W. E. Scudamore. 
 
 HEATHEN, THE 
 
 that the bishop is not to hinder any one, whether 
 heathen, heretic, or Jew, from entering the 
 church and hearing the word of God, as far as 
 the dismissal of the catechumens (usque ad 
 mis.sam catech.); and a later Council (Cone. 
 Vallctanum, c. 1 ; a.d. 524) orders the Gospel to 
 be read after the Epistle, before the bringing in 
 of the gifts [Entranck, § 2] or the dismi.ssal of 
 catechumens,'^ in order that not only catechu¬ 
 mens and penitents, but all who belong to the 
 contrary part (e diverso sunt) may hear the 
 wholesome precepts of the Lord Jesus or the 
 sermon of the bishop (sacerdotis); for many had 
 been drawn to the faith by the preaching of the 
 prelates (pontificum). The liberty which was 
 granted to heathen does not seem in all cases to 
 have been allowed to heretics (Cone. L 'od. c. 6). 
 The liturgies themselves contain evidence that 
 heathen were j)erinitted to be present din ing tlie 
 introductory portion of the Eucharistic otiice. 
 In the Clementine, for instance (Cons t. Apostt. 
 viii. 12), the deacon proclaims before the offer¬ 
 tory, “ Let no one of the catechumens, no one 
 of the hearers, no one of the unbelievei’s (rwv 
 airia'rcot'), no one of the heterodo'x [be presentl;” 
 from which it appears that heathens had not 
 been excluded during the whole of the pre¬ 
 vious service. 
 
 3. It does not appear that the infant children 
 of heathen parents, remaining in the heathen 
 family, were in ancient times ever baptized. It 
 would have been held a profanation of the .sacra¬ 
 ment to baptize those who were likely to be 
 brought up as pagans. But baptism was not 
 refused to children of heathen slaves brought to 
 baptism by their owners, who could of course 
 ensure them Christian nurture ; and orphans and 
 foundlings—the latter at any rate almost always 
 the offspring of heathen—were frequently pre¬ 
 sented for baptism by the virgins or others who 
 had taken chai-ge of them (Augustine, Epist. 23, 
 ad Bonifac. ; compare Pseudo-Ambros. de Vocat. 
 Gent. ii. 18). We may probably discover in this 
 presentation of infants for baptism by persons 
 other than their parents the origin of Sponsors. 
 
 When the time came that Paganism was pro¬ 
 scribed and Christianity enjoined, special care 
 was taken that whole families should be brought 
 within the pale of Christianity, and that the 
 head of a household should not undergo baptism 
 pro forma, while the household remained heathen. 
 
 “ As for those who are not yet baptized,” says 
 the Code of Justinian (lib. i. tit. ii. de Paganis, 
 1. 10), “let them, with wives and children aud 
 all their households, betake themselves to the 
 holy churches; and let them provide that their 
 infants (parvuli) be baptized without delay; but 
 let the older children (majores) before baptism 
 be instructed in the Scriptures according to the 
 canons. But if any, with a view to entering the 
 public service, or to acquiring an office or a pro¬ 
 perty, go through a form of baptism (fingant 
 baptizari) and leave in their error their children, 
 wives, and others who belong to and depend upon 
 them ; they are to be punished by confiscation oi 
 goods and other penalties, and excluded from the 
 public service.” The sjiecial case of the Samari¬ 
 tans is provided for by another law (Novel. 144, 
 c. 2); adults were to pass through two years’ 
 
 This is given from the text of Bruns (Canones, ii. 25^ 
 some texts have “ in mhsa” for “ vel missam.” 
 
HEAVICN 
 
 IIKBDOMADARIUS 
 
 7(33 
 
 iQstruction and pi'obation, while children not 
 capable of instruction in the doctrines of the 
 faith were to be admitted to baptism at once. 
 Both these laws were incduiled by Photius in his 
 Noinocanon (tit. iv. c. 4, p. 907) [Codex 
 Canon UM, p. 400]. 
 
 4. 'It does not appear that the Church in the 
 earliest times had special organizations for the 
 conversion of the heathen. It was of course the 
 duty of the bishops and clergy of any church to 
 endeavour to bring over to the faith those pagans 
 who dwelt about them, and men were raised up 
 from time to time who went forth into lands 
 entirely heathen. The monastic orders, in par¬ 
 ticular, e.’.pecially that of St. Columba, were 
 constantly active in propagating the f;\ith of 
 Christ [Monasticism]. The lives of the great 
 missionaries will be found in the Dictionary of 
 Christian Biography. 
 
 It is worth observing, that in the Coronation- 
 office given by Menard with the Gregorian 
 Sacramentary (Ac? Iteyinam benedicendam, pp. 
 263, 264) the conversion of heathen nations is 
 regarded as especially the work of a queen. 
 After putting on the ring, the consecrating 
 bishop prays that the queen on the point of 
 being crowned “ may be enabled to call barbarous 
 nations to the knowledge of the truth.” 
 
 5. The social intercourse of heathen and 
 Christian, while paganism was still a flourishing 
 system, was rendered difficult by two circum¬ 
 stances ; the prevalence of more or less idolatrous 
 practices in the family life of heathens—liba¬ 
 tions, feasts on sacriflcial meats, songs implying 
 the recognition of pagan deities, and the like; 
 and afterwards by the horror and hatred with 
 which the heathen came to regard the votaries of 
 what they thought an “ ill-omened superstition,” 
 destructive of the greatness of the empire. 
 [Family ; Idolatry.] 
 
 Christians who feasted with the heathen in a 
 spot appropriated to heathen festivities, even if 
 for fear of defilement they took with them their 
 own food and ate no other, were sentenced to a 
 two-years’ penance among the Substrati [Peni¬ 
 tence]. (Cone. Anc /r. c. 7; a.d. 314.) 
 
 6. Until Christianity had developed a litera¬ 
 
 ture of its own, those Christians who studied 
 literature at all, beyond the limits of Scripture, 
 of course studied pagan literature; but at the 
 end of the 4th century we find the peremptory 
 prohibition {TV. Cone. Cartli. c. 16), “that the 
 bishop should not read the books of the gentiles.” 
 It is not to be supposed however that this precept 
 was literally and universally observed ; the vast 
 pagan learning (for instance) of Jerome and 
 Augustine is matter of notoriety, and it is not to 
 be supposed that it was wholly acquired before 
 they entered the Christian ministry. Jerome, 
 indeed (^Epist. 10 [al. 70] ad Magnum), e.xpressly 
 defends Christian writers against the charge that 
 they were ignorant of pagan writings, and points 
 with pride to the long series of writers who had 
 defended Christianity with weapons drawn from 
 the pagan armoury. See further under Pro¬ 
 hibited Books. [C.J 
 
 HEAVEN. [See Fir.mament.] The veubd 
 figure on the .sarcophagus of Junius Bassus 
 (Bottari, tav. xv. and elsewhere a female head, 
 id. tav. xxxiii.) is always held to represent 
 the firmament of heaven. Considering tb« word 
 
 as denoting the future spiritual state of ha])piness 
 in the pifsence of God, we can hardly j)ass over 
 the symbolic representations of the Lord in 
 glory which seem from the 6th centurv to have 
 been the accustomed decorations of Byzantine 
 churches. The choir and ap.^e of a church from 
 that date were constantly made to symbolize 
 heaven and earth: the churches triumphant and 
 militant, the new heaven of glory, and the re¬ 
 newed earth of the soul regenerated in baptism. 
 The churches of SS. Cosmas and Damianus, 
 St. Venantius, and especially of St. Prassede, at 
 Rome, may be taken as tyj)es of the Byzantine 
 treatment of this great subject. In the former 
 Our Lord stands on the firmament of clouds, a 
 figure of indescribable grandeur. He is not only 
 come to His sanctuary, and present with a con¬ 
 gregation of the church, but he is also and at 
 the same moment in heaven, apart from time, 
 with the church triumphant. Accordingly, here, 
 and in St. Prassede, the apse, and the uj>per part 
 of the arch of triumph in advance of it, reprc.sent 
 Him in glory with His own ; saints and martyrs, 
 in white robes on gold ground, casting their 
 crowns before Him. But at their feet flows the 
 mystic Jordan, the river of bajitism into His 
 death, and also the river of death, the Lethe of 
 life and death. It separates the glorified church 
 in heaven from the sheep of the fold below, who 
 are yet militant on earth. 
 
 Parallel representations of the adoration of 
 saints and martyrs in glory are, of course, uni¬ 
 versal from the 6th century; the great proces¬ 
 sions at St. Apollinare Nuova, in Ravenna, will be 
 remembered as belonging to the time of Jus- 
 tinian. The Last Judgment of Torcello has its 
 side of accepted souls (see s. v.). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HEBDOMADARIUS. The word signifies a 
 weekly officer, and was applied in monasteries to 
 those monks who served, a week in rotation, the 
 office of cook or reader during reibetiou. In 
 Egypt and theThebaid it was customary in the 5th 
 century for all the monks in turn to act as cooks, 
 and Cassian traces the custom to the monasteries 
 in the East (Cass. Inatit. iv. 19, cf. Hieron. 
 Beg. Pachom. Prol. Ep. 22 ad Eustoch. c. 35). 
 But see Cass. Instil, iv. 22. Similarly Benedict 
 ordered that none should be excused from this 
 duty except on the score of health or urgent 
 occupations, intending thus to promote a fellow¬ 
 ship of brotherly feeling; but with his usual 
 consideration, he allowed those who might be 
 unskilful in this sort of work to have assistants 
 (Bened. Beg. c. 35). 
 
 By the rule called of Magister each “decad” 
 or “ decuria ” (ten monks) under its two deans 
 (praepositi), was to hold this office for five 
 weeks together, two of the number in turn with 
 one dean being told off each week for the kitchen, 
 and the rest under the other dean working in 
 the field (Beg. Mag. c. 17). Even abbats, 
 though not unfrequeutly of illustrious birth, 
 were not always exempt. By the rule of Fei’- 
 reolus, written in the south of France during 
 the 6th century, the abbat was to be cook on 
 three great festivals in the year, at Christmas, 
 at Pentecost, and on the Faunder’s Day (Beg 
 Ferreol. c. 38). It is recorded of Benedict us 
 Aniansis the compiler of the Concordit Begu- 
 laruin, that he would be intent on literary work 
 while at work in the kitchen ( Vita Bened. Anian, 
 
v64 
 
 HEBDOMADARIUS 
 
 HEGIRA 
 
 c. 14). By the rule of Cuesririus, bishop of 
 Arles Ml tile Gtli century, abhats and priors were 
 excused altogether. 
 
 In some monasteries it was part of the duty 
 of the hebdomadarii to prepare the dinner-table, 
 and to act as waiters, iienedict indeed, dis¬ 
 tinguishes the “ Septimaiiarii coquinae ” from 
 the “ servitores ” (liencd, cc. 35, 38); but 
 the rule of Isidorus, bishop of Seville, in the 7th 
 century, combines the offices (Isid. lieg. c. 11); 
 and in the rule of “ Magister” the cooks or their 
 assistants are ordered not only to wait at table, 
 but to carry water, chop wood, clean shoes, wash 
 towels, dust the mats in the oratory, and per- 
 foi m A'arious other menial tasks {li^g. Mag. c. 
 19). In the same rule it is })rovided, that if the 
 weekly oiKcers are negligent in having the table 
 ready for the refection, the abbat himself is to 
 put them to the blush by doing it himself 
 publicly (/6. c. 23). In the Cluuiac and Cis¬ 
 tercian monasteries the hebdomadarii were 
 waiters as well as cooks (Marten, lieg. Bened. 
 Comm, ad loc. cit.). 
 
 The week of the hebdomadarii commenced on 
 Sunday by a solemn form of admission in the 
 oratory after “matins” (A'er/. Bened. c. 35),-or 
 after “prime” i^Lieg. Mag. c. 19); the monks 
 going out of office, as well as those just coming 
 in, entreating the prayers of their brethren, and 
 the blessing of their abbat. On the Saturday 
 those, whose term of office was over, were to 
 deliver up to the “cellarer” tor the use of their 
 successors all the utensils &c. under their charge 
 in perfect order (/Aj;. Bened. v. s. lieg. Mag. v. s.). 
 It was an old custom, symbolic of humility and 
 brotherly love, for the hebdomadarii, closing 
 and commencing their week, to wash the feet of 
 their brethren, during which operation silence 
 was to be ke 2 )t, or psalms chanted (Cassian. 
 Instil, iv. 1 9, Bened. lieg. v. s.). By the rule 
 of “ Magister,” they were to set about i>reparing 
 the refection three hours before the hour fixed 
 for it; immediately after “nones” if, as was 
 usual, the dinner was at midday, immediately 
 after “ sext ” for a dinner ao three in the after¬ 
 noon {lieg, Mag. v. s.). The refection was to be 
 .served on the stroke {Beg. Bened. v. s.); for any 
 •unpunctuality they were to be mulcted of the 
 ration of bread or a j>art of it for certain days 
 {lieg. Mag. c. 19); the Concordia Begularum 
 quotes an anonymous rule (not the “ Regula 
 Cujusdam,” usually ascribed to Columbanus) 
 sentencing hebdomadarii guilty of any trivial 
 irregularity to twenty-five strokes of the 02 >en 
 hand {Reg. Cujusd. c. 12), just as Cassian 
 cautions them against losing even a pea (Cass. 
 Tnstit. iv. 20). Benedict wisely arranged that 
 the cooks should have some refreshment, a jiiece 
 of bread and a small cup of beer, (panem ac 
 singulos bibere.s) an hour before the refection, on 
 ordinary days ; on festivals they were to wait 
 till after the midday mass (Bened. Reg. v. s.). 
 Various reasons are supposed by commentators 
 for the latter part of this injunction (Martene 
 Reg. Comm, ad loc. h 
 
 The “ lector hebdomadarius ” or reader aloud 
 during refection held office, like the “ coqui,” 
 for a week; but Benedict ordered that only 
 those brethren should be readers, whose reading 
 was likely to edify (Bened. Reg. c. 38), On the 
 Sunday commencing his week of office the 
 reader was thrice to rG]ieat in the oratory the 
 
 “ Doniine, aperi os meum,” and before beginning 
 to read was to ask the prayers of his hearers, 
 lest he should be elated with jmide {Ih.). Not a 
 word was to be spoken during the lection even 
 by way of asking a question on what was being 
 read; unless the prior (or abbat i, should think 
 right to interpose an explanation or exhortation ; 
 the monks were to help another to anything 
 wanted without a word (/6.). The reader was 
 to have a little bread and wine (for so “ mix- 
 tum ” is to be understood, according to Martene, 
 and not as wine and water), just before reading, 
 for fear of faintness or exhaustion; he was to 
 dine with the other hebdomadarii after the public 
 meal {lb.'). The passages for reading were chosen 
 by the abbat either from the Holy Scriptures or 
 from lives of saints. Cassian derives the custom 
 of reading aloud at refection from Cappadocia 
 (Cass. Instil, iv. 19). [See also, Alteser. Asceticon 
 ix. 10]. [I. G. S.] 
 
 HECATONTARCHAE. The council in 
 Trullo (c. 61) condemns to six years’ excom¬ 
 munication those who resort to “ the so-called 
 hecatontarchae, or such-like per.sons ” (rots 
 Xeyo/xlvois eKaTovTdpxo.LS ^ tkti toiovtois) with 
 the view of learning from them what they may 
 choose to reveal. The title of “ hecatontarches,” 
 is said by Balsamon (quoted by Van Espen, iii. 
 415) to be equivalent to “ Primicerius;” and to 
 have been conferred on certain old men who gave 
 themselves out to be po.sses.sed of supernatural 
 knowledge and deceived the simple. Gothofred 
 (quoted by Bingham, Antig. XVI. v. 6) thinks 
 that these hecatontarchae are to be identified 
 with the “ centenarii ” of the Theodosian Code 
 (lib. xvi. tit. 10, 1. 20), who were officers of 
 certain corj)orations or companies for managing 
 idolatrous pomps and ceremonies, and frequently 
 claimed the jiower of divination. [Divinatiox ; 
 Soothsayers.] ' [C.] 
 
 HEDFELDENSE CONCILIUM. [Hat¬ 
 field, Council of.] 
 
 HEDISTIUS, martyr at Ravenna (saec. iv.); 
 commemorated Oct. l2{Ma>-t. Rom. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 HEGESIPPUS, historian, “ Vicinus Aposto- 
 licorum temporum ” (fcirca 180 a.d.) ; comme¬ 
 morated April 7 {Mart. Hieron., Horn. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 ^ c c -o 
 
 HEGIRA OR HUE AH !)• The 
 
 era commonly used by the Mohammedan his¬ 
 torians is that of the Hijrah, or flight of 
 Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. The epoch 
 is the first daj' of the first month, Moharrem, of 
 the year in which this took place (not the day 
 itself, which was about sixty-seven days later). 
 The epoch fell, according to the best Arabian 
 authors and astronomers, cited in Ideler {Hand- 
 buch, ii, 483), on Thursday, July 15, a.d. 622 ; but 
 according to civil usage and the phase of the 
 moon, a day later. This discre])ancy has to be 
 noted. We shall take as the epoch July 16, a.d. 
 622, or 5335 Julian Period, with interval days 
 from Christian era [Era], 227,014. 
 
 In Mohammedan autliors the year is a lunar 
 year of 30 and 29 days alternately, having 354 
 days. In intercalary years, of which there are 
 11 in every 30 years, viz., those marked * in 
 
HEGUMENOS 
 
 HEMIPHOEION 
 
 765 
 
 Table I., the last month has one more day. In ' 
 a complete cycle of 30 years there are 10,631 
 days. 
 
 To convert a Mohammed in Date into Old 
 Style .—Find the number of cycles by dividing 
 the Mohammedan year-date less 1 by 30. Let Q 
 be the quotient, K the remainder. Multiply Q 
 by 10,631, to which add tlje number of days 
 corresponding to R in Table I. and the number 
 of days corresponding to the months and days in 
 Table II., and also 227,OIL, the interval days from 
 the Christian era. The number of days divided 
 by 1461 will give the number of quadriennia 
 A.D., and table in Era § h, p. 623, will suffice to 
 find the residual year and day of year. 
 
 Add 1 for the current year. 
 
 To convert an 0. S. Date into Mohammedan .— 
 Convert into days from Christian era, by same 
 rule as in Era, § 5. Subtract 227,014; divide 
 remainder by 10,631. Let quotient be Q and 
 remainder R. 'I'o 30 x Q add the number of 
 years corresponding to the number of days in 
 Table 1. next less than R, and with those over 
 lind the months and days in Table II. 
 
 Add 1 for the current year. 
 
 Table I. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Days. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Days. 
 
 1 
 
 354 
 
 11 
 
 3898 
 
 21* 
 
 7442 
 
 2* 
 
 709 
 
 12 
 
 4252 
 
 22 
 
 7796 
 
 3 
 
 1063 
 
 13* 
 
 4607 
 
 23 
 
 8150 
 
 4 
 
 1417 
 
 14 
 
 4961 
 
 24* 
 
 8505 
 
 5* 
 
 1772 
 
 15 
 
 5315 
 
 25 
 
 8859 
 
 6 
 
 2126 
 
 16* 
 
 5670 
 
 26* 
 
 9214 
 
 7* 
 
 2481 
 
 17 
 
 6024 
 
 27 
 
 9568 
 
 8 
 
 2835 
 
 18* 
 
 6379 
 
 28 
 
 9922 
 
 9 
 
 3189 
 
 19 
 
 6733 
 
 29' 
 
 10277 
 
 10* 
 
 3544 
 
 20 
 
 7087 
 
 30 
 
 10631 
 
 Table II. 
 
 Months. Days. 
 
 Months. Days. 
 
 Months. Days. 
 
 1 
 
 30 
 
 5 
 
 148 
 
 9 
 
 266 
 
 2 
 
 59 
 
 6 
 
 177 
 
 10 
 
 295 
 
 3 
 
 89 
 
 7 
 
 207 
 
 11 
 
 325 
 
 4 
 
 118 
 
 8 
 
 236 
 
 12 354 or 355 
 
 Observe tliat two Mohammedan years may 
 begin in the same Julian year. This happens 
 every 33 or 34 years. 
 
 It may be worth noting that the Persian era 
 of Yezdegird commenced June 16, 632, ten years 
 later. [L. H.] 
 
 HEGUIMENOS. (^'Wyovjxevos') The Hegu- 
 menos of a monastery in the Creek church cor¬ 
 responds to the Latin Abbat (see that word). 
 He was also termed archimandrite. But, ac¬ 
 cording to Helyot {Hist, des (irdr. Monast. Diss. 
 Prelim, c. 11), the term archimandrite passed 
 in time from the superior of a monastery 
 to the superior-general, originally called the 
 exarch, whose office it was to “ visit ” all the 
 monasteries in a province. Any monastery so 
 desirous at its foundation was exempted from 
 the bishop’s jurisdiction and placed under the 
 sole authority of the patriarch ; and the supe¬ 
 rior general of these monasteries was a grand 
 archimandrite (cf. 'I'homass. Disc. Eccles. I. iii. 
 23). The words Hegumene (‘H'yoo/ufVrj), Hegu- 
 meneion {‘‘H'YovjXiPiior')., and Ilegumeneia (‘Hyou- 
 (levtia) (all from the classical term for the head¬ 
 ship of a confederaoy) signify abbess, monastery 
 
 (or abbat’s rooms), and office of abbat. (Suic. 
 IVies. L'ccles. s. v.) [I. G. S.] 
 
 HEILETON. [Eileton.] 
 
 HELENA. (1) Mother of Constantine the 
 Great (feirca 328 a.d.) ; commemorated Aug. 18 
 (il/a?'^. Usuardi); Maskarram 18 = Sept. 15 (CaL 
 Fthiop.). See also Consi’anti.ve. 
 
 (2) Virgin-saint of Auxerre: “Natalis” May 
 22 (^Mart. Usuardi) ; translation and deposition 
 May 22 (^Murt. Adonis, in Appendice). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HELIAS, presbyter and martyr at Cordova 
 with Isidorus and Paulus, monks; commemorated 
 April 17 (^Mart. Usuardi;. [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HELIMENAS, or HELYMAS, presbyter 
 of Babylonia, and martyr at Cordula, under 
 Decius, with Chrysotelus and Parmenius, pres¬ 
 byters, and the deacons Lucas and Mucius (or 
 Lucius and Mucas); commemorated April 21 
 (^Murt. Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HELIODOUUS, martyr in Africa with Ve-- 
 nustus and seventy-five others ; commemorated 
 May 6 {Mart. Usuardi). [\\L F. G.] , . 
 
 HELIOLATRAE. [Faithful.] 
 
 HELISAEUS, HELIZAEUS, or ELISHA)/" 
 the prophet; commemorated June 14 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). See also 
 Elisha. [W. F. G.] 
 
 HELL. A frequent subject of mediaeval 
 Christian art in the sense of the appointed place 
 or state of future })unishment; but the writer 
 is not aware of any such representation of un¬ 
 questionable date and authenticity within the 
 first eight centuries, unless the judgment- 
 mosaic of Torcello may be considered an ex¬ 
 ception, which is very doubtful. See Last 
 Judgment. The Book of Kells, and Saxon and 
 Irish MSS. contain numerous dragons, and even 
 grotesque devils; but they certainly seem to 
 have more to do with the prevailing taste for 
 lacertine or serjjentine ornament, and general 
 melancholy or ferocity of mind, than with any 
 doctrinal idea of evil spirits. The regular 
 Inferno begins with the early Florentine revival, 
 in the baptistery of St. Giovanni. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HELLADIUS, Upo/jLaprvs ; commemorated 
 May 28 {Cal. Ryzant.). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 HELPIDIUS, bishop and confessor at Lyons ; 
 commemorated Sept. 2 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HEMIPHOEION {i]pa<p6piov), seemingly 
 some kind of ujiper garment, worn by men and 
 women. Epiphanius {Ifaeresis 69, § 3) describes 
 Aldus as wearing a colobion (see the word) and 
 a hemiphorion; the latter probably over the 
 former, which was a close tunic. And Palladius 
 {/list. Lausiac I, p. 148) says that the younger 
 Melania gave her silken hemij)horia to make 
 
 Ka\vfijj.ara to7s 0v(ria(rTr)p'iois,” hangings for the 
 sanctuary, or altar-cloths, whichever it may be. 
 
 Hesychius and Suidas write the word vp-Kpdpiop, 
 connecting it with (pdpos (a shawl or wrapper), 
 and translating it “ dimidium vestis,” “dinii- 
 diata vestis.” It was ju'obably therefore one of 
 the many forms of the j)a!Iium, smaller than 
 that commonly worn. (Suicer’s Thaaunis, s. v.). 
 
766 
 
 HEOTHINA 
 
 HERESY 
 
 HEOTHI.VA (ra k(t}Qiva). 'J'he Heoihinon is 
 an anthem sung in the Greek office of lauds (rh 
 opdpov), and occurs after the aluui \ (i.e. on ordi¬ 
 nary days, Pss. cxlviii., cxlix., cl., on Sundays 
 and important festivals, a short equivalent); and 
 certain versicles called Stichoi and short anthems 
 called SUcliera which follow them, and is placed 
 between the clauses of the doxology, “ glory, 
 &c.” (5d|a), and “ both now, &c. ” {koI vvv).^ 
 The Heothiuou varies with the musical tone of 
 the week : there being one to each tone; and 
 they are Ibund in the Paracletice, or book con¬ 
 taining the various antiphons or troparia, 
 arranged according to the different tones. The 
 form of the Heothinon is that of any other Greek 
 antiphon. 
 
 (2.) TCL ewOiua ((vayyeXia). These are Gospels 
 relating to the Resurrection, one of which is 
 read on Sundays in the Greek office of lauds. 
 They are eleven in number. [H. J. H.] 
 
 HERA CLEAS. (1) Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 A.D. 246 ; commemorated July 14 (Mart. Usu- 
 ardi), Taksas 8 = Dec. 4 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Thrace with Euticus and 
 Plautus; commemorated Sept. 29 (Mart. Usu- 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERACLIDES, martyr at Alexandria with 
 Heros, Plutarch us, Potamiena, Serenus, and 
 three others; commemorated June 28 (Mart. 
 Horn. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERACLIUS. (1) Bishop and confessor at 
 Sens (f circa 522 A.D.) ; commemorated June 8 
 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Saint, of ^syon; commemorated with 
 Paulus Aquilinus, and two others. May 17 (lb.) 
 
 (3) Martyr at Tuder in Tuscany, with Feli- 
 cissimus and Paulinus; commemorated May 26 
 (Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERASTUS, or ERASTUS, bishop of Phi¬ 
 lippi, and martyr ; commemorated July 26 
 (Mart. Usuardi, Ado de Fediv. SS. Apostolorum). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERCULANUS. (1) Saint, of Rome : “ Na¬ 
 talis ” Sept. 5 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuai’di). 
 
 (2) Soldier, saint at Lyons; commemorated 
 Sept. 25 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Bishop, martyr at Perugia; commemorated 
 Nov. 7 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERESY, considered as a delictum, or offence 
 against the law of the church. 
 
 The Greek word alpeais imports (1) a choosing 
 (Lev. xxii. 18, LXX.; 1 Maccab. viii. 30); (2) that 
 which is chosen, especially an opinion which one 
 chooses to hold, as alpeaets airwXf'ias (2 Pet. ii. 
 1); used by ecclesiastical writers for opinions 
 deviating from the true Christian faith; (8) a 
 body of men holding a particular opinion, as 
 (e. g.) those holding parti(uilar opinions in phi¬ 
 losophy (Diog. Laert. i. 13 etc.). In the New 
 Testament it is useil of the Sadducees (Acts v. 
 17), the Pharisees (/6. xv. 5, and perhaps xxvi. 
 5), of the Christian community (Ib. xxiv. 5, 14; 
 
 » The Greek fi rm of doxology after the Psalms does not 
 contain the clause ‘‘Sicut erat in principio” (Goar 
 EucImI. notae in Laud. Off.). 
 
 xxviii. 25). So Constantine (Euseb. H. E, x h, 
 
 . §§ 21, 22) speaks of the church as ^ alpeais 7 } 
 
 ! KaQoXiKT], 7) ayiwTaTT) alp^ais. We are con¬ 
 cerned with the term mainly in the second ot 
 these significations. 
 
 t ^ 
 
 The word was u.sed bv the earlv fathers with 
 a good deal of latitude to designate systems 
 which adojited, or profe.ssed to adopt, any 
 Christian element whatever (Burton, Bampton 
 Led. p. 12); so the Trullan council (c. 95) 
 applies the word “ heretic ” alike to those who 
 were, and to those who were not, reckoned 
 Christians ; but it is generally apjilied to those 
 who, holding the leading truths of the faith, 
 deviate in some point or points. 
 
 To define heresy is, as St. Augustine says (De 
 Haeret. Praef.), “altogether impossible, or at 
 any rate most difficult;” and when first asked 
 to write a book on heresy himself, he illustrated 
 the difficulty by pointing out (Ep. 222, ad Quod- 
 vult.) that Philastrius bishop of Brescia, in his 
 book of heresies, enumerated 28 which had 
 originated among the Jews before Christ, and 
 128 afterwards, but that Epiphanius of Cvprus 
 discovered only 80 altogether. But he is careful 
 to note (Epist. 43) that, whatever be the 
 definition, it is not the mere falseness of an 
 opinion, but the sjiirit in which it is held, that 
 constitutes heresy; they who do not defend a 
 wrong opinion in an obstinate temper (pertinaci 
 animositate), especially they who are in error 
 mainly by the accident of birth, are not to be 
 reckoned heretics. With which accords the 
 common definition, that heresy is “ pertinax 
 defensio dogmatis ecclesiae universalis judicio 
 condemnati.” See Decretum Grat. Cau. xxiv. 
 qu. iii. c. 29 ff. The law of the emperor Arcadius, 
 dated A.D. 395, and given m the Codex Theod. 
 (XVI. A'. 28), is the first legislative definition. 
 “ Qui A'el levi argumento a judicio catholicae 
 religionis et tramite detect! fuerint deviare,” 
 which is modified by another expression of the 
 same Arcadius (b'ode, L. 13, De Raganis), “qui 
 a Catholicae Religionis dogmate deviare con- 
 tendunt,'’’ where the word “contendunt” is held 
 to refer to the same pertinacity in maintaining 
 an opinion on which Augustine dwells (Van 
 Espen, pt. iii. tit. iv. c. 22 tf.). Van Espen con¬ 
 siders this, if not an absolutely accurate descrip¬ 
 tion, to be that which has governed the sub¬ 
 sequent practice of the church. He maintains 
 its soundness as a definition, because on the one 
 hand it allows no deviation whatever from the 
 Catholic creed, and on the other tolerates a 
 reasonable latitude of speculation by taking no 
 cognizance of constructive heresy. To con¬ 
 stitute the canonical offence the heresy must 
 consist—i., in a dejiarture, not from the implied 
 belief of Christianity, but from that Avhich the 
 church through her creeds and canons has 
 declared to be a matter of faith; ii., the error 
 must be persistent and wilful, and, as Augustine 
 points out (De Civ. Dei, xviii. 51), after admo¬ 
 nition ; iii., it must not only be suspected but 
 detected and adjudicated upon. (Van Espen, 
 Jus Eccl. HI. iv. 2; Field, Gf the Church, iii. 
 cc. 3, 4). 
 
 2. i. The cognizance of heresy Avas A'ested in 
 the bishops separately, as Avell as collectively. 
 It belongs exclusively to the spiritual office, 
 says Ambrose (Ep. 21), addressing the empei’or 
 Valeutinian, to decide on matters of doctrine. 
 
HERESY 
 
 HERESY 
 
 767 
 
 The episcopate was held to be one, where the 
 faith was concerned, and each bishop was charged 
 with maintaining it, although for practical con¬ 
 venience his government extended only over a 
 single diocese. This jurisdiction granted to the 
 bishop in matters of faith appears fi’om the 
 power possessed by him in the ante-Nicene 
 church of varying the expressions of the creed 
 in use in his diocese, in onler to meet prevailing 
 heresies; provided, of course, that the fun¬ 
 damental unity of the faith was unimpaired; 
 instances of such variations are given in Bing¬ 
 ham, Antiq. II. vi. 3. The reference to the 
 belief of individual bishops as a standard of 
 doctrine is further evidence in the same direction. 
 Thus Theodosius in a rescript quoted in Sozomen 
 {H. E. vii. 4) exhorts his subjects to keep the 
 faith delivered by St. Peter, and by Damasus of 
 Rome, and Peter of Alexandria. Other references 
 of the kind are collected in Gothofred’s com¬ 
 mentary on Codex Theod. xvi. 1, de fide Catholicd. 
 It w'as an exorcise of this authority by Gelasius 
 bishop of Rome, a.d. 492-6, condemning in a 
 decretal epistle the w'ritings of Faustus the 
 Semi-pelagian archbishop of Riez, which gave 
 rise to the first Roman catalogue of forbidden 
 books. After the empire became Christian, 
 attempts were made by some of the emperors to 
 arrogate to themselves this spiritual jurisdiction 
 of the bishops. The first instance of the kind, 
 unless the laws of Theodosius on heretics are to 
 be regarded as such, is that of the usurper 
 Basiliscus, emperor of the East, 475-7, who 
 issued an encyclic letter condemning the council 
 of Chalcedon, and laying down definitions of 
 faith. An example followed with more success 
 by Justinian, whose edicts on doctrine as well as 
 discipline obtained acceptance by being pro¬ 
 mulgated through the patriarchs, metropolitans, 
 and bishops. The ecclesiastical legislation of 
 Charlemagne also trenched upon the same pre¬ 
 rogative; discussion was permitted in the synods 
 'summoned by him, but the emperor reserved the 
 decision to himself, and issued the decrees in his 
 own name. But no ecclesiastical authority 
 superseded that of the bishops till a.d. 1204, 
 when two Cistercian abbots were sent by 
 Innocent III. to the south of France to inves¬ 
 tigate the Albigensian heresy; and in 1231 
 Gregory IX.'issued a commission to the Domini¬ 
 cans to constitute a special court of heresy ; this 
 was the beginning of the Inquisition. (Van Espen, 
 ^Jus. Eccl. I. xxii. 3.) 
 
 ii. The general power of each bishop to defend 
 the faith was restricted, in dealing with an 
 individual heretic, to his own diocese. If the 
 accused was one of the clergy, the bishop was 
 required in the African church to take neigh¬ 
 bouring bishops to sit with him (1 Cone. Corthag. 
 c. 11; 2 Cone. Carthag. c. 10); but this rule 
 was not confined to accusations of heresy. With 
 the bishop in some instances sat the presbyters— 
 whether or not this privilege w'as universally 
 conceded to them. The synod of Antioch, a.d. 
 264, which condemned Paul of Samosata, con¬ 
 tained presbyters (Euseb. II. E. vii. 28). So the 
 first condemnation of Arius was not pronounced 
 by .Alexander bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 319, till 
 he had summoned the presbytery and some other 
 bishops to hear the charge (Epiphan. Ilaer. 69, c. 
 3). And the accusation against Pelagius was first 
 heard before John, bishop of Jerusalem, and a 
 
 synod of his presbyters, a.d. 415. If objection 
 was made to the decision of the bishop,_an appeal 
 lay to a larger council, either of the province, or 
 finally of the whole church; instances of which are 
 too notorious to need citing. A bi.shop charged with 
 heresy could be tried only by a synod of bishops. 
 The officer charged with the preliminary inves¬ 
 tigation is designated by one of the law's of 
 Justinian (Vorc/. 137, c. 5). “If any clergvman 
 is accused in point of faith, if he is a bishoj) he 
 shall be examined before his metropolitan, but 
 if he is a metropolitan then before the patriarch,” 
 
 3. The penalties attached to heresy w'ere both 
 ecclesiastical and civil. 
 
 i. By ecclesiastical law an obstinate heretic 
 was excommunicated, and if he continued con¬ 
 tumacious, his exclusion from church-member¬ 
 ship was made more rigorous. The 6th canon 
 of the council of Laodicea forbids those who 
 continue in their heresy to enter the house of 
 God. But this exclusion could not have been 
 universal, . for the 4th council of Carthage^. 
 A.D. 398 (c. 84) distinctly prohibits the bishop 
 from preventing Gentiles, Jews, or heretics from 
 being present in church during the Missa Cate- 
 chumenorum ; and the council of Valentia, a.d. 
 524 (c. i.) orders the gospel to be read before 
 ♦the oblations, so that heretics, among others, 
 may have an opportunity of hearing [cf. 
 Heathen]. Another stigma affixed to heretics 
 was the rejection of their evidence in any 
 ecclesiastical court against a Catholic. The 
 Apostolical Canons (c. 74) say expressly that the 
 evidence of a heretic shall not be received against 
 a bi.shop. The 129th canon of the African code 
 also mentions heretics among other infamous 
 persons whose testimony was inadmissible 
 (4 Cone. Carthng. c. 96). The so-called 6th 
 canon of the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, 
 guards this disability from abuse by confining 
 it exclusively to ecclesiastical causes ; if a heretic 
 had a civil cause of complaint against a bishop, 
 the council allowed him his remedy; but the 
 Justinian code deprived him even of this. 
 Another class of penal enactments was directed 
 to the protection of the orthodox from the 
 infection of heresy. One of the Apostolical 
 Canons (c. 45) forbids, under pain of suspension, 
 any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, to pray with 
 heretics, or permit them to officiate; another 
 (c. 63)-inhibits either clergy or laity from wor¬ 
 shipping in a synagogue of heretics. The council 
 of Laodicea (c, 9) would not permit Catholics 
 to frequent the cemeteries or celebrations of 
 so-called martyrdoms of heretics, nor (c. 33) 
 tolerate any devotions with them. The 4th 
 council of Carthage, A.D. 398 (c. 71), pronounces 
 the assemblies of heretics to be not churches but 
 conventicles; and (c. 72) prohibits both praying 
 and singing psalms with them. The Spanish 
 council of Lerida, a.d. 523 (c. 13), rejects the 
 oblation of any who has presented liis children 
 for baptism by a heretic ; this must mean, not 
 in a case of necessity, where it would be admitted, 
 but deliberately. (Bingham, Antiq. X\’l. i, 4). 
 Social intercour.se with heretics was also pro¬ 
 hibited. “A clergyman must avoid both the 
 entertainments and the .society of heretics” 
 (4 Cone. Corthag. c. 70; 1 Cone. Tolet. c. 15; 
 1 Cone. Turoti. c. S; Con :. \'enef. c. ii). Augustine 
 relates (^Confess, iii . 11) that while he was a 
 Mauichaeau his mother would not sit at the 
 
768 
 
 HERESY 
 
 HERESY 
 
 s:ime table with him. The council of Laodicea 
 (c. 32) forbids Christians to receive the EuloCtIAE 
 of heretics, and also (cc. 10, 31) to intermarry 
 with them. This last j)rohibition appears to 
 have been universally enforced (Cone. Eliber. 
 c. 16; Cone, in Trull, c. 72). The laws of the 
 church are not so strict as the civil edicts after¬ 
 wards became in prohibiting the study of here¬ 
 tical books ; there is one canon (4 Cone. Carthag. 
 c. 16) which forbids a bishop to read heathen 
 authoi’s under any circumstances, and heretical 
 ones unless time or necessity require. 
 
 ii. The civil proceedings against heretics began 
 with some edicts of Constantine against the 
 Donatists, a.d. 316; but a much more extensive 
 series of laws was enacted by Theodosius the 
 Great with a view to put an end to the divisions 
 of the church arising from the controversies of 
 the 4th century, and to enforce uniformity of 
 belief by legal penalties. The first of these was 
 passed immediately after the general council of 
 Constantinople, A.D. 381, and between that 
 period and a.d. 394, fifteen other such edicts 
 were published. A further law was enacted by 
 Honorius, a.d. 408, and others in the East by 
 Arcadius and the younger Theodosius, and others 
 again by Justinian, a.d. 529. The laws are 
 chiefly contained in book xvi. tit. v. de Haereticis 
 of the Theodosian Code, although a few are to 
 be found under other titles. Here it will be 
 sufficient to give a bare abstract of the most 
 severe of them. Heretics were deprived of all 
 offices of profit or dignity in the state; they 
 could neither receive nor bequeath property ; no 
 civil contract with them was binding ; they were 
 fined, banished, subjected to corporal punishments, 
 and even sentenced to death. Other laws were 
 designed to prevent the propagation of heresy. 
 No heretical assemblies might be held, nor con¬ 
 venticles built, nor clergy ordained ; their books 
 were to be burnt and their children disinherited. 
 These edicts were not directed against all heretics 
 indiscriminately, but against various sects which 
 were held to be most dangerous to faith or 
 morals. From the account of Sozomen (//. E. 
 vii. 12), they were intended to strike terror 
 rather than to be executed ; but heretics were 
 always exposed to them, and, in one conspicuous 
 instance, the most severe penalty, that of death, 
 was inflicted on Priscillian and some of his 
 adherents; the first example in the church of 
 any one being put to death for his opinions. 
 
 4. i. The admission of heretics to the church 
 is closely involved with the controversies of the 
 4th century on the validity of heretical baptism 
 [Baptism, Iteration of, p. 172]. Their bear¬ 
 ing on the reconciliation of heretics, and the 
 further question of the relation in which the 
 practice of anointing converts from heresy 
 stands towards the rite of confirmation, are 
 discussed in Morinus (de Poenit. ix. 7-11). 
 This article is concerned only with any rites or 
 terms of admission which indicate the course of 
 canonical discipline. The council of Eliberis 
 (c. 22) appoints ten years’ penance to those who 
 had deserted the faith and afterwards returned, 
 with a proviso that if they had lapsed in infancy 
 they should be received back without delay. 
 Later councils.((7onc. Agcdh. c. 60; Cone. Epaon. 
 c. 29) deprecating this severity, reduce the term 
 to two years, on condition that the penitent 
 fusts three days a week and comes frequently to 
 
 church. Longer penalties were exacted from 
 those who had submitted to re-baptism among 
 the heretics, the earlier practice in this too being 
 more severe ; the 1st council of Valence, a.d. 374 
 (c. 3), denies communion to them till the hour 
 of death, that of Lerida, A.D. 523 (c. 9), only for 
 nine years. In this, however, as in other points 
 of discipline, much was left to the discretion of 
 the bishop (Cone. Agcdh. c. 60; 4 Cone. Aurel. 
 c. 8). In general the practice of the church, 
 which is involved in some obscurity, appears to 
 have been to admit converts without any actual 
 penance, submitting them however to some out¬ 
 ward form or ceremonial of penitence (sub imagine 
 poenitentiae, Innocent: Ep. 18, ad Alexaii. c. 3). 
 A letter of Gregory the Great (Epiat. ix. 61, ad 
 Quirin.') directs that those who had once been 
 baptized in the name of the Trinity should 
 be received by imposition of hands, which was 
 the Western use, or by unction, which was that 
 of the East, or by a profession of faith. 
 
 ' Of these forms of reconciliation that by impo¬ 
 sition of hands was the earliest. It is spoken of 
 by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 2) as a practice which 
 was ancient in the time of Stephen, bishop of 
 Rome, A.D. 253-7 ; Cyprian also calls it the 
 ancient custom in his time (Ep. ad Quintuni). 
 It was prevailing in the time of Innocent (Epp. 
 2 ad 1 ictric. c. 8, 22 ad Epis. Maeedon. cc. 4, 
 5); it was known to Augustine (de Bapt. c. 
 Bonat. iii. 11, ibid. vi. 15), and was the subject 
 of the decrees of various councils (1 Cone. Arclat. 
 c. 8 ; Cone. A'icaen. c. 8). By a canonical epistle 
 of Siricius, bishop of Rome, a.d. 384-98, heretics 
 were to be admitted by imposition, together with 
 invocation of the Spirit. But the statement of 
 Gregory that imposition of hands was the Western 
 custom, and unction the Eastern, is only partialh* 
 correct. Unction was in use in both the Spani.^h 
 and the Gallic churches (1 Cone. Arausie. c. 1; 
 Cone. Epaon. c. 16), and it is likely that when 
 Gregory wrote he was referring only to the 
 principal church of the West, that of Rome 
 (Martene de Bit. iii. 6). 
 
 ii. In the 4th century, converts from some 
 heresies were received into the church by unction, 
 with formal renunciation of their errors (Cone. 
 Laod. c. 7 ; 1 Coiie. Cons!a7it. c. 7). The Trullau 
 council, following the 1st of Constantinople, de¬ 
 scribes the manner of admission : “ We receive 
 Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Quartodecimans, 
 and ApolKnarians, when they give in written 
 forms of belief (\i^eWous ; for instances of this 
 practice see Soc. II. E. iv. 12, 8oz. H. E. iii. 22), 
 and anathematize everv heresv not according 
 with the mind of the holy and apostolic church ; 
 sealing (that is, anointing) them with the holy 
 ointment on the forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, 
 and mouth, and ears; and as we seal them, we 
 say, ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’" 
 The Arabic version of the Nicene canons (c. 31, 
 Hardouin, vol. i. p. 468) has another form of 
 admission. “ If any one is converted to the 
 orthodox faith he must be received into tlie 
 church by the hands of the bishop or presbyter, 
 who ought to instruct him tc anathematize all 
 who oppose the orthodox faith and contradict 
 the apostolic church. He ought also to ana^the- 
 matize Arius and his heresy, and openly and 
 sincerely profess the faith. After this the bishop 
 or priest whose office it is, shall receive him and 
 auoint him with the unction of Chrism, and sign 
 
aiatESV: 
 
 h?:rmes 
 
 769 
 
 him three times while anointing him, and pray¬ 
 ing over him in the jirayer of Dionysius the 
 Areopagite, and prayer shall be made earnestly 
 to God for him, and then he may be received.” 
 With regard to other heresies, the canon of the 
 Trullan council already cited proceeds to make 
 the following provisions. “ About the Pauli- 
 anists the Catholic church defines, that they are 
 to be baptized anew ; but as to the Eunomians, 
 who baptize with one immersion, the Montanists 
 .... and the Sabellians .... and all the 
 other heresies , . . . ; all who will come over 
 to orthodoxy from these we receive as conv^erts 
 from paganism (ws ’’EW-nvas ); and the first day 
 we make-them Christians, the second catechu¬ 
 mens, and on the third day we exorcise them, 
 after breathing thrice on the forehead and ears 
 [Exorcism] ; and so we go on to catechise them, 
 and cause them to tarry in the chiu’ch and listen 
 to the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. 
 And the Manichaeans, and the Valentinians, and 
 the Marcionites, and those who come fi'oni such¬ 
 like heresies must give in libelli, and anathema¬ 
 tize their own heresy, and Nestorius and Euty- 
 ches, and Dioscorus and Severus, and the other 
 ringleaders of such-like heresies, and those who 
 hold their own and the other aforenamed here¬ 
 sies; and so they may be admitted to Holy 
 Communion.” 
 
 iii. In the case of those who came into the 
 orthodox faith from the heresies of Nestorius and 
 Eutyches, the church appears to have been satisfied 
 with a solemn profession of faith by the convert. 
 This is frequently insisted upon by Leo (^Epp. i. 
 6; vi. 2; xiv, xxvii. 4). The 2nd council of 
 Seville, a.d. 618, received in this form at its 
 twelfth sitting an heretical Syrian bishop. The 
 bishop made a solemn statement of his errors and 
 of the truth, and confirmed it with an oath. In 
 later periods an oath became an indispensable 
 part of the ceremonial. A Roman synod under 
 Leo III., A.D. 799, required a certain bishop 
 Felix not only to abjure his here.sy and write out 
 a form of faith, but also to swear over the holy 
 mysteries to observe his orthodox profe.ssion; he 
 was then required to place it over the body of 
 St. Peter, and swear he would never dare repeat 
 his heretical opinions. Cotelerius (^Apost, Const., 
 V. 13, note) prints part of an ancient Eastern 
 ritual containing a form of renunciation of the 
 Armenian heresy, which concludes with the fol¬ 
 lowing imprecation: “If I make this profession 
 with hypocrisy, or return to my heresy openly 
 or secretl)', may all calamities overtake me, the 
 dread of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi, and in 
 the world to come may I be anathema and cata- 
 thema, and may my soul be sent to Satan and 
 his devils.” 
 
 iv. The form of admission in use in the East in 
 the 8th century is given by Morinus (de Poenit. 
 ix. 9) from a very ancient Greek Euchologion. 
 Those to be received must fist ten or fifteen 
 days, and prostrate themselves in prayer morning 
 and evening like the Catechumens ; they may then 
 be thought worthy of the orthodox faith and be 
 initiated. The ])riest is to bring each into the 
 baptistery, and say to him, “Curse N. and his 
 doctrines, and those who agree with him, for I 
 renounce him and every heretical doctrine, and I 
 believe in the holy and consubstantial Trinity.” 
 And the priest shall say to the convert three 
 times, “Dost thou believe in the holy and con- 
 
 CIIRIST. ANT. 
 
 substantial Trinity ?” and the converi -hall reply 
 “I do.” He shall then kneel, and the priest 
 shall lay his hand upon his head and pi ay as 
 follows .... After which he shall anoint him 
 with oil with the same form as if he were a 
 neophyte, and say this prayer . . . The convert 
 may then communicate, and he must be instructed 
 not to eat flesh seven days, nor wash his face, 
 but, as the baptized do, persevere for seven days, 
 and on the 8th day wash and be dismissed. 
 
 The following example of a prayer used for 
 those who were reconciled, after having been 
 rebaptized by hei-etics, is from a ritual found at 
 Toulouse, at Rheims, and in Sicily: “God who 
 restorest man, made after thine own image, to 
 that which Thou hast created, look down in 
 mercy upon this Thy servant, and whatever 
 ignorance and heretical perverseness has crept into 
 him, do Thou in Thy pity and goodness pardon, 
 so that any wickedness which he has committed 
 through the fraud of the devil or the iniquity of 
 the Arian falsehood, may not be laid to his 
 charge, but that having been transformed by 
 Thy mercy, and having received the communion 
 of Thy truth at the sacred altars, he may be 
 restored a member of the catholic church.” 
 
 Heresy as a canonical offence is dealt with by 
 Van Espen {Jus Eccl. Pars iii. tit. iv, c. 2). 
 The admission of heretics to the church is a very 
 complicated subject, owing to the endless varieties 
 of heretical sects. See Martene {de Pit. iii. 6), 
 Morinus {de Poenit. ix. 7-11), Suicer (s. v. atpe- 
 TiKos), and Bingham {Antin. XIX. ii.), A list of 
 the early and mediaeval writers on heresy i.s 
 given in the preface to Burton’s Bampton lectures 
 on Heresies of the Apostolic Age. [G. M.] 
 
 HERETICAL BAPTISM. [Baptism, Iter¬ 
 ation OF, p. 172.] 
 
 IIERMAGORAS, bishop and martyr under 
 Nero at Aquileia, with Fortunatus his arch¬ 
 deacon ; commemorated July 12 {^fa>■t. Pom. 
 Vet., Adoui.s, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERMAS, saint (supposed bishop of Phi¬ 
 lippi) ; commt'lmorated May 9 {Mart. Usuardi, 
 Ado de Festiv. Apostolorum). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HERMEAS, of Comana, Upopdprvs under 
 Antoninus; commemorated May 31 {Cal. Bij- 
 zant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERMELANDUS, abbot in Antron, an 
 island of the Loire (fcirca 720 a.d.); comme¬ 
 morated March 25 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERMELLUS; martyr at Constantinople; 
 commemorated Aug. 3 {.Mart. Pom. Vet., Adonis, 
 
 Usuardi). [\V. F. G.] 
 
 HERMENEGILDUS, son of Leovigildus, 
 king of the Goths, martyr in Spain (fbSG A.D.); 
 commemorated April 13 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERMENEUTAE. [Interpreter.] ' 
 HERMES. (1) [Gaius.] 
 
 (2) Saint at Marseilles; commemorated with 
 Adrianus, March 1 {.Mart. Hieroii., Usuardi). 
 
 (3) One of the seventy ; commemorated with 
 Agabus, Asyncritus, Herodion, Phlogon, Rufus, 
 April 8 {Cal. Pgzant.). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Rome (a.d. 116); commemorated 
 Aug. 28 {Mart. Bedae, Usuardi). 
 
770 
 
 HERMITS 
 
 HERMITS 
 
 (5) [El'Sebius (7).] 
 
 (6) Exorcista, saint of Retiaria; commemo¬ 
 rated Dec. 31 (Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.j 
 
 HERMITS. Some mediaeval writers on 
 monasticism define hermits (eremitae) as soli¬ 
 taries in cells, and anchorites (anachoretae) as 
 solitaries without any fixed dwelling place; 
 more correctly anchorites are solitaries who 
 have passed a time of probation as coenobites, and 
 hermits those who enter on the solitary life 
 without this preparation (Martene, Ferj. Comm. 
 Bened. c. 1 ; Isid. De Div. Off. ii. 15Y Generally 
 the word “ eremite ” includes all solitary ascetics 
 ©f one sort or another; other designations of 
 them in early ecclesiastical writers are a6\T)Tai, 
 aaKTiTai, fxord^ouT€5, <pi\6dioi, (pi\o(ro(f>ovrTes, 
 Kareipy/xeroi, viri Dei, renunciantes, continentes, 
 cellulani, inclusi, reclusi, monachi, &c.; and, 
 later, religiosi. The words fxovaxhs and 
 lxova<TT‘t]piov Avere soon transferred from the 
 hermit in his solitary cell to the coenobite in his 
 communitv. 
 
 The asceticism of the desert was among 
 Christians the first step towards the asceticism 
 of the cloister. It was prompted by a passionate 
 longing to fly from the world to escape not 
 merely the fury of the Decian or Diocletian per¬ 
 secutions, but the contaminations of surrounding 
 heathenism. It commended itself to devout 
 Christians by reasons, which, however specious, 
 really contradict and cancel each other, for it 
 seemed at once a refuge from spiritual dangers, 
 and a bolder challenge to the powers of darkness 
 to do their worst; at once a safer, quieter life 
 than the perilous conflict day by day with an 
 «vil world, and, in another aspect, a life of 
 sterner self-denial. In the pages of its pane¬ 
 gyrists the solitaiy life presents itself now in 
 one and now in the other of these irreconcileable 
 phases, according to the mood or temperament of 
 the writer. It may be replied, that, far from 
 being either more heroic or more free from 
 danger, it is neither. 
 
 Until about the middle of the 3rd century the 
 more austere Christians were only distinguished 
 by such epithets as ot airovSdioi or ol 
 (KKeicTOTfpoi, without withdrawing from the 
 society of their fellows (e. g. Euseb. H. E. vi. 11 ; 
 Clem. Alex. Humil. “ Quis Dives ? ” n. 36). 
 About that time, Antony and Ammon in Egypt, 
 and Paul in the Thebaid led the way to the 
 desert; and their example soon found a crowd of 
 imitators (Socr. H. E. iv. 23 ; Soz. H. E. i. 13, 
 14; Hier. Ep. 22, ad Eustoch.'). In Syria 
 Hilarion, in Armenia Eustathius, bishop of 
 Sebaste, in Cappadocia Basil urged on the move¬ 
 ment. It spread quickly through Pontus, lllyri- 
 cura, and Thrace westwards; and the personal 
 prestige of Athanasius, an exile from his see, 
 helped to make it popular in Italy at Rome 
 (Niceph. H. E. ix. 16; Aug. de Op. Mon. c. 23 ; 
 Hier. Ep. 16; Epitaph. Marcel.). But the soli¬ 
 tary life never found .so many votaries in Europe, 
 as in Egypt and in the East; partly because of 
 the comparative inclemency of the climate, and 
 the proportionate need of more appliances to 
 support life, partly of the more practical cha¬ 
 racter of the West. 
 
 The institution of Lauras was the connecting 
 link between the hermitage and the monastery, 
 in the later and mo]-e ordinary use of that word. 
 
 Pachomius at Tabenna in Upper Egypt had 
 already begun to organise a community of her¬ 
 mits, by arranging that three should occupy 
 one cell, and that all who were near enough 
 should meet together for the daily meal (Soz. 
 H. E. iii. 14 ; Pal lad. Hist, l.aus.). The monks 
 of Mons Nitrius, too, near the Lake Mareotis, 
 though many of them in separate cells (o<K'<j/iaTa 
 povax'^Ka <xiropa^r}P, to. KeAAta, Soz. //. E, vi. 31) 
 had refectories for common use, chapels in their 
 midst for common w'orship on Saturdays, Sun¬ 
 days and holy days, certain presbyters appointed 
 to officiate in these. an<I certain lay officers, 
 (oeconomi) elected • by the older hermits to pro¬ 
 vide for their temporal wants, such as they were, 
 and to transmit their .scanty alms (diaconia) 
 derived chiefly from the .sale of the rush mats 
 which they wove (Cass. Inst. v. 26, 40; Coll. 
 iii. 1; X. 2 ; xviii. 5 ; xxi, 9). In the Thebaid a 
 hermit named Joannes presided over a large 
 number of hermits (Soz. H. E. vi. 28, 29). One 
 of the first “ Lauras,” or irregular clusters of 
 hermits dw'elling close together, was at Pharan 
 near the Dead Sea in the 4th century; another 
 w'as founded near Jerusalem in the next century 
 by Sabas a hermit from Cappadocia, under the 
 patronage of Euthymius. 
 
 The early ecclesiastical histories teem with the 
 
 almost suicidal austerities of the more celebrated 
 
 hermits. Not content with imposing on them- 
 
 seh'es the burden hard to be borne of a lifelong 
 
 loneliness—for even without anv vow of con- 
 
 © 
 
 tinuance it was very rarely that a hermit re¬ 
 turned to the companionship of his fellow's—and 
 of a silence not to be broken ex'en by prayer, 
 they vied with one another in devising self- 
 tortui'es; w'andering about, almost naked, like# 
 wild beasts; barely supporting life by a little 
 bread and water, or a few' herbs; only allowing 
 their macerated frames three or four hours sleep 
 in the twentv-four, and those on the bare rock 
 or in some narrow cell w'here it was impossible 
 to straighten the limbs; counting cleanliness a 
 luxuiy and a sin; maiming themselves, some¬ 
 times w'ith their ow'n hands,, to escape being 
 made bishops by force ; and shunning a moment’s 
 intercourse even with those naturally dearest 
 (Cass. Inst. v. 26, 40; Coll. ii. 6, 17; Socr. 
 H. E. iv. 23 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 29, 34; cf. Rosweyd 
 Vitae Patr. pass.). It was only in the decline of 
 this enthusiasm that hermits began to take up 
 their abode near cities. The “ father of hermits ” 
 used to compare a hermit near a town to a fish 
 out of water (Soz. H. E. i. 13). 
 
 Usually the hermit’s abode w’as in a cave, or 
 in a small hut which his ow’n hands had rudely 
 put together (Evagr. H. E. i. 21); but some, 
 like the “ possessed with evil spirits ” in Gadara 
 mentioned in the New' Testament, had their 
 dw'ellings in tombs (Theodoret. Phdoth. c. 12); 
 hence they were called pepopirai, and the keeper 
 or superintendent of these tombs the p€popo(pv\a^ 
 (Altes. Ascetic, i. 7). Others roved about inces¬ 
 santly, to avoid the A’isits of the curious, like the 
 “ gyrovagi ” in having no fixed abode, but unlike 
 them in keeping always alone (Snip. Sev. Dial, 
 de Mon. i. 9), and in feeling only on the Avild 
 herbs which they gathered [see Bosci]. Others, 
 the ‘‘Stylitae,” aspiring to yet more utter isola- 
 
 ” ITospinianiis wroncly speaks of the presbyteri as thos 
 elected (De Orig. Monach.). 
 
HERMITS 
 
 HERMITS 
 
 771 
 
 tion, planted themselves on the summit of solitary 
 columns. Of these the most famous were the 
 Simeon, who in Syria during the 5th century is 
 said to have lived forty-one years on a tall pillar 
 the top of whicli was barely three feet in 
 diameter (Evagr. II. E. i. Id; ii. 9; Theodoret, 
 Fkiloth. c. 26); his namesake who followed his 
 example in the 6th century (Evagr. H.E. vi. 
 22) ; and a Daniel, who chose for the scene of his 
 austerities a less dreary neighbourhood, a suburb 
 of Constantinople (Theodor. Lect. H.E. i. 32). 
 Other ‘‘stviitae’' are mentioned by .Joannes 
 Moschus {Prat. cc. 27, 28, 57, 129). This pecu¬ 
 liar form of eremitism was very unusual in 
 Europe. A monk near Treves in the 6th century 
 tried the experiment on the top of a column 
 rising from tlie summit of a cliff; but by order 
 of the bishop soon relinquished the attempt on 
 account of the rigour of the climate (Greg. Turon. 
 Hist. viii. 16). 
 
 The reverence with which hermits were 
 popularly regarded led to their aid being fre¬ 
 quently invoked when contTOversies were raging. 
 Thus in the close of the 4th century Antony, who 
 IS also said to have more than once broken the 
 spell of his seclusion in order to go and plead the 
 cause of some poor client at Alexandria (Soz. 
 H. E. i. 13), being appealed to in the Arian con¬ 
 flict not only addressed a letter to the emperor, 
 but made a visit in person to Alexandria on 
 behalf of Athanasius (Soz. //. if. ii. 31 ; Hieron. 
 Ep. 33, ad Castruc.). The hermit Aphraates 
 boldly confronted the emperor Valens, as did 
 Daniel, the later of the two pillar-hermits of 
 that name, the emperor Basiliscus (Theodoret, 
 H. E. i\\ 23 ; Theod. Lect. Collectan. i. 32, 33). 
 The great Theodosius consulted the hermit 
 .loannes (Soz. //. E. vii. 22). The hermits 
 near Antioch interceded with good effect when 
 the magistrates of that city were about to 
 execute the cruel orders of the exasperated 
 emperor (Chrys. Homil. ad Ant. xvii.). But 
 not rarely the unreasoning zeal of the her¬ 
 mits provoked great tumults; and sometimes in 
 a misguided impulse of indiscriminating pity they 
 endeavoured hy force to liberate criminals con¬ 
 demned by the law. Nor were their sympathies 
 always on the side of the orthodox. When 
 Theophilus of Alexandria denounced the error of 
 the Anthropomorphitae, almost all the Saitic 
 monks were fiercely incensed against him as an 
 atheist “ in their simplicity ” as Cassian adds, 
 (Cass. Coll. X. 2). 
 
 On the comparative excellency of the eremitic 
 or of the coenobitic life there has been much dif¬ 
 ference of opinion among writers who extol 
 asceticism ; the same writer inclining now to the 
 solitary life, and now to the life in a community, 
 as he views the question from one side or 
 another. Sozomen calls the eremitic life the 
 “ peak of philosophy ” {II. E. vi. 31). Chrysostom 
 and Basil speak to the same effect (Chrys. Ep. 1; 
 Bas. Kp. ad Chiton.). But Basil in the rule for 
 monks ascribed to him commends the coenobitic 
 life, as more truly un.seltish, more rich in oppor¬ 
 tunities both for helping and for being helped 
 {Beg. c. 7) ; and .so speaks his friend, Gregory of 
 Nazianza {Orat. 21). Jerome, with all his love 
 of austerity, cautions his friend and pupil against 
 the dangers of solitude {Ep. 4, ad Bustic.). 
 Augustine praises hermits; and yet allows that 
 coenobites have a more unquestionable title to 
 
 veneration {De Alor. Eccl. c. 31). Cassian often 
 speaks of hermits as having climbed to the summit 
 of excellence (e.g. Inst. v. 36 ; Coll, xviii. 4); 
 at other times he deju'ecates the solitary life as 
 not good for all, and as beyond the reach ol 
 manv ; and he relates how a devout monk crave 
 up the attempt in de.sj)air, and returned to his 
 brother monks {Coll. xix. 2, 3; xxiv. 8). 
 
 It was from the first very earnestly enjoined 
 by the leaders of asceticism, that none should 
 venture on so great an enterprise as the solitary 
 life, without undergoing probation as a coenobite 
 (Hieron. Ep. 4 ad Lust. ; Cass. Inst. v. 4. 36 ; 
 Coll, xviii. 4; Joan. Clim. Scala, iv. 27). Bene¬ 
 dict compares the hermit to a champion ad¬ 
 vancing in front of the army for single combat 
 with the foe, and therefore insists on liis proving 
 himself and his armour beforehand {Beg. c. 1). 
 Councils repeatedly enforce this probationary dis¬ 
 cipline {Coyic. Venet. a.d. 465, c. 7 ; Cone. Tolet. 
 iA^ A.D. 633, c. 63; vii. a.d. 646, c. 5; Cone. 
 Trull, a.d. 692, cc. 41, 42). The permission of the 
 abbat was required (Sulp. Sev. Dial. i. 5), some¬ 
 times, also, the consent of the brethren (Martene, 
 Comm, in Beg. Ben. c. 1) and, sometimes of the 
 bishop {Cone. Franeof. a.d. 794, c. 12). The 
 length of this period of probation varied (Mart.r.s. 
 cf. Isid. De Div. Off. ii. 15). Even those who 
 most admired the hermit-1 ii'e fenced it round 
 with prohibitions as a risk not lightly to be 
 encountered. 
 
 The civil authorities were naturally jealous of 
 this subtraction of so many citizens from the 
 duties of public life. Theodosius ordered all 
 those who evaded theiv public responsibilities on 
 pretence of asceticism to be deprived of their 
 civil rights unless they returned to claim them 
 {Cod. Theodos. xii.; Tit. 1; I.ex 63); and it 
 was forbidden for slaves to be admitted into a 
 monastery without their masters’ leave {Cone. 
 Chale. A.D. 451, Act xv. c. 4). In Western 
 Europe Chaides the Great decreed that all her¬ 
 mits infesting towns and cities for alms should 
 either return to their hermitages or be shut up in 
 monasteries. By the law of the Eastern church 
 a bishop who became a hermit was ipso facto 
 deprived of his office. 
 
 It was not unusual, particularly in the 
 mcnasteries of Provence and Languedoc, for one 
 of the brethren most advanced in asceticism to 
 be immured in a separate cell, sometimes under¬ 
 ground, always within the precincts, as an inter- 
 cesEor for the monastery (Menard, Observ. Crit. 
 in Bened. Anian. Cod. Begul. ii.). After a solemn 
 religious ceremony the devotee, thus buried 
 alive by his own consent, was left, with no other 
 apparel than what he was wearing, to end his 
 days alone. The doorway was walled up, or the 
 door nailed to and sealed with the bishop’s ring, 
 whose consent, as well as that of the abbat and 
 chapter, was requisite. Only a little aperture 
 was left, not such as to allow the inmate to see 
 or be seen, for letting down provisions to him 
 (Menard, u. s.). These “ inclusi ” are not to be 
 confounded with the aged or sickly monks, 
 allowed separate cells because of their inhrmities 
 (Cass. Inst. ii. 12; Cone. Agath. c. 38). [See 
 Hksycmastai:.] The rule “for solitaries” of 
 Grimlaicus, probably a monk in or near Metz 
 about the end of the 9th centurv, seems in¬ 
 tended not for a separate order, l)ut for these 
 “inclusi” genorallv (Bened. Anian. ?<. s.). It 
 
 3 D 
 
772 
 
 HEEMOGENES 
 
 HIEMANTES 
 
 IS a characteristic difference between Asiatic 
 and F.uroj-ean asceticism, that the eremites, or 
 desert monks of the east find their western 
 counterpart in solitaries within the precincts of 
 the community. 
 
 As might be expected for obvious reasons there 
 have been few female hermits. Gregory of 
 Tours mentions a nun of the convent of Ste. 
 Croix, Poitiers, .who retired to a hermitage by 
 permission of the abbess Radegunda (Ihst. vi. 
 29). Usually these female solitaries had their 
 cells in close contiguity to the wall of a church 
 or of a monastery (Martene, v, s.). 
 
 [See further Rosweydii Vitae Patrum, Ant- 
 verpiae, 1628; Hospinianus De Monachis, Tigur. 
 1609 ; Middendorpii Orujinuni Anachoretarum 
 Sylva, Col. Agrij>p. 1615 ; Anton. Dadin. Alte- 
 serrae Asceticon, Par. 1674 ; Bingham’s Origlnes 
 Ecclesiaffticae (Bk. vii.) Bond. 1840. See also 
 Asceticism in this Dictionary, Antony (St.) &c. 
 in the Dictionary of’Christian Biographv.] 
 
 [i. G. S.] 
 
 HEEMOGENES. (1) [Peter (6).] 
 
 (2) [Galata.] 
 
 (3) [Evodius (1).] 
 
 (4) [Ev'oous.] 
 
 (5) [EUGRAPHirS.] 
 
 (6) [Donates (10).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERMOGEATES. [Hermolaus.] 
 
 HERMOLAUS, presbyter of Nicomedia, 
 lepofidpTvs, A.D. 304 ; commemorated with the 
 brothers Hernempus and Hermogrates, July 27 
 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi); and July 
 25 (Cal. Bi/zant.). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HERMYLUS, martyr with Stratonicus; 
 (+315 A.D.) commemorated Jan. 13 (Cal. By- 
 zant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HERNEMPUS. [Hermolaus.] 
 
 HERODION. [Hermes (3).] 
 
 HERON, or HEROS. (1) Bishop of An¬ 
 tioch, successor to Ignatius : “ Natalis,” Oct. 17 
 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Dioscorus (3-).] 
 
 (3) [Her.\clides.]. 
 
 HERTFORD, COUNCIL OF (Hemifordiae 
 conciliuni). Held at Hertford A.D. 673, Sept. 24; 
 all the bishops of the Anglo-Saxon church then 
 living, except Wini, the simoniacal bishop of 
 London, being present in per.son or by deputy 
 (Haddan and Stubbs’ Councils and Documents, iii. 
 121, note). Archbishop Theodoi-e, who had 
 summoned them, recited ten canons from a book, 
 in all probability the collection of Dionysius 
 Exiguus from their being all found there, to 
 which all subscribed (Ih .; comp. Mansi xi. 127). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 HERUDFORDENSE CONCILIUM. 
 [Hertford, Council of.] 
 
 HESACHASTAE ('Ho'ux’oo'to/). Etymo¬ 
 logically a term equivalent to “ quietists.” It 
 was applied to those members of a monastery 
 who were allowed to have separate cells within 
 the precincts that their meditations might be un¬ 
 interrupted. (Bing. 07'ig. liccles. Vll. ii, 14; 
 IMenard on Bened. Anian. Concord. Regul. c. 29; 
 cf. Justinian Novell. 5, 33.) Riddle, how'ever. 
 
 (Chr. Antiq. VII. vii.), takes it as a designation of 
 monks bound to silence; and Suicer (Thes. 
 Eccles.') as meaning anchorites, although the 
 passage which he quotes from Balsainon (ad 
 Cone. Nic. II. A.D. 787) distinguishes Hesy- 
 chasteria from “monasteria” and the cells of 
 “ anachoretae.” In the 14th century it was 
 applied to the mystics of Mount Athos (Herzog 
 Beal-Encgklop. s. v.). [I. G. S.] 
 
 HESYCHIUS, ESICHIUS or ESICIUS. 
 
 (1) Bishop and confessor at Circesium (saec. i.) ; 
 commemorated with Euphrasius, ludalecius, Se- 
 cundus, Tesiphon, and Torquatu.s, May 15 (Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Mesia ; commemorated June 15 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HETAERIAE (kraiplai) were originally 
 political clubs; but the word came to signify 
 any association of men for objects not recognized 
 by the law. Thus Trajan (Plinii Epist. x. 34 
 [al. 43]) was unwilling to sanction a companv 
 (collegium) of firemen at Nicomedia, because he 
 had found that in that district such companies 
 were liable to degenerate into hetaeriae ; and it 
 was as hetaeriae that the assemblies of the 
 Christians became objects of suspicion to the 
 state (Ib. X. 96 [al. 97], § 7), and so persecuted 
 (August!, Handbuch, i. 40) [C.] 
 
 HETERODOXY. [Heresy.] 
 
 HEXAPSALMUS (kmaXpios). By this 
 name are denoted six unvarying Psalms, which 
 are said daily in the Greek office of lauds (rh 
 opdpov). They are Pss. iii., xxxvii. (xxxviii.), 
 Ixii. (Ixiii.), Ixxxvii. (l.xxxviii.), cii. (ciii.), cxlii. 
 (cxliii.) They occur near the beginning of the 
 office; and are introduced by the clause “Glory 
 to God in the Highest, and on earth peace, 
 good will among men,” and by the verse “ Thou 
 shalt open my lips, 0 Lord, and my mouth shall 
 show thy praise.” After the first three Psalms 
 are said the priest comes out from the bema, and 
 while the last three are being said, recites the 
 twelve morning prayers (rds ^udiyds evxds) 
 secretly before the icon of our Lord. They are 
 concluded with three Alleluias; and three 
 Reverences. [H. .1. IL] 
 
 HEZEKIAH, the king of Judah ; commemo¬ 
 rated Nahasse 4 = July 28 (Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 [VV. F. G.] 
 
 HIBERNICA CONCILIA. [Ireland, 
 Councils of.] 
 
 HIEMANTES. The word x^^f^d.^^(r6ai 
 means primarily “ to be storm-tossed ” (Acts 
 xxvii. 18). Thence, by a natural metaphor, it 
 passed on to the tempest of the soul. Thus 
 Chrysostom (Horn. liii. in Matt.') says that the 
 mind of a man who has many artificial wants is 
 storm-tossed (xeipd^iffBai). Compare James 
 i. 6. 
 
 The seventeenth canon of the council of An- 
 cyra (a.d. 314) orders those who have committed 
 unnatural crimes, or who are or haA'e been 
 lej)ers, to be placed at public prayer among the 
 storm-tossed or storm-beaten (fls tovs 
 fiivovs €vxf<v6ai). This is rendered in the 
 “ V^'ersio Prisca,” “ cum eis qui tempestatem 
 patiuntur orare ;” by Dionysius Exiguus, “inter 
 eos orare qui spiritu poriclitantur immundo;” 
 
HIKMOS 
 
 773 
 
 HIEEAPOLIS, COUNCILS OF 
 
 I 7 Lsidorus Mercator, “ qui tempestate jactantiir, 
 qiii a nobis energumeni appellantur [jd. furiosi 
 sive energumeni intelliguptur],” To the same 
 effect Martin of Braga (^Collect. Can., c. 81), 
 “ inter daemoniosos orare.” The use of the word 
 in the Clementine liturgy (^Constt. Apost. viii. 12, 
 § 20)— TTapaKaKovjjt.fv <re virlp ra>v 
 virh Tov aWoTpiov — makes it almost certain that 
 the or Hiemantesare identical with 
 
 the Energumeni or Demoniacs, who had a special 
 place assigned them outside the church proper, 
 whether in the porch or in the oj)en air. 
 (Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. Xetixd^ofiai ; Van 
 Espen, Jus Keel. iii. 132; ed. Colon. 1777). [C.] 
 
 HIERAPOLIS, COUNCILS OF. (1) a.d. 
 173, of twenty-six bishops, under its bishoj), Apol- 
 linarius, against the errors of Montanus, which 
 gave rise to a sect called from the province in 
 which it originated, and in which Hierapolis was 
 situated, ‘'Cataj)hryges” (Mansi, i. 691-4). Euse¬ 
 bius has preserved extracts from a work written 
 by Apollinarius himself against them (v. 16). 
 
 (2) A.D. 445, under Stephen, its metropolitan, 
 when Sabinianus was ordained Bishop of Perrhe 
 instead of Athanasius, deposed at Antioch under 
 Domnus the year before. Later, Athanasius was 
 restored by Dioscorus of Alexandria. But the 
 Council of Chalcedon, Oct. 31, A.D. 451, deciding 
 for the moment in favour of Sabinianus, referred 
 the final adjudication of the question to Maximus, 
 bishop of Antioch, and a synod to be held by him 
 within eight months to enquire into the chai-ges 
 brought against Athanasius. Should they not have 
 been made good by then, he was to j’egain his see, 
 and Sabinianus to be allowed a pension. (Mansi, 
 vi. 465-6 ; and then vii. 313-58.) [E. S. Ef.] 
 
 HIERARCHY. 1. The word Updpxvs de¬ 
 notes properly a steward or president of sacred 
 rites (Bockh, Inscrip, i. 749). By Christian 
 writers it is occasionally used to designate a 
 JiiSiiOP (p. 210). Thus Maximus, commenting 
 on the Kcclesiastioal Hierarchy of the Pseudo- 
 Dionysius, says, “ KaAeii’ (IwOfu rovs 
 
 (■KicTKOTvovs," lic commouly calls the bishops 
 hierarchs (Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v.). Hence the 
 word lepapx'ia came to designate the order of 
 bishops. Bingham, however (Ant. III. i. 6), 
 considers the hieiairchy of Pseudo-Dionysius to 
 include bishops, priests, and deacons, quoting 
 Hallier’s Defensio Hierarch. Eccl. (lib. i. c. 3; 
 lib. iii. sec. ii. cc. 1 and 2). 
 
 2. In a wider sense, the word Hierarchy is 
 taken to include the whole series of the orders 
 of ministry in the Christian church. See 
 Bishop, Orders. [C.] 
 
 HIERATEION. [Bema.] 
 
 HIPIREMIAS. (1) [Jeremiah.] 
 
 (2) [Peter (9).] 
 
 (3) [Emii.ianus (4).] 
 
 HIERIUS, presbyter at Alexandria in the 
 time of the emperor Philip; commemorated Nov. 
 4 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HIERONYMUS. (1) Presbyter (t420 a.d.); 
 deposition at Bethlehem Judah, Sejit. 30 (Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuartli). 
 
 (2) With Anthemius, commemorated Sept. 26 
 (Cal. Armen.). [\\. F. G.] 
 
 HIEROSOLYMITANA CONCILIA. 
 
 [Jerusalem, Councils of.] 
 
 HIEROTHEUS, bishop of Athens; comme¬ 
 morated Oct. 4 (Cal. Byzant.), [VY. F. G.] 
 
 HIERURGIA. [L ITURGY.] 
 
 HILARIA. (1) [Eumenia.] 
 
 ( 2 ) Wife of Claudius, the tribune; martyr 
 
 with Claudius and their two .sons, Jason and 
 Maurus, and'seventy soldiers, under Numerian; 
 commemorated Doc. 3 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HILARINUS, monk at Ostia, martyr under 
 Julian: “ Passio,” July 16 (Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HILARION. (1) The younger (^ i/eos), A.D. 
 845; commemorated March 28 and June 6 (Cal. 
 Byzant.). 
 
 \2) ' I'he Great (o p^yas), Holy Father, a.d. 
 333 ; commemorated Oct. 21 (.Mart. Rom. I’cA, 
 Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) Commemorated Nov. 19 (Cal. Georq.). 
 
 [W.' F. G.] 
 
 HILARIUS, or HILARY. (1) Bishop of 
 Poitiers and confessor (t369 a.d.); commemo¬ 
 rated Jan. 13 (Mart. Rom. l eL, Ailonis, Usuardi); 
 deposition Jan. 13 (Mart. Bedae, Hieron.). 
 
 (2) Bishop of Aquileia (1285 a.d.); martyr 
 w'ith Tatian the deacon, Felix, Largus, and Diony¬ 
 sius; commemorated March 16 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Arles and confessor (f449 A.D.) • 
 commemorated May 5 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr with Proclus, A.D. 106; comme¬ 
 morated July 12 (Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (6) The pope (t467 A.D.) ; commemorated 
 Sept. 10 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Martyr with Florentinu.s at Semur; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 27 (Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Bishop and confessor in Gavalis [Gevaudan 
 
 in Languedoc]; commemorated Oct. 25 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HIPPO, COUNCIL OF. [African 
 Councils.] 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS, Romanus, martyr at An¬ 
 tioch, UpopidpTus, A.D. 269: ‘‘Pas.sio,” Jan. 30 
 (Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi, C 1. By¬ 
 zant.)’, Revelatio corporis, Jakabit 6 = Jan. 31 
 (Cal. Kthiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HIRELING. The flight of the hireling from 
 the wolf, as contrasted with the form of our 
 Lord standing in the door of the shcopfold pre¬ 
 pared to defend His flock, is beautifully carved 
 on the Brescian casket, 5th or 6th century. 
 (Westwood, Fictile Ivory Casts, p. 36, no. 93.) 
 
 [K. St. J. T.] 
 
 HIRMOLOGION. An office book in the 
 Greek church consisting mainly of a collection of 
 the Hirmoi; but containing also a few other 
 forms. [H. J. H.] 
 
 HIRIMOS (elpfjids). The Canons, which form 
 so important a part of the Greek offices, arc 
 divided into nine odes, or practically into eight, 
 as the second is always omitted. Each ode con¬ 
 sists of a varying number (three, four or live are 
 the numbers most frequently found) of trop iria, 
 or short rhythmical stroplies, each formed on the 
 model of one which jirecedes the ode; and which 
 is called the Hirmos. I'he Jlirmos is usually 
 independent of the ode, t hough containing a refer 
 
77-1: HISrALENSIA CONCILIA 
 
 HOLY PLACES 
 
 ence to tlie sul)ject matter of it; sometimes 
 however the first troparion of an 0(Je is called the 
 Hi nnos. It is distinguished by inverted commas 
 (“ ”) in the oliice books. Sometimes the first 
 
 words alone of a Hirmos are given, and it is not 
 unfrequently placed at the end of the ode to 
 which it belongs. The name is considered to be 
 derived from the Hirmos dra'i-imj the Troparii 
 after its model i.e. into the same rhythmical 
 arrangement. [H. J. H.] 
 
 HI8PALENSIA CONCILIA. [Seville, 
 Councils oe.] 
 
 HISPANUM CONCILIUM. Held, a.d. 
 793, at some jilace in Spain, under Elipand, arch¬ 
 bishop of Toledo ; from whom the document 
 criticised in the letters despatched to Spain from 
 Frankfort emanated (Mansi, xiii. So?; comp. 
 865 and sqq.). [E. S. Ff.j 
 
 HOLIDAYS. [Festivals.] 
 
 HOLY! HOLY! HOLY! [Sanctus.] 
 
 HOLY OF HOLIES. In instituting a 
 parallel between the arrangements of the Jewish 
 Temple and that of a Christian church, the 
 Bema or sanctuary of the church, containing 
 the altar, was naturally held to correspond with 
 the Holy of Holies of the Temple (rb ayiov rwv 
 ayioip), and was freciuently called by that name. 
 But with the Nestorians the “Holy of Holies” 
 IS not the sanctuary, but a small recess at the 
 east end, into which not even the priest enters, 
 containing nothing but a cross (Neale, Eastern 
 Churchy pp. 177, 189, quoting Etherege, Syrian 
 Churches, p. 109). ' [C.] 
 
 HOLY BREAD, [eulogiae.] 
 
 EIOLY OIL. [Oil, Holy.] 
 
 HOLY PLACES. I. By this phrase were 
 understood, in the first three or four centuries 
 after Christ, chiefly, if not exclusively, the 
 scenes of our Lord’s nativity, death, resurrection, 
 and ascension. Of these, therefore, we will 
 speak first. In 212, Alexander, the friend of 
 Origen, “ made a journey to Jerusalem, for the 
 sake of prayer and investigation of the places ” 
 (rwv TOTTojp iffTopias, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. vi. 
 c. 11). St. Jerome (^De Vir. /llustr. cap. Ixii.) 
 says that he was drawn thither “ desiderio sancto¬ 
 rum locorum.” If this was the motive, and there 
 is no good reason to doubt it, Alexander is the 
 first on record whom religious feeling drew to 
 those hallowed spots. Origen himself seems to 
 have carried with him to the Holy Land more 
 of the spirit of a learned and devout traveller of 
 our own day. He was in Palestine in 216 on a 
 i-ather short visit. In 231, he began a residence 
 of some duration at Caesarea, in that country, 
 and. after an absence of uncertain length, in 238 
 he ojtened a catechetical school there. He must, 
 therefore, have known the Holy Land well, and 
 his writings show it; but it is instructive to 
 observe how he uses his knowledge. In one 
 passage, as a critic, he expresses his conviction 
 that “ Bcthabara,” not “ Bethany,” ought to be 
 the reading in St. John i. 28, “as he had been 
 in the })laces, on a search after the footsteps of 
 Jesus and his di.sciples, and the prophets” (^Com¬ 
 ment. in Ev. Joann, tom. vi. § 24-). In another 
 work, writing against an unbeliever, about 247, 
 
 he alleges the ca”e of Bethlehem as a piece of 
 evidence. If any one desire further proof than 
 Scripture affords of our Lord’s birth in that 
 place, “ the cave is shown where He was born, 
 and the manger in which He vvas swaddled , and 
 that which is shown is widely sj)oken of in those 
 places, even among aliens from the faith, viz., 
 that Jesus, who is worshipped and reverenced by 
 the Christians, was born in that aw q” {Contra 
 Celsum, 1. i. §51). From the writings of Origen, 
 we should not infer that either he him>elf had 
 visited, or that it was the custom of his day to 
 visit, the holy places for the exju’ess purpose of 
 stimulating devotion, or under the notion that 
 prayer in them was more acceptable to God 
 than when made elsewhere. The spirit which 
 animated the pilgrims of a later age, had not yet 
 been awakened. Its awakening was })robablv 
 much delayed by the attem}>ts of tlie heathen to 
 obscure the locality of events .sacred to the 
 Christian. Thus, in the time of Hadrian, a vast 
 mound of earth was raised over the spot where 
 our Lord was buried and rose again, and a 
 temple dedicated to Venus was built on it 
 (Euseb. Vita Constant ini, 1. iii. c. 26; Hieron. 
 Ep. xlix. ad Patdin.). 
 
 The first great impulse given to the veneration 
 of the holy places, came from Helena, the motiier 
 of Constantine, who, in the year 326, when 
 nearly 80 years of age, travelled to Jerusalem, 
 that she might so “ pay the debt of j)ious feeling 
 to God the king of all,” for the elevation of her 
 son, and the general prosperity of her family. 
 After due reverence done to the footsteps of the 
 Sanour, she “ left a fruit of her piety to jjos- 
 terity ” in two churches which she built, “one 
 at the cave of the nativity, the other on the 
 mount of the ascension” (Euseb. u. s. cc. 42, 
 43). On the site of the burial, Constantine, 
 after his mother’s visit, first caused an oratory 
 to be built, and later sent directions to Macarius, 
 the bishop, for the erection of a magnificent 
 church {Ibid. cc. 25-40). To this period, and 
 perhaps to Constantine and Helena, we may pro¬ 
 bably refer two “very small oratories,” one 
 built on Mount Calvary, the site of the passion, 
 the other on the spot where our Lord’s body 
 was said to have been embalmed and the cross 
 found, which the Latira, when they took Jeru¬ 
 salem, inclosed within the same wall with the 
 Holy Sepulchre (Gulielmi Tyrii, Hist. Ecruin 
 Transmar. lib. viii. c. 3). They were only a 
 stone’s throw from each other (Tillemont, note 
 iv. snr Ste. Helene')-, and hence the church of 
 the Resurrection, or Holy Sepulchre, was often 
 spoken of as on Golgotha (Cyrill. Hieros. Cat. i. 
 § 1 ; xiii. § 12 ; xvi. § 2). Very soon after the 
 recovery of these important sites we find them 
 noticed in the Ttinerarium of a Christian tra¬ 
 veller from Bordeaux, who visited Jerusalem in 
 333. He saw the “crypt where His body was 
 placed and rose again on the third day”(rtf. 
 Aom. Itineraria, p. 594, Amstel. 1735), and “the 
 little hill Golgotha where the Lord was cruci¬ 
 fied ” (p. 593). He also w'ent to “Bethlehem, 
 where the Lord Jesus Christ was born. There,” 
 he adds, “ a basilica was built by the command 
 of Constantine ” (p. 598). 
 
 11. From this time, the holy places were 
 visited by believers of every rank and almost 
 every age. Some of the more wealthy settled 
 at Jerusalem, and by their alms assisted, and 
 
HOLY PLACES 
 
 HOLY PLACES 
 
 775 
 
 perhaps attracted, many of the poorer. The 
 city grew rapidly in population and j)rosperity ; 
 and soon, as an almost necessary consequence, 
 became as notorious for crime and profligacy, 
 as it was famous for its religious monuments. 
 About the year 380, Gregory of Nyssa was called 
 thither by the affairs of the church, and received 
 impressions which it will be well to put before 
 the reader in his own words. In an epistle, 
 written not long after, he tells his friend that 
 he learned there w'hat it was to keep holy day 
 to God, ‘‘ both in beholding the saving symbols 
 of God the giver of our life, and in meeting with 
 souls in which like signs of the grace of God are 
 spiritually contemplated; so that he believes 
 liethleliem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and 
 the Resurrection to be verily in thejieart of him 
 who has God ” {Ep. ad Eustathi mi, &c., p. 16, 
 ed. Casaub.). The latter thought in this sen¬ 
 tence then carries him away, and he seems, 
 probably out of tenderness to the devout women 
 to whom he wrote, to avoid further reference to 
 the holy places. Some years afterwards, how¬ 
 ever, he wrote a tract, in the form of a letter to 
 some unknown friend, in which he earnestly dis¬ 
 suaded from visiting Jerusalem on religious 
 grounds. He begins by denying that it is any 
 })art of a Christian’s duty “ to visit the places in 
 Jerusalem in which the symbols of our Lord’s 
 sojourn in the flesh ai-e to be seen,” and then 
 proceeds as follows : “ Why, then, is there such 
 zeal about that which neither makes a man 
 blessed, nor fit for the kingdom ? Let the man 
 of souse consider. If it were a profitable thing 
 to be done, not even so would it be a thing 
 good to be zealously affected by the perfect. 
 But since, when the thing is thoroughly looked 
 into, it is found even to inflict injury on the 
 souls of those who have entered on a strict 
 course of life, it is not worthy of that great zeal, 
 but rather to be greatly shunned.” He next 
 enlarges on the danger to the morals and repu¬ 
 tation of all, but especially women, in their 
 travels thi’ough the luxurious and profligate 
 cities of the East; and then proceeds to ask, 
 “What will one gain by being in those places? 
 —As if the Lord were still in bodily presence in 
 them, but departed from us, or as if the Holy 
 Ghost were overflowing abundantly at Jerusalem, 
 but were unable to come over to us.” So far 
 from this being the case, he declares that city to 
 be in the lowest stage of moral degradation. 
 “ There is no species of impurity that is not 
 dared therein. Flagitious actions and adulteries 
 and thefts, idolatries and witchcrafts, and envy- 
 ings and murders; and this last evil, above 
 others, is common in that place, so that nowhere 
 else is there such a readiness to commit murder 
 as in those places ” (Z)cf Euntibm Hierosohjm't, 
 pp. 6-13, ed. Petr. Molinaei). Speaking for 
 himself, he adds, “ We confessed that Christ who 
 appeared (there) is true God, before we were at 
 the place; nor afterwards was our faith either 
 lessened or increased. And we knew the incarna¬ 
 tion through the Virgin before we went to Beth¬ 
 lehem, and believed the resurrection from the 
 dead before we saw the monument of it, and 
 acknowledged the ascension into heaven to be 
 true, apart from our seeing the mount of Olives, 
 This is the only benefit from our journey, that 
 we know, by comparison, our own parts to be 
 much more holy than foreign. \Wjerefore, ye 
 
 that fear the Lord, praise Him in thos-> places m 
 which ye are”(/6j^. p. 14). St. Jeiome, who 
 lived at Bethlehem, sometimes speaks very much 
 in the same strain. At other times he en¬ 
 courages and praises those who visited the holy 
 places, especially if their intention was to dwell 
 in retirement near them. This is easily under¬ 
 stood. The multitude would be injured by fami¬ 
 liarity with the memorials of Christ’s life on 
 earth ; while the few might through them be 
 brought into closer spiritual communion with 
 Him. It may well be doubted, too, whether he 
 would have encouraged any one to stay at Jeru¬ 
 salem, except under the protection of the mo¬ 
 nastic life; and even that he was far from 
 thinking altogether safe in such a city. Writing, 
 in 393 or thereabouts, to Paulinus, afterwar>ls 
 bishop of Nola, St. Jerome says, “ Not the having 
 been at Jerusalem, but having lived well there 
 is to be praised .... The court of heaven is 
 equally open from Jerusalem and Britain. The 
 kingdom of God is within you. Anthony, and 
 all the swarms of monks of Egypt and j\Iesopo- 
 tamia, of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia, saw 
 not Jerusalem ; and the gate of Paradise is open 
 to them without (a knowledge of) this city. 
 The blessed Hilnrion, though he was a native of 
 Palestine, and lived in Palestine, only saw Jeru¬ 
 salem on a .single day ; that he might not appear 
 to despise the holy places on account of their 
 nearness, nor, on the other hand, to confine God 
 to place.” He warns Paulinus not to “think 
 anything wanting to his faith, because he had 
 not seen Jerusalem ”....“ If the places of the 
 cross and of the resurrection were not in a city 
 of very great resort, in which there is a court, a 
 military station, in which there are harlots, 
 players, buffoons, and all things that are usual 
 in other cities; or if it were frequented by 
 crowds of monks alone, an abode of this kind 
 would in truth be one that should be sought for 
 by all monks; but as things are, it is the Jieight 
 of folly to renounce the world, to give up one’s 
 country, to forsake cities, to profess oneself a 
 monk, and then to live among greater crowds, 
 with greater danger than you would in your 
 own country” (^Epist. xlix.). Nevertheless, 
 when Desiderius and his sister had resolved to 
 visit Jerusalem, he wi’ote (about 396) to en¬ 
 courage them, begging them to visit him and 
 Paula “on occasion of the holy places.” “At 
 least,” he adds, “ if our society shall be un¬ 
 pleasing, it is an act of faith (or perhaps, “ a 
 part of your vow,” pars fidei est) to have wor¬ 
 shipped where the feet of the Lord have stood, 
 and to have seen, as it were, the recent traces of 
 His nativity, and cross and passion ” {Kpist. 
 xlviii.). In the same spirit he invites Marcella 
 (about 389) to Bethlehem {Epist. xlv.); and 
 bids Rusticus (4.D. 408) seek peace of mind at 
 Jerusalem. “ Thou art a wanderer in thy own 
 country;—or rather not in thy country, for 
 thou hast lost thy country. That is before thee 
 in the venerable places of the resurrection, the 
 cross, and the cradle of the Lord the Saviour” 
 
 ^ {Epist. xc.). In the famous epistle of Paula 
 I and Eustochium (about 389) to Marcella, every 
 \ inducement is held out to her to join them at 
 Bethlehem ; the number, eminence, and holiness 
 of those who visited the holy places from every 
 part of the world, the psalms of praise in every 
 tongue continually ascending from them, the 
 
776 
 
 HOLY PLACES 
 
 HOLY PLACES 
 
 high religious iuterest of the places themselves, 
 aad, in particular’, the great piety of the inhabi¬ 
 tants of Bethlehem and its neighbourhood ; but 
 the truth is not lost sight of, that men might be 
 as holy and devout elsewhere : We do not say 
 this to deny that the kingdom of God is within 
 us, and that there are holy men in other coun¬ 
 tries, too,” &c. (^Inler Epp. Ilieron. ep. xliv.). 
 
 III. Before the middle of this century (about 
 347), it was reported throughout the Christian 
 world (see Cyrill. Hier. Catech. iv. § 7 ; x. § 9; 
 xiii. § 2) that the very cross on which our 
 Saviour died had been discovei’ed, and was ex¬ 
 hibited at Jerusalem. According to Cyril, who 
 was bishop of Jerusalem from 350 to 386, the 
 discovery took place in the time of Constantine 
 (^Epist. ad Constantium, § 2). As he died in 337, 
 and not a word is said of the cross or its dis¬ 
 covery by the traveller from Gaul, already cited, 
 who was at Jerusalem in 333, the story must 
 have arisen and the exhibition of the supposed 
 relic must have begun some time between those 
 years. Later writers (as Ambrose, de Obitu 
 Theodosii, §§ 43—47 ; Paulinus, Ep. xxxi. § 5; 
 Ruffinus, Hist, EccL 1. i. c. 7 ; Sulpicius, and 
 later on Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, &c.) as¬ 
 sert that it was found bv Helena, the mother of 
 Constantine; but that princess died five years 
 before the anonvmous Gaul visited Jerusalem ; 
 and even if we had not his negative testimony, 
 the silence of Cyril with regard to Helena, and 
 the silence on the whole subject of Eusebius, who, 
 in Ms panegyric on Constantine, written in 337, 
 has zealously heaped together whatever could 
 tend to his honour, or his mother’s, throw just 
 doubt on her connection with the discovery^ even 
 if that be true [CROSS, Finding of, p. 59*3], It 
 is painful to suspect that the cross exhibited was 
 not authentic, but when we find that by the 
 middle of the 6th century (See Greg. Turou. 
 Mirac. 1. i. c. 7), if not long befoi’e, the lance, 
 reel, sponge, crown of thorns, &c., used at the 
 Passion were all exhibited, and reverenced with 
 equal confidence, we surely have (not to mention 
 certain dilficulties in the story' itself) some 
 excuse for hesitating to affirm that the cross 
 shown at Jerusalem in the 4th century' and 
 downward, was that upon which our Saviour 
 died. It was believed, however, and our business 
 is chiefly with the consequence of that belief. 
 
 “ Prostrate before the cross,” says Jerome, 
 speaking of Paula’s first visit to Jerusalem, 
 
 “ she worshipped, as if she saw the Lord hang¬ 
 ing thereon ” {Ep. Ixxxvi. ad Eustoch.). Paula 
 hei’self refers to it, when urging Marcella to 
 join her in Palestine : “ When will that day be 
 on which it will be permitted us to enter the 
 cave of the Saviour; to weep with sister, to 
 weep with mother, in the sepulchre of the Lord ; 
 then to kiss (lambere) the wood of the cross; 
 and on the Mount of Olives to be lifted up in 
 desire and mind with the ascending I.a)rd.^” 
 This will, perhaps, sufficiently illustrate the 
 importance of the alleged discovery, as a means 
 of attracting pilgrims to Jerusalem. From 
 Paulinus we learn that the cross was only exhi¬ 
 bited “to be adored by the people” on Good 
 Friday; but that sometimes it was shown to 
 “ very religious ” persons, who had travelled 
 thither on purpose to see it (Ep. xxxii. § 6). 
 
 IV. From one cause or another, then, the 
 resort to the holy places in Palestine continued | 
 
 and increased. E.g. Cassian, a.d. 424, speaks 
 incidentally of some monks who, while he was 
 at Bethlehem, had “come together at the holv 
 places from parts of Egypt orationis causa ” (lie 
 Coenob. Instit. 1. iv. c. 31). Eudocia, the wife of 
 Theodosius, bound herself by a vow to visit Jeru¬ 
 salem, if she should live to see her daughter 
 married, which, with the consent of her husband, 
 she fulfilled in the year 438 (Socr. Hist. Eccl. 
 1. vii. c. 47). Palladius, a Galatian by birth, 
 who had spent many years in Palestine, writing 
 in 421, tells us that Melania the elder showed 
 hospitality to pious persons going to visit the 
 holy places from Persia, Britain, and almost 
 every part of the world (Hist. Lausiaca, c. 118). 
 Gregory' of Tours mentions a Briton who, in his 
 time, came to Tours on his way' to Jerusalem 
 (Hist. Franc. 1. v. c. 22). Towards the end of 
 the 7th century, Arculfus, a bishop of Gaul, 
 “ went to Jerusalem for the sake of the holy' 
 places,” and being afterwards a guest of Adam- 
 nan, abbot of Iona, gave him an account of them. 
 The latter put it in writing, and his work is 
 still extant (Acta Bened. saec. iii. p. ii. See 
 Bede, Hist. Eccl. Angl. 1. v. cc. 15-17). 
 
 V. From the middle of the 4th century', or 
 thereabouts, some other places had been ac¬ 
 quiring such a character for holiness, as the 
 scene of a martyi-’s triumph or the shrine of his 
 relics, that they' were visited by pilgrims from a 
 distance, and even received the conventional title 
 of Loca Sancta. Thus Rome was famous for the 
 martyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul. St. 
 Chrysostom, alluding to the chain with which 
 St. Paul was bound, says, “I would be in those 
 places, for the bonds are said to be there still. 
 
 . , . . I would see those bonds, at which devils 
 are afraid and tremble, but which angels rever¬ 
 ence ” (Horn. viii. in Ep. ad Eph. c. iv. 1). But 
 with him such a pilgrimage would have been 
 only yvjLLiucria Trphs ; for he more 
 
 than once tells his hearers that they' need not 
 cross the sea, foi’ God will hear them equally 
 where they are. “ Let us each, man and woman 
 [remaining here at Antioch], both when gather¬ 
 ing in church and staying in our houses, call 
 very earnestly on God, and He will certainly 
 answer our prayers ” (Horn, de Statuis, iii. § 5 ; 
 cf. Horn. i. in Ep. ad Phi/ern. c. i. 1-3). And he 
 claims a similar sanctity for Antioch, in which 
 city he then lived, a.d. 388, as having been the 
 “ tabernacle of the apostles, the dwelling-place 
 of the righteous ” (Ibid. § 3). St. Augustine, 
 A.D. 404, sent two persons, who accused each 
 other of crime to a “ holy' place,” viz. the shrine 
 of St. Felix, at Nola, in the hope that “ the 
 more terrible workings of God ” there “ might 
 drive the guilty one to confession, by' punish¬ 
 ment (divinely inflicted) or by fear ” (Ep. Ixxviii. 
 §3). He ask.s, “is not Africa full of the bodies 
 of holy martyrs ? And y'et,” he adds, “ we do 
 not know that such things are done anywhere 
 here ” (Ibkl.). Nevertheless, in the last book of 
 the Citg of God, which was written about the 
 beginning of the year 427, he records many 
 wonders as wrought in Africa, within the few 
 years previous, at the Memoriae of St. Stephen 
 and other martyrs (De Civ. Dei, 1. xxii. c. 8). 
 Prudentius, himself a native of Spain, a.d. 405, 
 celebrating the praise of two martyrs, who 
 suffered at Calahorra in that country, says that 
 the dwellers in that city' “ frequented the sands 
 
HOLY SPIRIT 
 
 stained with their sacred blood, beseeching with 
 voice, vows, gift; that foreigners, too, and the 
 inhabitants of the whole earth came thither,” 
 and that “ no one there, in his supplication, 
 multiplied pure prayers in A^ain.” The poet 
 affivins that many miracles were wrought there 
 by the power of the martyrs, and that Christ 
 conferred that blessing on the town, when He 
 gave their bodies to its keeping (^De Coronis, 
 Hymn I.). We must remember that the writer 
 is a poet, but hardly moie could haA'e been said 
 of a popular shrine in the 9th century. 
 
 VI. Probably not very long after the time of 
 the93 writers, a custom began of sending peni¬ 
 tents to various shrines (ad limina sanctorum), 
 partly as a penance, and partly that they might 
 more effectually obtain the intercession of the 
 martyr of the place. Most writei’s, following 
 Morinus {De Sac7-atn. Poenit. 1. vii. c. 15), have 
 supposed that this form of penance was not in 
 use till the 7th century; but a passage in one of 
 the Homilies of Caesarius of Arles (a.d. 502 ), 
 hrst printed by Baluzius in 1669, implies that 
 it was known in France, at least, before the close 
 of the 5th :—“ Frequenting the thresholds of 
 the saints, they (penitents) would ask for aid 
 against their own sins, and, persevering in fast¬ 
 ings and prayers, or in almsgiving, would strive 
 rather to punish than to nourish, or add to, 
 those sins ” {Horn. iii. p. 23). The great evils to 
 which this practice would soon lead are obvious, 
 and we need only, in conclusion, cite a canon of 
 the council of Chalons-sur-Saone, a.d. 813, by 
 which Charlemagne and his advisers sought to 
 restrain them:—“A great mistake is made by 
 some, who unadvisedly travel to Rome or Tours 
 (to the shrine of St. Martin), and some other 
 places, under prete.xt of prayer. There are 
 presbyters, and deacons, and others of the clergy, 
 who, living carelessly, think that they are purged 
 from their sins and entitled to discharge their 
 ministry, if they reach the aforesaid places. 
 There are also laymen who think that they sin, 
 or have sinned, with impunity, because they 
 frequent these places for prayer.” Some of the 
 powerful, it adds, under pretext of a journey 
 to Rome or Tours “ for the sake of prayer or 
 visiting the holy places,” oppressed the poor by 
 their exactions, while many of the poor made 
 such pilgrimages an occasion of begging with 
 more success: some falsely pretending to be on 
 their way to the holy places, others going there 
 in the belief that they would be “ cleansed from 
 sins by the mere sight ” of them (can. xlv. Cone. 
 Cabil. I/.). [W. E. S.] 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT. The dove is the invariable 
 and exclusive symbol which expresses special 
 manifestation of the presence of the Third Person 
 of the Trinity, and the article under that word, 
 will be found to contain some information as to 
 the use of the symbol in this its highest sense. 
 Luke iii. 22, Matt. iii. 16, Mark i. 10. The bap¬ 
 tistery of St. Pontianus, in the catacomb of that 
 name (Aringhi ii. 275), contains one of the 
 earliest of these paintings of the Holy Dove, 
 referable to the early 7th century; but the 
 Lateran cross is reputed to be of the period im¬ 
 mediately succeeding Constantine, and is a yet 
 more striking e.xample. [See Dove, p. 576.] 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HOLY WATER 777 
 
 HOLY THINGS. [Ecclesiastigae Res.] 
 HOLY THURSDAY. [Ascension Day.] 
 
 HOLY WATER. I. The use of lustral 
 water in the Christian church appears to have 
 had a manifold origin. 
 
 (1) At an early period we find fountains, oi 
 basins, supplied with fi'esh water, near the prin¬ 
 cipal doors of churches, especially in the East, 
 that they who entered might wash their hands 
 at least [see Hands, washing of], before they 
 worshipped. There can be no doubt that the 
 ritual use of water under the name of holy 
 water (aqua benedicta, ayiacr/xos, vSutu ev- 
 \oylat, &c.) arose in a great measure from the 
 undue importance which naturally attached 
 itself to this custom, as ignorance and supersti¬ 
 tion began to prevail amid the troubles of the 
 Western empire. 
 
 (2) Again, under the Mosaic law a person 
 legally unclean was not restored to social inter¬ 
 course, and to communion in prayer and sacrifice, 
 until he had been sprinkled with the water of 
 separation, and had washed his clothes and 
 bathed himself in water” (Numb. xix.; compare 
 Ezekiel xxxvi. 25). 
 
 (3) The courts of heathen temples were com¬ 
 
 monly provided with water for purification; but 
 it is probable that as a belief in the gods declined 
 through the influence of Christianity, many 
 would neglect to use it as they entered. Hence, 
 we may suppose, the custom for a priest to 
 sprinkle them at the door, lest any should 
 present themselves unpurified. An instance is 
 mentioned by Sozomen. When Julian was about 
 to enter a temple in Gaul, a “ priest holding 
 green boughs wet with water sprinkled tho.se 
 who went in after the Grecian manner ” (Hint. 
 Eccl. 1. vi. c. 6). This bore such a resemblance 
 to the later rite of Christians as to mislead one 
 transcriber of the work of Sozomen, and induce 
 him to substitute 'EKKAria-iaaTiK^, Ecclesiastical, 
 for 'E\\r]viK(2, Grecian (^Annot. Vales, in loco, 
 p. 109). • 
 
 (4) We may add that the notion of a lustra¬ 
 tion by water prevailed also among the earliest 
 heretics. Some of the Gnostics threw oil and 
 water on the head of the dying to make them 
 invisible to the powers of darkness (Iren. Haeres. 
 1. i. c. 2, § 5). The Ebionites immersed them¬ 
 selves in Avater daily (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. § 16). 
 The founder of the sect is said by Epiphanius to 
 have been Avont to plunge into the nearest water, 
 salt or fresh, if by chance he met one of the 
 other sex {ibid. § 2). 
 
 II. Many miracles are said to haA'e been 
 wrought by means of AA-ater, and to this also Ave 
 attribute a certain influence in giving both 
 authority and shaj)e to the superstitions which 
 arose with regard to holy Avater. Count Joseph 
 in the time of Constantine the Great, sprinkled 
 an insane person Avith Avater over Avhich he had 
 made the sign of the cross, and his reason Avas 
 restored (Epiphan. u. s. § 10). We are told that 
 by the same means he dispersed the enchant¬ 
 ments by Avhich the JeAvs sought to hinder the 
 erection of a church at Tiberias {ibid. § 12). An 
 evil spirit who hindered the destruction of the 
 temple of Jupiter at A})amea, a.d. 385, Avas, 
 according to Theodoret, driven aAvay by the u.se 
 of Avater which the bishop had blessed Avith the 
 sign of the cross {Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 21; Cassiod 
 
 HOLY TABLE. [Altar.] 
 
778 
 
 HOLY WATER 
 
 HOLY WATER 
 
 Tripart. 1. ix. c. 34), Gregory of Tours 
 describes a cei taiu recluse named Kusitius (a.d, 
 532), ill the diocese of J-imoges, as so gifted with 
 power to cure tliose afflicted with quartan fever, 
 that by “ giving them water to drink merely 
 blessed (by him), he restored them forthwith to 
 health ” (‘De Glor. Confess, c. 82). Water from 
 a well dug by St. Martin “gave health to many 
 sick,” and in particular cured a brother of 
 St. Triez, who was dying of fever (^De Mir. 
 S. Martini, 1. ii. c. 39) ; and many were in like 
 mauuer said to have been healed by the waters of 
 a spring at Brioude, in Auvergne, in which the 
 head of the martyr .Julian (a.d. 304) had been 
 washed (^Mirac. I. ii. c. 3 ; see also cc. 25, 26, 
 and the Liber de Passione S. Juliani). The 
 same author relates how a certain bishop “ sent 
 water that had been blessed to a house ” in which 
 many had died of fever, and how, “ when it was 
 sprinkled on the walls, all sickness was forthwith 
 driven away ” ( Vitae I'atrum, c. iv. § 3). 
 
 III. The tendency to ascribe virtue to water 
 blessed by the priest, was without doubt greatly 
 promoted by a superstition with regard to 
 baptism, and by the use sometimes made of the 
 water employed at it. St. Augustine, writing 
 in 408, says that some persons in his day brought 
 their children to be baptized not for the sake of 
 any spiritual benefit, but “ because they thought 
 that they would by this remedy retain or recover 
 their bodily health ” (^Ep. xcviii. § 5, ad Bonif. 
 Com.'). In the last book of the City of God, 
 written about the year 427, the same father tells 
 us of two persons who were at their baptism 
 suddenly and entirely cured of very serious 
 maladies of long continuance (lib. xxii. c. 8, 
 §§ 4, 5). It was but a short step from belief in 
 such miracles to suppose that the water used at 
 a baptism might have virtue available for the 
 benefit of others than those who were baptized 
 in it. It would be often tested, and several 
 alleged results of the trial are on record. At 
 Osset, near Seville, was a font in the form of a 
 cross, which, according to Gregory of Tours, was 
 every year miraculously filled with water for the 
 Easter baptisms. From this font, after it had 
 been duly exorcised and sprinkled with chrism, 
 every one “ carried away a vessel full for the 
 safety of his house, and with a view to protect 
 his fields and vineyards by that most w'holesome 
 aspersion ” (^Mirac. 1. i. c. 24 ; see also Hist. 
 Franc. 1. vi. c. 43). A mother put on the mouth 
 of her daughter, who was dumb from birth, 
 “ water w'hich she had sometime taken from the 
 fonts blessed ” (by St. IMartin), and she became 
 capable of speech {De Mirac. S. Mart. 1, ii. c. 38). 
 
 In the East, even in the time of St. Chry¬ 
 sostom, the water from the baptisms at the 
 Epiphany was carefully kept throughout the 
 year, and believed to remain without putrefac¬ 
 tion. “This is the day on which Christ was 
 baptized, and hallowed the element of water. 
 Wherefore at midnight on this feast, all draw of 
 the waters and store them up at home, because 
 on this day the waters were consecrated. And a 
 manifest miracle takes place, in that the nature 
 of those waters is not corrupted by length of 
 time ” {De Bapt. Christi, § 2). In the West two 
 centuries or so later we find a similar reservation, 
 pi-actised at Rome at least, but, as might be 
 expected, with a more definite purpose. There, 
 after the consecration of the water on Ejister 
 
 eve, “ The whole people, whoever wi.shed, took a 
 blessing {benedictionem; compare the u.se of 
 ayia(Tp.6s) in their vessels of the water itself, 
 before tbe children were baptized in it, to 
 sprinkle about their houses, and vinevards, and 
 fields, and fruits ” {Ordo Bom. i. § 42 ; Mtesae. 
 Ital. tom. ii. p. 26). It will, be observed that 
 the water was now considered holy for this 
 puipose after being blessed, and before any one 
 had been baptized in that font. It was an easy 
 transition from this stage of ])ractice and belief 
 to the benediction of water without any reference 
 to baptism, which .should nevertheless have the 
 same power of protecting and benefitting house, 
 field, and jterson, that was ascribed to water 
 taken from the baptismal font. 
 
 IV. The earliest example of an independent 
 benediction of water for the above-mentioned 
 uses occurs in the so-called Apostoiicid Cous'itn- 
 tiovs, but there can be no doubt of its being one 
 of the corrupt additions made to the original re¬ 
 cension probably in the 5th century. “Let the 
 bishop bless water and oil. If he is not present 
 let the presbyter bless it, in the presence of the 
 deacon. But if the bishop be there, let the 
 presbyter and deacon assist. And let him say 
 thus : ‘ Lord of Sabaoth, God of hosts, creator of 
 the waters and giver of the oil . . . who hast 
 given water for drink and cleansing, and oil to 
 cheer the flice . . . Thyself now by Christ 
 sanctify this water and the oil . . . ami give it 
 virtue imparting health, expelling di.seases, put¬ 
 ting to tlight devils, scattering every evil design, 
 through Christ,” &c. (lib. viii. c. 29). From 
 Balsamon we learn that holy water was “ made ” 
 in the Greek church at the beginning of every 
 lunar month. The observance of any festival at 
 the new moon was forbidden by the council of 
 Constantinople, a.d. 691 ; and he regarded this 
 rite as in some manner a sub-stitute for that relic 
 of heathenism. “ Owing to this decree of the 
 canon, the feast of the new moon has ceased trom 
 time beyond memory, and instead of it, by the 
 grace of God, propitiatory prayers to God and 
 benedictions {ayiaapol) by the faithful people 
 hax'e place at the beginning of every month, and 
 we are anointed with the w’aters of blessing, not 
 of strife ” {Comm, in Can. Ixv.). 
 
 In the West the earliest mention of holy 
 water not blessed for baptism, occurs in one of 
 the Forged Decretals, ascribed to Ale.\ander L, 
 A.D. 109, but composed probably about 830. It 
 is certain, however, that these fictitious orders, 
 put forth in the names of early bishops of Rome, 
 did not, except possibly in a very few cases, 
 create the practices which they pretended to 
 regulate. The rite existed before, at least in 
 some locality familiar to the author of the fraud. 
 The following decree, therefore, is witness, we 
 may assume, to a custom already of some stand¬ 
 ing. “We bless water sjirinkled with salt, that 
 all being therewith besprinkled may be sanctified 
 and purified. Which also we command to be 
 done by all priests ” (Gi'atian, p. iii. De Cons. 
 d. iii. c. 20). In the same century Leo IV., 
 A.D. 847, in a charge to his clergy, says, “ Every 
 Lord’s day before mass bless water wherewith 
 the people may be sprinkled, and for this have 
 a proper vessel” {Cone. Labb. tom. viii. col. 37). 
 The same order occurs in three similaf “ synodal 
 charges ” of about the same period, which have 
 been printed by Baluze (Ajip. ad lib. Reginonis 
 
HOLY WEEK 
 
 HOLY WEEK 
 
 779 
 
 dc Eccl. Discipl. pp. 503, 6, 9). In a “ visitation 
 article ” of the 9th century, H is asked whether 
 the presbyter blesses water, as directed, every 
 Sunday {Ibid. p. 10). Hincinar of Rheims, the 
 contemporary of Leo, after directions similar to 
 his, adds a permission that all who wish may 
 cafrv some of the water home “ in their own 
 clean vessels, and sprinkle it over their dwellings, 
 and fields, and vineyards, over their cattle also, 
 and their provender, and likewise ov^er their own 
 meat and drink ” (cap. v. Cone. Labb. tom. viii. 
 col. 670). 
 
 We have argued in effect that the prevalence 
 of a custom in the 9th century implies that it 
 was, to say the least, not unknown in the 8th. 
 In the present case we have a direct proof beside. 
 In the Pontifical of Egbert (p. 34; Surtees 
 Society, 1853), who was archbishop of York from 
 732 to 766, are forms of prayer for exorcising 
 and blessing the water to be used in the conse¬ 
 cration of a church. Referring to the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary {Litnrgia Horn. Vet. Murat, tom. i. 
 col. 738), we find the same torms to be used over 
 water for the purification of any house, the 
 exorcism only being adapted by Egbert to the 
 occasion. The same benediction occurs in the 
 Gregorian Sacramentary, and an abbreviated 
 form of the same previous exorcism {Ibid. 
 tom. ii. col. 225). As it is almost certain that 
 Egbert borrowed his formulae from a Roman 
 source, we infer that the oflice for makins: holv 
 water was in the Roman Sacramentaries a century 
 before the practice was enjoined, as we have 
 seen, by Leo IV. It should be mentioned that 
 the headings of these prayers .speak only of water 
 “ to be sprinkled in a house,” and they were 
 obviously drawn up with reference to that only 
 (Murat, tom. i. col. 738); but as they are 
 followed closely (as in the modern Eituale) by 
 benedictions of new fruits, &c. (/6 jc/. col. 742; 
 tom. ii. col. 231), and no other express benediction 
 of water is prescribed (except in the Gelasian, for 
 the dispersion of thunder), we may perhaps infer 
 that water once blessed for one purpose was con¬ 
 sidered available for general use. In all the offices 
 to which reference has been made, the salt which 
 is to be mixed with the water is itself previously 
 exorcised and blessed. [W. E. S.j 
 
 HOLY WEEK [Easter Eve, Maundy 
 Thursday, Good Friday]. The week imme¬ 
 diately preceding the great festival of Easter, 
 commencing with Palm Sunda}^, and including 
 the anniversaries of the institution of the Lord’s 
 Supper, the Passion, and Resurrection of Christ was 
 observed with peculiar solemnity from the early 
 ages of the church (Chrysost. Horn. xxx. in Genes.; 
 Hom. in Es. cxlv.). It was designated by various 
 names—e/35o/xas ij.eya\r}, ayla, or Ta>^' aylwv ; 
 Hebdomas major, sun- ta, the former being the 
 earlier title in the Western church {Missal. 
 Ainhros. apud Painel. p. 339) anthentica (ibid.) 
 uHima (i. e. of Lent) (Ambros. Epist. 33). From 
 the restriction as to food then enjoined it was 
 called 6/35. ^r]po<pay'ias (Epiph. llaer. Ixx. 12) 
 Hebdomas Xeroplnujiae: as commemorating our 
 Lord’s sufferings, 435, Twr ayiwv irddwp\ r}p€pai 
 iradriP’d.Twv, aTai puxrinai ; Helxl. poenosa, luc- 
 tuosa, nigra, lamentediomcm; from the cessation of 
 business, 4/85. dirpaKTos, Ilebd. muta: and as 
 ushering in the Paschal absolution. Hebdomas 
 Indulgentiac, 
 
 The observance of Holy Week belongs to very 
 early, if not to primitive, antiquity. As the 
 historian Socrates has justly remarked (//. E. 
 v. 22), no commemorative seasons were appointed 
 by the apostles, or found any j)lace in the ritual 
 of the apostolic church. But as Easter naturally 
 succeeded to the commemoration of the de¬ 
 liverance of the children of Israel from Egypt, so 
 the anniver.sary of the ])assion took the place 
 of that of the slaying of the paschal lamb, while 
 the sanctity of these holy days was gradually 
 extended to the whole week preceding Easter, 
 which therefore assumed a special character in 
 the Christian year. The observance of Holy 
 Week is accordingly fdosely connected with that 
 of Easter, and is probably but little later in its 
 origin. The earliest notice of Holy Week, which 
 speaks of it as universally accepted, is in the 
 ApOitolical Constitutions, which represent the 
 Eastern custom towards the end of the 3rd 
 century. About the same time, c. 260, Diony¬ 
 sius of Alexandria also mentions it as of uni¬ 
 versal observance. If we may accept as genuine 
 the ordinance of Constantine the Great given 
 by Scaliger {de Emendat. Temp. p. 776) and 
 Beveridge {Pandect, ii. 103) the sanctity of 
 this week as well as of the succeeding one was 
 consulted by enforced abstinence from public 
 business at the beginning of the fourth century. 
 The whole week was, as far as jiossible, kept 
 as a strict fast, from midnight on Palm Sunday 
 till cockcrow on Easter Day. 
 
 By the Apostolical Constitutions (v. 18, 19), 
 abstinence from wine and flesh was commanded, 
 and the diet restricted to bread, and salt, and 
 vegetables, with water as a beverage. Total 
 abstinence was enjoined on Friday and Saturday, 
 or at least on Saturday “ when the bridegroom 
 shall have been taken from them,” while on 
 the other days of the week no food was to be 
 eaten till 3 p.m. or the evening, according to 
 ability. The fast was observed in this manner in 
 the time of Dionysius of Alexandria (c. a.d. 260), 
 who in his canonical epistle speaks of some who 
 fasted through the whole six days {ripepas irderas 
 virtpTidlaaii' daiTOi SiaTe\oOrT€s), others, two, 
 three, or four days, according to power of 
 physical endurance; while some kept no fast at 
 all, and others faring delicately during the first 
 four days sought to make up for their self-in¬ 
 dulgence by excessive strictness on Friday and 
 Saturday (Dionys. Alex. Ep. Canon., Routh. Eeliq. 
 Sacr. iii. 229). Epiphanius describes the j)ractice 
 in his days almost in the same words {virapTidi- 
 pivoi 5t6TeA.oi»j/) ; some, he adds, ate every two 
 days, others every evening (Epijffian. Haeres. 
 xxix. 5; Expos. Fid. 22). Tertullian speaks of 
 the continuous fasts of this week in the phrases 
 jejunia conjungrre, Sabb ttuin continuare jejuniis 
 Parasceves. (Tertull. de Patient. 13; de Jejun. 
 14.) Epiphanius in another place describes the 
 bodily mortifications practised this week, such as 
 sleeping on the ground, strict continence, watch¬ 
 ings, xerophagy, &c , and charges the Arians 
 with passing the time in jollity and merriirti.x 
 (Epiph. Haeres. Ixxv. 3). Sozomen {H.E. i. 11) 
 relates an anecdote of Spyridon^ bishop of Trimy- 
 thus in Cyprus, illustrating the habit of con¬ 
 tinuous fasting, (TTKTvvdivTiiv TTjv vT]cn(iau, at 
 this season. All work was as far as possible 
 laid aside, and business, private and public, 
 suspended during the week. From the time of 
 
780 
 
 HOLY WKKK 
 
 HOMICIDE 
 
 Theodosius (a.d. 389) actions at law ceased, and 
 the doors of the courts were closed for seven 
 days before and after Easter (CocZ. Thcodos. 
 lib. ii. tit. viii. ; De Fer. leg. ii. [see Gothofred’s 
 Commentary^ vol. i. p. 124] ; Cod. Justin, lib. iii. 
 tit. xii.; de Fer. legg. vii. viii.; August. Serm. 
 -xi.v.; Ed. Bened. vol. i. p. 741). Those in prison 
 for debt and other oifences, with the e.xception 
 of those guilty of more heinous crimes, were 
 ordered to be released by a law of Valentinian’s, 
 A.D. 367, the earliest of the kind, according to 
 Gothofred Comment, vol. ii. p. 273 (Corf. Thcodos. 
 lib. ix. tit. xxxviii.; de Induly. Crim. legg. iii. iv.; 
 Ambros. Epist. 33 ; (jhrysost. u. s.). Slaves were 
 manumitted, and there was a general cessation 
 from labour during this and the following week, 
 not only to atfoid the servants rest but also 
 opportunity of instruction in the elements of 
 the faith (Apost. Constit. viii. 33 ; Greg. Nyssen. 
 Earn. III. de Fesurr. tom. iii. p. 420; Cod. 
 Justin, lib. iii. tit. xii.; de Fer. leg. viii.). The 
 week was also distinguished by liberal alms¬ 
 giving (Chrysost. u. s.). 
 
 The observance of the week may be said to 
 Hiive commenced with the ])receding Saturday, 
 when, with reference to John xii. 1-9, the church 
 commemorated the raising of Lazarus—an event 
 assigned erroneously by Epiphanius to that day 
 (Ej)iphan. Hotnil. els to. fidia tom. ii. pp. 152, 
 153; Neale Eastern Ch. ii. 747). The Gallican 
 liturgies commemorated this miracle the next 
 day (Palm Sunday), known therefore as Dominica 
 Lazari., as apj)ears from the collects of the 
 Missjle Gallicum ]'etus, and the Sacrayn. Galli- 
 cauM/n (Muratoi i ii. 718, 834). On the Saturday 
 the pope was accustomed to give special alms 
 at St. Peter’s, in allusion to Christ’s words 
 spoken that day (Mar. xiv. 7). (^Coryies Uieronymi 
 apud Pamel. ii. 21; Sacrayn. Greyor. ib. 244.) 
 
 The Sunday next before Easter, the first day 
 of Holy Week, was distinguished by many difi'er- 
 ent names. The earliest and most constant, 
 indicating the great event of the day, being Palm 
 Suyiday ; /ci/pta/crj, eoyrr] rdyv fialwu ; 7} /3aio<f)6pos 
 eopTT]; Do/Jiiyiica 1‘almaruyyi, or in Palmis. 
 Floruyn, or Payyioram, or Osawia. A later 
 appellation derived from the same event was 
 Pascha Jioruyn, or floriduyyi. From the Easter 
 absolution which followed it was known as 
 Doyni/iica hidulgeyitiae; and with reference to the 
 great Paschal baptism, Pascha petitum., or 
 coyyipeteyitiuyn (Ordo Poyyvmus'), while the mass 
 was styled Missa m Si/ynboli traditioyie, because 
 on this day, or accoi-ding to fhe Ambrosian rite 
 the day before (Miss. Ambros. apud Pamel. i. 
 336) the creed was recited to the competentes, 
 or candidates for baptism, to be learnt by Easter 
 eve, as was ordained by the 13th canon of the 
 council of Agde, a.d. 506 (Labbe, Concil. iv. 
 1385; cf. Isid. de Eccl. Off. i. 27. ii. 21). The 
 works of Augustine and other fathers contain 
 sermons delivered on this and the following days 
 to the coyyipeteyites in exposition of the creed 
 (Aug. Seryii. de I'eynp. 113-135). Palm Sunday 
 was also called capitilavium because on that day 
 the heads of the catechumens were washed in 
 preparation for baptism and confirmation (Raban. 
 De Inst. Cler. c. 35). 
 
 The ceremony of the benediction of the palm 
 branches, or other branches that were substituted 
 for them, e.speciaily olive boughs, appears in the 
 Sacramentary of Gregory, where it has a special 
 
 collect (Pamel. ii. 245). The jubilant processions 
 which have long formed so characteristic a part 
 of the ritual of Palm Sunday in the East as in 
 the West, are mentioned by Gregory Nyssen (/. c.) 
 and were introduced almost universally by the 
 end of the 7th century (Augusti lldbch. der 
 Christ. Arch. Mi. 338). 
 
 Each day in this Holy Week was one of special 
 sanctity, designated ueyiXr] Sevrepa, p.eyd.\r\ 
 Tpirr), &c. (Bevereg. Pandect, ii. 163), the 
 observances gradually rising in solemnity to 
 the Thursday m Coenu Dom/ni [Mauxdy Thurs¬ 
 day], and the Friday, Passio Doynini [Good 
 Friday]. The history of our Lord’s Pa.ssion was 
 recited on successive days, beginning with that 
 by St. Matthew on Palm Sunday, and closing 
 with that by St. John on Good Friday. [E. V.] 
 
 HOMICIDE (Hoynicidium, <p6vos'). Murder 
 was regarded by the church as one of the gravest 
 crimes. It is joined by Cyprian (de Pat. c. 9) 
 with adultery and fraud, by Pacian (Pay’aen. ad 
 Poenit. c. 9) with fornication and idolatry, by 
 Augustine (de Fid. et Op. c. 19) also with forni¬ 
 cation and idolatry, as one of the three mortal 
 sins w’hich W'ere always to be visited with 
 excommunication. By the laws of the Christian 
 emperors murderers were expressly excepted 
 from the general pardons granted to criminals on 
 occasions of great festivals (Cod. Theod. IX. 
 xxxviii. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8), and were refused the 
 right of appeal (ibid. XL xxxvi. 1). In some 
 dioceses the peace of the church was denied for 
 ever to wdlful murderers (Tert. de Pudicit. c. 12, 
 Gregor. Thaumat. Cayi. Ep. c. 7, Comp. Cyprian 
 Ep. 55 ad Anton, on the practice of some of liis 
 predecessors with reference to the other great 
 crime of adultery). But in general a murderer 
 w'as re-admitted to the church after a long term 
 of exclusion. By a decree of the council of 
 Ancyra a.d. 314, c. 22, this term w'as lifelong; 
 by Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letoi.) it was 
 fixed at twenty-seven years; by Basil (ad 
 Amphil. c. 56) at tw'enty. In the Penitential cf 
 Theodore (1. iv. 1), a murder committed to 
 revenge a relation, Avas punished by seven or ten 
 years’ penance; but if restitution was made to 
 the next of kin, half the term w’as remitted. If 
 one layman slew another (ibid. c. 4), he must 
 either relinquish aTms or do penance .'even years, 
 three of them without wine and flesh ; but (ibid. 
 c. 5) if a monk or one of the inferior clerg)' w’as 
 slain, the slayer must either relinquish arms and 
 serve God the remainder of his life, or do penance 
 seven years, as the bishop should direct; if a 
 presbyter or bishop was the victim, the matter 
 was to be brought before the king (Bed. Poeyii- 
 tent. iv'. 1-8, Egbert Poenitcyit. iv. 10, 11). In 
 the Dialogue of Egbert (Haddan and Stubbs 
 Councils and Eccl. Doc. iii. 403), there is some 
 variety in the penalty; a layman who slew’ a 
 bishop was to pay the fine and submit to the 
 term of penance a council should appoint, if he 
 slew a priest the fine w’as to be eighty shekels ; 
 if a deacon, sixty ; if a monk, forty. The eccle¬ 
 siastical law in these instances being in accord¬ 
 ance with the well-known system of early 
 English jurisprudence, which allowed homicide 
 and every variety of personal injury to be 
 expiated by money payments. See the laws of 
 Ethelbert, between a.d. 597, and 604, on the 
 payments to be made for murders (cc. 5-7, 13), 
 
HOMICIDE 
 
 HOMILY 
 
 781 
 
 and for injuries to the person (cc. 33-72). The 
 laws of lue of Wessex a.d. 690 (c. 76), contain 
 the provision that if a man slew another’s god¬ 
 son or godfather, he must pay “ hot ” (Hue to 
 justice), as well as “ wer ” (recompence to 
 kindred); and that if the slain was a bishop’s 
 son (i.e. confirmation son), only half the payment 
 was to be exacted. For a full account of the 
 laws on injuries to the person, see Turner 
 Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. pp. 436-447, ed. 1852. 
 
 Murder joined with other great crimes was 
 more severely punished. One who used magical 
 arts to slay another, thereby adding idolatry to 
 murder, was denied communion even at the last 
 (Cone, liliber, c. 6), The same sentence was 
 decreed against a woman who added murder to 
 adultery by slaying the oftspring which she had 
 conceived in the absence of her husband (ibid. c. 
 63), and the council of Lerida a.d. 523, more 
 than two centuries after that of Elibeiis, when 
 the terms of penance had become much easier, 
 assigned (c. 2) a lifelong exclusion to any who 
 used sorcery to get rid of the offspring of 
 adultery. In an English Penitential code 
 (Theodor. Poeaitent. I. vii. 1) the punishment of 
 homicide combined with adultery, was seclusion 
 in a monastery for life. The parricide or the 
 slayer of any near blood relation was, by the 
 civil law (Cod. Theod. IX. xv. 1), in imitation of 
 the old Roman custom, to be sewn in a sack 
 with serpents and thrown into the water: and if 
 this were generally executed there would be 
 no opportunity for the early church to attach 
 any special stigma to the crime. In England a 
 woman who slew her son, was to do penance 
 fifteen years, with no relaxation except on the 
 Lord’s day (Theodor. Poenitent. 1. xiv. 25). The 
 parricide or fratricide was assigned by some 
 seven years, by others fourteen, of which half 
 were to be passed in exile (Egbert Poenitent. 
 iv. 10). 
 
 The modern distinction between murder and 
 manslaughter was not invariably observed. In 
 the council of Ancyra a.d. 314 (cc. 22-23) 
 a shorter term is imposed upon involuntary than 
 upon wilful homicide. But in the canonical 
 epistle of Gregory of Nyssa involuntary homicide 
 is explained to mean that which occurs through 
 simple accident; but homicide which is the 
 result of passion, is treated as if it were wilful 
 murder, even if deliberation and intention, which 
 constitute the legal crime of murder, are absent. 
 The distinction however appears in the Peni¬ 
 tential of Theodore, where it is decreed (I. iv. 7) 
 that if a man kills another by accident, he shall 
 do penance one year; if in a passion, three 
 years ; if over the wine cup, four years; if in 
 strife, ten. Homicide committed at the com¬ 
 mand of a master or in war was to be subject 
 (ibid. I. iv. 6) to forty days’ penance. The 
 chastisement of a slave with such severity that 
 lie died, which was a crime on the borderland of 
 manslaughter and murder, was not dealt with so 
 severely as wilful homicide (Cone. Eliber. c. 5, 
 Cone. Epaon. c. 34). 
 
 Causing abortion in any stage of conception, 
 or taking or even administering drugs for that 
 purpose, was treated as a form of murder, and a 
 i'jug period of penance was allotted to it (Tert. 
 Apolog. c. 9; Basil Amphiloc. cc. 2, 8; Cone. 
 .Ancijr. c. 21; Cone. Herd. c. 2; Cone, in 2'rull. 
 c. 91). But that there was some laxity of 
 
 opinion on the crime, aj-pears from one of the 
 English Penitentials (Bed. Poenitent. iv. 12); 
 which excludes from communion for a longer 
 term a woman who ])rocured abortion in order 
 to conceal her shame, than one who did .so 
 because she was too jmor to maintain her child. 
 Clo.sely allied to this crime was the i:xi’OsiNG 
 OF INFANTS. [See that head.] 
 
 Anger and strife as tending to murder (Matt. 
 V. 22) were brought under discipline. In the 
 African church (Stat. Eecl. Antiq. c. 93, ed. 
 Bruns) the oblations of those who were at 
 enmity with their brethren were received neither 
 at the altar nor in the common treasury, and 
 they were consequently excluded from com¬ 
 munion. A similar decree juevailed in the 
 Gallic church (2 Cone. Arelat. c. 50), those who 
 broke out into open strife were to be removed 
 from all church assemblies till they were recon¬ 
 ciled. 'fhe discipline of the English church was 
 more in accordance with the practice of the 
 Anglo-Saxon law. He who wounded another in 
 strife was to pay him a recompence, and help 
 to support him till he had recovereil, and do 
 half a year’s penance; if he was unable to suji- 
 port him, the penance was to extend to a whole 
 year (Bed. Poenitent. iv. 9). [G. M.] 
 
 HOMILY AND HOMILIARIUM. The 
 word ojxiXia designates generally “intercourse,” 
 implying the intei changc of thought and feeling 
 by words. In a special sense, it is used for the 
 instruction which a philosopher gave his jmpils 
 in familiar conversation (Xenophon, Mem. 1. ii. 
 6 and 15). In this sen^e of “familiar instnu;- 
 tion ” it passed into Christian u.sage. 'I’hns 
 St. Luke uses the word 6ixi\i](Tas of the same 
 addi-ess which he had previously described by 
 the word hiaKiyog-^vos (Acts xx. 9, 11). Com¬ 
 pare Euset Il.E. vi. 19, § 17. Bhotius (Bib- 
 lioth. no. 174, 4, in Suicer’s T/ics. s. v.) notices 
 that the discourses of Chrysostom were properly 
 called bjULiXiai, rather than \6yoi, as being 
 simple, inartificial, popular addresses, in a style 
 rather conversational than formal, while a Aoyos 
 was constructed according to the rules of art, 
 and with a certain dignity and elevation oi 
 style. Similarly the French Confe'rence. The 
 council of Ancyra (c. 1) a.d. 314, forbidding 
 presbyters who have sacrificed to idols Trpos<p€g(iy 
 
 d/aiXeiv oXus XeiTOupydif seems to use the 
 word d/xiXuv as the common technical ex¬ 
 pression for the address of tlie presbyter in the 
 liturgy. 
 
 Probably the earliest extant addresses com¬ 
 monly called Homilies are those of Origen, who 
 (if he him.self applied the term to his discourses) 
 no doubt took it from the schools of jdiilosophv. 
 
 The word seemingly diil not pa.ss into common 
 use in Latin before the fifth century; for Victor 
 Vitensis (Persee. VandU. i. 3, p. 10, Kuinart), 
 writing towards the end of that century, speaks 
 of Augustine’s popular addresse.s, “quos Graeci 
 hornilias vocant,” as if “homilia” were still to 
 some extent strange to his Latin readers. 
 
 Augustine had himself made a similar ex¬ 
 planation of the word (in Ps. 118 [119], Pref. ; 
 Epist. 2, ad Quodt tilldtuiu). And he also sup¬ 
 plies abundant evidence that these homilies were 
 intentionally careless and colhxjuial in style. So 
 long as all are instructed (i.e says), let us not 
 fear the critics (Serin. 37, c. 10, p. 187); let 
 
Y82 
 
 HOMILY 
 
 HOMILY 
 
 not word-cavohers ask whether it is Latin, but 
 Christians whether it is true {Serm. 299, p. 
 1213); it is better that the preacher should be 
 barbarous, and his hearers understand, than the 
 preacher scholarly and the people lacking (On 
 Ps. 36, Scnn 3, p. 285); it is better that 
 critics should blame, than that the people should 
 miss the meaning (On Ps. 138, jj. 1545). 
 
 See further on preaching, and its place in the 
 liturgy, under Skrmox. 
 
 At a comparatively early j)eriod we find that 
 the custom arose of delivering the sermons of 
 others in churches where the priest was, for 
 some reason, unable to preach. Mr. Scudamore 
 (p. 290) gives the following instances:— 
 
 Augustine (De Duct. Chr. iv. 62) thinks it 
 well that those who have a good delivery, but 
 no power of composition, should adopt the 
 sermons of others. Isidore of Pelusiura (a.d. 
 412) wrote a homily to be delivered by his 
 friend Dorotheas, which was declaimed with 
 much applause (Epist. iii. 382). Cyril of Ale.v- 
 andria is said by Gennadius (De Mr, lllust. c. 
 57 in Fabricii Bblkith. EccL p. 27) to have com¬ 
 posed many homilies, which (he adds) are com¬ 
 mitted to memory by the Greek bishops for 
 delivery. The same author relates (u. s. c. 67, 
 p. 31) that Salviau of Marseilles made many 
 homilies for bishops. Some of the Dictiones 
 Sacrae of Ennodius, bishop of Ticino (a.d. 511) 
 are manifestly written to be preached by some 
 other than the writer, and two of them bear the 
 titles: “ Sent to Honoratus, bishop of Novara, 
 at the dedication of the ba.silica of the Apostles,” 
 and “ Given to Stephanus . . to be pronounced 
 by Maximus the bishop.” The second council 
 of Vaison, A.D. 529, licenses all presbyters to 
 preach in their districts, and provides (c. 2) 
 that, in case the presbyter, from sickness, is 
 unable to preach, homilies of the Holy Fathers 
 should be recited by the deacons [Deacon, p. 
 529]. Caesarius of Arles (t 542) is said (Life 
 bv Cyprian, c. 31; in Acta SS. Ben. i. 645) to 
 have composed homilies, which the bishops in 
 the Frank territory, the Gauls, Italy, or Spain, 
 to whom he sent them, might cause to be 
 preached in their churches. To read the 
 sermons of others seems indeed to have been a 
 recognised practice in the Gallican church. 
 Thus Germanus of Paris (Expositio Brevis, in 
 Migne’s Patrol. Ixxii. 91) says, that the homilies 
 of the saints which are read after the Gospel, are 
 to be taken merely as preaching, that the pastor 
 or doctor of the church may' explain in popular 
 language to the people what has been delivered 
 m the Prophecy, Epistle, or Gospel. 
 
 This constant habit of using the sermons of 
 others led in process of time to the formation of 
 collections of homilies, of which those who were 
 unable or unwilling to compose sermons might 
 avail themselves. Bede’s Homiliae de Tempore 
 are said to have been much used in this way. 
 This collection contains 33 homilies for the 
 summer half of the y'eir, 15 for the winter; 22 
 for Lent; 32 for the Saints’ Days of the summer 
 half, 16 for those of the winter half; and 
 various Sermones ad Pop'dnm. Probably several 
 other collections were in circulation before the 
 end of the eighth century. See ^labillon, Acta 
 SS. Bencd. iii. pt. 1, p. 556 ff. But in the time of 
 Charles the Great all the homiliaries in common 
 use in the Fiankish kingdom were found to 
 
 labour under great defects; the homilies which 
 they contained were in many cases written by 
 men of no authority, and they' were full of 
 errors both of style and matter. The king, 
 therefore, commissioned Paul Warnefrid, the 
 well-known historian of the Lombards, to draw 
 up a collection of homilies from the Fathers 
 which should be free from these faults. This 
 task he accomplished before the end of the 
 eighth century, probably not later than a.d. 
 780; for Charles, in the recommendation pre¬ 
 fixed to the book, does not style hinrself Im- 
 perator. In this preface (Mabillon’s Analect. 
 Vet. p. 75, ed. 1723) the king states that in 
 gratitude to God for the protection which He 
 had given him in war and peace, he had set 
 himself to promote the welfare of the church 
 and the advancement of knowledge; he refers to 
 the etforts which he had made to secure a 
 correct text of the Scriptures [Canonical 
 Books], and then proceeds to recommend the 
 homiliarium for adoption in theGallican churches, 
 which his father Pepin had already furnished 
 with chants after the Roman model (Romanae 
 traditionis cantibus). In this collection* the 
 discourses are arranged according to the series 
 of Sundays and Festivals; that form of the 
 Yulgate text is adopted in quotations from 
 Scripture which had been in common use since 
 the days of Gregory' the Great. 
 
 In the year 813 the council of Rheims (c. 15) 
 enjoined the bishops to pi-each sermons of the Holy 
 Fathers in the dialect of their several diocese.s, 
 so that all might understand, and in the same 
 year the third council of Tours (c. 17) ordered 
 that every bishop should have homilies prepared 
 containing needful admonitions for the use of 
 those under them, and that each should en¬ 
 deavour to translate the said homilies clearly 
 into the rustic-Roman or the Teutonic tongue, 
 so that all might more easily understand the 
 things spoken. To the same effect the council 
 of Mayence (c. 2), in the year 847. 
 
 The collection of Aelfric (generally' sup;>osed 
 to be the archbishop of York, 1023-1051) does 
 not fall within our period; but it was prooably 
 the successor of various other collections of 
 English homilies, some of which may have 
 existed before the time of Charles. 
 
 John Beleth (a.d. 1162) calls the Book of 
 Homilies (Div. Off. Expl. o. 60) the Homelio- 
 narias, and mentions a Sermolojus separately 
 among the books which a church ought to have. 
 
 » It was commonly attributed in the Middle Ages tx) 
 Alenin, and bears in the Cologne edition of 1530 the fol¬ 
 lowing title; “ Homiliae sen mavis sermones sive con- 
 cioncs ad populnm praestantisjiniorum ecclesiae doctorum 
 Hieronymi .\ugustini Ambrosii Gregorii Origenis Chry- 
 sostomi Bedae etc. in hunc orditiem digestae per Al- 
 ct)uinum levitam id'jne injiingente ei Carolo Mag. Rom. 
 Imp. cui a sec'etis luit.” Possibly the mistake arose 
 from the fact that Alenin revised the so-called Comes 
 Hieronymi [I.ectionakyJ ; or he may have revised the 
 work of Warnefrid. See on this point Mabillon (Ann. 
 O. S. Ben. ii. 328; and Rivet (Hist. Lit. de la France, 
 iv. 337). The Ediiio Prinops is that of Speyer, 1482. 
 The author of the ancient Life of Alcuin (Mabillon, 
 Ada N.S. Ben. Saec. iv. pt. i. p. 158) says that .\lcuin 
 collected two volumes of Homilies from the works of the 
 Fathers. if he did—which is scarcely probable when 
 Warnefrid’s collection had just been authorised—the 
 work is lost. 
 
HONEY AND MILK 
 
 HOOD 
 
 783 
 
 Durandus uses (^Rationale, vi. i. §§ 28. 32) the 
 form Homiliarius [i.e. Liber] as well as Honnelio- 
 narius. 
 
 (Biaterim’s Denkwiirdigkeitcn, iv. 3.340 ff.; 
 Wetzer and Welte’s Kircheulexicon, v. 307 ; 
 Scudamoi’e’s Notitia Rucharistica, 290 ff.; Ranke 
 in Studied und Kriti/un, 1855, ii. p. 387 ff.) [C.] 
 
 HONEY AND MILK. 1. The giving of 
 honey and milk to a person newly baptised, as a 
 symbol of the nouidshment of the renewed soul, 
 has already been mentioned [Baptism, § 66, 
 p. 1641. 
 
 2. Among the things enumerated by the 
 Apostolical Canons (c. 3), which the bishop is 
 forbidden to bring to the altar [or sanctuary], 
 are honey and milk. The 24th canon of the 
 third council of Carthage also excludes honey 
 and milk from the offerings on the altar, in that 
 it forbids anything to be placed upon it but 
 bread and wine mixed with water. But the 
 27th of the African canons, repeating this, adds: 
 “Primitiae vero, sou mel et lac quod uno die 
 solemnissimo in infantum mysterio solet offerri, 
 quamvis in altari ofi'erantur, suam tamen habeant 
 propriam benedictionem, ut a Sacramento Do- 
 minici Corporis et sanguinis distingaantur; nec 
 amplius in primitiis offeratur quam de uvis et 
 frumentis.” It is evident from this, that at the 
 time when these canons were drawn up, the 
 custom had arisen of placing on the altar the 
 honey and milk for the neophytes at Easter, and 
 (apparently) of consecrating them with the 
 bread and wine. It is this latter practice which 
 is here forbidden ; the honey and milk are to 
 have a benediction of their own, but not that 
 given to the eucharistic elements. At the end 
 of the seventh century the placing of honey and 
 milk on the altar was wholly forbidden (Cone, in 
 Trullo, c. 57; cf. c. 28). 
 
 (Bingham, Ant. XV. ii. 3; Van Espen, Jus 
 Eccl. iii. 329, 414; ed. Colon. 1777.) [C.] 
 
 HONOR. 1. The word is used specially of 
 ecclesiastical dignities or orders. Thus Optatus 
 of Milevis (c. Donat, ii. 24) says, speaking of the 
 attempts of the Donatists to annul the orders of 
 Catholic priests, “quid prodest quod vivi sunt 
 homines et occisi sunt honores a vobis?”* So 
 Augustine, Adv. Kpist. Fin-inen. ii. 11; and 
 Cone. Arelat. /T. cc. 1 and 2. In Charles the 
 Great’s Capital tries (v. 8). “ honorabilis persona ” 
 is used apparently to distinguish one in major 
 orders from “ ecclesiastici viri” who wei’e only 
 in minor orders (Ducange, s. r.). 
 
 2. The second council of Braga, a.d. 572, lays 
 down (c. 2) that no bishop making a visitation 
 of his diocese should take anything from the 
 churches besides the customary honorarium to 
 the see (praeter honorem cathediae suae) of two 
 solidi. We may j)erhaj)s discern here the germ 
 of the later use, according to which “ honor ” 
 means a benefice. [C.] 
 
 HONORATUS. (1) Bishop of Arles (t429 
 A.D.); commemorated Jan. 16 (J/arf. Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) [Demetrius (3).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 HOOD (^KOVKOvWlOV, KOVKOvXlOV, KOVKOVWa, 
 KaiTOVT^iov, &VUI Ka/xaKavxV; (xtintiuin, caputi/on^ 
 
 • Dnpinreads, “quia vivunt homines,et honore a volas 
 coclfli sunt?” 
 
 cucnllus, cuculla, cucullio, capa, cappa). Gar 
 ments intended for outdoor wear were very 
 frequently provided with a hood as a protection 
 for the head against rain or cold, which might 
 be drawn forward when need required, or might 
 be allowed to fall back upon the shoulders. 
 This would of course be ordinarily, but not 
 necessarily, attached to the dress. The lacerna, 
 for example, was generally furnished with a 
 hood or cowl (.see e.g. Martial xiv. 132, 139; and 
 cf. Juvenal vi. 117, 330 ; viii. 145) ; so also was 
 the caracalla, which was introduced into Rome 
 from Gaul, and from which the emperor Aurelius 
 Antoninus derives the name by which he is 
 ordinarily known. Jerome refers to it by way 
 of illustration in his description of the ephod of 
 the Jewish high-priest, “in modum caracal- 
 larum, sed absque cu ullis ” {L) ist. 64 ad 
 Fabiolam, § 15; vol. i. 364, ed. Vallarsi), where 
 the last words imply what was the ordinary 
 fashion of it. A hood was also the appendage of 
 the casula, which Isidore (rfe Origin, xix. 24) 
 describes as vest is cuculuUa ; of the colobion (see 
 e.g. Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma Animae, 
 i. 211; Patrol, clxxii. 607), and of the cope 
 (see e.g. Durandus, Rat. Div. Off. iii. 1. 13, who 
 speaking of the symbolism associated with the 
 phiviale, or cappa, adds “ habet etiam caputium, 
 quod est supernum gaudium ”). As regards the 
 last of these, we may take this opportunity of 
 remarking that Isidore (de Origin, xix. 31) use.s 
 the word cappa distinctly in the sense of hood, 
 “ cappa . . . quia capitis ornamentum est.” As 
 an example of this more restricted meaning of 
 the word, we may cite a remark in a letter of 
 Paulus Diaconus, in the name of abbot Theo- 
 demar, to Charlemagne afs to the dress of the 
 monks of Monte Cassmo, “ illud autem vestimen- 
 tum, quod a Gallicanis monachis cuculla dicitur, 
 et nos capam vocamus . . .” (Pauli Diac. 
 Epist. i.; Patrol, xcv. 1587). He had just be¬ 
 fore remarked that the word cuculla with them 
 meant the same dress “quam alio nomine casu- 
 1am vocamus.” A latei instance is found in the 
 records of a council of Metz (a.d. 888), which 
 enjoins the use of the cajM (in the sense of hood) 
 to monks and forbids it to laymen (can. 6, 
 Labb. ix. 414). An earlier council, that of Aix- 
 la-Chapelle (A.D. 816), had restricted the use of 
 the cuculla to monks, excluding other ecclesiastics 
 (can. 125, Labb. viii. 1395). It may be added 
 here that the congress of Gallican abbots and 
 monks, held at the same place in the following 
 year, carefully fixed the size of the cowl, “ men- 
 sura cucullae duobus con.sistat cubitis ” (cap. 21 ; 
 op. cit. 1508). With reference to the foregoing 
 prohibitions, it may be mentioned that the 
 Theodosian code had exj)ressly permitted to 
 slaves, with certain exceptions, the use of the 
 bgrrus and cucullus (Cod. Tlieodos. lib. xiv. 
 tit. 10, 1. 1). 
 
 The most prominent instance of the u.se of the 
 hood is to be found in that of the monastic cowl, 
 which is frequently referred to in various Rules, 
 and which formed a si>ecial part of the monkish 
 dress at least as early as the time of Jerome. 
 The hermit Hilarion was, according to this 
 father, buried “ in tunica cilicind et cuculla ” 
 (Vita S. Hilar, cc. 44, 46; vol. ii. 39, 40, ed. 
 Vallarsi). We meet with several allusions ^o 
 the cuculla in Jerome’s translation of the Rule of 
 1 the Egyptian Pachomius (see e.g. cc. 81, 91, 99 , 
 
784 
 
 HOPE 
 
 HOllTULANUS 
 
 op, cit. fi7, sqq.). Thus the monks in this 
 system were to h^ve two cowls, which were to 
 bear tokens indicative of the particular monas¬ 
 tery, and without his cowl and “pellicula” no 
 monk was to appear at divine service or at meals. 
 Tlie Rule of St. Benedict allowed to each monk, 
 in the case of dwellers in temperate climates, a 
 frock and hood ('McMeVa), the latter to be “in 
 hyeine villosa. in aestate pura aut vetusta ” 
 (jieg. S. Bened. c. .^>5 ; in Holstenius, Codex Rcgu- 
 htrum, pt. ii. p. 32 ; ed. Paris, 16G3). The same 
 distinction between hoods for summer and winter 
 wear is also found in the Rule of St. Fructuosus 
 (c. 4 ; op. ci^. p. 139), which allows a couple to 
 each monk, “ villata et simplex.” The Begula 
 Magistri lays down a wholesome provision as to 
 the hoods and frocks of the monks who dis¬ 
 charged the weekly office of cook (c. 81 ; op. cit. 
 p. 257). The word cucul a passed from Latin 
 into Greek, where it appears as kovkovKKiov, etc. 
 Thus, for e.xam])le, it is mentioned in connection 
 with the monastic dress by Sozomen (^Hist. 
 Kccles. iii. 14, where he remarks on the Egyptian 
 monks), Pseudo-Athanasius {d.e Yirginitate., c. 11 ; 
 vol. ii. 116, ed. Montfaucon), and by Germanus, 
 patriarch of Constantinople (ob. 740, a.d.), who 
 also appears to allude to the cross on the cowl, 
 still worn by bishops and fTTavpo(popoL in the Greek 
 church {IJis ‘ji-ia Ecclesiastica et Mystica Con 
 templatio; Patrol. Gr. xcviii. 396). The name 
 &VW Ka/jLrjXavxiov (variously spelled) is given to 
 the hood which covers the under headdress (/caro) 
 Ka/j.rjKavxiov) worn by a Greek patriarch who 
 has been a member of a monastic order (see 
 Dueange’s Glossarium Grnec. s.v. KuyeXavKiou). 
 An illustration of this may be seen in Goar’s 
 Euchologvm (p. 156; cf. also p. 518), where the 
 patriarch Bekkus is thus figured. This name, 
 however, belongs to a date subsequent to our 
 period. 
 
 We may briefly refer in passing to the hood 
 worn after baptism, which is spoken of in con¬ 
 nection with the white baptismal robe, but as 
 distinct from it (see e.g. Theodulf, bishop of 
 Orleans [ob. 821 A.D.], de Ordine Baptismi, c. 16 ; 
 Patrol, cv. 234: Jesse Ambianensis [ob. 836 
 A.D.], Epist. de Baptismo, ib. 790: Rabanus 
 Maurus, de Inst. Cler. i. 29; Patrol, cvii. 313). 
 We may pei’haps further refer to an epistle of 
 Gregory the Great, who blames one Peter, a Jew, 
 for having on the day after his baptism entered 
 a synagogue and placed there, among other 
 things, “ birrum album, quo de fonte resurgens 
 indutus fuerat ” (Epist. lib. ix. ep. 6 ; vol. iii. 
 930, ed. Bened.). For further remarks on this 
 species of hood, reference may be made to Mar- 
 tene, de Antiguis Ecclesiae Bitihus, i. 54, ed. 
 Venice, 1783; Ducange’s Glossarium Grace, s.v. 
 KovKovWa ; Goar’s Euchologion, p. 366. [R. S.] 
 
 HOPE. [Sophia.] 
 
 HOROLOGIUM (Scipo\6yiov). An office 
 book of the Greek churchj containing the daily 
 hours of prayer, and certain other forms, and 
 which therefore corresponds in a general manner, 
 though with important differences, to the Latin 
 breviary. 
 
 The contents of the Great Horologium , 
 (i}po\6yiov TO fieya) which is the fullest form, j 
 as described in the edition published at Venice 
 1856, and approved by the oecumenical patriarch, 
 
 are arranged in three generic parts (rpia ytviKii 
 fi^pr)) as follows: 
 
 1. The office for the day and night hours of 
 the church from matins to compline (airh rov 
 p.fO'ovuKTiKov rov awo^ttirrov). 
 
 This part therefore corresponds in the main to 
 the “ Psalterium cum Ordinario Officii de Tem¬ 
 pore ” of the Latin breviary. 
 
 2. The variable antiphons and hymns, by 
 whatever name they are distinguished, taken 
 from the Menology (which answers to the Roman 
 Martyrology) and from the other office books 
 which contain the variable portions of the oflice ; 
 and wffiatever is sung in it on Sundays, festivals, 
 and ordinary days. 
 
 This part therefore corresponds in some 
 measure to the “ Proprium de Tempore ” of the 
 Latin breviary. 
 
 3. Various short offices (oucoAoufliai), prayer.s, 
 and canons; independent of Xmh hours; and for 
 occasional use. into the details of these it is 
 unnecessary to enter; and would be impossible 
 without considerable explanation. 
 
 This part therefore may be compared to the 
 collection of short offices and forms of |)rayer 
 which are found at the end of the Latin bre¬ 
 viary ; though the offices contained in it are for 
 the most ])art diflerent from and more numerous 
 than those in the breviary. 
 
 The Horologion is often prefaced by the 
 calendar of the Menology., which begins with 
 September ; sometimes (as in a copy I possess, 
 printed at Venice 1523) by “the gospel ” ac¬ 
 cording to St. John: i.e. the introduction, and 
 four last chapters: and sometimes (as in another 
 copy in my pos.session, printed at Venice 1775 
 “ con Licenza de’ Superiori ”), by the Athauasian 
 creed in Greek, of course without the words 
 which imply the double procession. [H. J. H.] 
 
 HORRES, martyr at Nicaea with Aj-abia, 
 Marcus, Nimpodora, Theodora, Theusetas; com¬ 
 memorated March 13 (Mart. Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HORSE. The horse is represented attending 
 on the Orpheus shepherd [Fresco, p. 696]. As 
 a servant or companion of mankind, he occurs 
 frequently in representations of the Magi (Bottari, 
 tav. cxxxiii. &c.). Two horses act as cross-bearers 
 (tav. iii.); and horses of course occur in the 
 numerous representations of the translation of 
 Elijah which are found on sarcophagi and else¬ 
 where. The horses of Egypt are commemorated 
 in representations of Pharaoh and the Red Sea 
 (Aringhi, vol. i. p. 331), where a mounted horse¬ 
 man accompanies the chariots. In Bottari (tav. 
 clx.) there are two quadrigae, with horses deco¬ 
 rated with palm-branches or plumes. Martigny 
 states in this connexion that the horse symbol 
 has been very frequently found in the graves 
 of martyrs, quoting the titulus of the youth 
 Florens (Lupi, Dissert, elett. i. p. 258), and the 
 horses loose and grazing in the tribune of the 
 cemetery of Basilla (Bianchini Not. ad Anast. 
 Prolegomena, t. iii.). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HORSE-RACING. [Charioteers.] 
 
 HORTULANUS, the gardener of the monas¬ 
 tery. The rule of Benedict provided certain 
 deputies (solatia) to assist the cellarer (cellei- 
 arius) in the larger monasteries. These were, 
 usually, a farm bailifl’ (granatarius), a butler 
 
HOSANNA 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 785 
 
 (custos panis et vini), an ’ a gardener (hortulanus) 
 (^Reg. Bened. c. 31 ; cf. liened. Anian. Concord. 
 Regul. Ixxi. 17). [I. G. S.] 
 
 HOSANN A (or Osanna). This word, adopted 
 from the salutation of the populace at Christ’s 
 entry into Jerusalem, occurs in the Mass at the 
 end of the Sanc'tus, which ends thus : “ Hosanna 
 in cxcelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine 
 Domini. Hosanna in excelsis.” The same words 
 are found in the Greek form of the Sanctus, 
 called iiTiviKios vg-vos ; as given in the liturgies 
 of SS. Basil, Chrysostom, &c. 
 
 The word also frequently occurs in the anti¬ 
 phons and other parts of the service for Palm 
 Sunday as given in the Latin Processionals, as 
 for instance in the hymn at the Procession: 
 
 “ Israel es tu Rex, Davidis et inclyta proles, 
 
 Nomine qul in Domini, Rex benedicte, venis: 
 
 Gloria laus et honor tibi sit, Rex Christe Redemptor, 
 Cui puerile decus prompsit Osanna pium." 
 
 [H. J. H.] 
 
 HOSE A, the prophet; commemorated Jaka- 
 bit 27--Feb. 21 {Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HOSPITAL ARIUS. [Hospitium.] 
 
 HOSPITALITY. Hospitality, or a friendly 
 recej)tion and entertainment of strangers, was a 
 Christian virtue strongly inculcated in the New 
 Testament, and practised m )st liberally by the 
 early Christians, until long after the apostolic 
 times. 
 
 The feeling of Christian union and sympathy 
 was so strong, that every Christian was ready to 
 receive another as a friend and brother, although 
 previously unknown: a circumstance which ex¬ 
 cited the astonishment, and even the hatred and 
 misrepresentations of pagan opponents (Tertul. 
 Ajoo/. 39 ; de mort. perig. 13). And one 
 
 of the means by which Julian hoped to restore 
 the old Roman paganism was an imitation of this 
 Christian liberality. In a letter of his, addressed 
 to Arsaces a chief priest of Galatia, the emperor 
 urges him to take great care of strangers, and to 
 establish houses for their reception (lej/oSoxeta) 
 [Hospitals] in eveiy city, after the example of 
 the Christians (Sozomen, v. 16). 
 
 All Christian families in the earlier times 
 considered it their duty to exercise this hospi¬ 
 tality, and* Tertullian mentions it as one great 
 objection to a Christian woman marrying a 
 pagan, that she would not be able to entertain 
 any Christian strangers in her house (Tertul. ad 
 Ux. ii. 4). 
 
 But presbyters, and afterwards bishops, were 
 specially expected to excel in this virtue. Thus 
 Jerome extols the liberal hospitality of the young 
 presbyter Nepotian {Epit. Nepotiani c. 10). And 
 Chrysostom mentions it as a high pi*aise of 
 Flavian, bishop of Antioch, that his house was 
 always open to strangers and travellers, where 
 they received so kind and generous an entertain¬ 
 ment, that it might be doubted whether it ought 
 not to have been called the travellers’ home, 
 instead of his (Chrys. in Genes, i. 4). 
 
 Monasteries also were distinguished by their 
 ready hospitality to Christians coming from dis-, 
 tant parts [Hospitium], Palladius (Ihsloria Laii- 
 siaca, c. 6) describes the hospital or guest-house 
 (IfpoSox^mp) which adjoineci the church of the 
 Nitrian monk.s, in whicli pilgrims might stay, if 
 they chose, two or three years; the first week a 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 guest was not required to work ; if he stayed 
 longer, he must work in the garden, the bake¬ 
 house, or the kitchen; or if he was a person ol 
 too much consideration for menial labour, the 
 monks would give him a book to read. In our 
 monastery, says Jerome, hospitality is our delight. 
 We receive with a joyful welcome all who come 
 to us, with the exception of heretics (Jer. 
 adv. Ruff. iii.). In the Rule of Benedict 
 of Aniane, drawn up at the end of the eighth 
 century, particular directions are given for 
 the reception and entertainment of the poor 
 and of strangers. They were first to join in 
 prayer with the monks ; they then received the 
 kiss of peace ; water was bi'ought for their hands 
 and feet; and in their subsequent entertainment 
 the strict monastic rules of fasting were to be 
 relaxed in honour of the guests. There was a 
 distinct kitchen for the strangers’ use, with 
 officers to superintend it, so that the regular 
 order of the monastery might not be disturbed 
 {Concor. Reg. S. Benedict. § 60, de hospitibus 
 suscipiendis). This relaxation of strict ascetic 
 rules on occasion of hospitality to strangers is 
 also mentioned with approbation by Cassian 
 {Collat. i. 26, and xxi. 14, &c.). The council of 
 Aix in 816 (ii. c. 28), desired a place to be pre¬ 
 pared at the gate of a monastery where all 
 comers might be received. 
 
 The openhanded hospitality of Christians natu¬ 
 rally led sometimes to the practice of deceit and 
 imposture on the part of applicants; and to 
 guard against the admission of pretenders, or 
 otherwise unworthy and dangerous persons, it 
 became customary for letters of recommendation 
 [Commendatory Letters] to be required. 
 Christians going into a foreign country, or to 
 any place where they were not known, com¬ 
 monly took with them such letters from theii 
 bishop, or some other well-known Christian; 
 which letters were, if necessary, to be ex¬ 
 amined, on their presentation, by the deacons of 
 the place (Constit. Apostol. ii. 58). 
 
 In the earlier times Christians received 
 strangers into their own homes; but at a later 
 period, when such hospitality became incon¬ 
 venient, and hardly sufficient for what was 
 needed, houses were specially built or prepared 
 for the reception of strangers (^tyoSox^Ta). 
 These were established in places where travellers 
 were most likely to resort, or where Christian 
 strangers were commonly most numerous, such 
 as along the lines of travel taken by pilgrims, 
 when the practice of making pilgrimages to holy 
 places had become usual. 
 
 At these houses Christian travellers were 
 entertained according to their need, and were 
 sent forward on their way in peace. 
 
 A singular remnant of this ancient hospitality 
 still remains at St. Cross near Winchester, where 
 any one who applies at the porter’s lodge re¬ 
 ceives gratuitously a glass of beer and a slice of 
 bread. [G. A. J.] 
 
 HOSPITATjS. 1. General account of Hospi¬ 
 tals. —The remarkable outflowing of benevolence 
 and sympathy with others, which marked the 
 very commencement of Christianity, led imme¬ 
 diately to a care for the poor, especially in times 
 of sickness and distress. 
 
 From the earliest times the funds of the church 
 were applied to the maintenance of widows 
 
786 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 and orphans, sick and poor, prisoners and so¬ 
 journers (Justin Martyr, Apol. I. c. 67). It 
 was the special duty of the deacons and dea¬ 
 conesses to attend to the sick at their own 
 houses {Constit. Apost. iii. 19, and Epiphan. 
 Fidei Expos. 21). But all Christians, particu 
 larlv the women who had the most leisure for 
 this purpose, considered it incumbent on them 
 to visit and relieve the sick poor (^Epist. ad 
 Zen. et Reren. c. 17, in Justin Martyr’s Works., 
 p. 416 ; Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 4). And this they 
 did without being deterred by any fear of infec¬ 
 tion in the case of plagues or other contagious 
 di.seases; of which a notable example, among 
 many others, was seen in the heroic conduct 
 of the Christians at Alexandria during the great 
 plague there in the time of the emperor Gal- 
 licnus (a.d. 260-268). See the account given in 
 Eusebius {Hist. Eccles. viii. 22). 
 
 Public hospitals for the reception of the sick, 
 the needy, and the stranger, began to be erected 
 as soon as Cliristianity, being freed from per¬ 
 secution, could display its natural tendencies 
 without danger or restriction. Houses were set 
 apart for the reception of travellers or sojourners 
 (|e»'o5oxem), for the poor (iTTOJXO'^ptxpi^a.'), for 
 orphans (op^ai/oTpocpeta), for foundlings ()8pe</>o- 
 rpoepeta), and for the aged {yepouTOKOfida), as 
 well as for the sick ( vocroKoasTa ). [Hospitality, 
 Exposing or Children, Foundlings.] Several 
 of these objects were often combined in one esta¬ 
 blishment, so that it is most convenient to treat 
 of them under one head. 
 
 Epiphanius (^Haeres. 75, c. 1) mentions that 
 Aerius, afterwards known as a heretic, about 
 the middle of the 4th century was made by the 
 bishop Eustathius superintendent of the hospital 
 (|€j/o5oxftop. says Epiphanius, called in Pontus 
 TTTuxoTpofpeiov) at Sebaste in Pontus. It does 
 not appear that the hospital was then first esta¬ 
 blished, and Epiphanius mentions it as a common 
 custom for bishops of the church to provide for 
 the maimed and infirm by setting up such esta¬ 
 blishments. 
 
 The most complete hospital of which we have 
 any account in antiquity was built by Basil the 
 Great, soon after his accession to the see, near 
 Caesarea in Pontus. St. Basil, defending himself 
 from the charge of seeking to gain unJue in¬ 
 fluence, which had been brought against him 
 before the prefect of the place, says (^Epist. 94 
 [al. 372] ad ffeliam), “Whom do we injure, in 
 building lodgings (Karaywyia) for the strangers 
 who stay with us in passing through, and for 
 those who need attendance {depaireias) in conse¬ 
 quence of infirmity ? What, in supplying neces¬ 
 sary comfort for these persons, nurses, medical 
 attendants, means of conveying them (to 
 yuiTocpopa),^ and persons to take charge of them 
 in removal (tous TrapoTre^Troi/Tas) ? And these 
 things must of necessitv carry with them handi- 
 crafts, both such as are required for sustenance 
 and such as conduce to decorum, and these again 
 require workshops.” He also (Epist. 142 [al. 374]) 
 begs an official of the empire to exempt his poor- 
 house from state taxation, and speaks (^Epist. 143 
 [al. 428]) of its being managed by a chorepiscopus. 
 St. Basil’s hospital is thus spoken of by Gregory of 
 Nazianzus (who had himself seen it) in his pane¬ 
 gyric on the saint (^Orat. 20, p. 359, ed. Colon. 
 
 1690). “ Go forth a little from the city, and 
 
 behold the new city, the treasure-house of godli¬ 
 ness .... in which the superfluities of wealth 
 —nay, even things not superfluous—have been 
 laid up in store at his exhortation; ... in 
 which disease is investigated (^^iKoaocpilrai) and 
 sympathy proved . . . We have no longer to 
 look on the fearful and pitiable sight of men like 
 corpses before death, with the greater part of 
 their limbs dead [from leprosy], driven from 
 cities, from dwellings, from public places, from 
 water-courses . . . Basil it was more than any 
 one who persuaded those who are men not to 
 scorn men, nor to dishonour Christ the he<ad of 
 all by their inhumanity towards human beings.” 
 From this it appears that at least a portion of 
 St. Basil’s hospital was for lepers. Sozomen, 
 again (AT. E. vi. 34) speaks of Prapidius having 
 been principal of this “ Basiliad, that most 
 famous lodging for the poor founded by Basil, 
 from whom it received the appellation which it 
 still retains.” Of St. Chrysostom, too, Palladius 
 ( Vita Chrys. p. 19, ed. Montfaucon) relates that 
 he diverted the superfluous expenses of his see to 
 the maintenance of the hospital {voaoKO/xeiou'), 
 and that as the need ir.'’reased he founded several, 
 over which he set two presbyters of high cha¬ 
 racter ; he engaged fprther physicians and cooks, 
 and kind unmarried attendants to work under 
 them. St. Chrysostom himself (//o/n. 66 [al. 67] 
 in Matt.) pointing triumphantly to the large- 
 handed bounty of the church, says, “ consider 
 how many widows, how many virgins, the church 
 sustains day by day ; the number on the roll is 
 not less than three thousand [in Constantinople]. 
 And she provides also for those who are in dis¬ 
 tress in the guest-house; for those who are 
 maimed in body; and yet her substance is not 
 diminished.” It is evident that a regular system 
 of providing for the poor in connexion with the 
 church was organised in the middle of the fifth 
 century; for the council of Chalcedon (c. 3) 
 especially recognises the care of widows and 
 orphans, and the needy generally as one of the 
 justifications for a cleric’s engaging in secular 
 affairs I^Koa/jLiKa] SioiKpcfis), if he does it at the 
 command of his bishop. 
 
 The emperor Julian recognised the importance 
 of institutions such as those of St. Basjl; “ the.se 
 impious Galilaeans,” says he {Fragment, p. 305, 
 quoted by Rheinwald) “ give themselves to this 
 kind of humanity ; as men allure children with a 
 cake, so they, starting from what they call love 
 and entertaining and serving of tables, bring in 
 converts to their impiety ; ” and again he bids 
 Arsacius {Epist. 49, u. s.), “ establish abundance of 
 hospitals in every city, that our kindness may be 
 enjoyed by strangers, not only of our own people, 
 but of others who are in need.” 
 
 Placilla, the wife of Theodosius the Great, 
 devoted herself much to the care of the sick. 
 She cared, says Theodoret {Hist. Eccl. v. 19), for 
 those who were maimed and injured, not devolv- 
 j ing the charge of them on subordinates, but 
 attending to them personally, going into the 
 places where they were received (ras tovtuv 
 Karayccyds) and supplying their several wants. 
 So also, making the round of the hospitals 
 {^ftfcovas) of the churches, she attended on those 
 who were confined to bed. herself handling the 
 pots and tasting the broth, bringing bowls, 
 breaking bread, and oflering mouthfuls, washing 
 
 • Compiire Xenoph. Cyrop . vi. 2, 34. 
 
HOSPITALS 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 787 
 
 cups, aud performing other services which are 
 generally done hy domestics. 
 
 Samson of Constantinople received the name of 
 “ Xenodochus ” from his devotion to the care of 
 hospitals and asylums, and is said to have per¬ 
 suaded the emperor .Justinian to give up his own 
 palace for the purposes of a xenodochion (see the 
 Byzantine Menuea, June 27). Procopius how¬ 
 ever {De Aedif. Just. i. 2) gives a somewhat 
 different account of the matter. There was, he 
 says, a hospital for the sick and infirm, built in 
 former years by the j)ious care of one Samson, of 
 which there were in Justinian’s time some re¬ 
 mains in a ruinous condition. This the emperor 
 restored, decorated, and amplified in the most 
 liberal manner. He increased, says Procopius, 
 both the number of wards (ot/ctSta)V, domuncu- 
 larum) and the annual revenue. Whether by the 
 ex])ression oIkiSiwv we are to understand detached 
 buildings, or rooms, is doubtful ; if the former, 
 Justinian’s hospital, like that of Basil previously 
 described, would resemble a little town, a place 
 of many buildings within a wall. Justinian fur¬ 
 ther built, in concert with Theodora, two other 
 hospitals {^evcouas). Of the empress Eudocia it 
 is related ( Vita Euth;imii, c. 16, in Acta S8. 
 January, vol. ii. p 617) that she built many 
 churches, gerontocomia, ptochotrophia, and mon¬ 
 asteries. vShe is said also to have prepared food 
 for the sick with her own hands. 
 
 It is not necessary to go through the long list 
 of pious foundations for the benefit of the sick 
 which we meet with in the history of the church. 
 But it may be mentioned as an instance of the 
 general recognition of the duty of providing for 
 sick and infirm brethren, that by the so-called 
 Arabic canons of Nicaea the bishop was expressly 
 bound, in virtue of his office, to institute hos¬ 
 pitals. Canon 70. (Hardouin, Concilia, i. 475) 
 prescribes, that in every city a place should be 
 set apart for strangers, sick, and poor, which 
 should be called a xenodochium ; and that the 
 bishop should select one of the monks of the 
 desert, himself a foreigner, far from home and 
 family, and a man of iiitegi’ity, to take charge of - 
 the hospital, to procure for it beds and whatever 
 may be necessary for the sick and poor; and that 
 if the ju'operty of the hospital be inadequate, he 
 should make a collection from the Christians, 
 according to their several means, and Avith this 
 provision sustain the brethren Avho are strangers, 
 poor, or sick, as each may have need. 
 
 Most of these instances belong to the Eastern 
 church ; but the Western church was not behind 
 in the good work. Paulinus of Nola has left us 
 (Poem. XX. 114) a brief description of the hospital 
 which he himself built, which appears to have 
 been rather for the reception of the poor and old 
 than of the sick, as such : 
 
 “ Dispositi trino per lonpra sedilia coetu 
 Obstrepuere senes, inopuni mi.serabile vulgus, 
 
 Et socio canae rcsidentes agmine matres.” 
 
 This description suggests long wards, proAuded 
 with “sedilia”—perhaps “berths,” or divans 
 running along the wall—in Avhich the inmates 
 Avere separated into three classes—poor, old 
 men, and old Avomen. 
 
 Jerome, in a letter to Pammachius (Epist. 66 
 [al. 26], c. 11, Avritten, according to Vallarsi, 
 A.D. 387) speaks of a xenodochium Avhich the 
 latter had built in the Portus Romanus, of 
 
 which he (Jerome) had just heard. This was 
 probably attended to by Pammacdiius himself 
 and the monks for Avhom he had ))rovided a con¬ 
 vent in the neighbourhood. Jerome himself 
 founded a hospital for the reception of the sick 
 and the stranger in Bethlehem ; finding his 
 means insufficient to finish it, he sent his brother 
 Paulinianus (it. S. c. 14) to sell his remaining pro¬ 
 perty in his native country, to jirovide money for 
 its completion. Fabiola, the friend of Jerome, also 
 founded a hospital at Rome. Having been 
 obliged to obtain a divorce from her first husband 
 on account of his intolerable profligacy, she 
 married another before his death. On becoming 
 a Avidow she learned that according to church 
 law, of which she had been jireviously ignorant 
 (“ nec evangelii vigorem noverat,” says Jerome 
 Ep. 77 [al. 30], c. 3), it Avas unlaAvful for her 
 to have married again during her first husband’s 
 life, however justly she had .se))arated from him. 
 Upon this she submitted to a humiliating pen¬ 
 ance ; and afterwards devoted all her jiroperty 
 to charitable purposes, and among other good 
 Avorks built a hospital, where she ministered to 
 the sick Avith her own hands (i6. c. 6). 
 
 Jerome remarks that Eabiola Avas the first 
 person Avho founded a hospital (prima omnium 
 voaoKopeiou instituit). But this perhaps only 
 means the first hospital in Rome or Italy. And 
 the fact that Jerome uses the Greek Avord 
 uo(TOKope7ov, and not the Latin valetudinarium, 
 tends to confirm the account which points to the 
 Eastern church as the first to exhibit such acts 
 of benevolence. 
 
 Rome itself had an ancient fame for its care of 
 the sick and poor (Prudentius, Peristeph. ii. 
 140 tf.). Its hospitals were frequently the ob¬ 
 jects of the munificence of the po])es. Anastasius 
 (Vitae Pontt. 134 a, ed. Muratori) tells us of 
 Pelagius II. (578-590), that he caused his oavu 
 house to be made a refuge for the poor and 
 aged (ptochium pauperum et senum). His suc¬ 
 cessor, Gregory the Great (Dialogus, iii. 35, 
 p. 243) seems to say that he had taken Amantius 
 from his OAvn dAvelling to pass some days in the 
 infirmary; and John the Deacon relates of him 
 that he set over the several hospitals careful and 
 conscientious men, Avho had to submit their 
 accounts to himself, that the beneficence of the 
 people towards those institutions might not be 
 checked by mismanagement of the funds. He 
 also proA'ided Probus Avith money to build a 
 xenodochium on a large scale at Jerusalem, and 
 supported it by an annual subvention (Vita 
 Greg. ii. 7). Other hospitals in Rome of an 
 early date are knoAvn to us at least by name. 
 Pope Symmachus (498-514) is said by Ado 
 (Ckronicon, in Migne’s Patrol, cxxiii. 106 b) to 
 have founded or restored three hospitals (pau- 
 peribus habitacula) knoAvn by the names of St. 
 Peter, St. Paul, and St. Laurence respectively. 
 Stephen III. (752—757) is said by Anastasius 
 ( Vitae Pontiff, p. 165, c. D.) to haA’e restored four 
 xenodochia and founded two others, Avhich Avere 
 placed in the charge of the regionary deacons of 
 St. Maria and St. Sih’ester; and Adrian I. 
 (772-795, ih. p. 190, D ) to haA'e founded three 
 Diaconiae (see the Avord) “ foris portam Beati 
 Apostolorum Principis.” 
 
 Nor Avas it only in Rome that such institutions 
 were found. In Gaul they e-xisted at any rate 
 before the death of St, Remi (^532), if Ave may 
 
 3 E 
 
788 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 HOSPITALS 
 
 trust Flodoard. The saint is made (^Hist. Be- 
 mens. i. 18) to entreat his successors to preserve 
 inviolate his statutes for the management of his 
 poor-houses (ptochia), coenobia, martyria, dia- 
 coniae and xenodochia, as he had done those of his 
 predecessors —an expression which implies that 
 some at least of these foundations existed before 
 St. Remi came to the see of Reims before 496. 
 The fifth council of Orleans, a.d. 549, places (c. 
 13) the j)ro[)erty of xenodochia on the same foot¬ 
 ing, with regard to alienation, as that of churches 
 and monasteries ; and (c. 15) makes special pro¬ 
 vision for the magnificent hospital which, under 
 the influence of its bishop Sacerdos, Childebert 
 with his queen Ultragotha had founded in Lyons, 
 forbidding the bishop of that city to merge any 
 of its propei’ty in that of his church, or to dimi¬ 
 nish its privileges in any way, and enjoining him 
 to take care that active and God-fearing super¬ 
 intendents (praepositi) be always appointed, and 
 that the care of the sick and the entertainment 
 of strangers be always maintained according to 
 the statutes. 
 
 We do not trace the existence of hospitals in 
 the African fathers or councils. In Victor’s 
 account of the Vandal persecution (i. 8), we find 
 that Deogratias bishop of Carthage, a.d. 455, 
 turned two churches into hospitals for the re¬ 
 ception of the wretched captives who were poured 
 on the African shores from Italy; but this was 
 a temporary expedient, such as has often been 
 adopted in times of calamity. But we are not 
 to suppose that the sick of the African church 
 were ill-cared for ; the houses of the bisihops, the 
 clergy and the monks often served for the recep¬ 
 tion of the sick. Augustine (Possidius, Vita 
 Aug. cc. 22, 23) exercised constant care for the 
 sick and poor, and (^Itegnla, ad Servos Dei, c. 5) 
 gives directions to monks as to their reception 
 and treatment of the sick and infirm ; directions 
 in which he seems to contemplate the case not 
 only of feeble members of the monastic body, but 
 of sick persons brought in from without. 
 
 In the Teutonic countries, we have of course 
 no accounts of hospitals of so early a date as 
 those which have been mentioned in Italy and 
 Gaul. Chrodegang, however (^Segula, c. 45, in 
 Migne’s Patrol. 89, 1076), recommends that a 
 guest-room (hospitale) should be formed in a 
 suitable place, convenient for the brothers to 
 visit; and desires the brothers of his Rule, even 
 if they cannot maintain a hospital at other 
 times, at least in Lent to wash the feet of the 
 poor in a hospital or guest-room. The famous 
 Alcuin at a somewhat later date also warned the 
 bishops of the great nece.ssity there was for form¬ 
 ing hospitals, and probably also directed the at¬ 
 tention of his patron Charles the Great to the 
 same subject. To Eanbald, as soon as he entered 
 on his see, Alcuin wrote urging him to establish 
 “ xenodochia, id est, hospitalia ” (^Epist. 56, ad 
 Eanh., Ale. 0pp. i. 65) in which the poor and the 
 strangers might be received. In accordance with 
 the Rule of Chrodegang and the wish of Alcuin, 
 the synod of Aix, in the year 816, ordered (c. 28) 
 that every ecclesiastical foundation, whether ca¬ 
 nonical or monastic, should provide accommoda¬ 
 tion for the poor, the sick, the widows, and the 
 strangers. The poor-house was to be placed near 
 the church, and a priest was to be its superin¬ 
 tendent ; the infirmary was to be within the con¬ 
 sent, as were also the wards for the widows and 
 
 poor maidens, though probably in a building sepa¬ 
 rate from that which contained the cells of the 
 canons or monks {Cone. Germ. i. 539). The 
 Frankish Capitularies also take order for the 
 maintenance of the j)oor and sick. Thus it is 
 ordered (i. c. 70, a.d. 789) that “ hospites, pere- 
 grini et pauperes ” have the due entertainment 
 in various places to which they are entitled by 
 the canons ; a passage in which “ peregrini ” are 
 probably monks from other hou.ses, “hospites” ai e 
 lay guests. And again (ii. c. 29) they bring xeno¬ 
 dochia, ptochotro[)liia, nosocomia, orphanotro- 
 phia, gerontocomia, and brephotroj^hia under the 
 same law as churches an I monasteries with re¬ 
 gard to the non-alienation of their property. 
 
 The establishment of many of the hospitals 
 which existed in the uorthei-n countries in the 
 8th and 9th centuries is due to the Irish mis¬ 
 sionaries, who cared for the bodies as well as the 
 souls of the peo])le among whom they preached. 
 Hence they received the name of “ Hospitalia 
 Scotorum,” an expression found both in the 
 canons of Meaux (C. Meldense, c. 40), and in the 
 petition of the bishops of the provinces of Reims 
 and Rouen to Lewis the Pious (c. 10, Baluze, CojOiV. 
 Franc.i\. 111). These hospitals were closely con¬ 
 nected with the monasteries founded by the .same 
 missionaries. Gretser {Ad Vit. S. Willibaldi, 
 lib. i. observ. 19 ; Grets. Opera., x. 778) enume¬ 
 rates some of the hospitals of their foundation. 
 
 2. Administration of Hospitals. —In the first 
 instance, the hospitals, like other institutions of 
 the church, were under the immediate supei*- 
 intendence of the bishops. In many cases, as we 
 have seen, they were founded by the bishops 
 themselves from the funds placed at their dis¬ 
 posal by the church, and so the over.sight of 
 them naturally fell to the founder and his suc¬ 
 cessors. And even when endowed by private 
 persons, such foundation was regarded as of the 
 nature of alm.s, and so given into the hands of 
 those who were, directly or indirectly, the 
 universal almoners. The property of hospitals was 
 regarded (as has been shewn above) by kings and 
 rulers as being of the same kind as the property 
 of the church. And the attendants on the sick 
 were-, at least in very many cases, drawn from 
 the neighbouring monasteries or houses of canons. 
 When the duty was laid upon bishops of pro¬ 
 viding, so far as in them lay, food and clothing 
 for those who in con.sequence of infirmity were 
 unable to earn their own living {Cone. Aurel. I. 
 c. 16), it naturally followed that they super¬ 
 intended and directed the establishments for at¬ 
 taining this end. 
 
 It must however have been from the first 
 impossible for a much-occupied bishop to give 
 personal attention to all the details of a large 
 hospital, and therefore other clerics wei’e em¬ 
 ployed under him on this behalf. We have seen 
 already that Aerius was a hospltal-supei*intendent 
 under his bishop Eustathius; and as early as 
 the cmincil of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, we find the 
 clerics attached to the poor-houses (tJJi/ TTroix^t- 
 (t3v) placed on the same footing as those of the 
 monasteries and martyr-churches, and admonished 
 to obey their bishops according to the ti-adition 
 of the fathers (c. 8), a passage which probably 
 indicates that they had been disposed to assert 
 
 b It mu.-t be borne in mind that by “ Scoti ” at this 
 period we are to understmd natives of Ireland, 
 
HOSPITALS 
 
 HOSPITIUM 
 
 789 
 
 too great independence. The legislation of Jus¬ 
 tinian provided carefully for the due administra¬ 
 tion of hospitals. Thus {Codex, 1. 42, § 9, De 
 Episcopii et Clericis) it is jirovided that prefects 
 of hospitals (of whatever kind) shall be appointed 
 according to the judgment and with the approval 
 of the bishop of the place ; and again (/6. 1. 46, 
 § 8) bishops are enjoined not to administer the 
 hospitals within their dioceses personally, but 
 to appoint su))erintendents, and to act themselves 
 as visitors and auditors, in case of need removing 
 the otHcials. The same law desires that men be 
 appointed to such offices who have before their 
 eyes the fear of God and of the dreadful day of 
 judgment. The same code (1. 28) makes the 
 bishop of the diocese the executor of a will 
 containing a bequest for pious uses, where no 
 executor has been named in the will itself r and 
 desires him (1. 49) in cases where the testator 
 has not designated special objects of his bounty, 
 to apj)lv the bequest to the benefit of the hospital 
 of the city, or to the poorest hospital, where there 
 were more than one. In deciding the question, 
 which is poorest, he is to take counsel with his 
 clergv. But in case there be no hospital (xenon) 
 ill the citv, then the oeconomus or the bishop is 
 to take the bequest, and apply it for the benefit 
 of the poor. In case the bishop is negligent in 
 discharging this duty, then the metropolitan of 
 the province or the archbishop of the diocese 
 [see Diocesb] may enquire into the matter and 
 compel the bishop to act. Or (1. 46, § 6) any 
 inhabitant of the city interested in the matter 
 may compel the carrying out of the will. 
 
 That in the time of Gregory the Great the 
 xeuodochia were under the jurisdiction of the 
 bishop is clear from several passages in his 
 letters. Thus {Epist. iv. 27). he desires Janua- 
 rius, bishop of Cagliari, to take care that the 
 xenodochi render their accounts to him ; and 
 begs him not to let the hospitals fall to decay 
 by his neglect; and he desires that men of proved 
 integrity may be appointed prefects of xenodo- 
 ohia, and these only ecclesiastics (religiosi), who 
 cannot be harassed by lay tribunals. To those 
 whom he himself had appointed prefects of dia- 
 coniae or xenodochia he gave full power over the 
 funds, expressly exempting them from rendering 
 an account to any one (Joan, Diaconus, Vita Greg, 
 ii. c. 51). 
 
 The bishops of the provinces of Reims and 
 Rouen, in their petition to Lewis the Pious, son 
 of Charles the Great, beg that the rectors of 
 monasteries and xenodochia be made subject to 
 the authority of their bishops (e. 10, in Baluze 
 Capit. Franc, ii. 111). 
 
 3. Dedication .—Martigny (referring to Werns- 
 dorf De Columbae Simulacris) says that hospitals 
 were in ancient times commonly dedicated to the 
 Holy Spirit, which was represented under the 
 form of a dove, either on the fa<,ade, or on some 
 other conspicuous part of the building. The 
 principal hospital in Rome bears this designation, 
 and has borne it from a very remote period 
 (Fantucci, Tr dt. di tutte le opere pie neW alma 
 cittci di Eoma, c. 1, quoted by Martigny). 
 
 (Thomassin, Vetus et Xova Eccl. Disciplina, 
 P. I. lib. ii. c. 89 ; Van Espen, ./us Ecclesiasticum, 
 P. II. sec. iv. tit. 6 ; Binterim, Denkviirdijkeiten, 
 Bd. VI. Th. iii. p, 32 tf.; Rheinwald, Kirchlic/ie 
 y.rchdologie, § 41, p. 103 tf.; Martigny, Diet, des 
 AnLiq. Chre'e. s. v. Hopitaux.') [G. A. J. and C.] 
 
 HOSPITIUjM (also Ilospitale). One of the 
 characteristics, perhaps the most commend¬ 
 able, of monasticism, was its unvarying hos 
 pitality to all comers. None were to be re¬ 
 fused admission; all were to be made welcome 
 (Bened. lieg. c. 53); especially monks, clergy, 
 poor, and foreigners {Iteg. Pachom. c. 51 ; 
 Isidor. Peg. c. 23; Mart, ad Bened. Peg. c. 53). 
 No questions were to be asked {Peg. Pair. c. 4) 
 unless by the abbat’s order {Pi g. Tarnat. c. 7.) 
 Even passing wayfarers were to be pressed to eat 
 before going on; if they could not wait for the 
 usual hour, the dinner was to be served three 
 hours sooner than usual ; or, if they could not 
 stay even so long, they were to have their meal 
 separately {Peg. Mag. c. 72). Everything was 
 to be done in courtesy, and for the comfort of 
 the guests. The prior (or .some others of the 
 brethren), was to meet them, and, after a few 
 words of prayer by way of salutation, as well as bv 
 way of precaution against any Satanic illusion, 
 was to give and receive the kiss of peace ; on their 
 arriving and departing he was to make obeisance 
 to them, as recognising in them a visit from the 
 Saviour (Bened. Peg. c. 53). He was to lead 
 them straightway on arrival to the oratory or 
 sacristy, (usually in Benedictine monasteries 
 close to the entrance-gate), and after praying 
 together (cf. Peg. Pachom. c. 51) awhile, was to 
 sit with them, reading aloud, first some holy 
 book (lex divina), the Scriptures especially 
 (Mart. luc. cit.), and then, these primary duties 
 attended to, conversing amicably (“ Omnis 
 humanitas praebenda,” Bened. Peg. v. s.) The 
 abbat himself was to bring water, this was to be 
 done at bedtime, and the footsore were to be 
 rubbed with oil, according to the rule (c. 10) of 
 Fructuosus, and with certain brethren in rota¬ 
 tion (so Martene understands “ omnis congre- 
 gatio ”) was to wash the feet of all without 
 distinction, repeating a verse of the Psalms 
 (Bened. Reg. v. s.). In compliment to the 
 guests, the prior, though not the other monks, 
 was excused from observing a fast day, unless one 
 of special obligation (i6.). If sick or delicate, 
 some dainties (“ pulmentaria ”) were to be pro¬ 
 vided for them (Fruct. Peg. c. 10). Nor were 
 the guests to leave the monastery empty-handed; 
 for the journey, the best that the monastery 
 could afford was to be supplied as a parting gift 
 (viaticum). 
 
 In the annals of the monastery of Micy (ilici- 
 anum), it is recorded in praise of an abbat in the 
 6th century, that, though the monastery was then 
 very poor, its guests were always regaled with 
 wine, without being allowed to see that the 
 brethren were drinking only water (Mab. 
 A. A. 0. S. B. I. ad fin.). Caesarius of Arles is 
 similarly extolled by his biographer for keeping 
 oj)en house as abbat ( Vit. Cues. Arelat. i. 37, ap. 
 Mab. i6.). 
 
 Such hospitality was sure to be largely used 
 in days when travelling was so difficult and so 
 dangerous. Benedict wisely provides for a con¬ 
 stant influx of strangers (“ nunquam desunt 
 monasterio,” Peg. c. 53). Nowhere indeed in 
 his rule is its tenderness and forethought more 
 remarkable than about the reception of guests. 
 In some of these arrangements he had been anti¬ 
 cipated. Cassian speaks of one of the older 
 monks being stationed by the abbat, with the 
 I advice of the seniors, near the entrance of the 
 
700 
 
 HOSPITIUM 
 
 HOST 
 
 monastery, to receive strangers as they arrived 
 (Cass, [iistit. iv. 7). Benedict placed them 
 under the general supervision of the cellarer, or 
 house-steward {ileg. c. 81), and his deputies. Sub¬ 
 sequently, a distinct officer was created, the 
 “ hospitalarius,” corresponding to the eastern 
 “ |fj/o5dxos ” (Mart, ad loc. cit. Alte.serr. .ds- 
 ceticon, ix. 9; Du Cange, s. v v.), whose duties, 
 however, did not extend to the refectory. One 
 of the brethren, selected as a specially God¬ 
 fearing man (“ Cujus aliimam timor dei habeat ”) 
 was aj>pointed by Benedict to look after the 
 guests’ dormitory (“ cella hospitum ”) (Bened. 
 lieg. c. 58) (usually on the east side of the Bene¬ 
 dictine quadrangle, over the “ hospitium ” ; 
 
 and two others were told off annually for the 
 guests’ kitchen, which adjoined the abbat’s 
 kitchen (usually on the south side of the quad¬ 
 rangle ® with a window between (Mart. ad. loc.) ; 
 these officials were to have extra assistance, as 
 occasion required (*5.). Every precaution was 
 taken, lest the influx of strangers should either 
 disturb the placidity of the “ house of God” (i6.), 
 or lead to the propagation of silly rumours about 
 it (i’5.). Their sitting-room, dormitory, and 
 kitchen were all to be separate from those of the 
 monks («6. cf. c. 56). None of the monks, unless 
 expressly ordered, might exchange even in pa.ssing 
 a word with a guest, except to ask a ble.ssing 
 (i6. cf. Heg. Mac. c. 8). Nor were the guests to 
 be trusted to themselves without supervision. 
 Care was to be taken that the monks’ wallets 
 were not left about in the guests’ dormitory; and 
 two of the monks, whose turn it was to help in 
 the kitchen and otherwise for the week (“ heb- 
 doniadarii ”), were to keep close to the guests 
 night and day (^Reg. Mag. c. 79). It is not clear 
 whether Benedict intended the guests to be 
 entertained in the refectory at a separate table 
 with the abbat, or with him in a separate table 
 (Bened. Reg. c. 56); Martene thinks in the re¬ 
 fectory (^Reg. Comment, ad loc. cit.; cf. Cone. 
 Aquisgr. c. 27). The abbat on these occa¬ 
 sions might invite a few of the brethren to his 
 table, leaving the charge of the rest to the prior, 
 and might make some addition to the ordinary 
 fare (Bened. Reg. c. 56 ; Mart, ad l.c. ; Mab. Ann. 
 0. S. B. V. xiii.). It was strictly forbidden by 
 the council of Saragossa, a.d. 691, for lay persons 
 to be lodged in the quadrangle of the monastery 
 (“ intra claustra ”), even with the abbat’s special 
 permission, lest contact with them should 
 demoralise the brethren or give rise to scandals ; 
 they were to be lodged in a separate house 
 wdthin the precincts (intra septa) (Cone. Caesar- 
 august. A.D. 691; cf. Mab. Ann. 0, S. B. xviii. 
 
 XV.) 
 
 Benedict orders, that monks coming from 
 another country (peregrini) may, if orderly, pro¬ 
 long their stay in the monastery (^Reg. c. 61) for 
 one, two, or even three years (Mart. Reg. Com¬ 
 ment. 1. c.); and that any suggestions which 
 they make for its better management are to be 
 welcomed as providential (Bened. Reg. ib.). They 
 are then either to be dismissed kindly 
 (“ honeste ”) or formally admitted, not, how'ever, 
 unless they bring commendatory letters from 
 their former abbat, or otherwise gjve proof of his 
 consent. Once admitted, they may be promoted 
 without delay at the abbat’s discretion, to places 
 
 * Whitaker’s History of Whalley, 4th ed. 1874, p. 124. 
 
 of authority ; as may clergy similarly admitted 
 (lb.). Laymen, willing to stay on, are either to 
 take the vow, or to make themselves useful to the 
 monastery in some sort of work in return for 
 board and lodging ( Reg. Mag. c. 79). 
 
 It was part of the discipline of candidates for 
 the novitiate to wait on the guests in their sit¬ 
 ting-room (“ cella hospitum,” or “ hospitium ”), 
 according to the rule of Benedict, for some days 
 (Reg. c. 58), or, according to some later rules, 
 for three months (Isid. Reg. c. 5 ; Fruct. Reg. c. 
 21; Menard ad Bened. Anian. Conojrd. Regid. 
 Ixii.) [see Novice]. 
 
 History shows how' the simple and frugal hos¬ 
 pitality enjoined by Benedict and monastic law- 
 makei's degenerated in time into luxury and dis¬ 
 play, burdensome to the revenues of the monas¬ 
 teries, demoralising to their inmates, and one of 
 the proximate causes of their fall. [1. G.- S.] 
 
 HOST, from the Latin Hostia, a victim. It 
 w'as applied to sacrifices, or ofierings of various 
 kinds in the ecclesiastical language ot' the West. 
 E.g. in the Vulgate version of Horn. xii. 1, we 
 have “ Ut exhibeatis corpora vestrar hostiam ” 
 (E. V. sacrifice) “ viventem, sanctam, Deo placen- 
 tem, rationabile obsequium vestrum:” and 
 similarly in the Missale Gothicum, the people are 
 bid to pray that God “ may cleanse the hearts of 
 all the oflerers unto (i.e. that they may become) 
 a sacrifice (hostiam) of sanctification, reason¬ 
 able and w’ell-pleasing unto Himself” (Liturg. 
 Gall, ed Mabill. p. 237). In the Vulgate of 
 Phil. iv.*18, it is used of almsgiving, “Hostiam 
 acceptam, placentem Deo.” Christ, the one true 
 victim, is called hostia, as in Eph. v. 2, “ Tra- 
 didit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hos¬ 
 tiam.” Similarly Heb. x. 12 : “ Unam pro nobis 
 offerens hostiam.” Compare Heb. ix. 26. This 
 is frequent in the old Latin liturgies. Thus in 
 the Gothic Missal, “ Suppliant to Thee who wast 
 slain a victim (hostia) for the salvation of the 
 world, we pray, &c.” (Lit. Gall. p. 285); and 
 “Whom Thou didst will to be delivered up a 
 sacrifice (hostiam) for us ” (ibid. p. 257 ; comp, 
 p. 198). In the following example the church 
 commemorates and pleads that sacrifice :—“ We 
 offer unto thee, 0 God, an immaculate victim 
 (hostiam), w'hom the maternal womb brought 
 forth without defilement to virginity ” (Missale 
 iWozar. Leslie, p. 39). As the thank-offering 
 (Eucharist) of the Mosaic law' had been called 
 hostia laudis (Ps. cxvi. 17), or hostia gratiarum 
 (Lev. vi. 13), so was the Christian thank-offer¬ 
 ing, the sacramental commemoration of the death 
 of Christ. E.g. “Receive w'e beseech thee, 0 
 Lord, the sacrifice (hostiam) of propitiation and 
 praise, and these oblations of Thy servants” 
 (i/(ss. Goth. u. s. p. 253). 
 
 As the w'ord properly expresses a concrete 
 notion, it would readily pass from the last mean¬ 
 ing to attach itself to the material symbols 
 offered in the rite. In the Missale Gothkum, in 
 a prayer said after the conseci-ation, we read, 
 “ We offer unto thee, O Lord, this immaculate 
 host, reasonable host, unbloody host, this holy 
 bread and salutary cup” (u. s. p. 298). The 
 following example is from the Mozarabic Missal: 
 —“This host of bread and wine, which have 
 been placed on Thy altar by me unworthy” 
 (Leslie, p. 445). It will be observed that in 
 these extracts the bread and wine (after conse- 
 
HOST, THE ADORATrON OF 
 
 cration) are together called the host. Even in 
 the 11th century Anselm affirmed correctly, 
 
 “ One host in bread and wine. . . . They call both 
 together by one name, oblation or host ” (Ad 
 Walemnnum, c. 2). L(>ng before this, however, 
 it was sometimes I'estrained to the bread alone, 
 as in the three earliest Ordines Romani, which 
 range from the 7th to the 9th century:—“The 
 acolytes (carrying the consecrated bread) go 
 down to the presbyters that they may break the 
 hosts ” {Musaeuin Ital. tom. ii. pp. 13, 49, 59). 
 In these ancient directories the unconsecrated 
 loaves are always, and the consecrated more fre¬ 
 quently, called by the older name of “oblates.” 
 
 When the phrase “immaculate host” was in¬ 
 troduced into the Roman Missal towards the 
 11th century (Le Brun, Explic. dc la Messe, 
 P. iii. art. 6) from that of Spain, the mistake 
 was made of applying it to the unconsecrated 
 bread. See Scudamore’s Notitia Eucharistica, 
 p. 370. [W. E. S.] 
 
 HOST, THE ADORATION OF. In the 
 modern church of Rome, the worship of latrit, 
 i.e. such worship as is due to God, is paid to the 
 consecrated symbol of our Lord’s body in the 
 eucharist, under sanction of the dogma, that 
 the bread is, in all but appearance and other 
 “ accidents,” converted into that body, and that 
 His human soul and His divinity^, being united 
 to His body, are therefore in that which has 
 become His body; so that whole Christ, God 
 and man, is in it, and in every particle of it 
 {Catech. Trident, p. ii. de Euch. cc. 33, 35). Of 
 such adoration of the host the church knew 
 nothing, and could know nothing, before the 
 .opinions w'hich at last shaped themselves into 
 that dogma had taken possession of the minds of 
 men. But the Latin word adoratio, and the 
 Greek irpocrKvvricns, like the old English worship, 
 have a great latitude of meaning, and are ap¬ 
 plied to the simplest outward tokens of respect, 
 no less than to that highest homage of the body, 
 soul, and spirit, which is due to God alone. For 
 example, in Gen. xxxvii. 7, 9, where the English 
 has “did obeisance,” the Septuagint gives irpoae- 
 Kvvrjaav and irpoaeKvvovv ; the Latin Vulgate, 
 adorarc. Exod. xi. 8 : Eng. “ Thy servants .... 
 shall bow down to me ”; Sept. TTpo(rKvvi](Tov(Ti 
 fxc ; Vulg. adorabunt me. See Scudamore’s 
 Notitia Eucharistica, p. 844. In this lower 
 sense, we find the word “ adoration,” and its 
 equivalents, employed within the period which 
 it is our part to illustrate, to denote the expres¬ 
 sion of reverence to the bread and wine, which 
 are the sacramental body and blood of Christ. 
 
 With this previous explanation, we give, in chro¬ 
 nological order, a catena of passages, which will 
 exhibit sufficiently, as we hope, both the feelings 
 of reverence which the early Christians had for 
 the sacred symbols, and the manner in which 
 they expressed it by word.c, or gesture, or care¬ 
 ful handling, and the like. Among these are 
 several which have often been mistakenly ad¬ 
 duced as affording testimony to the antiquity of 
 the Roman worship of the host. 
 
 Tertullian, a.d. 192, “ We are disti’essed, if 
 any of our cup, or even bread, be cast on the 
 ground ” (^De Cor. Mil. c. iii.). The context 1 
 shows that the allusion is to a religious rite. ! 
 Origen, a.d. 230: “ Ye who are wont to be 
 present at the Divine Mysteries, know how, [ 
 
 HOST, THE ADORATION OF 791 
 
 when ye take the body of the Lord, ye keep it 
 with all care and reverence, lest any paiticle 
 fall therefrom, lest aught of the consecrated 
 gift be spilled. For ye believe, and rightly 
 believe, yourselves to be guilty, if aught fall 
 therefrom through negligence. But if ye use, 
 and justly use, so great care about the keejiing 
 of His body, how do ye think it involves less 
 guilt to have been careless about the word of God, 
 than to have been careless about His body ?”(//om. 
 in Exod. xiii. § 3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a.d. 
 350: “When thou drawest near, do not ilraw 
 near with hands expanded or fingers wide apart; 
 but making thy left hand a throne for thy right, 
 as about to receive a king, and making the jialm 
 hollow, receive the body of Christ, answering 
 Amen. Partake, therefore, having heedfully 
 sanctified thine eyes with the touch of the holy 
 body, taking care that thou drop nought of it. 
 
 .Then, after the communion of the body 
 
 of Christ, approach thou also to the cuj) of His 
 blood, not stretching forth thy hands; but with 
 head bowed, and with gesture of adoration (jrpoa- 
 Kvwfiaews) and reverence, saying Amen, be thou 
 sanctified, partaking also of the blood of Christ. 
 And w'hile the moisture is still on thy lips, 
 touching them with thy hands, sanctify both eyes 
 and forehead, and the other organs of sense ” 
 {Catech. Myst. v. §§ 18, 19). Pseudo-Dionysius, 
 who may have written as early as 362, in a 
 highly rhetorical passage, makes the following 
 apostrophe to the sacrament: “ But, 0 most 
 divine and sacred celebration (reKerr] ; in the 
 Latin translation, Sacramentum'), do thou, un¬ 
 folding the enigmatic wrappings that with 
 symbols enshroud thee, manifest thyself to us in 
 clear light, and fill our mental vision with the 
 only and unshrouded light ” (De Eccl. Hier. 
 cap. iii. n. iii. § 2). Owing to the word TeAerirj 
 (celebration of mysteries) having been rendered by 
 Sacramentum, this passage has been often brought 
 forward as an address to “ the Sacrament i.e. 
 to the consecrated host (Bellarm. Disput. tom. 
 iii. 1. iv. c. 29 compared with 1. ii. c. 3). Had 
 the word been capable of that meaning, it would 
 still have been only an apostrophe, not an 
 example of adoration directed to the sacred 
 element. Gorgonia, the sister of Gregory Nazi- 
 anzen, A.D. 370, is said by him, in a dangerous 
 illness, to have “prostrated herself before the 
 altar, and called with a loud voice upon Him 
 who is honoured thereon ” (^Orat. viii. § 18). 
 This has been understood (Bellarm. u. s. ) 
 to mean that she worshipped the host on the 
 altar; which for several centuries after that 
 time was not reserved there. St. Gregory him¬ 
 self goes on to tell us that “ she mingled with 
 her tears whatever her hand had treasured of 
 the antitypes of the precious body and blood.” 
 St. Ambrose, a.d. 374, commenting on the words 
 of the 98th Psalm, adorate scabcllum pedum Ejus, 
 considers that “ by the footstool the earth is 
 meant, and by the earth, the flesh of Christ, 
 which to this day we adore in the mysteries, and 
 which the apostles adored in the Lord Jesus ” 
 {De Spir. S. lib. iii. c. 11, n. 79). Here it is 
 implied that a reverence is due to the conse¬ 
 crated earthly elements, not equal to that which 
 is due to Christ Himself, but in such jiroportion 
 to it, more or less, as our loyal respect for the 
 insignia of royalty has to that which we enter¬ 
 tain for the person of the king himself. St. 
 
HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 792 HOST, THE ADORATION OF 
 
 Augustine, a.d. 396, explains the same passage 
 at greater length, but does not lead us to a 
 different v'iew of the adoration intended: “He 
 took earth of the earth; for flesh is of the earth, 
 and He took flesh of the flesh of Mary. And 
 because He walked here in the flesh itself, and 
 gave His flesh itself to be eaten by us unto sal¬ 
 vation, but no one eats that flesh unless he has 
 first adoi’ed, we have found out how such a foot¬ 
 stool of God may be adored, and how we not 
 only do not sin by adoring, but sin by not 
 adoring ” {Enarr. in J^s. xcviii. § 9). Com¬ 
 menting on Ps. xxi. 29 (Lat. 30), the same 
 father says: the rich of the earth “ have them¬ 
 selves been brought to the table of Christ, and 
 take of His body and blood; but they only 
 worship,—ai'e not also satisfied, because they do 
 not imitate ” (Ajo. cxl. ad Honoratum, cxxvii. 
 § 66 ; Sim. Enarr. i. in Ps. xxi. v. 30). Here, 
 however, it is doubtful whether the writer had 
 at all in view the reverence paid to the sacra¬ 
 mental body. He rather, perhaps, is thinking of 
 communion as accompanied by prayer, and as 
 the crowning act of the eucharist, or thanks¬ 
 giving. The following words of St. Chrysostom, 
 A.D. 398, have been supposed (Bellarm. u. s.) to 
 refer to the adoration of the eucharist: “ Are 
 thy garments filthy, and it concerns thee not ? 
 But are they clean ? Then recline (avdireaai, 
 rendered improperly odorale) and partake ” 
 {Horn. iii. in Ep. ad Ejyh. c. i. vv. 20-23; often 
 quoted from the cento known as Horn. Ixi. ad 
 Antioch.'). Again, a worship of the elements 
 has been inferred (Bell. u. s.) from this .sentence: 
 “This table is in the place of the manger, and 
 here also will the body of the Lord lie; not, 
 indeed, as then, w’rapped in swaddling-clothes, 
 but clothed all around with the Holy Ghost. 
 The initiated understand. And the Magi then 
 did nothing but adore; but \ve will permit thee 
 both to receive, and having received to return 
 home, if thou draw near with a clean conscience” 
 (JJe Beat. Philogono, § 3). Other passages, to 
 vv'hich controversialists refer, in the works of St. 
 Chrysostom (as Horn. Ixxxiii. in St. Matt. ; xxiv. 
 in Ep. i. ad Cur. &c.), only exalt the sacrament, 
 do not speak of any adoi-atiou. Theodoret, A.D. 
 423: “ The mystic symbols do not, after the 
 consecration, pass out of their own nature; for 
 they remain in their foi’mer substance, and form, 
 and appearance, and are visible and palpable, as 
 they were before ; but they are mentally per¬ 
 ceived as what they have become, and are 
 believed to be, and are adored as being W’hat 
 they ai’e believed to be ” (^Dialog, ii. tom. iv. 
 p. 85). Here the worship of latria cannot pos¬ 
 sibly be intended, because the author, in the 
 same sentence, teaches that the “creatures of 
 bread and wine ” are, after consecration, bread 
 and wine still. It may be remarked also, that 
 aknougn many, or perhaps all, of the foregoing 
 extracts may be seen quoted in favour of the 
 modern cultus of the host, there is not one that 
 is really to the purpose. Nor ‘s it until the 7th 
 century, an age in which the outward observ¬ 
 ances of religion multiplied rapidly, that we find 
 any definite gesture of respect to the host men¬ 
 tioned. It was the custom at Rome then to 
 i*eserve a portion of the eucharist [see Feu- 
 MEXTUMj, to be put into the chalice at the next 
 celebration. The earliest Ordo Romanus (§ 8, 
 Musae. Ital. tom. ii. p. 8) directs that when this 
 
 j is brought out for use, “ the bishop or deacon 
 salute the holy things {sancta) w'ith an inclina¬ 
 tion of the head.” In Ordo II., which is a 
 ! revision of the first, and perhaps a century later, 
 i the bishop, “his head bowed toward the altar, 
 
 I first adores the holy things,” &c. (§ 4, p. 43). 
 See also the Ecloga of Amalarius, who comments 
 on this Ordo (§ 6, p. 550). The significance of 
 the action may be estimated by the similar 
 respect paid in some churches to the gospel, e.g. 
 “ The priests and bishops standing by uncover 
 their heads, lay down their sticks, and worship 
 the gospel by an inclination of the head” (AiYu- 
 alis Gabriel, Renaud. tom. i. p. 211). The last 
 passage to which we shall call attention, occurs 
 in the Acts of the council of Constantinople, a.d. 
 754: “ As that which He took of us is only the 
 matter of human substance, perfect in all things, 
 without expressing the proper form of a person, 
 that no addition of person may take place in the 
 Godhead, so also did He command the image, 
 chosen matter, to wit the substance of bread, to 
 be offered, not, however, fashioned'after the form 
 of man, lest idolatry should be brought in” 
 (in Act. vi. Cone. Nic. ii. Labb. tom. vii. col. 448). 
 It is evident that the adoration of the host, 
 in its modern sense, could not have been known 
 when this was written. 
 
 As elevation is often supposed to imply adora¬ 
 tion, it should be mentioned that there was no 
 elevation of the consecrated elements in the West 
 before the twelfth century; and that the so- 
 called elevation of the East was merely a “show¬ 
 ing of the gifts,” designed to second the invitation 
 to communicate conveyed by the proclamation, 
 “ Holy things for the holy ” (see Notitia Eucha- 
 ristica, pp. 546, 595). [W. E. S.] 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER. I. This phrase 
 was inherited from the elder church. “Peter 
 j and John went up together into the temple at 
 the Hour of Prayer, being the ninth hour ” 
 (Acts iii. 1). At first the observance of the 
 hours was of devotion onlv, but it was after- 
 j wards made obligatory by canon on the clergy 
 j and monks, and they began to be called 
 Canonical Hours. The earliest use of this ex¬ 
 pression is found, we think, in the rule of St. 
 Benedict (c. 67; in Holstenii Codex Begtiloj-um, 
 P. ii.); but it does not appear to have been very 
 common within the period of which we treat. 
 It occurs in the Regula of St. Isidore of Seville 
 who died in 636 (cap. 7 ; Holst. « . s.). St. Eloy, 
 A.D. 640, employs it: “ To whom should it be 
 said that ‘ men ought always to pray and not to 
 faint ’ (St. Luke xviii. 1), if not to him who daily 
 at the Canonical Hours, according to the rite of 
 ecclesiastical tradition, praises and beseeches the 
 Lord without ceasing in the accustomed psalmody 
 and prayers” (ZTom. xi. in Biblloth. PP. tom. 
 xii.). Bede in our own country (a.d. 701), in his 
 I commentary on those words of St. Luke, copies 
 i this sentence from St. Eloy. The “ Canonical 
 j Hours ” are mentioned in the excerptions of 
 1 Ecgbriht, A.D. 740 (can. 28 ; Johnson’s Engl. 
 Canons), and in the canons of Cuthbert, 747 (c. 
 15; ibid.). 
 
 II. What is meant by an Hour .—By an hour 
 was understood a twelfth part of the natural 
 day, reckoned from sunrise to sunset, of what¬ 
 ever length it might be. Upon the use of this 
 natural measure of time by the Jews is founded 
 
HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 793 
 
 that saying of our Lord : “Are there not twelve 
 hours in the day ? If a man walk in the day, he 
 stumbleth not; because he seeth the light of 
 this world ” (St. John xi. 9). The Romans are 
 said to have adopted this division of the day 
 about B.c. 291. Martial refers to it as in use 
 among them, when he tells a friend that he 
 might read his book in less than an hour, and 
 that not one of summer’s length {Epigr. lib. xii. 
 n. 1, ad Friscum). In the Fseudolus of Plautus 
 an “ hour in winter ” is said to be “ shortest ” 
 (Act V. sc. 2, 1. 11). The Greeks had learnt 
 this method in the 6th century before Christ, 
 when the sun-dial became known to them pro¬ 
 bably through Anaximander (see Diogenes Laert. 
 lib. 1. c, 7); and they retained it during their 
 subjection to the Roman empire. Thus in the 
 Sentences ascribed to Secundus of Athens in the 
 time of Hadrian, a day is defined to be “ the 
 space given to toil, the course of twelve hours ” 
 {Sent. 4). As the time of labour varied, so 
 must the hours have been longer or shorter. It 
 IS employed beyond our period by Cassianus 
 Bassus, A.D. 940, as when he tells the tiller of 
 the land at what hour the moon sets and rises 
 on each day of the month {Gcoponica lib. i. c. 7). 
 St. Augustine speaks as if he knew of no other, 
 “The hour in winter, compai’ed with the hour 
 in summer, is the shorter” {De \era lielig. c. 
 xliii. § 80). Hence we infer that the natural 
 day and hour were also employed by the church 
 in his day. Amalariusat the close of our period 
 uses the same division of time with express 
 reference to the Hours of Prayer; prefacing his 
 account of them thus: “ The people properly 
 call the presence of the sun above the earth the 
 complete day. From this definition it may be 
 understood that a day of twelve hours ought to 
 begin at the rising and end at the setting of the 
 sun ” {De Ordine Antiphonarii, c. 6 ; see also cc. 
 16, 70). By the first hour, then, we are to 
 understand that twelfth part of the natural day 
 which began at sunrise; by the sixth that which 
 ended when the sun cro.ssed the meridian; the 
 twelfth that which immediately preceded the 
 sun.set. 
 
 The day and the night were further divided 
 into four equal parts. Each quarter of the day 
 consisting of three hours was named after the 
 last hour in it. Thus the first quarter, con¬ 
 taining the first, second, and third hour, was 
 called the third hour (Tertia, Terce), that is to 
 say, by the “third hour” we often have to 
 understand the whole interval between sunrise 
 and the beginning of the fourth (smaller) hour. 
 Similarly Sext is the space of the three hours 
 that follow, viz. the fourth, the fifth, and the 
 sixth, ending at noon, or twelve o’clock. None 
 embraces the seventh, eighth and’ninth hours; 
 and the last, called Duodecima, contains the 
 tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, ending at sunset. 
 This is satisfactorily shown by Francolinus {De 
 Tcmporihus Horar. Canon, c. xxi.; Romae, 1571). 
 Hence St. Benedict (Fegula, c. 48) was free to 
 direct that from Easter to the Kalends of October 
 None should be said “ in the middle of the eighth 
 hour,” and that from the latter time to Ash- 
 Wednesday “ Terce should be performed at the 
 second hour.” 
 
 III. The Prayers called Hours, Sfc. —By the 
 Hours of Prayer and the Canonical Hours were 
 also understood the devotions themselves, con¬ 
 
 sisting for the most part of psalms and prayers, 
 which were used at the stated times more pro¬ 
 perly so called. Equivalents in this secondary 
 sense within the first eight centuries were 
 Ofllcium Divinum, or Officia Divina (see e. g. 
 Bened. Fegula, cc. 8, 43; Isidore of Seville, De 
 Eccl. Off. lib. i. c. 19), Cursus (sc. Divinus) 
 (Greg. Turon. de Gloria Mart. lib. i. c. 11 ; Hist. 
 Franc. 1. viii. c. 15; ix. c. 6, &c.); Cursus eccle- 
 siastici (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. 1. x. c. 31; n. 
 19); Missa {Cone. Agath. A.D. 506, cap. 30; 
 Cassian. Coenob. Instil. L. ii. c. 7); and so 
 Missa nocturna (Cass. u. s. 1. ii. c. 13), Vigiliarum 
 Missa {i'iid. 1. iii. c. 8), &c.; Mis.sa Canonica 
 {ibid. c. 5) (though it may be doubted whether 
 in Cassian’s time the thought of dismissal was 
 entirely ab.sent when that word was used); 
 Orationes Canonicae {ibid. 1. ii. c. 12). We find 
 used also the more general teims Diurna Cele- 
 britas, Solemnitas, Agenda, or, from tlie staple 
 of the devotions used, Psalmodia. J'he word 
 synaxis (assembling) employed by the Egyptian, 
 Syrian, and Grecian monks, conveyed to the 
 mind alike the notion of the times at which and 
 of the purpose for which they assembled {ibid. 
 lib. ii. 0 . 10 ; Collat. viii. c. 16, &c.). It was 
 often thus used in the West, but at first needed 
 explanation. Hence in the rule of St. Columban, 
 abbot of Luxeuil in Burgundy, and afterwards of 
 Bobio in Italy from 589 to 615, we read, “ con¬ 
 cerning the synaxis, that is, the course of p.salms 
 and the canonical method of prayers ” (cap. 7, 
 Holst, u. s. sira. Fegula Donati, c. 75, Holst. P. 
 iii.). In England the following example occurs 
 in 740, “These seven synaxes we ought daily to 
 offer to God with great concern for ourselves 
 and for all Christian people” {Excerptions of 
 Ecgbriht, c. 28). It was Latinised by Collecta, 
 as in the version of the rule of Pachomius (ad 
 calc. 0pp. Cassiani), and by St. Jerome, who says 
 “Alleluia was sung, by which sign they were 
 called to collect ” {Epitaph. Paulae, Ep. Ixxxvi.). 
 By the Greeks the daily course was also called 
 the canon, because it was the prescribed rule or 
 norm of prayer. Thus Antioch us, A.D. 614, 
 “Our canon is called Psalmody” {Horn. CV. 
 Auct. Gr. Lat. Biblioth. PP. tom. i.). Compare 
 John Moschu.s, A.D. 630, Limonarion, c. 40. 
 There is perhaps a much earlier instance in St. 
 Basil, A.D. 370, “Every one keeps his proper 
 canon ” i. e. observes the prayers assigned to him 
 {Fegulae Breviores, Resp. ad Qu. 147). St. 
 Benedict gave to the daily offices of his monks 
 the expressive name of Opus Dei, God’s Work 
 {Fegula, cc. 43, 44, &c.), a title soon adopted by 
 others (Caesarii Fegula ad Mon. c. 19, Holst. 
 P. ii.; Aureliani Fegula, c. 29, ibid. &c.). It 
 was used conventionally as a comi)lete equivalent 
 to Officium Divinum ; e. g. Opus Dei, celebratur, 
 expletur {Peg. Bened. cc. 44, 52); dicitur, 
 canitur {Fegula, SS. Pauli et Stephani, cc. 8, 
 11, Holst. P. ii.). Opus Divinum is also found 
 as in Benedict {Fegula, c. 19), Cassiodorius, 
 A.D. 562 {De Instit. Div. L\tt. c. 30), &c. Obse- 
 quium Divinum also occurs at the beginning 
 of the 9th century {Cone. Aquisgr., a.d. 816, 
 cap. 131). This use of obsequium, service, may 
 be traced to the Vulgate. See St. John xvi. 2 ; 
 Rom. ix. 4; xii. 1 ; xv. 31 ; Phil ii. 17, 30. 
 
 IV. The several Hours of Prayer and their 
 various Names. —Three hours of prayer, the 
 third, the sixth, and the ninth were observed by 
 
794 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 the Jews. “ Evening and morning and at noon 
 will I pray.” was the resolve of David (Ps. Iv. 
 17). Daniel “ kneeled upon his knees three 
 times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before 
 his God” (Dan. vi. 10). Two of these hours 
 were determined by the times of the daily sacri¬ 
 fices (Joshua ben Levi in Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. 
 in Act. Apost. iii. 1), which were offered “ in 
 the morning an<l about the ninth hour” (Josephus, 
 Antiq. L. xiv. c. 4. § 3). The force of St. Peter’s 
 argument in Acts ii. 15, “These are not drunken 
 as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of 
 the day,” depends on the fact familiar to his 
 hearers that the Jews generally did not break 
 their fast (See Grotius and others in loc.) before 
 the morning sacrifice and prayer. This there¬ 
 fore was about the third hour. We are expressly 
 told that “ the hour of praj’^er” at which Peter 
 and John went up to the temple was the “ ninth 
 hour ” (Acts iii. 1). At the ninth hour Cor¬ 
 nelius, a proselyte of the gate, “ prayed in his 
 house ” (Acts x. 30). St. Peter “ went up upon 
 the house-top to pray about the sixth hour ” 
 {ibid. V. 9). “ We read,” says Ardo Smaragdus, 
 
 and he may speak for many, “ that the third, 
 sixth, and ninth hours were observed by the 
 apostles” {Comm, in S. Bened. Begulam, c. 16). 
 
 The three hours of the apostolic church were 
 transmitted to the succeeding ages. Tertullian, 
 A.D. 192, speaks of “ those common hours which 
 mark the divisions of the day, the third, sixth, 
 and ninth, which we may observe in Scripture 
 to be more solemn than the rest ” {De Oral. 
 c. 25. See De Jejun. adv. Psychicos, c. 10). 
 Clemens Alex., A.D. 192, “If some assign stated 
 hours to prayer, as the third, sixth, and ninth, 
 the man of knowledge prays to God throughout 
 his whole life ” {‘'•trom. 1. vii. c. 7, § 40). 
 “ There are three times,” observes St. Jerome, 
 “ in which the knees are to be bent to God. 
 Ecclesiastical tradition understands the third, 
 the sixth, and the ninth hour” {Comm, in Dan. 
 c. vi. V. 10). 
 
 In the 3rd century, however, w’e begin to hear 
 of five stated times of prayer. St. Cyprian, 
 A.D. 252, after citing the Scriptural examples 
 given above, goes on to say, “ But beside the 
 hours observed of old, both the durations and 
 sacraments of prayer have increased for us now. 
 
 For we ought to pray in the morning. 
 
 Also when the sun withdraws and the day fails, 
 we must by a necessary obligation pray again ” 
 {De Orut. Dom. sub fin.). St. Basil in Cappadocia 
 speaks of these hours of prayer as necessary and 
 suitable for monks; the morning, the third 
 hour, the sixth, the ninth, and the evening 
 {Begulae fusius Tract. Resp. ad Qu. 37, §§ 3-5). 
 
 The morning office now introduced is called by 
 Cyprian {u. s.) matutina oratio; matutinae 
 oratioues by Aurelian {Regula c. 28) ; by Cassian 
 matutina solemuitas {De Coenoh. Inst. lib. iii. 
 c. 3). By others it was called laudes matutinae, 
 from the use in it of the three last psalms, 
 which were called emphatically by the Latins 
 “ laudes,” and by the Greeks atuoi. Hence the 
 later common appellation of lauds. From this 
 the office also took the name of matutinae (Greg. 
 Turon. Hist, Franc. L. ii. c. 23: IVL Pair. c. 4, 
 &c.; Ferreoli Regtda, c. 13 in Holsten. P. ii.; 
 Guidonis Reg, c. 39 in Hergot, Vet. Discipl. Mon. 
 Par. 1726). It was also called matutinum 
 sacrificium, as by Fructuosus {Reg, c. 3; Holsten, 
 
 u. s. and matutinum officium ; Isidor. Reg. c. 7 
 Cone. Bracar. a.d, 560, can. i.); whence also 
 simply matutinum (Isid. ibiR.). Matutinale offi¬ 
 cium is also found ( Vita S. .Joann. Gorz. in Acta 
 SS. Ben., saec. v. p. 392) anfl matutinus {sc. cur- 
 sus) {Regiila Magistri, c. 34, Holsten.); also matu- 
 tinarius (Caesarii Reg. c. 21), and matutinarii 
 canonic! (Aurel. Ord. post Reg.). But the most 
 common name was matutini, from the psalmi, 
 which formed the chief part of the office. This 
 was employed by Benedict {J.egula, cc. 12, 13, 
 &c.) and was naturally adopted by many in the 
 same age (Pseud.-Aug. /.eg. § i; Caes. Reg 
 c. 21 ; Aurel. Ord. u. s. &c.). 
 
 Among the Greeks this ollice is called by St. 
 Basil {Regulae fus. Tr. u. s.) rh opBpov, the office 
 cf dawn, a name which it retains to this day; 
 by St. Epiphanius, a.d. 368, “morning {eudiuoi) 
 hymns and morning prayers” {De Fide, c. 23); 
 in the so-called Api> tolical Constitutions the 
 “prayers of dawn” (lib. viii. c. 34), and the 
 “thanksgiving at dawn” (c. 38). 
 
 The evening office was generally called vespera 
 in the West (Bened. Reg. c. 41; Isidor. Hisp. de 
 Eccl. Off. lib. i. c. 20), and vespertinum officium 
 (Isid. Reg. c. 7). St. Ambrose {De Virginibus, 
 lib. iii. c. 4, § 18) calls it the “hour of incense” 
 in allusion to the Jewish rite (Exod. xxx. 8; 
 Ps. cxli. 2; St. Luke i. 10). It was sometimes 
 called lucernarium, as in a comment on the 
 119th Psalm ascribed (incorrectly, we think) to 
 St. Jerome. “ We (monks) pray at the third 
 hour. We pray at the sixth hour; at the ninth. 
 We make the Lucernarium. We rise in the 
 middle of the night. Finally we pray at cock¬ 
 crow ” (ad fin. Breviar. in Psalm. See also 
 Rejul. Tarnat. c. 9, in Holst. P. ii.). Another 
 form was Lucernarii, as in Regula .Magistri, 
 (c. 36, Holst, u. s.). In Spain, as we shall see, 
 the Lnceruarium was only considered the first 
 part of vespers. Vespers were also called thi 
 twelfth (hour), as in the Regula Magistri (c. 34) 
 
 “ Prime ought to be said in the same manner as 
 Twelfth, which is called vespers.” The 2nd 
 council of Tours, a.d. 567, says, “ The statutes 
 of the fathers have prescribed that . . . twelve 
 psalms be said at the Twelfth with Alleluia, 
 which moreover thev learnt from the showing 
 of an angel” (can. 18). A reference to Cassian 
 {De Coenob. Inst. L. ii. c. 5), who tells the story, 
 proves that the Twelfth is here an equivalent to 
 solemnitas vespertina. Compare the Ordines at 
 the end of the Regulae of St. Aurelian in Holsten. 
 P. ii. pp. 110, 112; P. iii. pp. 69, 72. St. 
 Columban does not use the words vespers and 
 completorium in his rule, but (c. 7) orders a 
 certain service to be said “ad initium noctis.” It 
 appears more probable that this refers to vespers, 
 the older office which must certainly have been 
 said in his monastery, though Menard and others 
 think that compline in meant. In the Greek 
 church, as partially in the Latin, the lighting 
 of the lamps gave the office its common name 
 XvxviKov, though it is also called more properly 
 rb kaTrfpiv6v (Goar io Euchologio, p. 30). In 
 the Apostolical Constitutions (lib. viii.) the whole 
 office is called rb (o-Trepit/Sy (c. 35), It begins 
 with a Psalm (the 140th) called einXvxuios ; 
 prayers are then said for the catechumen.s, ener- 
 gumens, &c. These are then dismissed, and the 
 faithful say a prayer and thanksgiving by them¬ 
 selves, both of which are qualified by the title 
 
HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 795 
 
 eViA.iJxi'ios (cc. 36, 37). At the council of Con- ! 
 stantinople A.D. 536, on one occasion the patriarch 
 announced rh \vxvi-k6u on Saturday evening in 
 the oratory of St. Mary (Act V. Labb. Cone. tom. 
 V. col. 212). The council held there in 691 (in 
 Trullo) ordered that there should be no kneeling 
 from Saturday evening until Sunday evening, “on 
 which they again knelt ” iv T<f} (can. 90). 
 
 St. Jerome at Bethlehem mentions at least six 
 hours as kept by the religious women whom he 
 advised: “There is no one who knows not the 
 third, the sixth, the ninth hour, the dawn also 
 and the evening .... In the night we should 
 rise twice or thrice ” (Ad Eiistoch. Ep. xviii.). 
 To Demetrias he says, “ Beside the order of the 
 Psalms and prayer, which thing is to be always 
 practised by thee at the third hour, the sixth, 
 the ninth, at even, midnight, and morning, 
 settle at how many hours thou shouldst learn the 
 Holy Scripture,” &c. (Epist. xcvii.). Of Paula 
 and her community he says, “ They sang the 
 psalter in due course at the morning hour, at the 
 third, the sixth, the ninth, at even, at midnight” 
 (Ad Eustoch. Epitaph. Fa>dae, Ep. Ixxxvi.), and 
 he advised that one preparing for that mode of 
 life be trained “ to rise in the night for prayers 
 and psalms, to sing hymns in the morning, to 
 stand in the field like a good soldier of Jesus 
 Christ at the third, sixth, and ninth hour .... 
 and to render the evening sacrifice when the 
 lamp is lighted ” (Ad Laetam, Ep. Ivii.). The 
 author of tne Apostolical Constitutions says, 
 “Make prayers at sunrise, at the third hour, the 
 sixth, the ninth, at evening, and at the cock¬ 
 crow ” (i. e. evidently at midnight) (lib. viii. 
 c. 34). 
 
 The ordinary night office of the monasteries is 
 called by Cassian solemuitas nocturna (Tnstit. 
 lib. ii. c. 4), and nocturni psalmi et orationes 
 (ibid. c. 13); by Pseudo-Augustine (Eegula, 
 App. i. ad Op}).) and others nocturnae orationes; 
 whence sim})ly nocturnae, as in the rule of 
 S. Ferreol, c. 13. Nocturni (sc. psalmi as in 
 Bened. Eegula, c., 15; Aurelian Ordo Regulae 
 affix.; Regula Magistri, c. 33 ; &c.) was common. 
 It was also called Nocturnum Officium (Reg. 
 Mag. u. s.); Officium Vigiliae (Isidoid Regula, 
 c. 7); and apparently the word vigiliae itself 
 conveyed the notion of the .service used in the 
 nightly vigil (Benedicti Regula, c. 9; Isid. Reg. 
 c. 7 ; &c.). The Greek name for the nocturnal 
 office is ij.^<tovvktik6p (Orc/o Philothei in Euchol. 
 Goar, p. 7; Ty])icon Sabae. c. 5; see Leo Alla- 
 tius, De Libr. Eccl. Gruec. Diss. i. p. 65). 
 
 In the 4th century there ap})ears a desire to 
 conform the rule of prayer to the standard 
 which was su})}w.sed to be set up in the 119th 
 Psalm, “ Seven times a day do 1 praise thee” 
 (v. 164). St. Ambrose, a.d. 374, asks, “If 
 the prophet say.s. Seven times, &e., who was 
 taken up with the affairs of a kingdom, what 
 ought we to do, who read. Watch and }>vay, that 
 ye enter not into temptation ! Certainly solemn 
 prayers ai-e to be otieved with giving of thanks 
 when we rise from slee|), when we go forth, 
 when we pre|jare to take food, when we have 
 taken it, and at the hour of incense (St. Luke, 
 ii. 10), lastly when we go to bed” (De Virgi- 
 nibus, lib. iii. c. 4, n. 18; Comm, in Luc. Ev. 
 lib. vii. § 88). If such were to be the practice 
 in private life, it would be felt, how much more 
 •ignally should monks observe the Psalmist’s 
 
 rule ? The argument had weight even with 
 those who understood, as St. Augustine (Senn. 
 xxxi. in Rs. cxviii. § 4) and St. Hilary (Tract, in 
 Ps. eund. lib. xxi. § 4) did, the Scid|)tural use of 
 that number. Because it is “ uuiversitatis indi¬ 
 cium,” therefore (argues the former) “ the 
 church with reason has praised God for His 
 righteous judgments seven times a day.” Cassian, 
 A.D. 424, claims for his monastery, the founda¬ 
 tion of Paula at Bethlehem, the honour of having 
 settled the rule. This was by the addition of a 
 matin office, afterwards called prime, between 
 the matin lauds and terce. The lauds were 
 “said in the monasteries after ashortinterval of 
 time when the nocturn |)salms and jiravers were 
 over;” i.e. shortly before sunrise, while the new 
 matin office, or prime, was said after it. We are 
 not told when it was introduced, but in Cassian’s 
 time, though of Eastern origin, it was observed 
 “ chiefly in the regions of the West ” (De Ci'Cnob. 
 Tnstit. 1. iii. c. iv.). Nevertheless there is no 
 mention of prime in the rules of St. Caesarius 
 (bishop of .Arles, a.d. 506) for monks and nuns 
 on week days, and only in one MS. of the latter 
 is it prescribed for Sundays (Martene, Ih Ant. 
 Alonach. Rit. 1. i. c. iv. n. 2) ; nor does he men¬ 
 tion it in his homilies, though he entreats the 
 devout to rise early in Lent for vigils, and before 
 all things to assemble for “ terce, sext, none ” 
 (Horn. cxi. § 2, in App. 0pp. Aug.). He assumes 
 of course that they would be present at matins 
 and evensong; and in the duties proper to litan) 
 days we find him including attendance at church 
 at “the six hours” (//ow. clxxv. § 3). Some 
 sixty years later Cassiodorus omits }>rime in his 
 enumeration of the seven hours observed by the 
 monks (Expos, in Ps. cxviii. v. 164). Nor is it 
 recognised by St. Isidore of Seville a century 
 later either in his rule (Holstenii Codex Regul. 
 Monast. p. ii.), or in his work De Officiis. In the 
 latter (lib. i. c. 23) he even quotes what Cassian 
 says of prime as if it referred to the older matin 
 lauds, thus showing ignorance of the institution 
 of another matin office. It was however already 
 known in France, being ordered (and that as if 
 already known) in the rule of Aurelian, a suc¬ 
 cessor of Caesarius at Arles, a.d. 555 (Ordo 
 Regulae affix. Holst. P. ii. p. Ill ; P. iii. }>. 71). 
 Before the middle of the 7th century it had 
 found its way into S})ain ; for it is mentioned in 
 the rule of Fructuosus (Holsten. P. ii.; Regida, 
 c. 2) the founder of the Complutensian monas¬ 
 tery and many others, who dieil in 675. It had 
 been introduced in Italy, and an office for it 
 prescribed by St. Benedict, a.d. 530 (Holst, u. s. 
 Regula, c. 17). It a|)|)ears also in two other 
 Western rules of unknown authorship and coun¬ 
 try ; one (Pseudo-Aug. u. s.) of the 6th century, 
 and the other (Regula Magistri, c. 35, Holsten. 
 P. ii.) belonging to the 7th. It was without 
 doubt largely owing to Benedict and his fol¬ 
 lowers that it now became universal in the 
 Latin church. 
 
 The use of seven offices for the day and night, 
 and whore prime was adojited, of seven for the 
 day alone, was attained in the 6th century by 
 erecting the last brief })rayers said before going 
 to bed into a formal and common service under 
 the name of Compline. St. Ambrose, as already 
 quoted, probably referred to i)rivate |)ravcr onlv ; 
 but St. Chrysostom, though the Greek monks 
 did not adopt any set service answering to the 
 
796 
 
 HOUES OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAY^EP. 
 
 Western Compline, appears to speak of hymns 
 sung together when he describes the life of 
 monks in his day. He says that they rise at 
 cockcrow for psalmody and prayer, going to rest 
 again a little before light, that after completing 
 the morning prayers and hymns they turn to the 
 reading of the Scriptures, . . . then observe the 
 third, sixth, and ninth hours, and the evening 
 ])rayers, and, di^’^ding the day into four parts, 
 honour God in each part by psalmody and 
 prayer; . . . and after sitting (at table) a short 
 time, closing all with hymns, take their rest 
 (//om. xiv. in 1 Tim. § 4). St. Basil again, re¬ 
 ferring to the custom of monks:—“When the 
 day is ended, thanksgiving for the things that 
 have been suj)i)lied to us and been prosperously 
 ordered, and confession of omissions voluntary or 
 otherwise, &c., are made (i.e. in the evening 
 office) . . . and again, at the beginning of the 
 night, prayer {alrrjais), that our rest may be 
 undisturbed and free from illusions” {Beg. Fus. 
 2'ract. Kesp. ad Q. 37, § 5). John Climacus, A.D. 
 664, in his Liber ad Fastorein, snys that a certain 
 abbot when vespers were over would order one 
 monk to say ten psalms (psalmorum odaria), an¬ 
 other thirty, a third a hundred, before they went 
 to sleep. The present writer has observed no 
 trace in the East within our period to secure any 
 such last act of devotion by appointing a form of 
 prayer for constant use; but in the Latin church 
 the rule of St. benedict, A.D. 530 (cc. 16, 17), 
 speaks of Compline as if it were already as well 
 known as Terce or Sext. He does not claim to 
 introduce it; nor does he oft'er any explanation. 
 At the same time, his adoption of the new hour 
 would cause it to be widely received. Cassio- 
 dorus, who probably borrowed from St. Benedict 
 (see Garet’s Dissert. aj)j)ended to the lAfe in 
 Cas.iiod. Opp.\ in his commentary on the llOth 
 Psalm, written about 560, remarks on the words, 
 “Seven times a day,” &c. (v. 164), “If we desire 
 to understand this number literally, it signifies 
 the seven times at which the pious devotion of 
 the monks solaces itself; i.e. at matins, terce, 
 sext, none, luceruaria (vespers), completoria, noc- 
 turns.” 
 
 The word completorium has been said to refer 
 rather in its origin to the completion of the 
 ordinary acts of daily life (Amalarius De Eccl. 
 Off. lib. iv. c. 8; De Urdine Autiph. c. 7) than to 
 the completion of the daily round of devotion. 
 This is the name of most frequent occurrence, 
 owing exndently to its adoption by St. Benedict 
 (cc. 16, 17); but completa is also found as in the 
 Ordines of Aurelian (Holst. P. ii. p. 112: P. iii. 
 p. 72), and in the work of Isidore De Eccl. Off. 
 (lib. i. c. 21); though in his rule (c. 7) comple¬ 
 torium is u.sed. A corrupt reading in the 2nd 
 Canon of Merida, A.D. 666, which orders that 
 A esjters be said on feasts prius quam sonum has 
 led to the conjecture that in Spain compline was 
 sometimes called somnum. No name is given to 
 the office by Kructuosus of Braga, 656, w’ho ap¬ 
 pears however to refer to compline when in his 
 rule (c. 2) he says, “in the night season there¬ 
 fore the first hour of the night is to be celebrated 
 with six prayers, &c.” After describing the 
 office, he speaks of the manner in which the 
 monks shall letire to rest. When the Greeks at 
 length prescribed a constant form answering to 
 the Latin comiiletorium, they called it aTrJSetTri/ov 
 beoause it followed the last meal of the day. 
 
 Perhaps the earliest' authority is the Typtcon 
 a.scribed to St. Sabas, who died in the 6th cen¬ 
 tury, but which cannot in its present form be 
 earlier than the 11th. 
 
 In some monasteries a ninth office was said, 
 called Lvcernarium. There was from an early 
 period a pious custom of praying when lamps 
 were lighted in the evening, an action so marked 
 among the old Romans as to give name to that 
 part of the day (prima fax, or prima lumina). 
 “ It seemed good to our fathers,” says St. Basil, 
 “not to receive in silence the gift of the evening 
 light, but to give thanks as soon as it ap[>earedl 
 But who was the author of those words of thanks¬ 
 giving at the lighting of lamps w'e are unable to 
 tell. The people, however, utter the ancient 
 saying, and by no one have they ever been 
 thought guilty of impiety, who say, ‘ We praise 
 the Father and the Son and Holy Sjtirit of God ’ ” 
 {De Spir. Sanct. c. Ixxiii.). In the Mozarabic 
 Breviary are the following directions for the 
 performance of this rite :—“ A commencement is 
 made by the invocation of Jesus Christ (the 
 Lord’s Prayer preceding it, ‘ Lord, have mercy, 
 Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy; Our 
 Father ’ being said in a low voice) in a loud 
 voice, ‘ In the name of Jesus Christ, light with 
 peace ;’ that is, the light offered. Those who 
 stand round respond ‘ Thanks be to God.’ And 
 the presbyter says, ‘ The Lord be with you 
 always.’ Eesp. ‘ And with thy spirit.’ And the 
 order of vespers whether it be a festival or not, 
 follows in this manuer. This may be illus¬ 
 trated from other Spanish sources. E.g. the rule 
 of St. Isidore says, “ In the evening offices, first 
 the lucernarium, then two psalms, one respon.sory 
 and lauds, a hymn and prayer are to be said ” 
 (cap. 7). The lucernarium is here considered 
 the first part of vespers. The second canon of 
 the council of Merida, 666, mentions that vespers 
 were said “after the offering of the light.” In 
 the East the 140th Psalm, called the psalm at 
 the lighting {iiriKvxvtos) was said before vespers 
 (Compare Constit. Apost. lib. viii. c. 35, with 
 lib. ii. c. 59). St. Jerome at Bethlehem : —“ Let 
 her be trained to offer the evening sacrifice when 
 the lamp is lighted ” {Ad Lactan. Epist. Ivii.). 
 Socrates says that “ in Greece and at Jerusalem, 
 and in Thessaly they say the prayers at the 
 lighting of lamps very much in the same manner 
 as the Novatians at Constantinople” {Eccl. Hist. 
 lib. V. c. 22). Naturally, ve.spers which followed 
 these prayers came to be called in some churches 
 by the name of lucernarium, which appeared to 
 be the first part of it; but sometimes the lucer- 
 narium was enlarged into a distinct office, said 
 some little time before vespers. Thus the rule 
 falsely ascribed to St. Augustine {0pp. App. i.), 
 after prescribing the psalm for matins, prime, 
 &c., says, “ Let the same thing be observed at 
 ve.spers and compline; but at lucernarium let 
 there be the (proper) psalm, one responsory, 
 three antiphons, three lessons.” So in the rules 
 of Aurelian :—“At lucernarium let there be said 
 in the first place at all sea.sons, both on festivals 
 and ordinary days, a psalm in monotone (dii'cct- 
 aneus), then two antiphons. In the third place 
 let there be said with Alleluia, one day the 
 hymn Deus, qui certis legibus; another Deus 
 creator omnium., and a little chapter. At Twelfth 
 (vespers) eighteen psalms, an antiphon and 
 hymn, a lesson and little chapter. When ye are 
 
HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 797 
 
 about to take your rest, let compline be said in 
 the school in which ye remain ” (^Reijula ad Mon. 
 Holst. P. ii.; Sim. ad Virg. ibid. P. iii.). Here a 
 distinction is clearly made between the lucern- 
 arium and vespers. They are distinct offices. It 
 is probable, however, from the })aucity of such 
 notices, that the former was treated as a separate 
 service on the same footing with the ancient 
 hours only in a very few communities. 
 
 V. Grounds of Observance. —For Matins, rea¬ 
 sons of natuivil piety were often urged, as by 
 St. Basil, “ Tliat the first motions of tlie soul 
 and mind may be dedicated to God, and we admit 
 nothing else into our mind before we have 
 rejoiced in the thought of God ” (AV/. Fus. Tr. 
 Resp. ad Q. 37, § 3); and in the Apostolical Con¬ 
 stitutions (lib. viii. c. 34), “To give thanks 
 because the Lord, causing the night to pass away 
 and the day to come on, hath given us light.” 
 
 There was the Scriptiiral reason too, “That 
 the resurrection of the Lord, which took place 
 m the morning, may be celebrated by prayer ” 
 (Cyprian, De Or. Dom. u. s.). Similarly, Isid. 
 Hispal. De Eccl. Off. 1. i. c. 22; Cone. Aquisgr. 
 caj). 130. 
 
 There was a practical reason for the institution 
 of Prime, as well as the ground of religious sen¬ 
 timent, to which we have already had occasion 
 to refer. It was found that the long interval 
 between the matin lauds and terce was often 
 spent in comparative idleness and sloth. The 
 new office was therefore introduced to prevent 
 this (Cassian, Coenob. Inst. 1. iii. c. 4). With 
 this statement compare the provision of a 
 Western rule: “After morning prayers let it 
 not be lawful to return to sleep; but when 
 matins are finished let prime be said forthwith. 
 Then let all employ themselves in reading to the 
 third hour” (Aurel. Peg. ad Monach. c. 28). 
 
 The third, sixth, and ninth hours, which were 
 observed earlier than any other, were thought 
 to have beeu selected in honour of the Holy 
 Trinity. Thiis St. Cyprian—“ We find that the 
 three children with Daniel, strong in faith and 
 conquerors in captivity, ob.served the third, sixth, 
 and ninth hours for a .sacrament of the Trinity, 
 which was to be manifested in the last time; 
 for the first hour coming to the third exhibits 
 the full number of a Trinity, and again the 
 fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another 
 Trinity, and when the ninth is completed by 
 three hours from the seventh a perfect Trinity 
 (f. e. a Trinity of Trinities) is numbered ” (^De 
 Orat. Dorn, sub fin.). Similarly Isid. Hispal. De 
 Eccl. Off. lib. i. c. 19; Concil. Aquisgr. a.d. 
 816, c. 126. The significance of these hours 
 taken separately will be shown below. 
 
 Terce, as we have seen, was the continuation 
 of a Jewish custom, as were Sext and None. But 
 there were Christian reasons of great weight for 
 retaining it. “ The Holy Ghost,” says Cyprian, 
 
 “ descended on the disciples at the third hour ” 
 (De Or. Djin. u. s. ; Sim. Basil, u. s.; Resp. ad 
 Q. 37; Hieron. Comm, in Dan. vi. 10; Isid. 
 Hisp. u. s. &c.). 
 
 Another ground alleged was that “ at that 
 hour the Lord received sentence from Pilate ” i 
 (Cons. Apost. 1. viii. c. 34). St. Mark xv. 25 ! 
 refers the crucifixion to the third hour, i. e. to ! 
 the third of the twelve hours between sunrise 
 and sunset; but if the condemnation took place 
 between that and sunrise, it was also correctly 
 
 said in ecclesiastical language to have been at 
 the third hour. So John xix. 14, reckouinsr 
 apparently from midnight, places the condemna¬ 
 tion at “ about the sixth hour,” which brings it 
 down to the third hour understood of the larger 
 space of time, and reckoned from sunrise. 
 
 With reference to Sext, it was observed that 
 St. Peter “ at the sixth hour went up to the 
 house-top, and was both by sign and by the voice 
 of God warning him, instructed to admit all to 
 the grace of salvation ” (Cypr. u. s. comp. Hieron. 
 u. s.). Another and more important reason was 
 that “The Lord was crucified at the sixth hour” 
 (Cypr. u. s. Sim. Constit. Apost. u. s. Isid. Hispal. 
 u. s. Cone. Aquisgr. u. s.), a statement, which if 
 taken to the letter, can only be reconciled with 
 that of St. Mark, by supposing the “ .sixth hour ” 
 to cover the fourth, fifth, and sixth of the smaller 
 hours. If however it means no more than that 
 our Lord hung on the cross at that hour, it needs 
 no explanation. 
 
 None was said to be observed because “ Peter 
 and John went up to the temple at the ninth 
 hour of prayer” (St. Basil, u. s. ; St. Jerome, 
 u. s.) ; but more than all because “at the ninth 
 hour Christ washed away our sins with His 
 blood ” (Cypr. Constit. Aj ost. &c. as before). 
 
 The pious sentiment which dictated the prayers 
 developed in some religious houses into a dis¬ 
 tinct office, called lucernarunn, came before us 
 while we traced the origin of that rite. 
 
 Evensong was especially an office of thanks¬ 
 giving. St. Basil—“ Is the day ended ? Thank 
 Him who hath given us the sun to minister to 
 the works of the day ” ( Horn, in Mart. Jnlittam, 
 § 2). “In the evening giving thanks that God 
 has given us the night for a season of rest from 
 the labours of the day ” (Const. Apost. u. s.). 
 
 Another thought is connected, with it by St. 
 Cyprian :—“ Because Christ is the true sun and 
 the true day, when, at the departure of the sun 
 and day of the world, we jiray and beseech that 
 the light may come on us again, we are praying 
 for the coming of Christ, who will give the 
 grace of everlasting light ” (De Oral. Dom. u. s.). 
 A third ground of this observance is suggested 
 by Ca.ssian, viz., that the eucharist was “de¬ 
 livered to the apostles by the Lord the Saviour 
 in the evening” (fnstit. 1. iii. c. 3; so Isidore, 
 De Eccl. Off’. 1. i. c. 20; Cone. Aquisgr. c. 127); 
 and with this was associated the completion of 
 the passion on the following dav towards the 
 evening, and about the time of the evening 
 sacrifice (Isid. &c. u. s.). 
 
 For Compline there was the strong natural 
 reason, often alleged for private prayer before 
 going to sleep at night, as e. g. in a tract doubt¬ 
 fully ascribed to St. Chrysostom :—“ With what 
 hope wilt thou come to the season of night; 
 with what dreams dost thou ex])ect to converse, 
 if thou hast not walled thyself round with 
 prayers, but goest to sleep unprotected?” (De 
 Precat. Or. 1. sub fin.). The zeal of David 
 (Ps. cxxxii. 3-5) was held up as a model:— 
 “This thing ought jmwerfully to admonish us 
 that, if we wish to be ‘ a i)lace for the Lord ’ 
 and desire to be accounted His tabernacle and 
 temple, we should follow the examjiles of the 
 saints, lest that which is read should be said of 
 us, ‘They have slept their sleep, and none of the 
 men of might have found their hands’” (Isid. 
 u. s. Li. c. 21 ; so Cone. Atpiisgr. c. 128 j 
 
798 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 HOURS OF PRAYER 
 
 Raban. «. s. 1. ii. c. 7). “ Every one,” says 
 
 Amalarius (Be Eccl. Ojf. 1. iv. c. 8), “ who has 
 even a little sense, knows how many dangers 
 may assail a man from without when sleeping 
 more than when waking. This office is in some 
 sort analogous to that commendation, by which 
 a man commends himself to God, when he is 
 passing away from this world. Sleep is the 
 image of death,” &c. 
 
 Eocturns originated in the pious custom of 
 prayer when one woke in the night. 'I'ertullian 
 says of the meals of Christians, “They are so 
 tilled as they who remember that even in the 
 night God is to be worshipped by them ” (Apol. 
 c. 39). St. Cyprian:—“ There can be no loss 
 from the darkness of night to those who pray; 
 for there is day even in the night to the sons of 
 light” (Be Orat. Bom. sub tin.). Clemens of 
 Alexandria (Paedag. 1. ii. c. 9, § 79):—“Often in 
 the night should we rise from bed and ble.ss God; 
 for happy are they who watch unto Him, thus 
 making themselves like the angels whom we call 
 watchers ” (Dan. iv. 13, &c.). “ Without this 
 
 prayer ” (Le. prayer expressed in words), says 
 Origen, “ we shall not pass the season of the 
 night in a fit manner” (Be Orat. c. 12). He 
 refers to David (Ps. cxix. 62). and St. Paul and 
 Silas (Acts xvi. 25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 asks, “ When is our mind more intent on 
 psalmody and prayer ? Is it not in the night ? 
 When do we most frequently come to the re¬ 
 membrance of our sins 7 Is it not in the night ?” 
 (Catech. ix. § 4). St. Ambrose cites the example 
 of Christ:—“ The Lord Himself passed the night 
 in prayer, that by His own example He might 
 invite thee to pray ” (Expos, in Ps. cxviii. v. 62 ; 
 Se7'm. viii. § 45). Elsewhere he says:—“In th}^ 
 chamber itself I would have psalms by frequent 
 alternation interwoven with the Lord’s Prayer, 
 either when thou hast waked up or before sleep 
 bedews the body, that sleep may find thee at the 
 very entrance on rest free from care of worldly 
 things and meditating on divine ” (Be Virginibus, 
 lib. iii. c. iv'. § 19). “D.avid every night watered 
 his couch with tears ; he rose also in the middle 
 of the night that he might confess to God, and 
 dost thou think that the whole night is to be 
 assigned to sleep? Then is the Lord to be the 
 more entreated by thee; then is protection to be 
 (more) sought, fault to be (more) guarded against 
 when there appears to be secrecy, and then above 
 all, when darkness is round about me and walls 
 cover me, must I reflect that God beholds all 
 hidden things ” (m Ps. cxviii. Expos. Serm. vii. 
 §31). The example of our Lord was urged :— 
 “The day is not enough for prayer. We must 
 rise in the night and at midnight. The Lord 
 Himself passed the night in pra 3 ’er; that He 
 might invite thee to pray bv' His own example ” 
 (^ibid. Sei'm. viii. § 45). St. Hilary, after dwell¬ 
 ing on the w'ords of David, adds, “ The mind is 
 not to be released bv the dangerous idleness of 
 wakefulness in the night, but to be emploved in 
 prayers, in pleadings, in confessions of sins; that 
 w'hen occasion is most given to the vices of the 
 body, then above all those vices may be subdued 
 b}' the remembrance of the divine law ” (dract 
 in Ps. cxviii. lit. vii. § 6). To these motives St. 
 Basil adds, “ Let the night supply other grounds 
 of prayer. When thou lookest into the sk\" and 
 gazest on the beaut}- of the stars,” &c. (Horn, in 
 Mart. Julitt. § 3). 
 
 VI. The Times of the Offices. —For Eoctums 
 some rose at cockcrow, as prescribed in the Apo~ 
 stolical Constitutions (lib. viii. 34). So St. Chry¬ 
 sostom :—“ As soon as the cock crows the prefect 
 is standing by (the sleeping monk), and strikes 
 him as he lies lightly with his foot, and so wakes 
 all straightw-ay ” (Horn. xiv. in 1 Tim. § 4). St. 
 Columban’s rule says the “middle ” of the night 
 (■'. 7); and in Gregoj-y of Tours one speaks of 
 himself as rising “about midnight ad redden¬ 
 dum cursum ” (Hist. Franc, lib. viii. c. 15). St. 
 Benedict orders his monks to ri.se for vigils “at 
 the eighth hour of the night in winter ; i.c. from 
 the Kalends of November to Ea.ster,” but duiiug 
 the rest of the year the time of vigils was to be 
 regulated by that of matin.s, which it was to 
 precede by a “ very short interval ” (Peg. caj). 8). 
 Another rule, of the 7th century, orders nocturns 
 to be said before cockcrow in winter, and after it 
 in summer, when it was to be “soon ” followed 
 by matins (Pegula Magistri, c. 3.3). In Spain 
 the severe rule of St. Fructuosus prescribed two 
 or three offices for the night according to the 
 season, one “before midnight,” and a second “at 
 midnight,” throughout the year, and in winter 
 a third “ after midnight ” (Peg. cap. 3) ; thus 
 carrying out to the letter the exhortation of St. 
 Jerome to Eustochium, “ Tou should rise twice 
 or thrice in the night ” (Epist. xviii.). 
 
 From the union of nocturns with matins, of 
 which we have seen the beginning, the double 
 office was at a later period called iudiflerently, 
 nocturns or matins, or lauds. 
 
 Matins, properly so-called, were said in the 
 morning watch, or fourth watch of the night; 
 that is to say, at any part of that space of three 
 natural hours which preceded sunrise. They 
 were to be over by dawn: Post matutinum 
 tempus sequitur diluculum (Amal. de Oi'd. An- 
 tiph. c. 5). St. Benedict ordered matins to be 
 said “ when the light began ” (Peg. c. 8). If it 
 surprised them at nocturns, the latter were to be 
 shortened (c. 11). So early as the beginning of 
 the 5th century, matins (solemnitas matutina) 
 were “ wont to be celebrated in the monasteries 
 of Gaul a short interval of time after the night 
 psalms and prayers were finished ” (Cassian, 
 Instit. lib. iii. c. 4), 
 
 Prime was said in the first natural hour after 
 sunrise. This appears from Cassian’s account of 
 its origin. The monks were to be allowed to 
 rest after matins, “usque ad solis ortum,” and 
 were then to rise for the new-office (Instit. u. s.). 
 And so, four centuries later, Amalarius:—“We 
 begin the first of the day from the rising of the 
 sun” (Be Ord. Ant. c. 6); and Rabanus fixes it 
 “at the beginning of the day when tiie sun first 
 appears from the east ” (Be Instit. Cler. lib. ii, 
 c. 3). 
 
 Terce might originally be said at any part of 
 the three hours which began at sunrise (see 
 before § ii.); but after the institution of prime 
 it could only be said during the two last. It 
 was not in practice always confined to the last ; 
 for in the rule of an unknown author, formerlv 
 ascribed to St. Jerome, it is expresslv provided 
 that on fast-days, terce, sext, and none, be each 
 said an hour earlier than usual (cap. 34; intei 
 0pp. S. Hieron. tom. v, ed. Ben,). See also the 
 rule of St. Benedict, as cited in § ii. 
 
 As the lamps were lighted in preparation for 
 evening prayer, the Lucernat'ium, as a merely 
 
HOUSE 
 
 799 
 
 HUESCA, COUNCIL OP 
 
 preliminary act of devotion would be said imme¬ 
 diately before that; and it was in fact as we 
 have seen, often considered an actual part of the 
 office. Where it became a distinct service, there 
 would, we j)resume, be an interval of some length 
 before vespers began; but we have no informa¬ 
 tion on the subject. 
 
 “ It becomes evening when the sun sets ” (St. 
 Aug. in Ps. xxix. v. 6, Enarr. ii.). Nevertheless 
 vespers were more generally said in the hour 
 before sunset. This is why the office was called 
 Duodecima (see before § iv.). “ We celebrate the 
 evening synaxis,” observes Amalarius, ‘‘ about 
 the 12th hour, which hour is about the end of 
 the day ” {De Ord. Antiph. c. G) ; “ most fre¬ 
 quently before sunset ” (ibid. c. 70 ; comp. c. 16 ; 
 Isid. Hisp. de Eccl. Off. lib. i. c. 20; Rabfln. 
 IVIaur. De Instit. Cleri, lib. ii. c. 7). Benedict, 
 in fact, made a rule, which must have influenced 
 the custom greatly, that vespers should be said 
 at all seasons while it was yet daylight; and 
 that in Lent, when refection followed vespers, 
 they should be said at such an early hour that 
 the meal might be ov'er before the light failed 
 (Deg. cap. 41). Another authority says, “ Ves¬ 
 pers ought to be said while the rays of the sun 
 are still declining.” “ In summer, on account of 
 the short nights, let lucernaria (here vespers) 
 be begun while the sun is still high ” (AV^u/u 
 Magistri, c. 34). 
 
 The history of compline has shown the proper 
 time of saying, viz. before retiring to rest; and 
 this was the time observed by the monks within 
 our period. Thus a MS. of the Regula of pseudo- 
 Augustine, now 1200 years old:—“After this 
 (i e. after certain lessons read at night) let the 
 usual psalms be said before sleep ” (Note of 
 Bened. editors, App. i. 0pp. Aug.). St. Isidore: 
 —“Compline being ended, the brethren, as the 
 custom is, having wished each other good night 
 before sleeping, must keep still with all heed and 
 silence until they rise for vdgils” (Deg. c. 7). 
 St. Fructuosus, after presciibing the office of 
 “the first hour of the night,” orders his monks 
 to bid each other good-night and retire to their 
 dormitories (Reg. i. c. 2). Another rule forbids 
 the monks to speak, eat, drink, or do any work 
 after compline (Regula Magistri, c. 30). Ama¬ 
 larius (De Eccl. Off. lib. iv. c. 8) tells us that 
 compline was said in the conticinium; i.e. in the 
 third part of the night, reckoning from sunset, 
 when it was divided, as by the Romans, into 
 seven. 
 
 When vespers were said earlier compline was 
 put earlier too, and one writer at the close of 
 our period gives it the name of Duodecima 
 (Smaragdus, Comment, in S. Ben. Reg. c. 16). It 
 had already taken possession of the hour so long 
 occupied hy vespers. At length it became the 
 common opinion that it ought to be said at the 
 twelfth hour (Francolinus, u. s. cap. 18). 
 
 For a description of the several offices, see 
 Office, the Divine. [W. E. S.] 
 
 HOUSE. In Aringhi, i. p. 522, ii. 658, are 
 woodcuts of houses from ancient trmbs [Tomh]. 
 This, perhaps, refers to the grave as the 
 house of the dead, an idea or expression inherited 
 from heathenism (Horace Carm. i. iv. 19, and Bol- 
 detti, p. 463 ; even Domus Aeterna, Pei ret v. pi. 
 36, X. 110), or to the deserted house of the soul, 
 the buried body (2 Cor. v. i.), “ For we know that 
 
 I if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dis¬ 
 solved, we have a building of God,” &c. In one 
 of the plates from Aringhi above referred to 
 (ii. 658) there is a house of the grav’e, with a 
 small mummy of Lazarus; laid up alone (de- 
 positus or repositus) to abide the resurrection. 
 The houses of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, repre¬ 
 senting the Jewish and Gentile churches, occur 
 frequently in ancient paintings and mosaics. 
 [Bethlehem.] How far the word Beth, as part 
 of Bethlehem (“house of bread”), may be con¬ 
 nected with the Christian import of this symbol, 
 is hard to say. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 HOUSE OF CLEKGY. [Manse.] 
 
 HOUSE OF PRAYER. [Church ; Ora- 
 
 TORY.] 
 
 HRIPSIMA, and companions, virgin-martyrs 
 under Tiridates; commemorated June 3 (Cal. 
 Armen.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HUBERT (Hucrertus), bishop and confes¬ 
 sor (f 727 A.D.); commemorated May 30 (Mart. 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HUCKSTERS. The mind of the church 
 has of course always been against all unprin¬ 
 cipled gain in traffic, even when permitted by 
 law and custom. Adulterators or fraudulent 
 dealers (Ka-mjKoi) are enumerated (Apost. Constt. 
 iv. 6, § 2) among those whose oblations are not 
 to be received." And again (Ib. viii. 32, §5) 
 the KdirrjKos is chissod with the stage-players 
 and dancers, among those who must abandon 
 their profession before they can be admitted to 
 the church. Lactantius (IHo. Inst. V. c. 16) 
 emphatically rejects the doctrine of Carneades, 
 that the seller is not bound to declare the 
 faults of the article which he has for sale, and 
 insists that the Christian conscience requires 
 perfect frankness and openness in such a matter, 
 in the same spirit St. Augustine (Tract. 41 in 
 Joan.) puts fraud on the same level as fornica¬ 
 tion and theft, and gives high praise (De Trin. 
 xiii. 3) to one who, in buying a book, declined to 
 overreach the seller, who was ignorant of its 
 value. So, too, Hilary (on Ps. cxix. [cxviii. 
 Vulg.] 139) enumerates cheating (falsitates) 
 among the things which make our bodies a den 
 of thieves. In short, all kinds of unprincipled 
 dealers (padiovpyoi) and sorcerers, all who give 
 short weight or me.asure ((vyoKpovarai Kal 5o\o- 
 perpai) are condemned (Apost. Const, iv. 6, § 1). 
 
 Tertullian (De Idolol. c. 11; cf. Epiphanius, 
 Expos. Fid. c. 24) and some others regard with 
 disfavour all gain derived from mere buying and 
 selling of goods, considering the labour of the 
 hands the proper means of earning a living. 
 But Leo the Great (i'.pist. 92, ad Rustic, c. 9) 
 reasonably distinguishes between honest and un¬ 
 principled gain (quaestus honestus aut turpis); 
 the culj)ability or innocence of gain (he holds) 
 depends upon its character; there is no harm 
 in profit not derived from fraudulent practice. 
 Compare Com.merce. 
 
 (Bingham’s Antiq. XVI. xii. 17). [C.] 
 
 HUESCA, COUNCIL OF (Oscense c.), at 
 the town so called in the north of Arragon, in 
 Spain, A.I). 598, or the thirteenth year of king 
 
 ® The rt’ord (ioes not seem to be used here in the limited 
 sense of the Latin Vaupo, a tavern-keeper. 
 
800 
 
 HUMERALE 
 
 HYDROMAXTIA 
 
 Eeccared. Xo furthei’ particulars are preserved 
 of it, than that it provided for the holding of a 
 synod every ywir in each diocese, to inquire into 
 the morals of the monks and clergy, and pre¬ 
 scribe rules for their conduct (Mansi, x. 479-82). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 HUMERALE. [Amice.] 
 
 KUXTlNCx. . Field-sports have been under 
 the censure of the church from an early period, 
 and in the many canons relating to them there is 
 very little trace of any disposition to relax the 
 severity of absolute prohibition, or to allow ex¬ 
 ceptional cases in which they might be necessary 
 or desirable. 
 
 By the 55th canon of the council of Agde 
 ((7. A(jathense), a.d. 544, bishops and presbyters 
 are forbidden to keep hawks and hounds for the 
 chase under penalty of three months’ excommu¬ 
 nication in the case of bishops, and of two 
 months’ in the case of priests, and of one in the 
 case of deacons. The same abstinence is enjoined 
 on bishops, presbyters and deacons, under the 
 same penalty by the 4th canon of the council of 
 Epaon. By the 3rd canon of the council of Sois- 
 sons, not only bishops, presbyters and deacons, 
 but all ecclesiastical persons (clerici) are forbid¬ 
 den to hunt with hounds or to take out hawk.s. 
 In the 8th canon of the third council of Tours, 
 priests are cautioned against the hunting of birds 
 and wild animals, and the second council of 
 Chalons (c. 9) addresses a similar warning against 
 devoting their time to “ hounds, hawks, and 
 falcons,” to laity as well as to clergy. It seems 
 that certain bishops kept dogs under the pretence 
 that they were necessaiy for the defence of their 
 houses; but they are reminded by the 13th 
 canon of the second council of Ma^on, a.d. 585, 
 that not “ barks but hymns, not bites but good 
 works are the proper protection of a bishop’s 
 house, which ought to welcome and not repel 
 men, and certainly not subject any who came for 
 the relief of their sorrows to the risk of being 
 torn dogs. 
 
 Among prohibitions against the same pur¬ 
 suits issued by individuals, is to be found a letter 
 of Boniface, bishop of Mayence (Epist. 105), 
 probably written on the authority of pope 
 Zachary, forbidding “ huntings and excursions 
 with dogs through the woods, and the keeping of 
 hawks and falcons;” and the same prohibition is 
 repeated, totidem verbis, in the 2nd canon of the 
 council of Liptine, a.d. 743, over which Boniface 
 presided. In the Liber Poenitentialis of pope 
 Gregory III. one year’s penance is decreed against 
 one in minor orders (clericus), two years’ 
 against a deacon, and three years’ against a priest, 
 for hunting. 
 
 Ferreolus, bishop of Uzes, in his Rule (about 
 A.D. 558), forbids his monks to hunt and hawk 
 on the ground that such pursuits dissipate the 
 mind ; he allows them however to set dogs at 
 the wild animals which waste their crops, but 
 only that they may “drive them away, not that 
 they may catch them.” Jonas, bishop of 
 Orleans, a.d. 821-844, (de Lnstitut. laic. ii. 23, 
 quoted by Thomassiu), vents his indignation 
 against the nobles for spending so much money 
 on hawks and hounds instead ^f on the poor; 
 and is even more fierce against them for the 
 hardships and cruelties w'hich for the sake of 
 their sport they indicted on the poor. The 
 
 frequent recurrence of these prohibitions and 
 the number of years over which they extend, 
 show how rooted was the taste for field-sports 
 among the Teutonic clergy ; and the language 
 of some of the canons indicates that these sports 
 sometimes became as ojipressive as the Forest 
 Laws of the Middle Ages. 
 
 Looking on, or being present at the hunting, 
 o" baiting, or fighting of wild animals in the 
 amphitheatre is just as strictly forbidden. The 
 council in Trullo {Quinisrxtum), can. 51, orders 
 both laity and clergy to avoid “ the spectacles of 
 huntings,” on jiain of excommunication, and 
 hunting is so freiiuently mentioned in connection 
 with games, dances, and dramatic j>erformauces, 
 that it must be concluded that the sports of the 
 amphitheatre are intended. The Cudex Eccl. 
 Africanae (c. 61) entreats the emperors to put 
 an end to spectacles on great festivals, such as 
 the octave of Easter, and begs that no Christian 
 may be compelled to attend them. By the 
 council of Mayence (addit. 3, c. 27) it is ordered 
 that if any ecclesiastical person attend any 
 spectacle he is liable to three years’ suspension. 
 By the 3rd council of Tours and the second 
 council of Chalons, quoted above, the condemna¬ 
 tion of hunting is coupled with that of theatrical 
 spectacles, so that to look at a spectacle of hunt¬ 
 ing in the amphitheatre would be by the same 
 act to commit two offences against the canon. 
 The 8th canon of the council of Friuli (^Foroju- 
 liensc) issued a canon against the woiddly pomps 
 and vanities in vogue, in which “ huntings ” are 
 mentioned with other amusements manifestly 
 scenic. 
 
 Theodosius the younger abolished contests 
 between men and brutes in the circus on the 
 ground that “ cruel sights made him shudder ” 
 (Socrates, H.E. A’ii. 22). 
 
 (Thomassin, Vet. et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, 
 III. iii. cc. 42, 43.) [E. C. H.] 
 
 HYACIXTHUS, or JACIXCTUS. (1) 
 Martyr at Rome with Amantius, Irenaeus, and 
 Zoticus; commemorated Feb. 10 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr at Rome; commemorated July 26 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Csuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr with Alexander and Tiburtius, in 
 the Sabine district; commemorated Sept. 9 
 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr at Rome with Protus under Gal- 
 lienus ; commemorated Sept. 11 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Bucher., Frontonis, 
 Sacramentarium Gregorii). 
 
 (5) Martyr at Caesarea, A.D. 108; commemo¬ 
 rated July 3 {Cal. Bipant.). 
 
 (6) Of Amastris in Paphlagonia, martyr; 
 c mimemorated Julv 18 {Cal. Bi/zant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 HYDROMANTIA. The Decretum Gratiani 
 (cau. 26, qu. 5, c. 14, §3) has the following in 
 the enumeration of magic arts which are con¬ 
 demned :—“ Hydromantici ab aqua dicti; est 
 enim Hydro:naniia in aquae inspectione umbras 
 daemonum eyocare, et imagineas ludificationes 
 eorum videre, ibique ab eis aliqua audire, ubi 
 adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibentur 
 suscitare.” The. chapter from which this is 
 extracted is taken wholly from Rabanus Dc 
 
HYDKOMYSTA 
 
 HYMXS 
 
 801 
 
 Magorwn Praestu/iis, which is again a compila¬ 
 tion from Augustine and Isidore of Seville. The 
 passage of Augustine on which the account of 
 Hydvomantia is mainly founded is De Civ. Dei, 
 vii. 35, and is to this ed’ect; that Numa, having 
 no real divine inspiration, was compelled to 
 practise hydromancy, so as to see in water 
 images, or rather false semblances (ludifica- 
 tiones), of the gods, and learn from them what 
 he was to ordain with regard to the sacra of his 
 people ; and from this use of w’ater for divining 
 purposes (says Varro) Numa gained the reputa¬ 
 tion of having consulted the nymph Egeria. 
 
 It is evident (as indeed Augustine says) that 
 this hydromancy was a form of necromancy. 
 What was its exact nature is not apparent, but 
 it was probably similar to the divining by 
 msans of a mirror, or of a dark fluid poured 
 into the jtalm of tlie hand, which is frequently 
 mentioned in accounts of magic. [C.] 
 
 HYDROMYSTA (v^pofiva’r-qs), the pejson 
 who had the care of the holy water in a church, 
 ami sprinkled with it those who entered (Sy- 
 nesius, Epist. 121, quoted in Macri Hierolex. 
 s. V.). [C.] 
 
 HYMN (the Cherubic). A hymn so called 
 from the reference to the cherubim which it 
 contains, which occurs in the chief eastern 
 liturgies shortly after the dismissal of the ente- 
 cliumens, and immediately jmeceding the “ great 
 entrance ” {i.e. that of the elements). It is 
 found in the same position in the liturgies of St. 
 James, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Mark ; 
 and also in the Armenian, in which however it is 
 only sung on special occasions, other hymns 
 being appointed in its place on other days. It is 
 not found in the “heretical liturgieswhich, 
 inasmuch as these underwent less alteration than 
 the orthodox, is an argument against the anti¬ 
 quity of the hymn. Cedrenus (Dupin Bibl. des 
 Aut. Eccles. Wme Siecle) a Greek monk who 
 flourished towards the middle of the 11th 
 century, and who wrote “ annals ” from the 
 creation of the world down to the reign of Isaac 
 Comnenus, says that Justinian first ordered it to 
 be sung in the churches ; and it appears to have 
 been composed about that time. Its object is 
 described as being to excite the minds of the 
 faithful to a devout attention to the mysteries 
 about to be celebrated. While it is being sung, 
 the priest says secretly a prayer called “ the 
 prayer of the cherubic hymn,” The words of 
 the hymn are: ot ra P-vcttikoSs 
 
 flKovi^ovTcs, Ka\ Tq? C^ottoi^ Tpiddi rhv rpicrd- 
 yiou {jfxvou aSovres, Trdaav fiiwTiKrjv d-rro- 
 
 Owfieda [xipifivav, us rhv fiaaiXea ruv ‘6\uu 
 viro^e^dfiepot raTs dyy€\iKa7s dopdrus 8opu(^€- 
 popevou rd^iffiv. ’A\Ar)\ovia. [H. J. H.] 
 
 HYMNARIUM. The book containing the 
 hymns sung in the services of the church. Gen- 
 nadius (De Script. Eccl. c. 49) says that Paulinus 
 of Nola composed “ Sacramentarium et Hymna- 
 rium;” see Gavanti, Tkes. Sacr. Rituum, ii. 115. 
 Pelliccia (^Politia, i. 159) gives Cantionalia, Libri 
 Chorales, as common designations of such books, 
 but supplies no instances of their use. [C.] 
 
 HYMNISTA, a singer of hymns in the 
 church. Thus Prudentius (i. 118): 
 
 "Stall nunc hymnistae pro rcceptis parvulls,” 
 where the irregularity of the metre is not 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 perhaps a sufficient reason for arbitrarv' coi'- 
 rection (Macri Hierolex. s. v.), Obbar, however, 
 reads, 
 
 “State nunc, hymuite inatres pro rcccpiis parvulis." 
 
 [C.] 
 
 HYMNOLOGIA (v/xvoKoyia) seems to be 
 equivalent to the service chanted at the Hours. 
 Thus Gregory of Tours (Hist. Rem. c. 25) says 
 that St. liemi with the brother.s, “ horaruin 
 laudes persolvebat hymnologiarum,” meaning 
 (seemingly) that he observed the course set 
 down in the Hymnologies, the term being usetl 
 so as to include psalms, canticles, antiphons, etc. 
 Macro (Hierolex. s. v.) supposes that Dionysius, 
 the Pseudo-Areopagite (Hierarch. Eccl. iii. 2), 
 when he speaks ot t] KadoXiKr] VfxvoKoyia 
 having beeji uttered as a confession (irpoofMoAo- 
 ynde'ia-rjs) before the elements were placed on 
 the altar, meant the Creed, This is of course 
 possible, and Pachymeres (Paraphr. in loco) 
 seems to have taken it so; for they had, he 
 says, even then, pidd-q/xd ri nal (rujujudOvjua 
 TTia-Teus [Creed]. [c.] 
 
 HYMNS. In the following article no at¬ 
 tempt will be made to deal with the literary 
 or theological history of Christian hymuody. 
 All that can be here undeidaken is to give a 
 sketch of what is known respecting the litur¬ 
 gical use of hymns within the limits to which 
 this xvork is restricted. Much of the difficulty 
 connected with the subject arises from our un¬ 
 certainty as to how much was covered by the 
 word v/upos in early Christian writers. Almost 
 everything sung, or rhythmically recited, which 
 was not one of the Davidic Psalms, was called a 
 hymn, or said to be “ hymned.” Even as late as 
 the middle of the ninth century, Walafrid 
 Strabo (De Rebus Eccl. c. 25) warns us that 
 by “hymns” he does not mean merely such 
 metrical hymns as those of Hilary, Ambrose, 
 Prudentius, or Bede, but such other acts of 
 praise as are oftered in fitting words and with 
 musical sounds. He adds that still in somie 
 churches there were no metrical hymns, but 
 that in all “ generales hymni, id est laudes,” 
 were in use. The well-known passage of St. 
 Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. Ixxii.), which was for 
 centuries the formal definition of a hymn in 
 every ritual writer, gives us the same rule. A 
 hymn might or might not be in verse; but it 
 was always something meant to be sung, and 
 sung as an act of divine worship. So Gregory 
 Nazianzen defines a hymn as alpos 
 Further, Christian writers gradually learned to 
 use the term in contradi-stinction to the Psalm 
 of the Old Dispensation; though both words 
 were for a time interchangeable. 
 
 It is obvious that from the very fii-st, Gentile 
 disciples must have sought and found some 
 further expre.ssion for the praise of God than 
 the translation of Hebrew Psalms, or of the 
 canticles from the Hebrew ])rophets, could 
 afford. But at what period Christian songs of 
 praise first found their place in common worship, 
 it is impossible to say. None can tell in what 
 words Paul and Silas {ifxpovp tup 0eJj/” in 
 prison (Acts xvi. 25); nor can we say with 
 certainty that the rhythmic passages in the 
 Epkstles (e. g. Eph. v. 14; 1 Tim. iii. 1(3, vi. 1.5, 
 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13) are quotations from 
 
802 
 
 HYMNS 
 
 HYMNS 
 
 > 
 
 hymns, though this has been frequently main¬ 
 tained. The j)ara]lel passages, again, Eph. v. 
 19, 20, and Col. iii. 16, 17, though evidently 
 pointing to some form of Christian song, yet 
 appear to connect these with social and festive 
 gatlierings rather than with worship. Probably 
 they bore the same relation to the forms used in 
 public worship which the Sjiiritual Songs of 
 Luther, the “ Ghostly Psalms ” of Coverdale, or 
 the early Wesleyan hymns, did to the existing 
 forms of service in their day; and it may be 
 that, like some of the first and last of these, 
 they were subsequently adopted into divine 
 service. This we know to have been the case 
 at a later period with the ipws iXapop referred 
 to by St. Basil (^De ^p. Sari' to, c. 29) as being 
 (in his time) of ancient use; it is still, as is well 
 known, a part of the daily oilice of the Greek 
 church. If this hymn were really the work of 
 Athenagenes (f 169), it would doubtless be the 
 eaidiest hymn now in use; but a reference to 
 the passage in St. Basil will show that he did 
 not believe Athenagenes to be the author. This 
 hymn, with the early form of the Gloria in 
 Excllsis, the latter being given as the morning 
 hymn of the church in the Apostolical Consti¬ 
 tutions (vii. 48 Coteler.), jirobably represent in 
 their rhvthmic but unmetrical structure many 
 eai'ly' Christian hymns now lost. Of the ex¬ 
 istence of such hymns, from the time of Pliny’s 
 vvell-known letter to Trajan {Episf. 97), we 
 have abundant evidence. The “ hymning to 
 God the giver of all good things,” by the Roman 
 Christians after the martyrdom of Ignatius 
 (d/urf. S. Ljn. vii.), may have been a burst of 
 extemporaneous thanksgiving; but early in the 
 following century a Roman writer cited by 
 Eusebius (fl. E. v. 28) tells us how rpaXpol 5e 
 bVot Kal (p8al a8e\(pwu ott’ apx^s vrrb iriCTuv 
 ypatpelcrai, rbv Koyov ruv 0eou rhu Xpicrby 
 vfxvouai OeoXoyovPTfs ; and again 1 he Clementine 
 Epitome Dc gestis Petri, § 152, refers to UpHv 
 vpLPwi/ euxV P^'i't of worship. Of Alexan¬ 
 dria, again, Origen testifies (c. Celsum, viii. c. 67) 
 vfivovs yap els jxovov rbv eirl iTa(Ti Keyop.ev Qebv 
 Kal rbv fjLOvoyevri avrov 0ebv Aoyov [al. t . k. a. 
 \6yov Kal 0601/]. (Cf. also Fragm. in Ps. 148.) 
 
 Again, an early tradition reported by Socrates 
 (//. E. vi. 8) attributes to Ignatius the intro¬ 
 duction of antiphonal singing at Antioch, as the 
 result of a vision of the angelic worship which 
 was revealed to him [Antiphon]. The monks 
 of the Svrian deserts, in the time of Sozomen 
 (//. E. vi. 33, 2) continued in prayers and hymns 
 according to the rule of the church (QeerpLov 
 rrjs fKKXrirr'ias). The point to which all these 
 allusions tend is the veiy early' use of hymns 
 both in the East and West. Of the East, indeed, 
 we can speak more ])Ositively. The Epistle of 
 the second council of Antioch (a.d. 269) to the 
 bishops of Rome and Alexandria, against Paul 
 of Samosata, makes it one of the charges against 
 him, that he had “ jnit a stop to the psalms that 
 were sung to our Lord Jesus Christ, as being 
 innovations, the work of men of later times;” 
 while, to the horror of every one, he had ap- 
 piintcd women to say' psalms on Easter Day in 
 his own honour (els eavrbv) [Euseb. H. E. vii. 
 30]. This last exjiression may simply' refer to 
 his position on a throne of unusual height and 
 dignity in the church; and it is not unlikely 
 that Paul sought to confine the singing strictlv 
 
 to Jewish psalmody. Another inference de- 
 ducible from this jiassage is ‘hat metrical 
 hymns were as yet unknown in Antioch. It is 
 a disputed point whether metre was used m 
 divine service before the fourth century; but 
 probabilities are against its use. If used at all, 
 it must have been in Greek hymns, for reasons 
 which will presently appear. No metrical 
 hymns are now used in the Orthodox Eastern 
 church, but all its ecclesiastical vej-se since the 
 eighth century has been simiily’ rhythmic and 
 accentual, like the earliest Latin seijuences; but 
 it is impossible to say’ whether for a time metrical 
 hymns found their way into Greek offices. The 
 so-called “earliest Christian hymn,” the epilogue 
 of Clement of Alexandria to his TlaiSayuySs, is 
 not, except in a loose modern sense, a hymn at 
 all. The same may’ be said of the sacred verses 
 of Gi'egory Nazianzen ; those of Sophronius 
 approach nearer to the hymnic form, but it is 
 unlikely that his Anacreontic verse could have 
 found its way' into divine service. 
 
 The fourth century', however, saw a great 
 impulse given to the liturgical use of hymns 
 successively in Sy'ria, Constantinople, and the 
 West, under the influence of three eminent men, 
 and with the same object, the enlisting popular 
 feeling on the side of orthodoxy in times of 
 fierce controversy. The earliest of these move¬ 
 ments was that of Ephraim at Edessa. Greek 
 metres and music were introduced into Syriac 
 either by Bardaisan [see Bardesanks in Dict. 
 OF Chr. Biogr.], or (more probably) by his 
 son Harmonius, whose hy’inns Ephraim found 
 to be so popular, that he felt anxious to 
 counteract their influence by the substitu¬ 
 tion of orthodox hy'mns which might be sung 
 to the same tunes. According to the Syriac 
 life of St. Ephraim (quoted by Augusti), he 
 trained choirs of virgins to sing to these tunes 
 hymns which he proceeded to write on the 
 Nativity, Baptism, Fasting, Passion and Resur¬ 
 rection and Ascension of our Lord, and on other 
 divine mysteries; to which he added others on 
 the martyrs, on penitence, and on the departed. 
 The young women of this association attended 
 divine service on the festivals of our Lord, and 
 of marty'rs, and on Sunday’s; Ephraim himself 
 standing in the midst, and leading them (cf. 
 Sozomen, If. E. iv. 16 ; Theodoret, iv. 29). From 
 that time forward metrical hymnody became a 
 fixed element in the worship of the Syriac¬ 
 speaking churches, and has tilled a very large 
 place not only in their daily offices, but in the 
 Eucharistic, and indeed in all others. It is 
 not so easy to understand precisely what was 
 effected in Constantinople under Chrysostom; 
 because we do not know what singing was 
 already in use in the churches there. Theodoret 
 (H. E. ii. 24) attributes the introduction of anti¬ 
 phonal singing into Constantinople to two priests 
 under Constantine, named Flavian and Diodorus. 
 In most ritual matters Constantinople followed 
 the lead of Antioch; and this custom may have 
 been an imitation of what was already in use 
 there. We cannot doubt, however, that the device 
 of Chrysostom for silencing or outbidding the 
 Arians, as related by Sozomen (IT. E. viii. 8, 1-5), 
 led to a much freer and more abundant use of 
 hy’mns in divine service. The Arians had been 
 expelled by’ Theodosius from the churches of the 
 city; but their numbers were still very great, 
 
HYMNS 
 
 HYMNS 
 
 803 
 
 and they had places of assembly outside the 
 walls. On Saturdays and Sundays they as¬ 
 sembled in crowds in the oi)en spaces of the city, 
 singing Arian hymns and antiphons, and went 
 in procession, with these hymns, to their 
 churches. Chrysostom determined to organize 
 rival processions of the orthodox. The empress 
 Eudocia entered into the scheme, and a eunuch 
 of the imperial household was instructed to 
 furnish the necessary materials for the ceremonial, 
 at her expense. It is curious to find that these 
 included not merely crosses and torches, but 
 also hymns; so unimportant did the words sung 
 appear to Chrysostom in reference to the end in 
 view. But whether the hymns were good or 
 bad, the midnight processions popularised their 
 use; and from the night offices of the church 
 they seem to have passed into other hours. The 
 midnight singing of the “ Golden Canon ” of St. 
 John Damascene, so graphically described by 
 Neale {Hymns of Eastern Ch. p. 35), which 
 forms.so marked and picturesque a feature of 
 the Greek Easter, is doubtless the true historical 
 representation of Chrysostom’s nocturnal pro¬ 
 cessionals (cf. Socrates, vi. 8 ; Cassiodorus, Hist. 
 Trip. X. 8; Nicephorus, viii. 8, 9). It was not, 
 however, according to Neale (m. s. p. 13), till the 
 period of the Iconoclastic controA'ersy (a.d. 726- 
 820) that Greek hymnology reached its full de¬ 
 velopment. Its great names are Andrew of 
 Crete (660-732), John Damascene (f 780), Cos- 
 rnas the melodist (1760), Theophaiies (759- 
 818), Theodore of the Studium (f 826), and 
 Methodius (f 836). How marvellous its de¬ 
 velopment was may be gathered from the fact 
 alleged by Neale that out of the five thousand 
 quarto pages, which he computes to be the con¬ 
 tents of the whole body of Greek office-books, at 
 least four thousand are poetry. For a full and 
 elaborate account of the structure and contents 
 of a Greek canon, or group of odes, which forms 
 the staj)le of the morning office, the reader is 
 referred to the articles Canon (p. 277) and Ode. 
 The other subsidiary forms of hymn are ex¬ 
 plained in the same volume. 
 
 By a singular coincidence the establishment of 
 hyinnody as a constant element of divine service 
 in the West, had been brought about, a few 
 years before, by similar disputes between Arians 
 and Catholics. The facts are related by Augus¬ 
 tine, who, with his mother Monica, was at 
 Milan at the time {Conf. IX. vii.), as well as 
 more briefly by Paulinus, St. Ambrose’s deacon 
 ( Vita S. Amb. p. 80 ; ed. Bened. Paris, 1632). St. 
 Ambrose, in consequence of his refusal to give 
 up to the empress Justina one of the basilicas 
 of Milan for Arian worship at Easter, A.D. 385, 
 had incurred her resentment. In the following 
 year sentence of exile was passed upon him. He 
 refused to obey ; and the population, who were 
 devoted to him, guarded the gates of his house, 
 and kept watch night and day in his church, to 
 defend him from capture by the imperial troops. 
 This company of perpetual watchers Ambrose 
 organized into a band of per})etual worshippers. 
 A course of offices, psalmody, prayer, and 
 hymns, was established, and once e.stablished, 
 became a permanent institution [Houus OF 
 Prayer]. Augustine expressly says that this 
 was an imitation of the Eastern custom ; by 
 which he probably means the course of dailv and 
 nightly psalmody and prayer—the practice of 
 
 Oriental a.scetics, both Jewish (cf. Philo de Vita 
 contemphtkd, c. x. [ii. 481, Mangey] quoted by 
 Euseb. //. E. ii. 17) and Christian. 
 
 But it is especially to these services organized 
 by St. Ambrose, as all subsequent writers agree, 
 that we of the Western churches owe the incor¬ 
 poration into our offices of metrical hymnody 
 (cf. Isidore of Seville, de Keel. Off. i. 6 ; Wala- 
 frid Strabo, de Rebus Eccl. xxv. &c. and Pau¬ 
 linus, 1. c.). Unlike Chrysostom, Ambrose was 
 able to supply his congregations with words, and 
 himself to set them to music (see Ambrosian 
 Music, and Koch, Kirchenlied., vol. i. pp. 61, sqq.). 
 Of the metrical hymns which are undoubtedly his, 
 Biraghi {Inni Sineeri di Sant’ Ambrorjio') enu¬ 
 merates eighteen, Koch twenty-one. But Milan 
 became a school of Ambrosian hymnody, which 
 has left its mark upon the whole of the West. 
 Ninety-two hymns of this school are given by 
 Daniel {Thes. Hymn. vol. i.). Yet, though 
 Ambrose is the true founder of metrical 
 hymnody in the West, it is possible that hymns 
 were already in use elsewhere. Hilary of 
 Poictiers is sometimes spoken of as the first to 
 introduce them; he certainly was a hymn 
 writer, and his hymn “ Lucis largitor optime 
 (al. spleudide),” sent from his exile in Phrygia, 
 as early as A.D. 358, to his daughter Abra, 
 found its way into church use. Pseudo-Alcuin 
 {de Din. Off. § 10) attributes to him the com¬ 
 pletion, in its present Western form, of the 
 “ Gloria in Excelsis,” and it is at least possible 
 that he may have introduced other innovations, 
 especially as some of his hymns (notably a well- 
 known Lenten one, “ Jesu quadragenariae),” 
 though common in Germany and England, were 
 not in use in Italy. The work of St. Gregory 
 the Great is not, as a hymnographer, distinct 
 from that of St. Ambrose; he introduced no 
 new species of hymn, nor, it would appear, any 
 new u.se for hymns; his ritual and liturgical 
 work lay in other directions, though he made 
 many important contributions to the now 
 rapidly increasing stock of metrical hymns. 
 But the progress of hymnody for the next four 
 centuries will be best illustrated by a table of 
 the sources from which the leading Breviary 
 hymns have been derived. In the subjoined 
 list, the numbers in the first column are from 
 Daniel, who, without attempting perfect ac¬ 
 curacy, arranges under the name of each author 
 the hymns traditionally assigned to him ; those 
 in the second column from Koch, who has en¬ 
 deavoured to assign to each author the hymns 
 known to be his, but has not consulted so wide 
 a ranse of breviaries as Daniel:— 
 
 Hymns assigned to .. .. D. 
 
 Hilary cf Poictiers (f 368) 7 
 
 1 )aniasus .. .. .. 2 
 
 Ambrose and tlie Am- \ 
 bn>sian school 5’’ 
 Augu.stine (incorrectly) . 1 
 
 Sedulias .. .. .. 2 
 
 Prud ntius .. .. 15 
 
 Enmxlius .. .. .. 16 
 
 Elpis .. .. .. 1 
 
 Venanlius Eortnnatus ,. 7 
 
 Gregory the (Iroat .. 0 
 
 Isidore of Swille (636) .. 2 
 
 Elavius of Chalons (580) — 
 
 Cyrilla .. .. .. 1 
 
 Eug' uius of Toledo ( . 
 
 (006-653) ( '■ 
 
 Ildefonsus (658-660)) _ 
 
 Julian (680-630) J 
 
 K. 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 or 3 
 10 (centos. 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 (?) 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Some. 
 3 F 
 
804 
 
 HY^INS 
 
 HYPACOE 
 
 Utmns assiftned to 
 Bede 
 
 I'aulus Diaconus .. 
 
 Akuiii 
 
 Charlemagne 
 
 Anonymous hymns, 
 cent, vi.-ix. ' 
 
 D. 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 K. 
 
 11 (several doubtful) 
 Several. 
 
 Several. 
 
 V. cent, 
 vi. cent, 
 vii. c nt. 
 viii. cent. 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 The use of Ambrosian and other hymns of 
 Italian origin wa.s much extended by the esta¬ 
 blishment of the monastic orders, each with its 
 own set of onices for the hours. Benedict 
 especially is expressly mentioned by Walafrid 
 Strabo as having inserted in his olHces many 
 Ambrosian hymns. Other countries began, as 
 the above lists will show, to produce hymno- 
 graphers of their own, especially Spain, of 
 whose rich store of hymns the IMozarabic Bre¬ 
 viary is an evidence. There are signs, however, 
 that this influx of hymns did not evei’ywhere 
 meet with favour. The complaint made by the 
 orthodox against heretics that they had inno¬ 
 vated, could now be turned against themselves 
 (Ambrose, Ep. 873, 72); and among Catholics 
 there were some who doubted, like the Genevan 
 reformers later, whether it were right to use in 
 worship any but the words of Scripture. Others, 
 as time went on, became accustomed to the Am¬ 
 brosian hvmns, but hesitated to receive fresh 
 ones. At the second council of Tours (567-8), 
 bv canon 23, the admission of other hymns of 
 merit, in addition to the Ambrosian, was form¬ 
 ally sanctioned. At Toledo, again, complaints 
 were made that some still rejected the hymns 
 of Hilary and Ambrose, as not scriptural (Wala¬ 
 frid Strabo, 1. c.). At length, on Dec. 5, 633, at 
 the fourth council of Toledo, under the presidency 
 of Isidore, a canon (c. 13) was passed threatening 
 with excommunication all in France or Spain 
 who opposed the use of hymns in divine service. 
 Yet, as we have seen, there were still some 
 churche.s, even in the ninth century, which did 
 not admit metrical hymns into their offices. 
 
 Two points remain to be noticed—the metre 
 of Latin hymns, and the offices to which they 
 were restricted. 
 
 Ambrose found in the lambic Dimeter (our 
 present L. M.) a metre admirably adapted to the 
 concise and solemn language of his hymns, and 
 equally well fitted for singing. This accordingly 
 has been the normal metre of Latin hymnology, 
 down to the invention of sequences. But it 
 was by no means used in strict conformity to 
 classical models; accent and quantity, it must 
 be confessed, were both at times disregarded. 
 Some attempts were made, however, at other 
 metres. Among the so-called Ambrosian hymns 
 appears one on St. ,Iohn Baptist, in four-line 
 stanzas of Alcaic Hendecasyllables— 
 
 “ Aim! prophctae | progeni | es pia,” 
 
 and four others, one for fair weather, one for 
 rain, and two in time of war, in a peculiar form 
 of the lesser Asclepiad, with spondee instead of 
 dactvl in the last place. 
 
 “ Obduxcre polum nubila coeli.” 
 
 The poems of Prudentius, not being originally 
 intended for church song, supply other irregu¬ 
 larities, as lambic Trimeter— 
 
 “ 0 Nazarene, lux Bethlem, verbum Patris,” 
 
 and the Anacrci ntic (Iamb. Dim. Catal.)— 
 “Cultor Dei memento.” 
 
 The fine cento from his “ Da puer plectrum,” 
 beginning— 
 
 o o 
 
 ‘‘Cor.ie natus ex Parentis ante mundi exordium,’- 
 
 first introduced into church song the Trochaic 
 Tetrameter Gatalecticus of Greek tragedy, which 
 has been so great and permanent a gain. He 
 has also a hymn in stanza.s of four Sapphic lines 
 (without the final Adonius)— 
 
 “ Inventor rutili dux bone luminls.” 
 
 Two centos from Fortunatus— 
 
 “ Crux benedicta niut, dominus qua came pependit,” 
 
 and the well-known “Salve festa dies,” are the 
 earliest instances of elegiac verse in church 
 song. It is to be noted that both were pro¬ 
 cessionals. St. Gregory the Great wrote Saijphic 
 hymns for the hour.s— 
 
 “Nocte surgentes vigilemus omnes," 
 
 and 
 
 “ Ecce jam noctis tenuatur umbra,” 
 
 and thenceforth their use was not infrequent. 
 
 A few other irregularities may be mentioned, 
 but they are unimportant. 
 
 The use of hymns till now was threefold : 
 (1) as processionals; (2) in the canonical hours; 
 (3) at certain special offices, such as the Bene¬ 
 diction of Paschal tapers, &c. As yet no metrical 
 hymns were used in any part of the Eucharistic 
 office. Walafrid Strabo mentions, however, that 
 Paulinus “ Patriarcha Forojuliensis ” (Paulinus 
 of Aquileia) had frequently, especially in private 
 masses, introduced hymns either of his own or 
 of others, “ circa immolationem saevamentorum ” 
 {i.e. at the Illation or Preface following the 
 Sursum cordci). He adds that so greaf a man 
 would not have done this without authority or 
 reason. It is possible, therefore, that there 
 were other instances of the interpolation of 
 hymns into the Ma.ss. One such is known to 
 us, the verses attributed by Daniel to Eugenius 
 of Toledo — 
 
 “Sancti venite, corpus Christi sumite,” 
 
 sung as a Communio, or Antiphona ad acccdentcs, 
 before the reception of the elements; Neale 
 (^Chr. Remembrancer, Oct. 1853) assigns this to 
 the seventh or eighth century. These excep¬ 
 tional uses Avere foreshadowings of the great 
 outburst of sequences in the beginning of the 
 tenth century, which was destined to add so 
 much to the splendour and variety of Latin 
 hymnody. • 
 
 [Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnologicus, vol. i.-v., 
 Leipsic, 1855-6. Mcne, Ilymni Latini Medii 
 Aevi, Freiburg, 1853. Koch, Geschichte dcs 
 Kirchenlieds und Kirchengesanys der Christlichen 
 (4 vols.) vol. i. (part i. treats of hymns of the 
 first eight centuries), Stuttgart, 1856. He gives 
 ample lists of authorities on special points. 
 August!, De hymnis Syrorum sacris, Wratislaw, 
 1841. Neale, Hymns of the Eastern Church, 
 London, 1863. Mediaeval Hymns and Se¬ 
 quences, 1863. Biraghi, Luii SmGe7'{ e Carmi dt 
 Sanf Ambrogio, Milan, 1862. Ebert, Geschichte 
 der Christlich-Lateinischen Literatur, Leipsic, 
 1874.] [J. E.] 
 
 HYPACOE (viraKort). Certain rhythmic 
 compositions, or hymns, Avhich follow upon and 
 echo (as it were) the sense of that which pre- 
 
HYPAPANTE 
 
 IX0TC 
 
 805 
 
 coded, are called vnaKoal, because they depend 
 upon (viraKovohfTi) that which has gone before, as 
 a servant on a master. This is the explanation 
 of Coresi, Goar, however (quoted in Daniel’s 
 Codex, iv. 723), prefers the explanation, that 
 such hymns relate some wonderful work of God, 
 by listening to which the church may be edified. 
 Neither explanation is perhajis quite satisfactory, 
 but the latter can scarcely be considered to give 
 any reason at all why these hymns should be 
 called Hypacoae more than many other parts of 
 the office. [C.] 
 
 HYPAPANTE (often written Hvpaxte), a 
 name given to the festival of the Purification of 
 the Virgin Hary, from her meeting {virairauTT]) 
 with Simeon and Anna in the Temple. [Mary 
 THE Virgin. Festivals of.] [C.] 
 
 HYPATIUS, bishop of Gangra in Paphla- 
 gonia, daimaTovpyos ; commemorated March 31 
 {Ctl. Byzmit.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 HYPOCAUSTOIUUIM, a room warmed by 
 a hypocaust, or furnace under the floor. Thus 
 Thiadildis, abbess of Freckenhorst, in Westphalia, 
 is said to have built in her monastery “refec- 
 torium hiemale et aestivale, hypocaustorium, 
 dormitorium, cellarium, domum arearum, etc.” 
 (^Vita S. Thiad. c. 7, in Acta Sanctorum, 30 
 January, A))p. vol. ii.). [C.] 
 
 HYPOPSALIHA (vTro\l/a\/aa), a particulai- 
 manner of chanting the Psalms. The Apostolical 
 Constitu'ions (ii. 57, § 5) give the direction, 
 “after every two lections let some other chant 
 (\l/aA\eTw) the hymns of David, and let the 
 people chant responsive (uTroil/aWeTcc) the ends 
 of the verses.” Such a replication of the body 
 of the congregation to the voice of the single 
 chanter was called vircxpaA/ua. Compare ANTI¬ 
 PHON (Bingham’s Ant. XIV. i. 12). [C.] 
 
 I 
 
 IX0TC. (Compare Fish, p. 673.) The fish is 
 found in an allegoric or symbolic sense in the 
 ancient remains of almost every nation. Among 
 the Assyrian fragments discovered by Mr. 
 Layard, for instance, are frequent instances of 
 monsters partly formed of fish. See, as examples. 
 Monuments of Aineveh, pi. 39, 67 B, 68, 71, 72, 
 &c. The gem figured on p. 674 of this work, in 
 which a man appears covered with the skin of 
 a fish, is probably a representation of this kind 
 of monster, rather than of the Apostolic fisher¬ 
 man. The coins of Tyre and Phoenicia, mari¬ 
 time nations, show on their coins fish, or monsters 
 ending in fish. The same object is found on 
 Egyptian monuments, though much more spa¬ 
 ringly, for the fish was an abomination to the 
 Egyptians (Clemens Alex. Strom, vii. 6; p. 850, 
 Potter; compare v. 7, p. 670). Nor is the 
 symbolic fish wanting in the remains of the 
 Indo-Germanic races (Sir W. .Tones in Asiatic 
 Besearches, i. p. 230; Ann. de Vhilosophie Chre't. 
 V. p. 430). The doli)hin in particular is con¬ 
 tinually rejiresented in art and lauded by the 
 poets; and we not unfrequently meet with 
 allusions to a mysterious fish, the KaWi^dvs, 
 from the presence of which all noxious things 
 fled away : ’Ei/ roTs koI udWix^os iirwyv/jLOS, 
 lephs Ix^vs (Oyipian. .Halieut. i. 185). 
 
 When we find it in Christian symbolism, the 
 question arises, whether the fish, like so many 
 other symbols and formulae, was adopted by the 
 early' Christians from the already existing art ? 
 Looking at the general character of early Chris¬ 
 tian art, considering its constant adoption even 
 of symbols and representations obviously’ pagan, 
 it would seem j)robable that special sense was 
 given to an already existing mode of representa¬ 
 tion. And this particular symbolism seems to 
 have been determined by the discovery of the 
 acrostic from which tlie fish, many times 
 
 mentioned in the gospels, received a mystic 
 significance. 
 
 It is quite uncertain when it was first observed 
 that the word Ix^vs is formed of the initials of 
 the sentence 'Itjctovs Xparrhs ©eou Tihs SwTTjp. 
 We may perhaps assume, that whenever the 
 fish was recognised as the symbol of the Lord, 
 it was in consequence of the acrostic meaning 
 having been discovered, and, if this was the case, 
 it must have been recognised from the very 
 earliest day’s of Christianity’. The Clavis attri¬ 
 buted to Melito of Sardis, which, if genuine, 
 belongs to the middle of the second century’, 
 lay’s it down that Piscis = Christus (c. iv. § xl.: 
 Spicil. Solcsm. ii. 173); but the date and cha¬ 
 racter of that work, although Dom P tra seems 
 to entertain no doubts, cannot be considered '->3 
 beyond question. The Sibylline verses give ^fib. 
 viii. 217-250) the famous acrostic on the letters 
 of the sentence ’It}(tovs Xpnarhs 0eoO Tibs 
 ^ojT^p, (TTaupos. At the time when this was 
 written, the mystic meaning of lx6vs was clearly 
 recognised, but the date of the verses is bv no 
 means certain. Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. 
 iii. 11, § 59; see Gehis, p. 712) numbers the 
 fish among Christian symbols, but does not state 
 its special significance; elsewhere (^Strom. vi. 11, 
 § 94) he regards the “ five barley’ loaves and 
 two small fishes ” as typical of the preparatory 
 discipline of Jew.s and Gentiles. In Clement’s 
 contemporary Tertulhan we arrive at firmer 
 ground; he writes (De JJaptisrno, c. i.) “ Nos 
 pisciculi, secundum IX0TN nostrum, in aqui 
 nascimur.” Here we have both the primary 
 and the secondary application of the fish-svmbol. 
 First, the Fish is Christ, and that clearly’ as 
 IX0TC, showing that Tertullian had the acrostic 
 in his mind; secondly, they who are born of 
 Christ are in their turn “smaller fishes,” a 
 symbolism which also took a firm hold on the 
 mind of the early’ Church, and is often alluded 
 to [Fisherman, p. 674]; thirdly, a fresh signi¬ 
 ficance is added to the conception of the believer 
 as the fish, inasmuch as it is through the water 
 of baptism that they are born from above. It 
 is to be observed that Tertullian gives no expia¬ 
 tion of the IX0TC which would be intelligible 
 to the uninitiated ; the syml)ol, whether written 
 or pictured, was part of the secret language of 
 the early Church. This reti(;ence was probably 
 maintained during the centui-ies of persecution ; 
 but when the need of concealment ceased, w’e 
 find the true significance of the symbol pro¬ 
 claimed. Thus, the writer of the work De pro~ 
 mission, ct benedict. Dei, attributed to I’j-osper of 
 Aquitaine (ii. 39), seems to give positive testi¬ 
 mony on this point. “ IX0TN, latine piscem, 
 sacris litteris majores nostri interjuctati sunt, 
 hoc ex sibyllinis versibus colligentes.” Augus¬ 
 tine, too, speaking of the Siby l, says (De civit. 
 
806 
 
 IX0YC 
 
 IX0YC 
 
 Dei, xviii. 23), ‘‘If you join the first letters of 
 the five Greek words ’irjcroDs, Xptarhs, &eov, 
 Tibs, you will have IX0TC, fish, in 
 
 which word Christ is mysteriously designated. 
 Compare Optatus c. Donatist. iii. 2. And when 
 the Empire became Christian, and it was no longer 
 necessary for Christians to conceal the great 
 object of their faith under a symbol, its use 
 began to decline. De Ro.ssi, the highest autho¬ 
 rity on such a matter, assures us that at Home, 
 at least, it is scarcely ever found in cemeteries 
 formed after the age of Constantine, but is 
 almost confined to the catacombs, and to the 
 most ancient portions of these. It was, he 
 believes, growing obsolete in the 4th century, 
 and was scarcely ever used merely as a symbol, 
 whether at Rome or in the provinces, in tlie 5th. 
 'I’he symbolic fish, indeed, is found on anamboin 
 the church of St. John and St. Paul at Ravenna, 
 which is shown by an inscription to be of the 
 year 597 ; and the IX0TC is found on the large 
 cross in the apse of St. Apollinaris in Classe, 
 near the same city, which Ciampini * ( Vet. 
 Mownn. ii. 79, ed. 2) maintains to be a work of 
 the year 567. These, however, are rather in¬ 
 stances of the use of ancient symbols by an 
 artist for decorative purposes, than of the con¬ 
 tinued use of the symbol, as such. When the 
 symbols occur in inscriptions, where mere orna¬ 
 ment is evidently not intended, we may be sure 
 that they are still used as a sign for believers. 
 In representations of scenes from the gospels, or 
 from hagiology, fish are of course found in all 
 ages of Christian aid. 
 
 Although the IX0YC was originally an acros¬ 
 tic, there is only one ancient inscription known 
 in which it actually appears as such. In all 
 other cases it stands separate, at the beginning 
 or end of an inscription, or both ; generally it is 
 written horizontally in the ordinary manner, 
 but sometimes vertically (Fabretti, Inscript. 
 Expl. p. 329 ; compare gems, p. 714). It would 
 indeed be imj'ossible to arrange IX0YC as an 
 acrostic in a Latin inscription, and all the IX0TC 
 monuments which have come down to us are 
 Latin, with the one exception just referred to. 
 This famous slab was found in the year 1839, 
 beneath the surface, in an ancient cemetery ** 
 near Autun, and was first published by Dom 
 (now Cardinal) Pitra (^Annales de 1‘hil. Chret. 2® 
 ser. t. xix. p. 195). Since that time a consider¬ 
 able literature has gathered round it. It is a 
 sepulchral inscription over one Pectorius, son of 
 Aschandius. It is imperfect, but as to the re¬ 
 storation of the first six lines there is no very 
 great difference of opinion among palaeographers 
 and scholar.s. Mr. W. B. Marriott {Testimony, 
 p. 118) gives the inscription thus : 
 
 ’iX^uos o\ypoLviov ay~\iov 'yeVos Tjropt 
 
 Xprjcre &y^poTou iu ^poreoLS 
 
 idecriTCcr'ioiv vdaruv’ SaATreo 
 
 ® Ciampini misreads the 1X0YC: bnt Gori {Diptych, iii. 
 291) gives the correct reading. 
 
 It is noteworthy that this cemetery is locally 
 called, not cimetiere, but polyandre, i. e. noXvdvSpLoi ^—a 
 curious relic of the time when Greek was spoken at 
 Autun. Probably this was the very name used in the 
 time of Gregory of Tours, who, in his Ignorance of Greek, 
 took it for a Gallic word (Df Gloria Confess, c. 73, quoted 
 try Marriott, Testimony, p. 127). 
 
 "TSaciv aeudois ttAoutoSJtou rrjepiys, 
 
 2,cx)Trjpos 5’ ay'twu fieXiriSea Xdfx^avi ^puxnv, 
 ''Eadie TTiudcov ‘Ix^ur exa»z/ TraAd/unuy. 
 
 X^.cipo AtAafeo beernora 
 
 2&:Tep 
 
 En) 
 
 or • • • • '^VP o'e AiTa(o,ue (pus to va- 
 vdvreov. 
 
 ^AerxarSTe -redrep, ry, *p.u /eexaptfr/ueVe dvfxos 
 
 ervv fi . o7mi' (fju>7<nu 
 
 I . . . Ile/fTopiou. 
 
 For C^T]v we should perhaps read Trriyiiv' 
 The word XP^o-e may be taken either for exP’?'’’^? 
 or for xP^o'at, as Knd^opii for Xird^opai in 
 the latter part of the inscrijttion. Uirdur is 
 for TTeivduv. The hiatus in the last line but one 
 may perhaps be filled by the words (tvv fxrjTpl 
 yXvKepfj ical db(K(peio7(nu 4p.o7(Tiv (Franz), or 
 sometliing equivalent; and the last may perhaps 
 run ’Ix^uv ibuu vlov ixv{](T€o HeKTopjov. Mr. 
 Marriott translates the whole as follows:— 
 “ Offspring of the heavenly Ichthu.s, see that a 
 heart of holy reverence be thine, now that from 
 
 Tlie Autun InstTiption.c 
 
 divine waters thou hast received, while yet 
 among mortals, a fount of life that is to immor¬ 
 tality. Quicken thy soul, beloved one, with the 
 ever-flowing waters of wealth-giving wisdom, 
 and receive the honey-sweet food of the Saviour 
 of the saints. Eat with a longing hunger, 
 holding Ichthus in thy hands. 
 
 To Ichthus . . . come nigh unto me. my 
 Lord [and] Saviour [beThou my gui le] 1 entreat 
 Thee, Thou light of them for whom the hour of 
 death is past. 
 
 Aschandius, my Father, dear unto mine heart, 
 and thou [s\veet mother and all] that are mine 
 . . . remember Pectorius.” 
 
 The first portion seems to be an admonition to 
 the Christian passer-by who read, , the second 
 a praver of the deceased himself; the third an 
 address to his ])arents and friends. 
 
 This inscription has been referred to very 
 various dates, from the end of the 2ud century 
 (Pitra) to the end of the 6th (Rossignol). Pro¬ 
 bably the judgment of Jlessrs. Franks and C. T. 
 Newton, of the British IMuseum (in Marriott s 
 
 c For the tracing from which this engraving was made 
 the writer is indebted to Prof. Churchill Babjngtou. 
 
IX0Y3 
 
 ICONOSTASIS 
 
 807 
 
 Tesiimony, etc. p. 133), who assign it to the 
 4th or 5th century, is not far from the truth. 
 With this agrees the decision of Kirchoff, the 
 editor of the fourth volume of the Corpus In- 
 scriptiomun Graecarwn, which contains this in¬ 
 scription (No. 9890). 
 
 Mr. Marriott (u. s. p. 141) conjectures that 
 -the spac^ at the lower corner of the marble, to 
 the spectator’s right, was occupied by a sculp¬ 
 tured fish, whether alone or in combination with 
 some other sy'-mbol. 
 
 Costadoni (i-v. 35) gives a gem (no. xi. in his 
 plate) engraved with two fishes, with this in¬ 
 scription in three lines: IX j] CwTHP H 0V : 
 evidently the IX0TC, differing from the form 
 common elsewhere in having CtwTHP written 
 at full length, instead of being separated by its 
 initial letter like the other words of the acrostic. 
 The CctiTHP is probably placed between the IX 
 and the Q'J because that shape of the inscription 
 best suits the space. 
 
 Of seventv-Hve sculptured slabs containing 
 the symbol which Dc Rossi has examined, not 
 more than eight contain the ix^vs alone, and 
 onlv twenty—of which four are fragments of 
 slabs which may have contained other symbols— 
 the sculptured fish alone; the rest give also 
 other symbols. Seventeen join with the fish 
 the dove and olive-branch ; a conjunction which 
 seems cleajdy equivalent to Spiritus in pace in 
 Christo ; or—if the olive-branch be omitted— 
 Spiritus in Christo. Spiritus iuus in pace is a 
 common form of acclamation in Christian epi¬ 
 taphs. Twenty-three add the anchor to the fish, 
 whether separate or intertwined; a conjunction 
 also extremely common on gems [p. 714]. As 
 the Anchor [p. 81] unquestionably symbolizes 
 Hope, we may read these symbols Spes in Christo., 
 one of the most common of Christian sepulchral 
 formulae. A sepulchral slab from the cata¬ 
 combs, now in the Kircher Museum, exhibits an 
 anchor between two fishes, with the inscription 
 IX0YC ZcdNTcdN. (See further under GEMS, p. 
 713). Of the fish swimming in the water and 
 supporting a ‘.hip on its back, clearly' signifying 
 that Christ bears up the church,. De Rossi has 
 seen three instances. 
 
 There remains the conjunction of loaves and 
 fishes. That these in some instances simply 
 form part of a representation of the Lord’s 
 miracle of the loaves is clear from the fact that 
 in at least one of De Rossi’s Monumenta (No. 71, 
 from the cemetery of St. Hermes, now in the 
 Kircher Museum) there are five loaves and two 
 fishes; but there can be no doubt that the fishes 
 and loaves conjoined were intended to convey 
 the further meaning that Christ is the Bread of 
 Jdfe, and that with special reference to the 
 Eucharist [Canister, p. 264; Eucharist in 
 Art, p. 625]. This is well illustrated by the 
 Autun inscription, given above, where, according 
 to the most probable restoration, the fish is 
 spoken of as in the hands. VVe can scarcely 
 doubt that these words refer to the receiving of 
 Christ in the Eucharist. So when Augustine 
 (^Confess, xiii. 23, § 34), after mentioning the 
 sacrament of bajitism, goes on to speak of that 
 other “solemnitas ... in qua ille piscis ex- 
 hibetur quern levatum de profundo terra pia 
 comedit,” he undoubtedly refers to the sacra¬ 
 ment of the Eucharist. It ought however to 
 be noticed, that some at least of the paintings 
 
 I commonly supposed to be Eucharistic are in¬ 
 tended rather to represent the heavenly mar¬ 
 riage-supper which Christ makes for his faithful 
 ones (Rolidori, Dei convivi effigiali a simbolo ne* 
 monomenti Cristiani. Milano, 1844). 
 
 Ample information on this curious subject 
 may bo found in Costadoni, Sopra il Pesce come 
 simbolo di Gesu Christo presso yli antichi CrCtiani, 
 in Calogiera’s collection, vol. xli. p. 247 ff. ; in 
 J. B. De Rossi’s treatise, De Christianis Monu- 
 mentis IX0TN exhihentibus, and in Ritr.i’s De 
 Pisce Alleyorico ct Symbolico, both in Ritra’s 
 Spicilegium Solesinense, vol. iii. ; and in the late 
 Mr. Wharton Marriott’s Es.say on the Autun In¬ 
 scription, in his Testimony of the Catacombs, p. 
 115 fl'. (London, 1870). [C.] 
 
 ICONIUM, COUNCIL OF. The date gene¬ 
 rally assigned to it is A.D. 378 (Mansi, iii.505-10), 
 this being the y'ear in which St. Basil died ; and 
 Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, who presided, 
 speaking of him as having been expected there, 
 but kept away by severe illness. St. Basil him¬ 
 self (A/?, ccii. al. ccxcvi.) had asked to have it 
 put ofl'in the hope that his health ndght improA'e. 
 But it may be doubted whether this is not the 
 meeting of which he speaks in a subsequent letter 
 (eexvi. al. cclxxii.), when illness equally com¬ 
 pelled him to return home. Mansi thinks his 
 words here prove that he actually was at this 
 meeting : they may mean no more than that he 
 had commenced his journey with that intention, 
 but after he had got as far as Neo-Caesarea, which 
 he may have gone to first, he was taken ill and 
 had to return. This, according to Mansi, took 
 place A.D. 375; and the question is, whether 
 Amphilochius must necessarily be su])])osed to 
 have been speaking of a later illness. To make 
 up for his absence, his treatise on the Holy Spirit 
 was read there, to attest his sentiments on the 
 subject of which it treats, says Amphilochius ; 
 in all probability, therefore, this council had to 
 do with the followers of Macedonius. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 ICONOSTASIS. In the ecclesiology of the 
 Eastern church this designation is given to the 
 screen or partition wall, tabulatum, which cuts oflF 
 the bema or s wrarium from the Sdeas and the 
 choir. From its general similarity in form to 
 the chancel screens of Western churches, the 
 iconostasis is often identified with them. This, 
 however, is based on an erroneous idea. The 
 screen of western ecclesiology separates the nave, 
 the place of the laity, from the choir, the place 
 of the clergy. The iconostasis, on the other 
 hand, invested with far greater dignity and 
 importance, has its position further eastward, 
 and corresponds in locality to the altar rails. 
 Thus it divides the choir, or place of the clergy, 
 into two parts, separating “ the holiest of all,” 
 containing the holy table and the place for the 
 celebrant and his assistants, from the “ holy 
 place,” on either side of which arc arranged the 
 stalls for the clergy. The iconostasis in its 
 original construction was a comparatively light 
 and open screen, the KiyK\'i5fs, bpixpaKra, or 
 cancelli of primitive times, very much resembling 
 the ordinary type of western chancel screens. 
 The present arrangement, by which it has been 
 converted into a close partition with curtained 
 doors, entirely concealing the holy mysteries 
 from those who stand outside it, cannot be carried 
 higher than the 8th century, aud in its exuding 
 
808 
 
 ICONOSTASIS 
 
 ICONOSTASIS 
 
 development is probably later still. The name ' 
 ilKOPoffraais is derived from the icons (^(Ik6v(s) 
 or sacred pictures painted on it. I 
 
 These screens in the larger and more dignified , 
 churches were of the richest materials attainable, ' 
 and were adorned with all the resources of art. The ; 
 elaborate description given by Paul the Silentiary, 
 enables us to realize the form and character of 
 that in St. Sophia, as rebuilt by Justinian, in the 
 middle of the 6th century. The material was 
 silver. It consisted of a epKos, or partition, 
 
 described as being of ivory, tortoiae-sholl, and 
 silver. 
 
 According to Goar, the iconostasis owes its pre¬ 
 sent close form to a reaction against the icono¬ 
 clastic fury of the 8th century, as atiording a 
 more ample space for the exhibition of sacred 
 pictures. His words are, Reticula ilia lignea ” 
 (the wooden trellis work, such as that in 
 Paulinus’ church at Tyre) ‘‘mutavit Ecclesia 
 Orientalis in tabulata solida a tempore quo 
 iconoclastarum furore turbata plures et I'requen- 
 
 Iconostasis at Tepekermann ; from Fergrusson. 
 
 formed by a stylobate, ornamented with ara- j 
 besque Hower work. On this stood pairs of ‘ 
 twisted columns, twelve in number, surmounted 
 by an architrave of chased metal. The spaces 
 between the columns were filled in with panels, 
 bearing in oval medallions the icons of Our Lord, 
 the Blessed Virgin, the apostles and prophets. 
 In the centre, above the “ holy doors,” the inter¬ 
 twined monogram of Justinian and Theodora was 
 to be seen, surmounted by the crucifix in an oval 
 panel (Paul Silentiar. part ii. v. 265, sq.) 
 
 The Church of the Apostles, erected by Con¬ 
 stantine at Constantinople, had its screen of gilt 
 
 tiores sanctorum imagines ibi dejnctas esse 
 voluit” (^Exvcholog. p. 18). Early examples of 
 the solid iconostasis are hard to find. The par¬ 
 tition has been invariably removed by the Turks 
 in the churches converted by them into mosques, 
 so that not a single instance appears in the 
 churches of the Holy Land, and of Central Syria, 
 drawn by De Vogue, nor in those given in 
 Texier and Pullan’s Byzantine Architecture, or in 
 Hiibsch’s Altchristliche Kirche. The earliest ex¬ 
 ample known to Dr. Xeale is that in the Arian 
 crypt church, at Tepekermann, in the Crimea, 
 which he thinks “ may be referred to about a.d. 
 
 Cave-Church of Uie Ajiccalypse iu Patmcs; from Calmet. 
 
 copper (Euseb. Yit. Const, iv. 59). They were 
 often of brass, or bronze. In that rebuilt by 
 Paulinus, at Tyre, the screen was a trellis work 
 of wood of the most slender and graceful work¬ 
 manship (Euseb. H. E. x. 4, § 14). That of St. 
 Peter in the Palace, built by Ba.sil the IMace- 
 donian (a.d. 867-886), was of marble (Theophan. 
 Ceram. Homil. Iv.). The screen in the convent 
 church of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, is 
 
 350,” of which a woodcut is annexed. This is not 
 a close screen, but consists of four pillars standing 
 on a solid stylobate, the panels of which are 
 ornamented with boldly incised crosses. The 
 columns reach to the roof of the cave. The 
 openings between them may have been probal ly 
 closed with curtains (Neale, Hist, of East. Churchy 
 vol. i. p. 193). According to Guenebault (^Dict 
 des Monwnens, Art. Iconostase), one of the luois 
 
ICONOSTASIS 
 
 ICONOSTASIUM 
 
 800 
 
 ftccicnt examples of a closed screen known is also 
 iii a cave church, the Grotto of the Apocalypse, 
 at Patmos. From the woodcut given, taken 
 from Calmet {Diet, de la Bible), it will be seen to 
 be a plain boarded partition, reaching, in two 
 divisions, from the lloor to the spring of the 
 vault, and very much resembling a Jacobean 
 chancel screen in England. It has a central 
 arched door, and two arched windows on either 
 side, surrounded with arabesque work, and 
 closed with curtains. The upper division ex¬ 
 hibits an icon of Our Lord to the right, and of 
 the Blessed Virgin to the left, with the crucifix 
 above. 
 
 According to the normal arrangement, an icono¬ 
 stasis had three doorways, that to the right hand 
 leading to the diaconicon ; that to the left to the 
 
 the pre.sent day. The iconostasis, according to 
 Dr. Neale, is “ now generally maiie of wood ; what 
 would be the pierced j)art in a western rood 
 screen being panelled and painted. In Attica 
 they are found of plain deal.” (Neale, u. s. •, 
 Texier and Pullan’s Byzantine Architecture, p. 62.) 
 The iconostasis in the churches of Russia is 
 always a feature of considerable magnificence, 
 which, from its size and elaborate decoration, is 
 the object that first attracts attention on enter¬ 
 ing, being rather an architectural feature of the 
 edifice than a mere piece of church furniture. 
 It is very possible that more comjdete acquaint¬ 
 ance with the ecclesiology of Russia will bring 
 to light earlier examj)les of the iconostasis than 
 those hitherto known. The annexed example 
 from a church near Kostroma, in Eastern Russia, 
 
 prothesis, through which the “ Great Entrance ” 
 was made. The central doorway, ayiat dvpai, 
 always the largest, and most highly decorated 
 with carvings, opened on to the benm. It was 
 protected in the lower part by two gates, about 
 the height of a man, meeting in the middle, the 
 upper portion, as well as the two side doorways, i 
 being closed with curtains [Curtains, Hang- I 
 INGS]. On the right of the holy doors was in- i 
 variably the icon of Our Blessed Lord ; on the ! 
 left that of His Virgin mother. On the panels 
 on either side, and on tho.se above, other icons 
 were depicted, according to the taste or devotion 
 of the founders of the church, and to the saints 
 under whose invocation it was placed. This ar- j 
 rangement remains on the whole unchanged to I 
 
 given by Mr. Fergusson in his History of 
 Architecture, is not of very early date, but is 
 pronounced by him to be “ a favourable specimen 
 of its class.” y j 
 
 ICON OSTASIUIM, eiKovocTTaaiov, in the 
 Greek church, a moveable stand for the suspen¬ 
 sion of icones or sacred pictures. Such a piece of 
 church furniture is mentioned by Codinus {de Off. 
 Aul. Constantinop, c. vi. § 2), when describing 
 the imperial ceremonial of Christmas Day. 
 After mattins the canonarchs brought out the 
 iconostasiuin, and set it in its place, with an ana- 
 logium, or reading desk, bearing a copy of the 
 gospels in front of it. On it they suspended an 
 icon of the nativity, and three or four others. 
 
810 
 
 IDrOMELA 
 
 TDOT.ATRY 
 
 The emperor on entering the church kissed the 
 icons, and again on leaving. Ducange, s. v. 
 identifies the iconostasiu/n generally with a small 
 domestic chapel, or oratory, and considers that 
 that described by Codinus was a portable 
 shrine. Gretser is more correct in defining it as 
 “ omne illud in quo stant, vel ex quo pendent 
 sacrae imagines.” Goar strangely interprets it 
 of a carved picture frame, [E. V.] 
 
 IDIOMELA (i, e. aTixvp^ l^i6/x€\a). These 
 are Stichera or Strophes, which have no hirmos 
 {eTpfjLos), the rhythm of which they follow, but 
 which are independent as to rhythm. They are 
 usually said at lauds and at vespers on days of 
 special observance. At lauds one only is said as 
 a rule, though not invariably, as in the Holy 
 week when there are several, after the (ttlxoi fol¬ 
 lowing the alvoi (i. e. Pss. 148, 149, 150). At 
 vespei’s we find sometimes one only, as on certain 
 week-days in Lent, Sometimes several, four or 
 five being the usual number; and occasionally 
 more, e. g. nine on St. John-Baptist’s day, and of 
 these one or more is often repeated. The tone 
 to which they are said is specified, and the name 
 of the author is often given. Their character is 
 that of other troparia used in the Greek offices; 
 but they are often, though not invariably, longer 
 than others. Idiomela are also used in other 
 offices, e. a. in the office for the burial of a priest. 
 
 [H. J. H.] 
 
 IDIOTA (’iSiWTrjy). 1. An illiterate person, 
 as contrasted with a “ clerk.” Thus, Gregory 
 the Great (Epist. ix. 9) speaking of the use of 
 jnctures from sacred history, says that pictures 
 are the bible of the uneducated—“ quod legen- 
 tibus scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat pictura cer- 
 nentibus.” Bede {Epist. ad Egbert.; Migne’s 
 'Patrol, xciv. 659 c) wishes the idiotae —that is, 
 he explains, those who have no knowledge of 
 any tongue but their own—to learn by heart 
 the Apostle’s Creed and the Lord’s Prayer in 
 their own tongue. In the Middle Ages, when 
 an educated man was almost of course in holy 
 orders, the word “ idiota ” came to mean simply 
 a layman. 
 
 2, The word Idiotae was also used to desig¬ 
 nate those who attached themselves to some 
 convent as helpers, without being regular mem¬ 
 bers of the brotherhood, i. e. lay-brothers [Cox- 
 VERSi] (Ducange, Gloss. Lat. s. v.). [C.] 
 
 IDLENESS. [Mendicancy.] 
 
 IDOLATRY (J^dololatria, flSuKoKarpeia^ 
 The object of this article is to describe the laws 
 of the ancient church relating to idolatry, or 
 any rites or customs connected with it. The 
 treatment of Christians who went back alto¬ 
 gether to heathenism, belongs to Apostasy ; of 
 those who succumbed for a time under pressure 
 of persecution, to Lapsed. 
 
 Few canons directed against idolatry appear 
 in the councils, until Christianity had become 
 the dominant religion in the different countries 
 of Europe. The first law which interfered 
 with the free exercise of Paganism, was an 
 edict of Constantine, A. D. 319, against private 
 sacrifices (Cod. Theod. IX. xvi. 1, 2), but it is 
 questionable whether this was issued solely 
 in the interest of Christianity. Later laws 
 were undoubtedly levelled against idolatry. 
 In A.D, 324, Constantine forbade (Euseb. Vit. 
 
 Const, il. 45) the erection of images of the 
 gods, or (ibid. iv. 16) of his own statu i in 
 the temples; he (ibid. ii. 44-5) prohibited all 
 state sacrifices, and {ibid. iii. 54-8) shut uj' 
 many of the temples, converted others into 
 churches, and destroyed some which had been 
 the scene of immoral rites. Laws of Constantins 
 forbade (Cod. 'Theod. XVI. x. 4, 6) all sacrifices 
 whatever on pain of death; but it does not 
 appear that the ])enalty was ever exacted. But 
 that which is considered to have given the death¬ 
 blow to Paganism, is a comprehensive law of 
 Theodosius, A.D. 392 (Cud. Theod. XVI. x. 12); 
 sacrifice and divination were declared treason¬ 
 able and punishable with death ; the use of lights, 
 incense, garlands, and libations, was to involve 
 the forfeiture of house or land where they were 
 used ; and all who entered heathen temples were 
 to be fined. But that Pagan rites lingered after 
 this appears, among other proofs, from a petition 
 addressed to the emperor by a Carthaginian 
 council (a.d. 399), requesting him to destroy 
 some rural temples, and forbid certain idolatrous 
 banquets, which were held on Saiuts-Days, and 
 which the Christians were compelled to attend 
 (Cod. Eccl. Afric. cc. 58-60). And two centuries 
 later Gregory has occasion (Epp. iv. 23-6) to 
 rebuke some landowuei's in the remote parts of 
 Italy, who suffered their peasants to continue in 
 heathenism; and in a letter (Epist. ix. 65) to 
 the bishop of Cagliari, he recommends that if 
 the rustics will not listen to preaching, they 
 shall be fined, imprisoned, or chastised. On 
 the disappearance of Paganism, see Robertson, 
 Church Hist. iii. 5. 
 
 2. Local Edicts. —In the Gallic church, a 
 fragmentary letter ot Childebert, a.d. 554 (Har- 
 douin. Cone. iii. 334), commands all landlords 
 who have images or idols on their estates, to 
 remove them, and assist the priests in destroying 
 them. The worship of sacred trees or groves® or 
 stones or fountains, is frequently forbidden, and 
 the bishops are admonished to be more zealous 
 in checking it (2 Cone. Arelat. c. 23; 2 Cone. 
 'Turon. c. 22; Cone. Francoford. c. 43). A 
 Frankish council pre.sided over by Boniface, A.D. 
 742 (Cone. German, c. 5, in Hartzheim’s Cone. 
 i. 49) prohibits incantations and auguries, and 
 .sacrifices which were offered to martyrs in place 
 of the old Pagan deities; other councils forbid 
 the “ sacrilegious fire-burnings which are called 
 Nedfrates” (Cone. Liptin. c. 4; Cone. Sucss. c. 6). 
 Appended to the council of Liptina (probably 
 Lestines, Hartzheim, i. 51), a.d. 743, is a curious 
 list of forbidden Pagan superstitions. It contains 
 mention of the widespread worship of sacred 
 trees and stones; of sacrificing to saints; of 
 various omens and charms, such as observing 
 tempests, horns, and snails, and the brain and 
 dung of animals, and fire on the hearth ; or 
 superstitions connected with the state of the 
 moon, particularly women hoping to attract men 
 
 » On the Teutonic religion of wor.'-hipping in groves, 
 see Mllman, iMt. Christ, iii. 2. The most recent and 
 satisfactory Investigation into the history and meaning 
 of sacred stones will be found in Fergusson's Rude Stone 
 Monuments. 
 
 *> On the derivation and meaning of need-fire, see Du¬ 
 cange, s. v. Nedfri. It appears to have been a supersti¬ 
 tious practice in certain parts of Germany of striking fire 
 from dry wood on the eve of St. John [John, St., Fib* 
 of]. 
 
IDOLATRY 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 811 
 
 by lunar influences. Compare a similar super¬ 
 stition in Englaml, where people are warned 
 against trusting to cries and sorceries during 
 an eclipse of the moon (Egbert. Penit. viii. 3). 
 An edict of Charlemagne issued after the con- 
 quest of the Saxons, a.d. 785, contains some 
 severe enactments against the heathen practices 
 of the vanquished {^dc Parhbus Saxon.’ in Baluze’s 
 Capitularia, i. 250). Death is to be the penalty 
 of (c. 4) ostentatiously and defiantly eating meat 
 in Lent; of (c. b) burning a witch because of sup- 
 po.sed cannibalism, and tiien superstitiously eating 
 her flesh; of (c. 7) burning a dead body and col¬ 
 lecting the ashes ; the bodies of the dead (c. 22) 
 are to be buried in cemeteries and not in the Saxon 
 tumuli. A more merciful clause (c. 14) contains 
 a singular provision that if any one who has ex¬ 
 posed himsell'todeath by such crimes, shall confess 
 his offence to the priest, and be willing to do 
 penance, the extreme i)enalty may be remitted 
 on the testimony of the judest. This capitulary 
 was to some extent repealed by a more lenient 
 one, A.D. 797, which, according to the general 
 practice of the Teutonic races, allowed a money 
 payment to compound for the capital olfence. 
 
 The Spanish councils contain evidence of the 
 lino'erins: of the old heathenism at the end of the 
 7th century, and that even the clergy were not 
 free from complicity with it. The 3rd council of 
 Toledo, A.D. 589 (c. 1(3), complains that the 
 “ .sacrilege of idolatry ” was prevalent through 
 both i^xiin and Gaul, and declares that the 
 bishops and priests neglecting to assist in its 
 extirpation shall be excommunicated. The 12th 
 council, A.D. 681 (c. 11), threatens death to 
 slaves worshij)ping idols or stones or fountains or 
 trees, or ligiiting torches; but if their masters 
 will be answerable fur their abstaining from such 
 rites for the future, the extreme sentence may 
 be commuted to a flogging or to being shackled 
 with iron: if the masters decline such responsi¬ 
 bility, they lose all rights over the slaves, and 
 are themselves subject to excommunication. 
 The same practices are enumerated by the 16th 
 council, A.D. 69.!, and the bishop or priest who 
 is negligent in searching them out, is sentenced 
 (c. 2) to a year’s penance; and further, any one who 
 puts obstacles in the way of priest or otficer is 
 to be put under anathema, and if a noble, pay 
 3 pounds of gold to the treasury, if low born, 
 receive 100 stripes, have his head shorn, and 
 forfeit half his proj)erty. 
 
 In England, Gregory had given directions to 
 Augustine (A/j/sL xi. 76) that heathen idols were 
 to be destroyed, but the temples preserved, that 
 the fabric should be sprinkled with holy water, 
 that altars should be constructed in them and 
 relics deposited, and so the building be converted 
 to the worship of God on spots already consecrated 
 in the, popular imagination ; even the sacrifices 
 of oxen were to continue, but transferred to 
 Saints Days. Gregory defends this policy on the 
 ground that he who asinrcs to the highest 
 place, must be content to ascend step by step, 
 and not at one bound. The English Penitentials 
 disclose the idolatrous customs which seem to 
 have had the most tenacious hold on the people. 
 Those who sacrifice to devils on slight occasions 
 are to do penance for a year, on great occasions 
 for ten (Theod. Penitent. 1. xv. I ; Egbert. Peni~ 
 tent. iv. 12). Any woman who places her 
 daughter on the roof of u house, or in an oven, 
 
 to cure her of a fever, is .sentenced to seven years 
 (Theod. Pen. I. xv. 2; Egbert. Pen. viii. 2). 
 Burning grain in any house where a dead body 
 has been deposited, as a charm to protect the 
 survivors, is punished by five years (Theod. Pen. 
 1. XV. 3). The witches who invoke storms are 
 to be penitents seven years (Egbert. Pen. iv. 14). 
 In the laws of Wihtred of Kent, a.d. 696 (c. 12), 
 it is decreed that if a husband without his wife’s 
 knowledge makes an offering to a devil, he shall 
 be liable in all his substance ; and if they both 
 agree, they shall both be liable; but that if a 
 “ theow ” makes the otfcring, he (c. 13) shall 
 make a “ hot ” of six .shillings or his hide. There 
 are intimations that ecclesiastical law extended 
 to other practices which, though not connected 
 with religion, were regarded as badges of idola¬ 
 try. The Legatine Synod held in A.D. 787 (Iladdau 
 and Stubb.s, Councils and Eccl. Documents, iii. 
 458), in its report to Adrian 1., com{)lains (c. 19) 
 that the people dre.ss after the manner of the 
 heathen ; that they follow the heathen custom of 
 mutilating their horses by clijqfing their tails 
 and splitting their nostrils and joining their 
 ears; and also that they eat horse-flesh, which 
 no Christian does in the East (Orientalibus, Italy 
 and Germany). In the previous century the 
 eating of horse-flesh, though not prohibited was 
 regarded with disfav'our (Theod. Penitent. II. xi. 
 4). A prohibition against heathen dress is also 
 found in the ancient Welsh code of tlie 7th 
 century (^Canones Wullici, c. 61). “ If any 
 
 Catholic let his hair grow long after the manner 
 of the heathen, he shall be expelled Christian 
 Society.” 
 
 3. Idolatrous offices or customs .—The council 
 of Elvira, A.D. 305 (c. 4), orders Flameus who 
 wish to become Christians to undergo two years’ 
 additional probaticn as catechumens; if after 
 baptism they wear the sacrificial garland (c. 55), 
 to do penance two years; if they provide a 
 public spectacle (munus) (c. 3), to be denied 
 communion till death ; and if they sacrifice 
 (c. 2), to be excommunicated for ever. The 
 same council requires a Duumvir to separate 
 himself from the church during his vear of 
 office. See also Actors, Gladiators. The 
 grounds of such prohibitions are stated by 
 'I’ertullian (de Spectac. c. 12). The same father 
 condemns {de Spectac. cc. 20-22) the actors in 
 each of the four sorts of shows. 
 
 The social festivities of the heathen were not 
 regarded with the same suspicion. Tertullian 
 {de Idolol. c. 16) sees no harm in a Christian 
 being present at the solemnity of assuming the 
 lofja virilis, or of espousals or nuptials, or of 
 giving a name to a child. But this toleration 
 was not extended to festivities of a less innocent 
 character. [Hkatiien, § 5, p. 76.3.] The sui)er- 
 stitious lighting of torches and burning of lamps 
 is forbidden both in the 4th and 7th centuries 
 {Cone. Kliber. c. 37; Cone, in Trull, c. 65). 
 Another canon of Elvira (c. 34) i)rohibits the 
 burning of wax candles in the cemeteries lest 
 the spirits of the saints should be disturbed ; a 
 reference probably to the idolatrous j)ractices 
 associated w'ith lighting lamps on heathen fes¬ 
 tivals (Tort. Apoioij. c. 35; de Idolol. c. 15). 
 The irregularities attending the observance 
 ot the feast of the Kalends of .lanuarv (the 
 new year) form the subject of one of Chryso¬ 
 stom’s Homilies (m Kalend. t. i. p. 697, ed. 
 
812 
 
 IDOLATRY 
 
 ILLITERATE CLERGY 
 
 Rened,), from which it appears that Christians 
 set u]» lamps in the market ])lace, and adorned 
 their doors with garlands, and gave themselves 
 up to excess and made divinations of their 
 future. “ You will prosper,” says Chrysostom,' 
 “ in the coming year, not if you make yourself 
 drunk on the new moon, but if you do what God 
 approves ” (Tert. de Idulol. c. 14 ; Ambrose, Serm. 
 17 ; Cone. Autiss. c. 1 ; Cone, in Trull, c. 62). 
 The 2nd council of Tours, A.i). 567, states (c. 17) 
 that it was a custom in the church to have 
 special Litanies on the three days of the Kalends 
 of January, as a protest against the heathen 
 licentiousness [Circumcision]. The observance 
 of the heathen festivals lingered long after 
 heathenism itself was extinct; at the end of 
 the 7th century the Trullan council (c. 62) 
 after denouncing the Kalends, declares that the 
 church will excommunicate any who keep the 
 solemnities of the Bota (Yota), or the Brumalia 
 (the winter feast), or the 1st of March ; and 
 fbrbids the heathenish customs of those festivals, 
 the public dancing of women, the interchange of 
 dress between men and women, w'earing comic 
 or satyric or tragic masks, ciilling on the name 
 of Bacchus and simulating a Bacchic frenzy 
 while treading the grapes. 
 
 Making gain from idolatry was considered 
 idolatrous. No artisan might assist in making 
 an idol. “ Canst thou,” says Tertullian (de 
 Idolol. c. 6), “ preach the true God, who makest 
 false ones ? ‘ 1 make them,’ says one, ‘ but I 
 worship them not.’ Verily thou dost worship 
 them, and that not with the spirit of any worth¬ 
 less savour of sacrifice, but with thine own; 
 not at the cost of the life of a beast, but of thine 
 own.” Similarly he exposes {ibid. c. 8) the 
 sophistries of those who made their livelihood 
 by building or adorning heathen shrines ; and 
 {ibid. cc. 5, 6, 8, 11, 17) the dealers in victims 
 and incense, and the guardians of the temples 
 and the collectors of their revenues. A landlord 
 who reckoned in his accounts any property of an 
 idol, was subject to five years’ separation {Cone. 
 Eliher. c. 40); a man or woman lending vest¬ 
 ments to decorate idolatrous pomp, to three 
 {ibid. c. 57). 
 
 The rule which was to goA’ern Christians in 
 rating food, which might have been previously 
 oflered to an idol, is laid down by St. Paul 
 (1 Cor. x. 25, 30). A great part of the animals 
 used in the sacrifices was frequently sold by the 
 priests, and afterwards retailed in the public 
 shambles. This the Christians were at liberty 
 to eat. But any attendance at a temple for the 
 sake of the sacrifice was strictly prohibited {Cone. 
 Eiiber. c. 59). The council of Ancyra, a.d. 314 
 (c. 7), forbids any one to eat in a place conse¬ 
 crated to idolatry, even if he took his own food. 
 But by the direction of Leo {Ep. ad AjccL), a 
 captive among the barbarians who from hunger 
 or terror eat idol food, was to be leniently dealt 
 with. Directions with regard to eating food 
 offered to idols appear frequently in subsequent 
 councils; it is the same as eating carrion, and 
 exposes the offender to excommunication (4 Cone. 
 Aurel. c. 20); oft’ering food to the dead on the 
 festival of St. Peter, and after receiving the 
 body of Christ going home and eating meat 
 consecrated to devils, incurs a like penalty 
 (2 Cone. Turon. c. 22) ; other superstitions 
 w.th food are to be reprimanded {Cone. Remen. 
 
 c. 14); not even the sign of the cross will 
 purify an idol offering (Gregory 11. Con. Epist. 
 
 c. 6). [G. M.] 
 
 IGNATIUS. ( 1 ) Bishop of Antioch, tepo- 
 fxdpTus, martyr under Trajan (a.d. 109); com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 1 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi); translation to Antioch, Dec. 17 (/6.), 
 and Jan. 29 {Cal. Byzant.)', “Natale,” Dec. 17 
 {Mart. Bedae); also commemorated Dec. 16 
 {Cal. Ay'inen.)-, Dec. 20 {Cal. Byznnt.)', Hamle 7 
 = July 1, andTaksas 24 = Dec. 20 {Cal. Ethiop.'). 
 
 (2) Martyr in Africa with Celerinus, deacon 
 and confessor, Laurentinus, and Celerina ; com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 3 {Mart. Rom. Yet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 ILERDENSE CONCILIUM. [Lerida, 
 Council of.] 
 
 ILLATION. This in the Mozarabic litv.rgy 
 is the equivalent to the Prefaee (Praefatio) of 
 the Roman and Ambrosian liturgies. In the 
 Gallican liturgy the corresponding prayer is 
 called Immolatio or Contestatio. The Mozarabic 
 Illation is usually much longer than the Roman 
 Prefaee, and varies with each mass. It begins 
 with the words “ Dignum et justum est,” and 
 leads up to the Sanetus. [v. Preface. ] 
 
 [H. J. H.] 
 
 ILLIBEEITANUM CONCILIUM. [El¬ 
 vira, Council of.] 
 
 ILLITERATE CLERGY. Pope Uilary 
 (a.d. 461-468) decreed that an illiterate person 
 (litterarum iguarus) incun ed irregularity, i. e., 
 disqualification for holy orders. And this rule 
 was repeated, under varying jihrases, by a 
 council at Rome during his pontificate and 
 by Pope Gelasius afterwards. But the stan¬ 
 dard of knowledge required does not appear to 
 have been exactly defined. We learn from 
 St. Augustine {Epist. 76), that the same rule 
 applied to monks who were candidates for 
 orders. In the time of Gregory the Great (a.d. 
 590-604) it was sutficlent to be able to read. 
 But the offices were repeated, it seems, to a con¬ 
 siderable extent memoriter, especially by the 
 clergy of the lower grades. He ordered the 
 deacons from country cures to be examined as to 
 hoAv many psalms they could say by heart. 
 Thus, too, the Second Council of Orleans (a.d. 
 545), in its 15th canon, forbids the ordination as 
 priest or deacon of an}' man who could neither 
 read nor repeat the Baptismal office. And the 
 First of Macon (A.D. 581) ordered the clergy to 
 fast every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 
 Martinmas to Christmas, and to employ these 
 
 d. iys in learning the canons. The Council of 
 Narbonue (a.d. 589) even tried to enforce learn¬ 
 ing by suggesting that a cleric, obstinately illi¬ 
 terate, had no right to his share of the eccle¬ 
 siastical revenues, and should be sent to a 
 monastery, since he could not edify the people 
 {Can. 10). 
 
 AVe find much the .same state of things in 
 Spain. The Fourth Council of Toledo (cimi a.d. 
 630) describes ignorance as the mother of all 
 other eiTors,” and orders that a bishop when he 
 ordained a parish priest, should give him an 
 office book to use {Canons 25, 26). It is implied 
 that ho would be able to read this. 
 
 Respecting the Eastern Church our informa¬ 
 tion is much less precise. Justinian {Xovell. 
 
ILLUMINATION 
 
 IlMAGES 
 
 813 
 
 v’j. c. 5) forbad the adv'ancing to any grade of 
 the ministry those who were unable to read. 
 During grefit part of the 8th century the Ico¬ 
 noclastic controverey was raging, and destroyed 
 almost entirely, says Balsanion, the habit of 
 study among the Catholics. Therefore the 
 Seventh General Council at Nicaea, in a.d. 787 
 ordered in its 2nd canon that no bishop should 
 be consecrated who couhl not repeat the psalter; 
 and who was not well acquainted with the 
 gospels, the ejiistles of St. Paul, the whole 
 scri])tures, and the canons : a very considerable 
 requirement for the time. 
 
 With the accession of Charlemagne a move¬ 
 ment upwards began. In many capitularies 
 of that sovereign, stringent regulations against 
 ignorance in the clergy were laid down (for 
 details see Thomassin, p. ii. lib. i. cc. 90, 96 
 passim). These details, by the moderation of 
 the .standard set up, serve to show the existing 
 lack of knowledge. Even these it was impos¬ 
 sible to enforce with any strictness. Lupus, 
 Abbot of Ferrara, writing during this reign to 
 Hincmar, apologises for a bishop, who was un¬ 
 able to teach his flo.jk otherwise than by his 
 good example, because of his ignorance. And 
 Agobard, in a letter to Bernard of Vienne, 
 concludes that ignorance in parish priests would 
 do even more harm than an evil life. Charle¬ 
 magne himself, lamenting this prevailing igno¬ 
 rance, writes to Alcuin: “Oh, that I had twelve 
 clerks as learned and as perfectly taught in all 
 wisdom, as Jerome and Augustine were ! ” Al- 
 cuin’s reply is worth recording: “The Creator 
 of heaven and earth had only two such, and you 
 wish to have twelve! ” The complaint of the 
 English Alfred, reported by Asser, is well known, 
 that “from the Humber to the‘Thames there 
 were very few priests who understood the liturgy 
 in their mother toncjue, or who could translate 
 the easiest piece of Latin ; and that from the 
 Thames to the sea, the ecclesiastics were still 
 more ignorant” (^De Jieb. Gest. Alfred, apud 
 Camden, Anglica., p. 25). We must not suppose, 
 however, that there were no exceptions. Bede, 
 Alcuin, John Scotus Erigena, and Hincmar, are 
 proofs to the contrary. But this sudden blaze 
 of learning was a good deal adventitious, rested on 
 the personal influence of Charlemagne, and died 
 out again after his decease (IMuratori, Antiqui- 
 tates; Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Keel. Disciplina, 
 Pars II. lib. i.; Maitland, Dark Ages). [S. J. E.] 
 
 ILLUMINATION. [Miniature.] 
 
 IIXYRIAN COUNCIL {Illyricum or Tllyri- 
 cianuni Concilium according to Cave). Held in 
 Illyria, but it is not agreed in what year: Pagi 
 contending for a.d. 373, others for 375, Cave for 
 367, and older authorities for 365. Pagi says 
 it had been preceded by the second (he should 
 have said rather the third) of the Roman councils 
 under pope Damasu.s, in conformity with whose 
 letter to the bishops of Illyria, a letter, asserting 
 the consubstantiality of the three Persons in 
 the Trinity, was now addressed by them to the 
 bishops of Asia Minor. 'I'his view is at least 
 countenanced by the letters themselves; audit 
 must be allowed that the letter of Valentinian, 
 Valens, and Gratian to the bishoi)s of Asia Minor 
 expresses the declaration of the Illyrian bishops 
 on this occa.sion (Mansi, iii. 386-94 ; and 455-68. 
 Comp. Homan Councils^ 19). 
 
 Three more councils are given under this 
 heading. 1. a.d. 415, according to Sir H. Nicolas 
 (^Chron. of IJist. 217), at which Peregrine was 
 appointed bishoj) of Patras. 
 
 2. A.D. 515, according to Mansi (Sir H. Nicolas 
 A.D. 516, as lilyrien.se) when the bishop of The.s.sa- 
 lonica having joined Timothy of Constantinople, 
 forty bishops, whose metropolitan he was, re¬ 
 nounced his communion, and declared for com¬ 
 municating with pope Hormisdas (Mansi, viii. 
 538). 
 
 3. A.D. 550, according to Mansi, in defence of 
 
 the three chapters (ix. 147). [E. S. Ff.J 
 
 IMAGES. 1. From the time of the Macca¬ 
 bees the second commandment was generally 
 understood by the Jews to forbid not only the 
 worship of the likeness of any living thing, but 
 even the making of it. It is probable that they 
 were led to this view by their abhorrence of the 
 acts of Antiochus Epiphanes, and his agents. 
 Among other outrages these had set up “ chapels 
 of idols ” in the cities of Judah (1 IMacc. i. 47), 
 and even “ sought to paint the likene.ss of their 
 images ” in the book of the law ( Ibid. iii. 48). 
 Hence Josephus (Antiq. viii. c. 7, § 5) condemns 
 Solomon for making the twelve oxen on which 
 the molten sea was set in the temple (1 Kings 
 vii. 25; comp. 29), and the lions that were 
 about his throne {Ibid. c. x. 19, 2u), though no 
 degree of reverence was paid to either of them. 
 In the days of Herod the Great a sedition was 
 nearly caused in Jerusalem by his exhibition of 
 trophies, such as the Romans display after their 
 victories, the Jews supposing that the armour 
 was put on the effigy of a man. They declared 
 that they would never “ endure images of men 
 in the city, for it was not their country’s 
 custom” (Jos. Antiq. xv. c. 8, §§ 1, 2). In the 
 same spirit a band of zealots destroyed a golden 
 eagle which Herod had put over the great gate 
 of the temple (^l)e Hello dud. i. c. 33, 2, 3). 
 
 When Vitellius was marching through Judaea 
 to meet Aretas, the inhabitants entreated him 
 to take another route on account of the fiorures 
 
 O 
 
 which they observed on his standards (^Antiq. 
 xviii. c. 6, § 3). Origen, A.D. 230, even asserts 
 of the Jews in general that “ there was no 
 maker of images among their citizens ; neither 
 painter nor sculptor was in their state” ((7. 
 Cels. iv. § 31). 
 
 It appears, then, that most of the Jewish con¬ 
 verts would enter the church thoroughly imbued 
 with a dislike to all images; and it is ])robablG 
 that many of the heathen would be similarly 
 affected towards them out of mere horror at the 
 idolatry which they had foi-saken. There were 
 some also of the latter who, even before their 
 conversion, were pre])ared by the higher tradi¬ 
 tions of philosophy to renounce the use of images 
 in connection with religion. Pythagoras, we 
 are told, forbade his disciples to “ wear rings 
 or to engrave images of gods on them ” (Clem. 
 Alex. Strom, v. c. 5, § 28). Zeno, the founder 
 of the Stoic school, maintained that men “ ought 
 not to make temj)les or images” {[bid. c. 11, 
 § 77). It was a tradition among the Romans 
 that Numa had “forbidden them the use of any 
 image of God in the likeness of man or in the 
 form of any animal, and that there was among 
 them ])reviously no image of God either painted 
 or fictile ; but that for the first 170 years when 
 
814 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 they built cemjtles and set up chapels they made 
 no images in any shape, on the ground that it 
 was an unholy thing to liken the better to the 
 worse, and impossible to reach God otherwise 
 than with the mind ” (Plutarch in Numa, c. 
 viii.), Varro, in a passage preserved by St. 
 Augustine (Cw. Dei, iv. c. 31), also affirms that 
 for the period specified, the Romans “ worshipped 
 the gods without-an image (simulachro).” He 
 thought that if the law had continued, “ the 
 gods would have been more purely woi'shipped 
 and after referring to the example of the Jews, 
 he adds that “ they who first set up images of 
 the gods for the people relieved their states 
 (civitatibus, but probably civibus, their fellow- 
 citizens), from a fear, and involved them in an 
 error ” (0pp. Varr. Fragmenta, p. 46 ; Amstel. 
 1623). 
 
 II. That many of the early Christians adopted 
 the Jewish interpretation of the second com¬ 
 mandment is evident. Tertullian, A.D. 192, ev^en 
 thought it wrong to make such masks as actors 
 wore ; for, if God foi'bade the likeness of any 
 thing, how much more of His own image ? ” 
 (Z><? Spect. c. 23). He thought painting a sin in 
 Hermogenes (^Ade. Ilenn. c. 1); and he teaches 
 that “ the law of God, in order to eradicate the 
 material of idolatry, proclaims. Thou shalt not 
 make an idol; adding also. Nor the likeness of 
 ang thing . . . Over the whole world hath it 
 forbidden such arts to the servants of God ” (^De 
 Idololatr. c. iv.). Clemens Alex., A.D. 192, appears 
 to hold the same rigid view: “ It has been 
 manifestly forbidden us to practise deceptive 
 art; for, saith the prophet. Thou shalt not 
 make the likeness of any thing that is in heaven 
 or in the earth below.” (^Protrept. c. iv. § 62.) 
 Origen says that painting and sculpture were 
 disallowed among the Jews, lest the effect on 
 senseless men should be to “ draw the eyes of 
 the soul off God on to the earth” (C. Cels. iv. 
 § 31) ; a reason, which, if v'alid, ought to debar 
 Christians from the exercise of them also. 
 
 III. All held that representations of God, even 
 of the Second Person as man, were unlawful. 
 Thu^ Clemens Al. : “ It were ridiculous, as the 
 philosophers themselv'es say, for man, who is the 
 toy of God (Plato, de Legibus, vii. § 10) to make 
 God, and for God to be made of sportive art,” 
 &c. (^Strom. vii. c. 5, § 28). Origen: “ The 
 statues and ornaments that become God are not 
 made by handicraft artisans, but aix* those 
 wi'ought by the word of God and formed within 
 us, the virtues (to wit) which are imitations of 
 the first-born of every creature ” ( C. Cels. viii. 
 § 17). Minutius Felix, A.D. 220 : “ What 
 image should I make of God, when, if you think 
 aright, man is himself the image of God ” (^Octav. 
 c. 9). Lactantius, A.D. 303 : “ An image of God, 
 whose spirit and power being diffused cv'ery- 
 where, can from nowhere be absent, must be 
 always superfluous ” (Instit. ii. c. 2 ; see also the 
 Epjit. c. 25). Arnobius, A.D. 303, after ridicu¬ 
 ling the images of the heathen, says, “ So far 
 are we from attributing corporeal features to 
 God, that we even fear to ascribe to so great a 
 being the ornaments of minds, and the virtues 
 themselves in which excellence has been hardly 
 ascribed to a few. For who would .say that God 
 was brave, constant,” &c. (Adp. Gent, iii.), 
 Eusebius, the historian, in a letter to Constan¬ 
 tin Augusta (the daughter of Constantine and 
 
 wife of Caesar Gall us), who died in 3.54 : “ Since 
 thou hast written about some image, it seems of 
 Christ, wishing the said image to be sent to thee 
 by us, what, and or' what kind, is this image 
 which thou callest that of Christ? . . . Has this 
 Scripture alone escaped thee, in which God by 
 law forbids to make the likeness of any thing in 
 heaven, or on the earth beneath ? Hast thou 
 ev'er seen such a thing in a church thyself, or 
 heard of it from another ? Have not such things 
 been banished throughout the whole world, and 
 driven far off out of the churches; and has it 
 been proclaimed to us alone among all men that 
 it is not lawful to do such a thing? ” (Epist. 
 put together from fragments by Boivin, in note 
 to Niceph. Gregoras; Ilist. Bgzant. tom. ii. p. 
 130, ed. Bonn). Eusebius proceeds to say he had 
 taken from a woman two pictures of persons 
 di-essed like philosophers, which she called por¬ 
 traits of Christ and St. Paul, “lest,” he adds, 
 “ we should .seem to carry our God about in a 
 i'epresentation like idolaters.” St. Augustine 
 writing in 393: “It is not to be thought that 
 God the Father is circumscribed by human form 
 . . . h. is unlawful to set up such an image to 
 God in a Christian temple. Much more is it 
 wicked to set it up in the heart where the 
 temple of God truly is ” {JJe Fide et Syndiolo, 
 c. 7 ; comp, in Ps. cxiii. ; Enarr. Serm. ii. § 1, 
 &c.). Asterius of Amasea, a.d. 401 : “ Do not 
 depict Christ. For the one humiliation of the 
 Incarnation sulficeth Him, which He took on 
 Himself by choice for our sake. But bear and 
 carry about the incorporeal Word mentally, in 
 thy soul ” (^Horn. in Dix\ et Lazar. Auctar. Graec, 
 Combef. tom. exeg. col. 5). A writer quoted as 
 Epiphanius Cyprius (the famous bishop of Cou- 
 stantia) by the council of Constantinople in 
 754 : “ Remember, dear children, not to bring 
 images into churches, nor into the cemeteries of 
 the saints ; but have God ever in vour hearts 
 through remembrance of Him ; nor indeed into a 
 common house ” (Act. vi. Cone. Nic. ii.). Even in 
 the 8th century there were no representations of 
 God the Father, but unhappily not always from 
 principle. “ Why,” says Gregory II. in 726, “ do 
 we not represent and paint the Father of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ ? Because we do not know 
 what He is, and it is impossible to represent and 
 paint the nature of God. But if we had seen 
 and known Him, as we have His Son, then should 
 we have been able to represent and paint Him 
 also, that you might call His image too an idol ” 
 {Fp. /. ad Leon. Labb. Cone. tom. vii. col. 13). 
 John Damascene in the East at the same period, 
 A.D. 728, who is equally vehement on the general 
 question, says to the same effect: “ Wo should 
 indeed be in error if we made an image of the 
 invisible God ” (()rat. de Sacris Iniag. ii. § 5). 
 
 After the period in which all painting was 
 condemned, it is not so common to find passages, 
 which forbid pictures of saints, or deny that the 
 church used them. There are such, however ; 
 although, as we shall see, such pictures were 
 then looked on only as lessons in history. For 
 example, St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 398 : “ We 
 enjoy the presence of the saints through their 
 writings, having images not of their bodies but 
 of their souls. For the things said by them arc 
 images of their souls ” (Act. vi. Cone. A ic. ii. ; sim, 
 Amphilochius of Iconium, ibid.). An author whom 
 the council of Constantinople already mentioned, 
 
IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 815 
 
 cites tinder the name of Theodotus of Ancyra : J 
 “ Concerning them he teaches thus, that we have 
 not been taught by tradition to form the like¬ 
 nesses of the saints in images out of material 
 colours; but we hat'e learnt, through those 
 things which are written of them, to copy their 
 virtues, which are, as it were, living images of 
 them ” (Labb. Cone. tom. vii. col. 492). 
 
 IV. There \vas a consensus against the worship 
 of images, in ev'er} sense of the words TrpocrKvrrjcns 
 and adoratio. At first this extended to material 
 representations of the cross. “ We neither wor¬ 
 ship crosses,” says Minutiiis, “ nor wish to do 
 so” (^Octav. c. 9). With regard to images of our 
 Lord and the saints, the evidence is ample. Thus 
 Irenaeus, a.d. 167, condemns the error of some 
 Gnostics, who crowned images painted in colours, 
 and of other materials, which they asserted to 
 be likenesses of our Lord (Adv. Haer. i. c. 25, 
 
 § 6). Epijihanius who repeats this {Haer. xxvii. 
 
 § 6) says that some of the images were of gold 
 and silver, and that they “ set them up and 
 worshipped them.” (See also Aug. De Haer. n. 
 7.) Origen : “ We do not honour statues, that 
 as far as in us lies we may avoid falling into the 
 notion that the statues are other gods ” {C. Cels. 
 vii. § 66). The council of Eliberis, about the 
 year 305, decreed “ that pictures ought not to 
 be in a church, lest that which is worshipped 
 and adored be painted on walls ” (Can. xxxvi.). 
 St. Augustine : “ Who worships an image (simu- 
 lachrum) or prays looking on it, that is not so 
 affected as to fancy that he is heard by it, as to 
 hope that what he desires is granted him by 
 it ? . . . Against this affection, by which human 
 and carnal weakness can be easily ensnared, the 
 Scripture of God sings [as a nurse waking 
 infants] things very familiar, by which to stir 
 memory, and to rouse, as it were, the minds of 
 men asleep in custom of their bodies. The 
 images of the heathen, it says, are" silver and 
 gold” {Enarr. in Ps. cxiii. Serm. ii. § 5). Else¬ 
 where, when he dwells on the feeling excited by 
 images, he speaks also of its contagious nature : 
 
 “ Who doubts the idols being destitute of all 
 sense ? Yet when they are set in their places, 
 exalted for honour, so that they may be atten¬ 
 tively regarded by those who pray and sacrifice, 
 then through the very resemblance of living 
 limbs and senses, though senseless and lifeless 
 themselves, they affect weak minds, so that they 
 seem to live and breathe ; especially when there 
 is besides the veneration of a multitude, by 
 whom a worship so great is paid to them ” {Ad 
 Deogr. Ep. cii. quaest. 3, § 18). It is undeni¬ 
 able that the objection here urged is as appli¬ 
 cable to the image of a Christian saint as to 
 that of a heathen god. Other testimonies will 
 occur in the following sections. 
 
 V. The figures first used among Christians in 
 any reference to their faith were merely symbo¬ 
 lical. The earliest was the momentary sign of 
 the cross made by the hand. “ At every journey 
 and movement,” says Tertullian, “at every 
 coming in and going out, at the putting on of 
 our clothes and shoes, at baths, at meals, at 
 lighting of candles, at going to bed, at sitting 
 down, whatever occupation employs us, we wear 
 our forehead with the sign ” {l)c Cor. Mil. c. 
 iii.; compare Ad Uxor. ii. 5 ; S. Cyrill. Hier. 
 Cat. iv. c. 10 : xiii. cc. 11, 18, and others). The 
 first permanent representation of the cross is 
 
 J probably that set up at Rome beside the statue 
 j of Constantine after the defeat of Maxentius in 
 312 (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ix. 9) ; but Eusebius tells 
 us also that “ the symbol of the salutai’y passion 
 composed of various and precious stones was set 
 up ” by Constantine in a room in his palace {De 
 Vit. Const, iii. 49). The same prince had, the 
 arms of his soldiers marked with a cross (Sozom. 
 Hist. Eccl. i. 8). Julian the emperor, a.d. 361, 
 says to Christians in reproach: “Ye worship 
 the wood of the cross, making shadowy figures 
 of it on the forehead, and painting it at the 
 entrance of your hou.ses. ’ St. Cyril of Alex¬ 
 andria in hi-i reply justifies the practice of j)aint- 
 ing “the sign of the precious cross” (Lib. VI. ad 
 calc. 0pp. Jul. 194). From St. Jerome we learn 
 that the sign of the cross was made in the 4th 
 century, as it is now, in witness to written 
 documents {Comm, in Ezeh. ix. 4). St. Chry¬ 
 sostom : “ This shines at the sacred table, at the 
 ordination of priests, and again with the body of 
 Christ at the mystic sapper. It may be seen 
 everywhere displayed, in houses, in market¬ 
 places, in deserts, on roads, on mountains, in 
 groA^es, on hills, on ships and islands in the sea, 
 on beds, on dre.sses, on arms, on couches,” &c. 
 {Contra Judae. et Gentil. § 9). Severian, A D. 
 401, calls the cross “ the image of the immortal 
 king ” {Horn, de Cruce, inter 0pp. St. Chrys. ed. 
 SaAulle, V. 899). Paulinus of Nola, writing in 
 403, speaks of “ the ensign of the cross,” sur¬ 
 mounted with the crown of thorns, painted on 
 the Avails of his churches at Nola and Fundi 
 {Ep. xxxii. ad Sever. §§ 12-17). Nilus, a.d. 440^ 
 recommends Olympiodorus, Avho Avas about to 
 erect a martyrium,to “set the figure of a single 
 cross in the sacrarium on the east of the most 
 sacred precincts ; for by one saving cross is man¬ 
 kind completely saved ” {Ep. iv. 61). 
 
 Tertullian is the first witness to the use of 
 other symbolical figures: “We may begin from 
 the parables in which is the lost sheep sought 
 by its osvner, and brought home on his shoulder.®. 
 Let the A^ery pictures of your chalices stand forth ” 
 (as Avitnesses). “ The Good Shepherd Avhom 
 thou paintest on the chalice ” {De Pudic. 7, 10). 
 Clemens A\qx. {Paedag. iii. 11, §59) mentions 
 several devices which he considered permissible 
 on seals. [Gems, p. 712.] “Symbols of the Good 
 Shepherd ” Avere placed by Constantine in the 
 fora of Constantinople (Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 
 49). A mosaic in the church built by Paulinus 
 at Nola represented Christ by a lamb, the Spirit 
 by a doA'e, Avhile “the Amice of the Father 
 thunders from the sky” (“This is My beloved 
 Son ” [Matt. iii. 17], being probably in lettei’s). 
 The Apostles [p. 107] Avere figured by twelve 
 doA'es round a cross, and the church Avas seen 
 set on a rock from Avhich issued four streams, 
 the doctrines of the four EAmngelists {Ep. Pau- 
 lini xxxii. § 10). At Fundi the picture of a 
 shepherd separating the goats from the sheep 
 suggested the Day of .ludgment {/hid. § 17). 
 
 VI. ( 1 ) When religious art advanced from 
 symbolism to jiortraiture, its works of the new 
 type Avere at first, perhaps in every instance, 
 partly historical and partly ideal. There Avas, 
 for example, in the cemetery of St. Priscilla at 
 Rome, a jdeture of the Virgin and Child, accom¬ 
 panied by the figure of a man, whose dress and 
 action (he is pointing to a star) are so clearly 
 suggestive of a symbolical meaning that he i.s 
 
816 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 supposed l>y De Rossi to rei)vcsent the prophets 
 who foretold the coming of Christ (Marriott’s 
 Vestiarium Chrislianuin, ]). 234, and ])1. x.). Other 
 pictures belonging to this period of transition, 
 being apparently of the 5th century, show our 
 Lord blessing a child, or rai^ing Lazarus, but 
 with “ the rod of His power ” (I’s. cx. 2) in His 
 hand (Aringhi, Roma i^uhterr. ii. 33, 37, &c. ; 
 De Rossi, Roma Soterr. ii. tav. 14, 24). In one of 
 the same class and probably of the same age, our 
 Lord appears with an open book in His hand, 
 and an Apostle and rolls of writing on either 
 side (Aringhi, ii. 91 ; Marriott, pi. xii.). The 
 rolls evidently reju'esent the Old and New Testa¬ 
 ments; and the Apostles are probably St. Peter, 
 the great converter of the Jews, and St. Paul, 
 whose chief mission was to the Gentiles. The 
 thought conveyed is that Christ is the great 
 teacher. He “ opened the Scriptures ” to the 
 Apostles, that they might instruct the world. 
 Works of this twofold character Hre frequent 
 after the strictly historical treatment of religious 
 subjects had quite established itself. See ex¬ 
 amples in Aringhi, ii. 83, 88, 129, &c. 
 
 ( 2 ) We come now to pictorial images, which 
 were, so far as appears, of a purely historical 
 character. St. Augustine writing about the year 
 400, says of some misbelievers who had forged 
 epistles as from our Lord to SS. Peter and Paul, 
 that he supposed those Apostles “ occurred to 
 them because they saw them painted together 
 with Him in many places ” (^l)e Consensu Evang. 
 i. X. n. 16). He speaks also of the ofienng of Isaac 
 as a “ noble deed sung by so many tongues, 
 painted in so many places” (C. Faust, xxii. 73). 
 A painting on this subject is described by St. 
 Gi'egory of Nyssa: “ I have often seen the image 
 of his suffering in a picture, and passed the sight 
 not without tears, so vividly did the art of the 
 painter bring the story before the eyes ” (De 
 Deit. Fit. et Sp. Orat. ; compare Greg. II., Ep. 
 I. ad Leon. Labb. Cone. vii. 16). It was a 
 favourite subject, because it symbolised the 
 death of Christ, which as yet men did not 
 venture to represent directly. St. Gregory tells 
 us also that the martyrdom of Theodore in all 
 its circumstances was depicted on the walls of a 
 church built to his memory (^Encom. Theodori). 
 The people of Antioch in the time of St. Chry¬ 
 sostom had the figure of St. Meletius “ in the 
 besils of rings, on stamps, on bowls, on the walls 
 of chambers, and everywhere ” (Chrysost. in St. 
 Melet. § 1). Paulinus, in a poem written about 
 the year 402, describes several scenes from the 
 Old Testament, which he had caused to be painted 
 in his church at Nola. He owns that it was an 
 unusual thing (raro more, line 544), and explains 
 his reason for it at length. It was an experi¬ 
 ment by which he hoped to interest and instruct 
 the rude converts of that neighbourhood, and 
 especially to keep them from the excesses which 
 prevailed among them, when they assembled in 
 great numbers on the festivals (^Poema xxvii. 
 De 8. Fel. Eat. carm. 9). Pictures of Paulinus 
 himself and St. Martin had been placed by Sul- 
 picius Severus in the baptistery of his church 
 at Primuliac, near Beziers. Paulinus, hearing 
 of this, sent him some verses to be set over them, 
 in which he describes St. Martin as an example of 
 holiness to the newly baptized, and himself of 
 penitence {Ep. xxxii. §§ 2, 3). From Asterius 
 we learn that at the beginning of the 5th cen¬ 
 
 tury some persons had subjects from the New 
 Testament, as Christ and the Ajtostles and 
 miracles wrought by them, embroidered on their 
 dress, a jmactice which he strongly condemns 
 {De Div. et Jar. u. s.). The same writer de¬ 
 scribes at length the martyrdom of St. Fu])hemia 
 as painted in a church {u. s. col. 207). Pruden- 
 tius, A.D. 405, saw in the Forum Cornelianum 
 at Rome a jneture of the martyrdom of St. Cas- 
 sianus, a schoolmaster, whom his j)Upils at the 
 command of the heathen magistrate had stabbed 
 to death with their stgli {IM Coronis, Hymn. ix. 
 9). He also describes a picture on the tomb of 
 Hippolytus, in which that martyr was repre¬ 
 sented being torn asunder by horses {fbid. x. 
 126). Heraclides of Nyssa, A.D. 440, wrote two 
 epistles against the Messalianites, in the latter 
 of which was a “ testimony to the antiquity of 
 tlie venerable images ” {Fikovuiv, the Gi-eek paint¬ 
 ings) (Photius, Ribliotk. cod. i.). We have reason 
 to think that the custom of placing in churches 
 the portraits, either painted, or in mosaic, of the 
 patriarchs or other eminent men, was becoming 
 common about this time. St. Nilus advised 
 Olympiodorus ‘‘to fill the holy temple on all 
 sides with stories from the Old and New Testa¬ 
 ment by the hand of the finest i)ainter, that 
 those who did not know letters and were not 
 able to read the Holy Scri])tures might by con¬ 
 templating the jdeture be reminded of the virtue 
 of those who served God truly,” &c. {Epjist. iv. 
 61). An author in Suidas, supposed to be Mal- 
 chus, A.D. 496, says that in a church at Con¬ 
 stantinople there was a mosaic, put up in the 
 lifetime of Gennadius (a.d. 458 to 471), in which 
 that patriarch and Acacius, who became his suc¬ 
 cessor, were represented with our Lord between 
 them, and that the clergy set up pictures of 
 Acacius in the oratories (Suidas in Acacius, i. 
 76). We find incidentally that the partisans of 
 i\Iacedonius had portraits of him in their churches 
 (Theodorus Lector, Excerpt, ii.). Evagrius, A.D. 
 594, mentions a pictui'e on the ceiling of a 
 church at Apamia, representing a miracle of 
 which he had himself been witness when at 
 school there {Hist. Eccl. iv. 26). Gregory of 
 Toui's, his contemporary, mentions pictures (jco- 
 nicae) of the apostles and other saints, which 
 wei’e in an oratory at Arverna ( Vitae PP. xii. 
 § 2). When Augustine and his companions had 
 their first interview with Ethelbert in 597, they 
 came “ bearing a silver cross for banner, and an 
 image of the Lord the Saviour painted on a 
 board ” (Bede, Hist. Earl. i. 25). But the ear¬ 
 liest authentic account of pictures in an English 
 church occurs in Bede’s life of Benedict Biscop, 
 his first abbot, who, in 648, “ brought from 
 Rome paintings of sacred images, to wit, of the 
 blessed Mary and of the twelve Ajwstles, besides 
 I'epresentations of the Gospel history, and of the 
 visions of St. John the Evangelist, and placed 
 them in his church ; so that all who entered the 
 chui’ch, even those ignorant of letters, whither¬ 
 soever they turned their eyes, might contemplate 
 the ever-lovely countenance of Christ, and of his 
 saints, though in an image; or might more 
 heedfully call to mind the grace of the Lord’s 
 Incarnation ” {Hagiogr. sect. i.). In 685 {Ibid. 
 720) lie brought other pictures from Rome, 
 many of saints and Gospel subjects, as before; 
 but some also illustrating the relation of the 
 New Testament to the Old, as Isaac bearing tbo 
 
IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 817 
 
 <vood beside Christ bearing His cross, the brazen 
 serpent on the pole by Christ on the cross. Pic¬ 
 tures of this character probably abounded in 
 Rome at this time ; for a great number are men¬ 
 tioned as to be seen there by Cregory II. in his 
 first reply to Leo the emperor, a.d. 726 (Labb. 
 Cone. vii. 16). 
 
 VII. Scarcely had portraits of holy persons 
 become common, before pictures of fabulous 
 origin were brought forward, and superstitious 
 notions and practices began to abound. For 
 example, Theodoret had heard that the Romans 
 hold Symeon the Stylite in snch esteem, as to 
 “set up small portraits of him in all the en¬ 
 trances of their workshops, deriving thence pro¬ 
 tection and safety for themselves ” {Hist. Jicli- 
 giosa, c. xxvi.). Theodorus Lector reports that 
 Eudocia, the Augusta, sent to Pulcheria (about 
 A.D. 456) a “likeness of the mother of God 
 which the Apostle Luke painted ” {Excerpta, i. 
 prope init.). The same writer relates that a 
 painter of Constantinople in the time of Gen- 
 nadius, had “dared to paint the Saviour as 
 Zeus.” For this his arm withered, but was 
 restored at the prayer of the patriarch. The 
 historian adds that “ the other representation 
 of the Saviour, with curling short hair, is the 
 more correct ” {Ibid. i. 554). When Edessa was 
 besieged by Chosroes, king of Persia, about 544, 
 the mound erected by him against the walls 
 was, according to Evagrius {Hist. Eccl. iv. 27), 
 destroyed by fire, the heat and power of which 
 had been miraculously intensified by water that 
 had been sprinkled over a picture of Christ 
 (“ the God-made image which the hand of man 
 wrought not ”), sent by himself to Abgarus a 
 former king of that city. Evagrius finished his 
 history in 594. It is worthy of note that Pi*o- 
 copius {De Bello Fersico, ii. 27), who wrote soon 
 alter the Persian war, and from whom Evagrius 
 took the rest of his account, does not mention 
 the miraculous picture. In a later war with 
 Persia, a.d. 590, another portrait of CJirist, said 
 also to be of divine origin, accompanied the 
 Roman army, and gave courage to the soldiers 
 (Theophyl. Simoc. Histo7'iarum ii. 3, 70, ed. 
 Bekker). At this time imagination readily con¬ 
 nected miracles with the icons of the saints. 
 Thus both Evagrius and Gregory of Tours tell 
 the story of a Jewish boy at Constantinople, 
 who, having with others of his age partaken of 
 the remains of the Eucharist according to the 
 custom there, was cast by his enraged father into 
 a burning furnace. The next day he was found 
 in it uninjured. Evagrius {u. s. c. 36) merely 
 says that he declared that “ a woman clothed in 
 purple ” had appeared to him and saved him; 
 but in the version of Gregory of Tours {Mh-ac. 
 i. 10), “ the woman seated in a chair and carry¬ 
 ing an infant in her bosom, who was in the 
 basilic, where he receiv'ed the bread from the 
 table, had covered him with her mantle that 
 the fire might not devour him.” Another im¬ 
 provement of the same kind in a miraculous 
 story should be mentioned here. Paulus Warne- 
 fridi, in his History of the Lombards (ii. 13), re¬ 
 lates how the bad eyes of two persons were healed 
 by oil from “ a lamp set tc give light ” near the 
 altar of St. Martin, in a church at Ravenna. 
 When this story is told in France, as it is in 
 some of the manuscript copies of Gregory {Be 
 Mirac. S. Martini, i. 15), the lamp stands 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 “ under an image of the picture of the blessed 
 Martin.” Such variations appear to indicate the 
 growth of a feeling which ascribed to the image 
 a part of the supposed ])owers of the .saint him¬ 
 self. Other stories told by Gregory of Tours are 
 of a picture of Christ, which was said to have 
 shed blood, when maliciously injured by a Jew 
 {Mirac. i. 22); and of another at Narbonne, 
 respecting which our Lord in a vision expressed 
 His displeasure, because it rei)resented Him on 
 the cro.ss, not fully clothed, but “ girt with a 
 linen ” only {Tb d. c. 23). Such stories were 
 quite as common in the .East, e.g. Leontius, 
 bishop of Neapolis in Cyimus, a.d. 590, speaks 
 of the flow of blood from images as of frequent 
 occurrence {A},ol. in Act. iv. Cone. Nic. ii. Labb. 
 vii. 240). At Constantinople thei’e was a pic¬ 
 ture of our Lord “ at which many miracles took 
 place.” This image Gregory 11., writing in 726, 
 calls without any qualification “ the Saviour.” 
 When the emperor Leo ordered it to be de¬ 
 stroyed, the officer sent to execute the decree 
 was murdered by women, whom the pope de¬ 
 scribes as full of zeal, and honours with a title 
 {fj.vpo(p6poi) which antiquity gave to those holy 
 w’omen who “ prepared spices and ointments ” 
 wherewith to embalm the body of Christ {Epist. 
 ad Leon. I., Labb. Cone, vii.* 19). The murder is 
 equally approved by the Greek author of the 
 ‘ Life of Stephen the Younger ’ {Analecta Graeca 
 Bened. t. i. p. 415). 
 
 It is evident that men who had arrived at 
 this stage of superstition were ripe for the prac¬ 
 tice of direct idolatry. Serenus, a bishop of 
 Marseilles, contemporary with Gregory of Tours, 
 found this so rife among his people that he had 
 the images in his church destroyed. We learn 
 this from an epistle of Gregory L, who concurred 
 with him in principle, while he condemned the 
 deed: “ It hath i-eached our ears some time ago 
 that your fraternity, seeing certain worshippers 
 of images, has broken and cast forth the said 
 images out of the chuj ch. And indeed we praise 
 you for being zealous lest aught made by the 
 hand should be worshipped ; but we think that 
 you ought not to have broken the said images. 
 For painting is used in churches, that they who 
 are ignorant of letters may at least read on the 
 walls by seeing them what they cannot read 
 in books ” {Epist. vii. 111). “It is one thing to 
 adore a picture, another to learn by the story of 
 the picture what ought to be adored ... If an)* 
 one wishes to make images bv no means forbid 
 him; but by all means stop the worship of 
 images ” {Epist. ail eund. ix. 9). In both these 
 epistles now quoted Gregory teaches, and in the 
 second at great length, that pictures were placed 
 in churches '•‘•only to instruct the minds of the 
 ignorant ” (non ad ador<mdiim, sed ad instrucndns 
 solunirnodo rnentes nescient him') ; but elsewhere he 
 indicates another use which experience has shown 
 to lead rapidly to direct worship : “ We do not 
 prostrate ourselves before it (‘ the image of our 
 Saviour ’) as befoi-e the Godhead ; but we worship 
 Him whom by help of the image we call to mind 
 as born, as suffering, or even sitting on His 
 throne. And while the picture itself, like a 
 writing, brings the Son of God to our memorv, 
 it either rejoices our mind by the suggestion of 
 His resurrection, or consoles it bv His passion ” 
 {Ep. ad Secund. vii. 54). In the Greek church, 
 however, we find the worship of pictures already 
 
818 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES • 
 
 av'owed and defended; as by Leontius, above | 
 mentioned : “ 1, worshipj)ing the image of God, 
 do not worship the material wood and colours ; 
 God forbid ; but laying hold of the lifeless repre¬ 
 sentation of Christ, 1 seem to myself to lay hold 
 of and to worsi\ip Christ through it ” {Apol. in 
 Act. iv. Cone. Nic. ii. Labb. vii. 237). He com- 
 ])ares this worship to that which a Jew pays to 
 the book of the law ; but as he dwells much on 
 miracles wrought by images, and, like Gregory, 
 on the emotions which the sight of a cro.ss or 
 picture ought to raise in the beholder, it is clear 
 that in practice the w'orship of them was very 
 diflereut from the reverence shewn to the law. 
 Indeed it is very probable that the simple plea 
 of instruction tor the ignorant, however just 
 when properly applied, was soon so e.xtended as 
 to cover practices which could not be distin¬ 
 guished from idolatry. For as Gieseler notices 
 {Keel. Hist, per, i. div. i. p. i. § 1) the only reply 
 to the complaint, “This generation has made 
 gods of the images,” which a fanatical image- 
 woi'shipper of the 8th century could oft'er, was 
 that by which Gregory I. had defended the 
 merely didactic use of them ; viz., “ You must 
 teach the unlearned people ” {Orat. de iinag. 
 Adv). Constantinwn Cabal, c. 13 ; inter. 0pp. S. 
 Joann. Damasc.). 
 
 VHI. By the beginning of the 8th century 
 the worship of images had become such a scandal 
 in the Fast that a Mahometan prince, Izid, or 
 Jesid, the sou of Omar, thought himself justified 
 in interfering. In 715 he accordingly commanded 
 all pictures to be removed from the churches of 
 his dominion (Theophanes, Chronographia ad a. m. 
 6215). A little later, Leo the Isaurian, who 
 became emperor in 716, made his hostility to 
 the practice known. He claimed to be influenced 
 by a horror of idolatry, and there is no evidence 
 of any other motive. His sentiments w'ere pro¬ 
 bably well-known from the first (Theophan. ad 
 ann. 6217) ; but we gather from the testimony 
 of two adversaries (Greg. II. Kpist. ad Leon. 
 Labb. vii. 9 ; T7^a Steph. Jun. u. s. p. 412) that 
 he had reigned ten years before he ventured on 
 any overt act. In the year 726 he issued a de¬ 
 claration against the wmrship of images, but did 
 not command them to be “ destroyed, only placed 
 higher, so that no one might kiss them, and 
 thus bring discredit on that which was other- 
 wise w'orthy of respect” (TV^a Steph. u. s.). 
 However, about the same time he .seems ro have 
 ordered the image already mentioned, to w’^hich 
 miracles w^ere ascribed, to be removed from a 
 public place in Constantinople. He also wrote 
 to the bishop of Rome, w'ho quotes his letter 
 thus : “ Thou sayest that the images occupy the 
 place of idols, and that they who wmrship them 
 are idolaters.” “ Thou hast written, that w’e 
 ought not to worship things made by the hand, 
 nor the likeness of any thing . . . and, inform 
 me who hath taught by tradition the reverence 
 and worship of things made by the hand, and I 
 will confess that it is the law of God ” {Epist. 
 Greg. II. u. s.). In a most insolent and un- 
 chi'istian reply, the pope dwells much on his 
 own feelings before a sacred picture (coll. 14, 
 16); but does not meet the complaint that such 
 objects were abused to idolatry. About the same 
 time John of Damascus wrote his three “ Orations 
 against those w'ho reject the holy images.” In 
 his demand for adoration he does not go further 
 
 i than “ worshipping and ki.ssing and embracing 
 the image both with lips and heart ; as the like¬ 
 ness of the Incarnate God, or of His mother, or 
 of the Saints.” He says that pictures are the 
 “ books of the unlearned ” (Orat. ii. § 10). Leo. 
 how'ever, persevered. A second letter to the 
 pope (Labb. u. s. col. 23) being met in the same 
 spirit as the former, and Germanus of Constanti¬ 
 nople proving equally impracticable, in 730 he 
 ordered all images to be removed out of churches 
 (Theophan. ad an. 6221). Constantine V., his 
 son and successor, published another edict agdnst 
 images in the first year of his reign, 741 ; and 
 is even said to have exacted an oath from his 
 subjects that they would not worship them 
 (Theophan. ad an. 6233 ; Vita Steph. p. 444). 
 Such images as had been left w'ere now effaced 
 by scraping or w'hitewashing the walls (Vita 
 Steph. p. 445) ; but merely decorative paintings 
 of trees, flowers, birds, &c., were allowed. That 
 the party of the image-w'orshippers was at this 
 time strong and numerous, is clear from the fact 
 that the rebel Artavasdes won many adherents 
 by declaring himself in their favour, and setting 
 up icons in the cities. Anastasius the patriarch 
 went over to him (Cedrenus, Hist. Compend. ii. 
 
 4 ; ed. Bonn), and he was recognized by Zacha- 
 rias of Rome, who dated letters from his assump¬ 
 tion of the purple (Ep. iv. v. Labb. vi. 1503- 
 5). From this time image-worshippers ■would 
 naturally be suspected of disloyalty, and would 
 suffer much in that age of cruelty on the sup¬ 
 pression of the levolt in 743. In 754 Constan¬ 
 tine convened a general council at Constantinople, 
 at which 338 bishops (Labb. tom. vii. col. 417) 
 were present, but none of the great patriarchs. 
 At this synod it was maintained that the wor¬ 
 ship of images was in a great measure due to, 
 and that in return it fostered, a tendency to 
 those heresies respecting the nature of Christ 
 which had been condemned by earlier councils 
 (ib. coll. 429-453), their characteristics being 
 either to lower the Divine nature, or to dwell 
 on the human as apart from it, or to confound 
 the two. After a careful review of the scrip¬ 
 tural and patristic evidence (ih. coll. 473-504) 
 the following decree was made:—“ Whosoever 
 shall from this time present dare to make or 
 worship or set up«in a church or private house 
 or conceal an image (ei/coV f), if he be a bishop, 
 presbyter, or deacon, let him be degraded ; if a 
 monk or layman, let him be anathematized and 
 punished by the imperial laws, as contrary to 
 the commandments of God and an enemy to the 
 doctrine of the Fathers ” (ib. col. 508 ; see also 
 506). At the same time it was forbidden, undei 
 pretence of compliance with this decree, to lav 
 hands on sacred vessels, vestments, &:c., that had 
 any figure wrought on them, but they might be 
 recast or made up afresh with licence from th< 
 patriarch or emperor (ib. coll. 510, 511). This 
 caution w'as necessary, and only partially effec¬ 
 tual. E. g., a fanatical bishop was accused to 
 the council of having “ trampled on the holy 
 paten of the undefiled mysteries of God, because 
 it w'as engraved with the venerable image of 
 Christ, and of His mother, and of the Precursor ” 
 
 ( Vita Stephani, u. s. p. 480). We read too that 
 many books containing pictures were burnt or . 
 defaced by the “iconoclasts” (Labb. ti. s. coll. 
 372-377) ; and a general com])laint is made by 
 Germanus of Constantinople that they were not 
 
BIAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 819 
 
 content with oheving the. order for the removal 
 of images, but mu.'^t needs destroy “ any symbo¬ 
 lical ornament on the ‘ venerable vessels,’ and 
 ‘defacing altar cloths’ embroidered in gold and 
 purple, would put them uj) in their own houses,” 
 &c. (^De Synod, ct llaeres. § 42, in Maii Spicil. 
 Roman, tom. viii. p. 1 ; comp. Vita Steph. p. 
 445). The decree is said to have been carried 
 out with great cruelty, but we cannot believe 
 all the charges brought by his enemies against 
 Constantine ; as, for example, that the governor 
 of Natolia, with his approbation, having assem¬ 
 bled at Ephesus in 770 all the monks and nuns 
 of Thrace, gave them the choice of marriage or 
 the loss of their eyes (Theophanes, ad an. Const. 
 30). However this may be, it appears certain 
 that from the date of the council no images that 
 could be made the object of worship were per¬ 
 mitted in the churches of the East until after the 
 death of Leo IV’". (Chazarus), the son of Constan¬ 
 tine, in 780. 
 
 In 786 the widow of Leo, Irene, who had been 
 brought up an image-worshipper, being regent 
 of the empire in the minority of her son Con¬ 
 stantine \"L, resolved, in conjunction with her 
 creature Tarasius the patriarch (785-806), to 
 make every effort for the restoration of the icons. 
 A council assembled at Constantinople was dis¬ 
 persed by a tumult among the soldiers who were 
 faithful to the convictions of their former master ; 
 but it met again the next year (787) at Nicaea. 
 There were pre.sent 375 bishops. Two legates 
 from Rome attended, and two represented jointly 
 the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jeru¬ 
 salem. In the second session a letter was read, 
 addressed by Hadrian of Rome to Irene and her 
 son, in which the pope maintained that a relative 
 worship was due to images (Labb. tom. vii. col. 
 113). This had been the teaching of his pre¬ 
 decessor Gregory II. in his letter to Leo (ou 
 \aTpfVTiK(S$, a\Ka (Tx^tikws, ib. col. 13), and 
 it appears in several of the authorities read be¬ 
 fore the council (coll. 304, 353, 356, &c.). The 
 principle was fully accepted by the synod, and 
 stated in the conclusion at which it arrived, viz., 
 that “ the venerable and holy images should be 
 set up in the same manner as the figure of the 
 precious and life-giving cross ; both those which 
 are in colours or tesselated work, and those of 
 other suitable material, iu the holy churches of 
 God, on sacred vessels and vestments, on walls 
 and boards, on hou.ses, and by the wayside ; the 
 images, to wit, of our Lord and God and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, and of the one undefiled Lady, the 
 holy mother of God, and of the honourable 
 angels, and all saints and holy men. For the 
 more frequently they are seen in their pictured 
 resemblance, the more are those who behold 
 them stirred up to the recollection and love of 
 their prototypes, and to render to them (the 
 images) salutation and honorific worship; not 
 indeed true supreme worship (Aarpeiay), accord¬ 
 ing to our faith, which is due to the Divine 
 nature alone, but that, as the pious custom of 
 the ancients held, an otlering of incense and 
 lights should be made in their honour in the 
 same manner as to the figure of the precious 
 and life-giving cross, and to the holy gospels, 
 and to other sacred ornaments. For the honour 
 of the image passes on to the original, and he 
 who worships the image worships in it the per¬ 
 son of him who is therein depicted ” (Labb. u. s. 
 
 col. 556). If lights and incense had not been 
 mentioned, we should hanlly have suspected 
 these words to demand a greater reverence for 
 images than a devout mind naturally feels for a 
 copy of the Bible, or indeed for anything that 
 brings God immediately before it; but to arrive 
 at their full significance, we must also take into 
 consideration the habits of the age, and especi¬ 
 ally the arguments and testimonies on which the 
 decree professed to be founded. Many pictures 
 were deemed miraculous, and any one, in the 
 belief of the people, might become so, while 
 prayers were already addressed directly to the 
 icons, and many superstitious practices existed 
 in connection with them without rebuke from 
 those who framed this decree. In a passage read 
 with applause at the council from the Limon- 
 arium of Sophronius or John Moschus (a.d. 630), 
 worshipping the image of Christ Is spoken of as 
 worshipping Christ, and not to do so as a deadly 
 sin (Labb. col. 381). - Such indeed was the con¬ 
 stant language of the iconolaters. He, savs 
 Photius, “ who does not worshij) the image of 
 Christ, does not worship Christ, though he may 
 think he worships him ” (Epist. lib. ii. n. 102). 
 In another passage from the Limonarium, also 
 approved by the council, we are told that a cer¬ 
 tain anchorite, when about to visit any holy 
 place, used to light a candle before a picture of 
 the Virgin with Christ in her arms, and “ re¬ 
 garding her picture to say to the Lady, ‘ Holy 
 Lady, mother of God, seeing I have a long wav 
 to go, a journey of many days, take care of thy 
 candle and keep it unquenched according to my 
 intent; for I depart having thy aid on the way.’ 
 And having said this to the image he departed.” 
 The light burned on till his return (ih. col. 384). 
 (For the direct address compare Greg. II. ad 
 Leon. Ep. i. col. 13, and Germanus of Constan¬ 
 tinople, ad Tnom. col. 312.) Other important 
 fitcts are recorded in a letter of Michael Balbus 
 to Ludovicus Pius. “ They not only sang psalms 
 and worshipped them, and asked for help from 
 the said images,” but many, hanging linen cloths 
 on them, placed their children in them as they 
 came out of the font, thus making them sponsors ; 
 and monks receiving the tonsure had the hair 
 held over them so as to fall into their lap. 
 “ Some of the priests and clerks, scraping the 
 colours of the images, mixed them w’ith the 
 oblation and wine, and after the celebration of 
 masses gave of this oblation to those who wished 
 to C 9 mmunicate. Others put the Lord’s Body 
 into the hands of images, from which they caused 
 those who desired to communicate to receive it. 
 Some despising the church used the Hat surface 
 of pictures for altars in common houses and 
 celebrated the sacred liturgy on them; and 
 many other like things, unlawful and contrary 
 to our religion, were done iu churches” {Luper. 
 Deer, de Cultu Imag. p. 618, ed. Goldast. Fran- 
 coL 1608). 
 
 In 797 Constantine VI. was depriv'ed of his 
 kingdom and sight by the contrivance and com¬ 
 mand of his unnatural mother (Cedrenus, tom. ii. 
 p. 27), who after five years of undivided power 
 was supplanted by Micephorus. He is said to 
 have favoured the iconoclasts (Cedr. u. s. p. 49), 
 but there is no evidence of any action in support 
 of their cause. His death in battle, July 811, 
 was in two months followed by that of his son 
 and successor Stauratius, who had been wounded 
 
 3 G 
 
B20 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 at the same time. Michael Khangabe, who 
 deposed the dying Stauratius, seems to have 
 j)iuiished with impartial hand both those who 
 worshipped images and those who broke them. 
 Leo the Armenian, who deprived him of his 
 throne in 813, was a decided enemy to image- 
 worship, He thought that the heathen were 
 permitted on that account to obtain victories 
 over tlie Christians. “ I desire,” he declared, 
 
 to overthrow them (the images). For observe, 
 all the emj)erors who have received and wor¬ 
 shipped them have died, some pursued to death, 
 some falling in battle: and only those who did 
 not worship them have ended their reigns each 
 by a natural death, and been buried with 
 honour,” See. (^Xirratio de Leone Arm. Imp. 
 auctoris incerti, in 0pp. Theophanis, p. 435, ed. 
 Pari.s). The people generally seem to have been 
 with him; for he is also reported to have re¬ 
 monstrated in this manner with the patriarch 
 ^sicephorus:—“The people are scandalized by 
 the images, and say that we do ill to worship 
 them, and that for this reason the heathen lord 
 it over us. Conde-scend a little, and use manage¬ 
 ment with the people, and let us pare away 
 trifles. But if you are not willing to do this, 
 give us the grounds on which you worship them, 
 for the Scripture is by no means clear on the 
 point ” (<6. p. 437). In reply Nicephorus merely 
 asserted the antiquity of the practice. In 815 
 Leo procured the condemnation of the second 
 council of Nicaea by another, which he convened 
 at Constantinople (Labb. tom. vii. col. 1299). 
 The acts of this council are not e.xtant; but an 
 edict of Leo, issued at the time, is probably in 
 complete accord with its decrees. In that the 
 emperor alleges the unlawfulness and absurdity 
 of image-worship, and the duty of removing the 
 cause of offence (IMichael Mouach. in Vita Theo- 
 dori Stud. c. 63 ; opp. Sirmondi, tom. v.). It is 
 related of Michael II. (Balbus), A.D. 820, that 
 “ though he was of the heterodo.x party (an image- 
 worshipper is speaking) he had nevertheless no 
 wish to trouble those who did not defer to him, 
 but allowed every one to do as he chose ”(lVfa 
 The:d. Stud. c. 102). He also recalled those who 
 had been banished by Leo. He at first contented 
 himself with forbidding the word “saint” to be 
 inscribed on images, wherever they might be 
 (Cedren. tom. ii. p. 110) ; but it is probable that 
 he afterwards became more severe (i6. p. 74). A 
 letter is extant addressed by this emperor and 
 his son Theophilus to Louis the Godly, in which 
 he describes the course of action adopted by his 
 predecessors of like mind:—“ By common coun¬ 
 sel they caused images to be removed from too 
 low situations (in churches), and allowed those 
 set in higher to remain where they were, that 
 the painting might serve for Scripture, lest 
 they should be worshipped by the more ignorant 
 and weak; but they forbade the lighting of 
 lamps or burning of incense to them ” (^Lpist. 
 ad Ludov. apud Goldast. u. s. p. 619). Theo¬ 
 philus, on his accession, required strict obedi¬ 
 ence to the law, and even forbade the painting 
 of icons (Theophan. Cuntinuat. lib. iii. c. 10; 
 Cedr. tom. ii. p. 110). 
 
 On the death of Theophilus in 842, his widow, 
 Theodora, who governed for her infant son 
 Michael III., restored the icons and their wor¬ 
 ship, notwithstanding an oath that she would 
 Dot do so, exacted by her dying husband (Cedr. 
 
 tom. ii. p. 142). The sanction of the church 
 was obtained through a council held at Constan¬ 
 tinople (Labb. tom. vii. col. 1782); and the 
 triumjdi of images celebrated by the institution 
 of an annual feast on the first Sunday in Lent, 
 thence called by the Greeks r) KvpiauT] rrjs 6p6o- 
 So^i'as (Philothei Serr.i. in Doni. I. Quudr. in 
 Gretser’s note to Cod.nus De (>j[fic. c. xv., and 
 Narnit. de Tm iqinihm Jiestit. in Combefis. Auc- 
 tar. tom. hist. col. 738). From the 2)jpicon of 
 Sabas, c. 42, we learn that the occasion is marked 
 by a procession of crosses and jdcture.s, and the 
 public reading of the decree of Nicaea (Gretser, 
 u. s.). Opposition, however, was not whollv ex¬ 
 tinguished; for about the year 860 we find Pho 
 tins, who had u.surped the patriarchate of Con¬ 
 stantinople, proposing to Nicholas of Rome that 
 another general council should be held to com¬ 
 plete the suppression of “ the heresy of the icono- 
 machi ”( Tiia/(/nidiV a Niceta conscr. in Labb. 
 tom. viii. col. 1204). The council met the next 
 year and pronounced the deposition of Ignatius, 
 whom Photius had supplanted, but its action in 
 regard to images is not recorded. In 869 an¬ 
 other council, convened by the emperor Basil 
 especially for the condemnation of Photius, de¬ 
 nounced the iconoclasts, upheld pictures as use¬ 
 ful in the instruction of the people, and declared 
 that we ought to “ worship them with the same 
 honour as the book of the holv gospels” (can. iii. 
 Labb. tom. viii. col. 1360). Here the history of 
 the struggle closes in the East. 
 
 IX. The position of the Nestorians and Euty- 
 chians with respect to images is interesting and 
 instructive. The former were cut off' from the 
 church in 431, before images of any kind were 
 common. Their antagonism to the church would 
 make them keen-sighted to the evil springing up 
 within her, and naturally lead to their entire 
 rejection. We find accordingly that “ the Nes¬ 
 torians have no images or pictures in their 
 churches, and are very much opposed to the use 
 of them, even as ornaments, or as barely repre¬ 
 senting historical facts illustrative of sacred 
 Scripture” (Badger’s Kestoi'iuns, vol. ii. p. 132). 
 The Eutychians, condemned in 451, were a verv 
 small body until the time of Jacob Baradaeus, 
 who died in 588. They became very numerou.^;, 
 under the name of Jacobites, in the 7th century, 
 and when they left the church they carried with 
 them the custom of image-worship, as it was then 
 understood and practised. At a later period the 
 Greeks observing a difference and not knowinsc that 
 they had themselves changed, accused the Jaco¬ 
 bites of error : “ They think it indifferent whether 
 they worship or do not worship them, but if 
 ever they chance to worship, thev do not kiss the 
 image itself, but touching it with a finger only, 
 kiss the finger instead” (Demetr. Cyzicen. De 
 Jacob. Haeres. Max. Biblioth. PP. tom. 814). 
 One division of the Monophysites, whom some 
 identify with the Armenians, were called Chat- 
 zitzarii, from the Armenian Ckatzus a cross, be¬ 
 cause they reverenced the cross only (j 6.). Of 
 the Armenians Nicon says, “They do not adore 
 the venerable images, and what is more, their 
 Catholicus with the rest anathematizes those who 
 adore them ” (^De Armen. Itetij. Max. Biblioth. 
 tom. XXV. p. 328). 
 
 X. We turn now to the West. In 767 Pipin 
 held a council at Gentilly, at which legates from 
 Rome and Constantinople were present. One 
 
IMAGES 
 
 IMAGES 
 
 821 
 
 object was to consider the “ cultus of images.” 
 Tt.c decision was that “ images of saints made up 
 (tictas, i.e. mosaics) or painted for the ornament 
 and beauty of churches might be endured, so 
 that they were not had for worship, veneration, 
 and adoration, which idolaters practise ” (Con- 
 stit. fmper. Goldast. tom. i. p. 16). The decree 
 of Nicaea was transmitted by the bisliop of Rome 
 to Charlemagne and others, but tlie French 
 church was not even then prepared to accept the 
 worship, though long accustomed to the sight, of 
 images, in 790 a strong protest appeared in the 
 famous TAbri Can (ini or Capitu'are Prolixiim, a 
 treatise in four books, expressly directed against 
 those abuses which the council and the jiope had 
 sanctioned. It is not probable that Charlemagne 
 composed it himself, but it is written in his 
 name. The author speaks of king Pipin as his 
 father (lib. i. c. 6), and of legates sent into 
 Greece by his father and himself (lib. iii. c. 8); 
 and Hadrian, in his controversial reply, addresses 
 Charles as the writer (Labb. Cone. tom. vii. coll. 
 915, 916, 960). A brief quotation will show the 
 practice of the church in France at that time :— 
 “ We do not banish from the basilics effigies set 
 up for the commemoration of events, or for orna¬ 
 ment, but we restrain a most strange, or rather 
 most superstitious adoration of them, wliich we 
 do not anywhere find to have been instituted by 
 the apostles, or by apostolical men ” (lib. ii. c. 
 10) “ In the year 792,” says Roger Hoveden, 
 
 our English annalist, did Charles the king of 
 the Franks send a synodal book to Britain, which 
 had been forwarded to him from Constantinople, 
 in which book were found, alas! many unmeet 
 things and contrary to the true faith ; chiefly 
 that it had been defined by the unanimous as.ser- 
 tion of nearly all the eastern doctors, and not 
 less than 300 or more bishops, that we ought to 
 adore images, which the church of God alto¬ 
 gether execrates. Against which Albinus (Al- 
 cuin) wrote an epistle admirably confirmed by 
 the authority of the Divine Scriptures, and pre¬ 
 sented it, with the said book, in the name of our 
 bishops and princes, to the king ” (C/tromeu 
 ad ann. 792 ; Sim., Simeon Dunelm. Hist. Hegum. 
 and Matth. Paris, Chron. Maj. ad eund. ann.); 
 in 794 a council was held at Frankfort-on-thr- 
 Maine, “ which rejected with contempt and 
 unanimously condemned the adoration and ser¬ 
 vice ” which the synod of the Greeks had de¬ 
 clared under anathema to be due to “the images 
 of the saints as to the Divine Trinity ” (can. ii.). 
 Thus the matter rested during the life of Charle¬ 
 magne. In 824 Louis the Godly received from 
 ^lichael Balbus the epistle to which we have al¬ 
 ready referred, and was induced by it to convoke 
 a synod at Paris in the following year. Having 
 read the letter of Hadrian to Irene, the bishops 
 assembled declare, in an address to Louis and 
 Lothair, that as the pope “justly re])roves them 
 who in those parts rashly presumed to break the 
 images of the saints, so is he known to have acted 
 Indiscreetly in that he commanded to give them 
 superstitious worship” (Constit. hnper. tom. i.. 
 p. 154). They support their judgments by an 
 ample catena from the fathers. At this time 
 Eugenius II. was pope, and a letter is ascribed to 
 him (the contents of which make the authorship 
 doubtful) in which, after quoting a letter from 
 IiOiiis and Lothair to himself, he exp>resses dis- 
 aj)probation of pictures of saints altogether, and 
 
 ev'en blames the Greek emperors Michael and 
 Theophilus, to whom he writes, for “allowing 
 any one who chose to have images j)ainted oi 
 chased” (i6. p. 186). Claudius, wlio became 
 bishop of Turin in 821, l)y the choice of the 
 emperor Louis, finding the basilics of his diocese 
 full of images superstitiously worshipped, ordered 
 them to be removed {Decreta de Culhi fiuaginum, 
 Goldast. p. 763). He even effaced the j^ainted 
 figure of the cross. His argument was, “ If you 
 worship a cross because Christ died on one, why 
 not a manger, because he lay in one, and a ship 
 because he taught from one ; .... a lamb, be¬ 
 cause he is the lamb of God ; but those perverse 
 dogmatics will devour lambs that have life, and 
 adore them painted on walls ” {ib. p. 767). The 
 Apology of Claudius was j.ublished after the 
 council of Paris was held. As he went beyond 
 that, he was opposed by many who approved of 
 the acts of the council. Among these was Jonas 
 the bishop of Orleans, Avho.se work in three books 
 (^Adeersus Claudii Taurinensis ApoloyeCcum') is 
 extant, and has preserved to us whatever remains 
 of that of Claudius. In it he distinctly dis¬ 
 allows the worship of images, while protesting 
 vehemently against the extreme opinions and 
 high-handed measures of his opponent:—“’Per¬ 
 mit the images of saints and ))ictures of holy 
 Avorks to be painted in churches, not that they 
 may be adored, but rather that they may lend 
 to them a certain beauty, and impart to the 
 senses of the unlearned the history of past 
 events” (lib. i. sig. C. Colon. 1554). A fcAv years 
 later, 823, Dungalus, a monk of St. Denys at 
 Paris, published a violent attack on Claudius. 
 His Avork (^Liber l{esponsionn>u vdv. Clatid., &c.) 
 is printed in the Maxima Biblioth. PP. tom. xiA'. 
 A more able production than either of the above 
 is the Liber de Picturis et fmaginibiis, Avritten 
 by Agobard, archbishop of Lyons, probably about 
 840. This author maintains that “ the images 
 of the apostles and of the Lord Himself Avere 
 painted and kept by the ancients rather for love 
 and remembrance than religious honour or any 
 veneration after the custom of the Gentiles ” 
 (c. 20) ; and that “ none of the ancient catholics 
 ever thought that they are to be Avorshipped and 
 adored ” (c. 32). He laments the later practice 
 as “ near to or like the heresy of idolatry or of 
 the anthropomorphites,” and thinks that it was 
 “rightly decreed by the orthodox fathers (in 
 the council of Elvira), in order to put down this 
 kind of superstition, that pictures ought not to 
 be in churches ” (c. 33). This Avas j)robably the 
 last clear note of warning. Walafrid Strabo, 
 abbot of Reichenaii, a.d. 842, gives an uncertain 
 sound. “We kiioAv,” he sa)'.s, “ that icons are 
 not to be adored or worshipped ” (colendas), but 
 he demands for them “seemly and moderate 
 lionours ” (De Ptb. Heel. c. 8). Hincmar, arch¬ 
 bishop of Rheims, a.d. 845, at the request of his 
 comprovincials Avrote a treatise, now lost, to 
 explain “in Avhat manner the images of our 
 Lord and His saints are to be reverenced ” (veu- 
 erandae; Flodoard. Hist. Ecci. Pemens. lib. iii. 
 c. 29). His teaching is not further indicated by 
 our authority; but it may be safely inferred 
 from his contemptuous language with respect to 
 the Greek and Roman practice, Avhich he stigma¬ 
 tizes as “ doll-Avorship ” (puparum cultus), and 
 from his open rejection of the second council ot 
 Nicaea (Opusc. Iv. udv. Hincmar. Laud. c. ix.). 
 
822 
 
 IMAGINES CLIIM^ATAE 
 
 XI. Tlie “ images ” of which we have spoken 
 were all either pictures, like the modern Greek 
 icons, or mosaics. Some writers, however, to 
 prove that statuary was not unemployed by the 
 early church, allege the image of our Lord 
 which was said to have been set iip at Paneas 
 (Cesarea Philij)pi or Dan) by the woman whom 
 He healed of an issue of blood. (See the Hist. 
 Ecc'. of Lusebius, lib. vii. c. 18; Philostorgius, ex 
 lib. vii. §8; Sozomen, lib. v. c. 21; Asterius 
 Amas. in Photii IHb'ioth. cod. 271.) If this were 
 indeed a statue of our Lord, the solitary act of a 
 semi-heathen would be no indication of the mind 
 of the apostolic church. But opposite the prin¬ 
 cipal figure was the brazen statue of a woman 
 in a beseeching attituile, kneeling, and with hands 
 raised, not behind and furtively touching the 
 hem of his garment, as in the gospel story. This 
 suggests that the erection of the group was an 
 expression of gratitude to some earthly ruler 
 who had granted a petition. The costliness of 
 the work creates another difficulty (see St. Luke 
 viii. 43). Nor can we build anything on the fact 
 related by Lampridius that Alexander Severus 
 had the images of Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, 
 &:c., in his larnrium ( Vita Al. Sev. c. 29). It is 
 possible that in the 9th century there was some 
 use of statues among Christians; but we cannot 
 with Mabillon {Pnief. I. in S lec. IV, S. 0. B. 
 c. 29) think it a certain inference from these 
 words of Agobard (^De Imag. c. 31):—‘‘Who¬ 
 ever adores any picture, or molten or moulded 
 statue, is not giving worship to God, is not 
 honouring the angels or holy men, but showing 
 reverence to (their) images” (simulachra). 
 
 [W. E. S.] 
 
 IMAGINES CLIPEATAE. The Pvomans 
 gave this name to the heads painted on the 
 shields usually hung up in their temples (Buo- 
 narruoti, Osservaz. sopra ale. medaglioni, p. 9-11). 
 We find in ancient Christian art a similar mode 
 of treatment applied to portraits of our Lord. 
 In some instances the bust of the Saviour is 
 painted on a circular space in the form of a 
 shield. This is notably the case in the vaulting 
 of the chapel in the cemetery of Callixtus 
 [Jesus Christ], probably the most ancient ex¬ 
 ample of a type that became traditional. Cli- 
 peatae of the Good Shepherd as a standing figure 
 are frequently met with in the vaultings of 
 crypts in the catacombs. In the mosaic of the 
 great arcli of St. Paul without the walls we find 
 the bust of our Lord in clipeo (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. 
 tab. Ixviii.). Also in ancient ivory diptychs, 
 Buch as that of Rambona (Buonarruoti, Vet. p. 
 262), in which the clipeus is supported by two 
 winged angels. Another diptych exhibits the 
 shield or crown carried in a similar manner by 
 two angels, and bearing in the midst a Greek 
 cross instead of the figure of the Saviour (Calo- 
 gera’s Raccolta, vol. xl. p. 295). That this mode 
 of treatment lasted till the 7th century is 
 proved by a painting in the roof of the oratory 
 of St. Felicitas ; there the bust of our Lord 
 appears in clipeo (Raoul-Rochette, Disc, sur les 
 types imit., p. 25). Examples may also be quoted 
 in later times (Du Cange, Gloss, s. vv. Scutum, 
 Thoracida). 
 
 Many of the sarcophagi found in Roman ceme¬ 
 teries exhibit the effigies of a husband and wife 
 carved within a shield or shell, as in the in- 
 
 IMI\IENITIES OF THE CLERGY 
 
 stance figured below (Bottari’s pi. xx.). Some 
 times a single figure is thus-represcntel (Af 
 xxxvi. xl. Ixxxix.). 
 
 (Martigny, Diet. de$ Aidiq. Ckrei. s. v.). [C.] 
 
 IMIZILUM (also Lmizinum, Mizilum. Mi- 
 CILUM, Mvzinum). J'his word, variously spelt, 
 occurs several times in the Vitae Fontijicum of 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius. It appears to denote 
 some material of a silky nature, used for articles 
 of dress of a costly descrijHion. The etvmologv' 
 of the word is doubtful; according to one view 
 it is akin to the Italian ermesino, but Ducange 
 (s. w.) rather connects it with camisile {^'itae 
 Pontifeum, Leo 111. p. 418 ; Paschalis I. p. 4+9; 
 Sergius II. p. 490; Nficolaus I. p. 584). [li. S.] 
 
 IMMERSION. [Baptism, §49, p. 161.] 
 
 IMMUNITIES OF CHURCHES. [Church 
 (1), p. 365.] 
 
 IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF 
 THE CLERGY. Before the time of Constan¬ 
 tine the clergy of the Christian church enjoved 
 no immunities or privileges. With the conver¬ 
 sion of the emperor to the Christian faith, the 
 ministers of what became the state religion began 
 to be exempted from burdens boi'ne by other 
 members of the community, and to have special 
 honours conceded to them. This policy reached 
 its height in the Middle Ages, when its results 
 caused a reaction to ensue w'hich is operating at 
 the present day. 
 
 By immunities we understand in the present 
 article exemptions from ordinary burden^, bv 
 privileges, extraordinary honours, or prerogatives, 
 whether sanctioned by custom only or by law. 
 Both immunities and privileges may be best re¬ 
 viewed under three heads, as I. Judiciai., 
 11. PecuniarV, HI. Official and Social. 
 
 1. Judicial. Under this head we have to 
 distinguish, 1. Rights maintained and confirmed, 
 2. Immunities allowed, 3. Privileges granted. 
 
 1. Pi flits maintained and conjirmed. (1) De¬ 
 cisions in matters of faith and in ecclesiastical 
 causes .—Christianity had growm up in antagonism 
 to the imperial power of Rome, and managing its 
 own affairs under its own oliicers, unaffected by 
 any internal interference on the part of the civil 
 authority. It jealously guarded its independence 
 when the worldly power exchanged its attitude 
 of hostility for one of friendship and alliance. 
 In matters ecclesiastical ecclesiastical authority 
 continued supreme. This was no immunity oi 
 privilege granted now for the first time as a 
 
823 
 
 IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE CLER&Y 
 
 favoui bestowed by a friendly chief magistrate, | 
 but a prescriptive right maintained. The right j 
 was afterwards impaired by servility on one 
 side, and by the exertion of might on the other; 
 for the co-operation of the emperor was found so 
 useful for enforcing the acceptance of conciliary 
 decrees that it was appealed to by contending 
 factions, and, when appealed to, the civil power 
 naturallv enough took upon itself to decide w’hich 
 faction it should support and why it .should 
 support it. This led imperceptibly to the civil 
 power being regarded as having a right to judge 
 in things spiritual as well as in things civil. 
 But it was rather in its political than in its 
 judicial character that such claim was made or 
 admitted. Ecclesiastical causes, strictly so 
 called, such as trials for heresy, were never 
 brought before courts taking their authority 
 from the state. This is evidenced by laws of 
 successive emperors, of Constantius, A.D. 355 
 (JJod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 12, tom. vi. 
 p. 37, ed. Gothofred. Lugi. 1G65), of Valen- 
 tinian and Gratian, .4. D. 376 (^Ibid. leg. 23, p. 52), 
 of Arcadius and Honoriu.s, A.D. 399 {fbid. tjt. 11, 
 leg. i. p. 298). These ’ laws are of the same 
 tenor, giving the sanction of law to the already 
 existins: custom that in ecclesiastical causes 
 judgment was given by church officers and not 
 by the state courts. “ On questions of religion,” 
 says the law of Arcadius and Honorius, “ bishops 
 are to be judges; other cases must be carried 
 before the law courts ” (^. c.). 
 
 (2) Trials of ecclesiastical persons for moral 
 offences .—In addition to offences against the 
 faith, those offences against morality on the part 
 of the clergy which w'ere not civil crimes were 
 by prescription under the cognisance of ecclesi¬ 
 astical authority alone. This could not be other¬ 
 wise, as acts that were not offences against the 
 law could not be carried into the law couids. 
 The bishop was judged by his peers, members 
 of the other clerical orders by their bishop; 
 judgment being in accordance with the canons of 
 discipline promulgated by the recognized au¬ 
 thority of church synods. In the continuance of 
 this jurisdiction the state simply permitted the 
 exercise of a right which it found the church 
 already possessed of. 
 
 2. Immunities allowed. (1) Exemption of the 
 clergy from the jurisdiction of the secular courts 
 in respect to minor offences .—Hitherto we have 
 not arrived at any novel immunity or pidvilege 
 granted by the state as a matter of grace. But 
 soon episcopal jurisdiction over the clergy was 
 extended from cases of morality to petty crimes, 
 and at the same time the clergy were withdrawn 
 from the jurisdiction of the state courts in 
 respect to those crime.s. There was a recognized 
 distinction, according to the laws of the Roman 
 empire, between great and petty crimes; the 
 first were called atrocia delicta^ the last lecia 
 delicti. By the imperial favour the clergy 
 became exempted from the jurisdiction of the 
 secular courts in respect to the levia delicta^ 
 while subject to them, as much as any other 
 citizens, in cases of grave crime, such as murder, 
 rebellion, and the like. In the reign of Jus¬ 
 tinian, A.D. 539, this exemption w'as allowed to 
 apply to monks and nuns as well as to the clergy 
 (^Juitm. Novell. 79, 83; Corpui Juris CiviliSj 
 tom. ii. pp. 166, 174, ed. Beck, Lipsiae, 1829); 
 and in the reign of Heraclius, A.D. 610, it 
 
 appears to have been extended from petty offences 
 to all criminal cases (^Constitutioncs hnper ttori ie^ 
 ad calc. Cod. Justin.; Const. 3, p. 808, Paris, 
 1628). When one of the parties was a clergy¬ 
 man and the other a layman, the clergyman’s 
 immunity from the jurisdiction of the secular 
 court did not hold good, except by the consent of 
 the layman ( Valentin. Novell. 12). 
 
 (2) Exemptim of bishops from being summoned 
 into court as witnesses. —By Justinian, possibly 
 by Theodosius, it was enacted that no bishop 
 should be required to appear at the tribunal of 
 a secular judge for the purpose of giving his 
 testimony in any case before the court. The 
 judge was required to send his officer to take the 
 bishop’s testimony at his own house. The words 
 of Justinian’s law are “No judge is to compel 
 bishops to come to a trial to exhibit their tes¬ 
 timony, but he is to send to them some of his 
 subordinate officers ” (/wsfen. Novell. 123, c. 7; 
 Corpus Juris Civilis^ tom. ii. p. 250). 
 
 ' (3) Exemption of bishops from having to take 
 an oath in giving their testimony. —By the law 
 of Justinian above quoted it was enacted that the 
 word of bishops, given on the holy gospels, 
 should be accepted in place of an oath, an oath 
 being regarded .as derogatory to tlieir holy 
 character. “ That the bishops having the iioly 
 gospels before them may say what they know, as 
 becomes priests ” {Ibid.). 
 
 (4) Exemption of bishops and presbyters from 
 being examined by torture while bearing testimony. 
 —According to the laws of the Roman empire, 
 witnesses might be scourged and otherwise 
 tortured in order to extract from them the 
 truth {Cod. Justin, lib. ix. tit. 41 ; Corpus Jnr. 
 Civ. p. 323; Cod. Theod. lib. xiii. tit. 9, leg. 2, 
 tom. V. p. 105 ; St. Aug. Serm. ccch'. tom. v. 
 p. 1572, ed Migne, al. 2>c'49 ; Synesius, 
 Ep. 58, Op. p. 201 ; Paris, 1631). Theodosius, 
 with some hesitation and ambiguity, exempted 
 bishops and presbyters from this liability. His 
 words are: “Presbyters are to give testimony 
 without being liable to torture, provided, how¬ 
 ever, that they do not pretend what is false. 
 But the rest of the clergy below them in order 
 or rank, if they have to give their testimony, are 
 to be treated as the laws direct ” {Cod. Theod. 
 lib. xi. tit. 39, leg. 10, tom. iv. p. 331). 
 
 3. Judicial privileges. (1) Episcopal coercive 
 jurisdiction in civil causes. — It had been the 
 custom of Christians, in accordance with the 
 injunctions of St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 4), to settle 
 their differences before one of themselves, instead 
 of going to the heathen law courts. Very soon, 
 and very naturally, the office of arbitrator be¬ 
 came attached to that of bishop, the bishop being 
 the best qualified person to exercise the judicial 
 function. We find instances of the exercise of 
 judicial power in Sidonius Apollinaris (lib. lii. 
 Ep. 12 ; lib. vi. Ep. 4, Op. p. 160), Synesius 
 {Ep. 105, Op. p. 247), St. Ambrose {Ep. Ixxxii. 
 Ad Marcelium, Op. tom. ii. p. 1100 ; Paris, 1690), 
 St. Augustine {Confess, vi. 3, tom. i. p. 720, ed. 
 Migne). Down to the time of Constantine 
 episcopal decisions thus given had not any force 
 in law. Litigants were bound only by their 
 free choice or by contract to abide bv the 
 verdicts given. But now coercive jurisdiction 
 was given to the bi.shop’s court. It was still 
 necessary for both parties to the suit to con.sent 
 to carry it before the bishop, but when it waa 
 
824 
 
 IMMUXITILS AND TKIVILEGHS OF THE CEEKGY 
 
 once cavriecl to him his sentence was final, and 
 was executed by the secnhiiv authorities. From 
 Sozomen’s Ecciedastical Jlistorn (i. 9, p. 21, Can- 
 tab. 1720) it would appear that this })rivilege 
 was granted by Constantine. It is clearly re¬ 
 cognized bv a law of Arcadius and Honorius 
 (^Coci. Justin, lib. i. tit. 4, leg. 8, tom. ii. j). 33). 
 Valentiniau HI. carefully distinguislies between 
 religious causes, in which bishops and presbyters 
 aad a prescriptive right to judge, ami civil 
 causes, in wliich they had no inherent right to 
 act judicially; but he recognizes their juris¬ 
 diction in the civil causes when the free choice of 
 the litigants has selected them in preference to 
 the state judges (^Valentin. Novell. 12, ad calc. 
 Cod. I'heod.). Thus bishops were made, by 
 virtue of their office, not only arbitrators be¬ 
 tween members of their flocks, but also magis¬ 
 trates before whom any that pleased might carry 
 their suits to be by them finally and legally 
 settled. The burden of judicial business became 
 30 heavy (.see St. Augustine, Epidola xxxiii. 
 Migne, al. 147), that it was devolved upon 
 presbyters (St. Aug. Epist. ccxiii. Migne, al. 110), 
 deacons (Condi.'Tarracon. can. iv.; Hard. Co7i- 
 dl. tom. ii. p. 1042, Paris, 1714), and laymen 
 (Socrates, Hist. Keel. vii. 37, p. 321; Oxon, 
 1844); whence probably there arose the existing 
 custom of the bishops appointing lay chan¬ 
 cellors to preside in their courts. Episcopal 
 jurisdiction did not, however, extend to criminal 
 causes, but was confined to civil questions and 
 pecuniary suits. Bishops were forbidden by 
 canon law to interfere with criminal cases (see 
 Co7icil. To'racon. can. iv.). 
 
 (2) Epiteopal intereession. —In pecuniary cases 
 bishops were magistrates, in criminal cases they 
 were intercessors. Wherever the arbitrary will 
 of a despotic sovereign has power over life and 
 liberty, a right of intercession is sure to become 
 vested in the ministers of religion, the reason 
 being that the religious character alone invests 
 its possessor with so much awe as to enable him 
 to dare to resist the passionate and capricious 
 fury of otherwise uncontrolled powei'. Such a 
 right begins in the courageous act of some brax-e 
 ecclesiastic, and first being recognized by custom, 
 is afterwards confirmed by law. When, at a 
 more advanced stage of civilisation, punishments 
 are calmly meted out by the scales of justice, the 
 right of intercession necessarily ceases. The pro¬ 
 priety of the privilege is argued in two letters 
 that passed between Macedonius and St. Augus¬ 
 tine (Ep. clii, cliii. Migne, al. 53, 54); the 
 latter, in interceding with the tribune Marcel- 
 linus for the fanatics called Circumeelliones, 
 advances very strong claims: “ If you do not 
 listen to a fidend who asks, listen to a bishop 
 who advises; though, as I am speaking to a 
 Christian, I shall not be too bold if I say that in 
 such a case as this you ought to listen to your 
 bishop that lays his injunction on you, my noble 
 lord and dear son ” (Kp. cxxxiii. Migne, al. 159). 
 He addresses the proconsul Apringius on the 
 same occasion in the same strain (Ep. cxxxiv. 
 Migne, al. 160). Flaxdan, when the people of 
 Antioch had rai.sed a futile rebellion against 
 Theodosius, proceeded to Constantinople. “ I am 
 come,” he said to the emperor, “ as the deputy of 
 our common Master, to address this word to your 
 heart, ‘ If ye forgive men their trespasses^, then 
 will your heavenly Father also forgive you your 
 
 trespasses.’” He returned with a message of 
 jsirdon. Eparchius, a monk who lived in Angou- 
 icune in the Gth century, exercised so great an 
 influence over the neighbouring magistrates that 
 the populace rose and compelled a judge, who 
 was about to yield to his intercession, to execute 
 a robber that had been guilty of murder (Greg. 
 Turon. Jlid. Fixinc. vi. 8, p. 879; ed. Migne, 
 1849). In the 7th centurv (a.d. 633) a canon of 
 the fourth council of Toledo, repeated in the 
 sixth council of Arles (a.d. 813), enjoins on 
 bishops the duty of protecting the poor, reprov¬ 
 ing over-sevci-e judges, ami, if necessary, report¬ 
 ing to the king (Cone. Tolet. iv. can. xxxii.; 
 Cone. Ai'clat. vi. can. xvii.; Hard. Condi, tom. iii. 
 p. 587 ; tom. iv. p. 1005). 
 
 Closely connected with the privilege of inter¬ 
 cession, were the further privileges of protection 
 of the weak, of asylum, of censorship of the 
 public morals; all of which, like the right of 
 intercession, are based upon the character belong¬ 
 ing to the minister of religion, not upon the 
 decision of an arbitrary statute. 
 
 (3) Interfet'ence in behalf of the veak. —Tiiis 
 practice, begun at the risk of the bishop, became 
 sanctioned by the law's of the empire. Widows 
 and orphans were counted the especial charge of 
 the bishop, and their property was placed under 
 his guardianship. St. Ambrose tells his clergy 
 that they vill do well if through their means 
 the attacks of the pow'erful, which the widows 
 and orphans cannot resist, are beaten back by 
 the protection of the church. He warns them 
 not to let the favour of the rich have weight 
 with them, and reminds them how often he had 
 himself resisted assault in behalf of the widow, 
 and indeed of any one who required his help 
 (De Officiis Minist. ii. 29. Op. tom. ii. p. 105). 
 Justinian legalized the bishop’s right of protec¬ 
 tion in the case of prisoners, of children stolen 
 from their parents, of lunatics, of foundlings, of 
 minors, of oppressed xvomen (Cod. Justin, lib. i. 
 tit. 4, legg. 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33; tom. ii. 
 pp. 35-39). The fifth council of Orleans (a.d. 
 549), decreed that the archdeacon or other 
 church officer should visit the prisons, and see 
 that the prisoners were cared for, and further, 
 that the bishop should provide them w'ith food 
 (Cone. Aurel. v. can. xx.; Hard. Cone. tom. ii. 
 p. 1447). Gregory of Tours describes a good 
 bishop as getting justice for the people, helping 
 the poor, consoling the wddow, and protecting the 
 minor, as parts of his official duties (Greg. 
 Turon. ix'. 35). 
 
 (4) Sanetuary. —Out of the rights of inter¬ 
 cession and protection there necessarily grew on 
 the one side the right of sanctuary, on the other 
 the right of censure. If the weak and the 
 accused could look to the bishop for help, they 
 naturally fled to him when help xvas needed; and 
 if the bishop might adx'ocate the cause of the 
 accused and of the suffering, he had to make but 
 one step to censuring the judge and the oppressor. 
 That churches or temples should be places of 
 asylum is founded on natural piety, not on 
 positix'e law: and until law is all poxverful, it is 
 necessary that there should be such retuges trora 
 sudden fury. They existed under the Jewish 
 and the x'arious pagan religions, as xvell as under 
 the Christian religion ; and not only Christian 
 churches, but statues of the emperor and the 
 imperial standard originally' enjoyed the priri- 
 
IMMUNITIES AND rEIVIEEGES OF THE CLERGY 
 
 825 
 
 We find the custom of sanctuary acknow¬ 
 ledged and acted on in the time of fet. Basil 
 (Greg. Nazianz. Oral. xx. De Laud. Basil. Op. 
 tom. ii. p. 353; Paris, 1630), St. Chrysostom 
 (Op. tom. viii. p. 67, ed. Savil), Synesius (^Ep. 
 Iviii. Op. p. 201; Paris, 1630). Arcadius abro¬ 
 gated it at Eutropius’ instance, a.d. 398 (CW. 
 Theod. lib. ix. tit. 45, leg. 3, tom. iii. p. 361); 
 but when Eutropius had himself to claim sanc¬ 
 tuary this abrogation was it.self abolished (So¬ 
 crates Hist. Eccl. vi. 5). Shortly afterwards 
 Theodosius II. enacted a law extending the pri¬ 
 vilege of sanctuary from the interior of the 
 church to its environs (Ccc?. Theod. lib. ix. 
 tit. 45). The persons who were allowed to take 
 sanctuary were by no means all classes of crimi¬ 
 nals, as afterwards was the case through abuse 
 of the original right. It was intended for the 
 defeated party in any civil affray, for slaves that 
 were in danger of cruel treatment, for debtors, 
 unless they were debtors to the state; in gene¬ 
 ral, for the innocent, the injured, the oppressed, 
 and any whose criminality was doubtful, and 
 for whom intercession might seem likely to be 
 of avail. Such persons, provided they came 
 unarmed, had protection for thirty days. Slaves 
 were protected, at first for one day (^Cod. Theod. 
 lib. ix. tit. 45, leg. 5), afterwards till their 
 masters gave a promise to spare them corporal 
 punishment (^Concil. Ejjaonense, A.D. 517, can. 
 xxxix. ; Hard. Condi, tom. ii. p. 1051); for 
 breaking which promise the masters were liable 
 to suspension fi'om communion (^Condl. Aure- 
 lianensc v. a.d. 549, can. xxii. ; Hard. Condi. 
 tom. ii. p. 1447). Ordinary criminals, as rob¬ 
 bers and murderers, were not admitted till later 
 times, when tlie privilege of asylum became 
 incompatible with tlie due execution of the laws, 
 and was abrogated with the applause of all 
 lovers of justice and morality. Charles the 
 Great, a.d. 779, forbid any subsistence being 
 supplied to murderer.s, though by that time they 
 had made good their right not to be directly 
 delivered up to justice. 
 
 (5) Censorship. —The censorship vested in the 
 clergy was partly a right founded on the fact 
 that the church, as a religious body, took 
 cognisance of immorality within its own body, 
 and exacted of its members the discipline of 
 penance; partly it was a privilege recognized by 
 law, arising out of the privilege of intercession, 
 and indeed forming a branch of it. The council 
 of Arles, a.d. 314, instructed bishops to have a 
 special oversight of such civil magistrates as 
 were Christian:;, and to cut them off' from the 
 church if they acted contrary to her laws 
 (can. vii. Hard. Condi, tom. i. p. 264). St. 
 Ba.sil very boldly censured so purely a political 
 act as that of separating Cappadocia into two 
 provinces, a.d. 371, because it threw an increased 
 burden of taxes on the poor {Ep. ccclxxxix. ad 
 Martinianum, Op. tom. iii. p. 369 ; Paris, 1638). 
 St. Gregory Nazianzen declared to rulers and 
 governors (dvvd(TTai /cat dpxoyrfs) that the law 
 of Christ subjected them to his tribunal (prat. 
 xvii. Op. tom. i. p. 271 ; Colon. 1690) ; Synesius 
 excommunicated Andronicus, j/resident of Lybia 
 (^Ep. Iviii. Op. p. 201); Orestes’ hatred of 
 Cyril of Alexandria was not only personal, but 
 also “ because the authority of the bishop took 
 away so much from the power of the king’s 
 officers ” (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. vii. 13, p. 293). 
 
 The penance performed by The()do<-ius I. at the 
 command of St. Ambrose was a conspicuous ex¬ 
 hibition of a censorshij) exerted by a bishop*and 
 submitted to by an emperor (Sozom. J/ist. Eccl. 
 vii. 25, Op. p. 315 ; Theodoret, J/ist. Eccl. v. 17, 
 Op. p. 215; Cantab. 1720). The.se episcopal acts 
 were performed on the principle that every body 
 spiritual or political has an inherent right of 
 exei’cising discipline on its own members, even to 
 the point of excluding the refractory from its 
 bo.som. But the imperial laws were not slow in 
 giving further rights of censorshi)/ to the clergy 
 We have already seen that it was the duty of the 
 bishop to visit prisoners. The same law (a.d. 
 409) that imposed upon him this duty gave him 
 also the right of admonishing the judges. Jus¬ 
 tinian required him, further, to rej/ort what he 
 found amiss in the prison, that it might be 
 corrected {Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 4, legg. 22, 23 ; 
 Corp. Jur. Civ. tom. ii. p. 35). The same 
 emperor likewise empowered bishops to uphold 
 good morals by putting down gaming (/bid 
 leg. 25); to see that justice was impartially 
 administered (Ibid. legg. 21, 31); to resist 
 tyranny on the part of the chief lay authorities, 
 and to look after the administration of puolio 
 property (Ibid. leg. 26). 
 
 These rights passed over from the Byzantine 
 empire to the Western nations, and no questions 
 were asked as to whether they were founded in 
 positive law or in prescription. The third council 
 of Toledo, A.D. 589, declared bishops to have, by 
 royal command, the charge of seeing how the 
 judges treated the people (Cone. J'olet. iii. can. v 
 xviii.; Hard. Cone. tom. iii. 482). The fourth 
 council we have already seen requires bishops to 
 admonish judges, and to report to the king such 
 judges as disregarded their admonition (can. 
 xxxii.). The same charge was repeated by the 
 sixth council of Arles, a.d. 813 (can. xvii.). It 
 was in France that the mystical signification of 
 the “two swords” was discovered (by Geoffrey, 
 abbot of Vtndome, a.d. 1095), and in accord¬ 
 ance with the principle involved in that inter¬ 
 pretation, ecclesiastical authority was freely 
 exerted over sovereigns. Louis le Debonnaire, 
 Lothaire, and Charles the Bald, three Carlo- 
 vingian princes, were deposed bv councils of the 
 Galilean church, while king Robert, Philip I., 
 and Philip Augustus, like Henry IV., Henry V., 
 and Frederick II. of Germany, suffered Papal ex- 
 communication. But it was in France too that 
 the secular authority once more revindicated its 
 right in the memorable struggle between Phi¬ 
 lippe le Bel and Boniface VHl. at the end of the 
 13th century. A quarter of a century later we 
 find a conference held before Philippe de Valois 
 (a.d. 1329), in which the whole question of lay 
 and spiritual jurisdiction was argued by Pierre 
 de Cugnieres on behalf of the crown, and by the 
 archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Autun in 
 behalf of the church, in which the king’s advo¬ 
 cate alleged sixty-six excesses of jurisdiction on 
 the part of the ecclesiastical courts. Soon afte’, 
 the Appel comme d'abus or Appellatio tanqnam 
 abusu was instituted, which admitted appeal 
 from an ecclesiastical court to the 1 .gnest civil 
 authority whenever it could be pleaded that the 
 ecclesiastical judge had exceeded his powers or 
 encroached upon temporal jurisdiction. At the 
 council of Trent this right was assailed, but 
 through the influence of the ambassadors of 
 
82G 
 
 IMMUNITIES AND PKIVILP:GES OF THE CLERGY 
 
 Charles IX. it was maintained, and it continues 
 still in vigour. 
 
 II. Pecuniary'. 1. Immunities allowed. (1) 
 Ccns IS Cajntiim or Poll Tax. —The clergy, their 
 wives, children, and servants were e.xempted by 
 Constantins from paying the poll-tax, which was 
 levied on all citizens between the ages of 14 
 and 65, except such as were granted immunity 
 (Coo?. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, legg. 10, 14). This 
 was a favour shai'ed by the clergy with the 
 members of other liberal professions. Valen- 
 tiniau exempts the higher class of painters 
 (Picturae professores, si inodo ingenui sunt) from 
 the incidence of the tax (Cod. Theod. lib. xiii. 
 tit. 4, leg. 4). This immunity is alluded to and 
 pleaded by Gregory Nazianzeu (^Ep. clix. ad Ain- 
 philochium, Op. tom. i. p. 873) and by St. Basil 
 (^Ep. cclxxix. ad Modestum^ Op. tom. iii. p. 272). 
 
 (2) Eqnomm canonicorum adaeratic or Soldiers' 
 horses tax; Auruin tircnicum ov Recruit tax .— 
 The clergy had to pa}*^ their property tax (cen¬ 
 sus ogroriim) and all burdens on land like other 
 owners and occupiers, but they appear to have 
 been exempted from any local taxation that 
 might be imposed for the supply of horses for 
 the army, or as a substitute for recruits. High- 
 priests of the old pagan religions seem to have 
 shared this immunity (Cod. Theod. lib. vii. tit. 
 13, leg. 22; cum Gothofredi comment.). 
 
 (3) Trading-tax called Chrgsarggmm from 
 being paid in gold and silver, and Lustralis col- 
 latio because collected at the end of each hstrum. 
 The inferior clergy wei-e permitted to trade 
 without paying this tax, provided their opera¬ 
 tions were confined within moderate bounds (Cod. 
 Theod. lib. xiii. tit. 1, legg. 1, 11 ; lib. xvi. tit. 2, 
 legg. 8, 10, 16, 36). This immunity was abused, 
 and clerics were forbidden to trade by Valen- 
 tinian (Cod. Theod. lib. xiii. tit. 1, leg. 16; Ta- 
 lentin. NorelL 12 ad calc. Cod. Theod.). The tax 
 was abolished by Anastasius (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. 
 iii. 39 ; Op. p. 371 ; Cantab. 1720). 
 
 (4) Metatum or Entertainment-inbneg. — The 
 clergy were not compelled to receive the emperor, 
 the judges, or soldiers on their circuits or travels. 
 This immunity their houses shared with those 
 of senators, Jewish synagogues, and places of 
 worship (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 8). 
 
 (5) Superindicta or Extraordinary taxes. —The 
 clergy were exempted from these by Constantins 
 (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 8), by Honorius 
 and Theodosius Junior (ibid. leg. 40), and by 
 Justinian (Justin. Eovell. cxxxi. c. 5). 
 
 (6) Ad instructiones reparalionesqux itinerum 
 et pontiuin or Highiray rate. —By a law of Ho¬ 
 norius and Theodosius Junior, a.d. 412, church 
 lands were exempted from paying the road-tax; 
 but this exemption was withdrawn A.D. 423 by 
 Theodosius Junior and by Valentinian III., and 
 it was not regi-anted. 
 
 (7) Cursus publicus, angariae, parangariae, 
 translation evectio, or Conveyance-burden.^-Con- 
 stantius exempted the clergy from the burden 
 of having to convey corn and other things for 
 the soldiers and imperial officers (Cod. Theod, 
 lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 10), but in the last year of 
 his reign, A.D. 360, he revoked tbe concession. 
 The immunity was restored a.d. 382, and con¬ 
 firmed by Honorius a.d. 412 (Cod. I'hcod. lib. 
 ii. tit. 16, leg. 15 ; lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 40), but 
 again revoked by Theodosius Junior and Valen- 
 tinian, A.d. 440, 
 
 (8) Descrijitio lucratirornm, denarismus, unci le 
 or Municipal tax .—If the property of a member 
 of a town-council (curia) passed by will to any 
 one that was not a member of the curiia, the new 
 owner had to pay a tax to the curia amounting 
 to the sum previously jiaid by the curialis. But 
 if the property passed to the church, it was 
 enacted by Justinian that the tax could not be 
 demanded (Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 2, leg. 22 ; 
 Novell, cxxxi. c. 5). 
 
 2. Pecuniary Privileges. (1) Legacies .—By a 
 law of Constantine (Cod. Thod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, 
 leg. 4) it was enacted that goods might be be¬ 
 queathed to the church, no distinction being made 
 between real and personal jiroperty. This law was 
 confirmed by Justinian f Cod. Jus'.in. lib. i. tit. 2, 
 leg. 13). Moneys or e-states left to the church 
 were administered by the bishop for the general 
 w'elfare. 
 
 (2) Inheritance .—Constantine settled the pro¬ 
 perty of confessors and martyrs dying intestate 
 and without near relatives, on the church (Eu- 
 seb. Vit. Constant, ii. 36; Op. p. 461; Paris, 
 1659). Theodosius Junior and Valentinian ex¬ 
 tended the provision, so as to embrace the ca.se 
 not only of martyrs and confessors, but of all 
 clergymen, monks, and nuns (Cod. Theod. lib. v. 
 tit. 3, leg. 1; Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 3, leg. 20). 
 
 (3) Forfeiture .—Justinian enacted that the 
 property of clergymen or monks leaving the 
 clerical or monastic life should be forfeited to 
 the church or monastery with which they had 
 been connected (Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 3, leg. 55). 
 
 (4) Confiscation .—By laws of Honorius and 
 Gratian some of the property wdiich had belonged 
 to the heathen temples (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 
 10, leg. 20) and that which was owned by heretics 
 (ibid. tit. 5, leg. 52) was confiscated to the use 
 of the church. 
 
 (5) Imperial largess .—Occasionally large .sums 
 were bestowed by the emperors for the support 
 of the clergy. Thus Constantine desired his 
 African Receiver, Ursus, to pay over a vast .sura 
 (rpto-xiAious (p6\\eis) to Caecilian, bishop of 
 Carthage, for him to divide among the clergy of 
 Africa Mauritania and Numidia, and enabled him 
 to draw for more (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. x. 6, 
 p. 722, ed. Burton). On the occasion of an 
 oecumenical council being summoned, the em¬ 
 peror bore the travelling expenses of the bishops. 
 
 (6) State allowance .—Constantine passed a law 
 requiring the prefects of each province to make 
 an annual grant of corn to the clergy out of the 
 revenues of the province (Theodoret, Hisi. Eccl. 
 i. 11; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. v. 5). This allowance 
 was discontinued when Julian occupied the throne, 
 but it was restored on a limited scale after 
 Julian’s death. It is recognized by a law of 
 Justinian (Cod. Justin, lib. i. tit. 2, leg. 12). 
 
 IJthes are not to be added to this list, as they 
 did not originate in a state grant, but in the 
 voluntary libei-ality of individuals, grounded 
 partly on'a belief that tithes were due by divine 
 right (see St. Hieron. Com. in Mat. iii. Op. tom. 
 iii. p. 1829, ed. Ben. Paris, 1704 ; St. Aug. Enarr. 
 in Paal. cxlvi. 8; Op. tom. iv. p. 1911, ed. 
 Migne), partly on the evident need of some such 
 provision for the maintenance of the ministers 
 of religion in modest independence. They became 
 general in the 4th century, not as a legal impost 
 but as a voluntary gift (see St. Chrysos. //bm. iv. 
 in Ephes, s. f.; Op. tom. iii. p. 784). They 
 
i:MMUNrnp:s and privileges of the clergy 
 
 827 
 
 were made compulsory by Charles the Great, 
 A.D. 778 (see Selden, History of 2'ithes. Works, 
 vol. iii. j)t. 2, p. 114(5). 
 
 III. Official and Sociak 1. Tmmumties .— 
 Public offices not bringing with them their own 
 salary and emoluments were looked upon, though 
 honourable in themselves, as burdens, like the 
 office of high-sheriff of a county among our¬ 
 selves. Constantine, on embracing Christianity, 
 exempted the clergy from the burden of bearing 
 any offices whatsoever (huseb. Hist. Eccl, x, 7, 
 vol. ii. p. 721; Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, legg. 
 1, 2, 7). This concession applied to all offices, 
 whether personal {personalia ihunera) or praedial, 
 i.e. attached to property, whether honourable 
 (Jionores or curialia niunera') or mean (sordida 
 munerd). No change was made by subsequent 
 laws in respect to personal bui'dens or mean 
 offices, but the experience of Constantine taught 
 him to restrain his first liberality as to the 
 burdens belonging to property. For it was found 
 that immunity from bearing office was counted 
 so great a boon that men of wealth, who had 
 no purpose of undertaking the ministry of the 
 Church, solicited and obtained minor ecclesias¬ 
 tical posts solely with the fraudulent })urpose 
 of exempting their estates from the services to 
 which they were liable. Constantine therefore 
 enacted that no one qualified by his estate to 
 bear public offices should be allowed “ to fly 
 to the clerical name and ministry, and that any 
 who had done so with a view to declining the 
 public burdens should nevertheless be compelled 
 to bear them ” {Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 2, leg. 3). 
 Succeeding emperors modified these laws of Con¬ 
 stantine in a manner sometimes more sometimes 
 less favourable to the clergy, the general tend¬ 
 ency of the legislation being to exempt the 
 estates of the church from civil burdens, but to 
 preserve the liability of the private property of 
 the clergy—a liability which they had to fulfil 
 either by finding substitutes to perform the neces¬ 
 sary duties, or by parting with a portion at least 
 of their lands {Cod. Theod. lib. xii. tit. 1, legg. 
 49, 59, 99, 121, 123, 163; lib. xvi. tit. 2, legg. 
 19, 21). 
 
 Official and Social Privileges. (1) Free election. 
 —In the midst of the despotism of the empire the 
 clergy and laity maintained their old right of 
 electing, and the clergy their right of being 
 elected, to the office and dignity of bishop. “Those 
 absolute monarchs respected the freedom of eccle¬ 
 siastical elections; and while they distributed and 
 resumed the honours of the state and army they 
 allowed eighteen hundred perpetual magistrates 
 to receive their important offices from the free 
 suffrages of the people ” (Gibbon, Decline and 
 Falf c. XX.). By degrees this right has been 
 taken away in almost all parts of the church, 
 partly on the plea that the civil magistrate repre¬ 
 sents the laity, partly on the allegation that 
 endowments and civil urivileges had been granted 
 by the state, sometimes because it was consi¬ 
 dered that the security of the state required 
 such a precaution, sometimes from apprehension 
 of the evil consequences expected to arise out of 
 the excitement of free elections, sometimes owing 
 to coi-rupt agreements, termed concordats, made 
 between the bishop of Home assuming to represent 
 ecclesiastical interests and the king or emperor 
 of a particular country, representing the civil 
 power. 
 
 (2) Authonty of the higher over the lower 
 clergy ,—The position of the bishops of the larger 
 sees was made one of great dignity and im¬ 
 portance by the subjection of the clergy and 
 ecclesiastics of all cla.sses to their uncontrolled 
 authority ; and this was not restrained by any 
 interference on the part of the state. The bishop 
 of Constantinople presided as lord over 60 pres¬ 
 byters, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 sub-dea¬ 
 cons, 110 readers, 25 chanters, 100 doorkeepers 
 {Justin. Novell, ciii.), and a guild of 1100 copiat'-e 
 or gravediggers. The ch?rgy, under the imme¬ 
 diate control of the bishop of Carthage, were 
 upwards of 500. The paraholani alone, at Alex¬ 
 andria, amounted to 600. All these were allowed 
 by the law as well as by custom to form in 
 each central city a society which recognized the 
 bishop as its head wilIi a devotion which was 
 not equalled by the retainers of any civil officer. 
 Beyond this immediate circle of adherents a less 
 defined authority was vested in the metropolitan, 
 extending over all his suffragan bishops. 
 
 (3) Tights of meetin / and speech .—Twice every 
 year each metropolitan was commanded by the 
 canons, and permitted by the laws, to call to¬ 
 gether the synod of his province: occasionally 
 the emperor assembled the synod of the empire. 
 At these meetings, as well as in the pulpit, free 
 speech was allowed by the laws, the doctrine 
 and discipline of the church were regulated, 
 ecclesiastical sympathies were strengthened, and 
 the power of the clergy, by being concentrated, 
 was increased. 
 
 (4) Tokens of respect .—It was the custom for 
 the laity, not excluding the emperor, to bow the 
 head to the bishop and to kiss his hand (see in¬ 
 stances given in Valesius’ note on Theodoret, 
 Hist. Eccl. iv. 6, p. 153, Cantab. 1720;- and Sa- 
 varo’s note on Sidonius Apollinaris, viii. 11, p. 
 532, Paris, 1609). It was usual to address the 
 bishop by the title of God-beloved or Most-holy 
 {d€ 0 ((>i\€<naros, ayiwTarusf and by still stronger 
 terms of honour, as “ Holy Lord and Most Blessed 
 Pope ”—words commonly used by St. Jerome 
 in writing to St. Augustine. “ coronam’’ 
 was a common form of beseeching a bishop 
 (see St. Aug. Ep. xxxiii. al. 157, tom. ii. p. 
 131, ed. Migne; Sidon. Apollinar, cum comment. 
 Savan. vii. 8, p. 440). Its meaning is doubtful, 
 but it is probably equivalent to the phrase 
 “ your honour ” (.see Bingham, Antiquities, ii. 
 9,4). Occasionally Hosannahs were sung before 
 bishops and others eminent for sanctity, but this 
 practice is condemned by St. Jerome as savouring 
 of profanity and presumption (St. Hieron. in 
 Matt. xxi. 15; Op. tom. iv. p. 98). The bishop’s 
 seat in his cathedral was called his throne. 
 
 There is no doubt that the position of the 
 chief bishops was one of great dignity, authority, 
 wealth, and power. Gibbon calculates that the 
 average income of a bishop amounted to 600/. 
 a-year (chap. xx.). This does not give an accurate 
 idea of the status held by them, as the value of 
 money is constantly changing, and averages are 
 always deceptive. We may regard the bishops 
 of the chief cities of the empire as maintaining 
 a state superior to that of the imperial officers 
 and lay noble.s, while the bishops of lesser sees 
 were comparatively j)oor and obscure men, 
 though enjoying a sj)iritual equality with their 
 more prominent brethren. The simple presby- 
 tei’’s position was a humble one, at a time when 
 
32ft 
 
 IMPLUVIUM 
 
 IMPOSITION OF HANDS 
 
 l>ishop.s were compaiiitively more numerous than 
 now and parocliial endowments did not exist: 
 the deacon was regarded as little else than one 
 of the Irlshop’s attendants. 
 
 We may note in com lusion how little remains 
 of all the ]>rivileges and the immunities granted 
 to the clergy hv the lervour of the first faith of 
 a converted world, d'heir judicial privileges and 
 immunities exist no longer, except so far as the 
 coercive j)ower of the bishoji’s court be regarded 
 as a shadow of them, though once they were con¬ 
 sidered imjiortant enough to lead an archbishop 
 Becket to entei' upon a life-and-death struggle 
 with a Henry 11. for their maintenance. Their 
 pecuniary judvileges and immunities exist no 
 longer, for the grant made in some countries to 
 the clergy from the national exchequer is rather 
 a substitute for estates confiscated than a free 
 gift of love. Their oflicial privileges and immu¬ 
 nities exist no longer, unless the permission con¬ 
 ceded to bishops to take part in national legis¬ 
 lation, and the exemption of the clergy from 
 having to serve in the army or on juvies, be re¬ 
 garded as the equivalents of the honours and 
 immunities bestowed by the Caesars with so un¬ 
 grudging a hand. The apparent tendency of 
 modern legislation, still affected by a reaction 
 from mediaeval assumjitions, is to approve not 
 only of the civil power resuming the privileges 
 that it had bestowed, but of its transferring to 
 itself those powers of self-government in respect 
 to doctrine and discipline, which were not granted 
 to the church as a favour, but were confirmed 
 to her by Constantine and his succe.ssors as hers 
 by jnescription and inhei'ent idght. 
 
 Codex Tkeodosinnus, cum comment. Gothofvedi, 
 Lugd. 1665. C>jdex ■hisliai(mus,n\)\xdi Corpus Juris 
 Civilis; ed. Beck. Lii)siae, 1829. Thomassinus, 
 Vitus ct Nova Ecclesiae Dis ipliri'^i; Lugd. 1706. 
 Bingham, AntiquitCs (,f tue Ch'-istian Church, 
 books ii. V. viii.; Bond. 1726. Gibbon, Decline and 
 Fall of the Homan E)npire, chap. xx.; Neander, His¬ 
 tory of the Cturch, Second Period, Second Section; 
 Third Period, Second Section. Gieseler, 'L'ext-Book 
 of Ecclesiastical History, Second Period; First 
 and Second Sections. [F. M.] 
 
 IMPLUA’KJM seems to be sometimes used to 
 designate the atrium, or court outside the door 
 of a church, in which there was generally a 
 basin or some vessel for performing ablutions 
 [Fountain; Holy Water] (Bingham’s Antiq. 
 ?III. iii. 5). [C.] 
 
 IMPOSITION OF HANDS (M/nus 
 
 sitio, eTTideiTis, 
 
 [XeipoTOJ^fa originally signified election, per suf- 
 fragia manuum ext' iisione data. An election % 
 the people always in the early church preceded 
 consecration, so that it is not surprising that 
 XiipoTov'ia soon came to signify the whole 
 process of making a bishop, of which it pro¬ 
 perly denoted only the first stage (Suicer, 
 Thesaurus, s. v.)]. 
 
 The origin of this rite is to be looked for in pa¬ 
 triarchal times, when it seems to have been a 
 form simply of solemn benediction. Thus Jacob, 
 when blessing Ephraim and Manasseh on his death¬ 
 bed, laid his hands upon them (Gen. xlviii. 14). 
 The high priest employed practically the same 
 gesture as a part of the public ritual (Lev. ix. 
 22, 23). So the Lord Himself blessed children 
 (Mark X. 16). 
 
 It became also a form of setting apart o* 
 designation to important offices, as well secular 
 as religious, e. g., in the case of Joshua (Num. 
 xxvii. 18-23; Deut. xxxiv. 9). And in con¬ 
 nection with the consecration of priests (Lev. 
 viii. 22). Jewish Kabbin were set apart by 
 imposition of hands until comparatively modern 
 times. We pass over the use of this ceremony 
 in the Levitical .sacrifices, and also in oaths, as 
 having no Christian equivalent. Though this 
 latter somewhat resembles the custom of swear¬ 
 ing with the hand laid ujion relics, and upon 
 the volume of the gosjiels even to modern times. 
 
 In the New Testament, we find the laying on 
 of hands used by our Lord both in blessing and 
 in healing ; and again He promi.ses to His disci¬ 
 ples that they too should lay hands on the sick 
 and they should recover. The apostles laid their 
 hands as the outward sign of the bestowal of 
 the Holy Spirit, both on ordinary Christians 
 after baptism (Acts viii. 17 ; xix. 6), and on 
 those set apart for a special office (Acts xiii. 3; 
 and probably 1 Tim. iv. 14; and 2 Tim. i. 6); 
 at the time when the Epistle to the Hebi*ews 
 was written, the doctrine of the “ laying on of 
 hands ” was one of the elements of Christian 
 teaching (Heb. vi. 1). [Dictionary of the 
 Bible, vol. iii. p. xcv.] 
 
 The imposition of hands is used in the fol¬ 
 lowing ceremonies: — 
 
 1. In Ordinations to the higher Orders, The 
 
 4th council of Carthage had canons directing 
 imposition of hands in the ordination of a bishop, 
 priest, or deacon (cann. 2, 3, 4). But another 
 form was provided for the subdeacon, “ quia 
 mauus impositionem non accipit.” Similarly 
 for the other minor orders (cc. 5-10). See 
 also Constit. Apost. lib. viii. c. 16. These were 
 ax^tpoTovrjTos virepea'ia, an infeidor ministry, 
 and the holders insacrati ministri. They were 
 not allowed to enter the diaconicon, nor handle 
 the vasa Dominica or sacred vessels (Cone. Aga- 
 then. c. 66; Basil. Ep. Canon, c. 51 ; Bingham, 
 iii. 1). “ Manus impositio docet, eos qui sacris 
 
 ordinibus mancipantur, sacras omnes actiones, 
 quasi sub Deo efficere, utpote quern habeant 
 operationum suarum in omnibus ducem ac rec- 
 torem ” (Pseudo-Dionysiius, De Eccles. Hierarch. 
 c. 5, par. 3). “Hac manuum impositione signi- 
 ficatur illapsus Spiritus Sancti, quern ordinans 
 precatur dari oi-din.iudo : ejusque regimen, di- 
 rectio et protectio, ut scilicet Spiritus Sanctus 
 ordinandum quasi manu sua regat et dirigat ” 
 (Amalarius de Eccles. Offic. lib. i.c. 12). 
 
 Deacone.sses also received the impositio ma¬ 
 nuum; and their ordination is expressly called 
 both Xf'pOTOvia and 15th 
 
 canon of Chalcedon. [Ordination.] [S. J. E.] 
 
 2. In the resiit'ition of h< ly orders, as in the 
 original conferring, the imposition of the hands 
 of the archbishop formed an es.sential portion of 
 the rite (Martene, Hit. Ant. HI. ii.). 
 
 3. In baptism the laying-on of hands, with unc¬ 
 tion, followed in the most ancient times immedi¬ 
 ately upon the washing of water [B.^ptism, § 13, 
 p. 157]; nor was the custom obsolete in the West 
 in the 13th century (Martene, H. A. 1. ii. 1 § 3), 
 while in the East it is practised still. This is how¬ 
 ever to be understood, in the West at least, to 
 refer to baptisms at which the bishop himself was 
 present, as was generally the case when baptism 
 took place—except in cases of extremity—only at 
 
IMPROPRIATION 
 
 829 
 
 IMPOTENT MAN, CURE OF 
 
 eert.un solemn seasons. When oaptism was fre¬ 
 quently celebrated in the absence of a bishop, 
 while the laying-on of hands and chrismation 
 on the forehead was a privilege of the epis¬ 
 copal order (R. A. I. ii. 8, § 2), the custom 
 arose of the baptized being jn’esented to the 
 bishop at some convenient season sei)arate from 
 that of baptism. [Confiiimation.] The Ara¬ 
 bic canons, called Nicene (c. 55), desire the 
 chorej)iscopus in his circuits to cause the boys 
 and girls to be brought to him, that he may sign 
 them with the cross, pray over them, lay his 
 hands upon them, and bless them. Bede tells 
 us that Cuthbert used to journey through his 
 diocese, laying his hands upon those who had 
 been baptized, that they might receive the Holy 
 Ghost ( Vita Cuthberti, c. 29, in Migne’s Patrol. 
 xciv. 71)9 d) Ancient authorities, however, give 
 at least as great prominence to the chrismation 
 on the forehead which was reserved for the 
 bishop, as to the laying-on of hands. See on 
 the whole subject Martene, De Pit. Ant. lib. i. 
 c. ii.; Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, vol. 1, pt. 1. 
 p. 206 If. 
 
 4. In the reception of a heretic into the church, 
 whose baptism was recognised as valid, imposition 
 of hands was the form of coufendug those gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit which he could not have re¬ 
 ceived in a heretical community [Confirmation, 
 p. 425; Heresy, p. 768]. 
 
 5. In benedictions the lajing-on of hands is 
 constantly used; as, in the benediction of an 
 abbat (A. A. 11. i. 3); of a viigin dedicated to a 
 religious life {ib. II. iv. 16); of a king II. x.), 
 as when St. Columba, who was an abbat and not 
 a bishop, laid his hands on the head of Aidau 
 and consecrated him as king (Cumineus Albus, 
 Vita S. Colunibae c. 5, in Acta SS. Bened. 
 saec. 1). 
 
 6. In the visitation of the sick the priest and 
 the faithful who are with him are directed to hiy 
 hands on the sick (Martene, P. A. J. vii. 4, Ordd. 
 4, 5, 14, etc.), with the prayer that the Lord 
 would vouchsafe to visit and relieve His servant. 
 
 7. In absolution i\\& laying-on of hands accom¬ 
 
 panied the prayer for the remission of the sins 
 of the penitent (Martene, P. A. 1. vi. 3, Ordd. 
 3, 9, etc.). [C.] 
 
 IMPOTENT MAN, CURE OF. Guene- 
 bault mentions (s.v. “ Boiteux,” p. 164) a fine 
 bas-relief of the cure of the lame man at the 
 gate of the Temple, with apparent reference to 
 Acts iii. 2, as published in Monumcnta cnjpta- 
 rwn Vaticani, Angelas de Gabrielis, fob pi. Ixxix. 
 no. 3. Notice of the universally-treated subject 
 of the healing of the paralytic man will be found 
 under the heading Pakalytic. [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 IMPRISONMENT OF THE CLERGY. 
 
 Seclusion of criminous clerks, generally in a 
 monastery, appears to have been resorted to as 
 a disciplinary measure as early as the 6th 
 century. Justinian {Nocellae, cxxiii. c. 20) 
 orders “ that if any i>resbyter or deacon were 
 convicted of giving false evidence in a civil 
 cause, he should be suspended from his function 
 and confined to a monastery for three years.” 
 Laymen were scourged for this crime. So the 
 2nd council at Seville (can. 3), in the case of 
 vagrant clergy: “ Desertorem tamen clericum, 
 cingulo honoris atque ordinationis suae exutum, 
 aliquo tempore monasterio relegaid convenit: 
 
 sicque postea in ministerio ecc.esiastici ordinis 
 revocari.” A similar canon directing deposition 
 and relegation to a monastery to be inflicted 
 upon clerks guilty of certain crimes, jjassed at the 
 council of Agde (c. 1). A distinction was drawn 
 by the first council of Macon between the 
 inferior clergy (junior) and the higher orders 
 (honoratior). The former were to receive forty 
 stripes, save one, whilst the latter were im¬ 
 prisoned thirty days for the same otleuce {Cone. 
 Matiscon. I. can. 8). Pope Gregory the Great 
 seems to have laid down {Epp. vii. 50) an intel¬ 
 ligible principle: that such crimes as were by 
 the Mosaic law punished with death, when com¬ 
 mitted by cleric.s, incurred the penalty of deposi¬ 
 tion without hope of restoration (desperationem 
 sacrarum dignitatum). To these he added some 
 others, fornication, adultery, perjury, and such 
 like: all these incurred irregularity. Other 
 oti'ences were expiated by j)oenitentia in a mo¬ 
 nastery for a longer or shorter time (Thomassin, 
 Vet. et Nova Eccl. Disc. tom. ii. lib. i. c. 59). 
 Individuals would sometimes sesre^ate them- 
 selves of their own accord to expiate some fault. 
 The same Gregory praises {E/p. vii. 12) Satur- 
 ninus, bishop of Jadera(— Zara), in Dalmatia, for 
 so doing in order to atone for communicating with 
 the excommunicated archbishop of Saloua (lb. 
 c. 59). Joannes Defensor, whom Gregory had 
 sent into Spain to execute a sentence of six 
 months’ relegation to a monastery upon a certain 
 bishop who had driven an unoffending neighbour 
 from his see, pronounced the sentence far too 
 lenient. The same punishment was inflicted 
 upon certain bishops who had condemneil an inno¬ 
 cent person. When Gregory imprisoned clerics he 
 was in the habit of making an annual payment 
 for their maintenance to the monastery that 
 received them (Thomassin, u. s. HI. lib. ii. c. 29), 
 but whether derived from the offender’s bene¬ 
 fice, or the property of the pope himself, does 
 not appear. The tendency was perhaps to bear 
 more lightly on crimes of the kind mentioned 
 above; but incontinence was always heavily 
 punished. Hincmar, and after him Flodoard, 
 tell the story of Genebald, bishop of Laudunum 
 (Laon), who for a crime of this kind was con¬ 
 demned to seven years’ penitence, and even put 
 into fetters by his metropolitan, Kemigius, 
 bishop of Rheiins (Hincmar, I fa S. Pemig.). 
 And for capital crimes the incarceration was for 
 life, and included a sentence of perpetual lay- 
 communion {Cone. Epann. can. 22). 
 
 But during the reign of Charlemagne a some¬ 
 what milder rule prevailed. Hincmar, and also 
 Kabanus, archbishop of Mentz, were inclined to 
 distinguish between secret crimes, and those which 
 caused open scandal, and to treat the former 
 more leniently upon confession ami repentance. 
 Probably the general declension of morals at that 
 period forced them to make some abatement from 
 the rigid rules of a purer age. Accord!nglv, 
 canonical punishments were generally lightened 
 from this time (Thomassin, u. s. tom. ii. lib. i. 
 c. 60 ; Bingham, bk. xvii. c. 4). 
 
 The larger churches iiad sometimes j»risous in 
 their precincts as well as monasteries [Decania]. 
 
 [S. J. E.] 
 
 IMPROPRIATION is the assignment of 
 ecclesiastical tithes to a lavman, and is to be 
 distinguished from appropriation^ which is the 
 
830 
 
 IN PACE 
 
 INCENSE 
 
 assignment of them to a college or other cor¬ 
 poration, some of whose members are in orders. 
 The practice seems to have sprung up only about 
 the beginning of the 9th century. 
 
 Very soon after the payment of Tithes (see 
 the article) became general, the alienation of 
 them by the laity began. Thus a council at 
 Ingelheim (a.d. 948) in its 8th canon protests 
 against this new. form of robbery: “ Ut obla- 
 tiones fidelium, quatenus altari deferantur, nihil 
 omuino ad laicalem potestatem, dicente Scriptura, 
 ‘ Qui altari serviuut, de altario j)articipeutur.’” 
 (So Thomassin, Vet. et Nora Eccl. Discip. III. 
 lib. i. c. 7, n. 8), who interprets this canon as 
 referring to tithes. Louis IV. of France, and 
 the emperor Otho, were present at this council. 
 To the same effect a council of Metz in its 2nd 
 canon, quoting Mai. iii. 8-10. It was not un¬ 
 common for the lay lords to seize the oppor¬ 
 tunity of the vacanc}’^ of a bishopric or a parish, 
 to make these depredations ( Vid. Thomassin, 
 tom. iii. lib. ii. c. 53, for instances of this). 
 And we find even that the monks of St. Denis 
 had got possession of some tithes (it-does not 
 appear how) and wanted to sell them. This 
 seems to be a distinct case of appropriation, 
 and we learn the facts from a letter to them 
 of Hincmar of Rheims, who protests against 
 their selling what they ought to restore to the 
 parish priest. 
 
 But any instances we find in these times are 
 exceptional, and apparently the result of violent 
 and illegal seizure by laymen of ecclesiastical 
 dues. As Thomassin observes: “Necdum tunc 
 m mentem quidquam venisse de decimis infeo- 
 datis. Involaverant decimas Laici, necdum 
 pacifice possidebant, necdum obducere potuerant 
 huic rapiuae vel colorem legitimae possessionis. 
 Quin identidem commonebantur profani deprae- 
 datores, ut ecclesiae restituerent, quae jure 
 I’etinere non possent ” (tom. iii. lib. i. c. 7). 
 
 It is in the next and succeeding ages that we 
 must look for impropriation as a legally recog¬ 
 nised condition of ecclesiastical property. 
 
 [S. J. E.] 
 
 IN PACE. [Inscriptions, p. 854 ff.] 
 
 INCENSE. There is no trace of the use of 
 incense in Christian worship during the first four 
 centuries. On the contrary, we meet with many 
 statements in the writings of the early fathers 
 which cannot be reconciled with the existence of 
 such a custom. Thus Athenagoras, a.d. 177 :— 
 “ The Creator and Father of the universe does 
 not require blood nor smoke, nor the sweet smell 
 of flowei's and incense'’ (^Legatio, § 13). Ter- 
 tullian, A.D. 198, comparing certain Christian 
 customs wdth heathen, says, “ It is true, we buy 
 no frankincense; if the Arabians complain of 
 this, the Sabeans will testify that more of their 
 merchandise, and that more costly, is lavished 
 on the burials of Christians, than in burning in¬ 
 cense to the gods” (^Apol. c. xlii.). “I offer Him 
 a rich sacrifice . . . not one pennyworth of the 
 grains of frankincense,” &c. (ib. c. xxx.). Cle¬ 
 mens of Alexandria, a.d. 192, contrastinor the 
 reasonable service of Christians with that of the 
 heathen says, that “ the truly holy altar is the 
 just soul, and the perfume from it holy prayer ” 
 {Strom, lib. vii. c. vi. § 32). “ If then they 
 
 should say that the great High Priest, the Lord, 
 offers to God the incense (dvpiapa) of sweet 
 
 smell, let them not suppose that the Lord offers 
 this sacrifice and sweet smell of incense, but let 
 them understand that He offers on the altar the 
 acceptable gift of charity and sjdritual perfume” 
 (Paeclag. lib. ii. c. 8, § 67). Arnobius, A.D. 298, 
 .says of the use of frankincense among the hea¬ 
 then, “ It is almost a new thing, nor is the term 
 of years impossible to be traced since the know¬ 
 ledge of it flowed into these |)arts . . . But if 
 in the olden times neither men nor gods sought 
 after the matter of this frankincense, it is proved 
 that it is vainly and to no purj)ose offered now ” 
 (Adc. Gentes, lib. vii.). Lactantius, a.d. 303:— 
 “It follows that I show what is the true sacri¬ 
 fice of God . . . lest any one should think that 
 either victim.s, or odours, or precious gifts are 
 desired by God. . . . This is the true sacrifice, 
 not that which is brought out of a chest, but 
 that which is brought out of the heart ” {Divhi. 
 Instit. Epit. c. 2). He also quotes with ajquo- 
 bation a saying of the Neo-Platcnists, that 
 “ fraukincen.se and other perfumes ought not to 
 be offered at the sacrifice of God ” (JJioin. Tr.stit. 
 lib, vi. § 25), St. Augustine, 396:—“ We go 
 not into Arabia to seek for frankincense, nor do 
 we ransack the packs of the greedy trader. God 
 I'equires of us the sacrifice of praise ” {Enarr. in 
 Ps. xlix. § 21). The above are brief extracts 
 from passages, often of considerable length, all 
 bearing on the subject; and not a single author 
 makes the least allusion to any Christian rite of 
 incense, or any reservation from which we could 
 infer that such a rite existed. Their language 
 precludes the supposition. 
 
 It is probable, however, that incense was A’ery 
 early employed in Christian places of worship as 
 a supposed disinfectant, and to counteract unplea¬ 
 sant smells ; and that this was the origin of that 
 ritual use of it, which began in the 6th or possi¬ 
 bly the 5th century. Tertullian, who, as we have 
 seen, denies by implication the ritual use, yet says, 
 “ If the smell of any place offend me, I burn 
 something of Arabia; but not,” he adds, “with 
 the same rite, nor the same dress, nor the same 
 appliance, with which it is done before idols ” 
 {De Cor. Mil. c. 10). The following is a bene¬ 
 diction of incense, used in the days of Charle¬ 
 magne and later, in which no other object than 
 that which Tertullian had in burning it is re¬ 
 cognized :—“ May the Lord bless this incense to 
 the extinction of every noxious stench, and kindle 
 it to the odour of its sweetness” (Martene, De 
 Eccl. Ant. Pit. lib. i. c. 4, Art. 12, ordd. 5, 6). 
 There is no mention of incense in the so-called 
 liturgy of St. Clement, which is supposed to re¬ 
 present the offices of the 4th century ; nor in¬ 
 deed in the Apostolical Constituti ns with which 
 it is incorporated. Pseudo-Dionysius (probably 
 about 520, but possibly somewhat earlier) is the 
 first who testifies to its use in religious cere¬ 
 monial:—“The chief priest (bishop) having 
 made an end of sacred pi'ayer at the divine altar, 
 begins the censing with it, and goes over the whole 
 circuit of the sacred place” {Hierarch. Eccles. c. 
 iii. sect. 2 ; comp. sect. 3, § 3). A thurible of gold 
 is said by Evagrius to have been sent by a king 
 of Persia to a church in Antioch about 594 
 {Hist. Eccl. lib. vi. c. 21). The most ancient 
 Ordo Romanus, which Cave supposes to have 
 been compiled about 730, and which may belong 
 to the 7th century, orders that in pontifical 
 masses a subdeacon, bearing a golden censer, 
 
INCENSK 
 
 INCEXSE 
 
 831 
 
 shall go before the bishop (of Rome) as he leaves 
 the sccretarium for the choir, and two with 
 censers before the deacon gospeller as he proceeds 
 with the gospel to the ambo (§§ 7, 11, in Musac. 
 ItaL tom. ii.). These rules are also given in the 
 ne.\t revision of the Ordo, which may be a cen¬ 
 tury later {ib. §§ 4, 8). This latter document 
 says also, “After the gospel has been read . . . 
 the thuribles are carried about the altar, and 
 afterwards taken to the nostrils of persons (hom- 
 inum), and the smoke is drawn up towards the 
 face by the hand ” (§ 9). This probably origi¬ 
 nated in its earlier natural use as a means of 
 sweetening and (as they thought) purifying the 
 air; but we see in it the probable origin of the 
 strictly ritual censing of persons in the West. 
 In the same Ordo, which was certainly in use 
 before Amalarius wrote (about 827), is a direc¬ 
 tion that after the oblates and the chalice have 
 been set on the altar, with a view to their con¬ 
 secration, “the incense be put on the altar” 
 (§ 9). Here we have the probable germ of the 
 later “ censing of the gifts.” It is probable, 
 however, that such ritual practices were for 
 some lime confined to Rome. We do not observe 
 any reference to the use of incense in the Galli- 
 can Liturgies which were in use down to the 
 time of Charlemagne, nor is it mentioned by 
 Germanus of Paris, a.d. 5S5, in his e.xplanation 
 of liturgical rites (Martene, u. s. ord. 1), nor by 
 Isidore of Seville, a.d. 610, in his book on the 
 offices of the church. We may also infer its 
 rarity within our period, and the little import¬ 
 ance attached to it throughout the 9th century, 
 from the fact that it is not mentioned by Florus 
 of Lyons, Rabanus of Mentz, or Walafrid of Rei- 
 chenau, in works largely devoted to questions of 
 ritual. 
 
 The so-called 3Iissa Tllyrici (Martene, u. s. 
 ord. 4) preserves the Scriptural symbolism by 
 directing the priest to say, when the incense is 
 burnt, “ Let my prayer be set forth in Thy 
 sight as the incense ” (Ps. cxli. 2). But in the 
 same and later ordines [Ordo] it represents 
 divine influence on the soul, according to the 
 following explanation of Amalarius:—“The 
 thurible denotes the body of Christ in which is 
 fire, to wit, the Holy Spirit, from whom proceeds 
 a good odour, which everyone of the elect wishes 
 to snatch towards himself. The same odour is 
 a token that virtue (bonam operationem) goes 
 forth out of Christ, which he who wishes to 
 live pas.ses into his own heart ” (De Eccles. 
 Offic. lib. iiii c. 18). The reader will observe 
 the allusion to the mode of inhaling the smoke 
 above described. 
 
 This notice wmuld be imperfect without a re¬ 
 ference to certain passages from early writers, 
 which hove led some to su})pose that notwith¬ 
 standing the authorities above cited, the ritual 
 use of incense was known in the Christian church 
 from the beginning. As the earliest testimony 
 we often see alleged the third apostolical canon, 
 which forbids that “ beside honey and milk, and 
 new ears of coi-n and bunches of grapes in their 
 season [see Fruits, Offering of], anything else 
 shall be offered on the altar, at the time of the 
 holy oblation, than oil for the lamp and incen.se” 
 (Bever. Pandect, tom. i, p. 2). The Arabic para¬ 
 phrase has more generally, “in the time of the 
 sacraments and prayers ” (ib. tom. ii.; Ayinot. 
 p. 16). It will be seen that this canon does not 
 
 mention the ritual use cf incei ^e, nor can it be 
 shown that the incense mentioned was designed 
 for such use. It was without doubt often used 
 as a perfume, and in the caves and c'atacombs 
 in which the first Christians often worshipped, 
 and in which their dead were frequently buried, 
 would sometimes be thought almost as necessary 
 as the lamp-oil, on behalf of which a similar ex¬ 
 ception was made. We must add too that the 
 whole of the clause abox'c cited looks like a late 
 addition to the very simple code which is as¬ 
 signed, with probability, to the middle of the 
 3rd century, though the first mention of it occurs 
 in 394 (Tillemont, Mem. Eccl. tom. ii. p. 76). 
 Pseudo-Hippolytus, alleged as the bishop of 
 Portus, 220, but in reality some centuries later: 
 —“ The churches lament, with a great lamenta¬ 
 tion, because neither the oblation nor the (rite 
 of) incense is celebrated ” (De Consttmm. Mundi, 
 c. 34). Here we have nothing more than ima¬ 
 gery borrowed from well known rites of tha 
 Mosaic law. The language was probably sug¬ 
 gested by that of the following passage in St. Basil, 
 370, which has been brought forward with the 
 same object:—“ The houses of prayer were cast 
 down by unholy hands, the altars were over¬ 
 thrown, and there was no oblation nor incense, 
 no place of sacrifice, but fearful sorrow, as a 
 cloud, was over all” (In Gordlum 3Iart. Horn, 
 xix.). St. Basil here is merely in part citing 
 and partly paraphrasing, with reference to the 
 church under persecution, what Azarias in the 
 Song of the Three Children says of the state 
 of Jerusalem during the captivity (Sept. Vers. 
 V. 14). St. Ambrose says, with reference to the 
 appearance of the angel to Zacharias “ on the 
 right side of the altar of incense ”(St. Luke i. 11), 
 “ Would that an angel might stand by us also as 
 we burn (or rather heap, adolentibus) the altars ” 
 (Expos. Evang. S. Luc. lib. i. § 28). Incense is 
 not mentioned here, and “ adolere ” does not 
 necessarily imply the use of fire, so that no al¬ 
 lusion to incense may have been intended. It is 
 probable, however, that the thought of incense 
 was suggested to St. Ambrose by the mention of 
 “ the altar of incense.” We therefore further 
 point out that if he was thinking of material 
 incense, as used in the Christian church, it must 
 in his time have been burnt on altars, which no 
 one asserts ; and, moreover, that St. Ambrose ex¬ 
 plains himself by a paraphrase of his own words, 
 “ as we heap the altars, as ice bring the sacrifice.” 
 The incense in his mind was “the sacrifice of 
 praise and thanksgiving.” The testament of 
 St. Ephrem the Syrian, a spurious document of 
 uncertain date, is also quoted with the same 
 object:—“1 exhort you not to bury me with 
 sweet spices . . . but to give the fumigation of 
 sweet-smelling smoke in the house of God . . . 
 Burn your incen.se in the house of the Lord to 
 His praise and honour” (2'sst. S. Ephr. in Surii 
 Vitae Sanct mini, Feb. 1). The actual use of 
 incense during the funeral ceremony appears to 
 be intended here; but the evidence of a late 
 forgery is worth nothing. We may add that 
 there was an obvious natural reason, such as 
 the first Christians would have recognized with 
 Tertullian, for burning incense at a funeral ; 
 and it is probable that the custom of using 
 it then contributed not a little to the intro¬ 
 duction of the practice as a purely religious 
 rite. [W. E. S.] 
 
INX'EST 
 
 INDICTIO^^ 
 
 832 
 
 INCEST IS defined by the Decree 
 
 of (iratian (causa dfi, qu. 1, c. 2, § 4) thus : “ In- 
 ccstus est coiisanguiueorum vel affinium abusus,” 
 where we are of course to understand affinity or 
 consanguinity such as would be an impediment 
 to matrimony (V'^an Espen, Jm Ecdes. P. iii. tit. 
 iv. cc. 48, 49). 
 
 Christian morality extended the range of “ ))ro- 
 hibited degrees.” within which it was unlawful 
 to conti'act matrimony, and consequently the 
 conception of incest, much beyond that of the 
 heathen world. The apologists, as Minucius 
 Felix (Octav. c. 31) and Origen (c. Celsu/n, V. 
 p. 248, Spencer) speak with horror of the licence 
 given to Persians and Egyptians of marrying 
 persons near in blood ; and Augustine (^De Civi- 
 tate, XV. 16) insists upon the natural loathing 
 which men feel at connexions of this kind. 
 Gothofred (on the Theodosian Code, lib. iii. tit. 
 12) gives many instances of maiudages among 
 the Romans—as of uncle with niece—which the 
 feeling of Christendom universally condemns. 
 [Affinity ; Prohibited Degrees.] 
 
 Basil the Great (ad Amphilochium, c. 67) holds 
 incest with a sister to be a crime of the same 
 degree as murder. He who commits incest with 
 a half-sister, whether by the father’s or the 
 mother’s side, during the time that he continue.s 
 in his sin, is to be absolutely excluded from the 
 church; after he is brought to a sense of his 
 sUi, he is for three years to stand among the 
 “ Flentes ” at the door of the church, beargins; 
 those who enter to pray for him ; then he is to 
 pass another seven years among the “ Audientes,” 
 as still unworthy to pray with the rest; then, 
 if he show true contrition, and on his earnest 
 entreaty, he may be admitted for three years 
 among the “Substrati;” then, if he bring 
 forth fruits meet for repentance, in the tenth 
 year he may be admitted to the prayers of the 
 faithful, but not to offer with them ; then, after 
 continuing two years in this state, he may at 
 last be admitted to holy communion (c. 75). 
 The same punishment is prescribed for one who 
 commits incest with a daughter-in-law (c. 76). 
 He who marries two sisters, though not at the 
 same time, is subject to the penalties of adultery, 
 i.e. two years among the Flentes, two among the 
 Audiente.s, two among the Substrati, and one 
 among the Consistentes, before he can be ad¬ 
 mitted to communion. And generalIv, he who 
 marries within the prohibited degrees of con¬ 
 sanguinity (rrjs aveipr)fj.evr]s (Tvyyei^e'ias) is liable 
 to the penalties of adultery (c. 68). The council 
 of Elvira (done. Elib. c. 61), a.d. 305, allotted 
 to a marriage with a deceased wife’s sister the 
 penalty of fifteen years’excommunication; that 
 of Neo-Caesarea (c. 2), a.d. 314, decreed the ex- 
 communication of a woman who married two 
 brothers for the whole of her life, except that 
 in peril of death she might be admitted to com¬ 
 munion, on promising to renounce the connexion 
 if she recovered (Bingham, Antiq. XVI. xi. 3). 
 
 The Penitentials, as might be expected, pro¬ 
 vide penalties for incest; those, for instance, of 
 Theodore, of Bede, and of Egbert assign to dif¬ 
 ferent forms of this sin periods of penance vary¬ 
 ing from five to fifteen years (Haddan and Stubbs, 
 Counoils and Documents, iii. 179, 328, 420). [C.] 
 
 INCLINATION. [Genuflexion, p. 725.] 
 
 INCLUSI. Monks living in detached cells 
 
 within the ])recincts of the monastery (“ intra 
 septa ”) were termed “ inclusi.” These were 
 monks either of long exjierience or of delicate 
 health (Cone. Aqath. a.d. 506, c. 38). They were 
 subject to the conti-ol of the abbot, but not to 
 the ordinary rules of the monasterv (Martene, 
 lieq. Chrnm. c. 1 ; Menard, Con''ord. llequl. c. 3, 
 § 6). See Hermits and Hesychastae. 
 
 [I. G. S.] 
 
 INDALECIUS. [Hesychius (1).] 
 
 INDIC'JTON. From the middle of the 
 4th century a new note of time begins to aiqiear 
 in dates; Tndietvm, followed by an ordinal 
 number, from 1. to XV., as a character of the 
 year, is ai)pended to its customary designation; 
 e.q., Coss. M. et N. (or Anno ah Tnoarnatione —) 
 fndictione —. In respect of its origin, “ In¬ 
 dictin’’ is a term of the Roman fscus, meaning 
 “ quidquid in ))raestationem indicilur," notice of 
 a tax (on real property. Cod. Ju iin. \. 6, 3), 
 “assessment,” iTnueqrjais : theiure it came to 
 denote the year on which the tax was assessed, 
 beginning 1st Sejdember, the epoch of the im¬ 
 perial fiscal year. It seems that in the pro¬ 
 vinces, after Constantine, if not earlier, the 
 valuation of property was revised upon a census 
 taken at the end of every fifteen years, or three 
 lustra (Ideler, JldhT'l. 347 sqq., from Savigny, 
 iiher die Steuerverfnssunq unter den K'liscrn, in 
 the Transactions of the Berlin Royal Academy, 
 1822, 23). From tlie strict observance of this 
 fiscal regulation there resulted a marked term 
 of fifteen years, constantly recurrent, the Circle 
 of fndictions, -q e na'i SeKafTrjpis rUv 'IvbiKTtwywv 
 (or 'IvSIktuu), which became available for chro¬ 
 nological purposes as a “ pcu’iod of revolution ” 
 of fifteen years, each beginning 1st September : 
 which (except in the Spanish peninsula) con¬ 
 tinued to be used as a character of the year 
 irrespectively of all reference to taxation. The 
 Indictions (like the “solar cycle’’ of Sunday 
 letters, twenty-eight years, and the lunar cycle, 
 nineteen years, of “Golden Numbers,” beside 
 which this circle has obtained jilace in chrono¬ 
 logy) do not form an era : the annexed ordinal 
 number is reckoned from the ejioch of the circle 
 then current : it is not ex]»ressed how many 
 circles have elapsed since any given point of 
 time. It is certain that September 1st is the 
 original epoch of each iudiction (St. Ambros. 
 Epist. ad Episc. per Aeinil. 2,256, fndivtio cum 
 Septembri mense incipit ; and de Eoe et Area, c. 
 17. A Septembri mense annus videtur incipere, 
 sicut Indictiomim praesentium vsus ostendit). 
 From any given date of a known year to which 
 its indiction is added, as e.q., “3 id. August. 
 Symmacho et Boetio Coss. [=11 Aug., A.D. 522] 
 in fine Indictionis XW” (Reines. Inscript. IVA. 
 978), it results that a circle of indictions began 
 210 (=:]4x 15) years earlier, i.e., A.D. 312. Now 
 as it is only since Constantine that “Indiction” 
 makes its appearance as a note of time, and as 
 with the defeat and death of Maxentius in the 
 autumn of that year Constantine attained to 
 undisputed empire, the date, A.D. 312, 1 Sept., is 
 accepted as the epoch of the first circle of in¬ 
 dictions. Hence the technical rule for finding the 
 iudiction of each year. To the ordinal number 
 of the given year a.d. (beginning with 1 Jam ary) 
 add 3: divide the amount by 15 : the remainder 
 denotes the iudiction: if there be no remainder, 
 
IXDICTION 
 
 INDICTIO?^ 
 
 8S3 
 
 tho year is Indict. 1.5. Thus, in respect of the I 
 above-cited dote, a.d. 52L’ (August 11th), the 
 division of 525 by 15 gives no remainder; there- 
 for4 Jan. 1st t'^ Aug. jlst of that year lie in In- 
 diction 15, beginning at 1 Sept, of A.D. 521. The 
 author of the Paschal Chronicle (probably a man 
 of Antioch) makes the circle of ludictions begin 
 much earlier, viz, at the e])och of the Antiochene 
 era, 1 Gorpiaeus=:l Sejd. U.C. 705 = b.c. 49; at 
 which year he notes: “ Here begins the first 
 year of the 15-ycar circle of indictions, with the 
 first year of C. .lulius Caesar:” and thencefor¬ 
 ward he adds to each year its indiction. Twenty- 
 four complete circles (24x 15 = 360) end there¬ 
 fore at 1 Sept. A.D. 312 : and at 01. 273, 1, Coss. 
 Constantino HI-., Licinio III., U.C. 1066, beginning 
 1 January, A.D. 313, he notes : 'IuOiktiwucov 
 K ojvffTavTiuiavwv ii/ravda apxv —to be under¬ 
 stood as meaning that the first eight months of 
 that consulship belonged to that fii-st year. 
 (So, throughout, the Indiction in Chron. Pasch. 
 is attached, not to the year in which it began, 
 but to the following year, beginning 1 January, 
 which contains eight months of it. Comp. 
 Clinton, F. R. Append. 1 and 2.) Although 
 there is no trace elsewhere of this earlier system 
 of indictions, it does not follow, in Ideler’s judg¬ 
 ment (2, 351), that the statement of the Paschal 
 Chronicle is entirely without foundation. A 
 fiscal regulation, j)roceeding by periods of fifteen 
 years may, he thinks, have obtained in Syria 
 and other Eastern provinces : and the assumption 
 would serve to e.\'plain the circumstance, else 
 unaccounted for, that in the reckoning of Antioch, 
 the year (of the era of the Seleucidae) begins 
 1 September, not at the old 1 October. Some 
 later writers, misled by the merely technical 
 rule above given, have assumed that the In¬ 
 dictions actually had their beginning three years 
 before the Nativity, i.e. before our a.d. 1, with 
 the “ decree of Caes<ar Augustus that all the 
 world should be taxed” (St. Luke iii. 1). So 
 says Duranti—a writer of the 13th century 
 {Specidum Juris, t. i. pt. 1, p. 281): “Caesar 
 Aug. decretum proposuit, ut describeretur uni- 
 versus orbis; i.e., ut quilibet aestimaret bona sua, 
 describens orbem sub tributo sibi singulis quin- 
 decim annis reddendo, quod quidem tempus divisit 
 per tria lustra,” &c. And the rule concerning 
 three years to be added to the year-date (a.d.) 
 rests, he adds, on the fact, “ quia tot praecesserant 
 de indictione quando Christus natus fuit, vel quia 
 praeynissum edictun Caesaris tribus annis prae- 
 cepit Nativitatem Christi.” 
 
 It is only in the latter half of the 4th century 
 that the indictions first appear in dates. St. 
 Athanasius, in a fr.agment of his work de 
 Synodis, opp. t. i. pt. 2, p. 737, gives “ In¬ 
 diction XIV. ” with the date ( = a.d. 341) of the 
 council of Antioch ; but that work was written 
 towards the clo.se of his life (o6. 371), at which 
 time this method of dating was in common use. 
 The earliest clear instance is the date of a deci’ee 
 of Constantins (Cod. Theod. xii. 12, 2), of the 
 year 356, or rather (for the text needs correc¬ 
 tion) 357. From the earliest years of that cen¬ 
 tury the yearly appointment of consuls became 
 irregular, and from time to time the designation 
 of the year, instead of Coss. M. et. N., became 
 post consulatuni J/. ct N. There was even an 
 uncertainty in the numbering of a set of post¬ 
 consulate years : for instance, some would de- 
 
 CHKIST. ANT. 
 
 I signate the first v'acant year anno post consul- 
 atum M. N i.; others, after the old fashion of 
 numbering, anno ii. (Pagi, iJissert. llypat. p. 
 319 ; Ideler, 2, 345 note). A further source 
 of uncertainty was the dilference of epoclis of 
 the year. But the fifteen-years’ circle of iudic- 
 tions once established throiigliout the empire 
 provided a correction for all such uncertainty, 
 so long as it continued to be understood, that the 
 year of indiction began on the 1st of September 
 (preceding the 1st of January of tlie year found 
 by the rule above given). And, in fact, this was 
 the established practice during the greater part 
 of the period with which we are concerned in this 
 work. In the Codex The idosi imis, indeed, its 
 learned annotator, Gothofred, finds indications 
 of four distinct reckonings of the indiction.s, viz. 
 the Italica, A.D. 312; Urientalis, ‘6Vd •, and two 
 of Africa, 314 and 315. As regards the sup¬ 
 posed Orientalis, Cardinal Norris (De Anno et 
 Epochis Syro-Maced. Dissertat. H'. c. iv.: Opp. 
 t. ii. col. 422 sqq.) has shown that its epoch is 
 the 1st September, a.d. 312. Concerning the 
 two supposed difierent African reckonings, see 
 Ideler (Hdb. 2, 354 sqq.; Lchrb. p. 409). Apart 
 from these inferences from the TheodosiAn Codex, 
 we find no trace, except here and tliere in corrupt 
 texts and negligent dates, of a ditlerent reckon¬ 
 ing: Dionysius Exiguus knows no other than 
 that which is expressed by the usual rule (Argu- 
 menta paschalia, ii.). To trace the history of 
 the use of the indictions through the diderent 
 provinces of the Roman empire would, as Ideler 
 remarks, require extensive disquisition. In re¬ 
 spect of France, Mabillon has shown (de re 
 diplomat, ii. 24, 26) that this note of time does 
 not appear in public acts before Charlemagne, 
 but in acts of councils, and in writers, it is found 
 earlier. But far down into the middle ages its 
 use became so general that it is rarely absent 
 from dates attached to civil or ecclesiastical 
 documents in Italy, France, Germany (in the 
 Pyrenaean peninsula it seems never to have been 
 established). Duranti, writing in the 13th cen¬ 
 tury, testifies (u.s.): “Tantaefuit auctoritatis 
 indictio, ut nullus sine ea fieret contractus, nec 
 privilegium, nec testamentum, nec alia scrijitura 
 sollennis: et etiam hodie eandem obtinet aucto- 
 ritatem.” 
 
 With the desuetude of the Imperial fiscal 
 regulation, with which the indictions originated, 
 the original epoch, 1st September, ceased to be 
 significant—except in the Eastern empire, where 
 that day was established as the first day of the 
 year : wherever in the Corpus Jlistoriae Byzan- 
 tinae the indictions occur, they are those of 
 1st September, 312. Even in the West, beyond 
 the limits of our period, they are still occasion 
 ally met with : thus, a writing of Gregory VII., 
 A.D. 1073, bears the subscription, “ Datum 
 Capuae, Kalend. Sept., incipiente Indictione XII.” 
 But in process of time the indiction, detached 
 from its original epoch, came to be dated from the 
 new-year’s day, as received at the time, December 
 25th, or January 1st, or March 25th. Distinct 
 from these indictions used by various popes in 
 their bulls, and by other writers, is one which 
 has been called “Caesarean,” of which the first 
 notice occurs in Bede, de temp. I'atione, c. 46 : 
 “ Incipiunt Indictiones ab viii. Kalend. Octobris, 
 ibidemque terminantur.” This, of which there 
 is extiint no earlier indication (but which, so 
 
834 
 
 INDULGENCE 
 
 INDULGENCE 
 
 great was the authority of the writer, may have 
 intlucjiced the practice of tlie Imperial chancel¬ 
 leries), is probably due to an assumption of 
 Bede, that the old epoch of the Byzantine year, 
 September 24th, was accej)ted by Constantine 
 as the epoch of the indictions established by 
 him. [H. B.] 
 
 INDULGENCE. (I.) The use of the word 
 Indulgentia by ecclesiastical writers is derived 
 from that of the jurisconsults, who employ it to 
 designate a remission of punishment or of taxes, 
 especially such a general amnesty as was some¬ 
 times proclaimed by an emperor on an extra¬ 
 ordinary occasion of rejoicing. Thus the Theo- 
 do.sian Code has a title De ladulgentiis Criminum 
 (Van Espen, Jus Eccles., P. II. sec. i. tit. 7). 
 Hence the word passed into ecclesiastical usage 
 in a double sen.se. First, it designates remission 
 of sins, as in what Reticius, bishop of Autun, 
 according to St. Augustine (c. Julian, i. 3), ob¬ 
 served of baptism as early as the Roman synod 
 under pope Melchiades, A.D. 313 : “ It can escape 
 nobody that this is the principal indulgence 
 known to the church, where we lay aside the 
 whole weight of our hereditary guilt, and cancel 
 all our former misdeeds committed in ignorance, 
 and put off the old man with all his innate 
 wickednesses.” In this pas.sage, indulgence 
 stands immediately for remission of sins, and 
 that alone. But we are more immediately con¬ 
 cerned with it in a second .sense, that in which 
 it designates such a lightening of ecclesiastical 
 })ena]ties, in consideration of the state of the 
 offender, as St. Paul practised in the case of the 
 incestuous Corinthian (2 Cor. ii. 6-11). This 
 question of the advisability of such a relaxation 
 first comes prominently before us in the case of 
 those who had “ lapsed ” or denied Chri.st to avoid 
 persecution, and for whom martyrs had in many 
 cases interceded. St. Cyprian tells us, in his letter 
 to Antoninus, how it had been discussed and de¬ 
 cided by bis colleagues in Africa. They held 
 that the church should not be closed irrevocably 
 to such of the lapsed as wore desirous of return¬ 
 ing to it: nor yet opened indiscriminately till 
 they had undergone their full penance, and had 
 their particular case taken into consideration. 
 “ Et ideo ])lacuit . . . examinatis causis singu- 
 lorum : libellaticos interim admitti, sacrificatis 
 in exitu subveuiri: quia exomologesis apud in¬ 
 feros non est, nec ad penitentiam quis a nobis 
 compelli potest, si fructus penitentiae subtra- 
 hatur” (^Ep. lii.). The bishops, he adds, already 
 made distinctions between other crimes, accord¬ 
 ing to their discretion, and therefore might be 
 left to deal with this similarly. No canons for 
 regulating penances of any kind had as yet been 
 ])assed. It rested accordingly with the bishops 
 to use greater or less indulgence in dispensing 
 them all as they thought fit. It was disputed 
 by Novatian whether they could remit as well 
 as bind: and he maintained that only God could 
 remit. But this was not the doctrine of the 
 church. The fifth of the canons of Ancyra, A.D. 
 314 (Mansi, ii. 516) gives the bishops power to 
 mitigate (^<pi\ai'6pci}Tr€V€(rdai) or to increase the 
 length of an offender’s penitence ; so the twelfth 
 Nicene canon gives the bishop power to deal 
 more gently with penitents who have shown 
 true repentance (Mansi, ii. 673). The mercile.ss 
 rulings of the Elviran canons 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 
 
 1.3, 17, 19, 63-66, 70-73, and 75, w'hi.di forbid 
 certain offenders to be readmitted to commu¬ 
 nion even on their death-beds,* were neither 
 imitated elsewhere nor maintained in Spain 
 itself (Mansi, ih. 5-19). St. Ambrose, speaking 
 for the West, says : “Our Lord must have meant 
 the powers of loosing and binding to be coexten¬ 
 sive, or He would not have bestowed both on the 
 same terms” (De Poen. i. 2). St. Gregory Nyssen 
 depo.se.s, on behalf of the East, to what had been 
 customary : Tols aaOeufaTfpois iyaperS tis 
 irapa rwp iraTeputv tTup.irfpKpopd, which is the 
 Greek equivalent for “ indulgentia ” (Ep. ad 
 Letoi. c. 4). 
 
 Usually there were four stages or degrees 
 through which offenders had to pass before re¬ 
 gaining communion : (1) weepers, (2) hearers, 
 (3) kHeelers, (4) bystanders; and usually several 
 years had to be spent in each. Now the bishop, 
 according to St. Gregory, might, in jiroportion to 
 their conversion, “resciml the period of their 
 penance; making it eight, seven, or even five 
 years instead of nine, in each stage, should their 
 repentance exceed in depth what it had to fulfil 
 in length, and compensate, by its increased zeal, 
 for the much longer time required in others to 
 effect their cure ” (ib. c. 5). 
 
 So matters went on till about the end of the 
 7th century. The office of Penitentiary pres¬ 
 byter, abolished by Nectarius, patriarch of Con¬ 
 stantinople, three centuries earlier, is not sup¬ 
 posed to have produced any change, so far as 
 they were concerned (See. v. 19 and Soz. vii. 16). 
 But they were changed materially when the 
 system of commutations laid down in the Peni¬ 
 tential of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, 
 
 . had begun to work: according to which a rigorous 
 fast of days, weeks, or years, might be redeemed 
 by saying a proportionable number of psalms, or 
 by paying a proportionable fine (c. 3—10, in 
 Migne’s Patrol, xeix. 937 .sqq.). Several of the 
 offences stigmatised in the canons of the synod of 
 Berghamstede, A.D. 697, are dismissed with a 
 fine (Mansi, xii. Ill sqq.). The synod of Cloves- 
 hoe, A.D. 747, protests in its 26th and 27th 
 canons against the neglect of discipline to which 
 this “ new device ” and “ perilo'us custom ” had 
 led (ib. 493-96). But the Penitential of.Egbert, 
 archbishop of York, not only re-enacts all the 
 commutations authorised by Theodore (ib. 433), 
 but adds to them in a subsequent chapter 
 (ih. 456), voluntary exile from home and country 
 being one of the new kind allowed. Similar per¬ 
 mission is given in the Penitential of Bede, as it is 
 called (ib. 519). After this the extension of in¬ 
 dulgences to pilgrimages and hqly wars was a 
 pure matter of time; and these, from the ardour 
 in.spired by both, threw everything else into the 
 shade. The climax was reached when, to make 
 them more attractiA'e, it was formally declared 
 of the one, “iter illud pro omni penitentia repu- 
 tetur” (Concil. Claroynunt. c. 2, ap. Mansi, xx. 
 816), and popularly believed of the other, “pro 
 stipendioerat indulgentia peccatorum proposita” 
 (ib. pp. 827 and 890). On this point seeMorinus, 
 De Poenit. x. 22, 1-6, and Bingham, Ant. xviii. 4, 
 for earlier times. Goar (Euchol. pp. 680-88) 
 
 » It is to bex)bserved that the reading “noe in fine,” or 
 “ nec in finem,” is changed in some later recensions—as 
 in that of Burchard—into “ non nisi in fine,” so as to 
 bring it into harmony with the Nicene canon (13) whicli 
 forbids such total excommunication.—[Kn.j 
 
INDULGENCE 
 
 INFANT COMMUNION 
 
 835 
 
 atioiiipts in vain to detect affinity between papal | 
 indulgences and the Greek 
 
 church (comp. Ducange, Gloss. Gr. s. v.). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 (II.) Indulgences, or relaxations of the strict 
 letter of the law, are however by no means con¬ 
 fined to ])eniteutial cases ; such relaxations are 
 found in relation to almost all j)oints of conduct. 
 The laws of God, whether known by revelation or 
 by natural light (Augustine, Qiuiest. 67 in J'Jxod.), 
 are of course always binding; but under i^ositive 
 human enactments cases may and do occur, in 
 which the rigid enforcement of a law may be a 
 gieater evil to the society concerned than the 
 suspension of its operation. Hence, in all state* 
 and societies, either the law-giving power or 
 seme other has exercised the right of suspending 
 the operation of a law upon occasion. A familiar 
 instance of such a dis})eusing power is the com¬ 
 mutation by the sovereign of this country of 
 sentences passed by the judges in the ordinary 
 course of law. As a law is necessarily rigid, 
 while the real character of human acts cannot 
 be rigidly defined, such a disi)eusing power seems 
 necessary for the equitable administration of 
 justice. 
 
 And this principle is just as true of the church 
 as of other societies ; here too we find the strict 
 letter of the law mitigated by authority in 
 special cases from an early period. Such in¬ 
 dulgences, or concessions to human weakness, 
 commonly called dis])ensatious, have received 
 various names—remissio, venia, dementia, mise- 
 ratio, dispensatio; (Tvyyucti/.i.7], av/j-irddeia, (piAau- 
 dpwTr'ia, otKOPo/uLia (Suicer, Thes. s. v.)—all im¬ 
 plying something of the nature of occasional 
 indulgence or iirieiKeia in the administration of 
 a law, the law itself remaining unchanged. A 
 constant exemption of a person or body corporate 
 from the o])eration of a particular law is called 
 Si. privUegium. The canonists generally limit the 
 use of the word dispensath to the case in which 
 Si future transgression of a law is permitted. 
 
 Thomassin {^Eccl. Discip. 11. iii. 24, § 14) holds 
 that in the early ages of the church, when few 
 or no councils were held, such dispensations were 
 granted by the bishojiS; that afterwards, from 
 the end of the 3rd century, councils decided on 
 the cases in which some relaxation of the law of 
 the church was to be allowed; then, as pro¬ 
 vincial councils frequently referred such matters 
 to the judgment of the see of Rome, that see 
 gradually claimed and exercised a dispensing 
 power independent of councils. The twenty- 
 seventh canon of the (so-called) fourth council 
 of Carthage supjilies a good instance of a dis¬ 
 pensing power applied to a canon. The council 
 recognises the general prohibition of the transla¬ 
 tion of bishops from an inferior to a better see 
 “ per ambitionem,” yet goes on to provide that 
 “ if the good of the church requires it,” such a 
 translation may be made on the certificate of 
 election being produced in the synod itself. Here 
 a dispensing power seems to be given to the synod; 
 for it must be presumed that it was to decide 
 whether in a particular case “ utilitas ecclesiae 
 fiendum poposcerit.” Penitents, digamists, and 
 husbands of widows were by the general law of 
 the church incapable of holy orders ; yet pope 
 Siricius {E/.ist. 1 ud J/imeri'm, c. 15) permits 
 such persons, once ordained, to exercise the func¬ 
 tions of their order, though without hope of pro¬ 
 
 motion to a higher. Pope Innocent I., a.d. 414, 
 allows (^Eplst. 22, c. 5) that the bisho])S of Mace¬ 
 donia might, under circumstances of peculiar 
 difficulty, admit to the exercise of their functions 
 those who had been irregularly ordained bv Bo- 
 nosus, a heretic, while he insists strongly on the 
 general maintenance of the rule which for once 
 is violated ; it is only ‘‘pro necessitate temporis” 
 that such relaxations of canonical strictness 
 can be allowed, and “ quod necessitas pro re- 
 melio invenit, cessante necessitate debet utique 
 cessaresuch liberties cannot be permitted 
 when the church is restored to its normal state 
 of peace. We have another kind of dispensation 
 in Gregory the Great’s letter to Augustine of 
 C interbury {Epist. xi. 64 ; in Haddan and Stubbs, 
 iii. 21), in which he permits persons who had 
 married in ignorance within the ])rohibited de¬ 
 grees to be admitted to communion, though the 
 general law of the church excommunicated such 
 persons. 
 
 Of such a nature were the relaxations of strict 
 law j)ermitted in the early church ; the nume¬ 
 rous dispensations in matrimonial cases, in plu¬ 
 rality of benefices, and in some other matters, 
 which were so great a scandal in the mediaeval 
 church, do not fall within our period ; nor 
 within the same period had the baneful j)ractice 
 arisen of granting dispensations for wrongs to be 
 committed. It was (as Thomassin observes, it. s. 
 § 20) “in moi-e recent times, when the discipline 
 of the chtirch had grown feeble and languid, that 
 permission was sought for future violation of the 
 canons, that license was asked and granted for 
 .sinning against sacred rules; men would fain sin 
 without risk of penalty, and draw even from the 
 laws themselves cover and authority for their 
 contempt of the law.” 
 
 (Thomassin, Yet. et nova Eccl. Discip. P. II. 
 lib. iii. cc. 24-26 ; Van Espen, Jus Ecclesiastic nn, 
 tom. ii. p. 754 fi’. ed. Colon. 1777, De Dispensa- 
 tionibus; Walter, ATrcAenrecAf, § 180 ; Jacobson, 
 in Herzog Real-Encycl. iii. 423.) [C.] 
 
 INDULGENTIAE HEBDOMAS. [Holy 
 Week.] 
 
 INDUS. [Dorona.] 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. [Baptism, § 95, 
 p. 169.] 
 
 INFANT COMMUNION. The practice of 
 communicatinsc infants was universal through- 
 out the period of which we treat. For the east, 
 where it still flourishes, we have the testimonv 
 of the so-called liturgy of St. Clement, in which 
 little children (TratSi'a) are ordered to receive 
 immediately after all who have any special 
 dedication, “ and then all the people in order ” 
 {Co7istit. Apost. lib. viii. c. 13). Pseudo-Diony¬ 
 sius, possibly of the 5th century, but more 
 probably of the 6th, says that “children who 
 cannot understand divine things are yet made par¬ 
 takers of divine generation, and of the divine com¬ 
 munion of the most sacred mysteries ” {De Eccl. 
 Ifierarch.c.vii. §11). Evagrius, who completed 
 his Church History in 594, proves the continued 
 observance of the rite, wlieie he mentions “an 
 ancient custom” at Constantinople, “when there 
 remained a good quantity of the holy portions of 
 the undefiled body of Christ our God, for uncor¬ 
 rupted boys from among those who attended the 
 school of the undermaster to be sent for to 
 
 3 H 
 
836 
 
 INFANT COMMUNION 
 
 INFANT COMMUNION 
 
 consume them ” (lib. iv. c. 36). There is a story 
 toU by John Moschus, a.d. 630, of some children 
 who imitated among themselves the celebration 
 of the Eucharist, as they had witnessed, and 
 taken part in it themselves (^Praturn Spirit, c. 
 196). 
 
 Tlve earliest witness in the Latin church is St. 
 Cyprian, who writing in 251, relates how the agi¬ 
 tation of an infant to whom the cup was offered, 
 led to the disciwery of its having been taken to a 
 heathen sacrifice (Be Lapsis). He also repre¬ 
 sents the children of apostates as able to plead 
 at the da}' of judgment, “ We have done no¬ 
 thing ; nor have we hastened of our own accord 
 to those profane defilements, forsaking the meat 
 and cup of the Lord ” (ibid.). St. Augustine :— 
 “ They are infants; but they are made partakers 
 of His table, that they may hav'e life in them¬ 
 selves ” (Senn. 174, § 7). “Why is the blood, 
 which of the likeness of sinful flesh was shed for 
 the remission of sins, ministered that the little 
 one (parvulus) may drink, that he may have 
 life, unless he hath come to death by a beginning 
 of sin on the part of some one” (Contra Ju'ia- 
 num, Op. imperf. 1. ii. c. 30) ? It is evident from 
 these passages (and see especially to the same 
 effect. Be Peccat. Mer. lib. i. c. xx. § 26 ; c. 
 xxiv. § 34) that St. Aagir-stine considered this 
 sacrament to be generally necessary to the salva¬ 
 tion of infants ; but it is desirable to mention 
 that some passages often cited from his works, 
 which appear to imply or maintain that view 
 are not really to the purpose. He argued against 
 the Pelagians, that if infants were not born in 
 sin, our Ldrd’s words, “ Except ye eat the flesh,” 
 &c. (St. John vi. 53), would not be true in 
 reference to them : they would have life without 
 eating of that flesh (see Contra Buas Epp. Petag. 
 lib. i. c. xxii. § 40); but then he taught also 
 that “ every one of the faithful is made a par¬ 
 taker of the body and blood of Christ, when he 
 is made a member of Christ in baptism.” This 
 is carefully shown from his writings by Ful- 
 gentius, who had been questioned by Ferrandus, 
 on the hope that might be entertained for a 
 young man who had died immediately after 
 baptism (see the note of the Benedictine editors 
 on Aug. Be Pecc. Mer. lib. i. c. 20, § 26). The 
 same remark must be made on a saying of 
 Innocent I., a.d. 417-(J.<i Putres Syn. Mileo. § 5, 
 Ep. 182, inter Epp. Aug.), which Augustine 
 himself interprets of the necessity of Baptism 
 (Ad Paulin. Ep. 185, c. viii. § 28). See also 
 Gelasius of Rome, Epist. 7, ad Episc. per Pi- 
 cenum. Gennadius of Marseilles, a.d. 495, gives 
 the following direction with regard to the 
 reception of some of those who had been baptized 
 bv heretics in schism. “ But if they are infants 
 (parvuli), or so dull as not to take in teaching, 
 let those who offer them answer for them, after 
 the manner of one about to be baptized ; and so, 
 fortified by the laying on of hands and chri-sm, 
 let them be admitted to the mysteries of the 
 Eucharist ” (Be Eccl. Bogm. c. 22). We call 
 attention to the word “ parvulus ” when it is 
 used in this connection, because “infans” was 
 sometimes applied even to the newly-baptized 
 adult, as being newly born to a higher life. In 
 585 the council of Macon, in France, in imitation, 
 as we may suppose, of the Greek custom lately 
 mentioned, ordered that on Wednesdays and 
 Fridays innocent (children) ..shquld be brought 
 
 to the church, an! there “ being commanded to 
 fast, should receive the remains of the sacri¬ 
 fices” (can. 6). The council of Toledo, 675, 
 found it necessary to reassure anxious minds bv 
 a declaration that the sick who found themselves 
 unable to swallow the eucharist, and others who 
 had failed to swallow it “ in time of infancy,” 
 did not fall under the censure of the first council 
 of Toledo (can. 14), against those who having 
 received did not consume it (can. 11). The 
 Gelasian Sacramentary (lib. i. n. 75) provides 
 for the immediate communion of an infant 
 (infans) baptized in sickness. The earliest extant 
 copy of the Gregorian has the following rubric 
 referring to all baptized at Easter. “ If the 
 bishop be present, it is fit that he (infans) be 
 forthwith confirmed with chrism, and after that 
 communicated. And if the bishop be not present, 
 let him be communicated by the presbyter ” 
 (Lilurgia Rom. Vet. Murat, tom. ii. col. 158). 
 It will be observed that previous confirmation 
 was not an indispensable condition of the first 
 communion. A MS. Sacrameutary of the 8th 
 century preserved at Gellone and a Rheims ponti¬ 
 fical of the same age expressly contemplate the 
 probability of some of the “ infantes ” baptized 
 being nurslings, but make the same provision 
 for the communion of all (Ordd. 6, 7, 8, in 
 Maidene, Be Ant. Eccl. Pit. lib. i. c. 1, art. 18. 
 Comp. ord. 15). The little children were also 
 to communicate daily throughout the octave 
 with the rest of the newly-baptized. See Ordd. 
 6, 8, 9. 
 
 There is an English canon ascribed to Ecg- 
 briht, A.D. 740, but probably somewhat later, 
 which says, “ They who can, and know how to 
 baptize, faithful monks especially, ought always 
 to have the eucharist with them, though they 
 travel to places far distant ” (Johnson’s Engl. 
 Canons, vol. i. p. 235). Jesse, bishop of Amiens, 
 A.D. 799, in an epistle on the order of baptism, 
 says, that “after trine immersion the bishop 
 should confirm the child (puerum) with chrism 
 on the forehead, and that finally he should be 
 confirmed and communicated with the body and 
 blood of Christ, that he may be a member of 
 Christ” (see note to Regino Be Eccl. Biscipl. 
 lib. i. c. 69 ; ed. Baluz.). The epistle of Jesse 
 was written in reply to some questions of Charle¬ 
 magne respecting baptism. In the Capitularies 
 of the latter we find the following law notably 
 framed in express accordance with the answers 
 of Jesse and other bishops :—“ That the presbyter 
 have the eucharist readv, that when anv one 
 shall be taken sick, or an infant (parvulus) be 
 ailing, he may communicate him at once, lest he 
 die without communion ” (Lib. i. c. 155: Sim. 
 lib. V. c. 57). This is in the collection of Walter 
 of Orleans (c. 7) ; Regino (n. s.) ; Burchard (lib. 
 V. c. 10); and Ivo (Beer. P. ii. c. 20). 
 
 Infants were during a ])eriod of uncertain 
 length required to be kept without food between 
 their baptism and communion, when the latter 
 followed as a part of the day’s rites. Thus in 
 the earliest Ordo Romanus, supposed by Usher 
 to be written about the year 730, care is enjoined 
 that the little ones (parvuli) baptized on Easter 
 Eve “ t.ake no food, nor be suckled, after their 
 baptism before they communicate of the sacra¬ 
 ment of the body of Christ ” (§ 46 ; Musae. Ital. 
 tom. i. p. 28). There are rubrics to this effect 
 in several ancient orders of baptism, three of 
 
INFANT COMMUNION 
 
 which were compiled or copied in the 8th 
 century (Ordd. 6, 7, 8, in Martene, u. s. For 
 later exanijdes, see Ordd. 9, 15). In one copy of 
 the Gregorian Sacrameutary, the rule is thus 
 relaxed. “ The}" are not forbidden to be suckled 
 before the sacred communion, if it be necessary” 
 {Inter 0pp. S. Greg. tom. v. col. Ill; Autv. 
 1615). The prohibition seems to have been 
 generally omitted from the rubric after the 8th 
 century; but the pontifical of the Latin church 
 of Apamia in Syria, which was written in the 
 12th, retains it, though speaking of confirmation 
 and communion imme>liately after baptism only 
 as “the custom of some churches” (Ord. 15; 
 Martene, u. s.). 
 
 There can be no doubt that infants were at 
 first communicated in both kinds ; but there 
 is little clear evidence to that efiect. Passages 
 which speak of their eating the flesh and drink¬ 
 ing the blood of Christ are not conclusive. The 
 council of Toledo before cited, after mentioning 
 the occasional rejection of one element by the 
 sick, “ because except the draught of the Lord’s 
 cup, they could not swallow the eucharist de¬ 
 livered to them,” proceeds to the case of others 
 “ who do such things in the time of infancy.” 
 The inference appears good that the eucharist 
 was otlered to both in bread as well as wine. 
 We are however in a good measure left to infer 
 the practice of the first age.s from that of the 
 later church. Because the cup only is mentioned 
 in St. Cyprian’s story of the infant who had 
 partaken of a heathen sacrifice, some have 
 ai’gued that they were communicated in the blood 
 only. Had it been so, they would hardly have 
 been permitted to receive in both kinds at a later 
 period; as they certainly did, when for a time 
 the custom of intinction prevailed in the West. 
 Even in the 12th century, when Paschal II. 
 suppressed that practice at Clugny, he made an 
 exception in favour of “ infants and persons very 
 sick who are not able to swallow the bread.” 
 All others were to receive the bread by itself 
 {Epist. 32; Labb. Concilia, tom. x. col. 656). 
 In a manuscript Antiphonary that belonged to 
 an Italian monastery, written about the middle 
 of the same century, after directions for a 
 baptism, is the following rubric: “Then follows 
 the communion, which is ministered under 
 these words ; ‘The body of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 steeped in His blood, preserve thy soul unto 
 everlasting life (Muratori, Antiq. Hal. Mediaev. 
 tom. iv. p. 843). About the same time, how¬ 
 ever, we find Radulphus Ardens saying, in a 
 sermon on Easter Day, “It has been decreed that 
 ^ it be delivered to children as soon as baptized, at 
 least in the species of wine ; that they may not 
 depart without a necessary sacrament ” (Zac- 
 caria, Bihlioth. Hit. tom. ii. p. ii. p. clx.). How 
 infants were communicated in the one species 
 then, we may learn from the pontifical of Apamia 
 already cited. “ But children who as yet know 
 not how to eat or drink are communicated either 
 with a leaf or with the finger dipped in the blood 
 of the Lord and put into their mouth, the priest 
 thus saying, ‘ The body with the blood of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, keep thee unto everlasting 
 life’” (Martene, m. s.). Robertus Panlulus, a.d. 
 
 1175, in a work De Sacramentls, long ascribed to 
 Hugo de S. Victore, says, “ The said sacrament is 
 to be ministered with the finger of the {)riest to 
 children newly )orn in the .species of the blood; 
 
 INFIRMARY (MONASTIC) 837 
 
 because such can suck naturally” (Lib. i. c. 20). 
 
 As the Greeks and Orientals generally used 
 intinction before the age of Charlemagne, it is 
 to be presumed that they communicated infants 
 in the same manner as adults; i.e., in both kinds 
 with a spoon. Now “ in practice, though the 
 rule is otherwise, the eucharist is given to 
 infants under the species of wine alone ” (Goar 
 in Annot. Nihusii ad Allatii Dissert, de Mis.d 
 Fraesanct.».dL fin.; Allat. Occ. et Or. Consent. 
 col. 1659). The Nestorians, Jacobites, Arme¬ 
 nians and Maronites, are said to have fallen into 
 the same practice (Gabriel Sinaita, ibid. col. 
 1667). Thev Greeks use a spoon, but from con¬ 
 flicting statements before us (.see Martene, u. s. 
 art. 15, n. 15), we infer that the rest use the 
 finger or a spoon indifferently. [W. E. S.] 
 
 INFIRMARY (MONASTIC). In hh 
 enumeration of Christian duties Benedict speci¬ 
 fies that of visiting the sick (Bened. Ji g. c. 4); 
 and elsewhere he speaks of it as a duty of ])ri- 
 mary and paramount obligation for monks 
 (“ante omnia et super omnia,” c. 36), quoting 
 the words of Christ, “ I was sick, and ye minis¬ 
 tered unto Me.” Beyond, however, saying, that 
 the sick are to have a separate part of the 
 monastery assigned to them (cf. Aui’el. l!eg. cc. 
 37, 52; Caesar, lieg. c. 30), and a separate 
 officer in charge of them (cf. lieg. Tarnat. c. 21), 
 that they are to be allowed meat and the 
 luxury of baths, if necessary, that they are not 
 to be exacting (“ ne superfluitate sud fratres con- 
 tristent ”), and that the brethren who wait on 
 them are not to be impatient, he gives no pre¬ 
 cise directions (f6.). Subsequently it was the 
 special duty of the “ infirmarius,” the “cellera- 
 rius ” (house-steward), and of the abbot himself, 
 to look after the sick (Martene, lieg. Comm. c. 4; 
 Caesarii lieg. ad Virg. c. 20, Reg. Cujicsd. ad 
 Virgines, c. 15) ; no other monk might visit them 
 without leave from the abbot or prior (Mart. 1. c.). 
 Everything was to be done for their comfort, 
 both in body and soul, that they should not 
 miss the kindly offices of kinsfolk and friends 
 (cf. Fructuos. Beg. c. 7; Hieronym. Ep. 22, ad 
 Eustoch.) ; and, while the rigour of the monastic 
 discipline was to be relaxed, whenever necessary, 
 in their favour, due su^jervision was to be exer¬ 
 cised, lest there should be any abuse of the privi¬ 
 leges of the sick-room (Mart, l.c.; cf. Beg. Pachom. 
 c. 20). The “infirmarius” was to enforce silence 
 at meals, to check conversation in the sick-room 
 (“ mansio infirmorum, intra claustra,” Cone. 
 Aquisgran. a.d. 816, c. 142) at other times, and 
 to discriminate carefully between real and fic¬ 
 titious ailments (Mart./. c.). The sick were, if 
 possible, to recite the hours daily and to attend 
 mass at stated times, and if unable to walk to 
 the chapel, they were to be carried thither in the 
 arms of their brethren (i6.). The meal in the 
 sick-room was to be three hours earlier than in 
 the common refectory {Beg. Mug. c. 28). The 
 abbot might allow a separate kitchen and “ but¬ 
 tery ” for the use of the sick monks (Aureliau, 
 Beg. ad Monach. c. 53, Beg. ad Virg. c. 37). 
 The rule of Caesarius of Aides ordered, that 
 the abbot was to provide good wine for the 
 sick, the ordinary wine of the monastery being 
 often of inferior quality (cf. Mabill. Pisguis. do 
 Curs. Gallic, vi. 70, 71 ; Mabill. Ann. iii. 8, Du 
 Cange, Glossar. Lat. s. v.). [1. G. S.] 
 
838 
 
 INITIAL HYMN 
 
 INFORMERS 
 
 INFORMl'vRS. {Cahminiatores, Delatores. 
 Tertullinii [i(dv. Mnrcion. v, 18] fancifully con¬ 
 nectsciiabolus ” with “ delatura.”) This class 
 of men originated before the Christian era. and 
 indeed before the establishment of the Roman 
 empire. [Dict. of Grkkk and Roman Antiq. 
 s. V. Delator.'] When persecution arose against 
 the church, the delatores naturally sought gain, 
 ind probably some credit with the civil aiitho- 
 rities, by giving information against those who 
 practised Christian rites, since the secret assem¬ 
 blies of Christians for worship came under the 
 prohibition of the Lex .Julia de Majestate (Tac. 
 Ann. i. 7“2, p. 3 ; Merivale. Hist. Home, c. xliv.). 
 Tertullian states that Tiberius threatened the 
 accusers of the Christians—“ Caesar . . . com- 
 minatus periculum accusatoribus Christianorum ” 
 {Apol. c. o), but the story rests only upon his 
 statement. He also (/. c.) claims M. Aurelius as 
 a protector of Christians. Titus issued an edict 
 against delators, forbidding slaves to inform 
 against their masters or freednien against their 
 patrons. Nerva on his accession republished this 
 edict. “Jewish manners,” f. e. probably Chris¬ 
 tianity, is specially mentioned as one of the sub¬ 
 jects on wliich informations were forbidden (Dion 
 Ixviii. 1, quoted by Merivale). In Pliny’s well- 
 known letter to Trajan (x. 96 [al. 97]) we find the 
 delatores in full work. The Christians who were 
 brought before him were delated (deferebantur), 
 and an anonymous paper was sent in containing a 
 list of many Christians or supposed_ Christians. 
 Trajan in his answer (i6. 97 [98]), though he for¬ 
 bad Christians to be sought out (i. e. by govern¬ 
 ment otKcials), did not attemi)t to put a stop to 
 the practice of delation; those who w'ereinformed 
 against, if they continued in their infatuation, 
 must be punished. See Tertullian’s comment on 
 this {Apol. c. 2). And in the subsequent per¬ 
 secutions a large part of the sutfering arose from 
 unfaithful brethren who betrayed their friends 
 to the persecutors. It is not wonderful that 
 during and immediately after the days of perse¬ 
 cution the delator was regarded with horror. 
 Thus the council of Elvira {Cone. Elib. c. 73), 
 A.D. 305, excommunicated, even on his death- 
 bed,“- any delator who had caused the proscrip¬ 
 tion or death of the person informed against; 
 for informing in less important cases, the delator 
 might be re-admitted to communion after five 
 yeai’s; or, if a catechumen, he might be ad¬ 
 mitted to baptism after five years. The first of 
 Arles, A.D. 314, reckons among “ fraditores ” 
 not only those who gave up to the persecutors 
 the Holy Scriptures and sacred vessels, but also 
 those who handed in lists of the brethren (nom- 
 ina fratrum) ; and respecting these the council 
 decrees, that whoever shall be discovered from 
 the public records (acta) to have committed such 
 otfences shall be solemnly degraded from the 
 clerical order; but such degradation, if the of¬ 
 fender was a bishop, was not to vitiate the 
 orders of those who might have been ordained 
 
 a According to the reading “Nec in fine;” some ItlSS. 
 read “ non nisi in fine.” It seems probable that “ nec in 
 fine ” or “ finem ” was the original reading, and that it 
 was altered to bring it into acco'dauce with the decree of 
 Nicaea (c. 13), which provides that the Holy Communion 
 is in no case to be refused to a dying man. 
 
 tj “ Non verbis nudisanother reading is “ verberibus 
 multis,” 
 
 by him. Charges again>t traditores were not 
 to be admitted uule.ss tiiey could be proved 
 from the “ acta j)ublica.” Tiiis decree is 
 highly interesting, as following immediatelv 
 U])on a period of porsecutiou, and showing that 
 the edict of Milan (a.d. 313) had brought about- 
 a great change in Gaul, and that Christians were 
 admitted to consult the jiublic records of the 
 recent proceedings against them. The capitu¬ 
 laries of the Frank kings (lib. vi. c. 317, in 
 Baluze, i. 977) cite the 73rd canon of Elvira 
 with the reading “ nec in fine.” So lib. vii. c. 
 205, and Additio Quarto, c. 34. in Baluze, i. 
 1068,1202. The same capitularies (A(W. Quarto, 
 c. 35) enjoin bishops to excommunicate “ accu- 
 satores fratrum ; ” and, even after amendment, 
 not to admit them to holy orders, though thev 
 may be admitted to communion. Anv cleric or 
 layman who brings frivolous charges against his 
 bishop (calumniator extiterit j is to be reputed a 
 homicide. 
 
 The canon of Elvira is cited in the decree 
 of Gratian (p. ii. cau. v. quae. 0, c. 6) with the 
 reading “ non nisi in fine.” The same decree 
 {u. s. c. 5) attributes to pope Hadrian I. a 
 decree, “let the tongue of a delator be cut out 
 (capuletur), or, on conviction, let his Ixead be 
 cut otf; ” a decree probably taken from the civil 
 legi.slatlon, for nearly the same jirovision is found 
 in the Theodosian code (lib, x. tit. x. 1. 2), and 
 precisely the same in the Frank cajdtularies 
 (lib. vii. c. 360; Bal. i. 1102). [S. J. E.] 
 
 INFUL A. 1. The infula was in classical 
 times the band or fillet which bound the brow 
 of the sacrificing priest and the victim. 
 
 “ Ncc te tua plurima, Panthu 
 Labentem pietas nec Apollinis infula texii.” 
 
 Virg. Aen. ii. 430. 
 
 Sennas (on Aeneid. x. 538) tells us that it was 
 a broad fillet or ribbon commonly made of red 
 and white strips. Isidore {Ltymol. xix. 30) 
 describes the infula of the heathen priest in 
 similar terms. The infula of the victim is men¬ 
 tioned in 
 
 “ stans bostia ad aram 
 Lauea dum nivefv circumdatur infula vittk.” 
 
 Virg. Georg, iii. 487. 
 
 And the term seems to have been early trans¬ 
 ferred to the head-covering of Christian priests. 
 Hence Prudentius {Peristeph. iv. 79) speaks ot 
 the “sacerdotum domus infulata ” of the Valerii 
 of Saragossa, when he is evidently speaking of 
 the “ clerus,” So Pope Gelasius (Hardouiu’s 
 Concilia, ii. 901), wishing to say that a certain 
 person ought to be rejected from the Christian 
 priesthood, says that he is “ clericalibus iufulis * 
 reprobabilis ” (Hefele’s Beitrilje, ii. 223 tl.). 
 See Mitre. 
 
 2. For infula in the sense of a ministerial 
 vestment, see Casula, Plan eta. [C.] 
 
 INGELHEIM, COUNCIL OF {Tnjelheim- 
 ense Concilium'), a.d. 788, at Ingelheim, when 
 Tassilo, duke of Bavaria, was condemned, but 
 allowed to enter a monastery. [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 INGENUI^S, martyr at Alexandria with 
 Ammon, Theophilus, Ptolomeus, Zeno; comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 20 (JAo’f. Ixom. UL, Adonis, C>u- 
 ardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 INITIAL HYMN.—A name for the hymn 
 which in the Eastern liturgies corresponds to the 
 
INITIAL HYMN 
 
 Introit of the Roman mass. In the eastern 
 liturgies the term Introit (eftroSos) is applied to 
 the two EXTKAXCKS of the liturgy, the little 
 entrance /jtiKpa dcroSos) i. e. that of the 
 Book of the Gospels, and the great entrance 
 (■^ jxeyaKt} iXcrohos) i. e. that of the elements. 
 
 In the liturgies of St Basil and St. Chrysostom 
 this hymn takes the form of three antiphons, 
 called the first, second, and third antiphons, each 
 of which consists of a few verses called “ stichi ” 
 (arixoi) from the Psalms; each verse of the 
 first antiphon being followed by the clause “ At 
 the intercession of the Theotocos, save us, 0 
 Saviour;” each verse of the second and third 
 by an antiphonal clause of the same nature, 
 varying with and having reference to the festi¬ 
 val. That of the third antiphon is sometimes 
 one of the iroparia of the day. Each antiphon 
 is followed by an unvarying prayer, called gene¬ 
 rally the prayer of the first, second, and third 
 antiphon,* * and which are the same in the litur¬ 
 gies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom. 
 
 The first and second antiphons are followed by 
 “ Glory &c. (So^a Kal vvv), after which the anti¬ 
 phonal response is repeated. 
 
 The third antiphon by short hymns or troparia 
 in rhythmical prose under different names, and 
 which vary witli the day. These antiphons are 
 considered to symbolise the predictions of the 
 prophets, foretelling the coming and incarnation 
 of our Lord.® As a specimen the three anti¬ 
 phons for Easter Day are :— 
 
 Antiph. I. 
 
 Stick. 0 be joyful in God all ye lands. (Ps. Ixvi. 1.) 
 
 At tbe intercession, &c. 
 
 Stick. Sing praises unto the honour of His name. (Do.) 
 
 At the intercession, &c. 
 
 Stick. Say unto God, 0 liow wonderful art Thou in Thy 
 works, (verse 2.) 
 
 At the intercession, &c. 
 
 Stick. For all the world shall worship Thee, (verse 3.) 
 
 At the intercession, &c. 
 
 Glory, &c. 
 
 At the Intercession, &c. 
 
 Antiph. II. 
 
 Stick. God he merciful unto us. (Ps. Ixvii. l.) 
 
 Save us, 0 Son of God, Thou that art risen from 
 the dead. 
 
 Stick. And show us the li.ght of His countenance. (Do.) 
 
 Save us, 0 Son of God, &c. 
 
 Stick. That Thy way may be known upon earth, (v. 2.) 
 
 Save us, 0 Son of God, &c. 
 
 Stick. I.«t the people praise Thee. (v. 3.) 
 
 Save us, 0 Son of God, &c. 
 
 Glory, &c. 
 
 Save us, 0 Son of God, &c. 
 
 Antipk. III. 
 
 Stick. Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered 
 let them also that hate Him flee l)efore Him. 
 
 (Ps. Ixviii. J.) 
 
 Christ is risen from the dead, having trodden 
 down death by death, and given life to those 
 that are in the grave. 
 
 » There are variations between the two liturgies, as to 
 whether the prayer of tbe antiphon snould be said before 
 or after its antiphon, which it is unnecessary to par¬ 
 ticularise. 
 
 b The prayer of the third antiphon is “A Prayer of 
 St. Cbryyostom’' of the English Prayer-book, 
 
 0 Vid. Casali de Vet. Sacr. Christ. Hit. cap. xci. 
 
 INNOCENTS, Festival of the 839 
 
 stick. Like as the smoke vanisheth so shalt thou drive 
 them away: and like as wax melteth at the 
 fire. (v. 2.) 
 
 Christ is risen, &c. 
 
 Stick. So let the ungodly perish at the presence of God, 
 but let the righteous be glad. (vv. 2, 3.) 
 
 Christ is risen, &c. 
 
 Stick. This is the day which the Lord hath made: we 
 will rejoice and be glad in it. (Ps. cxviii.24.) 
 
 Christ is risen, &c. 
 
 On Sundays as a rule, in the liturgy of St. 
 Basil the Typica ^ for the day are said in-stead of 
 the first two antiphons; and in those of St. 
 Basil and St. Chrysostom instead of the third 
 antiphon, the Beatitudes (ol paKapicrpoi). 
 
 These are the Beatitudes from the Sermon on 
 the Mount, and are thus said. They are intro¬ 
 duced by the clause “ Remember us, 0 Lord, 
 when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom.” The 
 first five Beatitudes are then said consecutively ; 
 after the fifth and each following one is inter- 
 posed a short Iroparion, dift'ering in each case, 
 and all varying with the day. After tiie si.\th 
 of these follows “ Glory, &c.” and then two more 
 troparia, the latter of which is a TheotocAon.^ 
 
 In the liturgies of St. James and St. Mark 
 the initial hymn is the same, and unvarying. It 
 is of the ordinary form of Greek hymns, begin¬ 
 ning “ Only begotten Son and Word of God,” &c., 
 and containing prayers for salvation through the 
 mysteries of the incarnation, which it recites. 
 [See Antiphon]. [H. J. H.] 
 
 INITIATION. [Baptism, §5, p. 156.] 
 
 INNOCENT, or INNOCENTIUS. (1) 
 [Gregory (2).] 
 
 (2) Martyr at Sirmium with Sebastia (or 
 Sabbatia) and thirty others; commemorated 
 July 4 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis,Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr with Exsuperius (1). [W. F. G.] 
 
 INNOCENTS, Festival of the. 
 tSsv ayiwv i8' x/Aid5a>i/ vyiriwv: festum Inno¬ 
 centum [j"m], Natales Sanctorum Innocentum, 
 Natale Infantum, Kecatio [^Allisid] Infantum. 
 The old English Childermas and the German 
 Kindermesse may also be noted.) 
 
 1. History of festival. —The Holy Innocents ot 
 Bethlehem, the victims of Herod’s jealousy of our 
 Lord, are at an early period commemorated as 
 martyrs for Christ, of whom indeed they were 
 in one sense the first (see Irenaeus adv. llaer. 
 iii. 16. 4; Cyprian, Epist. 56, plebi Thibari con- 
 sistenti, § 6). Subsequent fathers continually 
 speak in the same strain, e.g. Gregory of Nazi- 
 anzum {Serm. 38 in Nativitate, § 18 ; vol. i. 674, 
 ed. Bened.); Chrysostom {Horn. 9 in S. Matt. 
 vol. vii. 130, ed. Montfaucon) ; Augustine {Knar- 
 ratio in Psal. 47 ; vol. iv. 593, ed. Gaume ; Serm. 
 199 in Epiphania, § 2, vol. v. 1319 ; Serm. 373 in 
 Epiph. § 3, vol. V. 2178; Serm. 375 in Epiph. 
 § 2, vol. V. 2183); Prudentius (Caih. xii. de 
 Epiph. 125). Augustine also distinctly refers 
 {de lihero Arbitrio, iii. 68, vob i. 1035) to a com¬ 
 memoration of their martyrdom by the church. 
 Some writers, as August i {henkwiirdigkeAten aus 
 der Curistlichen Archdolojie, i. 304), Bintcrim 
 {Denkwiirdigkeitcn der Christ-A'athoiischen Kirche, 
 V. 1. 549) and others, refer to a homily of Origen 
 
 d These terms will be explained In their place. 
 
 * These ti opariii are given in the Vctotchus. 
 
fi40 INNOCENTS, Fx:stival of the 
 
 as affording evidence on this last point. The 
 writing in question, however (florn. 3 de diversis, 
 vol. ii. p. 282 ; ed. I’aris, 1004), is universally 
 rejected as sj)urious, and Huet sums up con¬ 
 cerning it (Origenis 0pp. vol. iv. .325, ed. De la 
 Rue) that it is a work originally written in 
 Latin, and later than the time of Jerome. 
 
 The commemoration of the Massacre of the 
 Innocents was at first combined with the festival 
 of the Epiphany. Thus the passage of Pruden- 
 tius above referred to speaks of them in the 
 hymn on the Epiphany ; Leo, in not a few of his 
 homilies on the Epiphany, speaks of the Inno¬ 
 cents (see e.g. Sernim. 31-33,3.5, 38: Patrol. 
 liv. 234 sqq.), as also Fulgentius of Ruspe in a 
 homily de Epiphinia, deque Innocentum nece et 
 muneribus magm-um (^Patrol. Ixv. 732). Subse¬ 
 quently a special day was set apart for the fes¬ 
 tival of the Innocents, a day in close proximit)’ 
 to that on which the Lord’s Nativity is celebrated 
 being chosen; not that we have any definite 
 knowledge as to the time when Hei’od put the 
 children to death, but from the special associ¬ 
 ation between the two events. Hence we find 
 December 28 in the Western and December 29 
 in the Eastern church set apart for the com¬ 
 memoration of the Innocents. The date of the 
 origin of the separate festival cannot be very 
 closely defined. It is however mentioned in the 
 Calendarium Carthagincnse, to whose date we can 
 approximate from the fixct that the latest martyrs 
 commemorated are those who perished in the 
 Vandal persecution under Hunneric, 484 a.d. 
 Here the notice is, “ V. Kal. 7an. Sanctorum In¬ 
 nocentum, quos Herodes jccidit ” {Patrol, xiii. 
 1228). It may be added that Peter Chrysologns, 
 bishop of Ravenna (ob. 450 a.d.), has left among 
 his sermons, two de Tnfantium nece, quite apart 
 from several others on the Epiphany (Sermm. 
 152, 153; Patrol. Hi. 604). It is needless to 
 give here a list of later calendars and martyr- 
 ologies, in which the festival of the Innocents 
 uniformly occurs, but it may be noted that it 
 subsequently acquired a considerable degree of im¬ 
 portance, for in the Pule of Chrodegang, bishop of 
 Metz (ob. 766 a.d.), the “ festivitas Infantium ” 
 is included among the “ solemnitates praecipuae ” 
 {Reg. Chrodeg. c. 74; Patrol. Ixxxvii. 1009). 
 
 2. Liturgical notices .—The earliest of the Ro¬ 
 man Sacramentaries, the Leonine, contains two 
 masses for the festival of the Innocents, which 
 follow immediately after that for St. John the 
 Evangelist, and are headed In Natali fnnocenhi n 
 (Leonis 0pp. vol. ii. 155, ed. Ballerini). We may 
 call attention to the curious reference in the 
 Preface of the second mass to the prophecy of 
 Jeremiah (xxxi. 15), “ Rachel plorans filios suos, 
 noluit consolari, quia non sunt,” where the 
 mother’s grief is explained as arising not from 
 the death of her children, but because infants held 
 worthy of receiving so great a renown were born 
 not from her line, but from that of Leah. Ele¬ 
 ments from the Leonine Sacramentary are found 
 embodied in the service for the day in the Ge- 1 
 lasian {Patrol. Ixxiv. 1060) and Gregorian Sacra- | 
 mentaries (col. 12, ed. Menard), in the latter 
 case including a slightly modified form of the j 
 Preface,^ which also appears in the service for j 
 
 • The collect in the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacra- 
 mcntaries furnishe<l I hat of our own church till 1662, 
 when it was modified into its present foim 
 
 INNOCENTS, Festival of the 
 
 the day in the Ambro.sian liturgy (Pameli’is, 
 Liturgg. Latt. i. 308). In the ancient Romm 
 church a special degree of mournfulness was 
 associated with this day, for we rind in the Gre¬ 
 gorian Liber Antiphonarius (col. 659. ed. Menard) 
 the nbtice that the Gloria in Ex elsis and Alle¬ 
 luia are not sung, “ .sed quasi prae tristitia dies 
 ilia deducitur.” Of this we may derive an illus¬ 
 tration, though of much later date, from the 
 Ordo Rom/inus (x. 26), which remarks that on 
 this day, except it fell on a Sunday, the Romans 
 abstain from flesh and fat. See also Amalarius 
 {de Eccl. Off, i. 41 ; Patrol, cv. 1074), and the 
 Micrologus {de Eccl. ohs. c. 36; Patrol, cli. 1005), 
 which mentions the further omission on this day 
 of the I'e Deum and He, missa est. He subjoins as 
 a reason for the sadness attaching to this day, that 
 the Innocents, though martyrs for Christ, *‘uon- 
 dum tamen ad gloriam, sed ad infernalem poenam 
 discesserunt.” 
 
 In the ancient lectionary of the Galilean 
 church, the prophetic lection, epistle, and gospel 
 were respectively Jer. xxxi. 15-20, Rev. vi. 9-11, 
 Matt. ii. 1-23 (Mabillon, de Liturgin Gal'icana, 
 lib. ii. p. 112; see also the service in the Gotho- 
 gallic missal, lib. Hi. p. 198). In the Mozarabic 
 liturgy, howevei’, they are respectively Jer. xxxi. 
 15-20, 2 Cor. i. 2-7, Matt, xviii. 13-1.5, 1-6, 
 10, 11 {Missale Mixtuin S. Isidori, p. 48, ed. 
 Leslie). 
 
 The Micrologus {supra') refers to the octave of 
 the festival of the Innocents as generally ob.served 
 (“ eodem modo ut aliorum Sanctorum celebra- 
 tur”). It would seem, however, that this is of 
 comparatively late date as a matter of general 
 observance, for according to Binterim {Denkw. 
 V. 1. 552), it is wanting in many calendars of the 
 Oth' century. A curious mistake must be men¬ 
 tioned here into which several have fallen in 
 connection with the octave of the festival of the 
 Innocents. In the Indiculus operum S. Au justini 
 by Possidius, is an entry “ de die octavarum In¬ 
 fantium; duo” {Patrol, xlvi. 16). This h;is been 
 taken by Baronius {Martgrologium Roman 'm, 
 Dec. 28 and Jan. 4, not.) and others as showing 
 the existence of an octave of the festival of the 
 Innocents in Augustine’s time. The two sermons, 
 however, of Augustine refer to the first t'unlay 
 after Easter, the octave of the day on which tlie 
 sacrament of baptism had been received, “ hoiie 
 octavae dicuntur infantium, revelanda sunt capita 
 eorum ” {Sermm. 260, 376 ; Patrol, xxxviii. 1201, 
 1669). 
 
 Attention has already been called to the prox¬ 
 imity of the festival of the Innocents to that of 
 the Nativity, in consequence of the association 
 of the two events commemorated. These two 
 indeed, with the commemorations on the two 
 intervening days of Stephen the protomartyr 
 and John the disciple whom Jesus loved, may 
 be suppo.sed to form one combined testival, all 
 centering in the idea of the Incai nation. Thus 
 we have a homily of Bernard of Ciairvaux de 
 Quatuor continuis solemnitatibus, scilicet Nativi- 
 tatii Domini ac Sanctorum Stephani, Johannis et 
 Innocentium {Patrol, clxxxiii. 129). 
 
 The day for the commemoration of the Inno¬ 
 cents in the Eastern church is December 29, 
 but we find in the Armeno-Gregorian calendar 
 (Neale, Eastern Church, Introd. p. 799) .lune 10 
 associated with them : this same calendar being 
 one of those which gives from what original 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 841 
 
 INNOCENTS, THE HOLY 
 
 cause does not appear, the amazing number of 
 14,000 for the infants slain. This is also the 
 case with the pictorial Moscow calendar prefixed 
 by Papebroch to the Acta Sanctorum for May 
 (vol. i. p. Ixxii.).** Numerous Eastern calendars, 
 however, do not contain this absurd addition (see 
 e.g. Ludolf, Fasti Sacri Ecclesiae Alexandrinae, 
 p. 16; Selden, de Sijnedriis veterum Ehraeorum, j 
 pp. 214,231, ed. Amsterdam, 1679). j 
 
 For further details on the subject of the fes- j 
 tival of the Innocents, reference may be made to | 
 Binterim, Denkvciirdigkeiten der Christ - Katho- j 
 lischen Kirche, v. 1. 549 ; August!, Denkwiirdig- \ 
 keiten aus der Chrisl lichen Archdoiogie, i. 304 sqq. : j 
 Assemani, Kalendarium Ecclesiae Universae, v. | 
 519. [R. S.] j 
 
 INNOCENTS, THE HOLY, MASSACRE 
 OF. Represented in the mosaics of Sta. M. Mag- 
 giore (Ciampini, V. M. I. tab. ii.), and in two 
 ivories, one of which (from a diptych in the 
 cathedral of Milan) is given by Martigny (s. v. 
 see woodcut); also on a sarcophagus at St. 
 Maximin, south of France (^Monum. de Ste. Made¬ 
 leine, t. i. col. 735, 736). Here it is contrasted 
 with another relief of the Adoration of the Magi, 
 
 to take into account—(1) The literature of the 
 subject, which is indeed the only division which 
 can be treated at all comprehensively in an 
 article like the present. (2) Technical execution. 
 (3) Symbols. (4) A selection of inscriptions, with 
 notes on some matters arising out of them. 
 (5) Their language and style. (6) The modes 
 of dating them. (7) An enumeration of the ab¬ 
 breviations which occur on them. 
 
 (i.) Literature of the Su'iject. —This matter is 
 ably treated of by M. De Rossi in the first thirty- 
 six pages of his preface to the Inscriptiones Chris- 
 tianae Ui-bis Eomae Septimo Saeculo Antijuiores^ 
 (Rome, 1857-1861 fol.). The principal facts are 
 as follows. The earliest collections of Christian 
 inscriptions of which we have any knowledge 
 belong to the age of Charles the Great, and were 
 made, as De Rossi thinks, by scholars of Alenin. 
 The most ancient of these is contained in an 
 Einsiedeln MS. written in the age of Alenin : 
 about a third of the whole collection is Chris¬ 
 tian, sepulchral examples however being wholly 
 wanting. Various compilations of inscriptions 
 were also now made, in which many of the 
 epitaphs written by pope Damasus, among other 
 Christian authors, were included ; and the small 
 
 Ivory Diptych at Milan. From Martigny. 
 
 the two pictures occupying two sides of a frieze, 
 and being divided by the titulus of the deceased. 
 Martigny also mentions an ivory diptych of this 
 subject, attributed to the period of Theodosius 
 the Younger, and published by M. Rigollot (Arfo 
 de Sculpture au moyen age). [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 INSACRATI. [Imposition of Hands, § 1.] 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS. In strictness of speech 
 every inscribed monument falls under this cate¬ 
 gory, unless the writing be upon skin or upon 
 paper ; and accordingly the great collections of 
 Greek and Latin inscriptions recently published at 
 Berlin include every kind of monument which is 
 inscribed, coins only excepted. These are some¬ 
 what arbitrarily but at the same time profit¬ 
 ably excluded, as belonging to a special depart¬ 
 ment of study. But in common parlance, by 
 Inscriptions, the larger monuments in stone are 
 intended, and in the following ai*ticle compara¬ 
 tively little notice will be taken of any others. 
 
 In treating of this vast subject it is proposed 
 
 h A still wilder estimate, however, is found in an 
 Auctarium to the martyrology of Usuardus, which fixes 
 the number at, 144,000 {Patrol, cxxiii. 848), probably with 
 reference to Rev, vii. 4. 
 
 remaining stone fragments of some of these can 
 be completed with certainty by their aid. The 
 collectors of these inscriptions cared little for 
 their historical value, and commonly omitted all 
 mention of their age or authors; they rather 
 designed them to be models, after which similar 
 verses might be composed. The others now 
 remaining in whole or in great part are— 
 (1) The Palatine MS. of the 11th century 
 (now in the Vatican), edited by Gruter, Thes. 
 Inscr., pp. MCLXIII.-MCLXXVII., who has omitted 
 a few profane epigrams, which are interspersed. 
 None of the Christian inscriptions seem to 
 be later than the 9th century, and they were 
 probably collected by some one who visited 
 Rome and various other places in Italy about the 
 close of that century. (2) A MS. of Kloster 
 Neuburg, about the llth century, consisting of 
 Christian inscriptions exclusively, which were 
 copied from Italian originals about the 8th cen- 
 
 ■ Le Slant’s catalogue of books relating to Christian 
 epigraphy, published at the entl of his Manuel, is a useful 
 supplement to this, and brings the bibliography down to 
 1869. De Rossi is less careful to notice printed books 
 than MS. collections, as being better known. After the 
 publication of Marini’s papers by Mai in 1831 he ceases 
 altogether. 
 
84-2 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTLONS 
 
 tury ; they are almost all historical, many being 
 by Damasus. (8) A Verdun MS. of the 10th 
 century, containing thirty-one^ Roman inscrip¬ 
 tions ; a collection independent of either of the 
 preceding, made in the 8th or 9th century. 
 
 Hae tres antiquissimae syllogae omnes trans 
 Aljies servatae nobis sunt; neque quidquam his 
 simile in Italiae nostrae bibliothecis uspiam 
 inveui .... Primi ergo veterum inscriptio- 
 num amatores trausaljiini omnes fuere . . . . 
 Ab Alcuiniaua aetate ad saeculum usque deci- 
 mum quartum .... antiquis inscriptionibus 
 colligendis nemo videtur operam navasse ” (De 
 Rossi, u. s. pp. X.* xi.*). 
 
 The 15th century saw the revival of epi- 
 graphic studies, but among the iuscrijitions col¬ 
 lected by Poggio, Signorili, Cyriaco, Feliciani, 
 Marcanova, Pehem, Schedel, and others, those 
 which are Cliristian ajiparent rarae,” and are 
 not separately classed. The earliest collector of 
 purely Christian inscriptions, who lived in the 
 age of the Renaissance, is Pietro Sabiui, who in 
 1495 presented his work, in MS., comprising 
 those which he had cojiied in Rome and out of 
 it, both from the originals and from ^ISS., to 
 Charles Vlll., king of France. The MS. has 
 been found in the library of St. Mark at Venice 
 by De Rossi, who aiHrms that some of the in¬ 
 scriptions are very valuable, and have been copied 
 b\' no other scholar; many however belong to a 
 late period. A volume of inscriptions from the 
 aucieut clnu'ches of Rome, made by Giovanni 
 Capoti in 1498, seems to have been of much the 
 same character. The otlier collectors of inscrip¬ 
 tions who lived from this time to the middle of 
 the 16th, added scarcely anything (vix mediocre 
 incrementum) to Christian epigraphy. Aldus 
 Manutius the Younger however applied himself 
 diligently to the collection of Christian inscrip¬ 
 tions among others, and twentv volumes of these 
 formed by various members of this illustrious 
 family are preserved in the Vatican, from which 
 De Rossi has derived no small profit. The most 
 important of these was compiled in 1506 and 
 1567, and is entirely filled with inscriptions con¬ 
 tained in Christian churches. The whole number 
 of Christian inscriptions hitherto collected from 
 all parts, from the 8th to the middle of the 16th 
 century, excluding those of very recent date, is 
 considerably less than a thousand; a great many 
 of these being contained in MS. only.*’ At pre¬ 
 sent more than 11,000 Christian inscriptions 
 earlier than the 7th centuiy are known to have 
 been found in Rome alone. With the exception 
 of a few epitaphs by Damasus copied in tombs 
 of the martyrs by the scholars of Alcuin, no 
 subterranean inscription had hitherto been de- 
 cyphered. But the discovery of the catacombs 
 of Rome in 1578 marks a new era in the study. 
 Ciaccone, L’Heureux or Macarius, Winghius, 
 Ugene, and somewhat later in time, but first and 
 foremost in diligence and success, Antonio Bosio, 
 were among the earliest explorers, and all were 
 more or less addicted to the study of Christian 
 
 *> The Editibui-gh Reciew for 1864, p. 221, goes so fur 
 as to SJiy that “ the results of the whole epoch (of the re- 
 vis’al of letters) may be summed up in (he single state¬ 
 ment, that more than a C'-ntury had elapsed after the 
 discovery of printing before a single inscription of the 
 early Christian centuries had been given to the world.” 
 
 Various MS volumes are mentioned by De Rossi (u. s. 
 pp. .\iv.*-xvii.*) of which no notice is taken here. 
 
 inscriptions. Soon after this time the Christian 
 inscriptions occupy a distinct place in Gruter’s 
 Corpus Inscriptionum, published in 1616; but 
 besides the Palatine Collection mentioned above, 
 all the others together reach only about 150, 
 although many more had been now cojiied in 
 Rome by several of his friends. Tliere can b<j 
 no doubt that Gruter cared comparatively little 
 about this class of inscriptions. The extensive 
 and accurate transcrijits of Bosio tvere trans¬ 
 ferred, after his death in 1629, to Severani, who 
 published the Roma Soiterar{ea in 1662 ; which 
 was republished in an enlarged Latin form by 
 Aringhi, in two folio volumes, in 16.50.* During 
 the half century that followed the publication 
 of Gruter’s groat work, many scholars collected 
 additional Christian inscriptions, some of the 
 most imj)ortant of which are still in M.8. Fspe- 
 cially to be named are those of .1. B. Doni (died 
 1647), preserved in the- iMarucelli Library at 
 Florence, “ codex inter primaria operis mei sub- 
 sidia numeraudus ” (De Rossi) ; of Sirmond (died 
 1651), in the Bibliotheque Natiouale at Paris 
 (very valuable, containing many still unpub¬ 
 lished), and of Peiresc (died 1667), whose In- 
 scriptiones Christianae et novae were consulted 
 at Paris by De Rossi, who si)eaks of their value, 
 more especially for the inscriptions of Gaul. 
 To these should be added the collections of F. 
 Ptolomeo (made about 1666), preserved in the 
 public library of Sienna, of which Muratori 
 made much use, and those of Brutio, in seven¬ 
 teen volumes, finished in 1679. pre.-.erved in the 
 Vatican, whose value is scarcely proportional 
 to their bulk. Between Aringhi (1650) and 
 Fabretti, whose folio volume on inscriptions 
 appeared in 1702, Montfaucon alone (so thinks 
 De Rossi) can be regarded as having materially 
 added to the knowledge of Christian epigraphy; 
 his MSS. were examined at Paris by De Rossi, 
 who thence derived some valuable additions to 
 his Roman inscriptions. It deserves however to 
 be recorded that William Fleetwood, fellow of 
 King’s College, Cambridge, afterwards bishop of 
 Ely, published in 1691 an fnscriptionum Antiqua- 
 ?'um Sylloge (Lond. 8vo), in two parts; the 
 second part, “ Christiana nionumenta antiqua 
 quae hacteuus innotuerunt omnia complec- 
 titur : ” these occupy nearly two hundred pages, 
 and are occasionally accompanied by brief notes.** 
 Zaccaria several times notices this work contro¬ 
 versially or otherwise (Z>iss. de Vet. Inscr. usu, 
 pp. 326, 327, 370, 382, 384, 388, 399), and it 
 is frequently quoted by other epigraphists as by 
 Marini, Le Blant, and De Rossi himself, though he 
 has not named it in his introduction. Fabretti’s 
 labours are both skilful and accurate; but the 
 types which the printer made use of were inade¬ 
 quate to express the true reading of his inscrip¬ 
 tions. Boldetti and Marangoni, who laboured in 
 concert in the same field as Bosio had done, “ are 
 
 « Dr. M‘Caul {Christian Epitaphs, pref. p. iv. note) 
 observes that these volumes “ have a reputation far be¬ 
 yond their merits.” There is no doubt, he adds, that 
 some forger of inscriptions imjxtsed both on Severani and 
 Aringhi. I »e Rossi promises a detailed account of this 
 matter, p. xxvi*. 
 
 t* We can the less atford to pass it over, though it ap¬ 
 pears to be little else but acoinpilation from o'her authors, 
 as it is almost the only work on Chri^tian epigraphy ex¬ 
 pressly devoted to the subject, that has appeared in this 
 country till quite lately. 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 S43 
 
 made especially memorable by one of those cata¬ 
 strophes, which occasioually diversity the monoto¬ 
 nous history of student life. They had spent 
 more than thirty years in the exploration of the 
 catacombs and other sacred antiquities ot Rome. 
 Boldetti’s volume, published in 1720 at Rome 
 [entitled Osservazioni s pm i cimiteri de’ Santi 
 3Iartir{], comprised a portion ot the results; 
 but by far the greater j>art still remained in 
 WS., when in 17b7 an unlucky tire destroyed in 
 a few hours the fruit of all these yeai’s of toil¬ 
 some research. The loss, it is melancholy to 
 add, was complete and irreparable. Boldetti’s 
 great age jjrecluded all hopes of his being able 
 to repair his portion of the work. Marangoni 
 although grievously depressed resumed his 
 labours with great enei’gy ; but M. De Rossi has 
 everywhere sought in vain for the results ot his 
 attempted restor;ition ” (^Iid'rdmrgh Rev. u. s. p. 
 222). The destruction of these papers has left a 
 void which can hardly be supplied ; the chambers 
 which they e.xplored are now ‘‘ demolita et hor- 
 reiidum in modum vastata ” (De Rossi). Bol- 
 detti indeed and those whom he employed to 
 coj)V the inscriptions have been proved to be very 
 inaccurate both as regards the sites of their dis¬ 
 covery and the reading of the texts;® ‘‘ei me 
 iratissimum esse proHteor,” says De Rossi (p. 
 xxvii.*). Marangoni was much more exact, and 
 his App'.ndix ad Acta S. I'ictorini, Rom. 1740, 
 4", IS a work of considerable value. P. Lupi, a 
 friend of these scholars, has left, besides various 
 printed works relating to epigraphy, a valuable 
 collection of inscriptions preserved in MS. in the 
 Vatican at Rome; and a similar collection by the 
 celebrated Buonarotti is preserved at Florence. 
 
 It became evident that the time had now 
 arrived when a fresh collection of Christian in¬ 
 scriptions should incorporate the previous dis¬ 
 coveries of so many scholars. The industrious 
 Gori projected such a work, in which they should 
 be so arranged as to illustrate the doctrines, the 
 ceremonies, the hierarchy and the discipline of 
 the church. But his other engagements pre¬ 
 vented. The MSS. however of his friends 
 Stoscli, Ficoroni and others, containing materials 
 for the work, are stored up in the Marucelli 
 Library at Florence, where they were consulted 
 with profit by De Rossi. The task was in some 
 measure executed by the indefatigable Muratori, 
 whose Xovus 'rhesaurm Vetcrum fnscriptionum 
 published at Milan in 1739 in four folio volumes, 
 contains, in addition to the profane inscriptions, 
 a larger number of Christian ones than had ever 
 yet appeared, being taken both from printed and 
 from Ms. sources: but the work was very un¬ 
 critically executed, and his conjectural additions 
 are not distinguished from the actual readings of 
 the broken inscriptions. ^laffei, who has been 
 called the founder of lapidary criticism, had 
 undertaken in conjunction with Seguier a great 
 body of inscriptions, in which there should be a 
 purely Christian division ; but both these and 
 various other scholars, who had cherished like 
 good intentions, bore no fruit to perfection. 
 
 It now also again entered into the minds of 
 more than one divine to turn the extant mass 
 
 « De Rossi (under his fnscr. Urb. Horn. n. 17, p. 24) 
 calls him a man “cujiis in iil genus apographis e.xcipi- 
 endis imperiiiam et iiicuriam non ceutena, sed millena 
 exempla tesiantur." 
 
 of Christian inscriptions to theological account; 
 and with somewhat better success. The learned 
 Jesuit A. F. Zaccaria contemplated a very exten¬ 
 sive work, in which the more interesting Chris¬ 
 tian inscriptions should be arranged under the 
 following heads: (i.) Religio in Deum; (ii.) 
 Religio in Sanctos; (iii.) Templa; (iv.) Tem- 
 plorum ornamenta, vasa sacra, idque genus 
 caetera ; (v.) Dies Festi ; (vi.) Sacramenta ; (vii.) 
 Hierarchia ecclesiastica ac primo Romani Pon- 
 tificis; (viii.) Fpiscoid ; (ix.) Presbyteri; (x.) 
 Ordines majores ; (xi.) Ordines minores; (xii.) 
 Monachi; (xiii.) Laici ; (xiv.) Laici dignitato 
 praestantes; (xv.) Artes atque officia minora; 
 (xvi.) Leges ecclesiasticae (De Rossi, u. s. p. 
 XXX.*) This magnilo(iuent announcement how¬ 
 ever was never carried out ; but a kind of first 
 fruits were put forth in 17G2 in a treatise 
 entitled De ve!emin Christianoruin in 7'ebns 
 t/ieolO(jicis usu.^ In this work he brings together 
 with a considerable amount of industry and 
 learning such inscriptions as bear or seem to 
 bear upon the doctrines of his church ; “ quae non 
 ultra septimum nostrae aerae saeculum progre- 
 diuntur, ne haereticis cavillandi detur occasio ” 
 (7/iCS. Theol. Diss. p. 325). Martigny however 
 calls it “ un livre mediocre ; ” and speaks of his 
 friend and imitator, Danzetta, as having written 
 “ avec moins de sucebs encore ” ® {Diet. p. 305). 
 The bearing of inscriptions upon doctrinal or dis¬ 
 ciplinary controver.sy is “a j)erfectly legitimate 
 use of the subject,'' and indeed its true ultimate 
 end, but one for which from the insufficiency of 
 the data the time had not [in the 18th century] 
 fully arrived.” {lid n'mrcjk ReVieic,u. s. p. 224.) 
 Nor can it be said to have fully arrived now. In 
 a few years’ time it will probably be otherwise. 
 
 Zaccaria in his later years encouraged a rising 
 young scholar, Gaetano ilariui, to undertake the 
 task which he had found to be too much for 
 himself. Marini set about the work with great 
 spirit, and from 1765 to 1801 worked at it, not 
 exclusively indeed, but yet so as never to allow 
 his labours to be wholly intermitted. An ample 
 account of his preparations and of the merits and 
 defects of his performances is given by De Rossi. 
 (m. s. pp. xxxi.*-xxxii.*). By help of his 
 friends in Italy and his own labour he had 
 amassed about 8600 Christian inscriptions in 
 Latin, and about 750 in Greek from all parts 
 of the world, of the first ten centuries. But 
 these were in a confused, imperfect and uncritical 
 I state. “ Marini’s labours were interrupted by 
 the French Revolution ; and at his death he be¬ 
 queathed to the Vatican Library the materials 
 which he had compiled, and which, having 
 
 f Published in the Thesaurus Theolog. Dissertationum 
 vol. i. pp. 325-396, Venet. 1762, 4to; apparently for the 
 first time (see Fra<fatio generalis'). Le Biaiit (in his 
 Bibliographic) gives 1761 as tlie date. It has been re¬ 
 published by Migne in his Cursus Theolog. completus. 
 
 g It would seem from De Rossi’s remarks (p xxxi*) 
 that his Theologia Lapuiai-ia exists only in MS. (in the 
 Vatican). He gained from it a lew unpublished inscrip¬ 
 tions which Danzetta had taken from the papers of Ma¬ 
 rangoni. 
 
 *> For the ecclesiastical historian inscriptions of all 
 pcricals will of course have their own value; and many of 
 them yield up a great deal of information and furnish 
 ‘‘illustrations of almost every branch of Christian litera¬ 
 ture, history, and antiquities” {Bdiuburgh Review, \i. B, 
 p. 231), 
 
844 
 
 INSCKIPTIOXS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 recently been put in order by M. De Rossi are t 
 found to fill no fewer than 31 volumes. Among 
 these, four volumes had been partially prepared 
 for publication, of which the first was in a com¬ 
 paratively forward state. This is the Tnscrip- 
 tionum Chriatianarum pars prima, which is 
 printed in the fifth volume of Mai’s Scripto)'um 
 Veterum Nova CoUecth, in 1831. And perhaps 
 it may be said that it is to the incomplete and 
 unsatisfactory condition of the remaining por¬ 
 tion of Marini’s paj)ers that we are indebted 
 for much of the far more critical and scholaHy 
 work of M. De Rossi, entitled Inscriptiones 
 Urbis Romae Scpthno Saealo anti/uiores (Rom. 
 1857-61, fol. pp. 619+123 pro!. +40 praef.) 
 This publication WiU undertaken at the expi-ess 
 solicitation of Cardinal Mai, who finding the 
 task of preparing for the ])ress the rest of 
 Marini’s materials entirely incompatible with 
 his other engagements, transferred to his young 
 and learned friend the undertaking for which 
 his tastes, his studies, and his genuine love 
 of the subject pointed him out to Mai as 
 eminently fitted.” (Acfmiwn/A Rev. u. s. pp. 
 224, 225, slightly altered.) the first volume of 
 this great work, the only one known to the 
 writer, and perhaps the only one yet published, 
 contains those Roman inscriptions only whose 
 precise or approximate date is positively known.* 
 The number of these is 1126 ; among which we 
 have one belonging to the first century, two to the 
 beginning of the second (all very brief and unim¬ 
 portant), and twenty-three to the third; the 
 fourth and fifth centuries have between four 
 and five hundred each, and the sixth century a 
 little more than two hundred. Fragments and 
 additional inscriptions contained in the appendices 
 bring the number up to 1374. 
 
 The second part of his work is intended to 
 include select inscriptions interesting for their 
 theological and historical worth; and in the last 
 place he will include all the remaining inscrip¬ 
 tions arranged accord?\ig to the localities where 
 thev were found ; and also the Jewish inscrip¬ 
 tion found in Rome.*' 
 
 We can afford no more space to notice this 
 masterly performance, which every one who 
 desires to become acquainted with Christian 
 inscriptions must necessarily study ; an interest¬ 
 ing account of it, and also of the work following 
 will be found in the Edinburgh Review for July, 
 1864. 
 
 The impulse given to Christian epigraphy by 
 De Rossi’s great work, and by his other works of 
 smaller dimensions' has been manifested by the 
 
 ‘ He calls them Epitapkia certam, tempoins notam ex- 
 hibentia. Notwithstanding this, the mark of time on the 
 stone, by reason of its fragmentary condition, often leaves 
 the exact date uncertain. See, for example, n. 986, the 
 date of which may be 522 or 485, and n. 999, which may 
 be of the year 525, 524, 454, or 453. 
 
 k Under each inscription mention is made of the place 
 where it w’as found, where it has been edited, if at all, or 
 from what MSS. it has been copied by the editor, if he 
 have not himself transcribed it. Plates are in most cases 
 added. If the inscriptions were more frequently written 
 out in common minuscules, besides being figured, they 
 would be more easily read by the non-antiquarian scholar 
 or student. 
 
 1 His Bulletino di Archeologia Cristiana, of which the 
 first VO ume (in twelve monthly parts) appeared in 1863 
 (Roma, tipografia Salviucci, 4to) is a magazine of most 
 
 I publication of other books relating to the subject, 
 among vvhich those which comprise the Christian 
 in.scriptions en masse of particular countries hold 
 the first rank. And among these w’e must place 
 at the head the Inscriptions Chfdliennes de la 
 Gaule antd'rieures an VIII"**. Siecle. edited and 
 annotated by M. Edmond Le Blant, in 2 vols 
 4to., Paris, 1856, and 1865, comprising 708 in¬ 
 scriptions, nearly all Latin, but a few Greek, and 
 a few also written in Runes.*“ The earliest dated 
 inscription belongs to the year 334, and the 
 latest to 695; but only four of these are as early 
 as the 4th century. Of the rest that are dated 
 about 50 belong to the 5th century, nearly 100 
 to the 6th, and 13 to the 7th century. A few 
 which are undated are certainly before the age 
 of Constantine {Manuel, p. 124). 
 
 The same learned author has likewise more 
 recently, in 1869, written a Manuel d'Epijraphie 
 Chretienne d^apres les marbres de la Gaule, ac- 
 compagnd d'une bibliographie speciale, i.e., a 
 catalogue of books relating to Christian epi¬ 
 graphy generally, Paris, sm. 8vo. pp. 267. Al¬ 
 though this valuable" work refers more especially 
 to Gaulish inscriptions, there is a great deal about 
 others also; in particular his enumeration of 
 formulae (Greek and Latin) which occur in dif¬ 
 ferent parts of the Christian w'orld, in Europe, 
 Asia and Africa, where diflerent provinces have 
 their own styles of epigraphy, is peculiarly in¬ 
 structive (pp. 76-81), and a translation wfill be 
 found below. The Christian inscriptions ofSpain 
 have very recc.itly been edited by one of the 
 most eminent living epigraphists. Prof. E. Hiibner, 
 of Berlin. His Inscriptiones Hispaniae Chris- 
 tianae was published at Berlin in 1871, and in¬ 
 cludes 209 inscriptions, besides 89 others of the 
 medieval period comprised in the appendix. Of 
 the earlier ones two or three only can be referred 
 to the 4th century ; the others are of the 5th, 
 6th, 7th and 8th centuries; about half of them 
 are dated, the earliest being of the year 465, and 
 the latest being 782. Nearly all are in Latin ; a 
 very few only in Greek. A splendid publication 
 commenced in 1870, entitled Christian Inscrip¬ 
 tions in the Irish Language, chiefly collected and 
 drawn by G. Petrie, LL.D., edited by M. Stokes, 
 Dublin, printed at the University, 4to. Four 
 parts have now (1874) been published. Those of 
 Clonmacnois (above 100 in number) range from 
 
 valuable information for inscriptions among other anti¬ 
 quities. Other works of his (some unknown to the 
 writer) on this subject are enumerated by Le Blant in his 
 Bibliographie at the end of his Manuel d’Epigraphie. 
 
 “ Both this and Hiibiier’s work (see below) give details 
 for each inscription in the same exact and comprehensive 
 manner as De Rossi, and are accompanied by numerous 
 plates. M. Le Blant has subsequently obtained additional 
 inscriptions from various parts of 1 ranee and Switzerland, 
 which will one day, he hopes, form a rich supplement to 
 his former work {Manue\ p. 1). 
 
 “ It is notwithstanding to l>e regretted that so useful 
 a book was not put together with a little more fulness and 
 precision : it is divided into nineteen chapters, but nothing 
 is said either at the beginning of the work or at the head 
 of each respecting the contents of the chapters; the list 
 of books placed at the end of the volume scarcely satisfies 
 the requirements of the bibliographer, as it almost inva¬ 
 riably omits the Christian name or initials of the authors 
 mentioned, and the number of volumes in each work. At 
 the same time it will be found very helpful without 
 being by any means complete, particularly as regards 
 English books. 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 845 
 
 the 7th to the 12th century in a regular series; 
 and by their help it is hoj)ed that, a key to the 
 approximate date of such works in other parts 
 of the country as well as in other parts of 
 the British Islands may be obtained. They 
 occupy the first part of the work. All the above 
 works are beautifully illustrated with figures. 
 There are also other recent books which deal 
 with the Christian inscriptions of particular re¬ 
 gions. Among them are to be named C. Gazzera, 
 Delle iscrizioni cristiune antiche del Piononte dis- 
 corso, Torino, 1850, 4to. (also in Mem. Accad. 
 di Torino, 1851); J. B. De Rossi, Pe Christianis 
 titulis Carthaginiensib :s (in Pitra’s Spicil. Solesm. 
 vol. 4); and (along with the Pagan inscriptions) 
 L. Renier, Inscriptions Ilomaines de VAlgerie, 
 Paris, 1858, fol. 
 
 The Corpus Inscriptionwn Latinarum, whose 
 publication is still going forward at Berlin, 
 includes, with specified exceptions, all Latin 
 inscriptions, both Pagan and Christian, which 
 can be placed with certainty or reasonable pro¬ 
 bability before 600 a.d. (see pref. to vols. ii. 
 and iii.). The Christian inscriptions are dis¬ 
 tinguished in the indices by a dagger prefixed.® 
 
 A great number of Welsh inscriptions, the 
 earliest being probably about the 7th century, 
 will be found in the numerous volumes of the 
 Archaeologia Cambrensis, 1846, sqq. 8vo., mostly 
 described by the well-known palaeographer 
 Prof. Westwood. But a conspectus of the whole 
 of the early Christian inscriptions of Great Britain 
 and Ireland ft will, it is to be hoped, in process 
 of time be included in Messrs. A. W. Haddan and 
 W. Stubbs’ Councils and Ecclesiastical Docu¬ 
 ments relating to Great Britain, of which the 
 first volume appeared at Oxford in 1869, 8vo., 
 part of the second in 1871, and the third in 
 1873. The very scanty inscribed Christian re¬ 
 mains of the Roman period will be found at 
 vol. i. pp. 39, 40 vol. ii. p. xxii. (Addenda) 
 
 ° It is a.stonlshing how small a number of Latin 
 Christian inscriptions (or, at any rate inscriptions known 
 to be Christian) occur in some countries. In vol. iii. 
 edited by Mommsen, which includes Egypt, Asia, Illy- 
 ricum, and the provinces of European Greece, there are 
 only about thirty inscriptions which can be counted upon 
 as Christian out of 6574. Of these several were found toge¬ 
 ther at a place in Dalmatia. 
 
 p The books where the inscriptions are described and 
 figured are fully detailed under each inscription in the 
 same complete manner as in De Rossi’s, Le Blant’s, and 
 Hiibner’s works already mentioned. It is hardly neces¬ 
 sary therefore to say much of any of them here; many 
 of them are periodicals, others are monographs on parti¬ 
 cular cla.sses of monuments, particularly Stuart's Sculp¬ 
 tured Stones of Scothind (printed for the Spalding Club, 
 Edinb. 1856-1867, 2 vols. tol.); G. .Stephen’s Old Northern 
 Runic Monuments (London and Copenhagen, 2 vols. fol. 
 1866-1868); Munch’s edition of the Chron. Manniae 
 (Christian, 1860). A great number also of topographical 
 and archaeological works by Ly.sons, Ilodg.son, Nichols, 
 C. Roach Smith, Horsley, Borlase, &c. are brought under 
 contribution. 
 
 q The Lincoln inscription is considered by HUbner 
 {Inscr. Brit. Bat. n 191) to be of the 16th century. If 
 80 , perhaps the only Roman Chri>tian inscription which 
 deserves the name must be .-truck off. The chrisma, 
 how'ever, has been found on six or seven monuments of 
 different kinds (without counting coins), once with the 
 a and u> (Haddan and .Stubbs, u.s.'). The chrisma occurs 
 also on a lamp in the Newcastle must'um, published by 
 Hilbner («. s. p. 210, n. 27), who likewise gives two rings 
 with the Christian acclamation, “ Vivas in Deo,” found 
 
 auJ p. 51. To these will perhaps be added .a 
 Roman imscription found at Sea-mills, near 
 Bristol, in 1873, seen by the writer, but whether 
 it be Chri.stian or no “ adhuc sub judice lis est.”' 
 The sepulchral Christian inscriptions in Celtic 
 Britain, a.d. 450-700, mostly in Latin, but one 
 or two in Welsh, vol. i. jip. 162-169; some few 
 of the Latin inscriptions being accomj)anied by 
 Ogham characters. The same class of inscrip¬ 
 tions in Wales, a.d. 700-1100, vol. i. pp. 625— 
 633 (Latin); the inscriptions of Scottish and 
 English Cumbria (a.d. 450-900, vol. ii. pp. 51- 
 56), some Latin, some (at Ruthwell near Dum¬ 
 fries, and at Bewcastle in Cumberland) Runic, 
 The inscribed monuments (very few) in the 
 Pictish and Scottish kingdoms (ad, 400-900), 
 partly Latin, partly in Runes and Oghams, are 
 in vol. ii. pp. 125-132 ; those of the Isle of Man, 
 nearly all Runes, of Norwegian origin (one may 
 be Gaelic), and inscribed on crosses, whose date is 
 not given, will be found in vol. ii. pp. 185-187. 
 There still remain to follow the Saxon inscrip¬ 
 tions of the period of the Heptarchy and the 
 Monarchy.* 
 
 A w’ork has yet to be mentioned, which is 
 perhaps of greater importance to the student 
 of Christian epigraphy than any which has 
 been already named, De Rossi’s only excepted ; 
 viz., the Christian inscrij)tions, which are con¬ 
 tained in Bockh’s Curjnis Inscriptionum Grae- 
 carum (vol. iv. I'asc. 2, Berlin, 1859, fol., plates). 
 They are collected and edited by Prof, A. Kirchotf, 
 the same great epigraphist who has just been 
 occupied upon the Covp’s Inscriptionum Attica- 
 rum. The Christian inscriptions begin at No. 
 8606 and terminate at No. 9893, besides a few in 
 the Addenda ; thus making a total of nearly 1300 
 inscriptions of all ages and in almost all parts 
 of the Roman world, down to the fall of the 
 
 in England (pp. 234, 235), as well as other rings which 
 seem to be Christian. The Romano-Christian remains 
 in Britain are so extremely rare that it seems to be 
 worth while to make these slight additions to what will 
 be found in Messrs. Haddan and .Stubbs' work. Mr. 
 Wright’s statement {Celt, Roman and Sax'jn, p. 298) 
 that “ not a trace of Christianity is found among the innu¬ 
 merable religious and sepulchral monuments of the 
 Roman period fotmd in Britain,” cannot bo safety contra¬ 
 dicted. The Westminster and Bristol monuments may 
 possibly be exceptions. So much can hardly be said oi* 
 one or two others which have been suspected to be 
 Christian. See Dr. M’Caul’s remarks on the Chesterholm 
 stone in the Canadian Journal for 1874. 
 
 r See Proc. of Soc. of Antiq. Nov, 1873, pp. 68-71 
 Archaeolog. Journ. 1874, pp. 41-46 (with figure). 
 
 > Until these appear, it may be useful to indicate some 
 of the principal sources of information. In addition to 
 the books already referred to, among which Professor G. 
 Stephen’s Runic Monuments is the principal, Pegge’s 
 Sylloge and Camden’s Britannia, with the additions of 
 Gibson and Gough, may be consulted. Among the 
 periodiciils, the Yorkshire Archaeological and Topogra¬ 
 phical Journal and the Proceedings of the llVsf Riding 
 of Yorkshire Geolog. and Polgtexhnic Society are more 
 especially to be mentioned, where the Runic and other 
 early inscriptions of Yorkshire are described by tlie Rev. 
 D. Haigh and the Rev. J. Fowler. Professor HUbner 
 informs the writer that he hopes his Inscripliones Bri- 
 tannuae ('hristianae w'iW appear in the i ourse of 1875, 
 which will bo analogous in all resjiects to ihe Inscr. 
 Hisp. Christ. It includes all l.atin inscriptions down to 
 about 800 r.c. “ As there are in Wales some few in 
 Oghams only, while the rest is in part bilingual, I do 
 not,” he says, “exclude those few merely Celtic ones.” 
 
846 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 Byznntine empire. To these are to be added 
 about sixty already included in the earlier parts 
 of the book, which are evidently of Christian 
 times C‘ quos Christianae esse aetatis apparet ”). 
 They are divided into three classes. (1) Tituli 
 operum publicorum et votivi, the first division 
 of which is arranged chronologically, the second 
 comprising those whose age is uncertain. Of 
 the former division there are 175, but none is 
 earlier than the' 4th century, a copy of a letter 
 of St. Athanasius, the only authority for the 
 Greek text, being perhaps the earliest of all ; 
 there are only six or seven others which can be 
 referred to the 4th century. The fifty-eight 
 which follow these comprise all which are of the 
 fifth and following centuries, several of them 
 being in verse, to the death of Charlemagne, of 
 which number about twelve belong to the age of 
 Justinian (a.d. 527—505). The most important 
 of these perhaps is a copy of the paschal canon 
 of St. Hippolytus, which ap])ears to have been 
 engraved in the reign of Theodosius ; most of the 
 othei's are inscriptions on various kinds of build- ’ 
 ings, such as churches, monasteries, hospitals, I 
 towers, and there are two or three which are in¬ 
 vocations of the Virgin and the saints, or prayers 
 for the welfare of the persons mentioned. 
 
 (2) The second class comprises 156 inscrip¬ 
 tions on mosaics, fictile and other vessels, glass, 
 lamps, triptj'chs or other wooden tablets, “ et 
 variae supellectilis sacrae et profanae, ponderum, 
 &igillorum,amuletorum, gemmarum ” (Nos.8953— 
 9109). About seventy of tiiese are on seals 
 (nearly all lead); a few are as early as the 7th 
 and 8th centuries. Some of those however on 
 gems and glass are much eaidier, and some 
 notice has been taken of tiiese in the articles on 
 those subjects in this Dictionary. 
 
 (3) The remaining class contains no less than 
 783 inscriptions, all sepulchral, and these are 
 arranged by the regions in which they are found. 
 Those which bear dates are comparatively very 
 few. (a) Egvpt, Nubia, and the rest of Africa 
 (Nos. 9110-9D37); (6) Syria (Nos. 9138-9154); 
 (c) Asia Minor (Nos. 9i55-9287); ((/) Greece 
 and lllyricum (Nos. 9288-9449, of which 114 are 
 from Athens); (c) Sicily and Malta (Nos. 9450- 
 9540); (/) Italy and Sardinia (Nos. 9541-9885); 
 (^) Gaul and Germany (Nos. 9886-9893). 
 
 Various other Greek Christian inscriptions 
 have been since published ; in particular, it may 
 be observed that a few have been found in Spain 
 and Algeria, countries from which Kirchoff has 
 not given a single example (Hiibuer, u. s. ji. v. 
 praef.; Renier, u. s. j)p. 255, 349). 
 
 From what has now been said, it must be appa¬ 
 rent how utterly hopeless and impossible it is to 
 give within the limits of an article in a die- 
 tionary a satisfactory account of this immensely 
 numerous class of Christian antiquities. The 
 most important aid which such an article can 
 render must be to indicate the principal sources 
 of information; and these, if De Rossi’s labours 
 are carried out, will be very largely increased 
 in the course of a few years. 
 
 A little woik however has been published 
 at Toronto in 1869 by the Rev. John M'Caul, 
 LL.D., in which a judicious selection of a hundred 
 “ Christian ejutaphs of the first six centuries” 
 (Greek and Latin from various parts of the 
 world, esj)ecially from Rome) has been brought i 
 together and ably commented upon. They occupy ] 
 
 sixty-eight pages, and an introduction relating 
 to the language, names, and dates employe.! liU 
 up twenty-eight moie. Besides these we have 
 a brief jueface pointing out the neces!<ity of 
 caution in using uncritical books, like tho.se of 
 Aringhi and Boldetti, and giving amusing ex¬ 
 amples of forgeries of Christian inscriptions, 
 which have deceived .some learned writers even 
 of the present century. To those who cannot 
 give any great amount of attention to the sub¬ 
 ject. this little work may be heartily recom¬ 
 mended, as it bears every mark of cous'eientious 
 care and of strict honesty. 
 
 (ii.) Technical Execnti.n and ]\[aterlnls em¬ 
 ployed .—The modes of writing emjiloved have 
 much the same variations as in all ages : the 
 letters are most commonly engraved with a chisel 
 below the surface of the stone, and then occasion¬ 
 ally coloured (red)or gilded; sometimes the letters 
 are scratched with the jioint of some instrument, 
 a nail or the like (fig. 1); on some gems the 
 
 1. Letters sc'iatcLwl on moi-tar. a.d. 339. (Rome.) 
 
 letters are in relief (camei). Jlore rarely the 
 letters are drawn in paint (vermilion) (fig. 2) 
 or in gold upon the flat surface of the marble, 
 or cut in gold leaf (upon glass), or written in 
 ink upon sepulchral tablets or vases, ^r in white 
 
 4: K AJU C o y-A z YXyh gj uj- ^ \ 
 
 , 'e2:'n>^TeP*Nr ujNUJNeic:-^- ; 
 ^0B€N-£PeiB0YcaereB eN&iec-AoYNAjw^ ;• 
 
 ;E>a-eicn«rrejTU)<xiJ KTu; TOY 
 
 2. Lexters (Latin words in Greek characters) painted iii vermilion on 
 ttie tlat (not incised) surface of the marble; they are of mixed 
 forms, uncial and minuscule. Leaves and i>uints introduced 
 capi iciously. a d. 269. (Rome. The famous epitaph of St. 
 Severa.) 
 
 colour on frescoes, &c. In the catacombs the 
 inscriptions were occasionally, by reason of the 
 unhappiness of the times, smeared in charcoal, 
 in hope that when persecution had passed away, 
 they might be recorded in a more permanent 
 
 3. Words divide.! uniformly by points. 7th century. (Ely.) 
 
 form. Sometimes also old tomb.stonos of tne 
 pagans were used over again, and the Christian 
 iusttriptions were written on their backs, or on 
 their oblitertited faces (fig. 5). Points are also 
 frequently found, sometimes to distinguish words 
 (Rg. 3), sometimes scattered cauriciously (figs. 
 
INSCKIPTIONS 
 
 INSCPilPTIONS 
 
 847 
 
 2, 4); likewise a variety of other marks, par¬ 
 ticularly cordate leaves, common to pagan and 
 
 KMUJNYtlO 2/ HZH_ 
 
 rEN-E TH-IA-HHBPAS-Kr 
 
 ErfAHYtHseN Dl'lFKAArNOBgHBP 
 r/«^AUJ YtlATorz? 
 
 4. Words divided, bnf not constantly, by varions small marks. 
 Irrejjubir uncial letters, a.u. 298. (Rome.) 
 
 Christian inscriptions (figs. 2, 5, 6). Some of 
 the above remarks are illustrated by the in.scrip- 
 tions figured above and below, to be more fully 
 described under To.mu. The reailer may see 
 more on this sutiject in Martigny’s Diet. s. v. 
 Inscriptions, §§ IT, III.; but it can only be 
 studied to ailvantacfe by e.xamining the plates 
 In such works as De Ro.ssi’s Hom'i Sotterranex 
 
 ~r^-PA i. HERACIIV5 
 
 111 OV'nVIT IN 5 AR^/LVM 
 
 HCULVN ^ 3 IBI ^ 
 iTlUO - SVOBENEMmNTMNP 
 
 DECE.SlTVIHRySflB'S^ ^ 
 
 __II lv«sotrot.,ErAio.< 
 
 ' J eor«S 4 % 
 
 6. Inscription ■written on a .scraped portion of a parcopbapu® pre¬ 
 viously useil. Rrani-lies, leave.s, and various small marks 
 introduce ! between .some ot the words. A.u. 338. (Rome.) 
 
 (coloured plate.s) and Tnscr. Crh. Rom., and the 
 other books named above in which the letters 
 and accessories are figured. The same remark 
 must be made of the palaeography. The letters 
 have the same varieties of form, such as uncial, 
 minuscule, rustic, and ligated, which are com¬ 
 mon to JISS. and monuments of all kinds, and 
 
 PETRoNMEDigWAE COIV 9 I QVEVmT ANbllS 
 XXlETfEClTCVM CONPABE SVOrAXU V 
 KAl^‘NOB>^r0S CONSS CRATIANI TERETEgVm 
 - VRSVS AVARTTVS SIBI ETINNOCENT! CO 
 ^AVPARI lECIT CESQVET IN PACE 
 
 6. Marks of different kinds before and after one word only: strokes 
 drawn tbrougli two letlei's to indicate tliat they .stand for words 
 (vtenaes and uies). Regular uiudal letters, a.u. 376. (Rome.) 
 
 their execution varies from extreme neatness 
 (figs. 6, 10) and even beauty to extreme ugli¬ 
 ness and carele.ssness (//ti(?/’a(? nisticae) (fiajs. 1, 8). 
 Of the former sort the characters employed by 
 pope Damasus in tiie 4th century are the most 
 remarkable, their apices being ornamented with 
 little hooks (fig. 7). They are called after him 
 
 7. Inscription (completed by conjecture) written in the Uamasine 
 uncLal characters (in •i'eil). 4tli ceuturj'. (Rome.) 
 
 gravetl, .sometimes painted on the marble. There 
 are also many Christian inscriptions as well as 
 
 ^.£PYCC^<'^KZO 
 qvlvi yjT v/vv 
 
 leA^f'EpTl^Avc^ 
 
 (tN l?A^AA0T^ f, 
 q/ ivCl r-/\ <;Mllo 
 
 8. Example of rnde palaeography. Ru-stic letters. No points or 
 othei marks, a.u. 4t‘4. (Rome.) 
 
 others which are not Christian, where letters are 
 connected by ligatures {litterae ligatxe ); some¬ 
 times to that degree that it is no easy matter to 
 
 9. inscription remaikable for (he complexity of its ligatures. 
 A.U. 650. (Near Arjoiia, Spain.) 
 
 deevpher them (fig. 9). For some observations 
 on the form of letters in coi tain Christian inscrip¬ 
 tions see Le Blant, Manuel, pp. 41, 42; Hiibner, 
 
 lO. Inscriptiontin minnsente letters of x ariable form. 7th century. 
 (Cluiimaciiuis, Ireland.) 
 
 u.s. p. 116; De Rossi, Bull. Arch. Crist. 1863, 
 
 p. 18. 
 
 (iii.) Symbols .—Of the symbols which are found 
 with some Christian inscriptions, the princi])al 
 are the following: the fish, the anchor, tlie dove, 
 the Good Shejdierd. the chrisma. the a and at, :'.nd 
 the cross in various forms. These will be fotiiul 
 described under thedr respective heads (also 
 noticed under Gk.ms and .Mos.mcs). and they 
 may be regarded as either exclusively or priu- 
 
 Damasine letters ; but Philocalus was his artist, 
 or one of his artists. Tiioy are sometimes en- 
 
848 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 ci))ally Chriutian symbols. The palm which is 
 also found, and that v'ery commonly, is, like the 
 phoenix, Christiani‘ied; but it occurs also on 
 pagan and Jewish inscriptions. It must be 
 sufficient to refer to a table indicating the 
 symbols on the early Roman and Gaulish sepul¬ 
 chral inscriptions (by far the most complete 
 series), and the observed dates of their intro¬ 
 duction and disappearance, given by M. Le Blant 
 (^Manuel, p. 29). For'symbols generally see 
 Raoul Rochette, Tableau des C (tacombes de Borne, 
 pp. 229 s<iq., Paris, 1853, and the authors named 
 at the beginning and end of the book. 
 
 (iv.) Select Inscriptions .—These consist of such 
 examples, arranged chronologically, in prose and 
 verse, as are connected with churches or their 
 furniture or adjuncts, and they have mostly 
 some further interest of their own. No uniform 
 system of j)rinting has been followed. Sometimes 
 the mere transcript of the letters seems to be 
 sufficient; sometimes the words have been written 
 out (corrected and at length) below these ; some¬ 
 times a translation has been added ; also such 
 notes as seemed desirable. 
 
 1. De Rossi, BuUetihO di Arch. Crist. 1864, p. 28 ; 
 Renier, Tnscr. Bom. de VAlg. n. 4025. 
 From Caesarea in ]\Iauretania; written by 
 a poet named Asterius (ex ingenio Asteri) to 
 commemorate the gift of a burial-ground to 
 the Christians by Evelpius. 
 
 ARFAM AT (ad) SEFVLCRA CVLTOR VERBI 
 CON rVLIT 
 
 trr CEl.LAM STRV'XIT SViS CVNCTIS SVMP- 
 TIB VS 
 
 ECLKSIAE SANCTAE HANG RELIQVIT MEMO- 
 RIaM 
 
 SALVE PE FRATRES PVRO CORDE ET SIMPLICI 
 E\^Ei.PlVS VOS (salutat) SATOS SANCTO SPIRITV 
 ECLESIA I'RATRVVM (sk) HV.'^O RESTIIVIT 
 Tll’VLVM. M A. I. SEVERIjCnI C. V. 
 
 EX ING. ASTERI. 
 
 A wreath enclosing AD. is on the left; a dove 
 and palm on the right. 
 
 M. Renier reads the end of the last line but 
 one titulum marmoreum anno primo Scveriuni, 
 viri clarissimi. If this be right, as seems very 
 probable (though De Rossi feels some doubts, 
 Prol. Inscr. Urb. Bom. p. xi.), the mode of 
 dating is very unusual. Other Mauretanian in¬ 
 scriptions are dated by the era of the province, 
 
 1. e. 40 A.D. when it was reduced by the Romans 
 (M‘Caul, Christ. Epit. p. 37). 
 
 The words ecclesia fratrum indicate the re¬ 
 storation of the inscription to be “ assai antico ” 
 (De Rossi); the original was probably broken 
 during the tumults against the Christians, A.D. 
 258-304, as De Rossi thinks; and the restored 
 marble tablet would seem to have been put up 
 in the fii'st year of Severianus, probably the 
 Roman governor of Mauretania. One of the 
 earliest Christian inscriptions, not being an epi- 
 ta^jh, which have come down to us in any form. 
 
 2. Bockh, C. J. G. 8608. Corcyra (Corfu) in 
 
 the porch of a church, written in two lines 
 
 of two hexameters each. A cross at the 
 beginning and end of the first line. 
 
 ■KiffTiv fiaal\(f)iav e/xcau /x4v(wv <rvv4piBov 
 
 <TOl, flCLKap V\pLIX€SoV, Ifphv fKTKTa VTfSv, 
 
 'YjKKrjUwv Tffifvq nal ^wfiovs 4^a\avd^aT, 
 
 Xfiphs atr’ ovridayTjs 'lo^iayhs iSyby &yaKTi. 
 
 Render: /constructed with unworthy hand, &c. 
 
 This is the earliest Greek inscnption relating 
 to the imperial destruction of pagan temples, 
 the date of Jovian’s act being about a.d. 363. 
 
 3. Le Blant, Inscr. Chr€t. de la Gaule, i. 496, 
 
 n. 369. Preserved in the Hotel de Ville at 
 Sion in Switzerland. 
 
 DEVOTION E . VIGENS • V 
 
 A VG VST AS . PONT J VS . A ED IS 
 
 RESl'lTVIT . PRAETOR . 
 
 LONGE • PRAESI’ANTIVS • ILLIS . 
 
 QVAE . PRISCAE . STETERANF . 
 
 TALIS • RESPVBLICA . QVERE . 
 
 DN GRATIANO AVG .1111 ET MER . COS. 
 
 PONTIVS ASCLEPIOLOTVS VI*PDD. 
 
 The date of this consulship of Gratian with 
 Merobaudas is a.d. 377, the earliest date of any 
 pwV'Vcmonument yet known, bearing thechrisma. 
 j The next earliest is a.d. 390, on a column of 
 I St. Paul’s basilica, extra muros, Rome. It is won- 
 j derful that the former church should be spoken 
 of as old so early as A.D. 377 ; it can hardly be 
 doubted that it was a Christian or a Chri.stianised 
 building. Le Plant’s observation that this 
 church-restoration is jwecisely contemporaneous 
 with the greatest abundance of l\Iithraic monu¬ 
 ments and those of Cybele is worthy to be 
 noted. The abbreviations at the end are probably 
 for vir praepo.situs praetorio dcdicnvit. Hales, i. e. 
 men like Asclepiodotus. r>e Rossi, however (Bull, 
 di Arch. Crist. 1867, p. 25), who evidently con¬ 
 siders Asclepiodotus to be the author of the 
 verses, refers t ties to aedes (“ che li dedico alia 
 republica ”). He takes the building to be “ il 
 palazzo dei presidi imperiali,” the chri.sma and 
 devotio notwithstanding. 
 
 4. Rasponi, De Basil, et patriarch. Lateran. iii. 7, 
 
 Rom. 1656. On the bronze-silvered gates 
 of the Baptistery of the Lateran, Rome. 
 
 IN HONOREM S. lOANNlS BAPI’ISTAE 
 
 HILARVS El'lSCOPVS DEI FA.MVLVS OFFERT. 
 
 Hilarius was pope from a.d. 462 to 467 ; and 
 the inscription has the appearance of being con¬ 
 temporary. The ancient baptisteries were com¬ 
 monly placed under the patronage of St. John 
 the Baptist ; and both they and the fonts 
 which they contained were frequently inscribed 
 Ciampini gives both kinds of inscriptions from 
 the Baptistery of the Lateran, which are said to 
 have been there in the 5th century: but this 
 edifice has been often remodelled. (See Ciamp. 
 de Sacr. Edif. c. iii., Mart. Diet., p. 321 ; Hubsch, 
 Arab. Chrdt. p. 5, Guerber’s French transl. 1866.) 
 
 For this class of inscriptions generil'.y sec the 
 posthumous papers of Marini published by Jilai, 
 Script. Vet. Nov. Collect, t. v., pp. 167-177. 
 
 5. Hiibner, Inscr. Christ. Hisp. No. 135. Found in a wall of the Benedictine convent of 
 S. Salvador de Vairao, near Braga in Portugal, on seven stones. 
 
 IN NE DNI PERF I ^TV^ ESP TEMPLVM H 
 SVB DIE XIII K I AP ER DXXIII • REG 
 
 VNC PER M ARJSPAIXA 
 NANTE SERE NISSIMO VE 
 
 D!> VOTA 
 REMVNDV RE 
 
 X. 
 
 In n(omin)e d(omi)iii perfectum est iemfihim, hunc per Marispalla d(ey> vota 
 
 Sub die XIII l^alcndas) Ap(riles) er{a) DXXIII regnante serenissinw Veremundu Rex, 
 
 Spanish Era 523; A.o. 485. 
 
INSCRIPTIOXS 
 
 INSCRirTIONS 
 
 849 
 
 Diction barbarous, as frequently in these 
 Spanish inscriptions. The church seems to have 
 been completed under the auspices of a nun, 
 named Marispalla : probably the text really is 
 per Marispallam Deo vutam^ the last letters 
 having a stroke above tiiem, which may have 
 been obliterated or accidentally omitted. The 
 inscription is interesting as being doubly dated, 
 both by the Spanish era and by the reign of the 
 Visigothic king. The Spanish era, whose origin 
 is uncertain, but which appears to commence 
 B.C. 38 (see Hiibuer, praef. p. vi.), is the era 
 most commonly used to mark the time of the 
 Spanish Christian inscriptions : about 100 of 
 them are tlius dated (Hubuer, p. 109), the 
 earliest appears to be a.d. 466, and the latest 
 A.D. 762. Both the proper names in the in¬ 
 scription are Gothic (see Hiibner, praef. p. vii., 
 who gives several others) ; the remark of M‘Caul 
 (m. s., p. xxi.) that Gothic names are “ very 
 rarely” found in inscriptions does not apply 
 to Spain. 
 
 6. Le Blant, Triscr. Chr€L de la Gaule, i. 87, 
 
 n. 42. Found at Lyons, formerly on the 
 exterior of the church of St. Romanus, where 
 Spoil saw it in the 17th century; now lost. 
 
 TEMPLI FACTOItES FVERANl' FREDALDVS 
 
 ETTXOR MARTVRJS EGREGII QD 
 
 CONSrAT HONORK ROMANI LLLIVS VI’ 
 
 PC BEQVEATVR (sic) SEDE I'E . . ENNE. 
 
 Date, as Spon believed, of the 5th or 6th cen¬ 
 tury. He thus restores and rectifies the lines— 
 
 Templi factores fuerant Fredaldus et uxor, 
 
 Martyris egregii quo I constat honore Ii<mani 
 niius ut precibus recreentur sede perenni. 
 
 The motive of the founders is here sufficiently 
 clearly exjiressed, that they may enjoy eternal 
 rest through the prayers of the saint. They do 
 not, however, actually invoke him. 
 
 7. Bockh, C. T. G., n. 8640. On a stone found in 
 
 the Peloponnese by S. Alberghatti; origin¬ 
 ally (see 1. 7) erected at Corinth; now in 
 the museum at Verona. 
 
 -f AF. MAPIA 0EOTOKE ^YAAHON 
 THN BACIAEIAN TOT 
 
 4>IAOXICTOT lOTCTINIANOT 
 KAI TON ENHSIwC 
 AOTAEYONTA ATTct 
 BIKTcoPHNON -|- CYN TOIC 
 OIKOYCIN EN KOP1N0W K. 0EwN-f 
 ZwNTAE-f 
 
 *hyia Mopta deordKe, (pvKa^ov r)]v ^affiK^lav 
 Tov <pi\ox[_pyo'Tov 'lovcTTiviayov KOI rhv yv-q- 
 a'lws SouXevovra avrtp BiKToprjvov avv to7s 
 oIkov(Tiv ev KopinOo} Kl^ara) dehu ^wuras. 
 
 Holy Mary, God-bearer (l)eipara), guard the kingdom 
 of the Christ-loving Justinian and his faithful servant 
 Yictai inus with them that live godly in Corinth. 
 
 Sixth century, between A.D. 527 and 565. 
 Other and even stronger invocations of saints 
 occur about this time. In one, too long to quote 
 at length, Demetrius is invoked by Justinian to 
 aid him against his enemies, in the capacity of 
 a mediator with God fxfyaKo/xdpTvs Atj/utj- 
 rpie p.eo’irevo’ov irpbs dehu 'Iva, k.t.K. n. 8642). 
 Another in-scription, mutilated, from Thera (San- 
 torin), of uncertain date, not later than the 4th 
 or 5th century at latest according to Ross, 
 begins — ayie koI (pofiepe MixorljA. apxdyycKc, 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 $07)6(1 Tip 5ov\w (TOV 'Clplptp (n. 8911). Votive 
 tablets were also erected to saints ; one from 
 the cemetery of Cyriace in Rome runs thus; 
 Petrus et Pancara botum posuent (sic) marture 
 Felicitati. (lAI arini, u. s., p. 15.) In another, 
 found near the baths of Diocletian, Camasius 
 and Victorius pay their vows (votum reddunt) 
 Domnis Sanctis Papro et Mauroleoni marturibus 
 (Id. p. 14). 
 
 The expression, fA.-f)Tqp &eov (^.\Mher of Go t), 
 the usual title of the Virgin on the early medi¬ 
 eval camei (see Gems) had not yet come into 
 common use in the Greek church, as appears 
 from Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, a contem¬ 
 porary of Justinian. See Pearson On the Creed, 
 Art. 111. 
 
 8. Sec. Voy. de deux Benedict, p. 234 (quoted by 
 
 Martigny, Diet. p. 321). On a silver cha¬ 
 lice given by Remigius, archbishop of 
 Rheims (died a.d. 533) to his cathedral 
 church. 
 
 HAVRIAT HINC POPVLVS VITAM DE SAN- 
 GVINE SACRO 
 
 INIECTO AETERNVS QVEM FVDIT VVLNERE 
 CHRIST VS 
 
 REMIGIVS REDDIT DOMINO SVA VOTA SA- 
 CERDOS. 
 
 This is considered by Martigny to be in all 
 appearance the “ ministerial ” (sacramental) 
 chalice given by St. Remigius himself to the 
 church of Rheims ; see also Archaeol. Journ. 
 1846, p. 134. The magnificent chalice of gold 
 which goes by the name of Remigius, formerly 
 at Rheims, now in the Paris Library, is of the 
 12th century (^Arch. Journ. u. s.). For other 
 inscriptions on chalices, see Marini, u. s. p. 197. 
 
 9. Le Blant, laser. Chret. de la Gaule. ii. 348, 
 
 n. 574. Engraved on the four scalloped 
 edges of a square marble altar slab formerly 
 in the ancient cathedral of Rodez. 
 
 DEVSDEDIT EpS INDIGNVS FIERI IVSSIT HANG 
 
 ARAM. 
 
 Deusdedit is supposed to have been bishop of 
 Rodez about the end of the 6th century : the in¬ 
 scription is doubtless a contemporary composition, 
 but the letters and the sign of contraction j\. are 
 suspected of having been restored. 
 
 The name Deusdedit occurs also on a gem (see 
 Gems) ; the form Deusdet is likewise found more 
 than once in inscriptions (Le Blant, u.s. p. 433); 
 for similar instances, see Names below. For the 
 altars of Christian churches ara (though as old 
 as Tertullian) is less commonly used than altare, 
 especially in prose. For other inscriptions on 
 altars see Marini (u. s. pp. 74-80). This and the 
 altar at Ham of the 7th century are among the 
 earliest that are inscribed (Le Blant, n. 91). 
 
 10. Camden, Britan. § “ Brigantes,” ed. 1600 : 
 “ Accepimus crucem hie (at Dewsbury, York¬ 
 shire) exstitisse, in qua inscriptum fuit: 
 
 PAVLINVS HIC PRAEDICAVIT ET CELE- 
 BRAVIT.” 
 
 Paulinus was bishop of York, A.D. 625-664. 
 
 The inscription upon it is among the earliest 
 that we have in England, which are not sepul¬ 
 chral. Fragments of the ancient cross itself, 
 probably broken at the Reformation, which 
 Leland, in his Itinerary, mentions having seen, 
 bearing the above inscription (temp. Henr. VllL), 
 
850 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 have beeu biiilt up against the church there. 
 The miracles of Cana and the multiplication 
 of five loaves and two fishes were represented 
 thereon, and a few Latin words of the Gospels in 
 Runesque characters can still be re<id. (Figured 
 and described by the Rev. J. T. Fowler, in a 
 recent number of the Yorkshire Archaeol. and 
 Top. Journal.') 
 
 The most remarkable cross of the same kind 
 as the present is that at Ruthwell, near Dum 
 fries (then part of Northumbria), with Scrip¬ 
 tural and other scenes, and Latin legends from 
 the Gospels, &c.; also having extracts from a 
 poem by Ca-dman, entitled A Dream of the Holy 
 Hood., written in Runes, near the edges. It is 
 between seventeen and eighteen feet high, and 
 appears to be of the 8th century. For a full 
 account of it .see Stephens, Runic Mon., vol. ii., 
 pp. 405-448, with figure. 
 
 11. Cop}’’ of the dedication stone of Jarrow chapel, 
 Durham, made in 1863 by the Rev. J. T. 
 Fowler. Marini, u. s. p. 163 ; Camden, 
 Brit. 956 (Gibs). Pegge, Sylloge, p. 15, 
 pi. 1 (in Nich. Bibl. Top. Brit. vol. vi.). 
 
 It is now over the nave-arch of the church, 
 “and may be original ” (Fowler, in litt.). The 
 forms of the letters 0 and C, and their incon¬ 
 stancy, quite favour this supposition. 
 
 DKDICAl’IO UASILILAE 
 SCI PAVLl VJir KL MAI 
 ANNO XV EGFRIDI REG 
 CEOLFRIDI ABB EIVSDEM 
 Q. ECCLES DO AVCToRE 
 CONDITORIS ANNO JIIL 
 
 The date is A.D. 685, determined by the reign 
 of Ecgfi'ith, king of Northumbria. One of the 
 very few early English inscriptions which bear 
 a date. 
 
 The basilica or chapel of the monastery has 
 been converted into the parish church, some 
 remaining parts of which “ are generally sup¬ 
 posed to be of ante-Norman date ” (G. G. Scott’s 
 Report). For the history, see Flor. Wigorn. 
 s. a. 682. Benedict Biscop should rather be 
 called the founder than Ceolfrith, whom he ap¬ 
 pointed as the first abbot. 
 
 The above scanty selection must suffice for this 
 place. More is to be sought in other articles 
 under Ampulla, Gems, Glass, Lamps, JIoney, 
 Mosaics, Seals, and Tombs. 
 
 (v.) Language and Style of the Christian 
 Inscriptions. 
 
 A. Orthography, Inflections, and choice of 
 Tlbcrfs.— While some of the Christian inscriptions 
 are composed with correctness and even with ele¬ 
 gance both in pi'ose and verse, there are others 
 which are written barbarously as respects the 
 letters, the forms of words, the declensions, the 
 genders, the conjugations, the syntax, arwl the 
 prosody. 
 
 It would scarcely fall within the province of 
 this article to enter into the grammar or rather 
 non-grammar of the language of the latter sort. 
 It partakes of the barbarisms with which various 
 non-Christian inscriptions are more or less dis- 
 figured,' and which have even found their way 
 
 • ilaDigny (Oict. p. 309) calls them “communs aux 
 inscriptions chietienncs et aux romaines," referring to 
 Hub. Goltzius {Thes. Jiei. Ant. $ 23) and R. Fabrelti 
 {Inscr. Lot. expl.) for further iuformaiiou. The indices 
 
 I into literature in thc-ir most aggravated shapes, 
 if the Formularies of the monk Marculfus (circa 
 660 A.D.) can be called literature. In the Greek 
 Christian inscriptions the frequent and various 
 changes of vowels and diphthongs are the most 
 noticeable particularity. Thus ndrai is written 
 KiTC, or KiTT}, or /CTJT 17 , ‘Hpd»cAejos becomes Hpa- 
 kAtjos or Hf)aK\ios, KoiprjT'hpiov is changed into 
 KVfxerepior, reKfiwdfis becomes reKiodds, irwris 
 written eror, vina is simply vlku. and the i ad¬ 
 script of the dative is generally omitted. The 
 change of consonants, as Ko\<pos for koKttos, 
 ravpaffia for Gavpaaia, y\r)yopei for yp-r^ySpei, 
 Kupiw for xwplw, is more rare. There is also an 
 occasional tendency to abbreviate words, so as to 
 substitute fxv7]6r]Ti for fjLuricrdj)Ti, SiaKcnv for 8id- 
 Kovos, &c., or to enlarge them, as koWittis or 
 Ko\Tro<Ti (ov kSXttois. Sometimes Coptic influence 
 is discernible; sometimes uncouth late forms as 
 peyaKdraros, make their appearance (Bockh, 
 passim). 
 
 In the Latin the changes are much more 
 lemarkable." From the selection of inscriptions 
 (including the notes) given above and under 
 Tomb, also under Gems and Glass, and from a 
 few others we obtain such changes as Agustas for 
 Augustas, eclesia or aeclesia for ecclesin, guere for 
 quaere, que for quae, hec for haec, hixit or vixsit 
 or ricxit or visit or hissit or visse for vixit, 
 posuete, posuent for q^osuit, qjosuerunt, bobis for 
 vobis, botnm for votum, vibi for vv.i, staviles for 
 stabilis, provata for probata, ornneb is for omnibus, 
 quesquas, qesquet, and reqvis.it, for qiiescas, 
 quiescit, requiescit, spectit for spectat (expectat), 
 jacit for jacet, annus for annos, hue for hoc, epyta- 
 flwn for epitapkium, marturibns for martyribus, 
 ozza for ossa, ed for et, es for e.v, im pace for 
 in pace, anaterna for anathema, chanones for 
 cemones, tintaiov tincta, pelem (or pellem, meses or 
 misis for menses, zaconus for diacomts, Istephmus 
 for Stephanas, slinatarius for linafarius, Zesus for 
 Jesus, Zenuaria for Januuria, Gerosale for Jeru¬ 
 salem, and various other wor Is which contain 
 bai’barous substitutions of consonants and vowels 
 and also of diphthongs. Again, neuter substan¬ 
 tives are sometimes treated as masculines, «. gr. 
 hunc templum, and conversely masculines as 
 neuters, e. g. hoc tumulum. The regimen of the 
 cases is frequently violated in the use of preposi¬ 
 tions (see below), and also in such expressions as 
 vixit annis (or even annus or aiuiorum) and the 
 like. See more in Martigny, JRct. pp. .309-311 ; 
 and McCaul, ?«. s. pp. xii. and xiii.; the latter 
 of whom observes : The student should beware 
 of regarding what may be new to him in Christian 
 epitaphs, as peculiar to tiiem. Very many of 
 the variations from classical usage are to be 
 found in Pagan inscrij)tions. and some of them 
 in authors that are not commonlv lead.” 
 
 The actual words also varv little from the 
 Pagan ones; re,uuscit, ?-cfrigerat. and even depo- 
 situs^ (about which Cardinal Wiseman in his 
 
 at the end of the volumes of the Omp. imer. Latin, now 
 being piiblij-hod at Berlin, under /.’o grammatica, will 
 be found still more useful. They go far to establish the 
 truth of 5Iartigny’s remark. 
 
 “ 51. Le Blant refers to a work by A. Fuchs, Die 
 Eomanischen Sprachen in ihrem Verhdltnisse zuni Ixi tin- 
 iseken, which the writer has not seen. 
 
 * It was not after all so very common in the earliest 
 Christian times. “ La formule tUpositus—depositio cha¬ 
 racterise particulierement Ics inscriptions des quatrieme 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 851 
 
 Fahioln (p. 145) has written so prettily, as im¬ 
 plying a ‘ precious thing, intrusted to faithful, 
 but temporary keeping’) and some others which 
 seem Christian in their tone occur sometimes in 
 Pagan inscriptions (see ]\PCaul, u. s. jip. siv. 
 4, 29; Tertull. Ve Test. Anim. c. 4, commented 
 on by Fleetwood, fnscr. Ant., Index, p. 6, wlio 
 is deceived, however, in thinking that no Chris¬ 
 tians of Tertullian’s age “ refrigerium mortuis 
 suis comprecatos esse.” See De Monag. c. 10). 
 And conversely some words and expressions which 
 are not Christian, find their way occasionally 
 from Pagan into Christian inscriptions, as domus 
 aetema, pereipere (haptisma sc. said primarily of 
 the rites of Mithras and Cybele), contra votum, 
 iJivus (said of emiierors deceased); and even oc¬ 
 casionally D. M., or in full Dis Manibus, so usual 
 at the head of Pagan inscri))tions (see Tomb, and 
 McCaul, u.s. p. 54, and his Index, s. v. Pagan 
 us iges). In fact there is a very small residuum 
 indeed of mere words, i. e. not necessarily involv¬ 
 ing peculiar doctrines or religious distinction.s^ 
 which are exclusively Pagan, or exclusively 
 Christian.Dr. McCaul remarks that there is 
 scarcely one of the designations of the place of 
 burial used in Christian epitaphs, that is pecu¬ 
 liar to them, so far as he remembers, although he 
 has not observed quadrisomus (locus) in any Pagan 
 epitaph. Likewise he does not remember 
 seeing sepultus in any Christian inscription 
 of the first six centuries, and but rarely in 
 Pagan ones; but yet sepulcruni occurs in both 
 noC rarely.* * Again he says praecedo is charac- 
 
 etcinquiCine siecles, Bien qu’on en ait quelqiies exeniples 
 anlerieurs.” Martigny, Diet. p. 319. Neither is the word 
 univetsal, being very rarely found in Gaul. 
 
 y Thus the words resarrectio, resurgo, haptidiatus, 
 redmuptor, perhaps also sanctimonialis, as well as the 
 combinations dies judicii, pnella Dei (a nun), and per¬ 
 haps famulus Dei, aj)plied in very many epitaphs to the 
 pious dead, but in a few other inscriptions to the living 
 (see }iv. n. 4) have no place in Pagan in>criptions, nor 
 costa as applied to a wife (see De Rossi, n. 151). It 
 might be thought that Deo aelerno vngno, and in 
 acternum renatns would etiuallj' be absent; yet both 
 occur, tlie foimer in connexion with goddesses (deabus- 
 5 Mt), the latter in relation to the my>teries of Mithras. 
 (.Mai, Script. Vet. Xov. Coll. vol. v. p, 3 (note); Le Want, 
 Inscr. Chret. de. la (iaule, vol. ii. p. 721. Christian influ¬ 
 ence may be suspected in these instances. 
 
 * At the same time it is undeniable that depositus 
 (=.sepuHus) and depositio occur in a very large number 
 of Christian inscriptions, but only in a very small num¬ 
 ber of Pagan ones (Orelli, n. 4555, is a clear example); 
 while elatus, the classicid expression for being carried 
 out to burii.l, is so rare in Christian inscriptions that De 
 Ro.'Si can lind no parallel to his single example (n. 1192). 
 'J here may perhaps be some few other instances of the 
 same sort of each kind. 
 
 “ Since this sentence was penned, the writer has dis¬ 
 covered an example of sejmltus in an ancient Christian 
 epitaph of Maun tania (llenier, n. 4026). It is very 
 po.ssibly as early as the third century, to which several 
 Pagan in.-ci iptious in that region cei tainlj' belong. I here 
 is a second example in the .■'ame region, a.d. 416 (n. 3675), 
 and a thiul, .\.u. 389 (n. 3710). We have another instance 
 occurring in an epitaph of liirnini. a.d. 523 (De Rossi, 
 Bull. Arch. Crist. 1864, p. 15). The word is found also in 
 Christiati ep taphs of Spain, dat' d and und ited, but j)er- 
 haps in no case before the s^weiith century (Ilubner,p. x. 
 and the relert rices). Wi' h.ive in fine in a Perugian inscrip¬ 
 tion of Roman times (\'ermigl. Inscr. I’erug. t. ii. p.442) 
 iv qua (basilica sc.) sepelliri non debet. Cardinal Wise¬ 
 man therefore is not strictly accurate in saying (Fabiola, 
 
 teristically Christian, while abscedo he thinks 
 occurs only (and that rarely) in Pagan epitaphs 
 (u. s. pp. xiv. XV. 53). But who does not see 
 that any new discovery may upset the sujiposod 
 distinction? There are indeed phrases which 
 appear to have an exclusively Christian meaning, 
 such as Deo reddere sjjirilvni sanctum, apud 
 Deum acceptus, decessit or exivit de saeculo, abso- 
 lutus de corpore, receptus ad Deum, arcessitus ab 
 angelis, and a few others of the same kind.b 
 (Mart. Diet. p. 315 ; M‘Caul, u. s. p. xv.). The 
 expression, in p ice, is derived from the Jewish 
 ejiitaphs, and passes over, both as an acclamation 
 and otherwise, to the Christian inscriptions; its 
 occurrence is generally considered to be a certain 
 proof that the monument is not laagan. (See, 
 however. Money.) “Dictio ilia In Pace Chris¬ 
 tiana tota est” (Morcelli, De Stil. Inscr. Lat. ii. 
 
 p. 77 ; and so Martigny Diet. s. v. “ In Pace,” 
 
 q. V.). 
 
 Upon the whole, it will perhaps be thought 
 enough to give the following extract from the 
 Edinburgh lieview relative to the Latinity of the 
 Christian inscriptions, with the addition of a few 
 notes. 
 
 “ The reader at once recognises in the Latinity 
 of these epitaphs [of Italy au.l Gauljc the germ 
 of that total change in the government of prepo¬ 
 sitions, which is one of the great sources of 
 distinction between the ancient and the modern 
 languages of Italy. ^ Tlie old distinction of 
 government between the ablative and the accu¬ 
 sative has evidently begun to disappear. Many of 
 the prepositions are used indiscriminately with 
 both those cases. Thus we read (De Rossi, Ins. 
 Urb. Rom. p. 82) that Pelegrinus “ lived in 
 peace cum uxorem suam Silvanam and in an¬ 
 other place (p. 108), Agrippina erects a monu¬ 
 ment to her “sweetest husband, cum quern vixit 
 sine lesione anirni, annos tres et menses decern.’* 
 
 p. 145) “The word to bury is unknown in Christian 
 inscriptions.” It occurs even at Ronre, which he had more 
 particul .rly in his eye, in nn inscription thought lu be of 
 the third century : eTd<l)r] SjSc Eiare'^i? (Bockh, n. !)612). 
 At the same time, for whatever reason, the woid .qtpears 
 to be decidedly rare. But as it seems to be not much 
 more common in Pagan inscriptions there is no great 
 force in the cardinal’s remark. 
 
 b There are also various expressions relating to light, 
 as lumen clarum, praemia lucis, lux nova, &c. occurring 
 in Christian epitaphs which contrast remarkably with 
 the luce f.aret, jacco in tenebris, kc. of the Pagans. See 
 Mart. Diet. p. 380. But this is a difference of feeling 
 rather than of language. 'I'liere are other similar con¬ 
 trasts which we can hardly discuss here. See M'Caul 
 p. xii.; Edinb. Kev. u. s. p. 24 2. But some of the earliest 
 Christian Inscriptions express no feeling of any sort. See 
 De Kossi, nos. 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, all of the 
 first three centuries. 
 
 = Much the same remarks may be made of the sepul 
 chral Inscriptions of Britain and of Africa. See Tomii. 
 
 And of France. We have this interesting inscrip¬ 
 tion ofBerre, Maria virgo minester de bmpuln (=tpmpll 
 =du temple) (;ero?afe(=Jerusalem), L'* Blant, n 542, A. 
 The same author points out various other links of con¬ 
 nection between the ejrigiaphical Latin and the French 
 language, 'riuis qiti, wliich is invariable for both genders 
 in French, is twice found on the epitaph of a nun, A.t). 
 431. (In an in.scription of Pi'dinont'/«i in like manner 
 agrees with Maria. Gazzera, Acc. Tm-. u,s. p 191.) 
 In the fifth century we have also santa, winch prepares 
 the w'ayfor the modern suinle ; troin ispiritus (“^que I’on 
 entend encore aux oflices- de vill.iges”) conrea esprit 
 (Manuel, p. 194). 
 
 3 I 
 
852 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 A tliii-'i moniin\ent is erected pro caritatem (Le 
 Bhuit, fnscr. Chret. Ha 'l. vol. i. p. 400). In a 
 fourth, a mother is entreated to pray for the child 
 she has left behind, hunc unnin ora snbolem ” 
 (De Rossi, p. 13d). Conversely, we find do sua 
 omnia (De Rossi, p. 133) and decessit de saecnlum 
 (p. 103). And although an occasional solecism 
 of this kind might be explained by the rude and 
 illiterate diameter of the individual author of 
 the inscription, the fre«iucncy of the occurrence 
 clearlv indicates the settled tendency of the 
 popular usage of the prepositions towards the 
 abolition of all distinction in the government of 
 cases.® We may add that the same confusion of 
 case is found in the inscriptions of the .Jewish 
 catacombs uublished by Father Garrucci, among 
 which we read, on the one hand, cum with the 
 accusative, as cum xiripnium (p. 50), and cum 
 Celerlnnai (p. 52) ; and on the other, inter with 
 the ablative, as inter dicaeis. 
 
 “ It is hardly worth while, perhaps, to advert 
 to such solecisms as pauperorion for pauperum 
 (although it is plain from the recurrence of the 
 same form in other words, as omnionim for 
 oinni'im, that tiie change is not an accidental 
 error) ; or to the occasional use of forms rare, 
 but not entirely unexampled, in classical Latin, 
 as nectus (Le Blant, p. 15) as the paidicijile of 
 neco, or utere (De Rossi, p. 233) as the ablative 
 of afer, a rare form following the third, instead 
 of the second declension.' But it is impossible 
 not to discern a foreshadowing of the modern 
 idiom of Italy in such words as pulla, and still 
 more Pitzinnina, which is the direct prototype 
 of the Italian Piccinina. The same may be .said 
 of the orthography, which, in many casc.s, points 
 clearly towards the modern pronunciation. The 
 form Santa for sanc-a already appears; and the 
 X, as in sesi s for sexies. begins to give place to 
 the modern s. This tendency goes, however, 
 beyond individual words, and seems to indicate 
 certain general pi'inciples of usage. We do not 
 mean those broad characteristics which distin¬ 
 guish Italians and foreigners generally from 
 ourselves, in the sounds of the vowels and diph¬ 
 thongs of the ancient languages, although in 
 all these the interchanges of the characters of 
 the two languages which the inscriptions fre¬ 
 quently exhibit and the characters emploved in 
 each to represent equivalent sounds of the other, 
 
 e Martlguy {Diet. p. 320) thinks that if an inscription 
 has cum or de followed hy an accusative, it must be 
 placed in the fourth or fifth century, 'this seems very 
 doubtful. \\’’c have c rtainly inter sanetis in an inscrip¬ 
 tion of 26S A.D., and perhaps cu7n eum in another of 
 279 A.D. (see De R"S>i, pp. i’C, 21). Before this cum se¬ 
 dates occurs at Pompeii (C. I. L. iv. n. 221). 
 
 f Dr. McCaul notes some very singular instances of 
 inflection, as the datives NicenL Ayapeni, Leopardeti, 
 Ireneti (also IrenV), .Vercin-a^-eti from Xice, Agape, Leo- 
 parde, Eirene, Mercmane (Itlercuriane); also ispeti for 
 spei; likewise Victoriaes for Vietoriae (u. s. p. xiii. and 
 18, 19). The same forms, as was to be e.xpected, occur in 
 Pagan inscriptions. Thus we find Ghjeeni, Slaplyltni, 
 &.C. in Spain {C. I. L. ii. Index, p. 779). We have also 
 Januariaes for Jannarfae, at Pompeii {C. I. A. iv.n. 2233), 
 and several similar example.®; and .ImpJiataes in Spain 
 {C. I. L. ii. n. 4975, 60). Professor llubner, in fine, ob¬ 
 serves in a few Christian inscriptions of Spain, Joanni, 
 Pastori, kc. Q.S the genitives of Joannes, Pador, kc. (p. 
 xiii.), and conversely we have Saturnis, .Uercuris as the 
 genitives of Saturnus, ileixurius (De Ro.ssi, nos. 172. 
 475). 
 
 are quite decisive against the English u.sage. Wa 
 refer rather to certain peculiarities of Italian 
 pronunciation, which are regarded a.s defects 
 even by the Italians themselves, and which 
 nevertheless find their counterpart here. One of 
 the.se i.s the well-known cf^da or additional 
 vowel sound, which Italian speakers often attach 
 to words ending with a consonant. Of this there 
 are numberle.ss examples in De Rossi’s volume, 
 as posu^te for posuit (p. 18). In like manner wc 
 Snd a type for the vowel sound prefixed to 
 words; as ispiritus for spjiritus, iscribit for scribit 
 (p. 228); and the actual Italian sound of h {ch 
 or Ii), between two vowels, which has long been 
 the subject of ridicule, is found directly expressed 
 in these inscriptions, in which michi is one of the 
 forms of mihi. 
 
 “It is amusing too, to meet in the Roman 
 catacombs, or among the Christians of ancient 
 Gaul, the prototype of the cockney aspirate and 
 its contrary. Thus we find upon the one hand 
 (Le Blant, vol. i. p. 2-3), //ossa (for os.sa), //ordine, 
 //octobres, //’eterna ; and upon the other oc for 
 hoc (Le Blant, p. 93), ic for /dc, /larus, ora, 
 Cnorius, &c.” (Edinb. Pev. 18(34, pp. 234-5). 
 
 The Index Grammaticus added at the end of 
 Hlibner’s Christian ln.scrij)tions of Spain, gives 
 a rich harvest of similar barbarisms. Nearly all 
 the vowels are blundered in one way or 
 other, and no small niunber of consonants; with¬ 
 out dwelling on them we have the following : 
 hunc edifeium; in annibus; post funere ; m 
 tiunc tumulnm requicscit; cum operarios vn-- 
 nolos: offer'd (for offert ;) besides other less 
 heinous sins against inflections. For the Saxon 
 forms which occur in inscriptions in England the 
 reader i.s referroil to Stejihens’ Punic Monuments, 
 and for the Celtic forms in the Irish inscriptions 
 to Petrie and Stokes’ work thereon (see above). 
 
 Exam])les of bilingual inscriptions (Gj-eek 
 and Latin) and of Latin inscriptions in Greek 
 characters, also of double rendering of words 
 into Runic and Roman character.s, as well ns 
 Celtic words in Ogham characters, will be 
 noticed under Tomb. 
 
 B. Proper Names tised in Christian Inscriptions. 
 — For the proper names used in Christian in¬ 
 scriptions see careful and interesting notices in 
 De Rossi, /. U. R. Prol. cxii.-cxiv. ; iMcCaul, u. s. 
 pp. xix.-xxi.; Hiibner, u. s. pp. vi. vii., and the 
 references. 
 
 The Edinburgh Reviewer has treated this 
 matter so well for the Latin inscriptions of Italy, 
 Gaul, and Africa, taking also some slight notice 
 of the Greek inscri])tions, that his words are set 
 down with little abridgment. The account has 
 been supplemented by a few words about the 
 Spanish, British, and Irish names which occur 
 in the early Christian inscriptions of those 
 countries. 
 
 “ The small proportion of patrician families among the 
 early Christians will hardly suffice to explain the rapid 
 disappearance among them of the use of the ihrce mimes, 
 which h.ad liitlierto been the peculiar privilege of the 
 ari'tocratic class. Not a shigle inscription after Con¬ 
 stantine presents three names; an * of the ante-Constan- 
 tinian inscriptions, there are but two [rather, is but one] 
 in which the three names occur * * * * After Constan¬ 
 tine, except Flavius, which cotitinued in partial use, 
 praenomina may he siiid entirely to dl.-apjroar. The old 
 distinctive Gentile name too, quickly followed. The 
 inscriptions before Constaniine abound with Aurelii 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 853 
 
 Crmelii, Claudii, Antonii, &c. * * * * Thus, in the 
 Aiireliau age, we finil Aurelius or Aurelia repeated seven 
 times; and under Constantins and bis sons, Conslantinus. 
 Constantins and Constans, have their turn of popularity. 
 Tile Gentile name, however, was quickly displaced by 
 new forms terminating in ntius as Lactantius, Dignantiiis, 
 Crescentius, Leontius; or in osus, as Bonosus. A favourite 
 form in the third and succeeding centuries was some 
 laudatory epitliet, as Beiiignus, Castus, Grata, Castula. 
 Often, especially in Africa, in the superlative degree; 
 as Iiignissimus. Felicissimus, Acceptissima. Sometimes 
 similar adjectives apptar in the comparative degree, as 
 Dignior, Nubilior; and occasionally the abstract quality 
 itself, as Prudenlia, *’Aya7n7, &c., is found as the name. 
 The names of the fourth, fifth, and later centuries would 
 be found on examination to furnish the type, if not the 
 exact equivalent of most of the fanciful appellatives of the 
 palmy days of piiritanism. We meet, not merely with 
 Simple lorms such as Trtcm?, eAms, aydnr}, D centia, 
 Pi udentia, Dignitas, Idonitas, croj^ou.eV»j; 3 or Itenatus, 
 Redemptus, Refrigerius, Projectus; or the more self- 
 abasing appellatives, Stercorius or Contumeliosus, but com¬ 
 pound names of the true Puritan stamp, such as Deus 
 Ledit, Servus Dei, Adeodatus, Qtiod vult Deus * * * 
 
 “ In a few instances occasion is taken from the name to 
 introduce into the s ntinu nt of the epitaph some playful 
 allusion to the etymological import of the name; and 
 although tliis practice is more consonant with the tastes 
 of the later times, yet the inscriptions of the classic 
 period, present examples of a similar play upon words, 
 of whrh we may instance the s-ntence from the very 
 pretty epitaph of Claudia given by Orelli (vol. i. p. &47). 
 
 “HKIC ESC SEPULCRUM HAUD PULCBUM 
 PULCRAl FCMINAE.” [Pulcher was a cognomen of 
 the geiis Claudia.] These allusions in the Christian 
 epitaphs are commonly very simple. Thus we meet 
 INFELIX FELICH’AS, and INFAU.STUS FELIX. 
 A monument is erect(d to Innocentius in recogiiilion of 
 his innocence, PRO INNOCENTIA SUA. GLYCO 
 {y\vKv<;, sweet) is described as “i-wee'er than his name.” 
 The sorrowing frii-nds of ANTHUS bemoan his years 
 “ stript of their Jlotvers and evett in a very tender 
 poetical epitaph, addressed to the rn mory of Verus, by 
 his wife Quintilla (whose grief for his loss proclaims itself 
 so extreme that it is only the fear of God that restrains her 
 from following him t<< the grave, and that she vows to 
 remain a widow for his sake), room is found, in the midst 
 of all the writer’s passionate exjtressions of sorrow, for a 
 pun upoti the name of “IIIC VERUS, tjUl SEMPER 
 VERA LOCUrUS,”*' a pun e.xacTy similar to that 
 contained in the epitaph of the emperor Proluis, which 
 Vopiscus uas jireserved—“ IIIC PROBUS IMPERATOR, 
 ET VERE PROBU.S, SITUS ESI’” (a. pp. 235-2.17). 
 
 The proper names which occur on the Christian 
 inscriptions of Spain (Hiibner, praef. pp. vi. sqq.) 
 are more varied. The old Roman nomina gen- 
 tilicia are rare, and generally occur alone, as 
 Aurelius, Juliu.s, Licinia, &c., but with a provin¬ 
 cial cognomen occasionally added, such as A, 
 (Aurelius) Vinceutius. We have also numerous 
 e.xamples of old Roman cognomina, as Avitus, 
 
 6 A remarkably pretty specimen is given in De Rossi’s 
 Roma Sotteranea, vol i. p. 262, where Faith makes an 
 epitaph to her sister Hi^pe which runs thus— 
 
 PISl’E SPEI 
 SuRoRI DVL 
 CISSIMAE 
 FECir. (Dove.) 
 
 But it ought to be remembered that Spes is a name 
 not unfretiuent in Roman Pagan ep taphs, so that the 
 now famous fragment of tlie Bristol in.scription which 
 contains it is not on that account presumably Christian; 
 apart from the symbols, dog. cock, and asp, and the por¬ 
 trait (?), it now reads only SPES C. SEN I’l (Hli.i). 
 
 'I bis Christian epitaph is published by Fabretti. 
 iii. 630. 
 
 De.xter, Felix, Crisjtinus, Camilla. Of the more 
 modern names are those which are of truly 
 Latin origin, as Aeternalis, Amator, Asella, Do- 
 minicus, FebruariusJ Ilonorius, Sanctus, which 
 seem to be generally diffused in the provinces 
 of the empire; also the following, which ap]»ear 
 to be peculiar to Spain (including of course Por¬ 
 tugal!: Bracarius, Cerevella, Cuparius, Gran- 
 uiola, Idlliolus, Salvianella, Ike. There are also 
 many which come from the Greek, as Arcadius, 
 Basilia, Glaucus, Leontius, Macarius, Theodosius, 
 Zenon, &c. Others are still niore modern, such 
 as Agilo, Ermengond, Froila, Gultinus, Huniric, 
 Oppila, Reccisvinthus, Reswentus, Sonnica, Mari- 
 spalla (fern.), Swinthiliuba (fern.), all which are 
 jtrobably Gothic; also “Ann.a Gaudiosa sive 
 Africa” (n. 71) and Maurtis, which are of course 
 both African; and Bacauda tind Ciimuelates, which 
 appear to be Gaulish. The origin of others, as 
 Istorna, Locuber, Macona (fern.), Quinigia, Quis- 
 tricia, and Rexina, is unknown. To these must 
 be added Scriptural names, as Emmanuel, .Jo¬ 
 hannes, Maria, Sallomon, Susanna, Thomas, &c. ; 
 those of the puritanical type mentioned above 
 appear to be wanting. 
 
 With regard to Great Britain we find (for the 
 British period) some Latin names, as Viventius 
 and Florentius (in Scotland), also Silius, Pauli- 
 nus, Satui-ninus, and Carau.sius (in Wales and 
 Cornwall), and some of these forms, as Augus¬ 
 tinus and Paulinus, were re-imported from Rome 
 in Saxon times. But there are also Celtic names 
 occurring, as Lsnioc (in Cornwall), Pascent (or 
 Pasgen), Cadfan, Cyngen, Pabo, Boduoc (in 
 Wale.s), and Drost, Voret, Forcas (Fergus ?) and 
 others (in Scotland); as well as Saxon or Scan¬ 
 dinavian names, such as Sinnik (in Scotland), 
 Herebricht, Hildithriith, Wult'here, and the like 
 (in Englaml). A Saxon name is occasionally 
 Latini.sed, as Wini into Ovinus. In Ireland the 
 great mass of the names is Celtic, but occasion- 
 all}' a Latin form is Hibernized, as Columbanus 
 into Cholumban : very occasionally a Latin form, 
 as Martinus, survives. 
 
 C. TFbrdfs and Formulae employed in different 
 ages and places .—The words and phrases relating 
 to burial and other matters vary a good de.^l m 
 different ))laces, and in the same jdace at different 
 times. IM. Le Blant has collected these “ for- 
 mules d’epigraphie chretienne ” with consider¬ 
 able industry ; but a good many additions might 
 easily be made. He even takes no notice at all 
 of some provinces, e.g. Dalmatia and Pannonia, 
 which however have some formulae and words 
 of interest.* 
 
 Several of the selected inscriptions (sepulchral 
 and others) have been chosen partly on account 
 of the formulae therein contained, and some re¬ 
 marks upon them are made in their i)laces. 
 
 But it is well observed by Hiibner that until 
 the Christian inscriptions of all parts of the 
 world have been collected and eilited, it is im- 
 
 i E.g. an inscription from Sab iris (Stein .an Ancrar) 
 speaking of a dead child, has “reiiuieni accepit in Deo 
 p.itre nostro, et Christo ejus ” (t’orp. fnscr. Lai. t. iii. 
 n. 4221, edited by Mommsen). Anotli-r (n. 422ii) from 
 the same place begins: “ Bonemenmiie, in Deo vivas, 
 lodorus Civ. Grace, ex reg. Ladle, q. vix. an. L. Ac. 
 (/ionaememorius occurs in Gaul, Lo Blunt, J/a». p. 77). 
 
 also n. 6399 sqq. from Dalmatia, where we bavo 
 hie in pacejacet, deposilus, Ac, 
 
854- 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 possible to say what formulae are peculiar to ' 
 each : those which we consider to be peculiar j 
 may turn out to be universal or common to 
 many ])rovinces (m. s . p. vii.).*' 
 
 The following is a translation with slight 
 omissions and additions * and a few tacit cor¬ 
 rections, mostly for the Greek, of iM. Le Plant’s 
 Moniiel d'Epiijnqyhie Chret. pp. 75-85 (Paris, 
 1860), omitting the references to his own work 
 for Gaul and to those of others, as De Rossi 
 (Rome). Gazzera (Piedmont), Mommsen (kingdom 
 of Naples), Renier (Algeria), and (for the Greek) ! 
 Bockh. To this has been added (besides some 
 Roman phrases) a collection of Spanish formulae 
 derived from Hiibner ; also a notice of the few 
 formulae which occur in Great Britain and 
 Ireland. 
 
 ‘‘ That which is true for ancient coins, as also 
 for the works of architecture, is not less so in that 
 which concerns the monuments of epigraphy. 
 In each new place which he visits, the antiquary 
 sees variations of the formulae, the svmbols, 
 the writing, the disposition, the ornaments of 
 the marbles. Though apparently of little im¬ 
 portance, these marked differences are worthy of 
 being .-itudied with care. Arising sometimes from 
 the difference of the times, as well as from that 
 of the places, they are able to serve as guides in 
 the restoration of the texts, to fix the nationality 
 of personage.s, the age of the inscriptions, and even 
 to furnish materials for the history of ideas. 
 
 “1 must appeal to the patience of the reader 
 in undertaking to place before him some 
 features of the localisation of the types and 
 formulae of Christian epigraphy. Below are 
 those which seem to me the most remarkable in 
 different provinces : 
 
 Germania Prima: 
 
 Mayence: IN HOC TITVLO REQVIESCIT FELI- 
 CITER. Worms: TITVLVM POSVIT. 
 
 Belgica Prima: 
 
 Treves: PRO CARITATE, and the like; TITVLVM 
 POSVIT; HIC lACET; HIC lACET IN PACE; 
 PATRES (titulum posuerunt). 
 
 Belgica Secunda: 
 
 Amiens; VBl FECIT NOVEMBER DIES XV, and 
 the like ; DEFVNCTVS EST. 
 
 Viennensis: 
 
 iSVRRECrVRVS IN XPO, and analogous formulae. 
 Briord: HVMANITAS; ABSTVTVS (i.e. astu- 
 tus, in a good sense). Biiord and Vienne: VO- 
 LVNTAS. Vaihon and Arles: PAX TECV'M. 
 ^Marseilles; RECESSIT, retained even when this 
 word has disappeared in other places from the 
 epigraphical formulary. 
 
 k Dr. M‘Caul, usually most accurate, illustrates this 
 remark by a statement that among the many expressions 
 for our “here lies” we have “ hie jacet (nof ofUn'), 
 eeSa'Se Keirai (o/teii),” p. xiii. We may safely say of hie 
 jacet that it occurs almost everywhere, being found first 
 in Rome, then in Gaul, Spain, Dalmatia, Algeria, and 
 Britain, in which last country it is almost the only for¬ 
 mula. '>or does there seem to be any reason to think it 
 rare in any of those countries. M. Le Blant, however, 
 only notices it under Gaul. The Greek rendering of this, 
 euOdoe KeiTai, or KaTaKeirai, is also very general, but per- 
 h.ips not r^uite so common: it occurs in Rome, Sicily, 
 Gaul; in Igypt, Dalmatia, and Greece; Algeria, and 
 C 7 ,'rene; also in A.^a Minor, but not everj/where. In 
 truth M. Le Blant’s is only a sketch partially worked 
 out, but still very interesting, 
 i They are enclosed in brackets. 
 
 Aquifania Prirna: 
 
 Coudes: TltAN-SIIT IN ANNOS. 
 
 Narbonensis Prima : 
 
 Toulouse; REt^VlEVlT IN PACE. 
 
 Lugdunensis Prima, Viennon.sis : 
 
 BONAEMEMORIVS (adject.); AI’TVS (i.e. tympa- 
 thetic). 
 
 Lugdunensis Prima et Secunda, and a good many 
 other (though not all) parts of Gaul : 
 
 BONAE MEMORIAE; verj' uncommon at Rome. 
 
 Lugdunensis Prima, Germania Prima, Maxima 
 Sequanorum, Viennensis, Aquitania 
 Prima: 
 
 VIXIT IN PACE. 
 
 Lugdunensis Prima et Quarta, Viennensis, Prims 
 et Secunda Narbonensis: 
 
 OBIIT, in common use (though seldom at Rome). 
 
 Lugdunensis Prima, Viennensis, Aquitania 
 Prima: 
 
 TRANSIIT; not com won at Rome. 
 
 [Lugdunensis Prima, Viennensis : 
 
 FAMVLV.S DEI (applied in epitaphs to the dead'. 
 See Le Blant, Manuel, pp. 10, 24, and references.] 
 
 Spain: 
 
 FAMVLVS DEI, or CHRISTI. [Apparently always 
 similarly applied. See Hiibner, pp. xi. Ill, 112 
 and references. For the Spanish for ntilae in gene¬ 
 ral, see below."’] This formula do< s not occur 
 among those of the csitacombs registered by Bosio 
 and Boldetti. 
 
 Spain:— 
 
 The formula In peace. —IN PACE (in various con¬ 
 nections), with REQVIESCIT, REQVIkVIT, RECES¬ 
 SIT, REQVIESCAT, &c.; DOMINI, CHRISTI, lESV 
 being sometimes added. See Hiibner, u. s. pp. ix. x. 
 
 Consecration formulae. —IN NOMINE I)I (DOMINI.’) 
 NOSTRl 1. C. CONSACRATA E.ST ECLESIA S. 
 STEPHANI PRIM! MARTYRIS ; IN NOMINE DO¬ 
 MINI CONSECRATA ECLESIA S MARIE; EPl- 
 SCOPVS CONSEORAVIT HANC BASKLiCAM ; IN 
 N0:M1NE DOMINI SACRATA EST ECLESIA ; IX. 
 KAL. lANHARll ERA D LXXXX DEDICATA EST 
 HAEC ECCLESIA SCE MARIE; DEDICATA EST 
 HEC BASILICA A PIMENIO ANTISTITE ; DEDI- 
 CAVIT HANC AEDEM DOMIN-VS BACAVDA 
 EPISCOPVS. 
 
 Meliqu ary formulae. —IN N05IINE DOiMINI HIC 
 SVNT RECONDITE RELIQVIE S.-tNCTORVM SER- 
 VANDI, GERMANl, etc. ; RECONDITE SVNT IC 
 RELIQVIE DE CRVORE DOMINI, SANCTI BA- 
 BILE, etc. 
 
 Building formulae. —CEPRIANO EPISCVPO (sic) 
 ORDINANTE EDIFICATA [est hacc ec. lesia] ; HAEC 
 SANCTA TRIA TABERNACVLA IN GLORIAM 
 TRINITATIS (in imitate ?) COHOPKR.ANTIBVS 
 SANCTIS AEDIFICATA SVNT AB INLV.STRI 
 GVDILIVVA CVM OPERARIOS VERNOLOS ET 
 SVMPTV PROPRiO; CONSVMATVM OC OPVS 
 ERA DCCXX ; FVNDAVIT EAAI {sc. aram) ALTIS- 
 SIMVS PER EVL.VLIAM ET FiLlVM EIVS 
 PAVLVM MONACHVAI ; PERFECTV.M EST TEM- 
 PLUM. 
 
 Vot ve formulae. —RECCESVINTHVS REX OFIE- 
 RET (off’-rt) [?c. coronam]; OFFERET AIVNV.SCV- 
 LVM S. STEPHANO THEODO.SIVS ABBA. 
 
 Sepulchral formulae (length of lih ).—VIXIT TOT 
 ANNOS, or ANN IS; oi ANNORVM TOT; CVM 
 MARITO ANNIS TOT; PLVS .MINVS TOT (without 
 annos); ANNOKV.M DIERVMqVE TOT; QVI IN 
 HOC SAECVLO CONPLEVERAT LVSTROS TOT 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 Gallia Cisalpina : 
 
 Como: VlXiT IN HOC SARCVLO ANNOS. Como, 
 Alba, Pollenzo, Nice and the environs; DRFOSl- 
 TVS SVR DIEM XIV KAL., etc. Como, Milan, 
 
 • Aquileja, Florence, ilologna, etc.: B.M, at the head 
 of inscriptions. Turin, Tortona, Milan, Brescia, 
 Civita dl Friuli, Aquileja: CONTRA VOTVM 
 rOSVlT. Pi. dmont: HiC KEt^ViESClT IN 
 SOM NO PACiS, 
 
 Latium 
 
 Rome, Ostia : LOCVS, at the beginning of the inscrip¬ 
 tion. Rome; DEPOSIT VS, very common form, of 
 which Gaul gives scarcely four examples; REFRl- 
 GEKIVM, IN REHRIGKRIO, REFRIGERET 
 DEVS (once only in Gaul); LOCVM EMIT, or 
 COMPARAVIT, a formula which is completely 
 unknown in Gaul; the mention of a tomb pre¬ 
 pared by the living is very rare in Gaul. Ostia: 
 HIC DOPMIT, CVM DEVS PERMISERIT, 
 QVANDO DEVS VOLVERIT. 
 
 Campania : 
 
 Naples: IN AVLA REGNI TVI, INDVC EOS IN 
 CAELE'sTIA REGNA. 
 
 Apuleia: 
 
 Mirabella, Eclanum, Fontanarosa, etc.: HIC REQVI- 
 
 AETATIS SVAE XLIIl; DECEDIT E VITA. Some¬ 
 times the words AN VS, PVER, VIRGO are introduced. 
 
 Formnlae of DEPOSITIO ; HVIC RVDI 
 
 TVMVLO lACENS; IN HOC LOCO QVIESCENS; 
 IN HOC TVMVLO lACET; HIC RECONDITVM 
 EST CORPVS; DEPOSITVS IN PACE; IN ISTO 
 LOCO SEPVLTVS EST; HIC SITVS EST; kro.<\>pJ>e^ 
 
 ft€Ta elprjurj^. 
 
 Prayers fm- the Dead. — DOMINE lESV CHRI.STE, 
 FAMVLE TVE OMNIA PECCATA DIMITTE (a.d. 
 662); PRECAT VS, VT PRO TVO PROMISSO ET SVB- 
 LIBAMINE (sublevamine) MEREAMVR INGREDI 
 PARADISI IANVE(seemingly offered for the dead, but } 
 see n. 96); YHEP ANAHAYCEOC KAI CGTHPIAC 
 THC MAKAPIAC KYPIHC KITOYPAC. 
 
 AccfanjaDons.-CHIONI VIVAS; LVPICVS VIVIT; 
 MARCIANE VIVAS IN CHRISTO (said of the living). 
 
 Station of the deceasei in life. —The public and private 
 station of the deceased are very rarely mentioned: 
 and then only extending to VIR INLVSTRIS, CLA» 
 RISSIMA FEMINA, etc. The usual designations are 
 FIDELIS, FIDELIS CHRISTI, FAMVLA or FAMV- 
 LVS DEI or CHRISTI; also BAPTIDIATVS (once). 
 
 Ecclesiastical station in life. — ABBA; ANTISTES ; 
 DEVOTA VIRGO ; PONTIFEX ; VIRGO CHRISTI ; 
 VOTA DEO. 
 
 “ The following formulae (from De Rossi’s I. U. R. 
 vol. i. passim') may be added for Rome up to a.d. 400, 
 and from Biickh {C. I. G.). 
 
 Formulae of death .— OBIIT ; DECESSIT; DISCES- 
 SIT; RECESSIT; DORMIT; DORMIT IN PACE; 
 MORTVA EST; DEFVNCTA; TEAEYTA; ETE- 
 AEYTHCEN; EHAYCATO; IIPOAPEI, ETEAlOOH 
 (Bdckh); KOIMATE (Koi/aSTat, id.); EN EIPHNH; 
 DE SAECVLO RECESSIT. or DECESSIT, or EX I BIT 
 (exivit) : RECESSIT DE HAC LVCE; IIT AD 
 DEVM; RECEPTVS AD DEVM ; PRAECESSIT AD 
 PACEM; EXIVIT IN PACE; QVIESCET IN PACE; 
 REQVIESCET IN SOMNO PACIS; ABSOLVTVS DE 
 CORPORE; SPIRITVS IN LVCE DOMINI SVSCEP- 
 TVS EST. 
 
 Sepulchral Formulae.— HIC lACET, EN0AAE KEI- 
 TAI, or KATAKEITAI (B.k:kh); HIC SITVS EST; 
 HIC DORMIT: HIC POSITA EST; DEPOSJTIO; 
 KATA0ECTC; ETA<I>H (Bdckh); KATETE0H (id.). 
 
 Desiynation of tomb .— LOCVLVS; BISOMVS, TRI- 
 SOMVS, QVADRLSOMVS (with LOCVS expressed or 
 understood); TOIIOC, CVBICVLVM, AETERNA 
 DOM VS. 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 855 
 
 ESCIT IN SOMNO PACIS, DEPOSITJO EIVS 
 HI IDVS .... etc. 
 
 Bi'utium, Campania, Apulia: 
 
 B. M (i. e. bonae memoriae) at the head of inscriptions. 
 
 Africa : 
 
 Sitifis, Cirta, Cesarea, Rusgunia, etc.: MEMORIA, 
 at the beginning of the inscription. Sitifi.s, Orleans- 
 villo, Arbal, Porius Magnus : PRAECKSSlT. 
 Hamman bel Hanefia, Hwdjar Roum, Portus Mag¬ 
 nus: DECESSIT, DISCESSIT. Cirta, Kalama, 
 Carthage, etc.: VlXIT IN PACE. [Caesarea: 
 IN PACE HIC QVIESCIT ; ACCUBITORIVM; 
 SEPVl.TVS. Sitifis; HIC lACIT. Cirta: EN- 
 ©AAE KEITE.l 
 
 Greece : 
 
 Athens: KOIMHTHPION, at the beginning of the 
 Inscription. 
 
 Galatia: 
 
 Tschorum, etc.: ©ECIC. 
 
 Cilicia: 
 
 Mopsuestia, Tarsus, Corycus, Seleucia: TOllOC. Se- 
 leucia, Bor.: MNHMA. Mopsuestia, Tarsus: 
 MNHMA AIA<I*EP0N. Seleucia; XAMOCOPIN 
 (j(a/j.aicr6piou), HAPACTATIKON; in the sense 
 of sepulchre. Corycus, Epinoia, Seleucia, 0HKH. 
 Corycus: GnMATO0HKH, ©HEH AlA4>E- 
 POYCA. 
 
 Syria: 
 
 Andrena, Phylea, Schmerrin, Horus, on the gates ■ 
 AYTH H HYaH TOY KYPIOY. K.T.A. 
 
 Palestine: 
 
 Jerusalem: MNHMA AlAd>EPON; ©HKH AlA- 
 4>EPOYCA. 
 
 Egypt: 
 
 Benka el Assel: EIT ArA©fl. Thebes: 0 MAKA- 
 RIOC, applied to the dead; [0 ©EOC ANAlIAYd 
 EN CKHNAIC APIGN. Alexandria: MNH- 
 ©HTI THC KOIMHCEGCTHC AOYAHC COY.] 
 
 Nubia: 
 
 Phile; EH APAQG. Kalabscheh: 0 MAKAPIOC, 
 applied to the d^ad; [EN0A KATAKEITE]. 
 Kalabscheh, cemetery of Wadj'-Gazal- ANA- 
 HAYCON 0 ©EOC THN ^'YXHN AYTOY EN 
 KOAHIC (/coXirot?) ABRAAM KAI ICAAK KAI 
 lAKDB. Colasucia: 0 ©EOC TGN HNEYMA- 
 TGN KAI CAPKOC . . . ANAIIAYCON THN 
 ^YXHN. 
 
 Great Britain : 
 
 IC lACET; HIC TVMVLO lACIT ; IN OC 
 TVMVLO lAClT; A. HIC lAClT B. FILIVS; 
 HIC lACIT IN CONGERIES (sic) LAPIDVM ; 
 A FILIVS B HIC lACIT; HIC lACENT 
 SANCTI ET PRAECIPVI SACERDOTES; 
 HIC MEMOR lACIT; HIC IN SEPVLCRO 
 REQVIESCIT; IN MEMORIAM SANCI ORVM; 
 LVCEM TVAM DA DEVS ET REQVIEM; and 
 (later) ROGO OMNIBVS AMBVLANTIBVS 
 EXORENP PRO ANIMA; also (in Ceitl ) OR 
 DO (pray for); and (in Sixon) BEGUN AFTER 
 (a memorial to) . . .; GIBIDDADDAER SAV’LE 
 (pray for the soul) ; also name only, 
 
 Ireland : 
 
 HIC DORMIT (once); name only in genitive (in 
 Latin) ; and in Celtic, of which the groat majority 
 are composed, OR or OROIT IX) (pray for); OR 
 or OROIT AR (pray for); BENDACHD FOR 
 ANMAIMN (a blessing on the soul of); SAFEI 
 SAHATTOS (fthe stone] of the wise sage); also 
 name only (very frequently). 
 
 D. Acclamidions .—There is still one point re¬ 
 lating to the phraseology of Christian iu.scrip- 
 
 tions, on which it may be convenient to say a 
 
856 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 / 
 
 little more. Many of those on gems and glass, 
 and a large number of the epitaphs contain what 
 are termed acclmnations, or short expressions 
 addresseil to, or in behalf of, the living, or to or 
 in behalf of the dead. Both one and the other 
 existed for the Pagans, and both one and the 
 other were adopted with various modifications 
 by the Christians. 
 
 (1.) To begin with those which concern the 
 living. The sentiment on the inscription amici 
 DUM VI VIM vs VIVA MVS (Gruter, p. 609, 3) on 
 the glass IN NOMINK IIKRCVLIS ACKRENTINO 
 (Acherontiiii), felices vivatis (Garrucci, Vetri, 
 t. XXXV. f. 1), and on the gem viijas(.sic) lvxvri 
 HOMO HONE (King’s Ant. Gems and Rings, vol. i. p. 
 311), was adopted by the Christians in the sense 
 of living in God ; and they engraved viVE or 
 vivas in DEO, and cognate expressions expressive 
 of hoj)e both for time and for eternity on their 
 own gems and glass vessels, and occasionally on 
 a lamp or an amulet. Sometimes a saint is 
 added, as vivas in christo et lavrentio, or 
 a saint only is expre.ssed, as vivas in nomine 
 lavre(n)ti. Sometimes again a married couple, 
 or a man and his family, are the subjects of this 
 kind of good wish. Sometimes, however, the name 
 of God or Christ w'as omitted, but a Christian sym¬ 
 bol, as a palm or a chrisma, was introduced in 
 order to insure the Christian significance. The 
 Christians did not indeed refuse the sense of en¬ 
 joying this life, when they wrote pie (-Trte) ZESES, 
 or ZESES only on their glass drinking-cups, which 
 were employed in sacred festivities, but the 
 sacred representations which accompanied the 
 legend would be a witness against any intem¬ 
 perate use. A smaller number of acclamations 
 inscribed on glas.s, prays that the pei’sons ad¬ 
 dressed may live in the peace of God. Thus one 
 in favor of a married couple: VIVATIS IN PACE 
 DEI (Garrucci, Vetri, t. i. f. 3); on another we 
 have BIHAS (vivas) in pace dei (Id. t. vi. f. 7), 
 or vivas im pace DEI (Id. t. vii. f. 2). 
 
 For the matters here touched on see Gems, 
 Glass, Lamps, Seals. That this kind of accla¬ 
 mation exhorting to live was usually addressed to 
 the living, is clear upon the face of it: but there 
 are a few cases where it is less certain, whether 
 the persons addressed were aliv^e or dead. Thus 
 it has been made a question whether hilakis 
 vivas cvm tvis feliciter semper refri- 
 GERES IN PACE DEI is an acclamation to a living 
 or dead person: Martigny {Diet, p, 8) relying 
 principally on the word expressing a desire for 
 his refreshment, looks on him as dead. Garrucci, 
 probably with greater reason, interprets: sii 
 sempre Heto et ti refrigera nella pace di Dio, 
 cioe con la grazia di lui, shewing that refri- 
 geri'i.m is not rarely used of living persons 
 M. .s. p. 126). 
 
 On Christian epitaphs the living are sometimes 
 addressed by the living, sometimes by the dead. 
 Of the former are requests to the reader to 
 prav for the soul of the person buried. These 
 are very rare for the earlier periods. Dr. 
 M’Caul savs, “I recollect but two examples in 
 Christian epitaphs of the first six centuries of 
 the addre.ss to tiie reader for his prayers, so 
 common in mediaeval times.” In the early 
 mediaeval inscriptions of Great Britain and 
 Ireland exam])les will be seen under Tomb. At 
 other times the readers are saluted by the author 
 of the insndption, salvete fratres (Renier n. 
 
 4025 ; see above), or asked to pray for him (Le 
 Blant, n. 619). 
 
 The dead person sometimes prays the living 
 not to meddle with his bones, as precOR EGO 
 HILPERICVS NON AVFERANTVR IIINC OZZA ME.A 
 (Le Blant, n. 207. See similar examples in his 
 notes on this in.scription and Tomb). 
 
 Sometimes the survivors are exhorted not to 
 weep: and the nolite dolere parentes, hoc faciun- 
 dum fait {Mus. Disn. i. 117, pi. liii.) becomes 
 on a Christian epitaph— 
 
 “ Parcite vos lacrimis, dulcls cum conjuge natae, 
 VivenU-mque Deo credite here nefa^.” 
 
 De Rossi, I. U. li. n. 843 ^a.d. 472). 
 
 More strange are the epitaphs counted to be 
 Christian, p.r) Auttou, t4kuou, ouSets kdavaros 
 (Bockh, 11 . 9589), and Odpai, Tarta ouSeis 
 
 ddavaros (Id. 9624), both from the Roman cata¬ 
 combs. A Jewish epitaph in a Roman cemetery 
 runs similarly (Id. n. 9917). 
 
 (2.) Of acclamations addressed to the dead we 
 hav'e the following.® 
 
 Vivas or vivatis in deo ; this and the 
 allied forms viVE or vivas in christo, domino, 
 inter SANCTIS (sic, De Rossi, n.s. n. 10, a.d. 
 268), IN NOMINE CIIRLSTI (Marini, p. 45r>); also 
 IN NO.MINE PETRI (Boldetti, p. 388), the same, 
 or nearly so, as those which have just been 
 noticed as addressed to the living, recur abun¬ 
 dantly on the sepulchral monuments of Rome 
 and other places (De Rossi, I. U. M. Prol. p. cx ; 
 Le Blant, n. 576; Mart. Diet. p. 7, and To.\ib). 
 
 Epitaph of Aelemalis and Servilia, .Sivaux, Fian^. Xiarnght hy 
 lie Ro?si, jud^'iiif? frv>in the style and palaeography. t<« be earlier 
 than Constantine {fiuV. .irch. Crist. I8B3, p. 47, whoee tig. i3 
 copied); if 8 > it probably gives the oldest known exan^ple of the 
 Chrisma. Fifth century, according to Le Blant (n. 576). 
 
 Similarly in Greek (Bockh, n. 
 
 9800), ^•qcrats iv Kupico (Id. n. 9673). They 
 'proceed on the supposition that the Christian 
 life is continuous, and that expressions in the 
 form of good wishes, which primarily belong 
 to this life, may when their fulfilment is nc 
 
 0 Of Pagan acclainations addressed in bobalt of tin- 
 dead we have,among otliers, the following: At/ libi terra 
 levis. Ossa tua bene quiescavt. Are, la-'e, Ui tibi benef.- 
 ciant, Xatpe, 6ioj) yot’Otripi? ro tl/vxpbr v6iop (M'caul, U.S, 
 p. .wii.). 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 857 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 longer doubtful, be transferred to the life to 
 come.P 
 
 Other forms express to the dead good wishes 
 for their rest or peace. Thus on a gem, found 
 in a grave B (bene) qvesqvas, (quiescas) (see 
 Gems), and on tombs quiosce in pace (Marini, p. 
 366), CESQUAS BENE IN PACE (Id. p. 385). Nor 
 tan we well take such phrases as pax tecum (Le 
 Plant, n. 490, &;c.), elpijUT] (roi (Bockh, n. 9486), 
 IpTjvi (^^lp'i]vri) (Toi iv ovpavco (Id. n. 9844), and 
 elpTjur] Tra<ri, with or without eV 0ew (Id. nos. 
 9487-8), as other than good wishes addressed 
 to the departed, not affirmations of a fait ac- 
 ccmpli, but a confident pra 3 'er, or rather a sure 
 hope, that the state of peace ma_v continue. In 
 other inscriptions, however, it is evidently re¬ 
 garded as already accomplished, e. g., aueiravafv 
 'Apia ky eipriyr} (Marini, p. 456). Compare eV 
 elpijvr) irpodyei (Bockh, u. 9645 and 9632) ; OB- 
 DORMIVIT IN pace IESV, QVEM DILEXIT, OBIIT IN 
 PACE DEI (Hlibner, u. s. p. x.). The full expres¬ 
 sion elpTjyr} aoi PAX VOBISCVM SIT, also 
 
 occurs (Bockh, n. 9710; Le Blant, n. 526). 
 More interesting are the acclamations which 
 relate to refrigerium, which God himself is often 
 elsewhere- invoked to bestow on the departed. 
 De Rossi notes the occurrence of spirUum tuum 
 Deus refrigeret^'^ and the like, as occurring in 
 early Christian epitaphs {Frol. p. cx.). But here 
 the deceased is addressed, in the hope that he is 
 in receipt of that refreshment, or as being sure 
 to receive it. Thus we have the neuter verb 
 refrigerare, to enjoy a cool repose, in this con¬ 
 nection, IN BONO REFRiGERES (Marini, p. 420), 
 i. e., mag you enjoy refreshment in a good place., 
 by which is intended Paradise, or the bosom of 
 Abraham; refrigera cvm spiritv sancto, i.e., 
 in thine own holy soul (Marangoni, Cose Gent. 
 p. 460. See Tertull. ado. 3Iarc. lib. iv. c. 34). 
 More rarely accepta sis in cristo (Marini, 
 p. 454) is the form which tlie acclamation 
 assumes, with which XpLcrhs juera crov (Bockh, 
 n. 9697) may be compared, as well as.AETERNA 
 TIBI LUX IN CHRISTO (Marini, u. s. p. 450), the 
 last word being expressed by the chrisma. Some 
 addresses to the dead, however, are congratula¬ 
 tory, as BENE VIXSITI (S4c), VENE CONSVMASTI 
 (Marini p. 434), anima tva cvm ivstis {Id. 
 p. 381), IN REFRIGERIO ANIMA TVA (Fabretti, 
 p. 547), where est rather than sit seems to be 
 understood. 
 
 The Greek acclamation Odppi {i. e. Bdppei) is 
 ’ sometimes placed at the end of an epitaph 
 (Bockh, n. 9821); and sometimes at the begin¬ 
 
 p The indicative is likewise found, as in Deo decedit 
 e vita (Httbner, u.s. p. xi.); and both expressions mean 
 in reality the same thing. The reader, however, may see 
 Martigny, Diet. s. v. “ Purgatoire ” for a different view of 
 the optative formulae. 
 
 <i The verb is then used transitively. In the Latin 
 version of St. Irenaeus, refrigerare is the rendering of 
 avan-oucracrdai, and Ducange accordingly (Gloss, s. v.) 
 explains the Latin word by requieseere, wliich is substan¬ 
 tially correct. Refrigerium as used by Tertullian and in 
 the Acclamations does not mean “ a release from pain, 
 but an enjoyment of positive though imperfect happiness 
 on the part of theju^t from tlie« very moment of their 
 dissolution in that scj)arate abode which Tertullian sup¬ 
 poses our Lord to distinguish by the appellation of Abra¬ 
 ham’s bosoxn.”—Fab< r, Diff. of Roman sm, book i. c. v. 
 
 r See Do Rossi (u s.). The words occur in this sense 
 In the epitaph of St. Severa at Rome. See Tomb, 
 
 ning {Id. n. 9789), addressed in each case to the 
 departed. Another imperative yprjyopei (waae 
 up!) in singular contrast to the quiescas above, 
 is occasionally found at the end of Christian in¬ 
 scriptions {Id. 9599, 9570); it may probably 
 contemplate the return of the Saviour. Eu/aolpi 
 also occurs {Id. 9800). 
 
 The Latin classical form Ave, much used by 
 the Pagans, is found also in a Christian epitaph, 
 and written A B E (Bockh, n. 9653). We have 
 also HAVE VALE on the same monument (Le 
 Blant, n. 495). 
 
 In the last place are to be noted prayers or 
 requests to the departed to pray to God for the 
 survivors,* De Rossi notes that in the earlier 
 undated inscriptions of the catacombs {i.e., those 
 before the peace of Constantine), we have pete 
 pro nobis, pro parentibus, pro conjuge, pro fliis, 
 pro sorore (Prol. p. cx.). To these Dr. IMcCaul 
 adds roga, ora pro nobis, but adds at tlie same 
 time that there are “ comparatively few among 
 the thousands” of these undated inscriptions, 
 which contain these prayers, and “ that instances 
 of the mention, in such forms of others than tho 
 members of the. family o/ the deceased are ex¬ 
 tremely rare.” He has observed only one dated 
 example, of the year 380 a.d. (De Rossi, n. 288) 
 which contains any such request; it has the 
 expression PRO hvnc vnvm ora svbolem 
 (u. s. p. xviii.). With respect to such accla¬ 
 mations of affection as oulcis anima, anima 
 pura et tnand i, anima innox, puer innocens, 
 \pvxh Ka\^, and the like, they are applied in 
 Christian inscriptions of various kinds both 
 to the living and the dead, and need hardly be 
 dwelt upon in this place (see Garrucci, u. s. 
 Index, s v. dulcis anima ; Martigny, Diet. p. 7 ; 
 Perret, Catac. de Home, t. v. pi. 17 ; Bockh, 
 n. 9697). 
 
 E. Style and Structure .—Such inscriptions as 
 relate to public works, churches, basilicas, foun¬ 
 tains, or to sacred objects and furniture, altars, 
 chalices, crosses, liturgical book-covers, kc., or to 
 votive offerings and the like, need hardly be taken 
 into the present account. They exist in prose and 
 verse, both in Greek and in Latin, and are of very 
 various styles and lengths. A large number of 
 such are collected by Marini, and edited by Mai 
 {Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. tom. v, pp. 1-236); to 
 this work more especially the reader is referred. 
 Many of them, however, are later than the 
 period embraced in his work. Very few inscrip¬ 
 tions, if any, which belong to this class, go back 
 before the time of Constantine, so far as the 
 writer is aware, and can hardly be called nume¬ 
 rous till after the close of the 4th century. 
 With regard, however, to the sepulchral inscrip¬ 
 tions the case is somewhat different. They can, 
 to some extent at least, be classified by then- 
 style. But the first thing to be borne in mind 
 is that inscriptions of one country are no rule 
 for those of another. Those of Britain and of 
 Ireland, for example, are both unlike each other, 
 and unlike those of Gaul, Spain, and Italy, of 
 nearly the same period. The Greek in.scriptions, 
 again, admit for the most part of but little com¬ 
 parison with the Latin ones; the Greek and 
 
 * The Invocation of the Virgin an(i of saints (see ab-xve 
 5 iv.) are scarcely to be accounted acclamations, and are 
 better considered separately. 
 
858 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 Latin ins(;i-i})tions to Dometius, written on the 
 same slab, are a good illustration of this (Le 
 Blant, hisc. Chrit. Gaul. n. 61.‘1 a). 
 
 With few excej)tions the earlier inscriptions 
 are characterised by their brevity and simplicity, 
 while from the 4th century onwards they assume 
 in some countries, as in Italy, Gaul, and Spain, 
 a more complex and ornate character. In the 
 earlier epitaphs, moreover, sometimes occur 
 traits more or'less similar to the pagan epitaphs, 
 e.g. mention of those who made the tomb, which 
 by degrees disappear. They also contain a much 
 greater number of acclamations, most of which 
 soon vanish com])letely. In the 4th century 
 Christian Latin epigraphy began to make a style 
 of its oAvn, and for the first time we now get at 
 Rome such ojiening words as hie requiescit in 
 pace., or in somno pads, hie quiescit, hie jacet, 
 hie positus est, &c. ; and new rhetorical phrases, 
 as mirae innocentiae, sap)ientiae, sanctitatis, &c., 
 begin to make their appearance. It is not 
 until about this time that any mention of the 
 secular profession of the deceased occurs in the 
 Latin inscriptions; and it is not very commonly 
 mentioned at any time. The chrisma and the 
 cross, signs of a triumphant faith, now come in 
 abundantly. The inscriptions of Gaul followed 
 the style of Rome a good deal, and the same or 
 similar formulae appear upon them at a some¬ 
 what later time. It is in these Roman and 
 Gaulish inscriptions that changes of style can 
 best be studied, because they are so numerous, 
 because so many of them bear dates, and, in fine, 
 because they have been so admirably edited. 
 M. De Rossi makes some remarks on the changes 
 of style in the Roman inscriptions (Insc. Urb. 
 Horn., P/olegom., pp. ex.-exvi.), and will in an¬ 
 other volume discuss totani dili epigraphici Chris^ 
 ti ini doctrinam. ]\I. Le Bh.mt, in the first fifty- 
 eight pages of his Minuel, treats of the succes¬ 
 sive variations in the Gaulish inscriptions (few 
 of which, however, are before the age of Con¬ 
 stantine), and also establishes the fact, that 
 blank formulae were in circulation for the 
 use of stonecutters, where of course the num- 
 bei of years of the deceased or of the reigning 
 king could only be expressed by the word 
 tot or tantus, and that the stonecutter has 
 sometimes neglected to replace the tantus by 
 the particular number required. (See Le Blant, 
 u. s. pp. 59-74.) Similarly in Spain traces 
 of blank formulae can be recognised (Htibner, 
 u. s. p. A'iii.). 
 
 By means of a careful study of the phrases 
 of the dated inscriptions a close approximation 
 may sometimes be made to the date of an un¬ 
 dated one; great caution, however, is necessary, 
 as certain expressions held their place for a long 
 period. (See Le Blant, u. s. pp. 31-33). 
 
 (vi.). Dates of Christian Inscriptions. 
 
 (a) Christian inscriptions, when dated, most 
 usually bear the names of consuls, and all the 
 earliest are thus dated. Sometimes one, more 
 usually both consuls, are given, the names being ' 
 commonly contracted. The abbreviation cos for 
 consulibus was in use up to the middle of the i 
 3rd century, after which coss, cons, and CONSS, ' 
 came to be successively adopted: COS is very 
 seldom found during the 4th century, and almost 
 never in the 5th or 6th: coss fell into disuse 
 
 about the first quarter of the 5th century, and 
 after that CONS was used.* * 
 
 The numerals, to designate a second or third 
 consulate, are frequently jirefixed to cos and the 
 other abbreviated for;ns ; but where there is no 
 ambiguity they are .sometimes omitted. A 
 very strange abbreviation was occasionallv used, 
 though in Christian inscn'ptions it is exceedingly 
 rare: the names of the consuls were omit¬ 
 ted and the numbers only retained. In an 
 epitaph from a Christian crypt at Motyca, in 
 Sicily, to “ Euterpe, the comj)anion of the 
 Muses,” her death is fixed to Nov. 27, viraTia 
 Tuiv KV [plojz/] TO 1 Kal rh -y' in the consulship of 
 our Lords for the tenth time and for the third 
 time, i. e. 360 A.D., when Constantins was in his 
 tenth consulate, and Julian in his third. (Bockh, 
 n. 9524.) 
 
 Another form of dating was bv a post-con¬ 
 sulate, i.e. the words post consvlatvm, or the 
 abbreviations post cons, po.st conss (or from 
 the middle of the 5th century), p c, and even 
 post (or POs) only was j)laced before the consuls’ 
 names of the year preceding, “ when it was not 
 known who were the consuls of the year, or 
 when the name of but one was known, or when 
 it was necessary or expedient not to mention 
 them” (MeCaul, u. s, p. xxvi.). This formula, 
 which is said to have arisen in the troublesome 
 times of Maxentius, 307 a.d., I’arely appears in 
 Christian inscriptions till 542 a.d., when the 
 post-consulate of Basil the younger was taken as 
 
 ' and the yeuvs q^ost consulatum Basilii extend up 
 to xxix. The consulate of Justin in 566 a.d. 
 gave birth to another era of post-consulates, 
 which lasted nine years. 
 
 There are various other matters connected 
 with consular dates which are intentionally 
 passed over here. For the whole subject see 
 De Rossi (Thsc. Urb. Bom. pp. xiii.-liv.; and for 
 an epitome of the more important parts. Me Caul 
 (w. s. p. xxiii.-xxvii.)," 
 
 (6) Other inscriptions are dated by an era, 
 
 I whether of a province or of a city. Examples of 
 I the former are seen in Spain and Mauretania; of 
 I the latter in various parts of Asia, where the 
 eras of Antioch and Bostra (among others) ob¬ 
 tained currency. Examples of these will be 
 found above, and below under Tomb. In all 
 these parts of the empire Christian inscriptions 
 1 were very rarely dated by the consuls, and those 
 I are mostly of the 6th century (De Rossi, u. s. 
 
 ^ p. xiii.). For other eras employed in Christian 
 inscriptions, see De Rossi (tr. s. pp. v. vi.). 
 
 (c) Dates by Indictions * (or cycles of fifteen 
 year’s) are not found in Christian inscriptions of 
 Rome before the beginning of the 6th century. 
 The earliest seems to be 522 a.d. (De Rossi, 
 I. U. R. n. 984). In Gaul, however, we find an 
 
 * In Diocleti.an’s time CONS, was first used for one 
 comul, and CONSS. for two consuls; as well as CS. and 
 CC. SS. similarly. 
 
 “ In Christian inscriptions dates taken from the office 
 of magistrates other than consuls are extremely rare (De 
 Roesi, u. s. p. xi. See alxive ) iv. n. 1). 
 
 * These have been thought to be connected with the 
 fifteen years of military ser vice and the extrac r Jinary 
 tribute necessary for their payment f''om time to time, as 
 adjusted by Constantine; but their origin is not altoge¬ 
 ther certain. 
 
INSCEIPTIONS 
 
 IXSCRIPTIONS 
 
 859 
 
 inscription dated Ind. XV, Olibrio juniore cans 
 (consule), i.e. 491. a.d. (Le Blant, n. 088 ). The 
 indictions themselves (whicli commence 312 A.D.), 
 unless accomj)auied by other notes of time (as 
 they often are), do not sullice to determine 
 even approximately the year A.D. For the first 
 year of each cycle is counted as the first in¬ 
 diction, and thus the tenth indictiou merely 
 signifies the tenth year in some undetermined 
 indiction. See De Rossi (u. s. De Cyclo Indic- 
 tionum, pp. xcvii.-ci ) 
 
 (d) For the mode of dating by solar and lunar 
 cycles, i. e. by the day of the month, the day of 
 the week, and the day of the moon, as compared 
 with each other and with the year, the reader 
 who desires to enter into so difficult a subject 
 must consult De Rossi (u. s. pp. Ixx.-xcvii.). See 
 also Month; Week. 
 
 Thei'e are now to be noticed a few eras or 
 modes of dating which are peculiar to the 
 Christians. 
 
 (e) The era of the martyrs is only used in 
 Egypt and the adjoining regions. A barbarous 
 Greek inscription (n. 9121 Bcickh) dates March 30, 
 anb juapTvpwy ad, i. e. 209 of the Dioclesian era, 
 which commenced August 29, 284 a.d., and so 
 corresponding to 494 a.d. This era, invented 
 and first used by the pagans, was adopted after¬ 
 wards by the Christians, who more usually 
 changed its name (Martigny, Diet. p. 532, and 
 the references, also Bockh, n. 9134). 
 
 (/) Episcopal dates. A Roman epitaph (De 
 Rossi, /. U. li. n. 139) is dated deposita in pace 
 SUB Libe[rio ep.], and another (n. 190) has 
 RECESSIT III NON. IN PACE SVB DaMASO EPISCO. 
 These are the only examples of the kind known, 
 and do not prove that epitajths were then dated 
 purely and simply by the papal era, but rather 
 that those who put them up wished to express 
 their adhesion to the orthodox pontiffs and not 
 to their o])ponents Felix and (Jrsicinus.y 
 
 But from the end of the 4th century it became 
 common at Rome to date sacred buildings by 
 inscriptions in which the pope’s name occurred ; 
 thus we have in such connections SALVO SiRiciO 
 EPiscopo (like the Salvis dd. nn. Augustis) 
 and TEMPORIBVS sancti Innocentii EPISCOPI, 
 and the still remaining inscription in the basilica 
 of St. Sabina: 
 
 eVLMEN APOSrOLICVM CVM CAELESTINVS 
 HABERET 
 
 rRIMVS El’ IN TOTO FVLGERET EPISCOPVS 
 ORBE. 
 
 (De Rossi, u. s, pp. Viii., ix). In the 5th and 
 following century the custom of dating sacred 
 buildings by bishops and other ecclesiastics 
 spread abroad, and at length became very general 
 throughout Europe; but public monuments of the 
 provinces of the 4th, 5th, and even 6 th and later 
 centuries are dated by the eras of Mauretania 
 or of Bostra or Antioch, or by consuls, or by 
 the reigns of emperors (De Rossi, ti. s. p. ix. and 
 the references). Sometimes, but very rarely, 
 the exact year of office of the bishop or abbot is 
 given (De Rossi, u. s. and above, § iv. n. 11). 
 
 There are two other eras much employed in 
 inscriptions soon after the period with which we 
 are concerned, and which indeed at length almost 
 
 y Martigny (Z>ic<. p. 317) says; “ Apres Clovis, ils (Ics 
 Gaulois) inscriverent quelquetois sur les oiarbres I’annee 
 du pontife Romain.” 
 
 superseded the others in common use — the 
 Dionysian epoch of the Incarnation,* and the 
 mundane era, which reckons the Creation at 
 5508 B.c. [Era.] 
 
 (y) Bede brought the former into vogue in 
 the beginning of the 8th century, and there are 
 also some early inscriptions dated thereby. De 
 Rossi affirms that he knows of no inscription of 
 the first six centuries so dated. There is one ot 
 the year 617 a.d., which records the construction 
 and consecration of a ba})tistery, at Brixia, by 
 Domina nostra Flavia Thcodolinda, which is thus 
 dated at the end : vivente domino nostro Adel- 
 valdo sacrae salutis saeciUo CCC CCC xvii (Marini, 
 u. s. p. 170); besides this there is one at Inter- 
 amna (Merni), dated AN. s. DCC. xxvil. (Marini, 
 u. s. p. 157); others just below our poriod are a 
 little difi'erently exjjressed : one is dated AN. IN- 
 CARNAT. DNI DCCCLVII IND V REGE LOVDOWICO 
 IMP. AVG. (Marini, w. s. p. 85), and another is 
 placed ANNO domini dccc lxiiii (Marini, 
 M. s. pp. 164, 5). All these are in connection 
 with the dedication or building of sacred edifices. 
 
 (A) An early example® of the mundane era is 
 furnished by an inscription on a tower at Nicaea 
 in Bithynia, ctous ^s"r£r, in the year 6316, cor¬ 
 responding to 808 A.D. (Bockh, C, I. G. n. 
 8669). But as it is called “ the tower of 
 Michael, the great king in Christ, emperor,” 
 some error in the date (as edited) has slipped 
 in. For Michael I. reigned from 811-813 A.D., 
 and Michael II. from 820-829 A.D. Possibly 
 the S' is a misreading for 6 : if so, the date is 811 
 A.D. Another mutilated inscription, relative to 
 the foundation of an arsenal (tovtov p.eya- 
 Adrarop (sic) apayvaXyp) by “ Theophilus the 
 king, son of Michael the king,” is doubly dated, 
 enrb KTiaeos (sic) K6a/j.ou dvrb 5e Xpiarov 
 
 iTovs (D\d', the year 6342 of the mundane era, 
 corresponding to the year 834 of the Christian 
 era (Id. u. 8680). 
 
 (i) There are, in fine, inscriptions dated by the 
 reigns or by the years of the reigns of the sove¬ 
 reigns of the kingdoms which sprung out of the 
 ruins of the western empire. Examples occur 
 in England, France, Spain, and Italy. (See 
 above § iv.. Nos. 5, 11 , and Tomb.) 
 
 In like manner, after the consulate came to 
 an end in 541 a.d., the year of the Byzantine 
 emperor’s reign, was occasionally placed on in¬ 
 scriptions as a date. An early example of the 
 year 592 a.d., in the 11 th year of Justinian II. 
 (in an inscription relating to a church), is given 
 in Bockh’s C. 1. G. n. 8651. Another less pre¬ 
 cise is dated by the joint reign (842-857 A.D.) 
 of Theodora, Michael, and Theda (Bockh, C. /. G. 
 n. 8683). 
 
 More than one mode of dating often occurs on 
 the same monument, as by consuls and an indic¬ 
 tion conjointly ; by an era and a king conjointly; 
 
 * This was devised in 525 a.d. by Dionysius Exiguns, a 
 Roman abbot. For his purpose, wliicli was ncillier 
 literary nor historical, but simply had reference to 
 Easter, see the late Professor Grote in tlie Cambridge 
 Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. i. pp. 68 
 69, in a paptr entitled ‘On the dating of Ancient 
 History,’ where several subjects here touched upon are 
 discussed. 
 
 » Piobihly there may exist somewhat earlier inscrip¬ 
 tions dat. d by tliis era tlian those here referred to. “ it 
 began to prevail in thf 7th century, and appears in the 
 Paschal Chronicle" (C vte, u.s. p. 66). 
 
860 
 
 IXSCPtlPTIONS 
 
 INSCKIPTIONS 
 
 or by a king and an ecclesiastic conjointly. In 
 addition to the years tlie months are often noted ; 
 tl'.ese are in general the Roman months. 
 
 lint the day of the month, whether of the 
 death or of the burial, is sometimes in the more 
 ancient inscriptions alone set down. Thus in a*^ 
 Roman inscidj)tion we have simply Fortunatus 
 clepositus HI Kal. Oct. in pice\ and in another, 
 La'ireniiu (sic) idus lenuras (sic) dccessit, fol¬ 
 lowed by the chrisma (Marini, u. s. pp. 380, 
 S87). 
 
 In Egypt, however, the Egyptian months are 
 set down, either alone (Bockh, n. 9110), or 
 together with an indiction (tc/. n. 9111), or with 
 the era of “ the martyrs” {id. 9121), or with an 
 indiction together with the same era, under its 
 proper name, “ the year of Diocletian” {id. 9134). 
 
 The days are added to the months when these 
 occur : usually computed according to the Roman 
 kalendar by kalends, ides, and nones ; but the 
 cyclic inscriptions have the days of the week {die 
 Bcneris, die Saturnis (sic), &c.; also die Sabbati, 
 die dominica), the days of the moon, or the 
 octave of Easter. (See De Rossi, u. s.; Me Caul, 
 u. s. pp. 53-58.) In Egypt the day of the month 
 is reckoned numerically, as the 21st of Tybi, 
 the 10th of Phaophi, &c. 
 
 We have also e.xamples, though they are not 
 numerous, of epitaphs dated by saints’ days. 
 One at Briord, of about the 6th or 7th century, 
 records of “Ricelfus et jugalis sua Guntello” 
 that “ obierunt in die Sci May'tini, who probably 
 himself died Nov. 8, A.D. 397 (Butler’s Lives 
 of Saints, under Nov. 11). M. Le Blant, who 
 gives this inscription (n. 380), quotes other and 
 earlier examples from the catacombs ; such as 
 Fatale Susti, Fatale Domnes Sitirctis, yostcra die 
 marturorum, ante nutale Domini A^teri, d. nat. 
 Sci Mat’d. 
 
 In addition to the day the hour is sometimes 
 added, and occasionally even the fraction {scru- 
 pulus) of the hour. See Tomb. 
 
 (vii.j Ah'tredatit.ns used in Christian Imcrip- 
 tions. —This catalogue might no doubt be en¬ 
 larged considerably : it has been taken from 
 Martigny {Diet. pp. 322-324, omitting, however, 
 the numerals, L foi quiuquaginta, X for decern, 
 and the like) ; and the writer has made various 
 additions to it, mostly by help of Hiibner’s Index 
 to his Spanish Inscriptions, p. 115. 
 
 A.—Anima,—annos,—ave. 
 
 ABBl.—Abbalis. 
 
 A. B. M.—Aiiiinae benemerenti. 
 
 ACOL.—Acolytus. 
 
 A.D.—Ante diem,—anima dulcis. 
 
 A.D. KAL.—Ante diem calendas. 
 
 A.K.— Ante calendas. 
 
 AX.—Annum,—annos,—annis,— ante. 
 
 ANS.—.Annos,—annis. 
 
 AP. or APR. or A PL.—Aprilis. 
 
 A POS ro R.—Apostolov i im. 
 
 A.y.T.C.—Anima quiescat in Christo. 
 
 b Cardinal Wiseman says of the deceased Christians in 
 early times that “ annual commemoration had to be made 
 on the very day of their departure, and accurate know¬ 
 ledge of this was necessary. Therefore, it alone was 
 recorded ” {Fabiola, p. 147). Even if this be the true 
 reason (which is very much to be doubted), it remains to 
 be exjdained why the day of burial alone is sometimes 
 recorded. The truth seems to be, that some little inci¬ 
 dent which would be suflicient to iviuind the friends of 
 the deceased, was sometimes regarded as date enough. 
 
 A. Pi.T.M.D.—Anima requie.scat in manu Del, 
 
 AVG.—Augustus - August!. 
 
 B. —Benemerenti, -bixit (for vi.vit). 
 
 B. AN. V. D. IX.—Vixit annos quinque, dies novem. 
 BEN E R. —V eneriae. 
 
 B. F.—Bonae feminae. 
 
 BIBAT.—Bibatls (for vivatis). 
 
 B. I. C. —Bibas (for viva.s) in Christo. 
 
 B. M., o?' BO. M., or BE. ME., or BO. ME.—Bonae 
 memoriae. 
 
 B. M. F.—Benemerenti fecit. 
 
 BMT.—Benemerenti. 
 
 BN.VL, or BN.VIR.—Benemerenti, or beuemerentibus. 
 
 B. Q.—Bene quiescat 
 
 B. Q. I. P.—Bene quiescat in pace. 
 
 BVS. V.—Bonus vir. 
 
 C. —Consul,—cum. 
 
 CAL,—Calendas. 
 
 CC.—Consoles,—carissimus, or carissima conjux. 
 
 CESQ. I. P.—Quiescit, or quiescat in pace. 
 
 C. F.—Clarisbima femina,—curavit fieri. 
 
 CH.—Christus. 
 
 C. H. L. S. E.—Corpus hoc loco sepultum (or situm) est. 
 CL.—Clarus,—clarissimus. 
 
 C. L. P.—Cum lacrymis posuerunt. 
 
 CL. V'.—Clarissimus vir. 
 
 C. M. F.—Curavit monumentum fierL 
 
 C. 0.—Conjugi optimo. 
 
 C. 0. B. Q.—Cum omnibus bonis quiescas, 
 
 COI.—Conjugi. 
 
 COIVG.—Conjux. 
 
 CONI.—Conjugi. 
 
 CON-S,—Consul,—cousulibus. 
 
 CON r. VOT.—Contra votum. 
 
 COS.—Consul,—consulibus. 
 
 COSS.—Consules,—consulibus. 
 
 C. P.—Clarissima puella,—curavit ponl. 
 
 C. Q.—Cum quo, or cum qua. 
 
 C. Q. F.—Cum quo fecit (for vixit). 
 
 C. R.—Corpus requiescit. 
 
 CS.—Comsul. 
 
 C. V. A.—Cum vixisset annos. 
 eVNG.—Conjux. 
 
 . D.— Dies,— die,— defunctus,— depositus,— donnit,— 
 dulcis. 
 
 D. B. M.—Dulcissimae benemerenti. 
 
 D. B. Q.—Dulcis, bene quiescas. 
 
 D. D.—Dedit,—dedicavii,—dies. 
 
 D. D. S.—Decessit de saeculo. 
 
 DE. or DEP.—Depositus, - deposlta,—depositio. 
 
 DE. —Deum. 
 
 DEC.—Decembris. 
 
 DF. —Defunctus,—defuncta. 
 
 DI—Dei. 
 
 DIAC.—^Diaconus. 
 
 DIEB.—Diebus. 
 
 D. III. ID.—Die tertua idus 
 
 D. I.P.—Dormit, or decessit, or depositus in pace. 
 
 D. M manibus. 
 
 D. M. S.—Diis Manibus sacnim. 
 
 DM.—Dormit. 
 
 DMS.—Dominus. 
 
 D. N., or DD. NN.—Domino nostro, or dominis noetrifl 
 
 (the emperors). 
 
 DNI.- Domini. 
 
 DO. —Deo. 
 
 DP. —DPS.—DPT.—Depositus,—d epos) tio. 
 
 E. —Est,—et,—ejus,—erexit. 
 
 EID.—Enins for idus. 
 
 EPC.—EPVS.—EPS.—episcopus. 
 
 E. V.—Ex voto. 
 
 E. VIV. DISC.—E vivis discessit. 
 
 EX. TM.—Ex testamento. 
 
 F. —Fecit,—fui.—mius,— filia,— femina,— feliclter,—fe- 
 
 lix,—fidelis,—februarius. 
 
 F. C.—Fieri curavit. 
 
INSCRIPTIONS 
 
 FE. —Fecit. 
 
 FEBVS.—Februarius. 
 
 FF. —Fllii,—fratres,—fieri fecit. 
 
 F. F. Q.—Filiis tiliabusque. 
 
 F. K.—Filius caririsimus,—filia carisslma. 
 
 FL.—Filius,—Flavii. 
 
 FLAE.—Filiae. 
 
 F. P. F.—Filio, or filiae, poni fecit, 
 
 FS.—Fossor,—fossoribus,—fratribus. 
 
 F.V.F.—Fieri vivus fecit. 
 
 F. VI. D. S. E.—Filius sex dierum situs eat. 
 
 GL.—Gloriosi. 
 
 H.—Hora,—hoc,—h ic,—haeres, 
 
 H. A.— Hoc anno, 
 
 H. A. K. — Ave anima carissima. 
 
 H. L .S. —Hoc loco situs, or sepultus est. 
 
 H. M.—Honesta mulier. 
 
 H. M. F. F.—Hoc nionumentura fieri fecit. 
 
 H 11.1. P.—Hie rcquiescit in pace. 
 
 H. S.—Hie situs, or sepultus est. 
 
 H, T. F. or P.—Hunc tituluin fecerunt, or posuerunt, 
 
 I. — In,— idus,— ibi,— illustris,—jacet,—januarius,— 
 
 Julius. 
 
 IAN.—Januarius,—Jauuarias. 
 
 ID.—Idus,—id i bus. 
 
 I. D, N.—In Dei nomine. 
 
 TONE.—Indictione. 
 
 I. H.—.Jacet hie. 
 
 IH.—Jesus. 
 
 IHS.—Jesus. 
 
 IRV.—Jesu. 
 
 IN. B.—In bono,—in benedictione. 
 
 IND.—Indictione,—in Deo. 
 
 IN. D. N.—In Dei nomine 
 IN. D. V.—In Deo vivas, 
 
 INO.—Ingrnio. 
 
 INL.—Inlustris. 
 
 INN.—Innocens,—innocuus,—in nomine. 
 
 IN. P., or I. P.—In pace. 
 
 INPO.—In pace. 
 
 IN. X.—In Chiisto. 
 
 IN. —In Christo. 
 
 IN. XPI. N.—In Christi nomine. 
 
 I. P. I).—In pace Dei. 
 
 ISPA.—Ispalensi. 
 
 IX.—Jesus Christus. 
 
 K.—Kfl lendas,—carus,—carisslma. 
 
 KAL.—Kalendas. 
 
 K. B. M.—Carissimo benemereutl, 
 
 K. D., — I., — M., etc.—Calendas decembres,—■ janu- 
 avias, — muias, etc. 
 
 K. K.—^Carissimi. 
 
 KL. KLENi).—Calendas. 
 
 KRM.—Carissimae,—carissimo. 
 
 L. —Locus,—’.ubens. 
 
 L. A.—Libenti animo. 
 
 L. F. C.—Liberis fieri enravit. 
 
 L. M.—Locus monumenti. 
 
 LNA.—Luna. 
 
 L. S.—Locus sepulchri. 
 
 M. —Memoria,—martyr,— mensis,— menses,—merenti, 
 
 — maias, — mater, — merito, — monumentum, — 
 marmoreum — minus. 
 
 MA.— MAR.— MART.—Martyr,— martyrium,—mar¬ 
 tins. 
 
 MAT.—M;i^. 
 
 M. B.—Memoriae bonae. 
 
 M ER f B. — Meren tibus. 
 
 ME.S.—Meses,./b?' menses. 
 
 M.M.—Martyres. 
 
 M P., or PP.—^lonumentum, or memoriam, posuit, or 
 posuerunt. 
 
 MR. F.S.C.—Moerens fecit suae conjugi. 
 
 M RT.—Merenti,—merentibus 
 
 MS. —Menses,—mensilius. 
 
 INSCRIPTIONS 861 
 
 N. —Nonas,—nuniero,—novembris,—nomine,—nostro. 
 N AT.—Natal is,—natale, 
 
 N BR.—Novembris. 
 
 NME.—Nomine. 
 
 NO. or NON.—Nonas. 
 
 NON. APR., — IVL., — SEP., —OCT., etc.— Nonas 
 apriles,—Julias,—septembres,—octobres, etc. 
 
 NN.—Nostris,—numeris. 
 
 NOV.—Novembris. 
 
 NOVE. NOVEBRES.—Noverabres. 
 
 NST.—Nostri. 
 
 NVM.—Numerus. 
 
 O. —Horas,—optimus.—obitus,—obiit. 
 
 OB.—Obiit. 
 
 OB. IN. XPO.—Obiit in Christo. 
 
 OCT.—Octobris,—octavas. 
 
 0. E. B.Q.—Ossa ejus bene quiescant. 
 
 0. H. S. S.—Ossa hie sepulta sunt. 
 
 OM., or OMIB.—Omnibus. 
 
 OMS.—Onines. 
 
 OP.—Optimus. 
 
 O. P. Q.—Ossa pladde quiescant. 
 
 OSS.—Ossa. 
 
 P. — Pax,— pius,— posuit,— ponendum,— posuerunt,— 
 
 pater,—puer,—puella,— per,— post,— pro,— pridie, 
 plus,—primus,^—etc 
 P A.—Pace,—pater,—etc. 
 
 PARTB.—Paren tibus. 
 
 PC.—Pace,—poni curavit. 
 
 F. C., or P. CONS.—Post consulatum. 
 
 P. F.—Poni fecit. 
 
 P. H. —Positus hie. 
 
 P. I.—Ponijussit. 
 
 PL.—Plus. 
 
 P. M.—Plus minus,—post mortem,—piae memoriae. 
 PONT.—Pontifex. 
 
 PONTFC.—Ponti tice. 
 
 P. P.—Praefectus praetorio. 
 
 PP. K.L.—Prope calendas. 
 
 PR.—PRB.—PRBIL—PREB.—PSBR.—PRSB.— Pres¬ 
 byter, or presbyteri. 
 
 PR., or PRII). K. IVN.—Pridie calendas Junias. 
 
 PR. Q.—Posterisque. 
 
 PR. N.—Pridie nonas. 
 
 PTR.—Posteris. 
 
 P. V.—Prudentissimus vir. 
 
 P. Z.—Pie zeses (/or bibas, vivas). 
 
 Q. —qui,—quo,—quiesce,—quiescit,—quiescas. 
 
 Q. B. AN.—Qui bixit (/or vixit), annos. 
 
 Q. FEC. MEC.—Qui fecit (/or vixit) mccum. 
 
 Q. FV. AP. N.—Qui fuit apud nos. 
 
 Q. I. P.—Quie»scat in pace. 
 
 Q. M. 0.—Qui mortem obiit. 
 
 Q. V.—Qui vixit. 
 
 R. —Recessit,— requiescit,— requiescas,— retro,— refri 
 
 gera,—refrigore. 
 
 REG. SEC.—Regionis secundae. 
 
 RE.—Requiescit, or requiescat,—repositus. 
 
 REQ.—Requiescit. 
 
 RES.—Requiescit? {Inscr. Ilisp. n. 114). 
 
 R. I, P. A.—Requiescas in pace animae, or recessit. 
 
 RQ.—Requlevit. 
 
 S. —Suus,—sua,—sibl,—salve,—somno,—sepnlchrum,— 
 
 solve,—situs,—sepultus,—sub? (//iscr. Ilisp. n. 5®^ 
 SA.—Sanctissimus ? {Jnscr. Ilisp. n. 174). 
 
 SAC.—Sacer,—sacerdps. 
 
 SAC. VG.—Sacra virgo, or sacrata, 
 
 S B RS.—Sep tembres. 
 
 SC.—Sanctus. 
 
 'SC A.—Sancta. 
 
 SCE.—Sanctae. 
 
 SCI.—Sancti. 
 
 SCIS.—S.inctis. 
 
 SCLI.—Saeculi. 
 
 SC. i\I.—Sanctae memoriae. 
 
 SCLO.—Saeculo. 
 
8G2 
 
 INSINUATIO 
 
 INSTRUMENT A 
 
 SCOR.—Sanctorum. 
 
 SCORVM.—Sanctorum. 
 
 SI).—vSedit. 
 
 S. I). V. in. IAN.—Sub die quinto idus januarias. 
 
 SEP.—September,—s^ptimo. 
 
 S. H. L. R.—Sub hoc lapide requiescit. 
 
 S. 1.1).—Spiritus in Deo. 
 
 S. L. M.—Sol%’it lubens merito. 
 
 S. M.—Sanctae m-'inoriae. 
 
 S. 0. V.—Sine offeiisa iiUa. 
 
 SP.—Sepultu.s, • sepulcrum,—spiritus. 
 
 SP. F.—Spectabilis femlna. 
 
 S3.—Sanctorum,—suprascripta. 
 
 ST.-—Sunt. 
 
 S. T. T. C.—Sit tibi testis coelum. 
 
 T. and TT.—Tiiulus. 
 
 TB.—Tibi. 
 
 TIT. P., or PP., w FF.—Titulum posuit, («• posuerunt, 
 or fecerunt. 
 
 TM.—Testamentum. 
 
 TPA.—Tempora. 
 
 TTM.—Testamentum,—titulum. 
 
 V.—Vixit,—vixisti,— vivus,— vi%'a,— vivas,—veneme- 
 renti (/or benemerenti),—votum,—vovit,—vir,— 
 uxor,—vidua. 
 
 V. B.—Vir bonus. 
 
 V. C.—V^ir clari.-simus. 
 
 V.F.—Vivus, or viva, fecit. 
 
 VG., or VGO.—Virgo. 
 
 V. H.—Vir bonestus. 
 
 V. K.—Vivas carissime. 
 
 V. I. AET.—Vive in aeternnm, or in aetemo. 
 
 V. I. FEB.—Quinto idus februarii. 
 
 V. INL.—Vir inlustris (illustris). 
 
 VIX.—Vixit. 
 
 V. 0.—Vir opti.mus. 
 
 VOT. VOV.—V turn vovit 
 VR. S.—Vir s.iietiis. 
 
 V. S.—Vir speUaliilis. 
 
 V. T.—Vita tibi. 
 
 VV. CC.—Viri clarissimi 
 VV. F.—Vive felix. 
 
 V. K.—Uxor carissima,—vivas carissime. 
 
 X. —Christus. 
 
 XI. —XIT.—Christi. 
 
 XO.—X f O.—Christo. 
 
 XPC.—XS.—Ch ristus. 
 
 Z.—Zezes,/or vivas,—Zesu,/or Jesu. 
 
 [^. B.] 
 
 INSINUATIO. The making certain cus¬ 
 tomary payments to the bishop on appointment 
 to a church. See Thomassin ( Vet. et Nov. Eccl. 
 Discip. iii. 1, c. 56). Justinian (Novell. 56, col. 
 5, tit. 11, § 1) provides that it’ any of the clergy 
 make the payments which are called iu.sinua- 
 tives, “ quae vocantur insinuativa,” except in the 
 great church of Constantinople, the bishops who 
 exact them shall be deprived of their office. 
 
 [P. O.J 
 
 INSPECTOR. [Bishop, p. 210.] 
 
 INSTALLATION. [Bishop, p. 224.] 
 
 INSTRUCTION. 1. For the Christian in¬ 
 struction of ciiildren in general, see Catecihj- 
 MEN, Children. 
 
 2. In a more special .sense, the lections from 
 the Old Testament read to the candidates for 
 baptism immediately after the benediction of 
 the taper, au'l befoj-e the benediction of the font, 
 on Easter Eve, were called “ Instructiones bap- 
 tizandorum.” See the Gelasian Sacramentary 
 (i. c. 43), and the Gregorian (p. 70). Amalarius 
 (De Eecl. Off. i. 19) gives mystical reasons why 
 
 the lections should be four in number, which 
 however is by no means invariably the case. 
 They are four in the Ordo Eomauns 1. (c. 40, 
 
 р. 25), but the Gelasian Sucratncntary gives 
 
 ten and the Gregorian eight. Instruction of 
 this kind seems to be alluded to m Palladius’s 
 description of the scene which took ))lace when 
 soldiers burst into John Chrysostom’s church 
 at Constantinople on Easter Eve; “some of the 
 presbyters,” he says ( Vita Chrysost. c. 9) “ were 
 reading Holy Scriptures, others baptizing the 
 catechumens.” So Paschasinus Lilybetanus, in 
 a letter to Leo the Great (quoted by Martene), 
 speaks of a case in which, after tlie accustomed 
 lections of Easter Eve had been gone through, 
 the candidates were not baptized, for lack of 
 water (Martene, De Eit. Ant. 1. i. 13, § 3). As in 
 the responses of the candidates at Rome both Latin 
 and Greek were used, so also the lections in baptism 
 were in ancient times recited in Latin and Greek. 
 Thus Ordo Eorruinns T. (c. 40, p. 25), after 
 noticing that the reader does not announce the 
 lection in the usual ivay, “ Lectio libri Genesis,” 
 but begins at once “ In j)riucipio,” goes on to 
 say, “ First it is read in Greek, and then im¬ 
 mediately by another in Latin.” The next lection 
 is read hrst in Greek and then in Latin; and so 
 on. Amalarius (JJe Eccl. Off^. ii. 1) says of this 
 custom, that lections were recited bv the an- 
 cient Romans in Greek and in Latin, partly be¬ 
 cause Greeks were present who did not undei’stand 
 Latin, and Latins who did not understand Greek ; 
 partly to show the unanimity of the two peoples. 
 Anastasius tells us (p. 251, ed. Muratori) that 
 pope Benedict III. (855-858) caused a volume 
 to be prepared in which the le.ssons for Easter 
 Eve and Pentecost were written out in Greek 
 and in Latin, which volume, in a silver binding 
 of beautiful workmanship, he offierod to a Ro¬ 
 man church. [C.] 
 
 INSTRUMENT A. By the word instru- 
 rnenta we understand vessels, <S:c. employed in 
 the sacred ministry ; thus, pope Siricius, a.d. 385 
 (Epist. L ad Himerium, c. 14), forbidding persons 
 who had incurred public penance to be ordained, 
 says, “ nulla debent gerendornm sacramentorum 
 instrumeuta suscipere qui dudum fuerunt vasa 
 vitiorum.” 
 
 By the woi-ds “ instrumentorum traditio ” 
 is'technically designated the handing to a per¬ 
 son on ordination some vessel or instrument 
 used in his office. Thus, the African statutes 
 at the end of the 4th century (Cone. Carth. TV. 
 
 с. 5) order the bishop to hand to a subdea¬ 
 con on ordination an empty chalice and an 
 empty paten, and the archdeacon to hand to him 
 a water vessel with a napkin, because he receives 
 no imposition of hands. Similarly the acolyte 
 (c. 6) is to receive from the archdeacon a candle¬ 
 stick with taper; the exorcist (c. 7) is to receive 
 from the hand of the bishop the book of exor¬ 
 cisms; the reader (c. 8) the codex from which 
 he is to read; the doorkeeper (c. 9) the keys 
 of the church. 
 
 In these cases it is to be observed that the 
 “instrumentorum traditio ” takes place only in 
 the case of those ordained to minoj- orders (in- 
 sacrati ministri) who received no imposition of 
 hands. 
 
 The fourth council of Toledo, a d. 633, pro¬ 
 vides (c. 28) that a bishop who is restored to 
 
INSUFFLATION 
 
 INTERCESSION 
 
 863 
 
 his orders shall receive from the bishops, before 
 the altar, stole, ring, and stalf; a priest, stole 
 and chasuble; a deacon, stole and alb; a sub¬ 
 deacon, paten and chalice ; and that those in 
 other orders shall receive back on restoration 
 those instruments which they had first received 
 on ordination. We see from this that the ap¬ 
 propriate vestments were regarded in the 7th 
 century as the outward sign of the bestowal of 
 the higher orders. The delivery of the pastoral 
 staff and ring also forms part of the cere¬ 
 mony of the ordination of a bishop in the Pon¬ 
 tificals of Gregory the Great and of Egbert 
 [Bishop, p. 2‘22]. 
 
 In later times, the handing of the chalice 
 with wine and the paten with a host to a priest 
 on ordination came to be regarded as the “matter” 
 of the sacrament, while the ^‘form” was the 
 words “ Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium 
 Deo missasque celebrare tarn pro vivis quam pro 
 defunctis in nomine Domini.” But this ojnnion 
 not only has no supj^ort in Scripture, but it 
 seems to have been totally unknown in the 
 church for at least nine hundred years; Isidore, 
 Amalarius, Rabanus, and Walafrid Strabo, know 
 nothing of it. (Martene, De Hit. Ant. I. viii. 
 9, § 16.) . [C.] 
 
 INSUFFLATION. [Baptism, § 31, p. 
 158; Exorcism.] 
 
 tNfellLANI. A designation of monks in 
 Southern France in the 5th century, on account 
 of the great reputation of the monasteries and 
 of their schools on the islands near the coast, 
 especially on the island Lerina (Lerins) (Bingh. 
 Grig. Eccl. VII. ii. 14). [1. G. S.] 
 
 INTERCESSION {Tntercessio, It 
 
 does not fall within the scope of the present work 
 to discuss or to investigate historically the doctrine 
 of the intercession of the saints, or of the nature 
 and efficacy of intercessory prayer generally ; the 
 subject is considered here simply in its relation 
 to liturgical forms. And here we have to con¬ 
 sider (1) the persons whose intercession is asked ; 
 (2) the objects on behalf of which intercession is 
 made. 
 
 (1.) a. Throughout the Western church a large 
 poi-tion of the prayers end with a pleading of the 
 merits of (.’hrist, the great Intcrcesisor; generally 
 in the form “ per Christum Dominum nostrum.” 
 This is in fact an e.xtension to all prayer of the 
 principle laid down for the altar-prayer.s, “ cum 
 altari adsistitur semper ad Patrem dirigatur 
 oratio” (Gone. Garth. Iff. c. 23); when the 
 prayer is addressed to the Fatlier, it is through 
 the intercession of the Sou. This principle is 
 not adopted in the East, where the jirayers, being 
 addressed to the Triune Deitv, generallv end with 
 an ascription of glory; if with a pleading of 
 merits, it is of the Virgin Mary or the saints 
 (Freeman, Principles of DUine Service, i. 373). 
 
 h. We may take the words of Cyril of Jeru- 
 ad' em (^Catech. t. V. 9, p. 328) as an authentic 
 f.cxount of the manner in which the intercession 
 of the saints departed was invoked in tlie church 
 of Jerusalem in the middle of the 4th century. 
 “ Then we also commemorate those who have 
 gone to rest before us (twv -rrpoKficuiiJ.rjiJ.epwv), 
 first patriarchs, ])ro|)hets, apostles, martvrs ; that 
 God at their jirayers and intercessions (Trpeir- 
 Be'iais) would receive our supplication.” It aji- 
 pears then that in Cyril’s time the church asked 
 
 the intercession of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, 
 and martyrs; for the rest of the faithful de¬ 
 parted, including “holy fathers and bishops,” it 
 interceded [Canox of the Lituroy, p. 269; Dip- 
 TYCHS, p. 560]. But it is “ beyond all question 
 that the early church offered the eucharistic 
 sacrifice as well for the highest saints, and even 
 for the blessed Virgin Mary, as for the common 
 multitude of the departed faithful ” (Neale, 
 Eastern Ch. hit. 510). The intercession of saints, 
 for whom at the same time intercession is made, 
 is asked in the so-called liturgy of St. Chrv- 
 sostom, where we have the following form 
 (Daniel, Codex Lit. iv. 360) :—“We offer to Thee 
 also this reasonable service on behalf of (vTTfp) 
 those who are at rest in the faith, our fore¬ 
 fathers, fathers, patriarchs .... and every just 
 spirit made perfect in the faith; especially our 
 most holy . . . Lady Mary, IMother of God and 
 ever Virgin . . . for the holy Prophet, Forerunner, 
 and Baptist, John; for the glorious and highly- 
 praised Apostles ; for Saint N. whose commemo¬ 
 ration we are celebrating, and all Thy saints; at 
 whose supplications {'iKtaiais) look upon us, 0 
 God. And remember all tvho have gone to rest 
 before us in hope of the resurrection to eternal 
 life.” Then follow the diptychs. The Syriac 
 St. James (Renaudot, Litt. Oi'ientt. ii. 36), after 
 commemorating holy Fathers, Patriarchs, Pro¬ 
 phets, Apostles, St.John Baptist, St. Stephen, the 
 Virgin, and all Saints, proceeds, “ Therefore do we 
 commemorate them, that when they stand before 
 Thy throne, they may remember us in our weak¬ 
 ness and frailty, and offer with us to Thee this 
 awful and unbloody sacrifice, for the safe-keeping 
 of those who are living, for the consolation of 
 the feeble and unworthy, such as ourselves; for 
 the rest and good memory of those who have 
 passed away in the true faith, our fathers, 
 brethren, and masters.” Here the saints de¬ 
 parted are represented as joining in one great 
 act of iiiterce.ssion with those on earth, rather 
 than as interceding for them. These may serve 
 as examples of the manner of asking the inter¬ 
 cession of the saints in the Eastern church. 
 
 Of the Western liturgie.s, Mabillon’s Gallican 
 (Daniel’s Codex Lit. i. 75) has, after the oblation 
 of the unconsecrated elements, “ We pray for the 
 souls of Thy servants, our fathers and former 
 teachers, Aurelian, Peter, Florentinus . . . and 
 all our brothers whom Thou hast vouchsafed to 
 call hence to Thee; .... for the souls of all 
 faithful servants and pilgrims deceased in the 
 peace of the church ; that Thou, 0 Lord our God, 
 wouldest grant them pardon, and rest etei-nal: 
 by the merits and intercession of Thy Saints, 
 Mary mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ste])hen, 
 Peter. Paul, John, James, Andrew, Philip,Thomas, 
 Bartholomew, Matthew, Janies, Simon, Jude, 
 Matthias, Genesius, Symjihurianus, Bandilius, 
 Victor, Hilary, bishop and confe.s.sor, Martin, 
 bishop and confessor, Caesarius, bishop, vouchsafe 
 in mercy to hear and grant these jjetitions, wlio 
 livest and reisjnest in the unitv of the Holv 
 Sj)irit, God for ever and ever.” The Roman has 
 the following in the G /rtmu/u'ccmtes of the Canox, 
 “Claiming fellowship with and venerating the 
 memory of, first, the glorious i ver-virgin Mary, 
 mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ; and 
 also of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter 
 and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, 
 Philip, Bartholomew’, Matthew. Simon, and Thad 
 
8C4 
 
 IXTEK CESSION 
 
 INTERPRETER 
 
 (laeus : Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Xystus, Cornelius, 
 Cyprian, Laurence, Chrysocronus, John and Paul, 
 Cosnias and Damian: and sUl Thy saints : in con¬ 
 sideration of whose mej'its and prayers, grant 
 that in all things we may be guarded by the 
 help of Thy protection.” The Ambrosian (Daniel 
 i. 84) has, besides these, the names of Apolli- 
 naris, Vitalis, Xazaiaus and Cel.sus, Protasius and 
 Gervasius. [Com 2 )are Images, § viii.; Inscrip¬ 
 tions, p. 856.] 
 
 The rule of the church in St. Augustine’s time 
 drew a broad distinction between martyrs and 
 other saints; for that father observes (^In Joann. 
 Tract. 84), “ So at the Table of the Lord we do 
 not commemorate martyrs in the same way that 
 we do others who rest in peace, so as to pray 
 for them, but rather that they may pray for us, 
 that we may follow in their footsteps;” and 
 again {De Vvr't. Almost. 17), “martyrs are re¬ 
 cited at the altar of God in that place where 
 prayer is not made for them ; for the rest of the 
 dead who are commemorated pi-ayer is made.” 
 It is in accordance with this that the Roman 
 canon, besides the Virgin and the twelve apostles, 
 recites as intercessors twelve martyrs. Other 
 churches however, out of respect to their local 
 saints, did not (as we see in the Gallican and 
 the Milanese) draw so rigid a line, and inserted 
 the names of confessors as well as martyrs. The 
 martyrs of the Roman canon seem to be all con¬ 
 nected with the city or see of Rome. [See Li- 
 BELLi, Martyrs.] 
 
 In the Emboli^mus of the Lord’s Prayer, the 
 Roman and Ambrosian liturgies pray for peace 
 in our days at the intercession of (interceclente) 
 the Virgin Mary with the apostles Peter and 
 Paul and Andrew and all the saints (Daniel i. 
 96). In the benediction of incense, in the Roman 
 use (Dan. i. 72), the priest prays that God will 
 bless it, at the intercession (per intercessionem) 
 of Michael the archangel, who stands at the right 
 hand of the altar of incense. 
 
 (2.) With regard to the objects of intercession, 
 we may say that Christians have been taught to 
 make intercession for all things of which they 
 know that their brethren have need. Such inter- 
 ces.sions are scattered over a great variety of 
 offices or litanies [Litany]. With regard spe¬ 
 cially to the intercessions made in the eucharist, 
 we will take the form of the Greek St. James 
 (Daniel, iv. 14) as a specimen of the objects re¬ 
 cited in the great eucharistic intercession. When 
 the priest, after consecration, has prayed that 
 the Body and Blood of Christ may be to the par¬ 
 takers for remission of sins, for the streirgthen- 
 ing of the Holy Catholic Church, etc., he pro¬ 
 ceeds—“ We offer (7rpo(r<pepoyU.ej^) to Thee, Lord, 
 on behalf of (uTrep) ” the Holy Places, especially 
 Sion ; the Holy Catholic Church ; holy fathers, 
 brethren, bishops ; all cities and countries and 
 the orthodox who dwell there ; those who are 
 journeying; those fathers and brethren who are in 
 bonds, imprisonment, mines or tortures; the sick 
 and demoniac ; every Christian soul in trouble; 
 those who labour in Christ’s name; for all men, 
 for peace, and for the dispersion of scandal and 
 heresy ; for rain and fruitful .seasons ; for those 
 who have adorned the churches or shown pity 
 to the poor; for those w'ho desire to be remem¬ 
 bered in our prayers ; those who have offered; 
 the celebrant and his deacons; all spirits and 
 all flesh, from Abel even to this day, “ give them 
 
 rest in the land of the living, in Thy kingdom, 
 in the bliss of Paradise, in the bosom of Abra¬ 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob, our holy father.s, whence 
 sorrow and grief and mourning have fled away ; ” 
 for the forgiveness of sins, “ by the grace and 
 mercy and compassion of Thy only - begotten 
 Son;” for/wTrep) the Gifts, that God may receive 
 them into His spiritual sanctuary. 
 
 Some of the more remarkable peculiarities of 
 the Interce.ssions of different churches are noted 
 under Canon of the Liturgy, p. 27.3. [C.] 
 
 INTERCESSION, EPISCOPAL. By a 
 custom which grew up less by any definite enact¬ 
 ment than by the general respect attaching to 
 their office, the bishops came to be looked upon 
 as protectors of those who were oppres.sed by the 
 secular power. The patrimony of widows and 
 orphans was often placed under the protection 
 of the churches and bishops (Aug. Ep. 252). 
 Flavian, bishop of Antioch, interceded success¬ 
 fully in A.D. 387 with the Emperor Theodosius, 
 on behalf of the city, which had been guilty of 
 a riot. So Theodoret' with the Empress Piil- 
 cheria. Many other instances might be cited. 
 These interpositions obtained the technical name 
 of intercessio, and were recognised by the law. 
 The bishop was expected to visit the public 
 prisons on Thursday and Friday (Codex Justi¬ 
 nian. lib. i. tit. 4). They were charged with a 
 special oversight of such as held civil office in 
 their dioceses (Concil. Arehit. I. c. 56, Cone. Arel. 
 ii. c. 13, “ut comites indices, sen I'eliquus popu- 
 lus obedientes sit ejdscojio, et invicem consen- 
 tiant ad justitias faciendas, et munera pro 
 judicio non recipiant, nec falsos testes, ne per 
 hoc pervertant judicia justorum,” Cone. Gener. 
 tom. ii. p, 618, ed. Crabbe). The right of .sanc¬ 
 tuary for fugitives in the churches grew up in the 
 same period, and was very frequently exercised 
 (Cod. Theodos. 1. ix. tit. 45, ap. Neander). See 
 Neale, Introd. to Eastern Church, and essay by 
 Moultrie in Neale’s Ecdesiologji, pp. 427-474; 
 Neander’s Church History, vol. iii. sect. 2. 
 [Bishop, p. 237; Immunities of Clergy, p. 824.] 
 
 [S. J. E.] 
 
 INTERCESSORES or INTERVEN 
 TORES. In the African churches tvhen a see 
 was v^acant the senior bishop appointed one of 
 his suffragans as guardian or procurator. He 
 was stvled Intercessor or Interventor. The 
 fifth council of Carthage made a canon that no 
 intercessor should remain in this office more than 
 a year, and that if the vacancy was not then 
 filled, another should be appointed. No inter¬ 
 cessor was permitted to be chosen bishop of the 
 vacant see himself. So also in the Roman pro- 
 A’ince, as we learn from the letters of Svmma- 
 chus {Ep. V. c. 9) and Gregory the Great (Ep. 
 ii. 16); Suicer (7'hesaurus, s. v. yuecriTTjs); Bing¬ 
 ham (Ant. lib. ii. c. 15, and iv. c. 2). [Bishop, 
 p. 237.] [S. J. E.] 
 
 INTERMENT. [Burial of the Dead.] 
 
 INTERPRETER. Epiphanius (Expos. Fid. 
 n. 21) speaks of interpreters of the languages 
 employed both in reading the Scriptures and the 
 sermons, and ranks them among the lower orders 
 of the clergy, after the exorcists. An instance 
 of their existence is afforded in the case of Pro¬ 
 copius, who is said to have discharged three offices 
 in the church of Palestine, having been reader, 
 
INTERROGATIO 
 
 INTROIT 
 
 865 
 
 crorcist, and interpreter of the Syrian language. 
 (Acta Procop. apud Vale.s.; note in Eusch. MaHyr. 
 Palest, c. 1.) [Liturgical Language.] [P. 0.] 
 
 INTERROGATIO (sc. de fide). This is a 
 questioning a candidate for baptism as to his 
 belief, before he was baptized, and formed part 
 of the office of baptism from very early times. 
 After the Renunciation (Abrenunciatio) of the 
 devil by the candidate for baptism, and his 
 anointing, and before he was baptized he was 
 questioned as to his faith, and called upon to make 
 public profession of it. The custom is frequently 
 alluded to by the fathers. It is sufficient here to 
 refer : (1) For the custom: to St. Augustine (de 
 Animd ct origine ejus, i. 10). “ Ideo cum bapti- 
 
 zantur (i. e. pueri) jam et symbolum reddunt, et 
 ipsi pro se ad interrogata respondent.” (2) For 
 its object to St. Cyprian (Ep. 70 ad Jannarium de 
 baptizandis haereticis). “ Ipsa interrogatio quae 
 fit in baptismo testis est veritatis.” (3). For its 
 substance, to St. Ambrose (do Mysteriis, v. 28). 
 “ Descendisti igitur (i. e. in fontem) recordare 
 quid responderis, quod credas in Patrem, credas 
 in Filium, credas in Spiritum Sanctum ; ” and 
 more fully de Sacramentis lib, ii, vii. “ Inter- 
 rogatus es: Credis in Deum Patrem Omnipoten- 
 tem ? Dixisti: Credo, et mersisti, hoc est, 
 sepultus es. Iterum iuterrogatus es; Credis in 
 Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et incrucem 
 ejus ? Dixisti: Credo, et mersisti; ideo et Christo 
 es consepultus ; qui enim Christo consepelitur, 
 cum Christo resurgit. Tertio interrogatus es; 
 Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum ? Dixisti: Credo, 
 tertio mersisti ; ut multipliccm lapsum supe- 
 rioris aetatis absolveret tr.na coufessio.” 
 
 The rite is still retained in the office of 
 Baptism in the Roman church, in the same posi¬ 
 tion as of old ; and in the Greek church in the 
 pitliminary office of “ making a catechumen ” 
 (Pis rb 7roirj(Tai KaTrjxovjueuor). 
 
 The forms of the questions closely resem¬ 
 ble the old forms [v. Pit. Pom. de Sacramento 
 Baptismali, and Euchologion evxal Pis rb iroiri- 
 aai further details and 
 
 patristic references see Martene de Ant. Eccl. 
 Pit. i, 47. See also Baptism, §§ 43, 46, pp. 
 159, 160; Creed § 4, p. 489; Profession. 
 
 [H. J. H.] 
 
 INTERSTITIA. These are intervals of time 
 which according to the regulations of the church 
 ought to elapse between the reception of one 
 order and the admission to a superior. Their 
 object was to exercise a cleric in the functions of 
 his order, and to test his fitness for promotion to 
 a higher. The institution is an old one in the 
 church. The tenth canon of the council of 
 Sardica decrees “ Habebit autem uniuscujusque 
 ordiuis gradus non minimi scilicet temporis 
 longitudinem per quod et tides et morum pro- 
 bitas et constantia et moderatio possit cognosci.” 
 The duration of these interstices was not deter¬ 
 mined at the first, and it has varied much at 
 different times and places. Zositnus e.g., a.d. 
 417 (Ep. 1 ad Hcsychium) proposes the following 
 rule. “If any cue has been designed for eccle¬ 
 siastical ministration from his infancy, he is to 
 remain among the readers till his twentieth year. 
 If he has devoted himself to the sacred ministry 
 when grown and of ripe age, proviiled he has 
 done so immediately after baptism, he is to be 
 kept among the readers or exorcists five years. 
 
 CHRIST. ANT. 
 
 Then he is to spend four years as an acolyte or 
 subdeacon. Then if deserving he is to be pro¬ 
 moted to the diaconate, in which order he is to 
 remain five years, and, if worthy, promoted to 
 the priesthood.” Another canon pre.scribes that 
 a bishop must have been at least four years a 
 priest. [It must be remembered that in the 
 early church the age rcajuired for conferring 
 holy orders was more advanced than is the case 
 at present, twenty-five being the ordinary age 
 for a deacon, and thirty for a priest.] 
 
 Gelasius (a.d. 492) shortened the prescribed 
 intervals between the difi'erent sacred order.s, 
 and in cases of urgency they were occasionally 
 altogether dispensed with. Of this the most 
 conspicuous instance is that of St. Ambrose, who 
 is said to have passed through all the saersd 
 orders and to have been consecrated bishop on 
 the eighth day after his baptism. 
 
 In process of time, as the proper functions 
 assigned to the several minor orders fell into 
 disuse, the interstices between them ceased to be 
 observed, and the modern practice is to confer 
 the four minor orders simultaneously. The 
 council of Trent requires a year between the 
 minor orders and the subdiaconate, between the 
 subdiaconate and the diaconate, and between 
 the diaconate and the priesthood. Legitimate 
 exceptions are recognised, and dispemsations 
 under certain conditions allowed ; but two 
 (major) orders are not to be conferred on the 
 same day : “ Duo sacri ordines non eadem die, 
 privilegiis ac indultis .... non obstantibus 
 quibuscunque ” (Con. Trent. Sept, xxiii. col. 3; 
 Ee Pefortn.) [Ordination.] [H. J. H.] 
 
 INTER VENTORES. [Intercessores.] 
 
 INTROIT. Intt'oitus is the name commonly 
 given throughout the Latin church to the an¬ 
 them at the beginning or the eucharistic office. 
 At Rome it was originally called Antiphona ad 
 lutroitum, as in the earliest editions of the 07-do 
 Rornanus (i. n. 8, ii. n. 3, iii. n. 8, in j\[usae. 
 Ital. tom. ii.). In Ordo Pornanns VI. (n. 2, ibi), 
 probably a little later than our period, it is first 
 called introitus simply. Meanwhile in one O/'do 
 (v, n. 5, ib.'), we find the name of invitatory 
 given to it. At Milan it was .termed ingressa 
 (Ambros. Miss. Pitus in Pamelii Piiuale SS. PP. 
 tom. i. p. 293), a word of the same meaning as 
 introitus. In Spain (Miss. Mozar. Leslie, pp. 
 18, 55, 64, &c.) and in England (the missals of 
 Sarum, York, Hereford; Maskell’s Ancient 
 Litu7'gy, pp. 20, 21) the introit was called offi- 
 cium, or olficium missae. This arose from a mis¬ 
 take. The several masses in the early missals 
 were headed by the words Ad Missam Olficium 
 (Leslie, u. s. pp. 1, 7, 10, &c. ; Missale Sa7-um, 
 coll. 1, 18, 27, &c., ed. Forbes), which were the 
 heading of the whole office, but were supposed 
 to refer to the introit which followed immediately 
 without any heading of its own. The antiphon 
 had this name in all the churches of Normandy, 
 and in many others (Le Brun, Explic. de la Messe, 
 p. ii. art. 1), and in the mi.ssals of the Carthu¬ 
 sians, Carmelites, and Dominicans. This extended 
 use would be a sufficient proof of its great 
 antiquity, were we without the evidence of the 
 Mozarabic ritual. In the barbarous Expositio 
 Missae, ascribed to Germauus of Paris, a.d. 555, 
 
 and certaiulv not much later than his time, the 
 ¥ ' 
 
 introit, as used in the old Gallican liturgy, is 
 
8G6 
 
 IN'TKOIT 
 
 INTKOIT 
 
 called praelegere, or antiiihona ad praelegendo 
 {sic), because it preceded tlie eucharistic lessons 
 {Exfjos, printed in Martc-ne, De Aid. Eccl. liit. 
 lib, i. c. iv. art. xii. ord. 1). 
 
 Tlie origin of the introit is obscure. At the 
 earliest period the office began with lessons from 
 holy 8crij)ture, of which j)salms said or sung 
 formed a part, but this psalmody is in the West 
 to be traced in the CIradual and Tract. In 
 the Syrian rite a psalm is sung before as well as 
 after the epistle, but this a))pears to have had 
 the same origin {Ordo Communis ; Renaud. 
 Liturg. Orient, tom. ii. p. 7). The introit is 
 cleaidy another rite, and of later introduction. 
 It seems to have been introduced partly as a 
 fitting accompaniment of the solemn entrance 
 (introitus, ingressa) of the celebrant into that 
 })art of the church in which the altar stood, and 
 partly as a means of em])loying and solemnizing 
 the minds of the people before the service began. 
 The name incit itory suggests that the people 
 were still entering the church while it was being 
 sung. 
 
 The Ordo Bomanus in its earliest state, about 
 730, gives us some suggestive information re¬ 
 specting the introit as sung in the churches of 
 Rome at that time. The bishop having vested is 
 still in the secretarium, the choir waiting in the 
 church for an order from him to begin ‘‘ the anti¬ 
 phon for the entrance” (introitum). On a signal 
 from him “ ut psallant,” a subdeacon enters the 
 church, orders the candles to be lighted, and then 
 stands with a censer before the door of the secre¬ 
 tarium, while one of the leaders of the choir, 
 who has also been in waiting, carries the order 
 for the singing to commence. As soon as this is 
 heard two deacons enter, and each taking a hand 
 of the bishop lead him into the church, up to the 
 altar. He is preceded by the subdeacon with 
 incense, and seven acolytes bearing candles. On 
 his way to the altar the Sancta or Fermentum 
 is brought to him that he mav select what is 
 necessary for the celebration. After private 
 prayer at the altar, and giving the peace to the 
 ministers, he stops the singing by giving a 
 signal for the Gloria Patri {Ord. Bum. I. nn. 
 7, 8 ; comp. ii. nn. 4, 5, iii. nn. 7^ 8, v. n. 5, 
 vi. n. 3). 
 
 The Liber Pontificalis is supposed to ascribe 
 the introduction of the introit to Celestine, A.D. 
 423, when it tells us that he “ordered the 150 
 psalms of David to be sung antiphonally before 
 the sacrifice ” (Anastas. Biblioth. Vitae Pont. n. 
 44). The tradition probably refers to the in¬ 
 troit, although the next statement shows that 
 the author connects it with the earlier Gradual. 
 For he adds :—“ This was not done before, only 
 the epistles of the apostle Paul were recited and 
 the holy gospel, and so masses were celebrated.” 
 It will be observed that the Ordo cited calls the 
 introit an antiphon, though it uses the word 
 psallere. Gregory the Great, a.d. 595, is said 
 to have comjiiled the antiphons, selecting pi*oper 
 verses from the psalms, and retaining the Gloria, 
 which was then said, as now, at the end of every 
 psalm. Some ancient writers, as Amalarius 
 {De Eccl. Ojficiis, lib. iii. c. 5), Walafrid Strabo 
 {De Bebus Eccl. c. 22),, and Micrologus {De 
 Eccl. Observ. c. 1), su]:)pose that this selection 
 was the work of Celestine; but Honorius of 
 Autun, more in consonance with the words of the 
 Liber Pontijicalis, and with the circumstantial 
 
 evidence of the case, say.s, — “ Pope Celestine 
 ordered psalms to be sung at the introit of the 
 mass, from which j)ope Gregory afterwards ar¬ 
 ranged and compiled antiphons for the introit of 
 the mass” {Gemma Anim<e, lib. i. c. 87). All 
 the psalms in the antiphonary ascribed to Gre¬ 
 gory are taken from the old Italic version, as it 
 stood before the corrections of St. Jerome, but 
 this is no proof of an earlier antiquity of the in- 
 troits than we ascribe to them. For Greo’or,* 
 himself professed to use the Italic and the Vul¬ 
 gate versions of the Bible inditferently {Ep. ad 
 Leandr. c. 5, in fine ; Exj os. in Lib. Jolj. proef.), 
 and Jerome’s corrected Italic psalter, long called 
 the Galilean psalter, did not take the place of 
 the original at Rome until the time of Pius V. 
 (Bona, Ber. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 3, § 4). The fol¬ 
 lowing example of the Gregorian introit is for 
 the first Sunday in Advent:— Antiph. Ad Tc, 
 Domine, levavi an imam meam. Deus mens in 
 Te confido: non erubescam neque irrideat me 
 inimicus mens ( Vulg. irrideant me inimici mei) 
 etenim universi qui Te ex])ectant ( Vulg. susti- 
 neut Te) non confundentur (Ps. xxv. 1-3). Psal. 
 Vias Tuas, Domine, demonstra mihi et semitas 
 tuas edoce me ” {ib. \. 4). Durand us 
 lib. iv. c. 5, n. 5) tells us that “ in some churches 
 tro2ies are said for the jisalms, according to the 
 appointment of pope Gi'egory, to represent 
 greater joy on account of the coming of Christ.” 
 The introit itselfhad long been thought designed 
 to “bring back His advent to our mind” (Am- 
 alar. De Eccl. Off. lib. iii. c. 5); but Durandus 
 is without doubt wrong in ascribing to Gregorv 
 the attemjffi to emphasize that meaning by the 
 addition of troj^es. We cannot, however, say at 
 what period subsequent to his they first ap¬ 
 peared. They were not like the Greek troparia, 
 independent of the antiphons in connection with 
 which they were sung, but were farsings or in¬ 
 terpolations in the antiphons of tlie Gregorian 
 introit. In the following examjde the farsing is 
 in italics. The antiphon is that for the Epiphany : 
 —“ Eja, Sion gaude, et laetare aspectu Dei hii. 
 Ecce advenit dominator Dominus; cui matenes 
 coeli et terrae famulantw ; et regnum in mau'u 
 ejus. Lpsi manct Deus (sic) gloria atque jubilatio; 
 et potestas et imperium ” (Pamelii, Bituale, tom. 
 ii. p. (513 ; comp. p. 73). 
 
 Of the Galilean introit we only know that like 
 the Roman it was sung before the office of the 
 mass began. “ While the clerks are singing 
 jisalms ” (}isallentibus), says Germanus {u. a.), 
 “ the priest comes forth out of the sacrarium ” 
 (/i«*e=:secretarium). The council of Agde, .a.d. 
 506, ajipears to recognize the introit, when it 
 orders that as in other churches “collects be said 
 in order by the bishojis and pre.sbyters after the 
 antiphons ” (cap. 30). The following is the in¬ 
 troit (taken from the original Italic A'ersion of 
 Ps. xciii. 1) used in the Mozarabic liturgy on 
 every Sunday between Whitsunday and Advent, 
 and again on the Circumcision and the Sunday^ 
 before and after the Epijihany : — “ Dominus 
 regnavit ; decorem induit: Alleluia, y. Indu't 
 Dominus fortitudinem et praecinxit se. P. 
 {Presbyter.) Alleluia. Gloria et honor Patri: 
 et Filio: et Spiritui Sancto in saecula saecu- 
 lorum: Amen. P. Alleluia.” It will be seen 
 that this belongs to the later jieriod, when the 
 celebrant was at the altar before the choir be¬ 
 gan, a rule which has prevailed in the church of 
 
INTKOIT 
 
 INVESTITURE 
 
 867 
 
 Rome also for many ages. See Sal a, Annot. 11, 
 in Bona, licr. Liturg. lib. ii. c. iii. § 1 ; and Le 
 Brun, Explication^ jj. ii. art. 1. The Ambrosian 
 ingre.ssa is very simple. The following is for 
 Christmas Day, from Is. ix. 6, Ital. vers. “ Puer 
 natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis, cujus 
 imperium super huinerum ejiis, et A'ocabitur 
 iiomeii ejus magni consilii angelus ” (Pamelius, 
 ti. s. tom. i. p. 29:3). “ It is an anthem without 
 
 psalm, or Gloria, or repetition ” (Le Brun, Diss. 
 iii. art. 2). 
 
 The following hymn is sung in the liturgy of 
 St. James before tlie priest enters to the altar. 
 It is preceded by the rubric, “Then the deacon 
 begins to sing in the entrance,” which at once 
 suggests an analogy to the Western iutroit. 
 “ Only begotten Son and Word of God, who being 
 immortal didst for our salvation take upon Thee 
 ro be incarnate of the holy Idary, mother of God 
 and ever Virgin, and didst unchangeably become 
 man. and wast crucified, 0 Christ (our) God, and 
 didst by death trample on death, being one of the 
 Holy Trinity, glorified together with the Father 
 and the Holy Ghost, save us” (^Liturgiae SS. PP. 
 p. 6, Bas. 1560). The matter of this hymn proves 
 it to be later than the outbreak of the Nestorian 
 heresy; but its great antiquity is sufficiently 
 attested by its appearing also in the liturgies of 
 St. Mark (Renaudot, Litiirg. Orient, tom. i. p. 
 136), in copies, apparently the older, of St. Basil 
 (^Eucholog. Goar, p. 180, and the old Latin ver¬ 
 sion, Liturgiae, site Missae SS. PP. p. 32, Par. 
 1560), in many copies of St. Chrysostom (Goar, 
 u. s. pp. 101, 105), and in the Armenian (Neale’s 
 Introd.'to Hiit. of East. Church, p. 380). In 
 St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, however, we have 
 a nearer apj)roach to, and the probable origin of, 
 the Western introit, viz., in three antiphons, 
 composed for common days, of three or four 
 verses (Rubric in St. Basil, Goar, p. 180, and 
 the old Latin, p. 32) of the 92nd, 93rd, and 95th 
 psalms (as numbered in E. V.). See Goar, pp. 
 101, 104, 105. While each antiphon is sung, a 
 prayer is said secretly by the priest; and it may 
 be interesting to mention that the “ Prayer of 
 St. Chrysostom,” in our daily office, is in the 
 Greek liturgy (^Lit. PP. pp. 45, 81) the “Prayer 
 of the Third Antiphon.” The revisers of our offices 
 were familiar with it in the translation of St. 
 Chrysostom by Leo Thuscus, a.d. 1180 (printed 
 by Hofmeister, in 1540), and in the Greek and 
 I..atin of the editions of Venice, 1528, and Paris, 
 1537, and introduced it at the end of the litany 
 in 1544. When the Greek antiphons were first 
 used is not known. Amalarius, Avriting about 
 the year 833, says that he had heard the 95th 
 psalm sung at Constantinople “in the church of 
 St. Sophia at the beginning of mass ” (Z>e Ord. 
 Antiph. c. 21). The u.se of the antiphon by the 
 Nestorians and Jacobites seems to carry us up to 
 the 5th century, in which they were separated 
 from the church. On Sundays the Greek church 
 commonly substituted “ typica ” (so-called be¬ 
 cause they were forms prescribed by the rubric.s) 
 for the first two antiphons, and the Beatitudes 
 for the third (Goar, pp. 65-67; Liturg. PP. pp. 
 44, 80-82), with verses (rpoirapia) commemor¬ 
 ating the saint of the day (Goar, u. s.). The 
 liturgic typica are from the 103rd and 146th 
 psalms (Demetrius Ducas, in Lebrun, Diss. VI, 
 art. iv.; Leo Allatius, De Libris Eccl. Diss. I. 
 p. 14). For the third antiphon may also be used 
 
 on common days, the third and sixth canticle 
 (when thus united called rpniKir]) of the matin 
 office (Goar, pp. 67, 124). The typica, we must 
 add, are not sung on every Sunday. “ It should 
 be known,” says the Ti,picon of Sabas, “ that 
 from New Sunday to the Feast of All Saints (L e. 
 from the octave of Easter to that of Whitsundav) 
 the church sings antiphons and not typica. We 
 sing the antiphons likewise in the Twelve Days 
 (between Christmas and Ei)ij)hany), and on tlie 
 memorials of saints wdiich we keep as feasts ’’ 
 (In Leo Allat. u. s.). 
 
 The Syrian rite preserves a fragment of the 
 93rd psalm and nearly the whole of the 95th, at 
 the beginning of the service. They are sung 
 while the veils and the altar are being censed 
 (Renaudot, tom. ii. pp. 3, 4). In the Nestorian 
 liturgies, the priest and deacon, standing near the 
 altar, say, in alternate ver-ses, on common days, 
 parts of psalms 15, 150, 117: and proper hymns 
 on Sundays and the greater festivals (Badger’s 
 Nestorian.s, vol. ii. p. 215; Raulin, Liturgia 
 Malaharica, p. 294; Renaud. tom. ii. p. 584). 
 In the Armenian, beside the hvmn before men- 
 tioned, there are hymns proper to the day, sung 
 where the Greek has its antiphons (Le Brun, 
 Diss. X. art. 12). 
 
 Cardinal Bona (^Rer. TAturg. lib. ii. c. iii. § 1) 
 suggests that “perhaps Celestine (in adopting 
 the introit) transferred to the Western churches 
 a custom which had long flourished in the East¬ 
 ern.” The great use made, as we have seen, 
 of the 93rd psalm (Dominus regnavit) in the 
 introits of Spain, creates a strong suspicion that 
 Spain was a borrower fiom the Greeks, in whose 
 liturgy that psalm was used on all common days 
 and many Sundays in the year. Hence it is pro¬ 
 bable that the introit was, like some other rites, 
 derived by Rome from the East throuerh Spain. 
 
 [W. E. S.] 
 
 INVENTION OF THE CROSS. [Cross, 
 Finding of the, p. 503.] 
 
 INVESTITURE. The Latin word Investi- 
 tura (from vestire, to put into possession; see 
 Ducange s. v.), is of later datg than the 
 9th centui’v; nor had the thins signified by 
 it really commenced by then, in the sense 
 which concerns us here: the putting ecclesi¬ 
 astics in possession of their temporalities by a 
 formal act of the civil pow’er. When Sigebert, 
 quoted by Gratiau {Dist. Ixxiii c. 22), in enu¬ 
 merating the privileges supposed by him to haA'e 
 been conferred on Charlemagne by Adrian I., 
 says of that pope: “ Insuper archiepiscopos et 
 episcopos per .singulas provincias ab eo investi- 
 turam accipere definivit: et nisi a rege laudetur 
 et investiatur episcopus, a nemine consecretur,” 
 he is, apart from the doubtfulness of the fact 
 (on which see De ^larca, de Concord, viii. 12), 
 making the pope depose, not merely to language, 
 but to customs unknown in his day. Landulph, 
 who was contemporary with Sigebert, is bolder 
 still; making Adrian the inventor of both. “ Qui 
 primus,” as he says of him, “ aunulos et virgas 
 ad investieudum episcopatus Carolo donavit ” 
 (^Hist. Mediol. \\. \\)', but then he couples an¬ 
 other incident with this tale, which explains 
 its origin. The absence of notice in the Caro¬ 
 line capitularies of any such custom, an 1 their 
 apparent ignorance of the w'ord itself, seems con¬ 
 clusive against the existence of eitlver at that 
 
 3. K 
 
668 
 
 IXYITATOEIUM 
 
 ISAAC 
 
 date; paiticularly as the word vestitura ” is 
 of I'ltHiuent occurrence in them, denoting either 
 possession, or the j)ayment for it. Of course 
 tliere were symbolical forms also then in use for 
 giving possession, but none peculiar, as yet, to 
 the clergy ; and the common name for the act of 
 doing this was “ traditio.” Hence, probably, the 
 new word arose from joining the two words, “ in 
 vestitur.d,” iu one ; and then understanding it of 
 the special formality by which the clergy were 
 put 111 jiossession of their temporalities, on this 
 becoming essential to jiossession in their case. 
 'I'hat Charlemagne, as well as his predecessors, 
 appointed bishops of his own choosing occa¬ 
 sionally to sees in his dominions, is no more 
 than had been done by the Greek emperors ages 
 before, where investiture in its Western accepta¬ 
 tion has never been known. Neither the Theo- 
 dosian Code, nor the Code or Novels of Justinian 
 exhibit traces of anything approaching to it, 
 though by the latter limits are prescribed to the 
 fees for enthronization {Xovel. cxxiii. 3 : see also 
 Du Cange and Hofman, s. v.; Sirmond a.p. Baluz. 
 Capitul. ii. 802 ; and Thomassin. Vet. ct Xov. 
 Eccl. Discipl. II. ii. 38). [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 INVITATORTUM. In the Gregorian and 
 Benedictine “ offices the psalm ‘‘ Venite exultemus 
 Domino ” xciv. [E. V. xcv.] is said daily at the 
 beginning of Nocturns prefaced by an antiphon 
 which is called the Invitatorium. It is of pre¬ 
 cisely the same character as other antiphons to 
 psalms, and varies with the day, but is said 
 differently from other antiphons, and repeated 
 .several times during the course of the psalm as 
 well as at the beginning and end. Thus the 
 ordinary Sunday invitatory is “ Adoremus Domi- 
 num, qui iecit nos,'’ which is said twice at the 
 beginning of the psalm, and repeated in whole 
 or in part five times during its course, and again 
 after the Gloria. 
 
 On the Epiphany no invitatory tvas said; but the 
 psalmody began, and still begins, with the psalms 
 of the first nocturn with their antiphons [Hodie 
 non cantamus Invitatorium, sed absolute inci- 
 pimus. Jlu''ric ex Antiphon irio Vaiicano Rom. 
 Eccl}''] and the psalm ‘-Venite” was said with 
 its own antiphon as the last psalm of the second 
 nocturn. [Later it was said as the first psalm of 
 the third nocturn, and its antiphon repeated 
 during its course in the ordinary manner of an 
 invitatory]. Amalarius (lib. iv. c. 33) and Du- 
 randus (lib. vi. c. 36) suggest that the reason for 
 this omission may have been to mark the differ¬ 
 ence between the invitation to the faithful to 
 praise God, and that which Herod gave to the 
 scribes and doctors to find out where Christ 
 should be born. More probably it was omitted 
 [Martene de Rit. lib. iv. c. 14] simply because 
 the psalm to which it belonged was said in an- 
 
 » In the Benedictine Psalter Ps. “ Venite ” is preceded 
 by Ps. 3; but it* .antiphon is called “ Antiph. Invita¬ 
 torium.’' 
 
 b Amalarius e. si. writes: “Nostra regio in praesenti 
 officio [i. e. in die Epip,] solita est unum omittere de con- 
 sueto more, id est Invitatoriumas if the custom were 
 local ; but from what he says in the passage referred to in 
 the te.\t, it would seem that it soon became general. 
 Some French churches, however, among which were those 
 of Lyons and Rouen, were in the habit of singing the In¬ 
 vitatory on the tplpbany. At Lyons it was sung with 
 special solemnity (Maitene tU sup.)'. 
 
 other place, though why the psalm should be dis¬ 
 placed from its ordinary position is not so clear. 
 
 I he psalm ‘-Nenitc” is also known as the 
 “ Invitatory Psalm.” 
 
 In the Ambrosian psalter, “ Venite ” is not said 
 at the beginning of the office, and there is no 
 antiphon which corresponds to the Gregorian 
 Invitatorium. [H. J. H.] 
 
 INVOCATION. [Epiclesis.] 
 
 IRENAEUS. (1) [Hvacinthus (1).] 
 
 (2) Bishop, martyr at Sirmium under Ma.xi- 
 mian; “ Passio,” March 25 {Mart. Rom. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) [Theodorus.] 
 
 (4) Martyr at Thessalonica with Peregrinus 
 and Irene; commemorated May 5 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Bishop of Lyons, and martyr under Seve- 
 rus; commemorated June 28 {Mart. Hieron., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 ( 6 ) Deacon, martyr w-ith Mustiola, a noble 
 matron, under the emperor Aurelian ; comme¬ 
 morated July 3 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Martyr at Rome with Abundius, under 
 Decius; commemorated Aug. 26 {Mart. Ry^m. 
 Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (8) and Phocas ; commemorated Oct. 7 {Cal. 
 
 Armen.) [\V. F. G.] 
 
 IRENE. (1) Virgin, martyr at Thessalo¬ 
 nica; commemorated April 5 {MaH. Rom. Vet., 
 Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr ; commemorated with Agape and 
 Chionia, April 16 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 (3) [iRENAEUS (4).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 IRENICA. [Eirenica.] 
 
 IRELAND, COUNCILS OF {Hihcmica 
 concilia). But two such are recorded before 
 A.l). 800, both held by St. Patrick, according to 
 Spelman (Cone. p. 49 and seq.), a.d. 450 or 456, 
 viz. in his 80th or 80th year, assisted by his 
 coadjutors. Bishops. Auxilius and Iserninus. At 
 least the 34 canons passed at the first run in theiv 
 joint names. Tlie discipline prescribed in them, 
 indicates very primitive manners. By the 6th 
 any clerk, from the doorkeeper to the priest 
 seen abroad without his shirt, and with his 
 nakedness uncovered, if his hair be not tonsured 
 in the Roman style, and his wife walk out with, 
 her head unveiled, is to be lightly regarded bv 
 the laity, and excluded from the church. Thirty-- 
 one canons of a similar description are given to 
 the other council. But these 65 by no means 
 exhaust the number ascribed to St. Patrick. 
 Seventeen more from other sources are supplied 
 by Mansi (vi. 519-22). Another collection of 
 Irish canons, supposed to be earlier than the 8th 
 century, may be seen in Dachery’s Spied, by 
 Baluze, i. 491 and seq., and a supplement to 
 them in Martene and Durand, Anec. iv. 1-21. 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 IRREGULARITY. [Ordination.] 
 
 ISAAC. (1) The patriarch ; commemorated 
 with Abraham and Jacob, Ter 28 = Jan. 23, 
 Maskarram 28 = Sept. 25 {Cal. Ethiop.)\ also at 
 
ISAIAH 
 
 intervals of thirty days reckouiug from these 
 d tis throughout tlie year; also commemorated 
 alone, Nahasse 24 = Aug. 17 (Ca/. Ethiop.'). 
 
 (2) Armenian patriarch ; commemorated Feb. 
 0 {Cal. Armen.'). 
 
 (3) Dalmata, oatos TraT-fjp, in the time of the 
 emperor Valens: commemorated May 31 {Cal. 
 Ji'jza.t.). 
 
 (4) Monk, martyr at Cordova ; commemorated 
 June 3 {Mirt. Usuardi). 
 
 (5) and Mesrop; commemorated June 27 {Cal. 
 Armen.). 
 
 (6) Holv Father, a.d. 368 ; commemorated 
 Aug. 3 {Cal. Bijzant.). 
 
 (7) and Joseph ; commemorated Sept. 16 {Cal. 
 Gcor;).). 
 
 (8) King of Ethiopia; commemorated Tekemt 
 
 30-Oct. 27 {Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G."] 
 
 (9) The Just, patriarch of Alexandria; com¬ 
 memorated Hedar 9 = Nov. 5 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 ISAIAH, the prophet; commemorated May 9 
 {Cal. Bijzant.), July 6 {Mart. Eoin. Vet., Bedae, 
 Adonis, IJsuardi), Maskarram 6 = Sept. 3, and 
 Ter 3 = Dec. 29 {Cal. Ethiop.). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 ISAPOSTOLOS. [Aposi'le.] 
 
 ISBODICON. [Fraction.] 
 
 ISCHYRION, martyr at Alexandria; com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 22 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). ' [W. F. G.] 
 
 ISIDOIIUS. (1) Bishop of Antioch; “ Pas- 
 sio,” Jan. 2 {Mai't. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Saint, of Pelusium in Egypt, 3cr/o9 TraT-fjp 
 circa -415 a.d. ; commemorated Jan. 15 {Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardi), Feb. 4 {Cal. Bijzant.). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Seville (Hispala) ; deposition at 
 Seville, April' 4 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (4) [HELIAS.] 
 
 (5) Martvr at Chios, a.d. 255; commemorated 
 
 av 15 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. Bijzant.). 
 
 (6) [Dioscorus (3).] [W. F. G.] 
 
 ISMAEL, martyr A.D. 362 ; commemorated 
 June 17 {Cal. Byzant.). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 ISSUE OF BLOOD, CURE OF THE. 
 This miracle is repeated on many sarcophagi. 
 
 JAiMES THE GREATER, ST. 8G9 
 
 See Bottari, taw. xix. xxi. xxxiv. xxxix. xli. 
 Ixxxiv. Ixxxv. Ixxxix. cxxxv. She has been taken 
 as rejiresenting the Gentile church, particularly 
 by St. Ambrose, lib. ii. in Lu '. c. viii. She is of 
 small stature in the carvings, like the other 
 subjects of our Lord’s miraculous cures. In 
 Eu.sebius {Eccl. Hist. vii. 18) mention is made of 
 a bronze statue of our Loi’d, or rather of a group 
 of two figure.s, which existed at Cac.sarca Philippi, 
 Dan (or Baneas at this day), and was said to 
 have been erected by this woman, who was also 
 rejiresented as kneeling at His feet. Eusebius 
 saw the statue himself, but its being meant for 
 our Lord seems to have been matter of tradition. 
 Tovtou rhu arSpidura CiKova rov Ayaov (pfpav 
 ekiyov. ‘'Epeive Se Kal fls rpMS, Ka\ oipei 
 irapaka^eir eiridrj/u.-^fTai'Tas duT0V9 rp vAkei. 
 
 (See Jesus Christ, Representations of.) 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 ISTRIAN COUNCIL (7sfm>«s> Concilium). 
 Held by the partisans of the Three Chapters at 
 some place in Istria, a.d. 591, according to 3Iansi, 
 to petition the emperor Maurice in their own be¬ 
 half, and that of Severus, bishop of Aquileia, their 
 metropolitan, who had been forced by the exarch 
 into condemning them at Ravenna, and was now 
 summoned with his suffragans to Rome. Their 
 remonstrance, to which eight names are affixed, 
 was successful, and the pope was ordered to leave 
 them in peace for the present (3Iansi. x. 463-7). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 ITALIAN COUNCII.S {TtaHca Concilia\ 
 Three councils are given under this heading in 
 Mansi. 1. A.D. 380, at which Maximus the Cynic, 
 who had just been deposed at Constantinople, was 
 heard (iii. 519). 2. A. d. 381, at which St. Ambrose 
 was pre.sent, and who.se proceedings are preserved 
 in two letters addressed in his name and that of 
 his colleagues to the emperor Theodosius, in one 
 of which an attenijit to introduce Apollinarian 
 errors among them is noticed ; and in the other 
 the claims of Maximus, and the consecration of 
 Nectarius to the see of Constantinople are dis¬ 
 cussed with some anxiety {Vk 630-3). 3. A.D. 
 
 405, at which the emperor Honorius was peti¬ 
 tioned to intervene with his brother Arc.adius in 
 favour of St. John Chrysostom {ib. 1162). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 IVENTIUS, EVANTIUS, or EVENTIUS, 
 
 confessor at Pavia; commemorated with Syrus 
 Sept. 12 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 J 
 
 JACINTHUS. (1) [Felicianus (4).] 
 
 (2) [Hvacinthcs.] 
 
 JACOB, the patriarch; commemorated Na¬ 
 hasse 25 = Aug. 18 {Cal. Etoiop.). See also 
 Isaac. [W. F. G.] 
 
 JADER. [Felix (24).] 
 
 JA3IBLICHUS, one of the seven sleepers of 
 Ephesus; commemorated Oct. 22 {Cal. Hyzant.). 
 
 [W.'F. G.] 
 
 JAMES THE GREATER, ST., Legend 
 AND Festival of. 
 
 1. Legend. — By the name of James the 
 Greater, the son of Zebedee is distinguished 
 from the other apostle of the same name. The 
 
 Fignree un a Sarcophagru. (Front Martigny.) 
 
870 JAMES THE GREATER, ST. 
 
 fjpithot would seem to have regard either to | 
 stature or to age, though some, with a])i)arently 
 less likelihood, would make it refer (1) to pri- ! 
 ority in tlie call to the apostleship, or (2) to : 
 higher judvileges in intercourse with Christ, or | 
 (3) to the dignity of an earlier martyrdom. 
 
 The el ler brother of St. John, univer-sally 
 believed to have been the last survivor of the 
 apostles, St. James was the first to be called 
 away, having been beheaded by Herod Agrippa I., 
 shortly before the Passover of 44 a.d. Out of a 
 mass of tradition concerning him, the only point 
 supported by any adequate evidence is the inci¬ 
 dent related by Kusebius {flist. Eccles. ii. 9) on 
 the authority of Clement of Alexandria, of the 
 convei’sion of St. James’s accuser as the apostle 
 was led away to death. Struck by his steadfast¬ 
 ness, he too embraced Christ, and the apostle 
 and his accuser sutiered together. 
 
 The .stories, however, of St. James’s connection 
 with Spain are deserving of very little credit. 
 In spite of such plain statements as Acts adii. 1 
 (very lamely met by Baronins), the apostle is 
 made to undertake a missionary journey into 
 Spain after the death of Stephen, returning to 
 Jerusalem before a.d. 44. The ancient evidence 
 for such a story is of the weakest. Isidore of 
 Seville (ob. 63i3 A. D.) does say {de Ortu et Ohitii 
 Patriuii, c. 71 ; Patrol. Ixxxiii. 151), if indeed 
 the work is his, which is certainly doubtful, that 
 St. James preached the gospel to the natives of 
 Spain and the Western regions and the same 
 statement is found in the CAlectanea, once 
 wrongly attributed to Bede (Patrol, xciv. 545). 
 Mere unsupported statements, however, of so 
 late a date can amount to very little. It is 
 worthy of notice too that at a much earlier 
 period. Innocent I. (ob. 417 a.d.) states that no 
 church had been founded throughout Italy, Gaul, 
 or Spain, except by those who owed their autho¬ 
 rity directly or indirectly to St, Peter (Ep. 25 
 ad Eeceiitiam, c. 2 : Patrol, xx. 552). With 
 every allowance for the desire of a bishop of 
 Rome to exalt the see of St, Peter, so sweeping a 
 statement could hardly have been ventured on, 
 had there been a strongly established tradition 
 as to St. James’s connection with Spain. Am¬ 
 brose evidently knew no such legend, for he 
 speaks of St. Paul’s projected journey into Spain 
 being “quia illicChristus non erat praedicatus ” 
 (Comm, in Ep. ad Rom. xv. 24; Patrol, xvii, 
 176) ; nor did Jerome, for he mentions St. Paul’s 
 journeys having reached even to Spain, imme¬ 
 diately after referring to the apostle’s never 
 building “ super alterius fundamentum, ubi jam 
 fuerat praedicatum” (Comm, in Amos, v. 8 sqq.; 
 vol. vi, 291, ed, Vallarsi). Baronins (notes to 
 tMartyrolojium Rom inum ; July 25), in sum¬ 
 ming up concerning these legends, can only urge 
 “ non esse adeo impossibilia, vel haberi pro 
 inonstro, ut putaiit aliqui.” 
 
 The story of the translation of the apostle’s 
 body into Spain is obviously totally apocryphal. 
 
 It is to the eti’ect that after his body had been 
 interred at Jerusalem, his disciples removed it 
 to Iria Flavia, in the far north-west of Spain. 
 (For an elementary form of the story see the 
 Mdj-tyrologies 25] of Usuard and Notker; 
 
 ^ This writing speaks of St. James as buried “ in Mar- 
 raarica” {al. Caimarica, &c.), a name which does not 
 seem to have been satisfactorily e.xplaitied. 
 
 JAMES THE GREATER, ST. 
 
 Patrol, exxiv. 295, cxxxi. 1125: tho.se of Bode 
 and Wandalbert ignore it.) Here it was dis¬ 
 covered early in the 9th centurv, and removed 
 to Compostella (a corruption of Oia 'omj Pastolo, 
 
 I ad Ja-'ohum Apos'olum), a few miles distant, by 
 order of Alj)honso II., king of Asturias and Leon 
 (ob. 84-2 A.D.). For a very full account of these 
 legends, see Cuper in the Acta Canctorum (July, 
 vol. V. pp. 3 sqq.); also Mariana, De aderntu 
 Jacobi Apostoli mnjoris in Ilisp miom, in his 
 Tractatus, Col. Agr. 1609; Tolra, Justificacion 
 historico-criticn de la venidx de Santi igo el Mayor 
 d Espaiia, y de su sepulcro in Compos'ela. Ma- 
 triti, 1797 ; Arevalus, Tsidorvina, c. 61 (Patrol. 
 Ixxxi. 382 sqq.), and sundry writings in con¬ 
 nection with St. James, wrongly attributed to 
 pope Callixtus II. (Patrol, clxiii. 1370 sqq.). 
 Strangely, however, in spite of this lack of 
 evidence, the legend took such root in Spain, 
 as practically to count there as an article of 
 faith, and thus we find Luther holding it neces¬ 
 sary to protest against such a view (Cdmmtlkhe 
 Schriften, xv. 1864, ed. Walch). 
 
 For the wild legends connecting St. .lames 
 with the false teachers Hermogenes an 1 Philetus, 
 reference may be made to the Historia Apostolica 
 of the pseudo-Abdias, lib. iv., in which, it may 
 be remarked in passing, there is no allusion 
 whatever to Spain (Fabricius, Cude.v Psendepi- 
 graphus Eovi Testamenti, vol. ii. p. 516 sqq. ed. 
 1719). 
 
 2. Festival of St. James. —The date when St. 
 James was first commemorated by a festival 
 cannot be determined very closely. It is well 
 known that at first the only apostles who had a 
 special festiA'al were St. Peter and St. Paul, and 
 that the others gradually obtained separate com¬ 
 memorations afterwards. In the case of St. 
 James, the notices are such as to point to the 
 conclusion that the festival was one which only 
 made its way very gradually, and that the date 
 at which it had attained general observance was 
 quite late. We find a mention, it is true, in the 
 ancient Kalendarium Carthaginense, where for 
 December 27 is this notice : “ vi. Eal. Jan. Sancti 
 Joannis Baptistae [here probably Evangelistae 
 should be read] et Jacobi Apostoli, quern Herodes 
 occidit ” (Patrol, xiii. 1228). On the other hand, 
 many ancient Sacramentaries give no indication 
 of the existence of a festival of St. James. The 
 Ambrosian (Pamelins, Liturgg. J.att. i. 403) and 
 Gregorian (col. 115, ed. Menard), as we now 
 have them, do so, the forms being almost iden¬ 
 tical in the two cases; but the Leonine and 
 Gelasian pass it OA'er. In the ancient Galilean 
 Liturgy edited by Mabillon, to which we have 
 referred below, it will be seen that St. James is 
 commemorated, together with his brother, on 
 December 27, but in the Galilean Lectionary the 
 festival is of St. John alone, and in the Martyro- 
 loghim Gellonense (D’Achery’s Spicilegium, xiii. 
 390), the notice is “ vi. Kal. Jan. Ordinatio 
 Episcopatus Jacobi Apostoli fratris Domini et 
 Adsumptio Sancti Joannis Evangelistae.” In 
 the Gothic Breviary edited by Lorenzana, a form 
 is provided for a festival of St. James on De¬ 
 cember 30 (Patrol. Ixxxvi. 1306), but there is 
 none in the Mozarabic Missal. Ihe Pontifical ot 
 Egbert, archbishop of York (ob. 766 a.d.) has 
 no notice of such a festival. Additional evidence 
 to the same efiect may be found in the fact that 
 the earliest traces of a vigil of a festival ot St. 
 
JAMES THE GEEATER, ST. JAMES THE LESS, ST. 871 
 
 James are of very late date. Binteriin (Denk r. 
 V. 1. 401) asserts that the vigil does not occur 
 at all in calendars before the 10th century. 
 Even so late, however, as the loth century, the 
 festival itself does not appear to have attained 
 universal acceptance; for in the canons of the 
 council of Oxford (1222 A.D.) it is not included 
 in the list of the chief festivals observed in Eng¬ 
 land (can. 8; Labbe xi. 274). At the council of 
 Cognac in France (1256 A.D.) the case is some¬ 
 what doubtful, yet taking the context into con¬ 
 sideration (cf. can. 19), the words “ duodecim 
 Apostolorum, et maxime Petri et Pauli, Andreae, 
 Jacobi . . . . ” pei-haps point to sej)arate fes¬ 
 tivals and not to the collective festival of the 
 apostles (can. 21 ; Lebbe xi. 749 : cf. Cunc. 
 iblosaimm [1229 a.d.], can. 26, op. cit. 436, 
 where the probability seems to incline the other 
 way). We may appeal, however, finally to the 
 proceedings of the synod of Exeter (1287 a.d.), 
 Avhere the festivals to be observed are named in 
 their several months, and where the entry for 
 July is, “ Translationis S. Thomae martyris, 
 Sanctae Marine Magdalenae, S. Jacobi Apostoli 
 majoids *’ (can. 23, op. cit. 1288). 
 
 Be.sides this vagueness as to the date of the 
 origin of the festival, the utmost latitude also 
 prevails as to the day when it was to be cele¬ 
 brated.* We have evidence indeed of a kind 
 Avhich is wanting in the case of every other 
 apostle, for from Acts xii. 4 we may assume 
 that St. James was put to death shortly before 
 the Passover. Still, in the Western church, 
 peidiaps from the wish not to have a celebration 
 of a martyrdom in Lent and Eastertide, we gene¬ 
 rally find St. James’s festival on July 25.*' The 
 calendar of the church of Carthage associates 
 him, as we have seen, with his brother John on 
 December 27 ; as does also the Gothico-Gallic 
 Missal, where the heading for the day is “in 
 Natale Apostolorum Jacobi et Johannis ” (Ma- 
 billon, de Litnrjia Gallicana, lib. iii. p. 196). 
 [In the Gothic calendar, however, prefixed to 
 Lorenzana’s edition of the Gothic Breviary, we 
 find on December 30, “Jacobus frater Joannis 
 Apostoli et Evangelistae,” following the notice 
 on December 29, “ Jacobus, frater Domini,” 
 Patrol. Ixxxvi. 19.] The same combination too 
 meets us in the calendar of the Armenian church 
 on December 28 (Neale, Eastern Church, Introd. 
 p. 804), and in that of the Ethiopic church on 
 September 27 (Ludolf, Fasti Sacri Ecclesiac 
 AlcxandrirMe, p. 5). The calendar of the Byzan¬ 
 tine church appoints Apidl 30 for the commemo¬ 
 ration of St. James, and so we find in the Greek 
 metrical Ephenierides prefixed by Papebroch to 
 the Acta Sanctorum for May (vol. i. p. xxv.) 
 
 KTsivi <p6vOV ’laKCD/Soj/ iv TpiaK6(TTT). 
 
 In the martyrology given by Cardinal Sirletus, 
 besides the commemoration on Apgl 30, there 
 is also noted on November 15, “Natalis SS. 
 Baruch et Jacobi, fratris Joannis Theologi ” (see 
 Canisius, Thesaurus, vol. iii. pp. 427, 486). 
 
 The spring period is also recognised in the 
 Ethiopic and Coptic calendars. In the former, 
 besides the festival mentioned above, there are 
 also commemorations on February 4 and April 
 
 b The statement of;ome writers {e.g. Augustl, Denkw. 
 iii. 227) that this particular day is the anniversary of the 
 translation of the saint’s remains to Compostella, is one 
 whose proof and disproof is equally impossible. 
 
 12 of St. James, apparently the son of Zebcdee 
 (Eudolf, pp. 20, 26). The Coptic calendtir has 
 genentlly a very close affinity with flie preceding, 
 and, like it, has a festival of St. James (defined 
 ! as the son of Zebedee) on April 12 ; and also on 
 j February 12 of a Jtimes, presumably the present, 
 
 I and on April 30 of a James, defined as the son of 
 Zebedee.*= ^ 
 
 3. Whether or no it is due to the eaidy date 
 of this a])ostle’s martyrdom, but little litera¬ 
 ture is directly associated wdth his name. The 
 canonical epistle of James is indeed assigned to 
 him in the subscription of a Corbey MS. of the 
 old Latin version cited by Tischendorf (in loc.), 
 and also in the pa.s.sage of Isidore already referred 
 to. This theory, however, is exceedingly im¬ 
 probable, and need not be further referred to 
 here. 
 
 A pretended discovery was made near Granada 
 in Spain in 1595 a.d. of the remains of two of 
 St. James’s disciples, and with them of eighteen 
 books on leaden plates, including several by St. 
 James, which with the others were condemned 
 by Innocent XI. in 1682 a.d. (Fabricius, Codej; 
 Pseu lepigraphus Novi Testamenti, i. 352, iii. 725 ; 
 Acta Sanctorum, May, vol. vii. pp. 285, 393). 
 
 For further remarks on the subject of the 
 preceding article reference may be made to 
 Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten der Christ-Katho- 
 lischen Kirche, vol. v. part i. pp. 400 sqq.; 
 August!, Denkmirdigkeiten aus der Christlichen 
 Archdologie, vol. iii. pp. 237 sqq. ; Tillemont, 
 Memoires pour servir a, Chistoire Ecclesiastiguc, 
 vol. i. pp. 342 sqq., 625 sqq. ed. Paris, 1693; 
 Cajetan Cenni, Dissertat. i. de Aatiq. Eccl. Hisp. 
 c. 2, Rome, 1741. [R. S.] 
 
 JAMES THE LESS, ST., Legend and 
 Festival of. 
 
 1. Legend, 4’'C-—E does not fall within our 
 present province to discuss the question whether 
 James, the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve 
 apostles, is or is not the same as James, the 
 Lord’s brother, bishop of Jerusalem. The pro¬ 
 bability seems to incline in favour of the non- 
 identity of the two, but there are considerable 
 difficulties attending either hypothesis ; and the 
 matter will be found discussed at length in the 
 Dictionary of the Bible. Of ancient liturgies, 
 martyrologies and calendars, some identify, 
 while others distinguish them; and hence it 
 m’ay perhaps be most convenient here to collect 
 together the various notices under either desig- 
 nation. 
 
 It may be remarked at the outset that if 
 James, the son of Alphaeus, be a different per¬ 
 son from James the Lord’s brother, there is 
 almost a complete lack of tradition as to his 
 history. The ancient so-called Martyrologium 
 Hierongmi speaks of his being martyred in 
 Persia (Patrol, xxx. 478), and the Greek 
 metrical Ephemeridcs, which we have cited be¬ 
 low, assert that he was crucified; but it is im 
 possible to say what amount of belief is to be 
 given to either of these statements. James, the 
 
 ® It should be noticed that sundry slight variations 
 from Ludolf’s calendar of the I^gyptlan church occur in 
 those given by S Idcn (de Sguedriis VcUrian Kbraeorum, 
 pp. 210 sqq.; ed. Amsteid.un, 1679). Here one calendar 
 gives Feb. 11, the other Feb. 12 ; one April 11, the other 
 April 12; and one (ihe other has no entry) has April 20 
 for April 30. 
 
872 
 
 ja:\ies ^ihp: lp^ss, st. 
 
 Lord’s brother, on the other Inind, fills a promi¬ 
 nent place in the history of the Acts, he is re¬ 
 ferred to by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Gala¬ 
 tians in a way that sufficiently indicates his im- 
 })ortauce, and there can be no doubt that it is 
 to him we owe the so-called Catholic Epistle of 
 St. James. Ecclesia.stical tradition also tells 
 much conc^'ning him, and the account of his 
 martyrdom given by Eusebius (/list. Eccles. ii. 
 23) from Hegesippus is doubtless substantially 
 correct. It is not, however, necessary to repeat 
 here what has already been said in the liible 
 Dictionary, to which reference may be made. 
 
 2. Festiv'l. —The exact date of the rise of a 
 special festival of St. James, whether as the 
 sou of Alphaeus or as the Lord’s brother, is hard 
 to fix. Like those of most of the apostles, it is 
 comparatively late. Among the earliest wit¬ 
 nesses, we may mention the Martyrologium 
 Hieronijrni, the metrical martyrology of Bede, 
 and the ancient liturgies referred to below. The 
 first of the.se, as well as other early Roman 
 martyrologies, commemorates James, the son of 
 Alphaeus, on June 22, and also James, the Lord’s 
 brother, on March 15, April 25, and December 
 27. On the last of these there is as.sociated with 
 the “Assumptio S. Joannis Ev'angelistae,” also 
 the Ordinatio episcopatus S. Jacobi fratris 
 Domini,” a combination to which we shall again 
 refer. There is also in this martyrology, as we 
 now have it, a commemoration of James, not 
 further defined, but obviously the profi»ri.t, on 
 May 1. The metrical martyrology of Bede 
 commemorates St. Philip and St. James together 
 on May 1, the latter, it will be seen, defined as 
 the Lord’s brother, 
 
 “Jacobus Dominifrater pius atque Philippus 
 Mirifico Maias venerantur honoie Calendas." 
 
 This has been the general custom throughout 
 the Western church, and so we find it in the 
 Gelasian (Patrol. Ixxiv. 1161), Gregorian (col. 
 101, ed. Menard) and Ambrosian (Pamelius, 
 Litargg. Latt. i. 370) liturgies. The reason for 
 this combination of apostles, and for the choice 
 of this particular day does not appear. Schulting 
 (Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica ii. 130) simply states 
 that it is because of the translation of the 
 relics of the two on that day in the Pontificate 
 of Pelagius I. (ob. 560 A.D.). We are not aware 
 that anything can be adduced in support of 
 this statement beyond the remark of Anastasius 
 Bibliothecarius that under Pelagius I., “ initiata 
 est basilica Apostolorum Philippi et Jacobi ” 
 
 (Vitae Pontificum; Pelagius I. Patrol, cxxviii. 
 614), where we see the two names already asso¬ 
 ciated. 
 
 It is stated by the Micrologus that this festival 
 was originally one of all the apostles; there 
 seems, however*, to be no real evidence for the 
 a.ssertion ‘‘ ideo etiam invenitur in martyrologiis 
 sive in Sacramentariis festivitas Sanctorum Ja¬ 
 cobi et Philippi et omnium Apostolorum ” (de 
 Eccl. Observ. c. 55; Patrol, cli. 1017). This is 
 followed, however, by sundry liturgical writers, 
 e. g. Honorius Augustodunensis (Gemma Animae 
 iii. 140 ; Patrol, clxxii. 681), and Durandus (Piat. 
 Div. Off. vii. 10). 
 
 Besides the festival of May 1, the Ambrosian 
 liturgy also commemorates on Dec. 30 the 
 “ ordinatio B. Jacobi Alphaei Apostoli ” (og\ cit. 
 309), resembling the already cited notice of the 
 
 JAME.S THE LESS, ST. 
 
 Martyrologium Hieronynn; and we may again 
 refer to the entry in tlie Mm tyrologi nn Gello- 
 nese quoted in the jueceding article. The Gai- 
 lican liturgy, published by M.ibillou, omits 
 altogether the festival of .St. James, whether 
 as son of Aljthaeus or as brother of the 
 Lord ; but in the Mozarabic mis.sal we find 
 a commemoration of “ S. Jacobus, frater Do¬ 
 mini ” on Dec. 29. We may take this oppor¬ 
 tunity of adding that the prophetic lection, 
 epistle and gospel there are i-espectively Wisdom 
 xviii. 20-24; i. Tim. i. 18-ii. 8; Luke viii. 23, 
 27, John xii. 24—26, xiii. 16, 17, 20, xv. 6, 12, 
 13 (Patrol. Ixxxv. 104). In the Mozarabic Bre¬ 
 viary, the form is merely headed “ in fe.'.to S. 
 Jacobi Apostoli ” (Patrol. Ixxxvi. 136), but there 
 are numerous references to the martyrdom of 
 Jame.s, the Lord’s bi’other, at Jerusalem. 
 
 The Byzantine calendar distinguishes the son 
 of Alphaeus fi*om the Lord’s brother, the former 
 being commemorated on Oct. 9, the latter on 
 Oct. 23; and so we find in the Greek metrical 
 Ephemerides, published by Papebroch in the 
 Acta Sanctorum C^liXY 1 vol. i. p. xlviii.),— 
 ivarg ’laKcvfios iui aTavpea rerdwaTo, and iadKoy 
 aS€\(p66€OV Tpirarg ^v\ca PiKaSi In 
 
 the Armenian church, besides the commemora¬ 
 tion of the two sons of Zebedee on Dec. 28, there 
 are also commemorations on August .31 of 
 “ Thomas and James, Apostles,” and on Dec. 23 
 of “ James, Apostle ” (Xeale, Eastern Church ; 
 Introd. pp. 801, 804). In the calendars of the 
 Egyptian and Ethiopic churches given in Ludoirs 
 Fasti Sacri Ecclesiae Alexaadrin te, we find that 
 the former .commemorates James, the sou of 
 Alphaeus, on October 2, and James, the Lord’s 
 brother, on October 23, and that they both 
 commemorate this latter on July 12. Besides 
 this, the Coptic calendar has on Feb. 12, and the 
 Ethiopic on Feb. 4, a James, an apostle, not 
 otherwise specified.® 
 
 It may be remarked here that many of the cus¬ 
 toms which still charaeferize the day on which 
 the Western church commemorates St. James, 
 have obviously sprung from lingering heathen 
 usages. These are, as a rule, connected with the 
 idea of the return of spring, and thus are in 
 some sense parallel to those associated with the 
 festivals of Christmas and St. John the Baptist’s 
 day, which dwell on the idea of the returning 
 and retreating sun. [Christmas; John the 
 Baptist, St., Fire of.] 
 
 Thus the gathering of flowers and the adorn¬ 
 ing of houses with them on May-day morning 
 may fairly ke connected with the Roman festival 
 of the Floralia held on the five days following 
 April 28 ; similar festivals to which were also 
 held in other places, as the Anthesphoria in 
 Sicily, etc. 
 
 A trace of the ancient sun-worship is still to 
 be found in one of the customs prevalent on 
 this day among Celtic peoples, and notably the 
 Irish and Highland peasantry, viz., the lighting of 
 great fires in the open air ; and thus the com¬ 
 mon Irish name for the day, is La Beul-tine 
 (day of Beal’s or Baal’s fire), and similarly in 
 Gaelic. 
 
 » It may be noted that one of the Egyptian calendars, 
 given by Selden (de Synedriis Vetrrum Ebracorum. 
 pp. 215, 219; ed. Amsterdanj, 16*9^ puts Feb. 11 for Feb, 
 12, and July 11 for July 12. 
 
JAMES 
 
 Customs also with the same central idea 
 existed among the ancient Gothic nations (see 
 Olaus Magnus, Historia de Gentibus Septcntriona- 
 libus XV. 8, p. 503, ed. Rome, 1555). 
 
 3. With the name of the person or persons 
 now before us, more litei’ature is associated than 
 in the case of the son of Zebedee. Besides the 
 Canonical Epistle of St. James, there are .still 
 extant the so-called Protevantjelimn Jacobi, the 
 most respectable of the Apocryphal gospels, and 
 the so-called liturgy of St. James. It is possi¬ 
 ble too that at one time there existed other 
 pseudonymous writings bearing the name of 
 St. James, for we find Innocent I. in alluding to 
 sundry works of this class, mention those which 
 “ sub nomine . . . Jacobi minoris . . . damnanda ” 
 {Ep. 6 ad Exsuperium c. 7, Patrol, xx. 502). 
 Again, in the records of a council held at Rome 
 in 494 A.D., under the episcopate of Geiasius, it 
 is ruled Evaugelium [aL Evangelia] nomine 
 Jacobi minoris, Apocryphum” (^Patrol, lix. 162, 
 175, 176). Apocryphal letters to St. James 
 from St. Peter and St. Clement are prefixed to 
 the various editions of the Clementine Homilies 
 (see e.g. Cotelerius, Patres Apost. i. 602, ed. 
 1700). The Apostolic Constitutions again (viii. 
 23), cite James, the son of Alphaeus, as giving 
 rules respecting confessors and virgins; and some 
 forms of the text, but apparently not the best, 
 give (c. XXXV.) rules as to divine service claiming 
 the authority of James, the Lord’s brother. 
 
 Besides works already cited, reference may be 
 made to Biuterim, Eenkwiirdigheiten der Christ- 
 Katholischen Kirche, vol. v. part i., pp. 365 sqq.; 
 Augusti, Denk'iiirdigkeiten aus der Christlichen 
 Arckdologie, vol. iii. pp. 237 sqq. [R. S.] 
 
 JAMES. (1) Bishop, bcrios -rrarrjp Kal 6p.o- 
 \oyr]T-f]s —circa 824 A.D. ; commemorated March 
 21 {Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (2) Patriarch of Alexandria, f830 A.D. ; com¬ 
 memorated Oct. 8 {Cal. Copt.). 
 
 (3) Patriarch of Antioch; commemorated 
 Tekemt ll=iOct. 8 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 (4) Martyr of Persia, A.D. 396 ; commemo¬ 
 rated Nov. 27 {Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (5) Pi'esbyter, martyr in Persia under Sapor 
 with Melicius the bishop, and Acepoimas the 
 bishop (circa 345 A.D.); commemorated April 22 
 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Of Nisibis, confessor under Maximin; 
 commemorated Dec. 14 {Cal. Armen.) ; July 15 
 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (7) Deacon, martyr under Decius apud Lam- 
 besitanam urbem with Marianus the reader; 
 commemorated April 30 {Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi); May 6 {Cal. Carth.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JANUAKIA. [SciLLiTA, Martyrs of.] 
 
 JANUAKIUS. (1) [Felix (1).] 
 
 (2) [Felix (5).] 
 
 (3) UpojxdpTvs ; commemorated with compa¬ 
 nion martyrs, April 21 {Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (4) [Felix (15).] 
 
 (6) [Felix (16).] 
 
 (6) [SciLLiTA, Martyrs of.] 
 
 (7) Martyr with Pelagia at Nicopolis, in 
 Le.sser Armenia; commemorated July 11 {Mart. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 JERUSALEM, COUNCILS OF 873 
 
 ( 8 ) [Florentius (1).] 
 
 (9) [Sixtus (2).] 
 
 (10) Bishop of Beneventum, martyr at Naples 
 with Festus and Proculus, deacons, Desiderius, 
 Euticus, and Acutus, under the emperor Dio¬ 
 cletian ; commemorated Sept. 19 {Mai't. Bedae, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (11) [Faustus (3).] 
 
 (12) [Felix (23).] 
 
 (13) Saint; commemorated Dec. 2 {Cal. A?'- 
 
 men.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JASON. (1) [Hilaria (2).] 
 
 (2) And Sosipater, apostles; commemorated 
 April 28 {Cal. Bgzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JEREMIAH. (1) The prophet; commemo¬ 
 rated May 1 {Mart. Usuardi, Bedae, Cal. Bgzant.)', 
 Sept. 5 {Cal. Copt.)-, Aug. 29 {Cal. .Armen.)-, 
 Ginbot 5 = April 30 {Cal. Ethiop.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 (2) [Peter (8).] 
 
 (3) [EiUilianus (4).) 
 
 JERUSALEM, COUNCILS OF {Ilieroso^ 
 Igmitana Concili i). (1) a.d. 47, says Cave {Hist. 
 
 Lit. i. 38); Baronius and others, A.D. 51 : the 
 third, in chronological order, of the meetings 
 of the Apostles recorded in their Acts, but the 
 only one deserving the name of a synod. Its 
 proceedings are described there (c. xv.). A con¬ 
 troversy having arisen at Antioch, over which 
 according to Eusebius {Chron. ad 1.) Euodius had 
 been appointed bishop as far back as a.d. 43, on 
 the necessity of circumcising the Gentile con¬ 
 verts and obliging them to keep the law of Moses, 
 it was referred to the Apostles and elders at 
 Jerusalem for decision, SS. Paul and Barnabas 
 being sent thither for that purpose. The Apostles 
 and elders came together, accordingly, to con¬ 
 sider of it. St. Peter spoke first, and gave hii: 
 opinion against burdening the disciples with any 
 such yoke. Then all the multitude—in other 
 words, the body of believers, or brethren who 
 were present—listened to the reports given of 
 the conversion of the Gentiles that had been 
 achieved on their first expedition as missionaries 
 into Asia Minor by SS. Paul and Barnabas. 
 After which St. James, as bishop, doubtless, of 
 Jerusalem, delivered his “ sentence;” which was 
 embodied in the synodical letter, addressed in 
 the name of the Apostles and elders and brethren, 
 finally, to the bi'ethren of the Gentiles in Antioch, 
 Syria, and Cilicia, and sent by two principal men 
 of their own number, in addition to SS. Paul 
 and Barnabas. On reaching Antioch, the bearers 
 of this epistle gathered the multitude together 
 and delivered it, when its contents having been 
 read caused great joy. 
 
 (2) Mansi’s reasons for dating this council a.d. 
 349 seem conclusive (ii. 171, note). Constans, 
 who ruled in the West, threatened his brother 
 Constantins with hostilities, if St. Athanasius, 
 in whose favour the Sardicau council had pro¬ 
 nounced two years before, was not restored to 
 his see; and Gregory, his rival, having died in 
 the early part of this year, his return was allowed. 
 In his way he stopped at Jerusalem, when a synod 
 was held under its orthodox bishop, Maximus, 
 and a letter despatched from it to c.ongratulate 
 the Alexandrians on this act of grace on the part 
 of the emperors; which Coustaus, however, did 
 
874 
 
 JESSE 
 
 not live to see carried out, as he was slain in 
 Jan. 350. • And Ma.xiinu.? having held this synod 
 without leave from his metropolitan, Acacius, 
 bishop of Caesarea, was ejected by him in another 
 synod a few months later, to be succeeded by 
 St. Cyril, then catechist, and a su))posed Arian. 
 
 (3) A.i>. 399. A svnod of bishops, met to cele¬ 
 brate the feast of the dedication of the church 
 there, acknowledge the receipt of a synodical 
 epistle from- Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, 
 condemning some of the errors of Origen lately 
 revived in his diocese, and profess their agreement 
 with it (Mansi, iii. 989-02). 
 
 (4) A.D. 415. What we should call a diocesan 
 synod : of presbyters, that is, under their bishop, 
 John. Orosius, the historian, then on a iTiission 
 from St. Augustine to St. Jerome, was present 
 at it, and gives an account of its proceedings. 
 Pelag[ius being there, and accused bv him of 
 heresy, was invited to come in, and put on his 
 defence. Neither what he said, nor what Orosius 
 said, were considered altogether unexceptionable 
 by the bishop, who proposed that letters should 
 be sent to Pope Innocent of Rome on the subject, 
 and that all should abide by what he decreed 
 (Mansi, iv. 307-12). 
 
 (5) A.D. 518, to express its adhesion to the 
 Constantinopolitan synod of the same year (see 
 the art.): its own synodical letter being also 
 preserved in the subsequent council under 
 Menuas. 
 
 (6) A.D. 536, Sept. 19 : under Peter, its pa¬ 
 triarch, on receipt of the acts of the synod of 
 Constantinople under Mennas, between four and 
 five months previously, with the edict of the 
 Emperor Justinian confirming them, and a letter 
 from Mennas to Peter acquainting him wRh their 
 contents (see the article on this council). The 
 deacon and notary present having recited them, 
 they were received synodically by Peter, and 
 subscribed to by forty-eight bishops, with himself 
 at their head (Mansi, A’iii. 1164-76). 
 
 (7) A.D. 553, under its patriarch, Rustochius, 
 at which the acts of the 5th council were received 
 and confirmed. 
 
 ( 8 ) A.D. 634, under Sophronius, on his eleva¬ 
 
 tion as patriarch, to condemn Moucthelism, 
 against which he had contended with so much 
 ardour as monk previously. The encyclical 
 epistle sent by him on this occasion to the 
 bishops of Rome and Constantinople is preserved 
 in the 11th action of the 6th council where it 
 was recited (Mansi, x. 649-52). [E. S, Ff.] 
 
 JESSE, ab Silcania; commemorated Dec. 2 
 
 (^CaLGreg.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JESUS. [Joshua.] 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIONS 
 OF. I. The symbolic representations of the 
 Lord are discussed severally, as under the titles 
 Fish, IX0TC, Lamb, Vine; see also Symbolism. 
 For the pictorial types of the Lord derived from 
 the Old Testament, see Old Testament in 
 Christian Art ; for pagan types used to repre¬ 
 sent Him, see Paganism in Christian Art. 
 For representations on gems, see Gems, §§ xii. 
 and xiii. p. 718; on the bottoms of cups, see 
 Glass, Christian, p. 732. See also Images, 
 p. 813; and Numismatics. Setting aside such 
 representations as these, it is to be obseiwed, in 
 the first instance, that He is represented in the 
 human form from the earliest times of Christian 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, Representations of 
 
 art as the Good Sheidierd ; and thissvmbolic pic¬ 
 ture, though in no case wlnitever considered as a 
 portrait, must have made the idea of representa¬ 
 tions of His human form a very familiar one at all 
 times in the Roman and other Western churches 
 —and in earlier centuries, in the Byzantine also. 
 One of the latest, and the most important perhaps 
 of all these, is the often described Good Shepherd 
 of the chapel of Gal la Piacidia at Rjivenua, middle 
 fifth century: and one of the eailiest ideal ]->or- 
 traits of our Lord is found in the church of St. 
 Apollinaris, built a century later within the walls 
 of that city. In art these two figures mark the 
 transition from the elder Graeco-Roman ideas and 
 traditions of art to the later style, propei-lv called 
 Byzantine. The leading difierence in feeling and 
 principle between them will be illu.>^trated in the 
 course of this article : for the present it mav 
 briefly be thus stated: that in the earlier 
 illustration of the Lord’s Parable of Himself, 
 the attempt at beauty predominates, and is far 
 from unsuccessful; whereas in the Byzantine 
 picture of St. Apollinare, though considerable 
 beauty of feature is retained, the tendenev to 
 the a.scetic or melancholy ideal of later art, 
 both Italian and German, is unmistakably visible. 
 
 It is perhaps fortunate that the words of St. 
 Augustine {De Trinitate viii. 4, 5) i)ut it appa¬ 
 rently beyond question, that the world cannot 
 possess now, and disl not possess in his time, anv 
 authentic record whatever of the bodily ap¬ 
 pearance of Jesus Christ the God-Man on earth. 
 “ Nam et ipsius Dominicae facies Carnis innume- 
 rabiliuni cogitationum diversitate variatur et 
 ringitur; quae tamen una erat, quaecunque erat.” 
 Two centuries before, indeed, St. Irenaous (conf/-« 
 Hacres. 1. 25) had spoken, with indignant absence 
 of comment, of certain Gnostic rej>resentations 
 of Christ, both painted and sculptured, as it 
 appears. “ Quasdam quidem [imagines] quasi 
 depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia 
 fabricatas habent, dicentes formam Christi factam 
 a Pilato, illo in tempore quo fuit Jesus cum 
 hominibus, Et has coronant, et proponunt eas 
 cum imaginibus mundi philosophorum, videlicet 
 cum imagine Pythagorae, et Platonis, et Ari- 
 stotelis.” These passages seem conclusive to 
 the effect that no real portrait of our Lord 
 existed, or was remembered as existing, in the 
 2nd century. Indeed as Martigny observes, the 
 controversy (dating from the 2nd century) with 
 regard to the human comeliness of our Lord’s 
 body visible on earth, makes it perfectly certain, 
 were proof necessary, that no authentic portrait 
 of Him ever existed. Augustine acknowledges 
 without blame the universal tendency of thought 
 to picture to itself persons and events by imagina¬ 
 tive effort, instancing St. Paul in particular, and 
 taking it for certain, as it probably may be, that 
 each of all the innumerable readers of the 
 epistles will forni a different idea of his own 
 about the author’s appearance, though none can 
 say whose will be nearest the truth. 
 
 In his mind then, and indeed in our own, all 
 ideal or fancy portraits of our Lord, so called, 
 are merely symbolic of His humanity ; and in 
 this view, the crucifix itself may be taken as a 
 symbol only of the fact of His death and the 
 doctrine of His sacrifice for man ; however the 
 word sacrifice be denned or enlarged upon: and 
 this may certainly make its presence in Christian 
 churches not only allowable but desirable. We 
 
JESUS CHEIST, REPRESENTATIONS OF 
 
 may observe on the different relation of the 
 church to the arts in Augustine’s days, when 
 Christian art of a well marked and distinctive 
 chararter existed, from the state of things in the 
 time of Tertullian, who protests against all 
 simulacra, likenesses, or representations what¬ 
 ever, and, as he well might in the j)resence of 
 the whole Pantheon, considers all images or 
 likenesses practically the same as idols.®* 
 
 Human art, however, was adoi)ted by the 
 church along with human thought and learning. 
 We cannot tell whether Tertul lian knew or cared 
 for the catacomb-paintings of Rome. Some of 
 them, as those in the more ancient part of St. 
 Domitilla, were certainly in existence before his 
 time; but he seems, in the presence of the 
 heathen, to protest against all paintings what¬ 
 ever, and the fact that St. Augustine not unwil¬ 
 lingly accepts them, is an illustration of a 
 hio^hlv natural change of Christian feeling on 
 the matter.*^ 
 
 The more ancient usage of representing the 
 Lord as the Good Shepherd culminates in the 
 Mosaic of Galla Placidia’s chapel. A far higher 
 antiquity is claimed for the no-longer existing 
 portrait-head of Christ, which Bosio represents, 
 from a chapel of the Callixtine catacomb. 
 
 Head of Christ from the Callixtine catacomb. (Martigny.) 
 
 There is a general opinion that it may have been 
 of as early date as the 2nd century: and what 
 we know of it may well induce us to believe 
 that it was the original of that ideal of our 
 Lord’s countenance which has passed, through 
 Lionardo da Vinci, into all Christian painting. 
 Lord Lindsay, however, says that the traditional 
 Head with which Europe is so familiar, was un¬ 
 known in the West till the 4th century, when 
 the original was sent to Constantin, sister of 
 Constantine, by Eusebius of Caesarea. It is 
 therefore of Byzantine or Eastern origin. The 
 earliest example, he continues, is a supposed 4th 
 century mosaic, found originally in the Callix¬ 
 tine, and now in the V^atican. See Eusebius’s 
 
 * De IdoV'latrid, c. iii.: “Idolum aliquamdiu retro non 
 erat;” he says, “sola templa et vacuae aedes. At ubi 
 artifices statuarum et inniginum, et oinnis generis .-iniu- 
 lacrorum diabolus seculo intulit (rude illud nogotium 
 humanae calamitatis) et nonien de idolLs consecutum 
 est.’’ 
 
 b Tertullian begins his book against llermogenes with 
 reproaching him for his profe.ssion as a painter: “ Pingit 
 illicite, nubit assidue: legem Dei in libidinem defendit, 
 in artem contemnit: bis falsariiis et cauterio et stylo 
 (encaustic),” &c. Athenagoras {Legal, pro Christ, c. 26) 
 speaks of images or statues in general as portraits of 
 daemouB. 
 
 87 o 
 
 letter in Labbe, Cvnc. t. vi. col. 493 s<|. This 
 letter repudiates (rhetorically but with sin¬ 
 cerity) any idea of our Lord’s real appearance, 
 and from it and the passage in Hist. Ecct. 
 (viii. 19) it appears that Eusebius had not seen 
 any historic portrait which he (or indeed others) 
 believed on evidence to be a genuine likeness 
 [Images, § III.]. Others of the same type are re¬ 
 peated on sarcophagi, dating from that of Junius 
 Bassus, A.D. 359; see Bottari, tav. xv. xxi.-xxv. 
 xliii. xliv.; the latter represents the paintings 
 in the catacomb of St. Bontianus, probably r*^ 
 newed over older pictures in the time of j.ope 
 Adrian I. (a.d. 772-775). This catacomb also 
 contains a highly ornamented cross, which is 
 evidently intended to represent the person of our 
 Lord [Cross]. 
 
 The assertion of the idea that our Lord not 
 only took upon Him the flesh of mankind, but 
 the “ form of a servant,” or slave, all bodily 
 ugliness instead of beauty, is derived from 
 meditation on the prophetic text (Is. liii. 2), 
 
 He hath no form nor comeliness; ” as the 
 natural thought of His beauty from the Mes¬ 
 sianic Psalm (xlv. 3), “Thou art fairer than the 
 children of men.” The former view seems to 
 have been entertained, or is nowise discouraged by 
 Justin Martyr, who twice uses the word a€'iSr}s of 
 our Lord: meaning evidently to repeat the expres¬ 
 sion of Isaiah {Dial, cum Tryph. cc. 85 and 88). 
 So Clement of Alexandria (^Paed. HI. 1) appeals 
 to the two texts to which we have referred on 
 the same side. Compare Stromata., ii. 5, § 22 ; 
 iii. 17, §103; vi. 17, § 151. Tertullian may be 
 supposed to have thought likewise {Adv. Jud. c. 
 14): “ Ne aspectu quidem honestus;” {He came 
 Christi, c. 9) “Adeo ncc humanae honestatis 
 corpus fuit.” He infers from the cruelty of Jews 
 and soldiers at the crucifixion, that such insults 
 could not have been offered to the Lord, had His 
 person possessed any beauty. So Origen (c. Cels. 
 vi. 75, p. 327, Spencer), who, however, held that 
 the Lord could appear in whatever form he 
 pleased (76. ii. p. 99 f.). A list is given by 
 Molanus (Hist. Sacramm Tmaginum, p. 403) by 
 which it appears that St. Jerome (in Matt. ix. 
 9; Epist. 65, ad Princip. c. 8), St. Ambrose, St. 
 Augustine, St. Chrysostom (Horn. 27 [al. 28] in 
 Matt. p. 328; and on Fs. 44 [45] p. 162), and 
 Theodoret, followed the text which speaks of 
 Him as fairest of all men, St. Basil and St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria (little to our surprise) taking the 
 other side. This unedifying controversy belongs 
 to art rather than to theology. The Oriental, 
 or Egyptian, or ascetic view of the human body, 
 would necessarily have weight on the ill-favoured 
 side, theologically speaking. And in practical 
 art, the want of skill, and also of models possess¬ 
 ing any degree of earthly good looks, must have 
 borne strongly in the same direction. Beauty, 
 of expression was too subtle a thing for the 
 hands of the Mosaicists of the 8th and 9th cen¬ 
 turies. 
 
 There were various reasons why the ideal of 
 bodily beauty should gradually be lost, up to 
 the 12th century. It has often been remarked 
 that as the ascetic life was more and more 
 severely enforced on the faithful, and the suffer¬ 
 ings of the later Roman world bore more and 
 more severely on the whole communitv, the 
 honour of the body of man was lost and for¬ 
 gotten. In the earlier Gothic days, strength and 
 
876 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIONS OF 
 
 manly beauty must have been associated in the 
 eyes of the Monastic Church only with the 
 ignorance and fierceness of barbarian soldiers. 
 The Chi’istian assembly on earth, under the 
 hands of Alaric and (jenseric, Attila and Alboin, 
 was utterly hopeless of any good on earth. The 
 eastern end of a liyzanline or Romanesque 
 church from the Gth century, begins accordingly 
 to be adorned as a mvstical representation of 
 heaven, beyond the wihlerness of earth, with the 
 })ortrait figure of Christ as its centre. The 
 Cord, whom all seek so piteously, shall suddenly 
 come to His temple ; and the eyes of distressed 
 congregations are allowed a vision in symbol of 
 His presence breaking in on the distresses of 
 later days. One of the earliest exam))les of 
 churches thus ornamented is that of SS. Cosmas 
 and Damianus at Rome. Here the figure of our 
 Lord coming with clouds and standing on the 
 firmament, is grand and sutdime in the highest 
 degree, and is perhaps the earliest or greatest 
 instance of very early date, in which passionate 
 conception, supported bv ])owerful colour, forces 
 itself, without any other advantage, into the 
 foremost ranks of art-creation. The towering 
 and all commanding form of the Lord must have 
 seemed to ‘*1111 the whole temple;” with the 
 symbolic hand of the First Person of the Trinity 
 above His Head, and the Holy Dove on His 
 right hand. The mystic Jordan, or River of 
 Death, is at His feet, and on its other side, 
 with small rocks and trees to indicate the 
 wilderness of this world, are the twelve sheep 
 of His flock, with the houses of Jerusalem and 
 Bethlehem ; He, Himself, appearing again in the 
 centre on earth as the Lamb of the elder dispen¬ 
 sation. The same idea is similarly treated in 
 the early 9th century decorations of St. Prassede. 
 The form of the Lord is tali and spare, not 
 without grandeur, but markedly ascetic: the 
 signs of the other Two Persons of the Holy 
 Trinity are with Him, and He is surrounded 
 with all the imagery of the Apocalypse ; with 
 this grand addition, that on the spandrils of the 
 Arch of Triumj)h before Him, the twenty-four 
 elders are inlaid in white and gold mosaic, in the 
 united act of casting their crowns before Him. He 
 appears below as the Lamb; and the same 
 symbol is repeated at the top of the Arch of 
 Triumph, laid on an ornamented altar-table—as 
 the Paschal Lamb that was slain. The Oft'ering 
 of the Crowns by the Eiders was also represented 
 on the triumphal arch of S. Paolo fuori le Mura, 
 and the author of an interesting article on 
 Portraits of Christ (^Quarterly Reo. Oct. 1867) 
 says it still e.xists, having been rescued from the 
 flames in 1823. There were, or still exist, 
 similar figures, in the Vatican Basilica of 
 St. Peter ^Dc Sacr. Aedif. xiii. xiv.) in St. 
 Constantia, (ib. xxxii.) St. Andrew in Bar¬ 
 bara (F. M. 1. Ixxvi.) St. Agatha Major in 
 Ravenna (I. xlvi.) and St. Michael of Ravenna 
 (11. xvii.) &c. The greater part of these mosaics 
 will be found photographed in the unique collec¬ 
 tion of Mr. J. H. Parker, which, in spite of all 
 the deficiencies of the photographs, gives an idea 
 of the tessellated work -which does not exist 
 elsewhere. To historians, or students of Chris¬ 
 tian art, their importance is, that by the presence 
 of the sheep of Christ’s church, they connect 
 His Glorified Form with the more ancient cata¬ 
 comb representations of the Good Shepherd. 
 
 In St. Andrea in Barbara, the Lord stands on 
 the Rock of the Four Rivers, and He is thus 
 repre.sented very frequently on the sarcophagi. 
 See Aringlii, voL 1. p. 280 (Probus and Proba) 
 and pp. 293, 297. On that of Junius Bassus 
 (Aringhi 1. 277) and elsewhere. He is sitting above 
 a half-veiled figure rcjiresenting the firmament 
 or clouds of heaven [Fikm.vmk.n r]. 
 
 The figure described above from SS. Cosm^as 
 and Damianus posse.sses awe and grandeur, 
 and can di.spense with regularity or sweet¬ 
 ness of feature. But the very earliest ideal 
 portraits certainly possessed this; and it is one 
 instance of the cheerfulness of spirit which Mr. 
 Lecky notices in the Primitive Church, that the 
 remnants of Graeco-Roman skill were devoted to 
 such works as Bosio’s picture (above) must have 
 been; or the other mentioned by Boldetti {Osser- 
 vazioni sopra i Cimiieri pp. 21 and 64) as “ maes- 
 tosa figura del Salvatore, come quel la dipinta nel 
 cimitero di Ponziano.” The question stands 
 on and indicates one of tho.se great human 
 divergences of character and thought, whicn 
 determine the lives and conduct of whole 
 generations: and it will be remembered how 
 the Mediaeval German or hard-featured ideal 
 was set forth against the Lionardesque; not 
 altogether without the countenance of Diircr 
 and Holbein. On this subject, the last chapter 
 but one of vol. iv. of Ruskin’s Modern Painters^ 
 is worthy of grave attention. There is no 
 doubt, further, that Protestant asceticism often 
 resembles that of earlier days, in a certain 
 suspicion of beauty as carnal and idolatrous. 
 
 The Gnostic images of our Lord (see St. Ire- 
 naeus supra) are also worthy of attention. One 
 was set up by Marcelliua (Aug. de Hacrcs. vii.), 
 a follower of Carpocrates, and adored along with 
 others of St. Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras; and 
 the eclectic Lararium of Alexander Severus, con¬ 
 taining the statues of Christ, of Abraham, Or¬ 
 pheus, and Apollonius of Tyana, is mentioned by 
 Lampridius (/n Alex. Severum xxix.). Raoul 
 Rochette (^Discours sur les types imit. p. 21), is 
 
 referred to by Martigny for a “pierre basilidi- 
 enne,” which he thinks may give an idea of the 
 type of portraiture which was in vogue among 
 tLat class of sectaries. It is altogether difterent, 
 in any case, from that of the Callixtine and othel* 
 catacombs; and for further contrast with it, he 
 gives a woodcut (reproduced above) of that 
 which he considers, on De Rossi s authority, 
 indisputably the most ancient of all representa¬ 
 tions of our Lord. It is taken from a portniit 
 
JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIONS OF 877 
 
 on ivory, in the Christian Museum of the 
 Vatican. 
 
 The classic typo which insists on personal 
 beauty, is by far the most common on the 
 sarcophagi, and all early monuments. Christian 
 artists in fact seem, as was natural, to have 
 invested their ideal with comeliness as long as 
 thev had skill to do so. The dress (of coiirse 
 excepting the Good-Shepherd rej)resentation.s), is 
 invariably the tunic and pallium, sometimes 
 ornamented with the stripes or clavi (Ciampini 
 Yet. Mon. ii. p. 60, i. 18-t, .xlvi.). The idea of 
 white raiment generally seems to be intended, 
 though gold, dark imperial blue, and other 
 colours are used in the mosaics. The white and 
 glistening raiment of the Transhgiiratiou will 
 account for this (Ciampini ^’et. Mon. ii. tab. xvi. 
 i. tab. Ixxvii.). Our Lord is generally shod witli 
 sandals, if at all. The cothurnus is given 
 apparently in Aringhi, vol. i. lib. ii. c. x. pp. 332, 
 333, and something resembling it is worn by the 
 Good Shepherd (Aringhi, vol. ii. pp. 63, 67, 75, 
 79, &c.) 
 
 Portraits of our Lord are generally youthful, 
 as symbolizing His eternal nature, even (Aringhi, 
 vol. ii. p. 213) when He instructs the apostles 
 (Bottari, cxL). In the dispute with the doctors 
 His youth is of course insisted on, but He is not 
 made small of stature, whereas in pictures of 
 the mii’acles, as has been frequently i-emarked, 
 His figui’e greatly exceeds His human companions 
 in height. This is the case also (.Aringhi, i. pp. 307, 
 313 and/jassj/n), where any dead persons are car¬ 
 ved on their tomb as presented before him, as in 
 many ‘ bisomatous ’ sarcophagi of husband and 
 wife. A beautiful illustration of this tradi¬ 
 tion of early Christian work in later times will be 
 found in Ruskin’s atones of J'enice, vol. iii. p. 78, 
 where this distinction is used by the artist, with 
 the detail of the human figures partly hiding 
 themselves in the folds of the robes of attendant 
 angels, who are inferior in size to the divine 
 figure, though of superhuman stature. The Lord 
 sometimes stands or sits on a sphere (Ciampini, 
 Vet. Mon. i. 270, tab. vii.), probably to give the 
 idea of all things being put under his feet. He 
 is accompanied by attesting angels, or His form 
 is represented, full length or half-size, on a 
 medallion supported by angels, as in the diptych 
 of Rambona, and very frequently in the 
 mosaics of Rome and Ravenna. These medallions 
 are sometimes called imagines clipeatae, the 
 use of them bein^ probably derived from portrait- 
 images on shields of ancient times. The cross 
 sometimes represents our Lord thus borne. This 
 seems to point to the Ascension, and to his glory 
 as Lord of Hosts or of Sabaoth. It is not our 
 work to follow the idea into its various develope- 
 ments in the angelic choirs of the middle ages, 
 for which we may refer to Lord Lindsay, and 
 to Mrs. Jameson’s Sacred and Le(]endar\j Art. 
 But a curious example of transition from the 
 circular or oval medallion into the Gothic quatre- 
 foil, containing the figure of our Lord, and sup¬ 
 ported by angels, still remains in the College- 
 Hall or Refectory at Worcester, and is certainly 
 derived from classic or Byzantine antiquity. 
 
 Our Lord frequently bears a rod or wand, 
 especiallv in representations of the miracle.s, 
 apparently as an emblem of his power over 
 nature, or as the leader of His people in the 
 wilderness, v/ith a reference to Moses. The roll 
 
 or volume very often appears in His hand, as 
 committed to St. Peter and St. Paul or other 
 apostles, or when he instructs the disciples. 
 The full-grown rather than the youthful type 
 appears in such exam])les, as in Bottari, clxxvi. 
 See woodcut reproduced below. 
 
 Frequent repi'eseutations of the Second Person 
 of the Trinity as )>re.sent at some transaction 
 narrated in the Old Testament, or as the anti¬ 
 type of some typical event or i)er.son. IMartigny 
 mentions a gla.ss vessel in Garrucci ( Vetri, 
 xiii. 13), in which He is with Daniel, who is 
 giving the cakes to the dragon. A more certain 
 and satisfactory example is in His aj)pearance 
 with the three holy children in the fuiuace, 
 Bottari, xxii. xli. See also Gori {Mies, dipt jilt. 
 t. iii. tab. 8) where He stretches the ci’oss out 
 over the flames. The representation of tlie 
 holy Three appearing to Abraham (Gen. xviii. 2), 
 in S. Vitale at Ravenna is well-konwn, and 
 Ciampini’s plate is now supplemented or super- 
 
 The Lonl, with book. (Martigny.) 
 
 sedcd by the photographs of hlr. Parker and 
 others. [Trinity']. 
 
 We may conclude Yvith the mnemonic lines of 
 St. Damasus((7flrm. vi.Pafrofo /. Migne, t. xiii. col. 
 378), of the symbolic or other names and titles 
 applied to our Lord up to his days. 
 
 “ Spes, Via, Vita, Salus, Patio, Sapientia, Lumen, 
 Judex, Porta, Gigas, Hex, Gemma, Propheta, Sacerdos, 
 Messias, Zebaof, Rabbi, Sponsus, Mediator, 
 
 Virga, Columna, Manus, I’etra, Filius Kmmanuelque, 
 Vinea, Pastor, Ovis, Pax, Radix, Vitis, Oliva, 
 
 Fons, Paries, Agnus, Vitulus, Leo, Propitiator, 
 Verbum, Homo, Hete, Lapis, Domus, omnia A-ristus 
 lesus. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 II. Besides the representations of the Lord 
 which strictly belong to art, there are others 
 which have an archaeological rather than an 
 artistic interest. We have ancient accorints 
 (1) of portraits of the Lord produced in the or¬ 
 dinary manner ; and (2) of jiortraits of the Lord 
 produced miraculously. Some of both kinds are 
 even believed .still to exist. 
 
 (1) Ordinary Eepresentathns. — Eusebius 
 
 (Hist. Eccl. vii. 18) tells us that at Caesarea 
 j Philippi [Paneas] there existed a group in bronze 
 
878 
 
 JESUS CHRIST, REPRESENTATIONS OF 
 
 representing a woman kneeling before a dignified 
 man, who stretched out his hand benignantly 
 towards her. This group Eusebius says that lie 
 had himself seen. He adds, that it was Ions: 
 unknown whom this statue represented ; but as 
 it was observed that a plant of healing virtues 
 grew at its foot, care was taken at last to 
 cleanse it, so as to make the inscription legilile; 
 then it was discovered that the woman cured 
 of the issue of blood, who lived at Paneas, 
 had erected the statue in honour of the Saviour. 
 On this discovery it was at once removed into 
 the Diaconicum or Sacristy of the church. That 
 such a statue existed seems past all doubt; as to 
 its original intention, the opinion of most modern 
 archaeologists is, that it had been erected in 
 honour of Hadrian, or some other who had bene- 
 fitted the province, which was represented as a 
 kneeling woman at the feet of her benefactor. 
 Similar representations are frequently found on 
 coins, especially of the time of Hadrian. Sup¬ 
 posing some such expression as “ o-oiT^pi,” or 
 “ (TaiTTjpt TOO K6(r/jLov ”—titles at that time very 
 frequently given to emperors—to have been 
 found on the inscription, while the name had 
 become illegible, the statue would nfiturally be 
 referred by the Christians of the fourth century 
 to the true “ Saviour of the World ” (Hefele, 
 Bcitriige, ii. 257). The emperor Julian, angry 
 at the respect paid to this statue, caused it to be 
 thrown down and his own substituted. This is 
 related by Sozomen (//. E. v. 21), who adds, 
 that the statue of Julian was soon afterwards 
 struck by lightning and partly desti’oyed, while 
 some fragments of the statue of Christ, which 
 the heathens had dragged about the street, were 
 collected by the Christians and restored to the 
 church. Philostorgius {Hist. Eccl. vii. 3) gives 
 nearly the same account, except that he says 
 Dothihg of any edict of Julian, but attributes the 
 whole transaction to the pagan inhabitants of 
 Paneas, and that he gives the more exact detail, 
 that the head of the statue was preserved. This 
 however was again lost at a later period. Aste- 
 rius of Amasea {Cone. Nic. //., Labbe, vii. 210) 
 gives again a diflerent account, attributing the 
 destruction of the statue to Maximin, who (he 
 says) was nevertheless unable to destroy the 
 fame of the miracle related in the Gospel. 
 
 Eusebius also says (//. E. vii. 18) that he had 
 discovered that, besides this statue, there existed 
 coloured pictures of Christ (et/eJms hia XP^~ 
 fidruu iv ypa(pa7s), as well as of the apostles 
 Paul and Peter. 
 
 In the time of the Iconoclastic controversy, 
 pope Gregory H. asserted in his letter to the 
 emperor Leo HI., about A.D. 727, that portraits 
 of Christ, of St. James the Lord’s brother, of 
 St. Stephen, and of other martyrs, had been 
 made in their life-time (Labbe, vii. 12). And it 
 was probably about this time that the legend 
 arose that St. Luke had painted portraits of 
 Christ, of His Mother, and of SS. Peter and 
 Paul. This stoiy is found in Simeon Meta- 
 phrastes, in the Menologium of the emperor 
 Basil, and in the histoiy of Nicephorus Callisti 
 (ii. 43). At a yet earlier date (about a.d. 518) 
 Theodorus Lector (fragment in Valesius, p. 551, 
 ed. Mentz) sj)oke of a portrait of St. Mary 
 painted by St. Luke, which was sent by Eudocia 
 to Pulcheria, but said nothing of any picture 
 of Christ. Such portraits of the Virgin are said 
 
 even still to be in existence: one is shown, for 
 instance, in the church of S. Maria Maggiorc 
 at Rome. 
 
 Nicodemus is sometimes described as a wood- 
 carver, and an image of Chri.'^t of cedar-wmod 
 from his hand is said by Aringhi {h’oina Subte.-r. 
 lib. iv. c. 47) to have existed at Lucca. Some 
 have ventured to identify this with a wonder¬ 
 working image at Berytus, mentioned in the 
 pseudo-Athanasian document read before the 
 .second council of Nicaea, a.d. 786 (Labbe vii 
 217). Leo Diaconus, in the tenth centurv, save 
 that his contemporary, the Byzantine emperoi 
 Nicephoi-us, placed this statue in the church of 
 the Saviour at Constantinople ; but neither he 
 nor the pseudo-Athanasius .says anything of its 
 having been the work of Nicodemus. The legend 
 attached to the image of Lucca is of course 
 destitute of every shadow of probability. 
 
 Among the likenesses of the Lord reported 
 once to have existed, we must reckon one said to 
 have been the work of the Virgin herself, 
 described in Adamnan’s account of ArculCs 
 visit to the holy places in the seventh century 
 {De Locis Sanctis, i. 10; in Mabillon’s Acta SS. 
 Ben. saec. iii. pt. 2, p. 460). Among the won¬ 
 ders of Jerusalem he mentions a napkin, partly 
 red and partly green, said to have been woven 
 by the Virgin Mary herself, containing pictures 
 of the twelve apostles and of the Lord Himself. 
 
 (2) Images not made vitk hands. —Another 
 class of portraits of Christ are the (IkSu^s 
 a.x^ipoiroir\Toi, images of miraculous origin, -of 
 which the most famous are (a) the Abgarus 
 portrait, (6) the Veronica. 
 
 (a) The story of a correspondence between the 
 Lord and Abgarus of Edessa is found as earlv as 
 the time of Eusebius {H. E. i. 13). Evagrius, 
 in the sixth century" {H. E. iv. 27) speaks also 
 of a divinely-fashioned likeness {Cikcov d^orev- 
 KTos) which Christ sent to Abgarus on his de¬ 
 siring to see him, and which saved Edessa when 
 it was besieged bv Cho.sroes in the vear 540. 
 
 This story is alluded to by Gregory II. in 
 his letter to Leo before referred to, when the 
 famous picture had already become an object of 
 pilgrimage. “ Send ”—he adjures the iconoclastic 
 emperor—“ to that image not made with hands, 
 and see; to it flock all the peoples of the East, 
 and pray; and many such there are made with 
 hands.” His contemporary, John of Damascus 
 {De Fide Orth'^d. iv. 16) gives more detail. A 
 story was current, he says, that Abgarus, king 
 of Edessa, sent a painter to take a portrait of 
 the Lord; and that when he was unable to per¬ 
 form his task in consequence of the brightness of 
 His countenance, the Lord himself put his outer 
 garment {lixanov) to His own face and impressed 
 upon it a perfect likeness {inreiKoviaua) of His 
 countenance, which He sent to Abgarus. Leo 
 Diaconus {Hist. iv. 10, in Niebuhr’s Scriptt. 
 Byzant. xi. 70) adds to this a wonderful story of 
 a tile having received the imjire-ssion from this 
 robe. The tile is also alluded to by Zonaras 
 {Annal. xvi. 25). The image on the cloth was 
 brought to Constantinople in the reign of Con¬ 
 stantine Porphyrogennetes, A.D. 944; its transla¬ 
 tion is celebrated by the Byzantine church on 
 August 16, which is a great festival. What 
 
 » Hefele states that this is mentioned at a somewhat 
 earlier date by Moses of Chorene. 
 
JESUS CHE 1ST, EEPEESENTATIOXS OF 
 
 became of the picture when that city was taken 
 by the Turks is not recorded, but pictures claim¬ 
 ing to be this miraculous portrait are found in 
 Italy. The Genoese lay claim to the possession 
 of it, and say that it was brought to their city 
 by Leonardo de Montalto, who presented it to 
 the Armenian church of St. Bartholomew, where 
 it is still exhibited once a year. St. Sylvester’s 
 at Rome also claims to possess the original 
 Abgarus-picture. This is (according to Hefele) 
 of the Byzantine tyi)e, and represents the coun¬ 
 tenance of the Lord in the bloom of youthful 
 power and beauty, with high and open forehead, 
 clear eyes, long and straight nose, parted hair, 
 and a thick, auburn, bifurcated beard. Dr. 
 Gliickselig contends that the Edessa portrait 
 furnished the type for the pictures of Christ in 
 mosaics from the fourth century onward ; before 
 that time (he believes) no attempt at portraiture 
 of the Lord was made, the early representations 
 in the catacombs being mere symbols or adapta¬ 
 tions of pagan types. 
 
 (b) The opposite of the calm and beautiful 
 face represented in the Abgarus-portrait is the 
 “ Veronica ” ))icturc of the sutfering Saviour 
 crowned with thorns. The legend attached to 
 this picture is, that as the Lord was bending 
 under the cross on his way to Golgotha, a pious 
 woman, Veronica, offered Him her veil, or a 
 napkin, to dry the sweat on His tace; an image 
 of the face remained miraculously impressed on 
 the cloth. In the Marti/rologi/ of Usuard, for 
 instance, (eel. Greven.) we have under March 25, 
 “ Veronicae sanctae rnatronae cui Dominus 
 imaginem faciei suae sudario iinpressam reliquit.” 
 Gervase of Tilbury (Otia Imperildkt, c. 25, in 
 Leibnitz’s Scriptt. Bruns, i. 968), wlio wrote in 
 the thirteenth century, speaking of the “ figura 
 Domini quae Veronica dicitur,” informs us that 
 some say that it was brought to Rome by an 
 unknown person, Veronica ; but the account 
 given by the most ancient writers is (he pro¬ 
 ceeds) that the woman who brought it was 
 Martha, the sister of Lazarus. From the tradition 
 of the elders we learn that she had a likeness of 
 the Lord’s countenance painted on panel, which 
 Volusianus, a friend of Tiberius Caesar, who was 
 sent by the emperor to Jerusalem to report on 
 the deeds and miracles of Christ, caused to be 
 taken away from her, that by means of it Tibe¬ 
 rius might be healed of his disease. Martha, 
 however, it is said, followed the.“ countenance of 
 her guest,” came to Rome, and at the very first 
 sight healed Tiberius. Whence it came to pass 
 (continues the veracious chronicler) that Chris¬ 
 tianity was known in Rome before the arrival of 
 the apostles, and that Tiberius, instead of the 
 mildest of sheep, became the fiercest of wolves, 
 raging against the Senate because they refused to 
 recognise Christ according to his wish —certainly 
 a remarkable way of accounting for the aberra¬ 
 tions of Tiberius’s later years. 
 
 The Veronica-portrait is said to have been 
 brought to Rome as early as the year 700; in 
 the year 1011 an altar was dedicated in its 
 honour, and even to this day it is one of the 
 relics exhibited in St. Peter’s, though only on 
 extraordinary occasions. It was exhibited on the 
 8th December, 1854, when Rome was crowded 
 with bishops assembled to be present at the pro¬ 
 mulgation of the dogma of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception. On that occasion it was .seen by M. 
 
 879 
 
 Barbier de Montault, who describes it as fol¬ 
 lows (^Quarterly Bev. No. 246, ]). 491) :— 
 
 “The Holy Face is enclosed in a frame of 
 silver, partially gilt, and square, of a severe 
 character, and little adorned. The simplicity of 
 the bordering gives prominence to the interior of 
 the picture, which is protected by a thin plate 
 of crystal. Unfortunately, by one of those cus¬ 
 toms so common in Italy, a sheet of metal covers 
 the field, and only leaves apj)arent the figure 
 indicating its outline. By this outline one is led 
 to conjecture flowing hair reaching to the 
 shoulders, and a short beard, bifurcated and 
 small. The other features are so vaguely indi¬ 
 cated, or so completely etl’aced, that it requires 
 the liveliest imagination in the world to perceive 
 traces of eyes or nose. In short, one does not 
 see the material of the substanco because of the 
 useless intervention of a metal ])late, and the 
 place of the impression exhibits only a blackish 
 surface, not giving any evidence of human 
 features.” 
 
 For many years the explanation of the name 
 Veronica given by Mabillon and Papebroch was 
 generally adopted; that “Veronica” is simjily 
 an anagi'am of “ vera icon,” a true image. Me¬ 
 diaeval writers do in fact use the word Veronica 
 rather to designate the picture itself than as the 
 name of a woman. Thus Gervase of Tilbury, as 
 we have .seen, speaks of “ figura Domini quae 
 veronica dicitur;” and he afterwards uses the 
 expression, “£st ergo veronica pictura Domini 
 vera.” But more recently W. Grimm has 
 maintained a dill'erent view. He notices the 
 fact, that the woman with the issue of blood who 
 was healed, is said in the gospel of Nicodemus 
 (c. 7), probably of the fifth century, and by 
 John Malalas, a Byzantine historian of the sixth 
 (^Hist. Chron., p. 305, ed. Oxon. 1691), to have 
 been named Berenice (Bepovi/c??); and supposes 
 that the legend of the A'eil or napkin in question 
 arose from some confusion of the Paneas statue 
 with the Abgarus-portrait; the Veronica-legend 
 is, he believes, no more than a Latin rival-story 
 or metamorphosis of the Greek Abgarus-legend, 
 with the Veronica introduced from another 
 source. M. Maury (^Croyances et Legendes) 
 connects the name Bepoy'iKrj with the Gnostic 
 feminine symbol fj Tlpout'iicos, but this conjecture 
 seems rather ingenious than sound. 
 
 (3) In the eighth century the iconoclastic 
 party, seeing the great variety of pictures of 
 Christ, very naturally asked which they were to 
 consider the true portrait; were they to adopt 
 the Roman type, or the Indian, or the Greek, or 
 the Egyptian? To this Photius 64) replies, 
 
 that the difi'ercnce between these representations 
 is much the same as the ditference between the 
 gospels circulating in the several countries, 
 which are written in one character by the 
 Romans, in another by the Indians, in another 
 by the Hebrews, in another by the Ethiopians, 
 and which dilfer, not only in the forms of letters, 
 but in the pronunciation and significance of the 
 words. If Photius’s illustration is to be taken 
 exactly, it seems to imply that all the pictures 
 of which he knew anything re])re.seuted the same 
 face, and were only made to (iill'er by the pecu¬ 
 liarities, whether individual or national, of the 
 painter; and it is probable enough that the 
 Byzantine type was so far determined in his 
 time, that all the pictures which he had 
 
880 JEWS. AS REPRESENTED 
 
 seen might have passed foi* copies, of various 
 degrees of merit, of one original. 
 
 (t) Tlie descrij)tions of tiie Loi-d given by .John 
 of Damascus in the eighth century, and by the 
 supposed Dublius Leutulus at a later j)eriod, no 
 doubt had considerable influence on the repre¬ 
 sentations of Christ. The former (Epist. ad 
 Theoph. c. b), referring to the testimony of still 
 earlier writers, describes the Lord as having 
 been somewhat bent even in youth, with meeting 
 eyebrows, beautiful eyes, large nose, curling 
 hair, dark beard and tint the colour of wheat, 
 like His mother. The latter is sujiposei to 
 be written to the Senate of Rome by one Publius 
 Lentulus, a friend of Pontius Pilate. The age of 
 this document is unknown (see Gabler, dc 
 audsPTta Epistolae Pub. Lentu’i ad Senattm; 
 Jena, 1819), but it does not seem to be quoted in 
 its present form by any earlier writer than 
 Anselm of Canterbury (f 1109). Another de¬ 
 scription of the Lord’s person is given by Nice- 
 phorus Callisti (//. E. i. 40), but this, as it is of 
 the fourteenth century and does not claim to 
 rest on earlier authorities, may be passed over. 
 
 Literature. —Besides those portions of works 
 on Christian Art which relate to representations 
 of the Lord, as Molanus, De sotcris Picturis et 
 hwajinibus ; Alt, Heiivjenbilder ; Miinter, Sinn- 
 b 'dder und liuntsvorstellurKjen ; Piper, Jllytho- 
 lojie und Symbolik der Chrk-tl. liunst ; v. Wessen- 
 berg, Die Chri tlichen PtUder ; J. G. Muller, 
 Pidliche DarstelLmyen in Sanctu trium der Car. 
 Kirchen vom v.-xiv. Jahrhdt ; Lord Lindsay, 
 Sketches of Christian Art ; St. John Tyrwhitt, 
 Art Teaching of the I^rimitive Charch ; we may 
 mention the following special works:— 
 
 1. On Pepresentations of the iMrd in general. 
 P. FI Jablonsky, Disscrtatio de Origine Imagmum 
 Christi in Ecclesid, in Opera, iii. 377 ff. ed. te 
 Water; J. Yiexske, Exercitatt. Hid.de Imaginibus 
 Jesu Christi; L. Gluckselig, Christusarchdologie ; 
 Peignot, Pecherches snr la Personne de Jesm- 
 ’Christ ; Pascal, Pecherches edifiantes ct curicuses 
 snr la Personne de N. S. Jesus Christ ; Mrs. Jameson 
 and Ladv Eastlake, The History of our Lord as 
 e.ccmplifed in Works of Art: T. Heaphy, Exa¬ 
 mination into the Antiquity of the Likenesses of 
 our Plessed Lxjrd, in Art Journal, New Ser., vol. 
 vii. (1861) ; Ilefele, Christusbilder, in Beitrdge zur 
 Kirchengesch. Archdol. u. s. w. (Tiibingen, 1864); 
 Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret. s. v. ‘ J^us 
 Christ;’ [Baring-Gould], Portraits of Christ, in 
 Qu irterly Pevieiv, No. 246 (Oct. 1867), p. 490 ff. 
 
 2. On the Linages not made with h inds. Gretser, 
 Syntagma de Lmagg. non manu factis, etc., in 
 Opera, vol. xv., Ratisbon, 1734 ff.; Beausobre, 
 Des Images de Main Divine, in Biblioth. Ger- 
 vianique, xviii. 10; W. Grimm, Die Sage vom 
 Ursprung der Christusbilder. 
 
 3. On the Paneas-Statue. Th. Hasaei Dissertt. 
 LI. de Monumento L^aneadensi, Bremen, 1726; 
 also in his Sylloge Dissertt., pt. 2, p. 314. [C.J 
 
 JEWS AS REPRESENTED ON CHRIS¬ 
 TIAN MONUMENTS. The Jews of our 
 Lord’s time appear in various sculptures of 
 His life and works (Bottari, tav. Ixxxv. et 
 passim ; Millin, Midi de la France, pl. Ixiv. 
 ct passim). They are generally distinguished, 
 es])ecially in all subjects connected with the 
 Wilderness, by wearing a flat cap or beretta, 
 as in the above plates from sarcophagi. The Old 
 
 JEWS, TREAT.MENT OF 
 
 Testament mosaics of Sta. Maria Maggiore are 
 without the limits of our work, and Roman dress 
 and armour prevail in them. 'I'he sujtposed arrest 
 of St. Peter contains some of these figures, but 
 though Aringhi, Bottari, and Buonarroti are 
 against him, Martigny is still inclined to think 
 I the group in question intended to i-epresent Moses 
 attacked by the rebellious people in the Wilder¬ 
 ness, when (Exodus xxiv. &c.) they were ready 
 to stone him. This subject constantly accom¬ 
 panies that of the Rock in Horeb, where their 
 complaints w'ere .silenced by miracle. Mo-ses or 
 St. Peter (whichever figure may be intended), 
 always has his head uncovered in it, and the 
 other Hebrews wear the flat head covering, short 
 tunics, cloaks or saga fastened with fibuiae, and 
 sandals (Exo l. xii. 11). The cap may have been 
 a common or distinctive part of Jewish dress. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 JEWS, TREATMENT OF. The fortunes 
 of the Jew^s after the rise of Christianity are 
 matters of general history. An account of their 
 relation towards the expanding power of the 
 church will be found in Milman’s LList. of .Lews 
 (iii. 167-203). This article only gives a brief 
 summary of the eccle.siastical enactments against 
 connivance with Jewish practices, or against 
 the Jews themselves. To desert Christianity 
 for Judaism was Apostasv ; to confound toge¬ 
 ther the rites or doctrines of the two religions 
 was Heresv ; see Cod. Thcod. XVI. v. 43, 44; 
 ibid. XVI. viii. de Judaeis Coeli olis et Samari- 
 tanis. But in addition to these graver of¬ 
 fences, Christians were ordered to hold them¬ 
 selves separate from various Jewish customs. 
 Thus resting on the Sabbath (Saturday) was 
 denounced fCunc. L.aod. c. 29) on the ground of 
 its being a relic of Judaism ; it was also forbid¬ 
 den {ibid. cc. 37, 38) to receive festival presents, 
 or unleavened bread, from the Jews, or to share 
 in their feasts. A similar injunction against 
 participating in Jewish festivals or fasts appears 
 in the Apostolic Canons (cc. 69, 70) under pain of 
 excommunication, and also in the Trullan 
 council (c. 11). The council of Eliberis, a.d. 
 305, initiating the violent hostility against the 
 Jew's which prevailed in Spain up to and 
 through the time of the Inquisition, forbade (c. 
 49) any landlord to cal' upon a Jew to bless his 
 crops; and in the next canon prohibited a 
 Christian from eating with a Jew. This prohi¬ 
 bition against sharing food with a Jew’, because he 
 regarded certain meats <as unclean, is enacted in 
 many subsequent Gallic councils {Cone. Tenet. 
 c. 12 , Cone. Agath. c. 40; Cone. Lgxxon. c. 15, 
 3 Cone. Aurel. c. 13 ; 1 Cone. Matiscon. c. 15). 
 Intermarriage with Jews was guarded against as 
 strictly as with heathen (1 Cone. Arvern. c. 6 ; 
 3 Cone. Aurel. c. 13; 3 Cone. Tolet. c. 14; 4 
 Cone. Tolet. c. 63). The dangers which were 
 supposed to lurk in association with the Jews 
 are exemplified at length in Chrysostom’s 6 
 Homilies in Judacos, also in Horn. 23 ad eos qni 
 primo Pasch. jejunant, and Horn. 24 ad eos qui 
 Judaeorum jejuniiun jejunant {iom. 6 Ed. Savil.). 
 One of the matters regarded with special jealousy 
 by the church w’as the right of the Jews to hold 
 Christian slaves. By a law’ of Constantine 
 (Euseb. Vit. Const, iv. 27), the right had been 
 considerably resti’icted; but the law appeal’s to 
 have fallen into disuse. The 3rvJ council of 
 
JOACHIM 
 
 Orleans, A.D. 538 (c. 13) recognises Christian 
 servitude, but decrees that if a Christian slave 
 takes sanctuary because his Jewish master 
 interferes witli his religion, the slave is not to be 
 surrendered, but redeemed at a fair valuation. 
 This decree was repeated and enlarged by subse¬ 
 quent councils (4 Conn. Anrel. c. 30, 31 ; 1 Cone. 
 Matiscon. c. 15). In Spain the 4th council of 
 Toledo, A.D. 633 (c. 66) sanctioned the royal 
 decree which declared it altogether unlawful for 
 a Jew to hold a Christian in bondage, but the 
 desire of gain was too strong for both church 
 and state, for a little later the 10th council, 
 A.D. 656, complains that even the clergy sold 
 Christian captives to the Jews. The treatment 
 of the Jews in Spain occupies no inconsiderable 
 portion of the numerous canons of the synods 
 held in Toledo in the 7th century. Under the 
 reign of Recared, the first Gothic king, and 
 again under Sisebut, the Jews had been subjected 
 to fierce persecution. The 4th council of Toledo, 
 A.D. 633, over which Isidore of Seville presided, 
 gave them some relief, but this leniency was 
 partial and shortlived. In the 57th canon of 
 that council it was enacted that no Jew should 
 be converted by violence ; but the later canons 
 contain more stringent regulations ; children of 
 Jews, who have been baptised, are to be separated 
 from their parents and placed in monasteries or 
 in God-fearing families (c. 60); the testimony of 
 Jews is to be rejected (c. 64), because those who 
 are unfaithful to God cannot be faithful to man; 
 and (c. 65), they are to be excluded from all 
 public offices. A few years later all trace of 
 toleration has disappeared, owing perhaps to the 
 absence of Isidore, who had died in the interval, 
 and the civil law which banished Jews from the 
 kingdom, was ratified by the church (6 Cone. 
 Tolet. c. 3; 8 Cune. Tolet. c. 12), The 12th 
 council, A.D. 681, in response to an exhortation 
 from the king to extirpate the pest of the Jews, 
 proscribed (c. 9) in detail each distinctive Jewish 
 practice. Shortly afterwards the Saracenic 
 invasion swept over the Peninsula, and the Jews 
 enjoyed more peace. In France there is no 
 notice of the Jews earlier than the 6th century. 
 The 3rd council of Orleans, A.D. 538, contains an 
 ordinance (c. 30), forbidding Jews to appear in 
 the streets or hold any intercourse with 
 Christians for four days, from Maundy Thurs¬ 
 day till Easter Monday (1 Cone. Matiseon. c. 14). 
 The council of Narbonue, A.D. 589 (c. 9) forbade 
 Jews to hold religious services at the burial of 
 their dead, under a fine of six ounces of gold, 
 a sum which indicates their wealth at that date. 
 By the 5th council of Paris, A.D, 615 (c. 15) no 
 Jew was to hold any public office which made 
 Christians subordinate to him, except on con¬ 
 dition of being baptised with his whole family 
 {Cone. Remens. c. 11; Cone. Cahil. c. 9). Later, 
 under Charlemagne, Jews were not only tolerated 
 but treated with consideration. [G. M.] 
 
 JOACHIM, “ Avus Christ!;” commemorated 
 ^Miaziah 7 = April 2 {Col. Armen.')', with Anna, 
 Aug. 27 {Cal. Armen.), and Sept. 9 {Cal. Byzant.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOANNA, wife of Chuza; commemorated 
 May 24 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi) . [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOANNICITJS, the Gi’eat, Saios Trar^p, A.D. 
 758 ; commemorated Nov. 4 {Cal. Bqzant.). 
 
 ' [VV. F. G.] 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST. 881 
 
 JOB, the patri ircli ; commemorated May 6 
 {Cal. Byzant.)-, Sejit. 5 {Cil. Armen.)', May 10 
 {Mart. Rom. UcL, Adonis, Ur.uardi). [W. F. G,] 
 
 JOCUNDIANUS, martyr in Africa; com¬ 
 memorated July 4 {Alart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOEL, the pro])het; commemorated Tckemt 
 21 = Oct. 18 (Co/. ICthiop.)', Oct. 19 {Cal. By¬ 
 zant.)', Nov, 19 {Ctl. Copt.)', July 13 {Mart. 
 Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., Festivals 
 AND Legend of. 
 
 1. History of Festivals, (a.) Nativity of Bap¬ 
 tist .—The Festival of St. John the Baptist stands 
 in remarkable contrast with those of other 
 saints commemorated by the church, in that 
 with these it is their death which is celebrated, 
 as the birth into the better life, whereas here it 
 is the actual birthday; a circumstance only else¬ 
 where commemorated in the case of our Blessed 
 Lord Himself, that of the Virgin Mary on Sep¬ 
 tember 8 being of quite later date ; and thus 
 we find St. Augustine saying {Serm. 287, vol. v. 
 1692, ed. Gaume) ‘‘ solos duos natales celebrat 
 [ecclesia], hujus [«. e. Johannis] et Christi.” 
 There is a veiy obvious reason to be found for 
 this exceptional state of things from the close 
 historical connection between the birth of the 
 Foreiunner and that of the Saviour. This I'eason 
 is plainly dwelt on in many ancient liturgies, 
 and the Preface in the first mass for the festival 
 in the Leonine Sacramentary may specially be 
 noted. 
 
 What claims June 24, the day on which this 
 nativity is celebrated, has to be considered the 
 actual birthday of St. John, it is of course im¬ 
 possible to say definitely. We know from Luke 
 i. 26, that the Baptist was six months older than 
 our Lord, and therefore the difficulty resolves 
 itself into the more important matter as to the 
 correctness of the view which places Christmas 
 on December 25, a question which will be found 
 discussed elsewhere* [Christmas]. 
 
 Attention has there been called to the coinci¬ 
 dence of Christmas Day with the_period of the 
 winter solstice, and the possible reasons under¬ 
 lying that coincidence. The festival of the Nati¬ 
 vity of St. John will consequently coincide with 
 the period of the summer solstice, which, tike the 
 winter solstice, was a time specially observed in 
 many of the older heatlien religions. From this 
 source many superstitious heathen observances 
 in connection with this day passed into early 
 Christianity. One of these, the so-called Fire of 
 St. John the Baptist, will be found touched upon 
 in the following article : another is reprehended 
 
 by Augustine, “Natali Johannis.de sol- 
 
 lemnitate superstitiosa pagana Christian! ad mare 
 
 A'eniebant et ibi se baptizabant.Adjuro 
 
 per ipsum, qui hodie natus est, nemo faciat ” 
 {Serm. 196 in Nat. Bom. vol. v, 1310).•• 
 
 A curious mystical idea was early suggested 
 by the times on which the two birthdays wei’e 
 
 » It is true tliat in the present church year, beginning 
 with Advent, the festival of the Nativity of the Baptist 
 seems tofollcno by six months that of our I^oird; but of 
 course, when, as was originally the case, the year began 
 with Easter, the natural order of sequence prevailed. 
 
 b This practice, as existing among the Mandaeans, Is 
 referred to below. 
 
 CHRIST ANT, 
 
882 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., Ficstivals and Legend of 
 
 kept, in connection with the Baptist’s own words 
 (John iii. 30), “ He must increase, but I must 
 decrease,” so that from our Lord’s nativity the 
 days began to leugtlien, and from St. John’s to 
 shorten. This idea is found dwelt upon in 
 Augustine (5c/m. 287. § 4, vol. v. 1692. See also 
 a sermon formerly attributed to Augustine \Serm. 
 197 in Append. § 2, ib. 28.')6], but now referred 
 to Caesarius of Aides :) and Maximus Taurinensis 
 {Serm. 4 in Apj end., Pot ol. lix. 850); and the 
 presence of numerous homilies for the festival of 
 the Baptist among the writings of this father 
 show at how early a date it was commemorated. 
 A remark of his may further be added, that it 
 was kept •‘majorum traditione ” (&rm. 292, § 1, 
 vol. A'. 1717). Consequently with all allowances 
 for a rhetorical way of speaking, this will carry 
 back the festival at anv rate as far as the middle 
 
 V 
 
 of the fourth century. We find it also mentioned 
 in the ancient Kulendarium Carthaginense, where 
 the notice is “viii. Kalend. Jul. Sancti Joannis 
 Baptistae ” (Patrol, xiii. 1221)®. It is wanting, 
 however, in the calendar of Bucherius, which is 
 generally referred to the middle of the fourth 
 century, and in the list of festivals in the Apo¬ 
 stolic Constitutions (viii. 3;>). These, however, 
 are mere passing exceptions, for its otherwise 
 universal presence in ancient liturgies, martyr- 
 ologies, and calendars, and the numerous homilies 
 for it in the writings of the fathers (Augustine, 
 Maximus Taurinensis, etc.) are evidence of the 
 wide-spread observance and early date of the fes¬ 
 tival. The council of Agde (506 A.D.) in ruling 
 concerning private chapels, includes the Nativity 
 of St. John the Baptist among the most important 
 festivals on which a man was not to forsake his 
 proper church, the only others specified being 
 Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, the Ascension, and 
 Whitsunday (Cone. Agataense, can. 21; Labbe, 
 iv. 1386). ' 
 
 It may next be remarked that, as might haA’^e 
 been expected from the interdependence of the 
 dates of the nativities of our Lord and of the 
 Baptist, the East agrees almost unanimously 
 Avith the West as to the particular day on Avhich 
 the latter is to be commemorated. See e.g. be¬ 
 sides the regular Byzantine calendar, the notice 
 in the Greek metrical Ephemerides, published 
 by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum Qilny, vol. i. 
 p. xxxii.), npSSpofxov a/x(pl rerdpT-g elKadi yei- 
 paro fj.r]TT]p ; the curious design in the Moscoav 
 pictorial calendar (ibid.) ; and the calendars of 
 the Egyptian and Ethiopic churches published 
 by Ludolf (Fasti Sucri Ecclesiae Alexandrim’.e, 
 p. 32). So far as we have observed, the Arme¬ 
 nian church, the only church that does not cele¬ 
 brate Christmas on December 25, is al.so the only 
 one that doe.s not commemorate the Nativity of 
 the Baptist on June 24, keejung it on Jan. 14 
 (Neale, Eastern Church, Introd. p. 797).** 
 
 We may add a few words here as to the vigil and 
 octave of the festival. The former is recognized, 
 
 c The other mention in this calendar of St. John the 
 Riptist [vi. Kal. Jan. Sancti Joannis Baptistae et Jacobi 
 Apostoli quern Herodes otciilit] is probably due to a 
 copyist’s error, oecause of the constant association of St. 
 John the Evangelist with Dec. 27. It has been main¬ 
 tained, howcA'er, that this is an early African form of the 
 festival of the Decollation of St. John the Baptist 
 d Eor a possible variation from general usage in the 
 case of the church of l ours, see Gregor. Turen. ItUt. 
 J-Yanc. z. 31 (Patrol. Ixxl. 566). 
 
 as Ave haA'e shown below, in the Leonine Sacra¬ 
 mentary, though not specified by name as in the 
 Ambrosian. We need not, hoAvever, with Pape¬ 
 broch, consider St. Ambrose to have been the first 
 to institute the vigil. It is also found included 
 in the later Roman Sacramentaries, the Gelasian 
 and Gregorian, and its observance throughout 
 Gaul and Germany is shown by its presence in 
 ancient martvrologies and calendars of those 
 countries, e.g. [in one form of] the Mart. Gello- 
 nensc (L)’AchJ;ry, Spncilegium, xiii. 424), the 
 Mart. Autissiedurense (Martene, Collectio Ampliss. 
 Ami. vi. 709), and a calendar of the 9th cen¬ 
 tury described by Biuterim. This writer refers 
 al.so to a German Sacranientary published by 
 Gerbert, Avhere the notice for the doy is, “ jeju- 
 nium S. Joannis Baptistae, una cum Missa pro 
 more vigiliarum ” (Denkw. v. i. 377). It may be 
 mentioned that the council of Seligenstadt 
 (1022 A.D.) ordered that all Christians should 
 abstain from flesh and blood for fourteen days' 
 before the festi\'al of St. John the Baptist (can. 
 1, Labbe ix. 844). 
 
 As regards the octave, it Avould appear that 
 Papebroch is in error in considering that no 
 earlier traces of it could be found than of the 
 13th or 14th centuries, for Binterim cites seA'eral 
 calendars of the 9th and 10th centuries Avhich 
 mark it, e.g. the Cal. Frisingense of the 10th 
 century (Eckhart, Franc. Orient, i. 835). It will 
 be remembered that this octave has a special 
 importance of its OAvn, as being the day on Avhich 
 the Baptist Avas circumcised and received the 
 diA’inely declared name of John, and on which 
 the speech of Zacharias Avas miraculously re¬ 
 stored. 
 
 (B.) Decollcdion of the Baptist. —Besides the 
 festival of the Nativity of St. John, there are 
 other Johannine festiA’als of comparatiA'ely minor 
 importance, the chief of which is that of the De¬ 
 collation, generally commemorated on August 29,* 
 the chief exception being that the Armenian 
 church celebrated it on April 13, and the Gal¬ 
 ilean church, according to one A’iew, on the 
 octaA'e of the NatiA'ity of the Baptist, and accord¬ 
 ing to another A'ieAV on September 24.*^ 
 
 This festiA'al, too, must be of comparatively 
 earh' date, for Ave find it in the Gelasian and [in 
 some forms of] the Gregorian Sacramentaries, to 
 its presence in which Bede alludes (Expos, in 
 Marc. lib. ii.; Patrol, xcii. 192). Again in the 
 Eastern church, Ave may appeal to the Byzantine 
 and Russian calendars, and reference may be 
 made to the Moscow pictorial calendar and the 
 Greek metrical Epheup rides, the notice in the 
 latter being, eludbi apej)' iudrg TlpoSpofiov rdpev 
 air^cpa ^l(pos. See also Ludolf’s Egyptian and 
 Ethiopic calendars (p. 1): here, however, there 
 is a simple commemoration of the Baptist on 
 Aucru-st 29, and the festival of the Decollation 
 on Augu.st 30. 
 
 With reference to the usage of the Gallican 
 church alluded to aboA'e, the tact that in their 
 liturgy the festiA’al of the Decollation almost im- 
 
 e The Marlip'dlogiutn. Hieronymi (Patrol, xxx. 488), 
 and a MS. of the INIartyrology of Bede (Patrol, xciv. 
 1025), place it on Aug. 30. So also the Egyptian calen¬ 
 dar in .Selden (p. 221, ed. Amsterdam, 1679). 
 
 f August! (Denkw. ii. 156) arguis that the Decollation 
 was not originally a distinct leitiA’al from that of the 
 Nativity of the Baptist, but the eA’idence for this view, it 
 must be said, is hardly concl isive. 
 
883 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., Festivals and Legend of 
 
 mediately followed the Nativity of the Baptist, 
 induced Papebroch (^Acta Sanctorum, June, vol. 
 V. p. 608) to maintain that the former com¬ 
 memoration was probably held there on the 
 octave of the latter. Mabillon, on the other 
 hand, appeals to a letter which bears the name 
 of Augustine, to one Bibiauus, a Gallican bishop, 
 which asserts that the conception and death of 
 St. John fell on the same day (i.e. Sept. 23 or 
 24), and further refers to August 29 as the day 
 “ quando inventum legitur caput dominici prae- 
 cursoris ” (^Patrol. I'vxii. 431). This letter, while 
 obviously spurious, may be taken as evidence as 
 to ancient Gallican custom, and we find the 
 same usage, at any rate partially, among the 
 Goths of Spain. (See Leslie’s notes to the Moza- 
 rabic Missal; Patrol. Ixxxv. 837.) 
 
 Legend .—This will perhaps be the most con¬ 
 venient place to give a very brief rdsume of the 
 legends respecting the body of St. John. This 
 was said to hav^e been buried at Sebaste, a town 
 on the site of the earlier Samaria. In the time 
 of the emperor Julian, the coffin was broken 
 open, the bones burnt, and the dust scattered 
 abroad. With this definite statement, it might 
 have been thought that the history of the relics 
 was at an end ; but the story runs that the 
 Christians saved some of the remains, which were 
 sent to Jerusalem, and afterwards to Alexandria 
 *to Athanasius (Rufinus, Hist. Eccles. xi. 28: 
 Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. iii. 3; vol. iii. 918, 
 ed. Schulze and Noe.sselt: Theophanes, Chrono- 
 graphia, vol. i. 117, ed. Classen); part also were 
 obtained by Theodoret for his own church of 
 Cyrus (see his Pelig. Hist. vol. iii. 1245). In 
 order to contain the relics of the Baptist, a 
 church was some time afterwards (circa 390 A.D.) 
 built in Alexandria on the site of the temple of 
 Serapis by the emperor Theodosius, and finished 
 in the reign of his son Arcadius. Concerning 
 the Head of the Baptist also there is a long 
 series of traditions. These are often plainly con¬ 
 flicting, and it is to be regretted that a scholar 
 with Papebroch’s great learning should have 
 wasted time on the attempt to reconcile them. 
 The Head was said to have been buried in Herod’s 
 palace, where it was first discovered about the 
 year 330 A.D. and taken into Cilicia. In the 
 time of the emperor Valens it was moved as far 
 as a place named Cosilaus, but about 390 A.D. 
 Theodosius transferred it to Constantinople (Sozo- 
 men. Hist. Eccles. vii. 21 ). Besides all this, 
 however, w’e read of a finding of the Head at 
 Emesa in 454 a.d., a discovery which can hardly 
 harmonize with the preceding, and which was not 
 improbably due to a growing demand of the age 
 for relics. However, there is a further story of 
 another translation of the Head, from Emesa to 
 Constantinople in 850 A.D., to preserve it from 
 the Saracens, and here it remained till 1204 a.d., 
 when Constantinoj)le was taken b}'^ the Latins. 
 The Head then, or part of it, Avas brought to 
 Fi'ance by one Walo de Sartone, a canon of 
 Amiens. The further legends given by Pape¬ 
 broch, compared with which the above almost 
 rises to the dignity of history, we pass over. 
 
 Ws find at a comparatively early period 
 evidence of the existence of literature on the 
 subject of the Finding of the Hoad, for at a 
 council held at Rome in 494 A. D. under the 
 episcopate of Gelasius, such writings are with 
 others ordered to be read with caution. (“Scripta 
 
 de inventione capitis Joannis Baptistae novcllae 
 quaedam relationes sunt, et nonnulli eas Catho- 
 lici legunt. Sed cum haec ad Catholicorum 
 manus pervenerint, beati Pauli apostoli prae- 
 cedat sententia. Omnia probate, quod bonum est 
 tenete." Patrol, lix. 161.) 
 
 ( 7 .) We are now naturally brought to the 
 third of the Johannine festivals, the Finding of 
 the Head. It would appear that different 
 supposed findings are commemorated, and that 
 this accounts for the various days on which the 
 commemorations are held. The letter of the 
 Pseudo-Augustine already quoted names August 
 29 as the day on which the Head was found, 
 and in connection with this we may cite one 
 form of the martyrology of Bede, “ Passio et 
 decollatio vel potius inventio capitis beati 
 Joannis Baptistae .... ’\Patrol. xciv. 1025). 
 That day, however, has ordinarily been re¬ 
 served for the Decollation, and Feb. 24, for the 
 Finding. In that arrangement, generally .speak¬ 
 ing, Western, Byzantine, Coptic, and Ethiopic 
 calendars agree: and the Byzantine also com¬ 
 memorates another finding on May 25. There 
 is besides a commemoration of the “ Apparitio 
 corporis ■” [ “ inventio ossium ” Copt.] in the 
 Ethiopic and Co})tic calendars on May 27, and 
 of the “depositio capitis” on Oct. 27 [26, 
 Selden] in the latter. The notice for Feb. 24 in 
 the Greek metrical Ephemerides is el/cJcrTTji/ 
 Trpodf^6/noio (pavTf Kdpr\ apcpi TiTapTHjv. 
 
 (S.) The festival of the Conception of the 
 Baptist on Sept. 23 [or 24] is also found in the 
 above calendars, and in many Western martyru- 
 logies. It is not recognised, however, in the 
 Armenian calendar. The notice for Sept. 23, in 
 the Greek metrical Ephemerides, is iluddi 5e 
 rpirr] yu(rrr)p Ad/3e TTpoSpopov ef(rce. 
 
 (e.) Besides the two pj eceding, comparatively 
 unimportant festivals, we find also a comme¬ 
 moration of the imprisonment on Aug. 24 
 in the Ethiopic calendar (Ludolf, p. 39), and 
 general commemorations of the Baptist in the 
 same, on Aug. 29 and April 10 (16. ])p. 1, 25): 
 and on June 6 and September 5 in the Armenian 
 calendar (Neale, })p. 799, 801). 
 
 2. Liturgical Aotices. — The oldest Roman 
 Sacramentary, the Leonine, contains no le.ss than 
 five masses for the festival of the Nativity of the 
 Baptist. The first of these evidently belongs to 
 the vigil, for though included with the second 
 and third under the general heading Natale S. 
 Jo. Bapt., still the point is settled by the Avords 
 of the preface (also occurring, be it said, in the 
 Gregorian and Ambrosian liturgies in the 
 service for the vigil) “ . , , . exhibentes so- 
 lemne jejunium, quo nati Joannis Baptistae 
 natalitia praevenimus ” {l.eonis Opera; a'oI. ii, 
 28, ed. Ballerini). The fourth and fifth masses, 
 portions of Avhich are ahso found in the Gelasian 
 Sacramentary, are headed ad fontem, shoAving 
 the use made of the day as a solemn season for 
 baptism. The Gelasian Sacramentary both has 
 services for the vigil and N'ativitA’, each Avith its 
 OAvn title (^Patrol. Ixxiv. 1165), and also for the 
 Decollation {dies pus.donis) of the Baptist (j 6 . 
 1175): and the same too is the case Avith the 
 Ambrosian (Pamelius, Liiurgg. Latt. i. 392, 
 420), and the Gregorian Sacramentary (coll. 
 108, 126; ed. Menard). In this last, Avhile the 
 first mass is headed in vigilia, the second bears 
 the title In prima missa de node, 
 
 3 L 
 
884 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., Festivals and Legend of 
 
 In the ancient Gallican Lectionary, publislied 
 by Mabillon, we find no mention of a vigil : the 
 prophetic lection, epistle and gospel, are re¬ 
 spectively Isaiah xl. 1-20; Acts xiii. 16-47 ; 
 Luke i. 5-25, 39-47, 56-68, [to the words 
 Doininus Deus Israet], 80. This is immediately 
 followed by the festival of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul, and this by the “ Passio S. Joannis Bap- 
 tistae ” for which the prophetic lection, epistle 
 and gospel are respectively Isaiah xliii.1-13, 22, 
 —xliv. 5; Heb. xi. 33—xii. 7 ; Matt. xi\N 1-14 
 ^(^de Litur(jia Gallicana, lib. ii. pp. 158, 160). 
 The same too is the case in the Gallican missal, 
 save that there the fe.stival of St. Peter and St. 
 Paul is immediately followed by a mass “ In 
 Natale unius Apostoli et Martyris ” (Op. cit. 
 lib. iii. 271, 275). In the Mozarabic missal we 
 find forms given for the Sunday pro .adventu 
 S. Joliannis,” as well as for the festival of the 
 Nativity itself, and for that of the Decollation. 
 The prophetic lection, epistle and gospel in the 
 three cases are Isaiah xl. 1-9, Eph. iv. 1-14, 
 Mark i. 1-8: Jer. i. 5-10, 17-19; Gal. i. 11-24, 
 Luke i. 57-70, 80 : Wisdom iv. 7-15, 2 Cor. xii. 
 2-10, Matt. xiv. 1-15. Sundry variations to 
 the above occurring in ancient lectionaries are 
 mentioned {in loc.) in the notes to Leslie’s edition 
 of the Mozarabic missal. {Patrol. Ixxxvn 751, 
 756, 837: and for the Breviary [June 24, 
 Sept. 24], Patrol. Ixxxvd. 1129, 1133, 1209.) 
 
 3. Miscellaneous Notices .—We have hitherto 
 spoken of the Baptist solely from the Christian 
 point of view, we shall now dwell briefly on 
 some further references. Josephus’s account 
 {Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) is practically the same as 
 that of the New Testament, but he adds that, 
 besides other causes, Herod Antipas was more or 
 less moved to the murder of St. John by poli¬ 
 tical reasons, the dread of a revolution.8^ 
 
 There are, moreover, some curious associations 
 connecting St. John with some semi-Christian, 
 or rather non-Christian, religious. The Clemen¬ 
 tine Homilies (ii. 23) make Simon Magus to 
 hav’^e been the chief {irpccTos ual ^oKifxuraros') 
 disciple of St. John, who is further described as 
 a TipL^po^aiTTicrTris (see Hegesippus apud Euseb. 
 Iftst. Eccles. iv. 22 ; Justin Martyr Dial, cum 
 Tryph. c. 80; and esp. Epiphanius, Haer. 17). 
 We may perhaps, therefore, connect the Hemoro- 
 hapiistae with the so called Mendaeans(or properly 
 Mandaeans), known also as the Zabians, disciples 
 of St. John, Christians of St. John. This sect, 
 which still exists, chiefly near the Tigris, claims 
 to be the lineal successors of the actual disciples 
 of St. John, respecting whom they give some 
 wild traditions, and whom they regard as supe¬ 
 rior to Christ. They totally ignore his behead¬ 
 ing, and say that on his death-bed he bid his 
 disciples to crucify his body, in reference to the 
 death that should befal his kinsman Jesus. The 
 body was then preserved in a crystal sarcophagus 
 at Sjuster in Persia. (Ignatius a Jesu, Narratio 
 originis, rituum et erronim Christianorum Jo- 
 liannis. Romae, 1652 : Kaempfer, Amoenitates 
 Exoticae pp. 435-454, Lemgoviae 1712: Norberg, 
 De religione et lingua Sabaeonim: Petermann 
 in Herzog’s Peal-Encycl. s. vv. Mendder^ Zabier: 
 
 s As a parallel to this we may mention the story of 
 Herod the Great’s attempt to slay the infant John from 
 the fear lest he might hereafter prove the king of Israel 
 (Frotev. Jacobi, c. 23) 
 
 Chwolsohn, Die Ssahier und der Ssabismus pp. 
 100-1.38, St. Petersburg!!, 1856.) They celebrate 
 in August (or April, according to Ignatius a 
 Jesu) an annual festival of three days’ duration, 
 in honour of the Baptist, and an annual festival 
 in June of five days’ duration, when all the sect 
 receive baptism. (Kaempfer, p. 446.) This 
 reminds us of Augustine’s protest cited above. 
 Their chief .sacred book, the Sidra Adem or Book 
 of Adam, edited by Norberg {Codex Nasaracns, 
 liber Adami appell dus, Hafniae), and recently by 
 Petermann (Lipsiae, 1867), contains several 
 references to St. John (see vol. i. 108, vol. ii. 20, 
 22 , 24, 60; ed. Norberg). They also po.ssess a 
 “ Book of John [the Baptist] ” reported to have 
 been given to their ancestors by John himself; 
 of which there is a MS. in the Brdiotheq.’e 
 Nationale at Paris (Norberg de lingua, ^-c., p. 4). 
 Among their most curious superstitions is one in 
 connection with the baptism of our Lord bv St. 
 John, which accounts for the view they take of 
 blue as an unholy colour (Kaempfer, p. 447). 
 
 For a possible connection of the sect of the 
 Elxaites with the teaching of St. John, see Hil- 
 genfeld. Novum Testamentum extra Canoneni 
 receptum iii. 158. Chwolsohn {*>p. cit. p. 112) 
 views Elxai as the actual founder of the Men- 
 daeans, another point of coincidence. 
 
 Among the Mohammedans, St. John is ac¬ 
 counted as a prophet, and he is mentioned in the 
 Koran in terms of high respe'i't {Sura iii. 39). 
 The p.issage in Sale’s translation runs, ‘dohn, 
 who shall bear witness to the word which 
 Cometh from God, an honourable person, chaste, 
 and one of the righteous prophets.” 
 
 We must in conclusion only allude in the 
 briefest terms to a point, which though not 
 strictly within our province, must not be abso¬ 
 lutely passed over, the position of St. John the 
 Baptist as the patron saint of the Knights Hos¬ 
 pitallers of St. John, and his association in some 
 form with the esoteric rites of the order of the 
 Templars, though probabh’ here there has been 
 at times a confusion with St. John the Evangelist. 
 For the possible connection with St. John the 
 Baptist in such rites as the Baphomet, the 
 dissevered head, etc., see Von Hammer, Alys- 
 terium Baphometis revelatum. .Vindobonae, 1818. 
 Reference may also be made to Von Wedekind, 
 Das Johannis-Fest in der Frey-Maurerei. Frank¬ 
 fort, 1818. 
 
 For the matter of the present article, we have 
 to express considerable obligations to Binterini, 
 P>enk>xurdigkeiten der Clirist-Katholischen Kirchr, 
 vol. V. part 1, pp. 373, sqq. ; 446 sqq. ; August! 
 Deukuiirdigkeiten aus der Christlichen Archdologic, 
 vol. iii. pp. 152 sqq. Papebroch in Acta Sanc¬ 
 torum (July 25). Reference may also be made 
 to Paciaudius de Cultu S. Johaimis Baptistae. 
 Romae 1755. Wa.sewitz Turtur Joanneus. 
 Magdeburg, 1659. [R. S.] 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., FIRE OF. 
 
 We called attention in the previous article to 
 the way in which early Christian writers dwell 
 on the mystical significance of the fact that the 
 festival of St. John the Baptist coincides with 
 the period of the summer solstice, and we also 
 referred in passing to various superstitious rites 
 and customs, which Christianity evidently inhe¬ 
 rited from heathenism. The most proniinent ot 
 these is that which has long been known under 
 the name of the Fii-e of St. John the Baptist, 
 
886 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., FIKE OF 
 
 which, with numevous attendant customs, is 
 obviously nothing more than a relic of ancient 
 sun-worship, connected with that period of the 
 year when the sun has reached the turning point 
 of his annual course. This custom of kindling 
 great fires in the open air on IMidsummer’s Eve 
 has been shown to exist (and in not a few places 
 even to the present day) among almost all Euro¬ 
 pean nations, as well as in the East* (see Jac. 
 Grimm, Deutsche MytUologie pp. 583 sqq., ed. 2) ; 
 and it can hardly be rightly viewed unless we 
 associate it with the universally observed festival 
 at the winter solstice, the Natalis Invicti, when 
 the sun is, as it were, born again for the coming 
 year [CiiRiSi'JiAS], with that on May-day, the la 
 Beal-tine of the Irish, when the sun’s warmth 
 has awakened the dormant earth [Ja.mks tui-: 
 Less, St., Festival of], and with other similar 
 instances. 
 
 Thus, it will be seen, there is plainly no ori¬ 
 ginal connection of St. John the Baptist with 
 the practice now under consideration. The birth¬ 
 day of our Lord having been once fixed, by what¬ 
 soever means, at the winter solstice (and there 
 is certainly no inconsiderable body of evidence 
 pointing to the conclusion that the well-nigh uni¬ 
 versal iJi evalence of a festival at that time of the 
 year had much to do with the matter, and that 
 it is a case of the transference of worship from 
 the material sun to Christ, the sun of righteous¬ 
 ness), then, since there was a difference of six 
 months between the ages of our Lord and of 
 the Baptist, the birthday of the latter would 
 naturally be assigned to the summer solstice. 
 The existing heathen practice.s, at first strongly 
 opposed by the church, gradually came to be 
 tolerated and finally to be recognised ; while the 
 attempt was continually made to associate the 
 customs of the day with the saint whose festival 
 had thus happened to coincide with the older 
 celebration. 
 
 A curious view' on this subject, w'hich may 
 just claim a passing notice, is found in Hislop’s 
 Two Bahglons 184), which refers the great Mid¬ 
 summer festival of many heathenisms primarily 
 to the Babylonian festival of Tammuz, w'ho is 
 further identified with Cannes, the Fish-God 
 mentioned by Berosus (lib. i. p. 48, ed. Richter). 
 It is there maintained that this name was sug¬ 
 gestive of that of Joannes, and thus a Christian 
 festival grew out of a heathen one, with hardly 
 a change in the name of the object of the festi¬ 
 val. More evidence, however, and less theorizing 
 is wanted, before such a view can be seriously 
 entertained. 
 
 To return now to the main part of our subject; 
 —we shall cite, as showing the church’s original 
 point of view in the matter, a passage from one 
 of the sermons of Augustine first edited by 
 Frangipane in 1819, where he protests strongly' 
 against this practice of the lighting of fires on 
 St. John’s Eve:—“ Cessent religiones sacrilegio- 
 rum, cessent studia atque joca vanitatum; non 
 fiant ilia quae fieri solent, non quaedam jam in 
 daemonum honorem, sed adhuc tamen secundum 
 daemonum morem. Hesterno die post vesperam 
 putrescentibus flammis antiquitus more daemo- 
 
 * Nor need this remark be confined to the old world, 
 for we find the same class of rites prevailing also among 
 the Peruvians under the dominion of the Incas (Prescott, 
 Co.iqucit of Ftru, i. pp. 96 sqq.; 10th ed.). 
 
 niorum tota civitas flagrabat atque putrescebat, 
 et universam aerem fumus obduxerat ” {Serm. 
 8 de S. Joh. Bapt. § 3; Patrol, xlvi. 996). 
 Theodoret again {Quaest. in iv. Peg. [xvi. 3],//i- 
 tet'r. 47, vol. i. 539, ed. Schulze) in referring to 
 Ahaz’s “ causing his sons to pass through the 
 fire,” sees in it an underlying reference to a cus¬ 
 tom existing in his time, of lighting fires in the 
 streets, over which men and boys leaped, and 
 even infants were carried by their mothers. 
 Theodoret states that this was done once a 
 year, and though he does not further define the 
 time, there is a probable reference to the Mid¬ 
 summer fire. The Quinisext or Trullan council 
 (circa 692, a.d.) forbids the lighting of such 
 fires before houses, etc., and the leaping over 
 them; and penalties are laid down for all, cleric 
 or lay, who followed the practice (can. 65, Labbe 
 vi. 1172). In this last case, however, the periods 
 are distinctly specified as the times of the new 
 moon, but the superstition legislated against is 
 clearly a parallel one; and, at any rate, Theo¬ 
 dore Balsamon (cited by Paciaudius, infra), in his 
 comments on this canon, makes special mention 
 of the fires on St. John the Baptist’s Eve. One 
 more such instance may suffice: the German 
 council, which sat under the authority of St. 
 Boniface, either at Augsburg or Ratisbon in 742 
 A.D., forbids “ illos sacrilegos ignes, quos Ncd- 
 fratres \_Nodfyr, Niedfyr'] vocant ” (can. 5, Labbe 
 vi. 1535). 
 
 We have already referred to the change of 
 feeling with which such practices were regarded 
 by the church as time w'ent on, and to the conse¬ 
 quent attempt to connect them directly with the 
 Baptist. As examples of this we may' cite Joh. 
 Beleth fPat. div. ojf. c. 137 ; Patrol, ccii. 141), 
 who wrote about 1170 A.D., and Durandus fPat. 
 div. off. vii. 12. 10). In these passages reference is 
 made to three customs practised at this season, the 
 lighting of fires (which are described as being made 
 of “ ossa et quaedam alia immunda”), the carry¬ 
 ing of firebrands about the fields, and the rolling 
 of a wheel. After a strange explanation of the 
 first of these as being a means for driving away 
 dragons, another reason is given, namely, that it 
 was done in memory of the burning of the bones 
 of St. John the Baptist at Sebaste (see last 
 article). The carrying about of firebrands is 
 explained as having reference to him who was a 
 “burning and shining light” (John v. 35); while 
 the rolling of the wheel, which has an obvious 
 reference to the course of the sun, is made 
 further to refer to the glory of St. John waning 
 before Him who w'as the True Light. 
 
 An attempt to disprove the idea of the con¬ 
 nection of the Fire of St. John with heathen 
 rites is made by Paciaudius {de Cultu S. Joh. 
 Bapt. Antiquitates Christianae, pp. 335 sqq.), 
 who, however, is mainlv combating the idea of 
 its connection with the Roman Palilia, a point 
 urged by Reiske, Zeumer {infra), and other 
 writers. The arguments here, however, though 
 ingenious, rest altogether on too narrow a foot¬ 
 ing. 
 
 In addition to works already cited, reference 
 may also be made to F. C. de Khautz de ritu ignis 
 in Natali S. Joh. Bapt. accensi. Vindob. 1759: 
 Reiske, Untersuchung dcs bei den alien Deutschen 
 gebrduchlichen heidnischen Nord/yrs, inglei-'hen 
 des Oster-und Johannis-feuers. Frankfort 1696: 
 Zeumer, Dissertatio de igne in festG S. Johanni% 
 
886 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., in Art, etc. 
 
 accendi solito. Jenao 1699: Brand, Popular An¬ 
 tiquities, vol. i. pp. 166 sqq., ed. 1841. [K. S.] 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST, ST., in Art, etc. 
 
 1. Iconograqjhy .—We find abundant evidence 
 that representations of St. John the Baptist were 
 vpvy frequent in early Christian times. Epipha- 
 nius {Cone. Nic. II. Act. vi.; Labbe, vii. 538) tells 
 us that those who delighted in “.soft clothing” 
 were rebuked by the figure of the Baptist in his 
 “raiment of camel’s hair;” in this garb, indeed, 
 he is most usually represented, especially in the 
 Baptism of the Saviour [see Jordan], a subject 
 of very frequent recurrence in early Christian 
 ai t, as for instance, in the well-known painting 
 in the cemetery of Pontianus, in many mosaics 
 (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. ii. tab. xxiii.), and on vari¬ 
 ous engraved stones and bronze medals (Vettori, 
 Num. dcr. e.vplic. p. 68 and frontispiece), where 
 he is shown in the act of pouring water from 
 a shell on the Lord’s head ; he carries a staff in 
 his h'ft hand. 
 
 Sometimes the l''oreruuner points with his 
 
 finger to the Messiah, represented in the form 
 of a lamb, or in person {Concil. in Trull, can. 
 Ixxxii.). He has been figured by some artists in 
 tunic and pallium, as for example on the bottom 
 of a Clip given by Buonarotti {Vetri, tav. vi. 
 No. 1), and assigned to St. John the Baptist. 
 If this assumption be correct, we have here one 
 of the most ancient representations of this saint, 
 but many competent judges believe that it is a 
 representation of St. Paul. Be this as it may, 
 we find the Baptist clad in a similar manner, 
 and also nimbused, in a mosaic of the 6th centurv 
 (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. tab. xxxi.), in the centre 
 of an ivory cross of almost the same date (Pa- 
 ciaudi, De cultu Joan. Bapt. p. 18*2, see woodcut), 
 in an ancient diptych figured hy Gori {Thc- 
 saur. Diptych, vol. iii. p. 235), and also in bust 
 upon a chaloedony attributed to the 5th century 
 (Paciaudi, u.s. p. 189). 
 
 In the ^lenaea of the Greeks the figure of 
 St. John the Baptist is w'inged, in allusion to 
 
 the passage of Lsaiah quoted by St. Mark (i. 2% 
 and applied by the Lord Him.self to the Fore¬ 
 runner : “ Behold ! I send My Messenger before 
 Thy Face which shall prepare I'hy way before 
 Thee.” His right hand is rai.sed in the act of 
 exhortation, and in his left he carries a cro.ss, 
 and a scroll inscribed with these words. 
 
 The annunciation of the birth of the Baptist 
 is depicted in mosaic on the great arch of St. 
 Maria Maggiore, a.d. 443. The angel is ad 
 dre.ssing Zacharias, who stands before the altar 
 of incense (Ciampini, Lef. Mon. vol. i. tab.'xlix. 
 nn. 1, 2, 3). In the ancient mosaic on the por 
 tico of St. John Lateran the head of John the 
 Baptist is carried in a dish by a lictor, while the 
 decapitated body remains still kneeling before 
 the executioner whose sword is still raised. 
 
 2. Dedications .—The first church dedicated to 
 him was probably the basilica built by Constan¬ 
 tine, and dedicated to the Forerunner, upon the 
 Coelian Mount, near the Lateran. It is, however, 
 not improbable that the name was transferred 
 to it from the baptistery of Constantine, a short 
 distance from it, which was dedicated to St. 
 John. 
 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius states that Con¬ 
 stantine built churches dedicated to the same 
 saint at Ostia and at Albano {in S. Sylcest. 
 §§ 45, 46; Migne, cxxvii. 1524 f.), and Du 
 Cange mentions one at Constantinople {Con- 
 stantinop. Christ, lib. iv. § 4), of which, however, 
 we can find no other record. At Naples it is 
 commonl)’’ asserted that a church, dedicated to 
 St. John the Baptist, was built in that city by 
 Constantine on the site of the temple of Hadrian, 
 in fulfilment of a vow made during a violent 
 storm on his voyage from Sicily. But it 
 has been proved by Majochi, that this founder 
 could not have been Constantine the Great, 
 though he may possibly have been the younger 
 Constantine, son of Constans {De Cat'i. Neap. 
 part ii. 3). It appears certain that at Florence 
 in early times a church w*as dedicated to St. John 
 the Baptist, who became the tutelary saint and 
 protector of the city (Villani, Chroniche, 1. i. 
 c. 60). St. Benedict dedicated to the Baptist 
 one of the two oratories which he erected on the 
 site of the temple of Apollo on Mount Cassino 
 (Greg. Dialog, ii. 8, in Migne, Ixvi. col. 152 b). 
 Tradition asserts that at Milan a temple of 
 Janus was converted into a church, and dedi¬ 
 cated as “ Sancti Joannis ad quatuor facies ” 
 (Castellione, Mediaev. Antiq. pars 1, fasc. 2). 
 There w*ere at Ravenna in the 6th and 7th 
 centuries two churches dedicated to this saint, 
 one of which, called In Marmorario, specially 
 commemorated his decollation (Rubeus, Hist. 
 Raven, ii. and iii.). At Monza, queen Theo- 
 deliuda built a church in honour of St. John the 
 Baptist, on which she lavished wealthy endow¬ 
 ments and precious gifts of every description. 
 Agilulph, her husband, followed her example 
 at Turin (Paciaudi u. s. pp. 15 and 16). Paciaudi 
 enumerates many other churches dedicated to the 
 Baptist in different places and in later times. 
 Altars dedicated to him were usually to be found 
 in the baptisteries; these were always placed 
 under his protection, adorned with paintings and 
 sculptures in which he is the principal tigure, 
 and sometimes enriched with his relics. (Paci¬ 
 audi, De Cultu Joann. Bapt.; Martigny, Diet, 
 des Antiq. Chret. z. v.). [C.] 
 
JOHN THE EVANGELIST, ST., Festival of 
 
 887 
 
 JOHN THE EVANGELIST, ST., Festi- 
 v.v L or. 
 
 1. History of Festival. —It is not necessary to 
 enter here upon a discussion of the various early 
 legends respecting St. John the Evangelist, which 
 * will be found treated of in the Bible Dictionary, 
 to which reference may be made. We shall 
 here mei'ely .speak of the festivals of St. John, 
 and add a notice of the chief pseudonymous 
 works attributed to him. 
 
 We hardly find the festival of St. John stand¬ 
 ing out in early times with that prominence 
 w’hich we should expect in the case of one so 
 essentially of the chief of the apostles. As we 
 have already mentioned in the article on the 
 fe.-^tival of St. John the Baptist, there is a not 
 improbable commemoration of the evangelist in 
 the ancient Calendarium Carthayinense, if, as 
 seems reasonable, we assume the woi'd Baptistae 
 to have been written “ per iucuriam scribae ” for 
 Evangclistae. The notice is “ vi. Kal. Jan. Sancti 
 Joannis Baptistae, et Jacobi Apostoli, quern 
 Herodes occidit ” (^Patrol, xiii. 1228). On this 
 assumption then we have a joint commemoration 
 of the two brothers, the sons of Zebedee; and 
 the same combination is also found in the 
 Gothico-Gallic missal (^infrd). The Armenian 
 church commemorates the two brothers together 
 on Dec. 28 (Neale, L’ast-o-ii Church; Introd. 
 p. 804); and the Ethiopic church on Sep. 27 
 (Ludolf. Fasti Sacri Fcclesiae Alexandrinae, 
 p. 5). 
 
 In the West, however, the name of St. John 
 alone is ordinarily found associated with Dec. 27, 
 a day which by its close proximity to Christmas 
 seems especially appropriate for the commemo¬ 
 ration of the beloved disciple, os also those of the 
 Innocents, the fir.st martyrs for Christ, and of 
 Stephen the first conscious martyr. This idea is 
 often dwelt upon by mediaeval winters, some of 
 whom allude further to a tradition that the 
 rAumgelist died on the day which is now the 
 festival of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 
 but that his commemoration was transferred to 
 a day in the octave of Christmas (see e.g. 
 Dui’audus, Bed. Die. Off. vii. 42). As we have 
 implied above, however, there is a lack of recog¬ 
 nition of this festival in the writings of the 
 earlier fathers, scarcely any of whom furnish us 
 with homilies for the day, even those who have 
 written them for the festiv'als of St. Stejdien and 
 the Innocents. 
 
 It may be noted here that in many ancient 
 calendars December 27 is marked not as the 
 Fatale or Nativitas, but as the Assumptio or 
 Transitus of St. John. Thus we find, e.g., in 
 the ancient so-called Martyrologiiun Jlieronymi 
 “ vi. Kal. Januarii Assumptio S. Joannis Evan- 
 gelistae apud Ephesum ” (^Patrol, xxx. 137), 
 and similarl}’- the ALartyrologium Gellonense 
 (D’Achery, Spkilegiiun xiii. 390). This wording 
 is doubtlessly due to the belief in some of the 
 curious legends as to the death of this apostle. 
 Of this we find no trace in the earliest writers ; 
 tlius Bolycrates, a near successor of St. John, 
 simply says eV ’Eepevo) KeKol/j.r}Tai (Polycr. 
 apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 31). Soon, how¬ 
 ever, the legendary element showed itself, and as 
 early as the time of Augustine tjie story pre¬ 
 vailed that the ajiostle had been laid in the tomb 
 merely in the .semblance of death, but that he 
 really lived was shown by the movements of the 
 
 ground where he was laid, and the appearance 
 as of dust expelled from the grave by the process 
 of breathing (August. IVactatns 124 in Joannem c. 
 2; vol. iii. 2467, ed. Gaume). Later writers 
 speak of this dust by the title of manna (see e.g. 
 Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Martynirn i. 30, 1’atrol. 
 Ixxi. 730; Hildebert Turon. Serm. in festo S. 
 Johan., Patrol, clxxi. 726 .sqq.). It is this which 
 appears to be specially dwelt on by the Greek 
 church in their commemoration of St. John on 
 May 8 (infra). In some writers the legend 
 makes St. John live to the end of the world, to 
 witness with Enoch and Elijah to the truth (see 
 e.g. Ephraemius Antioch, apud Photium, Biblio¬ 
 theca, cod. 229; Patrol. Gr. ciii. 985). Ac¬ 
 cording to another form, he died in the ordinary 
 cour.se of nature, and was immediately rai.sed 
 from the dead and translated into paradise (see 
 e.g. Nicephorus IPist. Eccles. ii. 42). All these 
 legends have doubtlessly grown from a misun¬ 
 derstanding of our Lord’s words in John xxi 22. 
 
 We may add further that the festival of St. 
 John “ad portam Latinam ” on May 6, which 
 commemorates the aj)ostle’s having been thrown 
 at that place into a cauldron of boiling oil and 
 escaping unhurt, is often noted as the “Nativitas 
 (Natalis) ad portam Latinam ” (e.g. in the Gre¬ 
 gorian Sacramentary and some forms of the 
 Martyrologium Hieronyini) the apostle having 
 there as fully won the martyr’s crown as though 
 no miraculous deliverance had been wrought.^ 
 Whatever truth there may be in this story, it is 
 at any rate as old as the time of Tertullian (see 
 de Praescript. c. 36 ; cf. Jerome, ado. Jovinian. 
 i. 26, vol. ii. 280 [where ho apj)ea]s to Tertullian], 
 Comm, in Matthaewn xxi. 23, vol. vii. 155). 
 
 In later times a church was built near the 
 Latin gate in memory of this event. It may 
 reasonably be inferred that it is to this church 
 that Anastasius Bibliothecarius refers as being 
 restored by Adrian I. (ob. 795 A.D.), though he 
 describes it as “ ecclesiam beati Johannis Bap¬ 
 tistae sitam juxta portam Latinam” (Vitae 
 Pontifeum, Adrian I.; Patrol, cxxviii. 1191). 
 On this point see further G. M. Croscimbeni, 
 Elstoria della chiesa di S. Giovanni avanti 
 Porta Latina; Roma, 1716. 
 
 In the Greek church St. John is commemorated 
 on May 8 and September 26, regard being had 
 on the former day to the mii*acle of the 
 “ manna,” and on the latter to his translation. 
 Thus in the Greek metrical Ephemerides pub¬ 
 lished by Papebroch in the Arta Sanctorum 
 (May, vol. i., pp. xxvii. xliv.) the notices are 
 oySodrT) T(\eou(Ti poSiO’/xhi'^ EpoyrSyovoio, irpds 
 yc Qebv /jL^recTTr] fipovrris 7ra?s elwaSi eVrp. The 
 latter festival is also found in the calendars of 
 the Ethiopic and Coptic churches® (Ludolf, p. 5), 
 which also commemorate St. John on December 
 30, and also his translation on May 11 (ib. pp. 
 16, 28). 
 
 Before jiassing on to the next part of our 
 subject, we may refer briehy to a custom 
 prevalent in the middle ages of sending to 
 
 * Polj'crates (/. c.) calls St. John /aapru?, and the 
 Gothico-Gallic Missal {injra) spcalcs of the two sons ot 
 Zebedee together as martyrs. 
 
 b So Kphiaciniua (i. C.) to ayiov eKeiuov /jvpov. 
 r In one form of the calendar given by Selden i^ile Synr- 
 driis veteruni Kbrarorum, p. 212, ed. 1079), the date is 
 given a.s Septemb«*r 24. 
 
888 
 
 JOHN THE EVANGELIST, ST., Festival of 
 
 friends on St. John’s day presents of wine which 
 liad been previously blessed {Bcnedictio or Hau- 
 stus S. Joannis). The origin of this custom is 
 not certainly known. Some have viewed it as a 
 continuation of the old Roman custom of sending 
 to friends at the beginning of January presents 
 in honour of Janus. Whether or no there be 
 any connection between the two customs, it 
 seems probable that there must be some refer¬ 
 ence to the legend of the poisoned wine cup sent 
 to St. John, who signed it with the cross and 
 drank it unhurt (see e.g. Isid. Hispal. de ortu 
 et obita Patrum c. 72 ] lx.x.xiii. 151). This 
 
 legend has very likely arisen from our Lord’s 
 words (Matt. xx. 23 : cf. also ^lark xvi. 18), and 
 has itself obviously been the source of a common 
 mediaeval representation of St. John, as holding- 
 a cup round which a serpent is entwined. 
 
 2. Litiirgio d Notices .—In the Leonine Sacra¬ 
 mentary we have two masses for the festival of St. 
 John on December 27 (Leonis 0pp. ii. 153, ed. 
 Ballerini). There is, however, but one in the 
 Gelasian Sacramentary (^Patrol. Ixxiv. 1060), 
 and in the Gregorian, as given by Menard (col. 
 10); he mentions, how'cx-er, that two occur in 
 the Cd. Ratoldi, and in the text of Pamelius, and 
 also in the Gregorian Antiphonary (i6. col. 659). 
 We may probably assume that one mass was for 
 early morning, and another for a later service. 
 In some forms of the Gregorian Sacramentary is 
 also a ma.ss for May 6, “Nativitas S. Joannis 
 ante portam Latinam ” («6. col. 87). The Am¬ 
 brosian liturgy gives one mass for December 27 
 (Pamelius, Liturgg. Latt. i. 307). 
 
 In the ancient Gallican lectionary published 
 by -Mabillon, Dec. 27 is inscribed in festo S. 
 Johannis, but in the Gothico-Gallic missal the 
 heading is m Naiale Apostoloi'iim Jacobi et Jo- 
 hannis (Mabillon, de IJturgia Gallican'i, lib. ii. 
 Ill, iii. 196). In the former case the epistle 
 and gospel assigned for the day (no prophetic 
 lection is provided) are Rev. xiv. 1-7, Mark x. 
 35 ... . (one leaf of the MS. is here torn away). 
 The Gothico-Gallic missal has also a commemo¬ 
 ration of St. John, “ante portam Latinam”*^ 
 (^Op. cit. iii. 262). 
 
 The Mozarabic liturgy commemorates St.John 
 alone on Dec, 27 (^Patrol. Ixxxv. 199), the pro¬ 
 phetic lection, epistle, and gospel being respect¬ 
 ively, Wisdom x. 10-18, 1 Thess. iv. 12-17, 
 
 John xxi. 15-24. (For sundiy variations fi'om 
 these, see Leslie’s notes to the Mozarabic liturgy 
 in loc.') For the service in the Mozarabic bre¬ 
 viary, see Patrol. Ixxxvi. 127. 
 
 The so-called Liber Comitis provides for the 
 festix'al of December 27 an Old Testament lec¬ 
 tion and gospel. Ecclus. xv. 1-6, and John xxi. 
 19-24 {Patrol, xxx. 489). 
 
 3. Apocryphal Literature .—With the name of 
 St. John is associated a considerable amount of 
 pseudonymr us literature. First among these we 
 may mentioji the book de transitu Mariae, first 
 edited by Tischendorf {Apocalypses ApocryjJae, 
 pp. 70sqq.; see also his Prolegomena, pp. xxxiv. 
 sqq., and Fabricius, Cxlex Pseudepigraphus Novi 
 Testamenti, i. 352, ed. 1719). This was one of 
 the books condemned by the council at Rome 
 
 d This mass occurs between those for the “ Finding of 
 the Cross ” and those for the Rogation days. It contains, 
 however, it must be stated, oo reference to the event 
 “ ad portam Latinam.” 
 
 under Gelasius in 494 A.D., where it is simply 
 spoken of as “ Liber qui appellatur Transitus, 
 id est, Assumptio Sanctae Mdriae” {Patrol, lix. 
 
 162) ; and the false claim to the name of John the 
 dto\6yQs is referred to by Epiphanius Monachus 
 {de Vita B. Virginis, c. 1 ; Petrol. Or. cxx. 188). 
 Fabricius also refers to another apocryphal docu¬ 
 ment found attached to a copy of the above, 
 \nr6jxvr\ixa rov Kup'iov yua>v Ttjctou XpicTTOv els 
 TT)v cLTroKaOrjKuxTiv avTov (Tvyypa<pe'i(Ta{siA) irapa 
 rov ayio'j Qeo\6yov. A passing allusion may be 
 made here to the Templars’ mutilated recension 
 of the canonical gospel of St. John, published 
 by Thilo {Codex Apocryphus N/vi Testamenti i. 
 817) as the Codex Evangelii .fohannis Parisiis in 
 sacro Templariorum tab dario asservato, and also 
 to the Book of St. John, said to have been in use 
 among the Albigenses, and brought to light by 
 the Inquisition of Carcasonne {Oj). cit. 884). 
 
 We may next mention the Apocryphal Acts of 
 St. John, the Greek text of which was first 
 edited in Tischendorfs Acta Ap stolorum Apo¬ 
 crypha (pp. 266 sqq.), and a Syriac version of the 
 latter part of it in Dr. NtvxgWC?, Apocryphal Acts. 
 Any detailed account of this document is out of 
 place here; reference may be made to Tischen- 
 dorf (pp. Ixxiii. sqq.): it may, how'ever, be 
 noted that it was known to Eusebius {Jlist. 
 Eccles. iii. 25). A history of St. John at Ephe.sus, 
 in a Svriac translation of an unknown Greek 
 original, has been published by Dr. Wright {Op. 
 cit.). 
 
 There is also an apocryphal Apocalypse of St. 
 John, first edited by Birch in 1804, and subse¬ 
 quently by Tischendorf {Apocal. Apocr. pp. 70 sqq. 
 cf. pp. xviii. sqq.). Assemani (Z>iW/of Orien- 
 tedis, iii. part 1, 282) mentions three MSS. of an 
 Arabic version of this document. Less important 
 than the above, but claiming a passing notice, 
 are the Epistle ad Hydropicum gucmdim given by 
 the Pseudo-Prochorus (see Fabricius, i. 926), the 
 Praver of St. John, cited from Martene bv Fa- 
 bricius (iii. 334), and the Prophetia dc Consum- 
 matione Mundi, said to hax'e been discovered with 
 a commentary of Caecilius in 1588 a.d., in Gra¬ 
 nada {ih. iii. 720). In connection with St. John 
 may also be mentioned the Historia Apostolica 
 (lib. V.) of the Pseudo-Abdias {ib. i. 531 sqq.) 
 and the Passio S. Johannis Evangelistae of Mel- 
 litus {ib. iii. 604). The Apostolic Constitutions 
 (viii. 16) connect with the name of St. John the 
 regulations as to the ordination of presbyters. 
 P’inally, we may mention the Syro-Jacobite 
 liturgy of St. John the Ex'angelist. A Latin 
 translation of this is given by Renaudot 
 Orientalium Collectio, ii. 163, ed. 1847). 
 
 In addition to works already' cited, reference 
 may also be made to Tillemont (J/e'/nofr^s pour 
 servir a VHistoirc Ecclesiastigue, x'ol. i. pp. 370 
 sqq. and notes 17 and 18, ed. 1693) and to Au¬ 
 gust! {[)enkicurdigkeiten aus chr Christlichen 
 Archd'Aogie, i. 288 sqq., iii. 242 sqq.). [R. S.] 
 
 JOHN, ST., THE EVANGELIST, ix Art. 
 
 From very early' times the eagle has been assigned 
 to St. John as his emblem among the four living 
 creatures which have always been held sym¬ 
 bolical of the four Evangelists ; indeed the most 
 ancient method of representing the beloved dis¬ 
 ciple appears to have been by this symbol alone. 
 [Evangelists.] 
 
 Perhaps the oldest personal representations of 
 
889 
 
 JOHN THE EVANGELIST, ST,, in Art 
 
 him are to be found on two glass cups, where he 
 is figured in bust conversing with St. J’«ter; 
 the names Simon, Joiiannks being given (Gar- 
 rucci, Vetri ornati di fig. in oro, tav. xxiv 4 
 and 5), In some mosaics of the 6th century we 
 find him as a young man—all representations 
 make him young—with long hair; a nimbus 
 surrounds his head; he wears the tunic and 
 pallium, and carries his Gospel pressed to his 
 heart. In the church of St. Vitalis at Ravenna 
 a mosaic of a.d. 5-17, shows the Evangelist 
 seated, holding the codex of his Gospel open in 
 his hands; before him is a small table with a 
 pen and ink-bottle, and the symbolical eagle 
 appears above his head. (See woodcut.) Lam- 
 beci (Bihlioth. Caesar. Vindobon. vol. ii. pars i. 
 p. 571) gives an illumination from a very early 
 Greek manuscript in which St. John is repre¬ 
 sented seated, dictating his Gospel to a deacon. 
 
 We find him standing with a volume in his 
 hand in a mosaic which dates from the 9th cen¬ 
 tury, in the church of St. Maria Novele. This 
 
 St. Jolm the Evangelist, in St. Vitalis at Ravenna. 
 Erom Ciampini. 
 
 figure and those of three other apostles occupy 
 four small niches, which are placed two on each 
 side of a large niche, containing the seated figure 
 of the Virgin with the infant Je.sus on her lap 
 (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. vol. i, tav. liii.). 
 
 In the crypt of St. Urban in Caffarella, at 
 Rome, we find a somewhat coarse and very curi¬ 
 ous painting of the same date, in which St. John 
 appears with similar surroundings. He stands 
 on the right of the Virgin and St. Urban on the 
 left (Perret, vol. i. p, Ixxxiii.). 
 
 The attempted martyrdom of St. John before 
 the Latin Gate is figured in an ancient mosaic on 
 the portico of St. John Lateran (Ciamp. De-Sac/*. 
 Aedifi. tab. ii. 8). The scene is now very imper¬ 
 fectly represented because the mosaic is much 
 damaged, but the flagellation of the apostle can 
 still be distinguished, and also the cutting oft’ 
 of his hair. In the oldest representations of the 
 Crucifixion, St.John uniformly occupies the posi¬ 
 tion he assumes in his own narrative (John xix. 
 25, 26), standing with the Virgin at the foot of 
 the cross, the faces of both resting upon their 
 
 hands in token of grief. He appears thus in a 
 fresco in the cemetery of St. Julius (Bottari, 
 cxcii.) and in the celebrated dijitych ofRambona, 
 figured by Buonarotti ( Ornati, p. 285). 
 
 Over his head are the w'ords, dissipule (sic) 
 ECCE (mater tua). 
 
 An almost identical representation is found 
 upon the very ancient ivory tablet in the form 
 of a pax, mentioned by Florentino, taken from 
 the collegiate church of Civitaiis, in the diocese 
 of Aquileia. St. John stands by the Lord’s side 
 with this inscription: AP. ECCE m tva (Apostole 
 ecce mater tua). 
 
 Basilicas w'ere dedicated to St. John the Evan¬ 
 gelist in very early times; among others, we 
 may mention that of St. John Lateran. The 
 ancient Vatican had also an altar raised to his 
 honour by pope Symmachus (Ciamp. l)e Sacr. 
 Aedif. p. 60, 1 d). (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. 
 C/iret. s. V.) [C.] 
 
 JOHN (1) and Gabriel; commemorated July 
 12 (Cal. Gcorg.fi 
 
 (2) and Cyrus, martyrs, dau/jLaTovpyoi, audp- 
 yvpoi, A.D. 292; commemorated Jan. 31 (Cal. 
 Byzant.') : their translation, A.D. 400, commemo¬ 
 rated June 28 (Cal. Byzant.fi 
 
 (3) Ab Zedaoni et tredecim patres Syriae’; 
 commemorated May 7 (Cal. Georg.fi 
 
 (4) Twenty-ninth patriarch of Alexandria, 
 commemorated Ginbot 4 = April 29 (Cal. Ethiop.fi 
 
 (6) Patriarch of Alexandria, f 577 ; comme¬ 
 morated Ter 16 = Jan. 11 (ib.fi 
 
 ( 6 ) Patriarch of Jerusalem; commemorated 
 March 9 (Cal. Annen.fi 
 
 (7) Patriarch of Alexandria, A.D. 685; com¬ 
 memorated Ginbot 10 = May 5 (Cal. Ethiop.fi 
 
 (8) Archbishop of Alexandria, A.D. 615; com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 12 (Cal. Byzant.fi 
 
 (9) '6<nos TraT7}p, b (Tvyypatpeus rrjs KAipaKOS, 
 f A.D. 570; commemorated March 30 (Cal. Byz.) 
 
 (10) Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 619; 
 commemorated Sept. 2 (Cal. Byzant.fi 
 
 (11) Damascenus, iaios irar^p, f A.D. 735 ; 
 commemorated Dec. 4 (ib.fi 
 
 (12) Palaeo-laurita, Herios ttottjp ; commemo¬ 
 rated April 19 (ib.fi 
 
 (13) Presbyter, deposition in monast. Reomae- 
 ensi, Jan. 28 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (14) Saint, Penarensis: commemorated March 
 19 (ib., Mart. Bom. Vet.fi 
 
 (16) Eremita, deposition in Egypt, t393 A.D. ; 
 March 27 (ib.) 
 
 (16) The pope, martyr at Rome (f626 A.D.) ; 
 commemorated May ‘ih (Mart. Usuardi): depo¬ 
 sition, May 28 (Mart. Bedae). 
 
 (17) Presbyter, martyr under Julian; com¬ 
 memorated June 23 (Mart. Bom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (18) Martyr at Rome with Paulus ; comme¬ 
 morated June 26 (ih., Mart. Hieron., Bedae)., 
 
 (19) Presbyter, martyr at Rome with Cirispiis 
 under Diocletian; commemorated Aug. 1 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (20) Martyr at Tomi, with Marcelliuus and 
 his wife Manula, Serapio, and Peter (filarU. 
 Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
890 
 
 JONAH 
 
 (21) Martyr at Kicomedia, under Diocletian; 
 commemorated Sept. 7 (^Mart. Horn. Vet.^ Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (22) Martyr with Adulfus at Cordova; com¬ 
 memorated Sept. 27 Usuardi). 
 
 (23) Martyr in Tuscany ; commemorated with 
 P'cstus, Dec. 21 {Idart. Rom. Vet.^ Hieron., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (24) Calybfta, a.d. 460 ; commemorated Jan.- 
 
 15 {Cal. Byzant.) [W. F. G.] 
 
 JONAH, the prophet; commemorated Mas- 
 karram 25 = Sept. 22 {Cal. EthiopC). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JONILTjA, martyr at Langres with Leonidas, 
 Speusippus, Elasippus, and Melasippus; comme¬ 
 morated Jan. 17 (Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 JORDAN, THE RIVER, in Art. The 
 repi eseutations of tlie river Jordan in early 
 Christian art, especially those sculptured on 
 sarco])hagi (Bottari, tav. xxix.), are generally 
 copied, with more or less exactness, from the 
 liver-gods of pagan antiquity. Thus we find 
 him personified as an old man with a crown 
 and sceptre of reeds, sometimes leaning upon an 
 urn from which flows a stream of water. He is 
 thus represented in the mosaic in the baptistery 
 of St. John in fonte at Ravenna, with the name 
 
 lOROANN, written over his head (Ciampini, Vet. 
 Mon. i. tav. Ixx., see woodcut); also in an illu¬ 
 mination in a copy of the Book of Judges, in the 
 \ atican. The same mythological type appears 
 again at Ravenna, in a mosaic in the church of 
 S. Maria inCosmedin; in this instance, however, 
 two horns are substituted for the crown of reeds 
 on the head of the figure (Id. ibid. II. tav. 
 xxiii.). 
 
 The .Jordan, simply as a stream, appears in 
 some sculptured representations of the translation 
 of Elijah (Bottari, ScuHure^ tav. Hi. 2), in a paint¬ 
 ing ot the baptism of the Lord in the cemetery 
 of Pontianus, in another fresco in the cemetery of 
 Callixtus (Bottari, Ixxii.), on a bronze medaliion 
 of the baptism of the Loi-d with the name of the 
 river below, iorda (Vettori. Num. Aer. explic. 
 frontisp.), in some bottoms of cups, where it Hows 
 at the feet of the Saviour (Buonarotti. tav. vi. 1), 
 and in various mosaics, that of SS. Cosmas and Da¬ 
 mian at Rome, for example, with the inscription 
 
 JOSEPH, ST. 
 
 lORDANES (Ciampini, Vet. Mon. tav. xvi.). See 
 Jesus Christ, p. 876. On some sarcophagi the 
 Lord appears seated, in the act of teaching, and, 
 at his feet, a half-length human figure holding 
 with both hands a piece of cloth, which inflated 
 by the wind, spreads above his head in the form 
 of an arcli. 'Phis has been supposed to be an¬ 
 other emblem of the river Jordan (Gavedoni, 
 Rayguol. crit. p. 50), on the banks of which 
 several of the Lord’s discourses were delivered. 
 But see Firmament. (Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. 
 Chr€t. s. V. ‘Jourdain.’) [C.j 
 
 JOSEPH. (1) Of Thessalonica, 8<noj Trarrjp 
 Kal biJ.o\oyr]T7}s commemorated July 13 {Cal. 
 Byzant.). 
 
 (2) Husband of the Virgin Mary; commemo¬ 
 rated Hamle 26 = July 20 {Cal. Ethiop.) 
 
 (3) Ab Alaverdi; commemorated Sept. 15 
 {Gal. Georg.). 
 
 (4) Patriarch of Alexandria, f849 A.D. ; com¬ 
 memorated Tekemt 23 = Oct. 20 {Cal. Etkiop.). 
 
 (5) The Just; commemorated July 20 {Mart. 
 
 Rorn. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOSEPH, ST. Early Christian art has left 
 us no work in which St. Joseph appears alone, 
 
 or even as a principal figure. In such subjects 
 as the Nativity, the Adoration of the Shepherds, 
 and of the Magi, and the finding of Jesus in the 
 Temple, he appears only as an accessory ; never 
 in an exalted, seldom even in a prominent, 
 position. 
 
 He is represented as a midille-aged uiaL, some¬ 
 times bald (Bottari, tav. Ixxxvi.), sometimes 
 with thick hair (Id. ixxxv.; Allegranza, Monum. 
 Sacr. di Milano, tav. iv.); he is generally robed 
 in tunic and pallium, and carries some car¬ 
 penter’s tool, as the distinctive mark of his 
 calling (Molanii^, de Hist. SS. Tniag. p. 269). 
 Thus in a diptych in i^lilan cathedral he is 
 represented with a saw (Bugati, Memor. di S. 
 Celso, p. 282), on the sarcophagus of Celsus, alsc 
 in Milan, he carries an adze (Bugati, «. s. p. 
 
JOSHUA 
 
 242), and wears the everyday costume of an 
 artisan. 
 
 In all these cases St. Joseph retains the un¬ 
 obtrusive position assigned to him in the gospel 
 naiTatives—always in the background, and ap¬ 
 parently full of earnest thought. He appears 
 absorbed in his duty as the protector of the 
 Holy Family; in an attitude of watchful love he 
 stands behind the Virgin while the Holy Child 
 sleeps upon her knees; sometimes his hand is 
 stretched over them in token of protection 
 (Ferret, vol. v. pi. xii.); sometimes, seated near 
 the cradle, he guards the slumbers of the Divine 
 Infant. 
 
 Bandini gives an ancient ivory (/« tahulam 
 ebuni. in fine; see woodcut), which shows two 
 scenes in the life of St. Joseph. Above, the dream; 
 an angel standing by a bed extends his arm over 
 the sleeper in the attitude of exhortation. Below, 
 we have the journey to Bethlehem : an angel 
 leads the ass on which the Virgin is seated; her 
 arm encircles Joseph’s neck, and his whole atti¬ 
 tude expresses the most reverent atlection. (Mar- 
 tigny. Diet, des Antiq. Chret. s. v.) [C.] 
 
 JOSHUA, the son of Nun ; commemorated 
 Se})t. 1 (Ca/. Byzant^\ Senne 25 = June 19 (Cal. 
 Ethiop.'). Also with Gideon. [W. F. G.] 
 
 JOURNEYING. All travellers and strangers 
 were expected to bring Commendatory Letters, 
 i.e. testimonials from their own bishop, and were 
 then admitted to communicate in the Eucharist. 
 Persons who had not provided themselves with 
 these, might share if they needed it, in the hos¬ 
 pitality provided by the churches and religious 
 houses, but were not admitted to communion. 
 This was to guard against the admission of ex¬ 
 communicated persons. The Apostolical Canons 
 order that if any person was received without 
 commendatory letters, and it afterwards ap¬ 
 peared that he was excommunicate, both the 
 receiver and received should be cast out of 
 communion (Ccm. xiii.). From an allusion in 
 the letters of Gregory the Great, we learn that 
 those who travelled by sea sometimes took the 
 reserved sacrament in both kinds with them in 
 the ship, so as not to be deprived of communion. 
 (Gregor. Dialog. III., c. 36, apud Baron, an. 404). 
 “ Peregrina Communio,” or the Communion of 
 Strangers, is a well-known phrase in Canons, 
 but is not well understood (Bingham, xvii. 3 ; 
 and Communion, Holy, p. 417). From the fifth 
 century downwards, these rules were of con¬ 
 tinual application, in consequence of the in¬ 
 creasing practice of going on pilgrimages. [Pil¬ 
 grimage.] [S. J. E.] 
 
 JOVINIANUS, the reader of Auxerre; Pas- 
 sio. May 5 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). [VV. F. G.] 
 
 JOVINUS, martyr at Rome with Basileus, 
 under Gallieuus and Valerianus ; commemorated 
 March 2 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 JO VITA. [Faustinus (1).] 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT. The .subjoined wood- 
 cut is taken from Assemani’s Catalogus Bibl. 
 Laurentianae, and represents one of the illumi¬ 
 nations ii'. the great MS. of Rabula, in that 
 collection. The subject is very rare in early 
 Christian art. The Betrayal of our Lord after¬ 
 wards became specially popular with painters; 
 
 JUDE THE APOSTI;E, ST. 591 
 
 but is not found that we are aware of (except 
 possibly in MSS.) within the limits of our jicriod 
 
 Martigny makes no mention of it, and Guene- 
 bault’s earliest example is of the 12th century. 
 
 [R. St. J. T.] 
 
 JUDE THE APOSTLE, ST., Legend and 
 Festival of. 
 
 1. Legend, ^c.—With the name of this apostle 
 considerable difficulties are associated; the ques¬ 
 tions as to the identity of Jude with Lebbaeus 
 and Thaddaeus, the identity of Jude the a}) 0 stle 
 with Judas the Lord’s brother, and, on the hypo¬ 
 thesis which distinguishes these two last, the 
 question as to which was the author of the ca¬ 
 nonical epistle. As to the first point, in spite of 
 some curious complications, we can hardly hesi¬ 
 tate to assume the identity of the three; it is 
 not conceivable that the Evangelists should have 
 actually varied in the lists of the Twelve. It 
 is not necessary to enter at length into thii 
 point here, as it will be found discussed in the 
 Dictionary of the Bible ; a few further re¬ 
 marks, however, may be made. The most pro¬ 
 minent tradition in connection with the name of 
 this apostle is the mission to Abgarus, king of 
 Edessa, to which we shall again refer. The case 
 is, however, complicated by the fact that some 
 writers describe this Thaddaeus as the apostle 
 {e.g. Jerome, Comm, in Matt. x. 4; vol. vii. pt; 1, 
 57, ed. Vallarsi; and the Acta I'haddaei, infra), 
 while others {e.g. Eusebius, IJist. Eccles. i. 13) 
 speak of him as one of the Seventy disciples, who 
 was sent to Edessa by the apostle Thomas. This 
 last writer introduces another difficulty by stat¬ 
 ing {1. c.) that the name of Thomas was really 
 Judas.* Yet another element of confusion has 
 been brought in by those who identify Lebbaeus 
 with Levi (cf. Origen contra Ce'sum, i. 62). Any 
 discussion, however, on these theories is quite 
 beyond our present province, and we shall there¬ 
 fore assume the identity of Ju<le, Lebbaeus, and 
 Thaddaeus; and in collecting the various notices 
 of Thaddaeus we shall include all as belonging to 
 the apostle, except those which distinctly refer 
 to him as one of the Seventy. As to the varying 
 forms of the traditions about Thaddaeus’s labours 
 and death, it is utterly impossible to say how 
 far they are to be viewed as distinctly conffict- 
 
 » In the Syriac Acts of Thoniiu:, published by Dr. 
 Wright, the name Thomas appears as a mere occasional 
 addition to Judas. See also Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 318. 
 
892 
 
 JUDE THE APOSTLE, ST., Legend and Festival of 
 
 ing legends, and how far they are to be explained 
 as referring to two different men. 
 
 We shall now proceed briefly to glance through 
 the various legends. The Martyrologium Hiero- 
 nymi speaks in its Prologue of St. Simon and 
 St. Jude having suffered together “in Susia, 
 civitate magna apud Persidem ” (Patrol, xxx. 
 451), though in the body of the work the 
 scene of the martyrdom is simply given as 
 “ alibi ” (lb. 495). The Martyrology of Bede 
 speaks of previous labours of St. Jude in Meso¬ 
 potamia (Patrol. xciv\ 184): so also the Western 
 Martyrologiesgenerally, see e.g. those of Wand- 
 albert (Patrol, cxxi. 616) and Usuard (Patrol. 
 cxxiv. 630). So also Isidore, who refers to la¬ 
 bours in Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Armenia (de 
 ortu et obitii Patrum, c. 78, Patrol. Ixxxiii. 453) 
 and Venantius Fortunatus (Carm. viii. 6; Patrol. 
 lxxxviii.270). Paulinus of Nola does indeed speak 
 of his labours among the Libyans (Pocrtia xix. 
 82 ; Patrol. Ixi. 514), but a mere unsupported 
 statement of this kind need not count for much.*^ 
 The account given by Nicephorus (Hist. Eccles. 
 ii. 40) varies somewhat, and, as will be seen, we 
 cannot account for the variation by refei-ring it 
 to the other Thaddaeus. The apostle i^ spoken 
 of as labouring in Judaea, Galilee, Samaria, Idu¬ 
 maea, Arabia, Syria, and Mesopotamia, finally 
 dying peaceably at Edessa; on his arrival at 
 which place he found that Thaddaeus, one of the 
 Seventy disciples, had beer there before him. 
 The Apocryphal Acts of Thaddaeus (infra) differ 
 again. According to these, Thaddaeus was a 
 native of Edessa, who was a disciple of St. John 
 the Baptist before he followed Christ. Abgarus, 
 king of Edessa, having been healed by a miracu¬ 
 lous portrait sent him by our Lord, is visited by 
 Thaddaeus after the Ascension. The apostle, 
 after making many converts, journeys to Amis 
 on the Tigris, and thence to Berytus in Phoenicia 
 where he apparently dies a natural death. 
 
 Syrian traditions almost universally distinguish 
 Thaddaeus, the apostle of Edessa, from St. Jude; 
 though, like Western authorities, they assign. 
 Mesopotamia to the latter as the sphere of his 
 labours; the former, however, whom they ordi¬ 
 narily name Adai, they maintain to be one of the 
 Seventy (see Assemani, Bibl. Orient, i. 318; iii. 
 part 1, 297, 302 ; from which last reference it 
 appears that practically the only exception to 
 the general character of the stream of Syrian 
 tradition is Jesujabus, bishop of Nisibis, with 
 whom Adai is the same as the apostle St. Jude: 
 —for the history of this Adai, see Op. cit. iii. 
 I art 2, pp. 8-13). 
 
 2. Festival. —As in the case of not a few others 
 of the apostles, there is a lack of evidence for 
 any early special commemoration of St. Jude; 
 and its absence from the earlier Sacramentaries, 
 as well as the fact that hardly any ancient 
 Homilies are extant for such a festival, points 
 in the same direction. In the West the comme- 
 
 b The Martyrologium Gellonense speaks of St. Jude’s 
 having been buried “ in Nerito .\rminiae urbe" (D’Achery, 
 Spicilegium, xiii. 390). This is probably a false reading 
 for “in Berytof' so Isidore (?.c.) “ in Beryto Armeniae.” 
 
 f ]\Iuratori (not. in loc.) tries to account for the discre¬ 
 pancy by supposing Libya to be the place of sepulture, 
 but not of death, but this is palpably over refining. 
 
 d Among the very few, we may note that of Nicetas 
 Paphlago {Patrol. Or. cv. 25-1); that once attributed to 
 Bede {Patrol, xciv. 489) is spurious. 
 
 moratioo of St. Jude has been joined with that 
 of St. Simon on October 28, but this combination 
 does not occur in Eastern calendars. The reason 
 for this association of the two names it is im¬ 
 possible to ascertain ; it may have been from the 
 belief that the two apostles were brothers, or 
 from the tradition of their having suffered mar¬ 
 tyrdom on the same day, but as in the parallel 
 case of St. Philip and St. James it is perfectly 
 useless to theorize. It may merely be remarked 
 that as regards the first of these theories, there 
 is no trace of such a combination of St. Peter 
 and St. Andrew, and but little of one of St. James 
 and St. John : as regards the latter, the tradition 
 can have been by no means a wide-spread one, 
 inasmuch as only the Western church comme¬ 
 morates the two apostles on the same day. 
 
 We have already remarked as to the absence 
 of this festival from the oldest liturgical authori¬ 
 ties. Thus we find no trace of it in the Leonine 
 or Gelasian Sacramentaries, in Mabillon’s Gal¬ 
 ilean liturgy, in Muratori’s Gregorian Sacra¬ 
 mentary and in the calendar of Fronto: nor is it 
 recognized in the Pontifical of Egbert, archbishop 
 of York (ob. 766 A.D.). it is found, however, in 
 the Gregorian Sacramentary as edited by Menard 
 (col. 137), where also a separate mass is pro¬ 
 vided for the A’igil. The vigil is also recognized 
 with the festival in DIenard’s Gregorian Anti- 
 ])honary (col. 711), and in the St. Gall MS. of 
 the Marty7'ologium Gellonense (D’Achfery, Spici- 
 legium, xiii. 427). A mass for the festival is given 
 in the Ambrosian liturgy, part of which is the 
 .same as that in the Gregorian (Pamelins, Liturgy. 
 ImU. i. 427); and in the Mozarabic missal, 
 where, however, it must be noticed that the 
 greater part of the service is borrowed from 
 that for another festiA*al, that for St. Peter and 
 St. Paul (Patrol. Ixxv. 888, where see Leslie’s 
 note: also for the form in the Mozarabic bre¬ 
 viary, see Patrol. Ixxxvi. 1236). The Comes 
 Hieronymi, as published by Pamelins (Liturgy. 
 Latt. ii. 53) gives an Old Testament lection [or 
 epistle] and gospel for the A'igil and the festival ; 
 Wisdom iii. 1 sqq., John xv. 1 sqq., and PkOmans 
 riii. 28 sqq., John xv. 17 sqq. 
 
 Besides the festival of October 28, it may be 
 noted that some Western calendars give other 
 commemorations of St. Simon and St. Jude: 
 thus the Martyrologium Hieronymi, as gi^'en by 
 D’Achfery from the Corbey MS., adds one on 
 July 1 (Patrol, xxx. 464), and Cue Martyrologium 
 Gellonense (jy'Xchhry, 405) two, on June 29 and 
 July 1. 
 
 In the Eastern church, as we have already said, 
 St. Jude is commemorated apart from St. Simon, 
 on June 19. There is also a festival on August 
 21 of Thaddaeus, whom we should assixme to be 
 the apostle of Edessa A'iewed as distinct from 
 St. Jude. Papebroch, however (hifra), evidently 
 refers both to the same St. Jude in his notes to 
 the Greek metrical Ephemcrides published by 
 him in the Acta Sanctorum (May, vol. i. pp. 
 xxxii. xl.). The notices here are — ivv^a uaX 
 SeKarg dvqaKei TouSas, and eiKoBi 
 
 TTpung QuSSalos ^loroio awfinri. In the Arme¬ 
 nian calendar we find commemorations of Thad¬ 
 daeus on July 20 and of Thaddaeus and Bartho¬ 
 lomew on November 30 (Neale, Eastern Churchy 
 Introd. pp. 800, 804). Whether, however, both 
 of these are to be referred to St. Jude we are 
 unable to say. We may refer lastly to the ca- 
 
JUDGE 
 
 JULIANUS 
 
 893 
 
 lendars of the Egyptian and Ethiopic churches 
 published by Ludolf (Fasie iS'am Ecclesiae Alex- 
 andrinac). Here we find “ Jude, Apostle,” com¬ 
 memorated by the former chui’ch on Jan. 26 and 
 May 10 (pp. 19, 28); and a commemoration by 
 both chui’ches of Thaddaeus on June 26 (p. 32), 
 and of the Translation of the body of Thaddaeus 
 on July 23 (p. 35). The last two are perhaps to 
 be referred to Thaddaeus viewed as external 
 to the Twelve. 
 
 3. Whether the apostle St. Jude is to be con¬ 
 sidered as the author of the canonical epistle 
 bearing the name of Jude, we do not discuss 
 here : reference may be made on this point to the 
 Digtionauy op thk Bible. But little pseudo¬ 
 nymous literature is connected with the name 
 of St. Jude; an apocryphal gospel bearing the 
 name of Thaddaeus is mentioned in some forms 
 of the records of the council held at Rome in 
 494 A.D. under the episcopate ofGelasius {Patrol. 
 lix. 162). It has been suggested, but does not 
 seem probable, that Thaddaci is a false reading for 
 Matthiae. There are also extant Acta Th iddaei, 
 of which the Greek text was first published by 
 Tischendorf {Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, pp. 
 261 sqq.). In this is contained the letter of Ab- 
 garus to our Lord in a somewhat different form 
 from that given by Eusebius. The Apostolic Consti¬ 
 tutions (viii. 25) give, in the name of “ Lebbaeus, 
 surnamed Thaddaeus,” the regulation as to the 
 order of widows in the church, and also as to 
 exorcists. Finally, we may refer for the legend¬ 
 ary history to the Historia Apostolica of the 
 Pseudo-Abdias (lib. vi.; Fabricius, Codex Pseude- 
 pigraphus Novi Testamenti,\. 591 sqq., ed. 1719). 
 In addition to works already cited, see also 
 August!, fJenkwUrdigheiten aus der Christliclien 
 Archdologie, vol. iii. pp. 206 sqq. Van Hecke 
 in the Acta Sanctorum (October, vol, xii. pp. 
 437 sqq.); Assemani, Kalendarium Ecclesiae Uni- 
 versae, vi. 432 sqq. [R. S,] 
 
 JUDGE. The early ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 was exercised without formality or strict adhe¬ 
 rence to legal rights and requirements, in a quasi- 
 paternal manner. [Compai-e Discipline.] No 
 special training was therefore required for it. 
 The bishop himself was the usual and ordinary ” 
 judge: and appeals from him went to the pro¬ 
 vincial synod or to the metropolitan, primate 
 or patriarch in person. [Appeal; Audientia 
 Episcopalis; Bishop, p. 236.] 
 
 The earliest officer of the bishop occupying in 
 any sense an independent position was the OECO- 
 NOMUS or treasurer. This office was often united 
 with that of the defensor or guardian and advo¬ 
 cate of the liberties of the church, who is spoken 
 of in the 2nd canon of the council of Chalcedon. 
 [Advocate of the Church.] Gothofredus (in 
 Cod. I. iii. 33. 2) says that the defen^ior became 
 in time a judge in small causes: and his office 
 is supposed by Ayliff’e {Parerg. 160) to have 
 been the original of the modern official or chan¬ 
 cellor. 
 
 The word ‘•official”, the technical word in 
 later times (as in the 12th century) for the 
 officer exercising coercive jurisdiction on behalf 
 of the bishop or metropolitan, is not used in this 
 sense in the Code or in the Novells. The word 
 indeed often occurs in them, but as the name 
 of a secular officer. 
 
 The 9th canon of the council of Chalcedon 
 
 speaks of arbitrators being chosen with the 
 bishop’s consent to determine civil controversies 
 between clerks, instead of the bishop. 
 
 The greater formality and style of the ecclesi¬ 
 astical courts grew up with the increase of juris¬ 
 diction over civil matters and with the appoint¬ 
 ment of “officials” in the 12th century. The 
 presence of a registrar to make solemn record 
 of the decrees of the court was first ordered in 
 the council of Lateran held under Innocent III. 
 A.D. 1215; though it was probably customary to 
 have a scribe or notary present at the formal 
 sittings of the courts for some time before this; 
 and we actually hear of notaries at the pseudo¬ 
 council of Ephesus, A.D. 449. Apparitors or 
 summoners to the bishop’s courts are spoken of 
 in the Code and Novells, where the fees to be 
 taken by them are specially regulated. 
 
 In what has been said as to the bishop being 
 the “ordinary” judge, it is not intended to 
 imply that he decided, at any rate grave cases, 
 alone, or without the advice and concurrence of 
 his clergy. 
 
 Similarly the metropolitan, even if he did not 
 convene the whole provincial synod, collected 
 some of the bishops of the province to assist him 
 in deciding the causes brought before him. In 
 some cases the canons or imperial laws speak of 
 the metropolitan, in others of the synod, as the 
 proper court. 
 
 The jurisdiction of abbots [Abbat] had hardly 
 grown up during the period of which we are 
 treating. They had at the utmost a sort of 
 parental authority subordinate to the bishop. 
 [Jurisdiction.] [W. G. F. P.] 
 
 JULIA. (1) Virgin, martyr in Corsica; 
 commemorated May 22 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi), 
 
 (2) [Florentius.] 
 
 (3) Virgin, martyr at Troyes ; commemorated 
 July 21 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr in Lusitania with Veneris.sima and 
 Maxima (<6.). 
 
 (5) Virgin, martyr at Augusta Eufratesia; 
 commemorated Oct. 7 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Virgin, martyr at Emerita (Merida) with 
 
 Eulalia; commemorated Dec. 10 {Mart. Adoni.s, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G,] 
 
 JULIANA. (1) Martyr “apud Augustanam 
 urbem ” with Quiriacus, Largio, Crescentianus, 
 Nimmia, and 20 others; commemorated Aug. 12 
 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Virgin, martyr at Cumae, in the time of 
 Maximinian ; commemorated Feb. 16 {Mart. Rom. 
 ^"et., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Martyr of Nicomedia, A.D. 299; comme¬ 
 morated Dec. 21 {Cal. Pyrant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JULIANUS. (1) Martyr with M aximinus 
 and Lucianus {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (2) and Basilissa, martyrs at Anlioch under 
 Diocletian and Maximian; commemorated Jan, 
 6 {Mart. Rom. Vet., llieron., Adonis, Usuardi) 
 Nov. 25 {Cal. Armen.). 
 
 (3) Martyr in Egypt with five others; com¬ 
 memorated Feb. 16 {Mart. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr in Africa witn Publius; comme¬ 
 morated Feb. 19 {Mart. Usuanli). 
 
894 
 
 JULITTA 
 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 (5) Martyr at Alexandria; commemorated 
 
 Feb. 27 Horn. Vet., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Bishop; deposition at Toledo, JIarch G 
 (^Mnrt. Usuardi). 
 
 (7) [Sympiiorosa.] 
 
 ( 8 ) Tarsensis, martyr ; commemorated .June 
 21 {Cal. liyzaat.'). 
 
 (9) Martyr at Damascus with Sabinus, Maxi¬ 
 mus, Macrobius, Cassius, Paula, and 10 others; 
 commemorated July 20 {MaH. Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (10) Martyr at Rome with Peter and 18 
 others ; commemorated Aug. 7 {Mart. Horn. Vet., 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (11) Saint in Syria; commemorated with 
 Macarius, Aug. 12 {Mart. Horn. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (12) Martyr at Clermont; commemorated 
 Aug. 28 {Mart. Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (13) Presbyter, martyr at Terracina with Cae- 
 sarius the deacon in the time of Claudius ; com¬ 
 memorated Nov. 1 {Mart. Horn. Vet., BeJae, 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (14) Patriarch of Alexandria, fA.D. 189 ; com¬ 
 memorated Magabit 8 n March 4 {Cal. Ethiop.). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 JULITTA or JULIETTA, martyr at An¬ 
 tioch with her sou Cyricus or Cyrillus, a.d. 296 ; 
 commemorated June 16 {Mart. Horn. Vet., i 
 Hieron., Adoni.s, Usuardi); Jan.21 {Cal. Armen.)-, 
 July 15 {Cal. Byzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JULIUS. (1) The pope, martyr under Con¬ 
 stantins: commemorated April VI {Mart. Horn. 
 Vet., Bedae, Hieron., Adonis, Usuardi, Cal. 
 Bucher.). 
 
 (2) [Felix (5) ] 
 
 (3) Senator, martyr at Rome under Commodus; 
 commemorated Aug. 19 {Mart. Horn. Uef., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (4) Martyr in Thrace ; commemorated Dec. 20 
 {Mart. Hieron., Usuardi). 
 
 (5) Martyr in Me.sia at Dorostorum; com¬ 
 memorated May 27 {Mart. Horn. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Martyr with Potamica, civ. Thagora ; com¬ 
 memorated Dec. 5 {Mart. Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JUNCA, COUNCIL OF {.luncense con¬ 
 cilium). Of Junca in Africa, a.d. 523 (see 
 AFPacAN Councils). A canon attributed to it 
 by F'errandus (n. 26) is to the effect that no 
 bishop may claim anything for himself in a 
 flock that is not his own (Mansi, viii. 633). 
 
 [E. S. Ff.] 
 
 JUNIA and Andronicus, apostles, (Rom. 
 xvi. 7) ; commemorated May 17 {Cal. B'/zont.). 
 
 [\V. F. G.] 
 
 JURISDICTION. Before the time of Con¬ 
 stantine the Great such jurisdiction as was ex¬ 
 ercised in the church must have been of a purely 
 spiritual character, and its sanctions must have 
 been purely spiritual.. Sinners were brought 
 before the tribunal of the bishop, who judged 
 and inflicted spiritual censures, and inflicted 
 them probably without appeal. 
 
 Upon the recognition by Constantine of. the 
 church as a collegium licitum, these spiritual 
 
 juagrnents and censures began to have an effe*.^ 
 of which the civil law could take cognizance, 
 and a civil effect was given to them. They were 
 also made use of to assist or sometimes even take 
 the place of the sanctions of the civil law. 
 
 In criminal causes where the accused was a 
 clerk, or in any way specially connected with 
 the performance of religious observances, there 
 was an early tendency to make the bishop the 
 judge, first in conjunction with the lay judge 
 and in time as the sole judge. Judging as a spi¬ 
 ritual judge over spiritual j^ersons, a confusion 
 aro.se between the sentences which he imposed in 
 execution of the discijdine of the Church, and 
 those which he imposed as a delegate of the 
 pow’er of the State and armed with the authority 
 of a criminal judge. The two matters are so 
 intertwined, that it will be convenient to discuss 
 together jurisdUrtion in spjiritual matters and 
 that over spiritual persons. 
 
 A second fountain of jurisdiction in the court.s 
 of the church was arbitration. Bishops were 
 encouraged by the Christian Emperors to arbi¬ 
 trate on moral grounds between Christians dis¬ 
 puting as to matters of right and property, and 
 the civil law gave a civil force to their judg¬ 
 ments. Where clerks were parties, the pro¬ 
 priety of a recourse to the tribunal of the bishop 
 was considered to be greater. Where a clerk 
 was defendant, his right to escape the annoyance 
 I of appearing before a .secular tribunal was paral¬ 
 leled to and strengthened by his privilege to be 
 tried by the bishop when defendant on a criminal 
 charge. Hence arose jurisdiction betxceen parties 
 generally. 
 
 Lastly, certain special matters of civil litiga¬ 
 tion began to be considered, irrespective of the 
 parties, as being peculiarly fit for the cognizance 
 of the ecclesiastical judge. Hence arose a juris¬ 
 diction over special civil causes. 
 
 Jurisdiction in spiritual matters and over spi¬ 
 ritual persons .—We have here first to consider 
 the difference between the forum internum and 
 the forum externum. The for mi internum was 
 the tribunal in which the bishop or sometimes 
 the priest decided on cases of conscience, gave 
 spiritual directions, and counselled with fatherly 
 authority' penitential discipline. The procedure 
 and the decision of this tribunal were not, except 
 in the cases where public jjenance was required, 
 necessarily known to any but the penitent and 
 his judge. The terror of conscience was the only 
 sanction, and there couM be no formal appeal. 
 But along with this forum the church from its 
 earliest time possessed also a forum externum 
 (see 1 Cor. v.; 1 Tim. i. 20). [Penitence.] 
 
 When the gravity of the ofteuce altered the 
 relation of the parties and converted the father 
 into the avenger, or made it necessary to prefer 
 the public weal of the community' to the indi¬ 
 vidual welfare, the sentences of deposition or 
 excommunication were inflicted. 
 
 These sentences on clerk or layman were in¬ 
 flicted by the bishop. They' were or ought to be 
 recognized by all other bishoi)s, and there was 
 originally' no aiipeal. The so-called Apostolical 
 Canons, though requiring the imposition of these 
 sentences in several cases, are silent as to the 
 procedure by' which they were to be inflicted. 
 The Nicene Canons for the first time provide a 
 limited right of appeal. 
 
 The 5th canon say's that clerics or lay people 
 
JURISDICTION 
 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 805 
 
 separ?.t»>d from communion by tbeir own bishop, 
 shall be held everywhere to be so separated ; but 
 that in order that no one should be expelled 
 from communion through a contentious or harsh 
 spirit of theiy bishoj), the occasion of their 
 expulsion shall be inquired into by the ])rovincial 
 synod, which is to be held for this purpose twice 
 a year. The decision of the synod is to be final. 
 It was not till considerably later, when, it does 
 not exactly appear, that further aj)peals were 
 allowed. [Appeal; Indulgence.] 
 
 The original discipline of the church had 
 made all crimes as importing sins the subjects cf 
 the penitential discipline oi’ the forum internum, 
 and by consequence in the graver and more 
 public cases, or where penitence was not shown, 
 of the foi’um externum. It became however 
 obviously impossible, as the church tribunals 
 took a more formal shape and as appeals came to 
 be allowed, that ordinary criminal off’ehces 
 against the laws of the state should be tried in 
 any fashion by the church courts; and hence a 
 division arose, whereby certain offences became 
 the subject of the almost exclusive jurisdiction 
 of the church courts, while on other offences 
 they were not allowed to sit in judgment. 
 
 Olfences of laymen subject to the jurisdiction 
 of the church courts were heresy (Van Espen 
 Jus Eccles. Univ. pars iii. tit. iv. cap. 2, and 
 the article Heresv), magic (can. 10, cans. 20, 
 q. 5), blasphemy, to be punished by bishop or 
 count according to the capitularies of the Frank 
 kings (lib. vi. cap. 101), and probably cases of 
 laying violent hands on clerks. It seems that 
 incest and incontineime were not distinctly 
 reckoned as offences over which the church had 
 coerch'e jurisdiction till late in the 9th or the 
 10th century, though they were of course sub¬ 
 ject to penitential disci])line [FORNICATION; 
 Harlot; Incest]. 
 
 Every oflence which when committed by a 
 layman subjected him to the jurisdiction of the 
 ecclesiastical court, subjected a fortiori a clerk. 
 
 But the subjection of clerks to the ecclesi¬ 
 astical tribunals was much wider than this. In 
 A.D. 376 a lav/ of Gratian and Valentinian is 
 said to have subjected clerks for small offences 
 or offences of an ecclesiastical nature to their 
 diocesan synod (L. 23, Cod. Theod. de Episcopis et 
 Clericis). But a special exception was made of 
 such offences as gave rise to a criminal action 
 before the ordinary or extraordinary judges or 
 the higher officials classed as the Illustrious. 
 So in A.D. 399, Arcadius and Honorius are 
 said (L. I. Cod. Thcod. De Eelnjione') to have 
 ordered causes relating to religion to be tried by 
 the bishoj)s, but questions which related to the 
 civil law to be tried according to the law (i.e. by 
 the lay judges). Bather stronger is an edict 
 attributed to V'alentinian Theodosius and Ar¬ 
 cadius (L. 3 Cod. The^d. de Episcop. Jud.) Van 
 Espen fJus Eccl. pars iii. tit. iii. cap. i.) cites a 
 constitution of Honoidus, A.D. 412 (L. 41, Cod. 
 Theod. de Episcop. et Cleric.) which would ap¬ 
 parently subject the clerk for all offences to the 
 bishop; but it is held that the words, though 
 vague and general, do not really refer to other 
 than ecclesiastical offences. 
 
 We come next to Justinian. The Code con¬ 
 tains an enumeration of the courts by which 
 an accused clerk is to be tried as follows; he is ' 
 to be tried before his bishop. If the bishop be j 
 
 “ suspected ” there is to be an appeal (or possibly 
 an original trial) before the metropolitan, if 
 his decision be not satisfactory, an appeal lies to 
 the provincial synod and thence to the patriarch, 
 whose judgment (subject to certain peculiar 
 rights in the patriarch of Constantinople) is to 
 be final. The law then proceeds as follows: 
 “As for these i)roceedings, if they relate to 
 ecclesiastical matters, we order that they be of 
 necessity tried only by the most religious bishops 
 or metropolitan-s, or by the sacred synods, or by 
 the most holy ))atriarchs. But if there is a con¬ 
 troversy as to civil matters, though we will 
 allow those who xvdsh it to bring the question 
 before the bishojis, yet we will not compel them, 
 since there are civil tribunals, if they prefer to 
 go to them, before which tribunals also criminal 
 proceedings can be had” (Cod. i. iv. 29). 
 
 This law seems to confuse civil and criminal 
 proceedings, and has a relation to both. The 
 83rd Novell is more precise. It recites a request 
 of Menas or Mennas, the patriarch of Constan- 
 tino].>le, and proceeds to confer certain })rivileges 
 upon clerks. The first relate to civil suits. As 
 to criminal causes, it enacts that where they 
 relate to secular matters they shall be tried 
 before the lay judge ; but before the lay judge 
 proceeds to execute the sentence, he shall allow 
 the bishop to depose or degrade his clerk. 
 Criminal causes relating to ecclesitsHcal matters 
 are to be tried by the bishop. The 123rd Novell 
 effected a further alteration (cap. xxi.) IMaking 
 the same reservations as to ecclesiastical causes, 
 it provides that a clerk accused of a secular 
 criminal offence shall be brought before the 
 bishop, who if he find him guilty shall depo.se 
 him ah honore et gradu, from his office and 
 order, and send him to the lay judge for secular 
 punishment; or he maybe brought before the 
 lay judge first, in which case the lay judge is to 
 transmit the evidences of his guilt to the bishop, 
 who is to depose him and send him back to the 
 lay judge for secular punishment. This Novell 
 extends to monks, deacone.sses, and nuns. 
 
 Van Espen (foe. cit.) quotes some canons of 
 the 6th century as going further in this resjiect, 
 and the capitularies of the Frank kings enact 
 that clerks shall not be judged by lay judges, but 
 by ecclesiastical ones (lib. i. cap. 38); and that no 
 one shall jiresume to accu.se a clerk, monk, or 
 nun before a lay judge (lib. v. caj). 378). 
 
 In England it is well known that the distinc¬ 
 tion between secular and ecclesiastical courts did 
 not exist during the Anglo-Saxon rule, the 
 sheriff and the bishop sitting side by side on the 
 same bench. 
 
 The punishments or censures inflicted by the 
 episcopal tribunals were at first mere acts of 
 penance, the discipline retaining its original 
 penitential character. So early indeed as the 
 'I’heodosian Code (L. 21 De Ilaereticis) a fine of 
 ten pounds of gold seems to have been imposed 
 on any clerk or bishop who was convicted of 
 heresy; but it does not appear whether this fine 
 was imposed by the ecclesiastical judge or by the 
 lay judge after sentence by the ecclesiastical 
 judge. [Fines, i>. 671.] 
 
 Seclusion in a monastery both for lavmen and 
 more especially for clerks and bi.shoj).s was an 
 earlier jiunishment. It seems to be mentioned 
 in the Epistles of St. Gregory (lib. 2 Ej/ist. 27, 40), 
 and in a canonical rule of about the year 816 as 
 
896 JURISDICTION 
 
 a substitute for scourging. [Imprisonment, p. 
 829.] 
 
 The 123rd Novell (cap. xi.) orders that any 
 bishop who has been by law expelled from his 
 see, yet returns to the city, shall be shut uj) in a 
 monastei'y. 
 
 Relegation or banishment from the city they 
 disturbed, or in which the public offence was 
 committed, seems to have been first used as an 
 ecclesiastical - punishment towards the close of 
 the period of which we are writing (see ICpist. of 
 St, Gregory, lib. 9, Ep. 60). It is very doubtful 
 though whether it was ever exercised in invitnm, 
 unless it was suj)ported by a special decree of 
 the civil authority. The bishops of lai’ge towns, 
 particularly Constantinople, were however often 
 armed with a power of sending back to their 
 own dioceses clerks disorderly tfequenting the 
 capital. 
 
 Scourging, as a means of penitential discipline, 
 is mentioned by St. Augustine fEpist. 133) and 
 St. Gregory (E/nst. lib. 2, Epist. 52, lib. 9, 
 Epist. 66) [Corporal Punishment]. It seems 
 to have been used by bishops with reference to 
 their younger clerks, and by abbots with refer¬ 
 ence to monks. In the canon law (can. 10, caus. 
 26, q. 5) an epistle of St. Gregory is quoted in 
 which he orders practisers of magic if they be 
 slaves to be scourged, if free men, to be secluded 
 till they are penitent. The 38th of the Apos¬ 
 tolical Canons orders that any bishop, priest, or 
 deacon, who endeavours to make himself feared 
 by scourging either sinners or men outside the 
 Christian community who have done wrong 
 shall be deposed. St. Paul requires as a qualifi¬ 
 cation of a bishop that he should be “ no 
 striker” (1 Tim. iii. 3). The 123rd Novell 
 (cap. xi.) forbids the bishop to beat any one with 
 his hands. 
 
 Besides these corporal punishments, the eccle¬ 
 siastical courts continued to administer and inflict 
 their old censures, now become also of worldly 
 import, of excommunication and deposition or 
 degradation. 
 
 So clearly was the distinction between these 
 last censures and matters of internal and 
 penitential discijdine now marked, that St. 
 Augustine seems to say that bishops cannot pro¬ 
 hibit any one from communicating unless the 
 jienitent has confessed his crime or been con¬ 
 victed by a secular or an ecclesiastical pxAge 
 “ nos a communione prohibere quenquam non pos- 
 sumus . . . nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in 
 aliquo sive saeculari sive ecclesiastico judicio 
 nominatum atque convictum ” fSertn. 351, § 10; 
 0pp. V. 1359, ed. Bened.). Conformably to this 
 the 123rd Novell (cap. xi.) forbids the excom¬ 
 munication of any one till after a full trial. 
 
 It should be saitl here that monks, who were 
 originally subject to their bishops like any other 
 laymen, were made in a special and further 
 degree subject to them by the council of Chalce- 
 don at the suggestion of the emperor Marcian 
 (Van Espen pars III. tit. xii. caj). 1). There 
 seems to have been no question of their exemp¬ 
 tion from episcopal authority till the 6th 
 century ; and even then the exemptions con¬ 
 ferred on them were not exemptions from 
 jurisdiction, but from despotic invasion of their 
 internal rights. 
 
 The abbot or dean exercised a subordinate 
 jurisdiction, such as remains now with our 
 
 . JURISDICTION 
 
 deans and chapters; and actual exemption from 
 their bishop’s authority sometimes was conferred 
 on monasteries. [Exemition of Mona.steries.] 
 
 The trial of bishops has been reserved for 
 separate mention. 
 
 It is first provided for in the Apostolical 
 Canons (can. 74). This is the more remarkable 
 as there are no provisions in these canons 
 regulating the trials of clergy or laity. 
 
 This canon provides that a bishop when 
 accused by credible persons shall be summoned 
 by other bishops (that is, the other bishops of 
 the province), to appear before them. If he 
 appears and confesses, or is convicted, his punish¬ 
 ment is to be decreed. If he does not appear, he 
 is to be summoned a second time personally by- 
 two bishops, and so if necessary a third time, 
 after which he is to be tried and condemned in 
 his absence. The 75th canon prevents heretics 
 from giving evidence against a bishop, and 
 requires the evidence of two witnesses. 
 
 The Nicene Canon (can. 5) as to the appeal of 
 clerks and laymen to the dioce.sau synod (quoted 
 p. 894 supra) has been held by many, notablv by 
 St. Augustine (.see Van Espen, pars III. tit. iii. 
 cap. 5) to relate also to the trial of bishops. 
 However this may be, the 6th canon of the 
 council of Constantinople undoubtedlv provides 
 for the trial of bishops. After refusing the 
 evidence of heretics, excommunicated persons and 
 persons accused of crimes, it proceeds to enact 
 that if any not disqualified person has any 
 ecclesiastical charge to prefer against a bishoj), 
 he shall bring it before the provincial synod. If 
 the synod cannot correct the crime, the bishops 
 thereof shall go before the greater synod of that 
 “diocese” (diocese is here used in the imperial 
 sense of a larger province, exarchate or j)atriar- 
 chate), but shall not bring their accusation till 
 they have submitted to undergo a like penalty, 
 if they are found calumniators. The decree is 
 to be then made by the greater synod, and there 
 is to be no apj)eal either to the emperor or to a 
 general council iVom it. 
 
 The 9th canon of the council of Chalcedoii 
 seems to relate primarily to civil suits. It orders 
 that any dispute between a clerk and a bishop 
 (whether his own bishop or not) shall be tried 
 by the provincial synod. If bishop or clei>k have 
 a dispute with the metropolitan, the trial should 
 be before the exarch of the diocese or the 
 emperor. 
 
 The 123rd Novell provides (cap. viii.) that 
 a bishop shall not, whether in a pecuniary (civil) 
 or criminal cause, be brought against his will 
 before any civil or military judge; and (cap. 
 xxii.) that disputes between bishops, whether 
 on ecclesiastical or other matters, shall be tried 
 in the first instance by the metropolitan and his 
 synod, with an appeal to the ])atriarch ; while 
 bishops accused of crimes are to be tried by 
 the metropolitan (apparently alone), fi’cm whom 
 an appeal lies first to the archbishop (that is 
 probably the primate or exarch or president of 
 the greater synod), and thence to the patriax’ch. 
 
 Jurisdiction between parties. —In the early days 
 of the church, when Christians formed a small 
 and separate society, it was natural and almost 
 necessary that disputes between them .should be 
 settled by arbitration within their own body, to 
 avoid the scandals to which references to heathen 
 judges might give rise. St. Raul expressly 
 
JURISDICTION 
 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 897 
 
 reprobates the practice of “ brother going to 
 law with brotlier, and that before the unbe¬ 
 lievers” (1 Cor. vi. 6). 
 
 The arbitrator chosen would naturally be the 
 bishop, and this appears to have been the case. 
 
 After the recognition of the church by Con¬ 
 stantine, provision was made for giving a legal 
 sanction to these arbitrations. Constantine 
 himself is said (Van Espen, pars III. tit. i. 
 cap. 2) to have allowed litigants to choose the 
 bishop instead of the lay judge, and to have 
 ordered effect to be given to the sentence of a 
 bishop so judging. A constitution of Arcadius 
 and Honorius is preserved in the Code (I. iv. 7) 
 allowing litigants to go before the bishop in 
 civil matters only and as before an arbitrator. 
 
 Another constitution of Honorius and Theodo¬ 
 sius (Cod. I. iv. 8) orders that the bishop’s 
 judgment shall be binding on all those who 
 have chosen him as judge, and shall have as 
 much force as a judgment of the praetorian 
 prefect, from whom there could be no appeal. 
 
 It appears that at this time Jews had the 
 privilege of trying their disputes if they pleased 
 before their rabbi or “ patriarch.” 
 
 Valentinian 111. allowed the same result to be 
 obtained by means of a previous formal “ com- 
 promissum ” or submission to arbitration. 
 
 None of these constitutions, however, in the 
 least degree compel the resort to the ecclesiastical 
 tribunal, unless the matter in question be of an 
 ecclesiastical nature, not even though the de¬ 
 fendant be a clerk. 
 
 So the emperor Marcian (Cod. I. iii. 2o) speaks 
 of an episcopal audience for clerks who are 
 sued at law, but gives the plaintiff the pow'er of 
 choosing the lay tribunal. 
 
 The 67th Novell makes provision for the mode 
 of trial, which is to be suniuiary. 
 
 There being the power of resorting to the arbi¬ 
 tration of the bishop, the church compelled by 
 threats of censure every clerk at least to resort 
 only to the tribunal of the bishop. Among other 
 canoai on this subject may be cited that of the 
 council of Chalcedon (can. 9) which orders that 
 any clerk who shall have a dispute with another 
 clerk shall not go before the secular tribunals, 
 but shall plead his cause first before his bishop, 
 or before such person, with the consent of the 
 bishop, as both parties shall choose to decide the 
 question. 
 
 The 9th canon of the 3rd council of Carthage 
 orders that any bishop, priest, deacon, or clerk, 
 who has a civil matter in dispute, and brings it 
 before the secular tribunals, shall lose all that 
 he gaii s by the sentence of the secular tribunal, 
 or shall he deprived of his office. Tnere are 
 also canons of the 4th council of Carthage to 
 the same effect. 
 
 The 79th Novell (cap. i.) gives the/or« ^rm- 
 legium for the first time. It provides that any 
 one having a cause with anv' of the venerable 
 
 V w 
 
 holy men (the monks) or the holy virgins, or 
 any women living in nunneries, shall go before 
 the bishop. The bishop is to send to the monas¬ 
 tery and to jirovide for the appearance of the 
 defendants before him, either by the intervention 
 of their abbots or of agents (?ts/ onsales') or 
 otherwise. He is then to try the cause ; which 
 is on no account to come before the secular 
 judges. 
 
 The 83rd Novel., which has been already 
 
 CHRIST. AJtT. 
 
 referred to,* extends the privileges. Au>' one 
 having a pecuniary cause against a clerk is to 
 go before the bishop,** who is to decide summa¬ 
 rily without writing. His sentence may, how¬ 
 ever, be put in writing. There is to be no 
 recourse to the civil tribunals; but the main 
 object of the Novell is to avoid long delays and 
 pleadings, rather than to change the tribunal 
 which is to adjudge. 
 
 The 123rd Novell puts the privilege on a firm 
 basis. Clerks, monk.s, deaconesses, nuns, and 
 ascetic women, are to be impleaded before the 
 bishop. The lay judge is to execute the bishop’s 
 sentence, if there is no appeal. But either of 
 the parties may appeal within ten days to the 
 local lay judge. If he decides in accordance 
 wMth the bishop’s judgment, the decision is 
 final. 
 
 If the lay judge decides contrary to the 
 bishop, his sentence may be appealed from in the 
 regular way of civil suits. 
 
 If the bishop delayed to hear or decide on the 
 cause, the plaintiff might go at once before the lay 
 judge. This Novell expressly reserves all cccle^ 
 siastical suits for the sole cognizance of the 
 bishop. 
 
 The capitularies of the Frank kings (lib. i. 
 cap. 28) ordered all disputes between clerks to 
 be settled by their bishop, and not by secular 
 judges: while another capitulary (lib. vi. 
 cap. 366) recites and enforces an edict, attributed 
 to Theodosius, declaring that the sentences of 
 the bishops, however declared, and apparently in 
 w'hatever causes, shall be ever hebl inviolate. 
 This edict was declared by Charlemagne to be 
 binding over all parts of his empire. 
 
 The object of these laws also seems to have been 
 to avoid pi'olixity of |)leadings, technicality of pro¬ 
 cedure, and long disputes, distracting holy men 
 from their proper avocations, I’ather than any 
 supposed impropriety of secular judges exercising 
 jurisdiction over clerks. 
 
 The constitution of the special court of his 
 bishop for the clerk or monk, seems to have been 
 considered by the secular authorities as a privi¬ 
 lege given to him, which he might waive, the 
 secular court having always the capacity to 
 exercise jurisdiction over him, if the privilegium 
 fori w'ere not set up. But the canons and 
 decrees of the councils and synods leave the 
 clerk no option, forbidding him to sue, or to 
 abstain from raising his privilege when sued, in 
 the lay court. 
 
 The secular authorities seem to have retained 
 nevertheless their view of this exemption as a 
 privilege and capable of waiver. Gothofred 
 (in Cod. I. iii. 33 and 51) cites a constitution of 
 the emperor Frederic ( apparently Frederic 11. ) 
 strongly denouncing any assertion of jurisdiction 
 by the lay judge in civil or criminal matters; 
 but yet allowing the clerk to waive his privilege 
 and submit to the jurisdiction. 
 
 The enn)eror Alexius Comnenus brought the 
 matter under the general rule ‘•‘■actor sequitur 
 forum rei” (Constit. Imp. 289, § 11). 
 
 Jurisdiction over special civil causes. —This is 
 mainly the outgrowth of a period later than 
 that j)rescribed for this work. 
 
 » Supra, p. 895. 
 
 I he text Seems m »ay “archbishop,’’ hut this must 
 be a mistake. 
 
898 
 
 JURISDICTION 
 
 JUVENALIS 
 
 The jurisdiction over testamentary causes did 
 not arise in W’^esterii Europe till the 12th 
 century. It appears to have arisen early in the 
 12th century in England; not till the end of 
 the 12tlv or beginning of the 13th century in 
 F ranee. 
 
 The only indication of testamentary jurisdic¬ 
 tion in Eastern or Western Europe during the 
 period of which we treat, a|)pears in the com¬ 
 mission given by the (Christian emperors to the 
 bishops, to take care that the wishes of the dead 
 should be faithfully performed. 
 
 Charlemagne especially intrusted the bishops 
 with the duty of protecting wards, widows, and 
 paupers, and of seeing that no wrong was don.e 
 to them. This led in time, but not during 
 our period, to a sort of jurisdictiou over all cases 
 where a member of one of these classes was 
 concerned. 
 
 Matrimonial causes, though infringements of 
 the marriage vow were probabl) treated of with 
 other matters of spiritual discipline, did not as 
 involving formal legal rights or questions of pro¬ 
 perty, fall to the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical 
 tribunals till the 11th century. 
 
 Suits relating to ecclesiastical matters are in 
 many of the Imperial Constitutions mentioned 
 as unquestionably matters for the bishop’s juris¬ 
 diction. The term “ ecclesiastical matters ” is 
 vague, and j)robably varied at different times; 
 but before the expiry of our period, causes 
 relating to tithes and offerings were probably 
 considej-ed as coming within its meaning. 
 
 \_Authorities referred to for this article .— 
 Corpus Juris Givilis, cum notis Gothofredi, ed. 
 Van Leeuwen, Amsterdam, 1633; Ayliffe, Parer- 
 gon Juris Canonici Anglicani, ed. London, 1734; 
 Van Espen, Jus Ecclesi (sticum Unkersum, pars 
 tertia; Commentarius in Canones; ed. Louvaine, 
 1753 ; Landon, Manual of Councils, 18+6 ; Philli- 
 move, Ecclesiastical Law, 1873.] [W. G. F. P.] 
 
 JUSTA. (1) [Fix>rextius (1).] 
 
 (2) Martyr in Spain, at Seville, with Rufina; 
 commemorated July 19 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JUSTINA, virgin, martyr with Cyprian, the 
 bishop; commemorated Sept. 26 {Mart. Rom. 
 Vet., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi); and Oct. 2 {Cal. 
 Bijzant.). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JUSTINUS. (1) The philosopher, martyr at 
 Pergamus with Carpus the bishop, Papirius the 
 deacon, and Agathonica, and many other women ; 
 commemorated April 13 {Mart. Rom. Vet, Adonis. 
 Usuardi); June 1 {Cal. Bgzant.). 
 
 (2) Martyr with companions, a.d. 142; com¬ 
 memorated June 1 {Cal. Byzant.; see Daniel’s 
 Codex, iv. 260). 
 
 (3) [Symphorosa.] 
 
 (4) Martyr in terra Parisiensi; commemorated* 
 Aug. 1 {Mart. Usuardi). 
 
 (6) Presbyter, martyr at Rome under Decius; 
 commemorated Sept. 7 {Mart. Rcnn. Vet., Adonis, 
 Usuardi). [W. F. G.] 
 
 JUSTUS. (1) [Felix (14).] 
 
 (2) Martyr in Spain at Complutum [Aixjala], 
 wdth Pastor his brother under Decius {Mart. 
 Adonis, Usuardi). 
 
 (3) Bishop of Lyons, “ Natalis,” Sept. 2 {Mart 
 Adonis, Usuardi): translation Oct. 14 (i6.). 
 
 (4) Martyr in terra Belvacensi (Beauvais); 
 commemorated Oct. 18 {Alart. Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 JUVENALIS. (1) Bishop, confessor at Rome 
 under Adrian; commemorated May 3 {Maid. 
 Usuardi). 
 
 (2) Martyr on the Island Pontia ; commemo¬ 
 rated May 7 {Mart. Rom. Vet., Usuardi). 
 
 [W. F. G.] 
 
 END OF VOL. L 
 
 !