xvi. 18 partly of the confession of Peter, partly of the Person

of Christ. First in the time of Cœlestine an attempt was made to refer it to the person of Peter. The legates of Cœlestine at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 had said: ὅστις, ἕως τοῦ νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ διαδόχοις καὶ ζῇ καὶ δικάζει. Thus they claimed universal primacy as of immediately Divine authority. Leo I. adopted this view with all his soul. In the most determined and persistent way he carried it out in the West; then next in proconsular Africa which had so energetically protested in the times of Innocent and Cœlestine against Romish pretensions. When news came to him of various improprieties spreading there, he sent a legate to investigate, and in consequence of his report addressed severe censures which were submitted to without opposition. The right of African clerics to appeal to Rome was also henceforth unchallenged. In Gaul, however, Leo had still to maintain a hard struggle with Hilary, archbishop of Arles, who, arrogating to himself the right of a primacy of Gaul, had deposed Celedonius, bishop of Besontio, _Besançon_. But Leo took up his case and had him vindicated and restored by a Roman Synod. Hilary, who came himself to Rome, defied the Pope, escaped threatened imprisonment by secret flight, and was then deprived of his metropolitan rights. At the same time, in A.D. 445, Leo obtained from the young Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., a civil enactment which made every sort of resistance to the divinely established universal primacy of the Roman see an act of high treason.--In the East, too, Leo gained a higher position than had ever before been accorded to Rome on account of his moderation in the Eutychian controversy (§ 52, 4). Once again was Rome called in to mediate between the two conflicting parties. At the Robber-Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, under the presidency of the tyrannical Dioscurus of Alexandria, the legates of Leo were not, indeed, allowed to speak. But at the next œcumenical Council at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 his doctrine won a brilliant victory; even here, however, much objection was raised to his hierarchical pretensions. He demanded from the first the presidency for his legates, which, however, was assigned not to them, but to the imperial commissioners. The demand, too, for the expulsion of Dioscurus from the Synod, because he dared _Synodum facere sine auctoritate sedis apostolicæ, quod mumquam licuit, numquem factum est_, did not, at first at least, receive the answer required. When, notwithstanding the opposition of the legates the question of the relative ranks of the patriarchs was dealt with, they withdrew from the session and subsequently protested against the 28th canon agreed upon at that session with a reference to the 6th Nicene canon which in the Roman _translation_, _i.e._ forgery, began with the words: _Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum_. But the Council sent the Acts with a dutiful report to Rome for confirmation, whereupon Leo strictly repudiated the 28th canon, threatening the church of Constantinople with excommunication, and so finally gained his point. The emperor annulled it in A.D. 454, and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was obliged to write a humble letter to Leo acquiescing in its erasure; but this did not prevent his successor from always maintaining its validity (§ 63, 2).--When the wild hordes of Attila, king of the Huns, spread terror and consternation by their approach, Leo’s priestly form appeared before him as a messenger of God, and saved Rome and Italy from destruction. Less successful was his priestly intercession with the Arian Vandal chief Genseric, whose army in A.D. 455 plundered, burnt and murdered throughout Rome for fourteen days; but all the more strikingly after his withdrawal did the pope’s ability display itself in restoring comfort and order amid scenes of unutterable destitution and confusion.

§ 46.8. =From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to A.D. 532.=--Under Leo’s second successor, the Rugian or Scyrrian Odoacer put an end to the West-Roman empire in A.D. 476 (§ 76, 6). As to the enactments of the Roman state, although himself an Arian, after seventeen years of a wise rule he left untouched the orthodox Roman church, and the Roman bishops could under him, as under his successor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric, also an Arian, from A.D. 493 to A.D. 526, more freely exercise their ecclesiastical functions than under the previous government, all the more as neither of these rulers resided in Rome but in Ravenna. =Pope Felix III.=, A.D. 483 to A.D. 492, in opposition to the Byzantine ecclesiastical policy, which by means of the imperial authority had for quite a hundred years retarded the development of the orthodox doctrine (§ 52, 5), began a schism lasting for thirty-five years between East and West, from A.D. 484 to A.D. 519, which no suspicion of disloyal combination with the Western rulers can account for. On the appointment of Felix III. Odoacer assumed the right of confirming all elections of Popes, just as previously the West Roman emperors had claimed, and Rome submitted without resistance. The Gothic kings, too, maintained this right.--=Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496 (comp. § 47, 22), ventured before the Emperor Anastasius I., in A.D. 493, to indicate the relation of _Sacerdotium_ and _Imperium_ according to the Roman conception, which already exhibits in its infant stage of development the mediæval theory of the two swords (§ 110, 1) and the favourite analogy of the sun and the moon (§ 96, 9). His peaceable successor =Anastasius II.=, A.D. 496 to A.D. 498, entered into negotiations for peace with the Byzantine court; but a number of Roman fanatics wished on this account to have him cast out of the communion of the church, and saw in his early death a judgment of heaven upon his conduct. He has ever since been regarded as a heretic, and as such even Dante consigns him to a place in hell. After his death there was a disputed election between =Symmachus=, A.D. 498 to A.D. 514, and Laurentius. The schism soon degenerated into the wildest civil war, in which blood was shed in the churches and in the streets. Theodoric decided for Symmachus as the choice of the majority and the first ordained, but his opponents then charged him before the king as guilty of the gravest crimes. To investigate the charges brought against the bishop the king now convened at Rome a Synod of all the Italian bishops, _Synodus palmaris_ of A.D. 502, so called from the porch of St. Peter’s Church adorned with palms, where it first met. As Symmachus on his way to it was met by a wild mob of his opponents and only narrowly escaped with his life, Theodoric insisted no longer on a regular proof of the charges against him. The bishops without any investigation freely proclaimed him their pope, and the deacon Eunodius of Pavia, known also as a hymn writer, commissioned by them to make an apology for their procedure, laid down the proposition that the pope who himself is judge over all, cannot be judged of any man. Bloody street fights between the two parties, however, still continued by day and night. Symmachus’ successor =Hormisdas=, A.D. 514 to A.D. 523, had the satisfaction of seeing the Byzantine court, in order to prepare the way for the winning back of Italy, seeking for reconciliation with the Western church, and in A.D. 519 submitting to the humbling conditions of restoration to church fellowship offered by the pope. A sharp edict of the West Roman emperor Justin II. against the Arians of his empire caused Theodoric to send an embassy in their favour to Constantinople, at the head of which stood =John I.=, A.D. 523 to A.D. 526, with a threat of reprisals. The pope, however, seems rather to have utilized his journey for intrigues against the Italian government of the Goths, for after his return Theodoric caused him to be cast into prison, in which he died. He was succeeded by =Felix IV.= A.D. 526 to A.D. 530, after whose death the election was again disputed by two rivals. This schism, however, was only of short duration, since Dioscurus, the choice of the majority, died during the next month. His rival =Boniface II.=, A.D. 530 to A.D. 532, a Goth by birth and favoured by the Ostrogoth government, applied himself with extreme severity to put down the opposing party.

§ 46.9. =From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to A.D. 590.=--Meanwhile Justinian I. had been raised to the Byzantine throne, and his long reign from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565, was in many ways a momentous one for the fortunes of the Roman bishopric. The reconquest of Italy, from A.D. 536 to A.D. 553, by his generals Belisarius and Narses, and the subsequent founding of the Exarchate at Ravenna in A.D. 567, at the head of which a representative of the emperor, a so-called Roman patrician stood, freed the pope indeed from the control of the Arian Ostrogoths which since the restoration of ecclesiastical fellowship with the East had become oppressive, but it brought them into a new and much more serious dependence. For Justinian and his successors demanded from the Roman bishops as well as from the patriarchs of Constantinople unconditional obedience.--=Agapetus I.=, A.D. 535 to A.D. 536, sent as peacemaker by the Goths to Constantinople, escaped the fate of John I. perhaps just because he suddenly died there. Under his successor =Silverius=, A.D. 536 to A.D. 537, Belisarius, in December, A.D. 536, made his entry into Rome, and in the March following he deposed the pope and sentenced him to banishment. This he did at the instigation of the Empress Theodora whose machinations in favour of Monophysitism had been already felt by Agapetus. Theodora had already designated the wretched =Vigilius=, A.D. 537 to A.D. 555, as his successor. He had purchased her favour by the promise of two hundred pounds of gold and acquiescence in the condemnation of the so-called _three chapters_ (§ 52, 6) so eagerly desired by her. Owing to his cowardliness and want of character Africa, North Italy and Illyria shook off their allegiance to the Roman see and maintained their independence for more than half a century. Terrified by this disaster he partly retracted his earlier agreement with the empress, and Justinian sent him into exile. He submitted unconditionally and was forgiven, but died before reaching Rome. =Pelagius I.=, A.D. 555 to A.D. 560, also a creature of Theodora, subscribed the agreement and so confirmed the Western schism which Gregory the Great first succeeded in overcoming.--The fantastic attempt of Justinian to raise his obscure birthplace Tauresium, the modern Bulgarian Achrida, to the rank of a metropolis as Justinianopolis or _Prima Justiniana_, and its bishop to the rank of patriarch with Eastern Illyria as his patriarchate, proved, notwithstanding the consent of Vigilius, a still-born child.

§ 46.10. =From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to A.D. 625.=--After the papal chair had been held by three insignificant popes in succession =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 to A.D. 604 (comp. § 47, 22), was raised to the Apostolic see, the greatest, most capable, noblest, most pious and most superstitious in the whole long series of popes. He took the helm of the church at a time when Italy was reduced to the most terrible destitution by the savage and ruthless devastations of the Arian Longobards lasting over twenty years (§ 76, 8), and neither the emperor nor his exarch at Ravenna had the means of affording help. Gregory could not allow Italy and the church to perish utterly under these desperate circumstances, and so was compelled to assume the functions of civil authority. When the Longobards in A.D. 593 oppressed Rome to the uttermost there remained nothing for him but to purchase their withdrawal with the treasures of the church, and the peace finally concluded with them in A.D. 599 was his and not the exarch’s work. The exceedingly rich possessions of lands and goods, the so-called _Patrimonium Petri_, extending throughout all Italy and the islands, brought him the authority of a powerful secular prince far beyond the bounds of the Roman duchy, in comparison with which the rank of the exarch himself was insignificant. The Longobards too treated with him as an independent political power. Gregory, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the first founder of the temporal power of the Papacy on Italian soil. But all this as we can easily understand provoked no small dislike of the pope at Constantinople. The pope, on the other hand, was angry with the Emperor Maurice because he gave no consideration to his demand that the patriarch, Johannes Jejunator, should be prohibited from assuming the title Ἐπίσκοπος οἰκουμενικός. Gregory’s own position in regard to the primacy appears from his Epistles. He writes to the bishop of Syracuse: _Si qua culpa in episcopis invenitur, nescio, quis Sedi apostolicæ subjectus non sit; cum vero culpa non existit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis æquales sunt_. And with this reservation it was certainly meant when he, in a letter to the patriarch of Alexandria, who had addressed him as “_Universalis Papa_,” most distinctly refused this title and readily conceded to the Alexandrian as well as to the Antiochean see, as of Petrine origin (the Antiochean directly, § 16, 1; the Alexandrian indirectly through Mark, § 16, 4), equal rank and dignity with that of Rome; and when he denounced as an anti-Christ every bishop who would raise himself above his fellow bishops. Thus he compared Johannes Jejunator to Lucifer who wished to exalt himself above all the angels. Gregory, on the other hand, in proud humility styled himself, as all subsequent popes have done, _Servus servorum Dei_. When he extolled the Frankish Jezebel Brunhilda [Brunehilda] (§ 77, 7), who had besought him to send her relics and at another time a pallium for a bishop, as an exemplary pious Christian woman and a wise ruler, he may, owing to the defective communication between Rome and Gaul, have had no authentic information about her doings and disposition. The memory of the otherwise noble-minded pope is more seriously affected by his conduct in reference to the emperor Phocas, A.D. 602 to A.D. 610, the murderer of the noble and just emperor Maurice, whom he congratulates upon his elevation to the throne, and makes all the angelic choirs of heaven and all tongues on earth break forth in jubilees and hymns of thanksgiving; but even here again, when he thus wrote, the news of his iniquities,--not only the slaughter of the emperor, but also of his queen, his five sons and three daughters, etc., by which this demon in human form cut his way to the throne,--may not have been known to him in their full extent.--Phocas, however, showed himself duly thankful, for at the request of pope =Boniface III.=, A.D. 606 to A.D. 607, he refused to allow the patriarch of Constantinople to assume the title of Universal bishop, while at the same time he formally acknowledged the chair of Peter at Rome as _Caput omnium ecclesiarum_. To the next pope =Boniface IV.=, A.D. 608 to A.D. 615, he presented the beautiful Pantheon at Rome, which from being a temple dedicated to Cybele, the mother of the gods, and to all the gods, he turned into a church of the mother of God and of all the martyrs.[132]

§ 46.11. =From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to A.D. 741.=--For almost fifty years, from A.D. 633 under =Honorius I.=, A.D. 625 to A.D. 638, the third successor of Boniface IV., the _Monothelite controversy_ (§ 52, 8) continued its disastrous course. Honorius, a pious and peace-loving man, had seen nothing objectionable in this attempt of the Emperor Heraclius (A.D. 611 to A.D. 641) to win the numerous Monophysites back to the unity of the church by the concession of _one_ will in the two natures of Christ, and was prepared to co-operate in the work. But the conviction grew more and more strong that the doctrine proposed in the interests of peace was itself heretical. All subsequent bishops of Rome therefore unanimously condemned as an accursed heresy (§ 52, 9), what their predecessor Honorius had agreed to and confessed. This explains how the exarch of Ravenna delayed for more than a year the confirmation of the election of the next pope, =Severinus=, A.D. 638 to A.D. 640, and granted it only in A.D. 640 as amends for his wholesale plundering of the treasury of the Roman church to supply his own financial deficiencies. In the time of =Martin I.=, A.D. 649 to A.D. 653, the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 642 to A.D. 668, sought to make an end of the bitter controversy by the strict prohibition of any statement as to one will or two wills. The determined pope had to suffer for his opposition by severe imprisonment and still more trying banishment, in which he suffered from hunger and other miseries (A.D. 655). The new emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668 to A.D. 685, finally recognised the indispensable necessity of securing reconciliation with the West. In A.D. 680, he convened an œcumenical Council at Constantinople at which the legates of the pope =Agatho=, A.D. 678 to A.D. 682, the fifth successor of Martin I., once more prescribed to the Greeks what should henceforth be regarded throughout the whole empire as the orthodox faith. The Council sent its Acts to Rome with the request that they might be confirmed, which Agatho’s successor, =Leo II.=, A.D. 682 to A.D. 683, did, notwithstanding the condemnation therein very pointedly expressed of the heretical pope Honorius, which indeed he explicitly approved.--Once again in A.D. 686, the Roman church was threatened with a schism by a double election to the papal chair. This, however, was averted by the opposing electors, lay and clerical, agreeing to set aside both candidates and uniting together in the election of the =Thracian Conon=, A.D. 686 to A.D. 687. Precisely the same thing happened with a similar result on the death of Conon. The new candidate whom both parties agreed upon this time was =Sergius I.=, A.D. 687 to A.D. 701, but he was obliged to purchase the exarch’s confirmation by a present of a hundred pounds of gold. His rejection of the conclusions of the second Trullan Council at Constantinople in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), which in various points disregarded the pretensions of Rome, brought him into conflict with the emperor Justinian II., A.D. 685 to A.D. 711. The result of this contest was to show that the power and authority of the pope in Italy were at this time greater than those of the emperor. When the emperor sent a high official to Rome with the order to bring the pope prisoner to Constantinople, almost the whole population of the exarchate gathered out in the pope’s defence. The Byzantine ambassador sought and obtained protection from the pope, under whose bed he crept, and was then allowed to quit Rome in safety, followed by the scorn and abuse of the people. Soon thereafter, in A.D. 695, Justinian was overthrown, and with slit ears and nose sent into exile. In A.D. 705, having been restored by the Bulgarian king, he immediately took fearful revenge upon the rebel inhabitants of Ravenna. Pope Constantine I., A.D. 708 to A.D. 715, intimidated by what he had seen, did not dare to refuse the imperial mandate which summoned him to Byzantium for the arrangement of ecclesiastical differences. With fear and trembling he embarked. But he succeeded in coming to an understanding with the emperor, who received and dismissed him with every token of respect. Under his successor, =Gregory II.=, A.D. 715 to A.D. 731, the Byzantine iconoclast controversy (§ 66, 1) gave occasion to an almost complete rupture between the papacy and the Byzantine empire; and under =Gregory III.=, A.D. 731 to A.D. 741, the papacy definitely withdrew from the Byzantine and put itself under the Frankish government. Down to the latest age of the exarchate of Ravenna the confirmation of papal elections by the emperor or his representative, the exarch, was always maintained, and only after it had been given was consecration allowed. This is proved both from the biographies of the papal books and from the relative formulæ of petition in the _Liber diurnus Rom. Pontificum_, a collection of formulæ for the performance of the most important acts in the service of the Romish Church made between A.D. 685 and A.D. 751. The election itself was in the hands of the three orders of the city (_clerus_, _exercitus_ and _populus_).--Continuation § 82.

III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.

§ 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED REPRESENTATIVES.

The Ancient Church reached its highest glory during the 4th and 5th centuries. The number of theological schools properly so-called (§ 45, 1) was indeed small, and so the most celebrated theologians were self-taught in theology. But all the greater must the intellectual resources of this age have been and all the more powerful the general striving after culture, when the outward means, helps and opportunities for obtaining scientific training were so few. The middle of the 5th century, marked by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, may be regarded as the turning point where the greatest height in theological science and in other ecclesiastical developments was reached, and from this point we may date the beginnings of decline. After this the spirit of independent research gradually disappeared from the Eastern as well as from the Western Church. Political oppression, hierarchical exclusiveness, narrowing monasticism and encroaching barbarism choked all free scientific effort, and the industry of compilers took the place of fresh youthful intellectual production. The authority of the older church teachers stood so high and was regarded as binding in so eminent a degree that at the Councils argument was carried on almost solely by means of quotations from the writings of those fathers who had been recognised as orthodox.

§ 47.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies:=

a. =In the 4th and 5th centuries.=--Since the time of the two Dionysiuses (§ 33, 7) the Alexandrian theology had been divided into two different directions which we may distinguish as the old and the new Alexandrian. =The Old Alexandrian School= held by the subordinationist view of Origen and strove to keep open to scientific research as wide a field as possible. Its representatives showed deep reverence for Origen but avoided his more eccentric speculations. Its latest offshoot was the _Semiarianism_ with which it came to an end in the middle of the 4th century. This same free scientific tendency in theology was yet more decidedly shown in =the Antiochean School=. Although at first animated by the spirit which Origen had introduced into theology, its further development was a thoroughly independent one, departing from its original in many particulars. To the allegorical method of interpretation of the Origenist school it opposed the natural grammatico-historical interpretation, to its mystical speculation, clear positive thinking. Inquiry into the simple literal sense of holy scripture and the founding of a purely biblical theology were its tasks. Averse to all mysteries, it strove after a positive, rational conception of Christianity and after a construction of dogma by means of clear logical thought. Hence its dogmatic aim was pre-eminently the careful distinguishing of the divine and human in Christ and in Christianity, forming a conception of each by itself and securing especially in both due recognition of the human. The theology of the national =East-Syrian Church=, far more than that of the Antiochean or Græco-Syrian, was essentially bound down by tradition. It had its seminaries in the theological schools of Nisibis and Edessa. The oriental spirit was here displayed in an unrestricted manner; also a tendency to theosophy, mysticism and asceticism, a special productiveness in developing forms of worship and constitution, and withal doctrinal stability. In their exegesis the members of this school co-operated with the Antiocheans, though not so decidedly, in opposing the arbitrary allegorizing of the Origenist school, but their exegetical activity was not, as with the Antiocheans, scientific and critical but rather practical and homiletical. =The New Alexandrian School= was the prevailing one for the 4th century so far as Alexandrian culture was concerned. Its older representatives, at least, continued devotedly attached to Origen and favourable to the speculative treatment of Christian doctrine introduced by him. But they avoided his unscriptural extravagances and carried out consistently the ecclesiastical elements of his doctrine. By a firm acceptance of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son they overcame the subordinationism of their master, and in this broke away from the old Alexandrian school and came into closer relations to the theology of the Western church. To the Antiochean school, however, they were directly opposed in respect of the delight they took in the mysteries of Christianity, and their disinclination to allow the reason to rule in theology. The union of the divine and human in Christ and in Christianity seemed to them a sublime, incomprehensible mystery, any attempt to resolve it being regarded as alike useless and profane. But in this way the human element became more and more lost to view and became absorbed in the divine. They energetically affirmed the inseparable union of the two, but thereby lost the consciousness of their distinctness and fell into the contrary error of Antiochean onesidedness. With Cyril of Alexandria the New Alexandrian school properly began to assume the form of a sect and to show symptoms of decay, although he himself retained the reputation of an orthodox teacher. =The Western Theology= of this period, as well as its North-African precursor (§ 31, 10, 11), energetically insisted upon the application of Christianity to the life, the development of the doctrines affecting this matter and the maintenance of the church system of doctrine as a strong protection against all wilfulness in doctrine. In it therefore the traditional theology finds its chief home. Still the points of contact with the East were so many and so vital that however much inclined to stability the West might be, it could not altogether remain unmoved and without enrichment from the theological movements of the age. Thus we distinguish in the West four different but variously inter-connected tendencies. First of all there is the genuinely _Western_, which is separated on the one hand in Tertullian and Cyprian, but on the other hand is variously influenced by the talented teachers of the New Alexandrian School, which continued to mould and dominate the cultured theology of the West. Its chief representatives are Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and above all, Augustine, who completely freed the Latin theology from its hitherto prevailing dependence on the Greek, placing it now upon its own feet. The representatives of this tendency were at first in complete accord with the members of the New Alexandrian school in their opposition to the semi-Arian Origenists and the Nestorianizing Antiocheans, but then as that school itself drifted into the position of a heretical sect, they also decidedly contended for the other side of the truth which the Antiochean school maintained. A second group of Western theologians were inspired by the writings of Origen, without, however, abandoning the characteristics of the Western spirit. To this class belongs Jerome, who afterwards repudiated his master and joined the previously named school, and Rufinus. The third group of Pelagians represent the practical but cool rationalistic tendency of the West. The fourth is that of the semi-Pelagians who in the Western theology intermingle synergistic elements of an Antiochean complexion.

b. =Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=--The brilliant period of theological literature had now closed. There still were scholars who wrought laboriously upon the original contributions of the fathers, and reproduced the thoughts of their predecessors in a new shape suited to the needs of the time, but spirit and life, creative power and original productivity had well nigh disappeared. After the monophysite Johannes Philoponus of Alexandria had commented on the works of Aristotle and applied their categories to theology, the Platonic philosophy, hitherto on account of its ideal contents the favourite of all philosophizing church fathers, was more and more set aside by the philosophy of the Stagirite so richly developed on the formal side. The theology of the Greeks even at so early a date assumed to some extent the character of Scholasticism. Alongside of it, however, we have a theosophic mysticism which reverting from the tendency that had lately come into vogue to Neoplatonic ideas, drew its chief inspiration from the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. In the West, in addition to the general causes of decay, we have also the sufferings of the times amid the tumult of the migration of the nations. In Italy Boëthius and Cassiodorus won for themselves imperishable renown as the fosterers of classical and patristic studies in an age when these were in danger of being utterly forgotten. The series of Latin church fathers in the strict sense ends with Gregory the Great; that of Greek church fathers with Johannes Damascenus.

1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

§ 47.2. =The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old Alexandrian School= is the father of Church History =Eusebius Pamphili=, _i.e._, the friend of Pamphilus (§ 31, 6), bishop of Cæsarea from A.D. 314 to A.D. 340. The favour of the emperor Constantine laid the imperial archives open to him for his historical studies. By his unwearied diligence as an investigator and collector he far excels all the church teachers of his age in comprehensive learning, to which we owe a great multitude of precious extracts from long lost writings of pagan and Christian antiquity. His style is jejune, dry and clumsy, sometimes bombastic. His =Historical Writings= supported on all sides by diligent research, want system and regularity, and suffer from disproportionate treatment and distribution of the material. To his Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία in 10 bks., reaching down to A.D. 324, he adds a highly-coloured biography of Constantine in 4 bks., which is in some respects a continuation of his history; and to it, again, he adds a fawning panegyric on the emperor.--At a later date he wrote an account of the Martyrs of Palestine during the Diocletian persecution which was afterwards added as an appendix to the 8th bk. of the History. A collection of old martyrologies, three bks. on the life of Pamphilus, and a treatise on the origin, celebration and history of the Easter festival, have all been lost. Of great value, especially for the synchronizing of biblical and profane history, was his diligently compiled Chronicle, Παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία, similar to that of Julius Africanus (§ 31, 3), an abstract of universal history reaching down to A.D. 352, to which chronological and synchronistic tables were added as a second part. The Greek original has been lost, but Jerome translated it into Latin, with arbitrary alterations, and carried it down to A.D. 378.--The =Apologetical Writings= take the second place in importance. Still extant are the two closely-connected works: _Præparatio Evangelica_, Εὐαγγελικὴ προπαρασκευή, in 15 bks., and the _Demonstratio Evangelica_, Εὐαγγελικὴ ἀπόδειξις, in 8 out of an original of 20 bks. The former proves the absurdity of heathenism; the latter, the truth and excellence of Christianity. A condensed reproduction of the contents and text of the Θεοφανεία in 5 bks. is found only in a Syriac translation. The Ἐκλογαὶ προφητικαί in 4 bks., of which only a portion is extant, expounds the Old Testament in an allegorizing fashion for apologetic purposes; and the treatise against Hierocles (§ 23, 3) contests his comparison of Christ with Apollonius of Tyana. A treatise in 30 bks. against Porphyry, and some other apologetical works are lost.--His =Dogmatic Writings= are of far less value. These treatises--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου, in 2 bks., the one already named against Hierocles, and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας, also against Marcellus (§ 50, 2)--are given as an Appendix in the editions of the _Demonstratio Evangelica_. On his share in Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, see § 31, 6; and on his Ep. to the Princess Constantia, see § 57, 4. The weakness of his dogmatic productions was caused by his vacillating and mediating position in the Arian controversy, where he was the mouthpiece of the moderate semi-Arians (§ 50, 1, 3), and this again was due to his want of speculative capacity and dogmatic culture.--Of his =Exegetical Writings= the Commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms are the most complete, but of the others we have only fragments. We have, however, his Τοπικά in the Latin translation of Jerome: _De Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraeorum_.[133]

§ 47.3. =Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.=

a. The most conspicuous figure in the church history of the 4th century is =Athanasius=, styled by an admiring posterity _Pater orthodoxiæ_. He was indeed every inch of him a church father, and the history of his life is the history of the church of his times. His life was full of heroic conflict. Unswervingly faithful, he was powerful and wise in building up the church; great in defeat, great in victory. His was a life in which insight, will and action, earnestness, force and gentleness, science and faith, blended in most perfect harmony. In A.D. 319 he was a deacon in Alexandria. His bishop Alexander soon discovered the eminent gifts of the young man and took him with him to the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325, where he began the battle of his life. Soon thereafter, in A.D. 328, Alexander died and Athanasius became his successor. He was bishop for forty-five years, but was five times driven into exile. He spent about twenty years in banishment, mostly in the West, and died in A.D. 373. His writings are for the most part devoted to controversy against the Arians (§ 50, 6); but he also contested Apollinarianism (§ 52, 1), and vindicated Christianity against the attacks of the heathens in the pre-Arian treatise in two bks. _Contra Gentes_, Κατὰ Ἑλλήνων, the first bk. of which argues against heathenism, while the second expounds the necessity of the incarnation of God in Christ. For a knowledge of his life and pastoral activity the _Librî paschales_, Festal letters (§ 56, 3), are of great value.[134] Of less importance are his exegetical, allegorical writings on the Psalms. His dogmatic, apologetical and polemical works are all characterized by sharp dialectic and profound speculation, and afford a great abundance of brilliant thoughts, skilful arguments and discussions on fundamental points in a style as clear as it is eloquent; but we often miss systematic arrangement of the material, and they suffer from frequent repetition of the same fundamental thoughts, defects which, from the circumstances of their composition, amid the hot combats of his much agitated life, may very easily be understood and excused.[135]

§ 47.4. =(The Three Great Cappadocians.)=--

b. =Basil the Great=, bishop of his native city of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, is in very deed a “kingly” figure in church history. His mother Emmelia and his grandmother Macrina early instilled pious feelings into his youthful breast. Studying at Athens, a friendship founded on love to the church and science soon sprang up between him and his likeminded countryman Gregory Nazianzen, and somewhat later his own brother Gregory of Nyssa became an equally attached member of the fraternity. After he had visited the most celebrated ascetics in Syria, Palestine and Egypt, he continued long to live in solitude as an ascetic, distributed his property among the poor, and became presbyter in A.D. 364, bishop in A.D. 370. He died in A.D. 379. The whole rich life of the man breathed of the faith that overcometh the world, of self-denying love and noble purpose. He gave the whole powers of his mind to the holding together of the Catholic church in the East during the violent persecution of the Arian Valens. The most beautiful testimony to his noble character was the magnificent Basil institute, a hospital in Cæsarea, to which he, while himself living in the humblest manner, devoted all his rich revenues. His writings, too, entitle Basil to a place among the most distinguished church fathers. They afford evidence of rich classical culture as well as of profound knowledge of Scripture and of human nature, and are vigorous in expression, beautiful and pictorial in style. In exegesis he follows the allegorical method. Among his dogmatic writings the following are the most important: Ll. 5 _Adv. Eunomium_ (§ 50, 3) and _De Spiritu s. ad Amphilochium_ against the Pneumatomachians (§ 50, 5). The other writings bearing his name comprise 365 Epistles, moral and ascetic tractates, Homilies on the Hexæmeron and 13 Psalms, and Discourses (among them, Πρὸς τοὺς νέους, ὁπως ἂν ἐξ ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων), a larger and a short Monastic rule, and a Liturgy.[136]

c. =Gregory Nazianzen= was born in the Cappadocian village Arianz. His father Gregory, in his earlier days a Hypsistarian (§ 42, 6), but converted by his pious wife Nonna, became bishop of Nazianzum [Nazianzen]. The son, after completing his studies in Cæsarea, Alexandria and Athens, spent some years with Basil in his cloister in Pontus, but, when his father allowed himself to be prevailed upon to sign an Arianizing confession, he hasted to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], induced him to retract, and was there and then suddenly and against his will ordained by him a presbyter in A.D. 361. From that time, always vacillating between the desire for a quiet contemplative ascetic life and the impulse toward ecclesiastical official activity, easily attracted and repelled, not without ambition, and so sometimes irritable and out of humour, he led a very changeful life, which prevented him succeeding in one definite calling. Basil transferred to him the little bishopric of Sasima; but Gregory fled thence into the wilderness to escape the ill-feelings stirred up against him. He was also for a long time assistant to his father in the bishopric of Nazianzum [Nazianzen]. He withdrew, however, in A.D. 375, when the congregation in spite of his refusal appointed him successor to his father. Then the small, forsaken company of Nicene believers in Constantinople called him to be their pastor. He accepted the call in A.D. 379, and delivered here in a private chapel, which he designated by the significant name of Anastasia, his celebrated five discourses on the divinity of the Logos, which won for him the honourable title of ὁ θεόλογος. He was called thence by Theodosius the Great in A.D. 380 to be patriarch of the capital, and had assigned to him the presidency of the Synod of Constantinople in A.D. 381. But the malice of his enemies forced him to resign. He returned now to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], administered for several years the bishopric there, and died in A.D. 390 in rural retirement, without having fully realised the motto of his life: Πράξις ἐπίβασις θεωρίας. His writings consist of 45 Discourses, 242 Epistles, and several poems (§ 48, 5). After the 5 λόγοι θεολογικοί and the Λόγος περὶ φυγῆς (a justification of his flight from Nazianzum [Nazianzen] by a representation of the eminence and responsibility of the priesthood), the most celebrated are two philippics, Λόγοι στηλιτευτικοί (στηλίτευσις=the mark branded on one at the public pillory), _Invectivæ in Julianum Imperatorem_, occasioned by Julian’s attempt to deprive the Christians of the means of classical culture.[137]

d. =Gregory of Nyssa= was the younger brother of Basil. In philosophical gifts and scientific culture he excelled his two elder friends. His theological views too were rooted more deeply than theirs in those of Origen. But in zeal in controverting Arianism he was not a whit behind them, and his reputation among contemporaries and posterity is scarcely less than theirs. Basil ordained him bishop of Nyssa in A.D. 371, and thus, not without resistance, took him away from the office of a teacher of eloquence. The Arians, however, drove him from his bishopric, to which he was restored only after the death of the Emperor Valens. He died in A.D. 394. He took his share in the theological controversies of his times and wrote against Eunomius and Apollinaris. His dogmatic treatises are full of profound and brilliant thoughts, and especially the Λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὁ μέγας, an instruction how to win over Jews and Gentiles to the truth of Christianity; Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἀναστάσεως, conversations between him and his sister Macrina after the death of their brother Basil, one of his most brilliant works; Κατὰ εἱμαρμένης, against the fatalistic theory of the world of paganism; Πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοίων, for the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity on principles of reason. In his numerous exegetical writings he follows the allegorical method in the brilliant style of Origen. We also have from him some ascetical tracts, several sermons and 26 Epistles.

§ 47.5.

e. =Apollinaris=, called the Younger, to distinguish him from his father of the same name, was a contemporary of Athanasius, and bishop of Laodicea. He died in A.D. 390. A fine classical scholar and endowed with rich poetic gifts, he distinguished himself as a defender of Christianity against the attacks of the heathen philosopher Porphyry (§ 23, 3) and also as a brilliant controversialist against the Arians; but he too went astray when alongside of the trinitarian question he introduced those Christological speculations that are now known by his name (§ 52, 1). That we have others of his writings besides the quotations found in the treatises of his opponents, is owing to the circumstance that several of them were put into circulation by his adherents under good orthodox names in order to get impressed upon the views developed therein the stamp of orthodoxy. The chief of these is Ἡ κατὰ μέρος (_i.e._ developed bit by bit) πίστις, which has come down to us under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus (§ 31, 6). Theodoret quotes passages from it and assigns them to Apollinaris, and its contents too are in harmony with this view. So too with the tract Περὶ τῆς σαρκώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, _De Incarnatione Verbi_, ascribed to Athanasius, which a scholar of Apollinaris, named Polemon, with undoubted accuracy ascribed to his teacher. That Cyril of Alexandria ascribes this last-named tract to Athanasius may be taken as proof of the readiness of the Monophysites and their precursor Cyril to pass off the false as genuine (§ 52, 2). To Apollinaris belong also an Epistle to Dionysius attributed to Julius, bishop of Rome (§ 50, 2) and a tract, attributed to the same, Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ἑνότητος τοῦ σώματος πρὸς τὴν θεότητα, which were also assigned to Apollinaris by his own scholars. Finally, the Pseudo-Justin Ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως ἤτοι περὶ τριάδος seems to be a reproduction of a treatise of Apollinaris’ Περὶ τριάδος, supposed to be lost, enlarged with clumsy additions and palmed off in this form under the venerated name of Justin Martyr.

f. =Didymus the Blind= lost his sight when four years of age, but succeeded in making wonderful attainments in learning. He was for fifty years Catechist in Alexandria, and as such the last brilliant star in the catechetical school. He died in A.D. 395. An enthusiastic admirer of Origen, he also shared many of his eccentric views, _e.g._ Apocatastasis, pre-existence of the soul, etc. But also in consequence of the theological controversies of the times he gave to his theology a decidedly ecclesiastical turn. His writings were numerous; but only a few have been preserved. His book _De Spiritu S._ is still extant in a Latin translation of Jerome; his controversial tract against the Manichæans is known only from fragments. His chief work _De S. Trinitate_, Περὶ τριάδος, in 3 bks., in which he showed himself a vigorous defender of the Nicene Creed, was brought to light in the 18th century. A commentary on the Περὶ ἀρχῶν of Origen now lost, was condemned at the second Council of Nicæa in A.D. 787.

§ 47.6.

g. =Macarius Magnes=, bishop of Magnesia in Asia Minor about A.D. 403, under the title Μονογενὴς ἢ Ἀποκριτικός, etc., wrote an apology for Christianity in 5 bks., only recovered in A.D. 1867, which takes the form of an account of a disputation with a heathen philosopher. Doctrinally it has a strong resemblance to the works of Gregory of Nyssa. The material assigned to the opponent is probably taken from the controversial tract of Porphyry (§ 23, 3).

h. =Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria=, was the nephew, protegé and, from A.D. 412, also the successor of Theophilus (§ 51, 3). The zealous and violent temper of the uncle was not without an injurious influence upon the character of the nephew. At the _Synodus ad Quercum_ in A.D. 403, he voted for the condemnation of Chrysostom, but subsequently, on further consideration, he again of his own accord entered upon the _diptyche_ (§ 59, 6) of the Alexandrian church the name of the disgracefully persecuted man. In order to revenge himself upon the Jews by whom in a popular tumult Christian blood had been shed, he came down upon them at the head of a mob, drove them out of the city and destroyed their houses. He also bears no small share of the odium of the horrible murder of the noble Hypatia (§ 42, 4). He shows himself equally passionate and malevolent in the contest with the Nestorians and the Antiocheans (§ 52, 3), and to this controversy many of his treatises, as well as 87 epistles, are almost entirely devoted. The most important of his writings is Πρὸς τὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀθέοις Ἰουλιανοῦ (§ 42, 5). He systematically developed in almost scholastic fashion the dogma of the Trinity in his _Thesaurus de S. Consubstantiali Trinitate_; and in a briefer and more popular form, in two short tracts. As a preacher he was held in so high esteem, that, as Gennadius relates, Greek bishops learnt his homilies by heart and gave them to their congregations instead of compositions of their own. His 30 Λόγοι ἑορταστικοί, _Homiliæ paschales_, delivered at the Easter festivals observed in Alexandria (§ 56, 3), in unctuous language expatiate upon the burning questions of the day, mostly polemical against Jews, heathens, Arians and Nestorians. His commentaries on the books of the Old and New Testaments illustrate the extreme arbitrariness of the typical-allegorical method.[138] The treatise Περὶ τῆς ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνήσεως gives a typical exposition of the ceremonial law of Moses, and his Γλαφυρά contain “ornate and elegant,” _i.e._ typical-allegorical, expositions of selected passages from the Pentateuch.

i. =Isidore of Pelusium=, priest and abbot of a monastery at Pelusium in Egypt, who died about A.D. 450, was one of the noblest, most gifted and liberal representatives of monasticism of his own and of all times. A warm supporter of the new Alexandrian system of doctrine but also conciliatory and moderate in his treatment of the persons of opponents, while firm and decided in regard to the subject in debate, he most urgently entreats Cyril to moderation. His writings _Contra Gentiles_ and _Contra Fatum_ are lost; but his still extant 2,012 Epistles in 5 bks. afford a striking evidence of the richness of his intellect and of his culture, as well as of the great esteem in which he was held and of his far-reaching influence. His exegesis, too, which always inclines to a simple literal sense, is of far greater importance than that of the other Alexandrians.

§ 47.7. (=Mystics and Philosophers.=)

k. =Macarius the Great or the Elder=, monk and priest in the Scetic desert, was exiled by the Arian Emperor Valens on account of his zeal for Nicene orthodoxy. He died in A.D. 391. From his writings, consisting of 50 Homilies, a number of Apophthegms, some epistles and prayers, there is breathed forth a deep warm mysticism with various approaches to Augustine’s soteriological views, while other passages seem to convey quite a Pelagian type of doctrine.

l. =Marcus Eremita=, a like-minded younger contemporary of the preceding, lived about A.D. 400 as an inhabitant of the Scetic desert. We possess of his writings only nine tracts of an ascetic mystical kind, the second of which, bearing the title Περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι, has secured for them a place in the Roman Index with the note “_Caute legenda_.” However even in his mysticism contradictory views, Augustinian and Pelagian, in regard to human freedom and divine grace, on predestination and sanctification, etc., find a place alongside one another, and have prominence given them according to the writer’s humour and the requirement of his meditation or exhortation.

m. =Synesius of Cyrene=,[139] subsequently bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt, was a disciple of the celebrated Hypatia (§ 42, 4) and an enthusiastic admirer of Plato. He died about A.D. 420. A happy husband and father, in comfortable circumstances and devoted to the study of philosophy, he could not for a long time be prevailed upon to accept a bishopric. He openly confessed his Origenistic heterodoxy in reference to the resurrection doctrine, the eternity of the world, as well as the pre-existence of the soul. He also publicly declared that as bishop he would continue the marriage relation with his wife, and no one took offence thereat. In the episcopal office he distinguished himself by noble zeal and courage which knew no fear of man. His 10 Hymns contain echoes of Valentinian views (§ 27, 4), and his philosophical tracts are only to a small extent dominated by Christian ideas. His 155 Epistles are more valuable as illustrating on every hand his noble character.

n. =Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa= in Phœnicia, lived in the first half of the 5th century. He left behind a brilliant treatise on religious philosophy, Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου. The traditional doctrine of the Eastern church is unswervingly set forth by him; still he too finds therein a place for the eternity of the world, the pre-existence of the soul, a migration of souls (excluding, however, the brute creation), the unconditional freedom of the will, etc.

o. =Æneas of Gaza=, a disciple of the Neo-Platonist Hierocles and a rhetorician in Alexandria, about A.D. 437 wrote a dialogue directed against the Origenistic doctrines of the eternity of the world and the pre-existence of the soul; as also against the Neo-Platonic denial of the resurrection of the body. It bore the title: Θεόφραστος.

§ 47.8. =The Antiocheans.=

a. =Eusebius of Emesa= was born at Edessa and studied in Cæsarea and Antioch. A quiet, peaceful scholar, and one who detested all theological wrangling, he declined the call to the Alexandrian bishopric in place of the deposed Athanasius in A.D. 341, but accepted the obscure bishopric of Emesa. He was not, however, to be left here. When, on account of his mathematical and astronomical attainments, the people there suspected him of sorcery, he quitted Emesa and from that date till his death in A.D. 360 taught in Antioch. Of his numerous exegetical, dogmatical and polemical writings only a few fragments are extant.

b. =Diodorus of Tarsus=, a scholar of the preceding, monk and presbyter at Antioch, was afterwards bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and died in A.D. 394. Only a few fragments of his numerous writings survive. As an exegete he concerned himself with the plain grammatico-historical sense and contested the Alexandrian mode of interpretation in the treatise: Τίς διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορίας. By θεωρία he understands insight into the relations transcending the bare literal sense but yet essentially present in it as the ideal. By his polemic against Apollinaris (§ 52, 1), he imprinted upon the Antiochean school its specific dogmatic character (§ 52, 2), in consequence of which he was at a later period regarded as the original founder of the Nestorian party.

c. His scholar again was =John of Antioch=, whose proper name afterwards almost disappeared before the honourable title of =Chrysostom=. Educated by his early widowed mother Arethusa with the greatest care, he attended the rhetoric school of Libanius and started with great success as an advocate in Antioch. But after receiving baptism he abandoned his practice and became a monk. He was made deacon in A.D. 380 and presbyter in A.D. 386 in his native city. His brilliant eloquence raised him at last in A.D. 398 to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople (§ 51, 3). He died in exile in A.D. 407. Next to Athanasius and the three Cappadocians he is one of the most talented of the Eastern fathers, the only one of the Antiochean school whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. In his exegesis he follows the fundamental principles of the Antiochean school. He wrote commentaries on Isaiah (down to chap. viii. 10) and on Galatians. Besides these his 650 Expository Homilies on all the Biblical books and particular sections cover almost the whole of the Old and New Testaments. Among his other dogmatical, polemical and hortatory church addresses the most celebrated are the 21 _De Statuis ad populum Antiochen_, delivered in A.D. 387. (The people of Antioch, roused on account of the exorbitant tax demanded of them, had broken down the statues of Theodosius I.) The _Demonstratio c. Julianum et Gentiles quod Christus sit Deus_ and the _Liber in S. Babylam c. Judæos et Gentiles_ are apologetical treatises. Of his ethico-ascetic writings, in which he eagerly commends virginity and asceticism, by far the most celebrated is Περὶ ἱερωσύνης, _De Sacerdotis_, in 4 bks., in the form of a dialogue with his Cappadocian friend Basil (the Great) who in A.D. 370 had felt compelled to accept the bishopric of Cæsarea after Chrysostom had escaped this honour by flight.[140]

§ 47.9.

d. =Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia= in Cilicia, was the son of respectable parents in Antioch, the friend and fellow-student of Chrysostom, first under Libanius, then under Diodorus. He died in A.D. 429. It was he who gave full development and consistent expression to the essential dogmatic and hermeneutical principles of the Antiochean theology. For this reason he was far more suspected of heresy by his Alexandrian opponents than even his teacher Diodorus, and they finally obtained their desire by the formal condemnation of his person and writings at the fifth œcumenical Synod in A.D. 553 (§ 52, 6). Leontius Byzantinus formulated his exegetical offence by saying that in his exposition he treated the Holy Scriptures precisely as ordinary human writings, especially that he interpreted the Song of Songs as a love poem, _libidinose pro sua et mente et lingua meretricia_, explained the Psalms after the manner of the Jews till he emptied them dry of all Messianic contents, _Judaice ad Zorobabelem et Ezechiam retulit_, denied the genuineness of the titles of the Psalms, rejected the canonical authority of Job, the Chronicles and Ezra as well as James and other Catholic Epistles, etc. In every respect Theodore was one of the ablest exegetes of the ancient church and the Syrian church has rightly celebrated him as the _“Interpres” par excellence_. He set forth his hermeneutical principles in the treatise: _De Allegoria et Historia_. Of his exegetical writings we have still his Comm. on the Minor Prophets, on Romans, fragments of those on other parts of the New Testament. Latin translations of his Comm. on the Minor Epp. of Paul, with the corresponding Greek fragments, are edited by Swete, 2 vols., Cambr., 1880, 1882. An introduction to Biblical Theology collected from Theodore’s writings and reproduced in a Latin form by Junilius Africanus (§ 48, 1) is still extant. His dogmatic, polemical and apologetical works on the Incarnation and Original Sin (§ 53, 4), against Eunomius (§ 50, 3), Apollinaris (§ 52, 1) and the Emperor Julian (§ 42, 5), are now known only from a few fragmentary quotations.

e. =Polychronius, bishop of Apamea=, was Theodore’s brother and quite his equal in exegetical acuteness and productivity, while he excelled him in his knowledge of the Hebrew and Syriac. Tolerably complete scholia by him on Ezekiel, Daniel and Job have been preserved in the Greek Catenæ (§ 48, 1). In regard to Daniel he maintains firmly its historical character and understands chap. vii. of Antiochus Epiphanes.

f. =Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus= in Syria, was Theodore’s ablest disciple, the most versatile scholar and most productive writer of his age, an original investigator and a diligent pastor, an upright and noble character and a man who kept the just mean amid the extreme tendencies of his times,--yet even he could not escape the suspicion of heresy (§ 52, 3, 4, 6). He died in A.D. 457. As an exegete he followed the course of grammatico-historical exposition marked out by his Antiochean predecessors, but avoided the rationalistic tendencies of his teacher. He commented on most of the historical books of the Old Testament, on the Prophets, the Song, which he understood allegorically of the church as the bride of Christ, and on the Pauline Epistles. Among his historical works the first place belongs to his continuation of the history of Eusebius (§ 5, 1). His Φιλόθεος ἱστορία, _Hist. religiosa_, gives a glowing description of the lives of 33 celebrated ascetics of both sexes. Of higher value is the Αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας ἐπιτομή, _Hæreticarum fabularum compendium_. His Ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικὴ παθημάτων, _De Curandis Græcorum Affectionibus_, is an apologetical treatise. His seven Dialogues _De s. Trinitate_ are polemics against the Macedonians and Apollinarians. The _Reprehensio_ xii. _Anathematismorum_ is directed against Cyril of Alexandria; and the Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι Πολύμορφος against monophysitism as a heresy compounded of many heresies (§ 52, 4). Besides these we have from him 179 Epistles.[141]

§ 47.10. =Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th and 5th Centuries.=

a. =Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem=, from A.D. 351 to A.D. 386, in the Arian controversy took the side of the conciliatory semi-Arians and thus came into collision with his imperious and decidedly Arian metropolitan Acacius of Cæsarea. During a famine he sold the church furniture for distribution among the needy, and was for this deposed by Acacius. Under Julian he ventured to return, but under Valens he was again driven out and found himself exposed to the persecution of the Arians, which was all the more violent because in the meantime he had assumed a more decided attitude toward Nicene orthodoxy. At the death of Valens in A.D. 378 he returned and became reconciled to the victorious maintainers of the Homoousion by fully accepting the doctrine at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4). We still have his 23 Catechetical Lectures delivered in A.D. 348 by him as presbyter to the baptized at Jerusalem. The first 18 are entitled: Πρὸς τοὺς φωτιζομένους, _Ad Competentes_ (§ 35, 1); the last five: Πρὸς τοὺς νεοφωτίστους, _Catecheses Mystagogicæ_, on Baptism, Anointing and the Lord’s Supper. In their present form they afford but faint evidence of their author having surmounted the semi-Arian standpoint.[142]

b. =Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis= or Constantia in Cyprus, was born of Jewish parents in the Palestinian village Besanduce and was baptized in his sixteenth year. His pious and noble, but narrow and one-sided character was formed by his education under the monks. He completed his ascetic training by several years residence among the monks of the Scetic desert, then founded a monastery in his native place over which he presided for thirty years until in A.D. 367 he was raised to the metropolitan’s chair at Salamis, where he died in A.D. 403. In the discharge of his episcopal duties he was a miracle of faithfulness and zeal, specially active and self-denying in his care of the poor. But in the forefront of all his thinking and acting there ever stood his glowing zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The very soul of honour, truth-loving and courageous, but credulous, positive, with little knowledge of the world and human nature, and hence not capable of penetrating to the bottom of complicated affairs, he was all his days misused as a tool of the intriguing Alexandrian Theophilus in the Origenistic controversies (§ 51, 3). He was all the more easily won to this from the fact that he had brought with him from the Scetic desert the conviction that Origen was the prime mover in the Arian and all other heresies. In spite of all defects in form and contents his writings have proved most serviceable for the history of the churches and heresies of the first four centuries. The diligence and honourable intention of his research in some measure compensate for the bad taste and illogical character of his exposition and for his narrow, one-sided and uncritical views. His Πανάριον ἤτοι κιβώτιον κατὰ αἱρέσεων lxxx. is a full and learned though confused and uncritical work, in which the idea of heresy is so loosely defined that even the Samaritans, Pharisees, Essenes, etc., find a place in it. He himself composed an abridgment of it under the title: Ἀνακεφαλαίωσις. His Ἀγκυρωτός is an exposition of the Catholic faith, which during the tumults of the Arian controversy should serve as an anchor of salvation to the Christians. The book Περὶ μέτρων καὶ στάθμων, _De mensuris et ponderibus_, answers to this title only in the last chapter, the 24th; the preceding chapters treat of the Canon and translations of the Old Testament. There are two old codices in the British Museum which have in addition, in a Syriac translation, 37 chapters on biblical weights and measures and 19 on the biblical science of the heaven and the earth. The tract Περὶ τῶν δώδεκα λίθων (on the high-priest’s breastplate) is of little consequence.

c. =Palladius=, born in Galatia, retired at an early age into the Nitrian desert, but lived afterwards in Palestine, where he was accused of favouring the heresy of Origen (§ 51, 2). Chrysostom consecrated him bishop of Hellenopolis in Bithynia. Latterly he administered a small bishopric in Galatia, where he died before A.D. 431. His chief writing is the Πρὸς Λαῦσον ἱστορία, _Hist. Lausiaca_, a historical romance on the hermit and monkish life of his times which is dedicated to an eminent statesman called Lausus.

d. =Nilus=, sprung from a prominent family in Constantinople, retired with his son Theodulus to the recluses of Mount Sinai. By a murderous onslaught of the Saracens his beloved son was snatched away from him, but an Arabian bishop bought him and ordained both father and son as priests. He died about A.D. 450. In his ascetical writings and specially in the 4 books of his Epistles, about 1,000 in number, he shows himself to be of like mind and character to his companion Isidore, but with a deeper knowledge and more sober conception of Holy Scripture. He himself describes the capture of his son in _Narrationes de cæde monachorum et captivitate Theoduli_.

§ 47.11. =Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=

a. =Johannes Philoponus= was in the first half of the 6th century teacher of grammar at Alexandria, and belonged to the sect of tritheistic monophysites in that place (§ 52, 7). Although trained in the Neo-Platonic school, he subsequently applied himself enthusiastically to the Aristotelian philosophy, composed many commentaries on Aristotle’s writings, and was the first to apply the Aristotelian categories to Christian theology. Notwithstanding many heretical tendencies in his theology, among which is his statement in a lost work, Περὶ ἀναστάσεως, that for the saved at the last day entirely new bodies and an entirely new world will be created, his philosophical writings powerfully impelled the mediæval Greek Church to the study of philosophy. His chief doctrinal treatise Διαιτητὴς ἢ περὶ ἑνώσεως is known only from quotations in Leontius Byzantinus and Johannes Damascenus. Of his other writings the most important was the controversial treatise _Contra Procli pro æternitate mundi argumenta_ in 18 bks. The 7 bks. Περὶ κοσμοποίας treat of the six days’ work of creation with great display of philosophical acuteness and acquaintance with natural history.

b. =Dionysius the Areopagite.= Under this name (Acts xvii. 34) an unknown writer, only a little earlier than the previously named, published writings of a decidedly mystico-theosophical kind. The first mention of them is at a conference of the monophysite Severians (§ 52, 7) with the Catholics at Constantinople in A.D. 533, where the former referred to them, while the other side denied their authenticity. Subsequently, however, they were universally received as genuine, not only in the East but also in the West. They comprise four tracts: 1. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας οὐρανίου; 2. Περὶ τῆς ἱεραρχίας ἐκκλησιαστικῆς; 3. Περὶ τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων; 4. Περὶ τῆς μυστικῆς θεολογίας; and also 12 Epp. to Apostolic men. Their author was a Monophysite-Christian Neo-Platonist, who transferred the secret arts of the Dionysian mysteries to Christian worship, monasticism, hierarchy and church doctrines. He distinguished a θεολογία καταφατική, which consisted in symbolic representations, from a θεολογία ἀποφατική, which surmounted the symbolical shell and rose to the perception of the pure idea by means of ecstasy. Side by side with the revealed doctrine of Holy Scripture he sets a secret doctrine, the knowledge of which is reached only by initiation. The primal mystagogue, who like the sun enlightens all spirits, is the divine hierarch Christ, and the primitive type of all earthly order in the heavenly hierarchy as represented in the courses of angels and glorified spirits. There is constant intercourse between the earthly and heavenly hierarchies by means of Christ the highest hierarch incarnate. The purpose of this intercourse is the drawing out of the θείωσις of man by means of priestly consecration and the mysteries (_i.e._ the Sacraments of which he reckons six, § 58). The θείωσις has its foundation in baptism as consecration to the divine birth, τελετὴ θεογενεσίας, and its completion in consecration of the dead, the anointing of the body. The historical Christ with His redeeming life, sufferings and death is at no time the subject of the Areopagite mysticism. It is always concerned with the heavenly Christ, not about the reconciliation but only about the mystical living fellowship of God and man, about the immediate vision and enjoyment of God’s glory. The monophysite standpoint of the author betrays itself in his tendency to think of the human nature of Christ as absorbed by the divine. His Christian Neo-Platonism appears in his fantastic speculations about the nature of God, the orders of angels and spirits, etc.; while his antagonism to the pagan Neo-Platonism is seen in his regarding the θείωσις not as a natural power proper to and dwelling in man, but as a supernatural power made possible by the ἐνσάρκωσις of Christ, but still more expressly by his emphatic assertion over against the Neo-Platonic depreciation of the body, of the resurrection of the flesh as the completion of the θείωσις. Hence also the importance which he attaches to the sacrament of the consecration of the dead.[143]

§ 47.12.

c. =Leontius Byzantinus=, at first an advocate at Constantinople, subsequently a monk at Jerusalem, wrote about the end of the 6th century controversial tracts against Nestorians, Monophysites and Apollinarians, and in his _Scholia s. Liber de sectis_ presented a historico-polemical summary of all heresies up to that time.

d. =Maximus Confessor=, the scion of a well-known family of Constantinople, was for a long time private secretary to the Emperor Heraclius, but retired about A.D. 630 from love of a contemplative life into a monastery at Chrysopolis near Constantinople, where he was soon raised to the rank of abbot. The further details of his story are given in § 52, 8. He died in A.D. 662. In decision of character, fidelity to his convictions and courage as a confessor during the Monothelete controversy, he stands out among his characterless countrymen and contemporaries as a rock in the ocean. In scientific endowments and comprehensive learning, in depth and wealth of thought there is none like him, although even in him the weakness of the age, especially slavish submission to authority, is quite apparent. His scientific theology is built up mainly upon the three great Cappadocians, among whom the speculative Nyssa has most influence over him. His dialectic acuteness and subtlety he derived from the study of Aristotle, while his imaginative nature and the intensity of his emotional life which predestined him to be a mystic, found abundant nourishment and satisfaction in the writings of Dionysius. He was saved, however, by the manysidedness of his mind and the soundness of his whole life’s tendencies, from many eccentricities of the Areopagite mysticism, so that in his humility he thought that his soul was not pure enough to be able fully to penetrate and comprehend these mysteries. His numerous writings, of which more than fifty are extant, were in great part occasioned by the struggle against Monophysitism and Monotheletism. His mystico-ascetic writings are also important, such as his Μυσταγωγία, treatises on the symbolico-mystic meaning of the acts of church worship, his epistles and several beautiful hymns. He also wrote scholia and commentaries on the works of the Areopagite. He is weakest in exegesis, where the most wilful allegorizing prevails.

e. =Johannes Climacus=, abbot of the monastery at Sinai, died at an extremely old age in A.D. 606. Under the title Κλίμαξ τοῦ παραδείσου, _Heavenly Guide_, he composed a directory toward perfection in the Christian life in thirty steps, which became a favourite reading book of pious monks.

f. =Johannes Moschus= was a monk in a cloister at Jerusalem. Accompanying his friend Sophronius, afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem (§ 52, 8), he travelled through Egypt and the East, visiting all the pious monks and clerics. At last he reached Rome, where he wrote an account in his Λειμονάριον ἤτοι νέος παραδείσος, _Pratum Spirituale_, of the edifying discourses which he had had with famous monks during his travels, and soon thereafter, in A.D. 619, he died.

g. =Anastasius Sinaita=, called the new Moses, because like Moses he is said to have seen God, was priest and dweller on Mount Sinai at the end of the 7th century. His chief work Ὁδηγός, _Viæ duæ_, is directed against the _Acephalians_ (§ 52, 5) and his _Contemplationes_ preserved only in a Latin translation give an allegorico-mystical exposition of the Hexæmeron.

§ 47.13. =Syrian Church Fathers.=[144]

a. =Jacob of Nisibis=, as bishop of his native city and founder of the theological school there, performed most important services to the national Syrian Church. At the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 he distinguished himself by vindicating the homoüsion and also subsequently we find him sometimes in the front rank of the champions of Nicene orthodoxy. Of his writings none are known to us. He died in A.D. 338.

b. =Aphraates= was celebrated in his time as a Persian sage. As bishop of St. Matthew near Mosul he adopted the Christian name of =Mar Jacob=, and dedicated his 23 Homilies, which are rather instructions or treatises, to a certain Gregory. He wrote them between A.D. 336 and A.D. 345. The _Sermones_ ascribed even by Gennadius at the end of the 5th century to Nisibis were composed by Aphraates. Although he lived when the Arian controversy was at its height, there is no reference to it in his treatises, which may be explained by his geographical isolation. The polemic against the Jews to which seven tracts are devoted _ex professo_, was one which specially interested him.

c. =Ephraim the Syrian=,[145] called, on account of his importance in the Syrian Church, _Propheta Syrorum_, was born at Nisibis and was called by the bishop Jacob to be teacher of the school founded there by him. When the Persians under Sapor in A.D. 350 plundered the city and destroyed the school, Ephraim retired to Edessa, founded a school there, administered the office of deacon, and died at a great age in A.D. 378. As an exegete he indulged to his heart’s content in typology, but in other respects mostly followed the grammatico-historical method with a constant endeavour after what was edifying. Many of his writings have been lost. Those remaining partly in the Syriac original, partly in Greek and Latin translations, have been collected by the brothers Assemani. They comprise Commentaries on almost the whole Bible, Homilies and Discourses in metrical form on a variety of themes, of these 56 are against heretics (Gnostics, Manichæans, Eunomians, Audians, etc.), and Hymns properly so called, especially funeral Odes.

d. =Ibas, bishop of Edessa=, at first teacher in the high school there, translated the writings of Diodorus and Theodore into Syriac, and thus brought down upon himself the charge of being a Nestorian. Having been repeatedly drawn into discussion, and being naturally outspoken, he was excommunicated and deposed at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, but his orthodoxy was acknowledged by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, after he had pronounced anathema upon Nestorius. He died in A.D. 457. An epistle, in which he gives an account of these proceedings to Bishop Meris of Hardashir in Persia, led to a renewal of his condemnation before the fifth œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553 (§ 52, 4, 6).

e. =Jacob, bishop of Edessa=, a monophysite, is the most important and manysided among the later Syrians, distinguished as theologian, historian, grammarian and translator of the Greek fathers. He died in A.D. 708. Of his works still extant in MS.--scholia on the Bible, liturgical works and treatises on church law, revision of the Syrian Old Testament according to the LXX., continuation of the Eusebian Chronicle, etc.--only a few have been printed.

2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.

§ 47.14.

f. =During the Period of the Arian Controversy.=

a. =Jul. Firmicus Maternus.= Under this name we have a treatise _De errore profanarum religionum_, addressed to the sons of Constantine the Great, in which the writer combats heathenism upon the Euhemerist theory (which traces the worship of the heathen gods from the deifying of famous ancestors), but besides reclaims many myths as corruptions of the biblical history, and shows that the violent overthrow of all idolatry is the sacred duty of a Christian ruler from God’s command to Joshua to destroy utterly the Canaanites.

b. =Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]= in Sardinia, was a violent, determined, and stubborn zealot for the Nicene doctrine, whose excessive severity against the penitent Arians and semi-Arians drove him into schism (§ 50, 8). He died in A.D. 371. In his tract, _Ad Constantium Augustum pro S. Athansio_, lb. ii., written in A.D. 360, he upbraids the emperor with his faults so bitterly as to describe him as a reckless apostate, antichrist, and Satan. He boldly acknowledged the authorship and, in prospect of a death sentence, wrote in A.D. 361 his consolatory treatise, _Moriendum esse pro filio Dei_. The early death of the emperor, however, permitted his return from exile (§ 50, 2, 4), where he had written _De regibus apostaticis_ and _De non conveniendo cum hæreticis_.

c. =Marius Victorinus= from Africa, often confounded with the martyr of the same name (§ 31, 12), was converted to Christianity when advanced in life, about A.D. 360, while occupying a distinguished position as a heathen rhetorician in Rome. He gave proof of his zeal as a neophyte by the composition of controversial treatises against the Manichæans, _Ad Justinum Manichæum_, and against the Arians, _Lb. iv. adv. Arium, De generatione divina ad Candidum, De_ ὁμοουσίῳ _recipiendo_. In his treatise, _De verbis scripturæ_, Gen. i. 5, he shows that the creative days began not with the evening, but with the morning. He composed three hymns _de Trinitate_, and an epic poem on the seven brothers, the Maccabees.

d. =Hilary of Poitiers=--_Hilarius Pictavienses_--styled the Athanasius of the West, and made _doctor ecclesiæ_ by Pius IX. in A.D. 1851, was sprung from a noble pagan family of Poitiers (Pictavium). With wife and daughter he embraced Christianity, and was soon thereafter, about A.D. 350, made bishop of his native city. In A.D. 356, however, as a zealous opponent of Arianism, he was banished to Phrygia, from which he returned in A.D. 360. Two years later he travelled to Milan, in order if possible to win from his error the bishop of that place, Auxentius, a zealous Arian. That bishop, however, obtained an imperial edict which obliged him instantly to withdraw. He died in A.D. 366. The study of Origen seems to have had a decided influence upon his theological development. His strength lay in the speculative treatment of the groundworks of doctrine. At the same time he is the first exegete proper among the Western fathers writing the Latin language. He follows exactly the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. His works embrace commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospel of Matthew, several polemical lectures (§ 50, 6), and his speculative dogmatic masterpiece _de Trinitate_ in xii. books.

e. =Zeno, bishop of Verona=, who died about A.D. 380, left behind ninety-three _Sermones_ which, in beautiful language and spirited style, treat of various subjects connected with faith and morals, combat paganism and Arianism, and eagerly recommend virginity and monasticism.

f. =Philaster=, bishop of Brescia, contemporary of Zeno, in his book _De hæresibus_, described in harsh and obscure language, in an uncritical fashion and with an extremely loose application of the word heresy, 28 pre-Christian and 128 post-Christian systems of error.

g. =Martin of Tours=,[146] son of a soldier, had before baptism, but after his heart had been filled with the love of Christ, entered the Roman cavalry. Once, legend relates, he parted his military cloak into two pieces in order to shield a naked beggar from the cold, and on the following night the Lord Jesus appeared to him clothed in this very cloak. In his eighteenth year he was baptized, and for some years thereafter attached himself to Hilary of Poitiers, and then went to his parents in Pannonia. He did not succeed in converting his father, but he was successful with his mother and many of the people. Scourged and driven away by the Arian party which there prevailed, he turned to Milan where, however, he got just as little welcome from the Arian bishop Auxentius. He then lived some years on the island of Gallinaria, near Genoa. When Hilary returned from banishment to Pictavium, he followed him there, and founded in the neighbourhood a monastery, the earliest in Gaul. He was guilefully decoyed to Tours, and forced to mount the episcopal chair there in A.D. 375. He converted whole crowds of heathen peasants, and, according to the legend given by Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours (§ 90, 2), wrought miracle after miracle. But he was himself with his holy zeal, his activity in doing good, his undoubted power over men’s hearts, and a countenance before which even the emperor quailed (§ 54, 2), the greatest and the most credible miracle. He died about A.D. 400 in the monastery of Marmontiers [Marmoutiers], which he had founded out from Tours. His tomb was one of the most frequented places of pilgrimage. He was wholly without scholarly culture, but the force of intellect with which he was endowed lent him a commanding eloquence. The _Confessio de s. Trinitate_ attributed to him is not genuine.

§ 47.15.

g. =Ambrose, bishop of Milan=, sprung from a prominent Roman family, was governor of the province of Milan. After the death of the Arian Auxentius in A.D. 374 violent quarrels broke out over the choice of a successor. Then a child is said to have cried from the midst of the crowd “Ambrose is bishop,” and all the people, Arians as well as Catholics, agreed. All objection was vain. Up to this time only a catechumen, he received baptism, distributed his property among the poor, and eight days after mounted the episcopal chair. His new office he administered with truly apostolic zeal, a father of the poor, a protector of all oppressed, an unweariedly active pastor, a powerful opponent of heresy and heathenism. His eloquence, which had won him a high reputation in the forum, was yet more conspicuous in the service of the church. To ransom the prisoners he spared not even the furniture of the church. To a peculiarly winning friendliness and gentleness he added great strength of character, which prevented him being checked in his course by any respect of persons, or by any threatening and danger. He so decidedly opposed the intrigues of the Arian Empress Justina, during the minority of her son Valentinian II., that she, powerless to execute her wrath, was obliged to desist from her endeavours (§ 50, 4). With Theodosius the Great he stood in the highest esteem. When the passionate emperor had ordered a fearful massacre without distinction of rank, age and sex, without enquiry as to guilt or innocence, of the inhabitants of Thessalonica on account of a tumult in which a general and several officers had been murdered, Ambrose wrote him a letter with an earnest call to repentance, and threatened him with exclusion from the communion of the church and its services. The emperor, already repenting of his hastiness, took patiently the rebuke administered, but did nothing to atone for his crime. Some time after he went as usual to church, but Ambrose met him at the entrance of the house of God and refused him admission. For eight months the emperor refrained from communion; then he applied for absolution, which was granted him, after he had publicly done penance before the congregation and promised never in future to carry out a death sentence within thirty days of its being pronounced. Theodosius afterwards declared that Ambrose was the only one truly deserving the name of a bishop. Ambrose was also a zealous promoter of monasticism in the West. In his sermons he so powerfully recommended virginity that many families forbade their daughters attending them. He deserves special credit for his contributions to the liturgical services (_Officium Ambrosianum_, _Cantus Ambr._, Hymn Composition, § 59, 4-6). On all dogmatic questions he strongly favoured the realism of the North African school, while in exegesis he did not surmount the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. To the department of morals and ascetics belong the 3 bks. _De Officiis Ministrorum_, a Christian construction of Cicero’s celebrated work and the most important of all Ambrose’s writings; also several treatises in recommendation of virginity. The book _De Mysteriis_ explains baptism and the Lord’s Supper to the neophytes. The 5 bks. _De fide_, the 3 bks. _De Spiritu S._ and the tract _De incarnatîonis sacramento_, treat of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in opposition to Arians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, etc. These are somewhat dependent upon the Greeks, especially Athanasius, Didymus and Basil. His expositions of Old Testament histories (_Hexaëmeron_, _De Paradiso_, _De Cain et Abel_, _De Noë et arca_, _De Abraham_, _De Jacob et anima_, etc.) are allegorical and typical in the highest degree. More important are his _Sermones_ and 92 Epistles. But all his writings are distinguished by their noble, powerful and popular eloquence.

h. =Ambrosiaster= is the name given to an unknown writer whose allegorizing Commentary on Paul’s Epistles was long attributed to Ambrose. This work, highly popular on account of its pregnant brevity, was perhaps the joint work of several writers. In its earliest portions it belongs to the age of Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died in A.D. 384, who is named as a contemporary. Augustine names a Hilary, not otherwise known, as author of a passage quoted from it.

i. =Pacianus=,[147] bishop of Barcelona, who died about A.D. 390, wrote in a clear style and correct Latinity three Epistles against the Novatians, from the first of which, _De Catholico nomine_, is borrowed the beautiful saying: _Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen_. He also wrote a _Liber exhortatorius ad pœnitentiam_ and a _Sermo de baptismo_.

§ 47.16. =During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.=

a. =Jerome=[148]--_Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus_--of Stridon in Dalmatia, received his classical training under the grammarian Donatus at Rome. In A.D. 360 he was baptized by bishop Liberius, but afterwards fell into sensual excesses which he atoned for by penitential pilgrimages to the catacombs. During a journey through Gaul and the provinces of the Rhine and Moselle he seems to have formed the fixed resolve to devote himself to theology and an ascetic life. Then for more than a year he stayed at Aquileia, A.D. 372, where he formed an intimate friendship with Rufinus. He next undertakes a journey to the East. At Antioch in a vision, during a violent fever, placed before the throne of the judge of all, having answered the question Who art thou? by the confession that he was a Christian, he heard the words distinctly uttered: Thou liest! thou art a Ciceronian and no Christian! He then sentenced himself to severe castigation and promised with an oath to give up the reading of the heathen classics which he had so much enjoyed. He afterwards indeed excused himself from the fulfilment of this twofold obligation; but this had sealed his devotion to an ascetic life, and the desert of Chalcis, the Syrian Thebaid, became for him during many years the school of ascetic discipline. Worn out with privations, penances and sensual temptations he returned in A.D. 379 to Antioch, where he was ordained presbyter but without any official district being assigned. Urged by Gregory of Nazianzum [Nazianzen], he next spent several years in Constantinople. From A.D. 382 to A.D. 385 he again lived in Rome, where bishop Damasus honoured him with his implicit confidence. This aroused against him the envy and enmity of many among the Roman clergy, while at the same time his zeal for the spread of monasticism and virginity, as well as his ascetic influence with women, drew upon him the hatred of many prominent families (§ 44, 4). On the death of his episcopal patron in A.D. 384 his position in Rome thus became untenable. He now returned to the East, visited all the holy places in Palestine, and also made an excursion to Alexandria where he stayed for four weeks in the school of the blind Didymus. He then settled down at Bethlehem, founded there with the means of his Roman lady friends an establishment for monks, over which he presided till his death in A.D. 420; and an establishment for nuns over which St. Paula presided, who with her daughter Eustochium had accompanied him from Rome. As to his share in the Origenistic controversies into which he allowed himself to be drawn, see § 51, 2. His character was not without defects: vanity, ambition, jealousy, passionateness, impatience and intense bitterness in debate, are only all too apparent in his life. But where these, as well as his scrupulous anxiety for the maintaining of a reputation for unwavering orthodoxy and by zeal for monasticism and asceticism, did not stand in the way, we often find in him an unexpected clearness and liberality of view. Comp. § 17, 6; 57, 6; 59, 1; 61, 1. To the instructions of the Jew Bar Hanina he was indebted for his knowledge of Hebrew and Chaldee. The greatest and most enduring service was rendered to the study of holy scripture by his pioneer labours in this direction. He is at his weakest in his dogmatic works, which mostly are disfigured by immoderately passionate polemic. In exegesis he represents the grammatico-historical method, but nevertheless frequently falls back again into allegorico-mystical explanations. His style is pure, flowing and elegant, but in polemic often reckless and coarse even to vulgarity. In the department of exegesis the first place belongs to his translation of the bible (§ 59, 1). We have also a number of Commentaries--on Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets, Matthew, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon. His _Onomasticon s. de situ et nominibus locorum Hebr._ is a Latin reproduction of the Τοπικά of Eusebius. In the department of dogmatics we have polemics against Lucifer of Calaris (§ 50, 3), against Helvidius, Jovinian and Vigilantius (§ 63, 2), against John of Jerusalem (§ 51, 2) and in several treatises against Rufinus, and finally against the Pelagians (§ 53, 4). In the department of history we have his Latin adaptation and continuation of the second part of the Eusebian Chronicle, his _Catalogus Scriptorum ecclest. s. de viris illustr._, which tells in anecdotal form about the lives and writings of biblical and ecclesiastical writers, 135 in number, from Peter down to himself, with the avowed purpose of proving the falseness of the reproach that only ignorant and uncultured men had embraced Christianity. It was afterwards continued by the Gaul =Gennadius= of Marseilles down to the end of the fifth century. Finally, the romancing legendary sketches of the lives of the famous monks Paul of Thebes (§ 39, 4), Hilarion (§ 44, 3) and Malchus, were added. His 150 Epistles are extremely important for the church history of his times. Of his translations of the Greek fathers only those of Didymus, _De Spiritu S._ and that of 70 _Homilies_ of Origen, are now extant.

§ 47.17.

b. =Tyrannius Rufinus= of Aquileia after receiving baptism lived for a long time in monastic retirement. His enthusiasm for monasticism and asceticism led him in A.D. 373 to Egypt. At Alexandria he spent several years in intercourse with Didymus. He contracted there that enthusiastic admiration of Origen which made his after life so full of debate and strife. He next went in A.D. 379 to Jerusalem, where bishop John ordained him presbyter. Here he found Jerome, with whom he had become acquainted at Aquileia, and the two friends were brought more closely together from their mutual love for Origen, although afterwards this was to prove the occasion of the most bitter enmity (§ 51, 2). About A.D. 397 he returned to Italy. He died in A.D. 410. His literary activity was mainly directed to the transplanting of the writings of Greek fathers to Latin soil. To his zeal in this direction we owe the preservation of Origen’s most important work Περὶ ἀρχῶν, _De principiis_, and of no fewer than 124 Homilies. The former, indeed, has been in many places altered in an arbitrary manner. He also translated several Homilies of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (§ 28, 3), etc. There are extant of his own works: the Continuation of his Latin reproduction of the Church History of Eusebius, down to A.D. 388, the romancing _Historia eremitica s. Vitæ Patrum_, biographies of 33 saints of the Nitrian desert (§ 51, 1), an _Apologia pro fide sua_, the _Invectivæ Hieron._ in 2 bks. the treatise _De benedictionibus Patriarcharum_, an exposition of Genesis xlix. in the spirit and style of Origen, and an _Expositio symboli apost._

c. =Sulpicius Severus=[149] from Aquitania in Gaul, had gained great reputation by his eloquence as an advocate, when the death of his young wife disgusted him with the world, and led him to withdraw into a monastery. He died about A.D. 410. In his _Chronica_ or _Historia sacra_ (§ 5, 1), a summary of biblical and ecclesiastical history, he imitates not unsuccessfully the eloquence of Sallust, so that he has been called “the Christian Sallust.” His _Vita_ of Martin of Tours is a panegyric overflowing with reports of miracles. The three dialogues on the virtues of Eastern Monks and on the merits of St. Martin, may be regarded as a supplement to the _Vita_.

d. =Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus= is the name by which Peter, bishop of Ravenna, is best known. He also received the title _Chrysostomus Latinorum_. He died in A.D. 450. Among the 176 _Sermones_ ascribed to him, the discourses expository of the baptismal formula are deserving of special mention. Of his Epistles, one in Latin and Greek addressed to Eutyches (§ 52, 4) is still preserved, in which the writer warns Eutyches against doctrinal errors.

§ 47.18. =The Hero of the Soteriological Controversy.=--=Augustine=--_Aurelius Augustinus_--was born in A.D. 354 at Tagaste in Numidia. From his pious mother Monica he early received Christian religious impressions which, however, were again in great measure effaced by his pagan father the _Decurio_ Patricius. While he studied in Carthage, he gave way to sensuality and worldly pleasure. Cicero’s Hortensius first awakened again in him a longing after higher things. From about A.D. 374 he sought satisfaction in the tenets of the Manichæan sect, strongly represented in Africa, and for ten years he continued a catechumen of that order. But here, too, at last finding himself cruelly deceived in his struggle after the knowledge of the truth, he would have sunk into the most utter scepticism, had not the study of the Platonic philosophy still for awhile held him back. In A.D. 383 he left Africa and went to Rome, and in the following year he took up his residence in Milan as a teacher of eloquence. An African bishop, once himself a Manichæan, had comforted his anxious mother, who followed him hither, by assuring her that the son of so many sighs and prayers could not be finally lost. At Milan too the sermons of Ambrose made an impression on Augustine’s heart. He now began diligently to search the scriptures. At last the hour arrived of his complete renewal of heart and life. After an earnest conversation with his friend Alypius, he hastened into the solitude of the garden. While agonizing in prayer he heard the words thrice repeated: _Tolle, lege_! He took up the scriptures, and his eye fell upon the passage Rom. xiii. 13, 14. This utterance of stern Christian morality seemed as if written for himself alone, and from this moment he received into his wounded spirit a peace such as he had never known before. In order to prepare for baptism he withdrew with his mother and some friends to the country house of one of them, where scientific studies, pious exercises and conversations on the highest problems of life occupied his time. Out of these conversations sprang his philosophical writings. At Easter A.D. 387 Ambrose baptized him, and at the same time his illegitimate son Adeodatus, who not long afterwards died. His return journey to Africa was delayed by the death of his mother at Ostia, and at last, after almost a year’s residence in Rome, he reached his old home again. In Rome he applied himself to combat the errors of Manichæism, arguing with many of his old companions whom he met there. After his return to Africa in A.D. 388, he spent some years on his small patrimonial estate at Tagaste engaged in scientific work. During a casual visit to Hippo in A.D. 391 he was, in spite of all resistance, ordained presbyter, and in A.D. 395 colleague of the aged and feeble bishop Valerius, whose successor he became in the following year. Now began the brilliant period of his career, in which he stands forth as a pillar of the church and the centre of all theological and ecclesiastical life throughout the whole Western world. In A.D. 400 began his battle against the Donatists (§ 63, 1). And scarcely had he brought this to a successful end in a religious discussion at Carthage in A.D. 411, when he was drawn into a far more important Soteriological controversy by Pelagius and his followers (§ 53), which he continued till the close of his life. His death occurred in A.D. 430 during the siege of Carthage by the Vandals. He has written his own life in his _Confessiones_ (Engl. translat., Oxf., 1838; Edin., 1876). In the form of an address to God he here unfolds before the Omniscient One his whole past life with all its errors and gracious providences in the language of prayer full of the holiest earnestness and most profound humility, a lively commentary on the opening words: _Magnus es, Domine, et laudabilis valde.... Fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te._ The biography of his disciple Possidius may serve as a supplement to the Confessions.--Augustine was the greatest, most powerful, and most influential of all the fathers. In consequence of his thoroughly Western characteristics he was indeed less perfectly understood and appreciated in the East; but all the greater was his reputation in the West, where the whole development of church and doctrine seemed always to move about him as its centre. The main field of his literary activity in consequence of his own peculiar mental qualities, his philosophical culture, speculative faculty, and dialectic skill, as well as the ecclesiastical conflicts of his time, to which his most important works are devoted, was Systematic Theology, Dogmatics and Ethics, Polemics and Apologetics. He is weakest as an exegete; for he had little interest in philological and grammatico-historical research into the simple literal sense of scripture. He was unacquainted with the original language of the Old Testament, and even the New Testament he treats only in a popular way according to the Latin translations. Neither does he deal much with the exegetical foundations of dogmatics, which he rather develops from the Christian consciousness by means of speculation and dialectic, and from the proof of its meeting the needs of humanity. Over against philosophy he insisted upon the independence and necessity of faith as the presupposition and basis of all religious knowledge. _Rationabiliter dictum est per prophetam: Nisi credideretis non intelligetis. Credamus ut id quod credimus intelligere valeamus._

§ 47.19. =Augustine’s Works.=

a. =Philosophical Treatises= belonging to the period preceding his ordination. The 3 bks. _Contra Academicos_ combat their main position that men cannot attain to any certain knowledge; the treatise _De Vita beata_ shows that true happiness consists in the knowledge of God; the 2 bks. _De Ordine_ treat of the relation of good and evil in the divine order of the world; the 2 bks. _Soliloquia_ are monologues on the means and conditions of the knowledge of supernatural truths, and contain beside the main question an Appendix _De immortalitate animæ_, etc.

b. =Dogmatic Treatises.= The most important are: _De Trinitate_ in 15 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1874), a speculative dogmatic construction of the dogma, of great importance for its historical development; _De doctrina christiana_ in 4 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), of which the first three bks. form a guide to the exposition of scripture after the analogy of faith, while the 4th book shows how the truth thus discovered is to be used (Hermeneutics and Homiletics); finally, the two bks. _Retractationes_, written in his last years, in which he passes an unfavourable judgment on his earlier writings, and withdraws or modifies much in them. Among his =Moral-ascetic writings= the bk. _De bono conjugali_ is of special interest, called forth by Jovinian’s utterances on non-meritoriousness of the unmarried state (§ 62, 2); he admits the high value of Christian marriage, but yet sees in celibacy genuinely chosen as a means to holiness a higher step in the Christian life. Also the bk. _De adulterinis conjugis_ against second marriages, and two treatises _De Mendacium_ and _Contra Mendacium ad Consentium_, which in opposition to the contrary doctrine of the Priscillianists (§ 54, 2), unconditionally repudiates the admissibility of equivocation.

c. =Controversial Treatises.= Of 11 treatises against the Manichæans (§ 54, 1) the most important is that _C. Faustum_ in 33 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), interesting as reproducing in quotations the greater part of the last work of this great champion of the Manichæans. Then came the discussion with the Donatists (§ 63, 1), which he engaged in with great vigour. We have ten treatises directed against them (Engl. transl., Edin., 1873). Of far greater importance was the conflict which soon after broke out against the Pelagians and then against the semi-Pelagians (§ 53, 4, 5), in which he wrote fourteen treatises (Engl. transl., 3 vols., Edin., 1873-1876). Also the Arians, Priscillianists, Origenists and Marcionites were combated by him in special treatises, and in the bk. _De hæresibus_ he gave a summary account of the various heresies that had come under his notice.

d. Among his =Apologetical Treatises= against pagans and Jews, by far the ablest and most important is the work _De Civitate Dei_, in 22 bks., a truly magnificent conception (Engl. transl., 2 vols., Edin., 1873), the most substantial of all apologetical works of Christian antiquity, called forth by the reproach of the heathens that the repeated successes of the barbarians resulted from the weakening and deteriorating influence of Christianity upon the empire. The author repels this reproach in the first four bks. by showing how the Roman empire had previously in itself the seeds of decay in its godless selfishness, and thence advancing immorality; Ilium was and continued pagan, but its gods could not save it from destruction. Ilium’s Epigone, haughty Rome, meets the same fate. It owed its power only to God’s will and His government of the world, and to His using it as a scourge for the nations. The next five books show the corruption of the heathen religions and the inadequacy of heathen philosophy. Then the last 12 bks. point out the contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world in respect of their diverse foundations, their entirely different motive powers, their historical development and their ultimate disposal in the last judgment.

e. The most important and complete of his =Exegetical Works= are the 12 bks. _De Genesi ad litteram_, a gigantic commentary on the three first chapters of Genesis, which in spite of its title very often leaves the firm ground of the literal sense to revel in the airy regions of spiritualistic and mystical expatiation. Of his _Sermones_, 400 are recognised as genuine (Engl. transl., Hom. on N.T., 2 vols., Oxf., 1844 f.; Hom. on John and 1st John, 2 vols., Oxf., 1848; Comm. on Psalms, 6 vols., Oxf., 1847 f.; Harmony of Evangelists, and Serm. on Mt., Edin., 1874; Commentary on John, 2 vols., Edin., 1875). His correspondence still preserved comprises 270 Epistles (Engl. transl., 2 vols., Edin., 1874, 1876).

§ 47.20. =Augustine’s Disciples and Friends.=

a. =Paulinus=, deacon of Milan, who wrote, at Augustine’s request, the life of Ambrose, awakened in A.D. 411 the Pelagian controversy by the charges which he made, and took part in it himself by writing in A.D. 417 the _Libellus c. Cœlestium ad Zosimum Papam_.

b. =Paulus [Paul] Orosius=, a Spanish presbyter, who visited Augustine in Africa in A.D. 415 to urge him to combat Priscillianism, took part with him there in his conflict with the Pelagians. He has left behind a _Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum ad Augustinum_; an _Apologeticus de arbitrii libertate c. Pelagium_ and _Hist. adv. Paganos_ in 7 bks. The last named work was written at Augustine’s urgent entreaty, and pursues in a purely historical manner the same end which Augustine in his _City of God_ sought to reach in a dogmatico-apologetic way.

c. =Marius Mercator= was a learned and acute layman, belonging to the West, but latterly resident in Constantinople. He made every effort to secure the condemnation of Pelagianism even in the East, and so wrote not only against its Western leaders but also against its Antiochean supporters, Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia (§ 53, 4).

d. =Prosper Aquitanicus=, also a layman and an enthusiastic follower of Augustine, not only wrote several treatises against the semi-Pelagians of his native Gaul (§ 53, 5), but also poured out the vials of his wrath upon them in poetic effusions (§ 48, 6). He died about A.D. 460.

e. =Cæsarius, bishop of Arelate=, now Arles in Gaul, originally a monk in the monastery of Larinum, was one of the most celebrated, most influential, and in church work most serviceable of the men of his times. It is also mainly due to him that in A.D. 529 moderate Augustinianism gained the victory over semi-Pelagianism. He died in A.D. 543. His treatise _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ is no longer extant, but two rules for monks and nuns composed by him, _Ad monachos_, _Ad virgines_, as well as a considerable number of _Sermones_, the best of their time, are still preserved.

f. =Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe= in Africa, on account of his zeal for the Catholic doctrine, was banished by the Arian Vandal king Thrasimund, but returned after the king’s death in A.D. 523. He was one of the stoutest champions of Augustinianism. His writings against Arians and semi-Pelagians have been often printed. He died in A.D. 555. His scholar and biographer was =Fulgentius Ferrandus=, deacon at Carthage about A.D. 547. Alongside of and after him we meet with bishop =Facundus= of Hermiane, and the archdeacon =Liberatus of Carthage=, who with characteristic African energy defend the _Tria Capitula_ (§ 52, 6) basely surrendered by the Roman bishop Vigilius.

§ 47.21. =Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.=

I. =Pelagius=, a British monk, the originator of the heresy named after him (§ 53, 3, 4), left behind a considerable number of writings, of which, however, for the most part we have now only fragments in the works of his opponents. References in Augustine, Marius Mercator, and others show that to him belong the _Lb._ xiv. _Expositionum in Epistt. Pauli_, which have been ascribed to Jerome and included among his works, scholia-like explanations with good sound grammatico-historical exegesis. The wish to make this useable and safe for the Catholic church led at an early date to various omissions and alterations in it. Afterwards its heretical origin was forgotten which notwithstanding the purifying referred to is still quite discernible. Two epistles addressed to Roman ladies recommending virginity have also got a place among the works of Jerome.--=Julianus, bishop of Eclanum= in Italy, is the only one among the followers of Pelagius who can be regarded as of scientific importance. He was an acute but frivolous and vulgar opponent of Augustine, whom he honoured with the epithets _amentissimus et bardissimus_ (comp. § 53, 4).

II. At the head of the semi-Pelagians or Massilians stands:

a. =Johannes Cassianus=. Gennadius designates him as _natione Scythus_; but he received his early education in a monastery at Bethlehem. He then undertook a journey in company with the abbot to visit the Egyptian monks, stayed next for a long time with Chrysostom at Constantinople, and after his banishment resided some years in Rome, and finally in A.D. 415 settled down at Massilia (Marseilles), where he established a monastery and a nunnery, and organised both after the Eastern model. He died about A.D. 432. His writings were held in high esteem throughout the Middle Ages. In the _De institutis Cœnobiorum_ he describes the manner of life of the Palestinian and Egyptian monks, and then treats of the eight vices to which the monks were specially exposed. The 24 _Collationes Patrum_ report the conversations which he had with the Eastern monks and hermits about the ways and means of attaining Christian perfection. The 13th _Collatio_ is, without naming him, directed against Augustine’s doctrine, and develops semi-Pelagian Synergism (§ 53, 5). Both writings, however are certainly calculated to serve the development of his own monkish ideal as well as his own dogmatic and ethical views, rather then to afford a historically faithful representation of the life and thinking of oriental monasticism of that time. The 7 bks. _De incarnatione Christi_ combat not only Nestorianism but also Pelagianism as in its consequences derogatory to the divinity of Christ.

b. =Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis=, monk in the Gallic monastery of Lerinum, was Cassianus’ most distinguished disciple. He died about A.D. 450. On his often printed _Commonitorium pro cath. fidei antiquit. et universit._, comp. § 53, 5.

c. =Eucherius, bishop of Lyons=, left behind him several ascetical works (_De laude eremi; De contemtu mundi_), Homilies, and a _Liber formularum spiritualis intelligentiæ_ as guide to the mystico-allegorical interpretation of Scripture. He died about A.D. 450.

d. =Salvianus=, presbyter at Marseilles, was in his earlier days married to a heathen woman whom he converted, and with her took the vow of continency. He died about A.D. 485. He wrote _Adv. avaritiam_ Lb. iv., in which the support of the poor and surrender of property to the church for pious uses are recommended as means of furthering the salvation of one’s own soul. In consequence of the oppression of the times during the convulsions of the migration of the peoples and the reproach of the heathen again loudly raised that the weakness of the Roman empire was occasioned by the introduction of Christianity, he wrote _De providentia s. de gubernatione Dei et de justo præsentique judicio_, Lb. viii., which in rhetorical and flowery language depicted the dreadful moral condition of the Roman world of that day.

e. =Faustus of Rhegium=, now Riez in Provence, in his earlier years an advocate, then monk and abbot of the cloister of Lerinum, and finally bishop of Rhegium, was the head of the Gallic semi-Pelagians of his times. In his writings he stated this doctrine in a moderate form. He died in A.D. 493.

f. =Arnobius the Younger=, the contemporary and fellow-countryman of Faustus, wrote a very important work entitled _Prædestinatus_, which in a very thorough and elaborate manner contests the doctrines of Augustine. Comp. § 53, 5.

§ 47.22. =The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman Popes.=

a. =Leo the Great= occupied the papal chair from A.D. 440 to A.D. 461. While but a deacon he was the most distinguished personage in Rome. On assuming the bishopric he gave the whole powers of his mind to the administration of his office in all directions. By the energy and consistency with which he carried out the idea of the Roman primacy, he became the virtual founder of the spiritual sovereignty of Rome. With a strong arm he guided the helm of the church, reformed and organized on every side, settled order and discipline, defended orthodoxy, contended against heretics (Manichæans, Priscillianists, Pelagians, Eutychians), and appeased the barbarians (Attila). Of his writings we have 96 _Sermones_ and 173 Epistles, which last are of the utmost importance for the church history of his times. He is also supposed to be the author of a talented work _De vocatione Gentium_ (§ 53, 5).

b. =Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496, left behind him a treatise _Adv. hæresin Pelagianem_, another _De duabus in Christo naturis_, and a work against the observance of the Lupercalia which some prominent Romans wished to have continued. He also wrote 18 Decretals. The celebrated _Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis_, in a sense the oldest _Index prohibitorum_, is ascribed to him. The first section, wanting in the best MSS., contains a biblical canon corresponding to that of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393 (§ 59, 1); the second section treats of the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome granted by our Lord Himself in the person of Peter; the third enumerates the œcumenical Councils; and the fourth, the writings of the fathers received by the Roman Church; the Chronicle and Church History of Eusebius are found fault with (_quod tepuerit_) but not rejected; in respect to the writings of Origen and Rufinus the opinion of Jerome is approved. The fifth section gives a list of books not to be received--the New Testament Apocrypha, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cassianus, Faustus of Rhegium, etc.

c. =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 to A.D. 604, born in Rome about A.D. 540, sprung from a distinguished old Roman family, held about A.D. 574 the office of city prefect, after his father’s death founded on his inherited estates, six monasteries, and himself withdrew into a seventh, which he built in Rome. Ordained deacon against his will in A.D. 579, he was entrusted with the important and difficult office of a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople, and was constrained in A.D. 590, after a long persisted-in refusal, to mount the papal chair, which obliged him to abandon the long-cherished plan of his life, the preaching of the gospel to the Anglo-Saxons (§ 77, 4). Gregory united a rare power and energy of will with real mildness and gentleness of character, deep humility and genuine piety with the full consciousness of his position as a successor of Peter, insight, circumspection, yea even an unexpected measure of liberal-mindedness (comp. _e.g._ § 57, 4; 75, 3) with all monkish narrowness and stiff adherence to the traditional forms, doctrines and views of the Roman Church. He himself lived in extremest poverty and simplicity according to the strictest monastic asceticism, and applied all that he possessed and received to the support of the poor and the help of the needy. It was a hard time in which he lived, the age of the birth throes of a new epoch of the world’s history. There is therefore much cause to thank the good providence which set such a man as spiritual father, teacher and pastor at the head of the Western Church. He took special interest in fostering monasticism and such-like institutions, which were, indeed, most conducive to the well-being of the world, for during this dangerous period of convulsion, monasticism was almost the only nursery of intellectual culture. The Roman Catholic church ranks him as the last of the Fathers, and places him alongside of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, the four greatest teachers of the church, _Doctores ecclesiæ_, whose writings have been long reverenced as the purest and most complete vehicles of the Catholic tradition. Among the Greeks a similar position is given to Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom. The rank thus assigned to Gregory is justifiable inasmuch as in him the formation and malformation of doctrine, worship, discipline and constitution peculiar to the ancient church are gathered up, completed and closed. His most complete work is the _Expositio in b. Jobum s. Moralium_, Ll. xxxv., (Engl. transl., Lib. of Fath., 3 vols., Oxf., 1844-1850) which, by dragging in all possible relations of life which an allegorical interpretation can furnish, is expanded into a repertory of moral reflections. His _Regula pastoralis s. Liber curæ pastoralis_ obtained in the West a position of almost canonical authority. In his “Dialogues,” of which the first three books treat “_de vita et miraculis Patrum Italicorum_,” and the 4th book mostly of visionary views of the hereafter (heaven, hell and purgatory), “_de æternitate animarum_,” we meet with a very singular display of the most uncritical credulousness and the most curious superstition. Besides these we have from him Homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels, as well as a voluminous correspondence in 880 Epistles of great importance for the history of the age. To Gregory also is attributed the oft quoted saying which compares holy scripture to a stream _in quo agnus peditat et elephas natat_.

§ 47.23. =The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.=

a. =Boëthius=, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus, was descended from a distinguished Roman family, and stood high in favour with the Ostrogoth Arian king Theodoric. Accused, however, by his enemies of treasonable correspondence with the Byzantine court, he was, after a long imprisonment, condemned unheard and executed, A.D. 525. In prison he composed the celebrated treatise, _De consolatione philosophiæ_, which, written in pure and noble language, was the favourite book of the Latin Middle Ages, and was translated into all European languages: first of all by Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon, and often reprinted in its original form. The book owed its great popularity to the mediæval tradition which made its author a martyr for the Catholic faith under Arian persecution; but modern criticism has sought to prove that in all probability he was not even a Christian. Still more decidedly the theological writings on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ bearing his name are repudiated as irreconcileable with the contents and character of the _De consolatione_; though, on the other hand, their authenticity has again found several most capable defenders. Finally, Usener has conclusively, as it seems, in a newly discovered fragment of Cassiodorus, brought forward a quite incontestable witness for their authenticity. In any case Boëthius did great service in preserving the continuity of Western culture by his hearty encouragement and careful prosecution of classical studies at a time when these were threatened with utter neglect. Of special importance was his translation of a commentary on the logical works of Aristotle as the first and for a long time almost the only philosophical groundwork of mediæval scholasticism (§ 99, 2).

c. Magnus Aurelius =Cassiodorus=, surnamed Senator, belonged to Southern Italy and held the highest civil offices under Odoacer and Theodoric for fifty years. About A.D. 540, he retired to the cloister of Vivarium founded by him in Southern Italy, and devoted the rest of his life to the sciences and the instruction of the monks. He collected a great library in his monastery, and employed the monks in transcribing classical and patristic writings. He died about A.D. 575 when almost a hundred years old. His own writings show indeed no independence and originality, but are all the more important as concentrated collections of classical and patristic learning for the later Latin Middle Ages. His twelve books of the History of the Goths have come down only in the condensed reproduction of Jordanes or Jornandes. His twelve books _Variarum_ (_sc. epistolarum et formularum_), which consist of a collection of acts and ordinances of the period of his civil service, are important for the history of his age. His _Historia ecclest. tripartita_ (§ 5, 1), was for many centuries almost the only text book of church history, and his _Institutiones divinarum et sæcularum litterarum_ had a similar position as a guide to the study of theology and the seven liberal arts (§ 90, 8). Also his commentary on the Psalms and the most of the books of the New Testament, made up of compilations, was held in high esteem.

c. =Dionysius Exiguus=, a Scythian by birth, who became a Roman abbot, and died about A.D. 566, may also be placed in this group. He translated many Greek patristic writings, by his _Cyclus paschalis_ became founder of the Western reckoning of Easter (§ 56, 3), and also the more universally adopted so-called Dionysian era. By his _Codex Canonum_ he is also the founder of the Western system of Canon Law (§ 43, 3).

§ 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.

§ 48.1. =Exegetical Theology.=--Nothing was done in the way of criticism of the original biblical text. Even Jerome was only a translator. For the Old Testament the LXX. sufficed, and the divergences of the Hebrew text were explained as Jewish alterations. Hebrew was a _terra incognita_ to the fathers, Polychronius and Jerome only are notable exceptions. The allegorical method of interpretation was and continued to be the prevalent one. The Antiocheans, however, put limits to it by their theory and practice of the right of historico-grammatical interpretation. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia contested the principles of Origen, while Gregory of Nyssa in his _Proemium in Cant._ undertook their defence. The first attempt at a system of =Hermeneutics= was made by the learned Donatist Tychonius in his book the _Regulæ_ vii. _ad investigandam intelligentiam ss. Scr._ More profound is Augustine’s _De Doctrina Chr._ The Εἰσαγωγὴ τῆς θείας γραφῆς of the Greek Adrianus with its opposition to the immoderate allegorizing that then prevailed, deserves mention here. Jerome contributed to biblical =Introduction= by his various _Proœmia_. The first attempt at a scientific introduction to biblical study (isagogical and biblico-theological in the form of question and answer), is met with in the 2 bks. _Instituta regularia div. legis_ of the African Junilius, a prominent courtier at Constantinople, about A.D. 550. There is a Latin rendering made by Junilius at the request of Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum, of a treatise composed originally in Syriac, by Paul the Persian, teacher of the Nestorian seminary at Nisibis, which he had collected from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, for the purposes of instruction. The title _Departibus div. legis_, usually given to the whole, properly belongs only to the first part of the treatise. A more popular guide is Cassiodorus’ _Institutio divinarum litt._ Some contributions were made to biblical archaeology by Eusebius and Epiphanius. Of the allegorical =Exegetes= of the East, the most productive was Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochean school produced a whole series of able expositors of the grammatico-historical sense of scripture. In the commentaries of Chrysostom and Ephraem [Ephraim] the Syrian, that method of interpretation is applied in a directly practical interest. The Westerns Hilary, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine, as well as their later imitators, all allegorize; yet Jerome also applied himself very diligently to the elucidation of the grammatical sense. Only Pelagius is content to rest in the plain literal meaning of scripture. From the 6th century, almost all independent work in the department of exegesis ceased. We have from this time only _Catenæ_, collections of passages from commentaries and homilies of distinguished fathers. The first Greek writer of Catenæ, was Procopius of Gaza, in the 6th century; and the first Latin writer of these was Primasius of Adrumetum, about A.D. 560.

§ 48.2. =Historical Theology.=--The writing of Church history flourished especially during the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 5, 1). For the history of heresies we have Epiphanius, Theodoret, Leontius of Byzantium; and among the Latins, Augustine, Philastrius [Philaster], and the author of _Prædestinatus_ (§ 47, 21f). There are numerous biographies of distinguished fathers. On these compare the so-called _Liber pontificalis_, see § 90, 6. Jerome laid the foundation of a history of theological literature in a series of biographies, and Gennadius of Massilia continued this work. With special reference to monkish history, we have among the Greeks, Palladius, Theodoret and Joh. Moschus; and among the Latins, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregory the Great and Gregory of Tours (§ 90, 2). Of great importance for ecclesiastical statistics is the Τοπογραφία χριστιανική in 12 bks., whose author _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, monk in the Sinai peninsula about A.D. 540, had in his earlier years as an Alexandrian merchant travelled much in the East. The connection of biblical and profane history is treated of in the Chronicle of Eusebius. Orosius too treats of profane history from the Christian standpoint. The _Hist. persecutionis Vandalorum_ (§ 76, 3), of Victor, bishop of Vita in Africa, about A.D. 487, is of great value for the church history of Africa. For chronology the so-called _Chronicon paschale_, in the Greek language, is of great importance. It is the work of two unknown authors; the work of the one reaching down to A.D. 354, that of the other, down to A.D. 630. These chronological tables obtained their name from the fact that the Easter cycles and indictions are always carefully determined in them.

§ 48.3. =Systematic Theology.=

a. =Apologetics.= The controversial treatises of Porphyry and Hierocles were answered by many (§ 23, 3); that of the Emperor Julian also (§ 42, 5), especially by Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostum [Chrysostom] (in the Discourse on St. Babylas), and most powerfully by Cyril of Alexandria. Ambrose and the poet Prudentius answered the tract of Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4. The insinuations of Zosimus, Eunapius, and others (§ 42, 5) were met by Orosius with his _Historiæ_, by Augustine with his _Civ. Dei_, and by Salvian [Salvianus] with his _De gubernatione Dei_. Johannes Philoponus wrote against Proclus’ denial of the biblical doctrine of creation. The vindication of Christianity against the charges of the Jews was undertaken by Aphraates, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregentius, bishop of Taphne in Arabia, who, in A.D. 540, disputed for four days amid a great crowd with the Jew Herban. Apologies of a general character were written by Eusebius of Cæsarea, Athanasius, Theodoret and Firmicus Maternus.

b. In =Polemics= against earlier and later heretics, the utmost energy and an abundance of acuteness and depth of thought were displayed. See under the history of theological discussions, § 50 ff.

c. Positive =Dogmatics=. Origen’s example in the construction of a complete scientific system of doctrine has no imitator. For practical purposes, however, the whole range of Christian doctrine was treated by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Apollinaris, Epiphanius, Rufinus (_Expositio Symboli Apost._), Augustine (in the last book of the _Civ. Dei_, in first book of his _De Doctrina Chr._, and in the _Enchiridium ad Laurentium_). The African Fulgentius of Ruspe (_De regula veræ fidei_), Gennadius of Massilia (_De fide sua_), and Vincentius [Vincent] of Lerinum in his _Commonitorium_. Much more important results for the development of particular dogmas were secured by means of polemics. Of supreme influence on subsequent ages were the mystico-theosophical writings of the Pseudo-Areopagite. This mysticism, so far as adopted, was combined by the acute and profound thinker Maximus Confessor with the orthodox theology of the Councils.

d. =Morals.= The _De officiis ministr._ of Ambrose is a system of moral instruction for the clergy; and of the same sort is Chrysostom’s Περὶ ἱερωσύνης; while Cassianus’ writings form a moral system for the monks, and Gregory’s _Exposit. in Jobum_ a vast repertory on general morality.

§ 48.4. =Practical Theology.=--The whole period is peculiarly rich in distinguished homilists. The most brilliant of the Greek preachers were: Macarius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Ephraem [Ephraim] the Syrian, and above all Chrysostom. Of the Latins the most distinguished were Ambrose, Augustine, Zeno of Verona, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Leo the Great, and Cæsarius of Arles. A sort of Homiletics is found in the 4th of Augustine’s _De Doctr. Chr._, and a directory for pastoral work, in the _Regula pastoralia_ of Gregory the Great. On Liturgical writings, comp. § 59, 6; on Constitutional works, § 43, 3-5.

§ 48.5. =Christian Poetry.=--The beginning of the prevalence of Christianity occurred at a time when the poetic art had already ceased to be consecrated to the national life of the ancient world. But it proved an intellectual power which could cause to swell out again the poetic vein, relaxed by the weakness of age. In spite of the depraved taste and deteriorated language, it called forth a new period of brilliancy in the history of poetry which could rival classical poetry, not indeed in purity and elegance of form, but in intensity and depth. The Latins in this far excelled the Greeks; for to them Christianity was more a matter of experience, emotion, the inner life, to the Greeks a matter of knowledge and speculation. Among the =Greeks= the most distinguished are these: =Gregory Nazianzen=. He deserves notice mainly for his satirical _Carmen de vita sua_, περὶ ἑαυτοῦ. Among his numerous other poems are some beautiful hymns and many striking phrases, but also much that is weak and flat. The drama Χριστὸς πάσχων, perhaps wrongly bearing his name, modelled on the tragedies of Euripides and in great part made up of Euripidean verses, is not without interest as the first Christian passion-play, and contains some beautiful passages; _e.g._ the lament of Mary; but it is on the whole insipid and confused. =Nonnus of Panopolis=, about A.D. 400, wrote a Παράφρασις ἐπικὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγ. κατὰ Ἰωάννην, somewhat more useful for textual criticism and archaeology, than likely to afford enjoyment as poetry. Of the poetical works of the Empress =Eudocia=, wife of Theodosius II., daughter of the pagan rhetorician Leontius of Athens, hence called Athenais (she died about the year 460), only fragments of their renderings in the Cyprian legends have come down to us. The loss of her _Homero-centoes_ celebrated by Photius, _i.e._ reproductions of the biblical books of the New Testament in pure Homeric words and verses, is not perhaps to be very sorely lamented. On the other hand, the poetic description of the church of Sophia, built by Justinian I. and of the ambo of that church which =Paulus Silentiarius= left behind him, is not only of archaeological value, but also is not without poetic merit.

§ 48.6. =Christian Latin Poetry= reached its highest excellence in the composition of hymns (§ 59, 4). But also in the more ambitious forms of epic, didactic, panegyric, and hortatory poems, it has respectable representatives, especially in Spain and Gaul, whose excellence of workmanship during such a period of restlessness and confusion is truly wonderful. To the fourth century belongs the Spaniard =Juvencus=, about A.D. 330. His _Hist. evangelica_ in 4 books, is the first Christian epic; a work of sublime simplicity, free of all bombast or rhetorical rant, which obtained for him the name of “the Christian Virgil.” His _Liber in Genesin_ versifies in a similar manner the Mosaic history of the patriarchs. His countryman =Prudentius=, who died about A.D. 410, was a poet of the first rank, distinguished for depth of sensibility, glowing enthusiasm, high lyrical flow, and singular skill in versification. His _Liber Cathemerinon_ consists of 12 hymns, for the 12 hours of the day, and his _Liber Peristephanon_, 14 hymns on the same number of saints who had won the martyr’s crown; his _Apotheosis_ is an Anti-Arian glorification of Christ; the _Hamartigenia_ treats of the origin of sin; the _Psychomachia_ describes the conflict of the virtues and vices of the human soul; and his 2 bks. _Contra Symmachum_ combat the views of Symmachus, referred to in § 42, 4.--In the fifth century flourished: =Paulinus=, bishop of Nola in Campania, who died in A.D. 431. He left behind him 30 poems, of which 13 celebrate in noble, enthusiastic language, the life of Felix of Nola, martyr during the Decian persecution. =Coelius Sedulius=, an Irishman (?), composed in smooth dignified verse the Life of Jesus, and the _Mirabilia divina s. Opus paschale_, so called from 1 Cor. v. 7 in 5 bks.; and a Collatio V. et N.T. in elegiac verse. The _De libero arbitrio c. ingratos_ of the Gaul =Prosper Aquitanicus= lashes with poetic fury the thankless despisers of grace (§ 53, 5).--The most important poet of the sixth century was =Venantius Fortunatus=, bishop of Poitiers, _Vita Martini_, hymns, elegies, etc.

§ 48.7. In the =National Syrian= Church, the first place as a poet belongs to =Ephraem= [Ephraim], the _Propheta Syrorum_. In poetic endowment, lyrical flow, depth and intensity of feeling, he leaves all later writers far behind. Next to him stands =Cyrillonas=, about A.D. 400, a poet whose very name, until quite recently, was unknown, of whose poems six are extant, two being metrical homilies. Of =Rabulas of Edessa=, who died in A.D. 435, the notorious partisan of Cyril of Alexandria (§ 53, 3), and of =Baläus=, about A.D. 430, we possess only a number of liturgical odes, which are not altogether destitute of poetic merit. This cannot, however, be said of the poetic works of =Isaac of Antioch=, who died about A.D. 460, filled with frigid polemics against Nestorius and Eutyches, of which their Catholic editor (Opp. ed. G. Bickell, Giess., 1873 f.) has to confess they are thoroughly “insipid, flat and wearisome, and move backwards and forwards in endless tautologies.” Less empty and tiresome are the poetic effusions of the famous =Jacob of Sarug=, who died in A.D. 521; biblical stories, metrical homilies, hymns, etc. Most of the numerous liturgical odes are the compositions of unknown authors.

§ 48.8. =The Legendary History of Cyprian.=--At the basis of the poetic rendering of this legend in 3 bks. by the Empress Eudocia, about A.D. 440, lay three little works in prose, still extant in the Greek original and in various translations. In early youth Cyprian, impelled by an insatiable craving after knowledge, power and enjoyment, seeks to obtain all the wisdom of the Greeks, all the mysteries of the East, and for this purpose travels through Greece, Egypt, and Chaldæa. But when he gets all this he is not satisfied; he makes a compact with the devil, to whom he unreservedly surrenders himself, who in turn places at his disposal now a great multitude of demons, and promises to make him hereafter one of his chief princes. Then comes he to Antioch. There Aglaidas, an eminent heathen sophist, who in vain abandoned all to win the love of a maiden named Justina, who had taken vows of perpetual virginity, calls in his magical arts, in order thereby to gain the end so ardently desired. Cyprian enters into the affair all the more eagerly since he himself also meanwhile has entertained a strong passion for the fair maiden. But the demons sent by him, at last the devil himself, are forced to flee from her, through her calling on the name of Jesus and making the sign of the cross, and are obliged to own their powerlessness before the Christians’ God. Now Cyprian repents, repudiates his covenant with the devil, lays before an assembly of Antiochean Christians a confession inspired by the most profound despairing sorrow of the innumerable mischiefs wrought by him with the help of the demons, is comforted by the Christians present by means of consolatory words of scripture, receives baptism, enters the ranks of the clergy as reader, passes quickly through the various clerical offices, and suffers the death of a martyr as bishop of Antioch, along with Justina, under the Emperor Claudius II.--Gregory Nazianzen too in a discourse delivered at Constantinople in A.D. 379, “on the day of the holy martyr and bishop Cyprian,” treated of the legend, in which without more ado he identifies the converted Antiochean sorcerer with the famous Carthaginian bishop of that name, and makes him suffer martyrdom under Decius (?).--The romance may have borrowed the name of its hero from an old wizard; but his type of character is certainly to be looked for in the philosophico-theurgical efforts of the Syrio-Neoplatonic school of Iamblichus (§ 24, 2), in which the then expiring heathenism gathered up its last energies for conflict with victorious Christianity. The conception of the heroine on the other hand, is with slight modifications borrowed from the Thecla legend (§ 32, 6). By the _Legenda aurea_ (§ 104, 8), which is just an adaptation of this earlier one, the legend of Cyprian was carried down even beyond the time of the Reformation. Calderon’s “Wonder-working Magician” presents a Spanish-Catholic, as the Faustus legend of the 16th century presents a German Protestant construction, which latter, however, in direct opposition to the tendency of the early Christian legend, allows the magician to drop into hell because his repentance came too late. The Romish Church, however, still maintains the historical genuineness of the old legend, and celebrates both of the supposed saints on one day, 25th September.

IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.

§ 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.

When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in previous periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified development, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition of things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm what was already developed or was still in the course of development. The endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate definition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between the churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being restricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact and conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took parts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting struggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised by the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the branding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy.

The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic kind (§ 26). Those of the period now under consideration have an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period are found in this (§ 54). The third possible form of heresies is the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist, so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated instances of this kind of heresy are met with (§ 62).

§ 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.[150]

The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or Arian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being of the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to the Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses (§ 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father had found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed with it as the fundamental doctrine (§ 47, 1). But the fear excited by Sabellius and the Samosatians (§ 33, 8), that the acknowledgment of the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction and doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism. It was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (§ 31, 9) that furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the two contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the substance of the Father, had been still maintained together (§ 33, 6). Now they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side, Athanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by the eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption of the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up the eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went to the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate party, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated contraries together with the newly discovered cement of the ὁμοιουσία. In the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged throughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the trinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into the discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture, the Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and became the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy.

§ 50.1. =Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, A.D. 318-325=--=Arius=, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313 presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), that by the will of the Father (θελήματι θεοῦ) He was created out of nothing (κτίσμα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), and that by His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be called θεός and λόγος. =Alexander=, bishop of Alexandria at that time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321, which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops, who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his former fellow student (Συλλουκιανίστης) Eusebius of Nicomedia, and to the very influential Eusebius of Cæsarea (§ 47, 2). The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous. Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors, travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded, fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels (ἐλάχισται ζητήσεις) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cordŏva, who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict, and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light. Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an =Œcumenical Council at Nicæa=, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with Eusebius of Cæsarea at their head, were Origenists and sought, as did also the =Eusebians=, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however, being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence of the young deacon =Athanasius=, whom Alexander brought with him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula proposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own congregation, a new confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτίσεως πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνιων, and in their place strictly Homoousian formulæ were substituted, ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, γεννηθεὶς οὐ ποιηθεὶς, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί; while with added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned. This was the =Symbolum Nicænum=. Arius was excommunicated and his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicæa, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards banished to Gaul.[151]

§ 50.2. =Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.=--This unity under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not therefore be enduring. The emperor’s dying sister Constantia and the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (§ 41, 4), ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should be there received back again into church fellowship, but on the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him, A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets, in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital, died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nicæan. The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian, Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate the West, as closely as possible that of Nicæa, but carefully avoiding the term ὁμοούσιος. In the interests of unity Constantius and Constans jointly convened an Œcumenical Council at Sardica in Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius (§ 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds, confirmed Athanasius’ restoration, and the Alexandrian church received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who presented to them a weak spot. The bishop =Marcellus of Ancyra= in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene _Homoousia_ had been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views. At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of Cæsarea in the course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his own scholars =Photinus=, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (§ 33, 1). His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly Nicæan Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus’ doctrine.[152] The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul, A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius, Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Calăris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius [Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole range of the Roman Empire.

§ 50.3. =Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.=--The Eusebians now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party, with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence called =Anomœans=, also _Exucontians_ (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also the distinctly moderate party, called =semi-Arians=[153] or _Homoiousians_, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος, made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens, strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that the Son is _like_ the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name =Homoians=). Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance, in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it. The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed the _Homoian_ symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius, were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire. Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this artificial bond.

§ 50.4. =Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.=--Julian gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops. Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor, Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I. surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4). The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms. Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople. To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency of the so-called =Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381=.[154]--When, however, his patriarchate was attacked, because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities. Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.--The Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court (§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.

§ 50.5. =The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.=--Arius and the Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers, avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians. It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians, Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380 at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.[155]

§ 50.6. =The Literature of the Controversy.=--Arius himself developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια, fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost. The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote against Marcellus--Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks, Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5. Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians. Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa 12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks. _De Trinitate_. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret wrote _Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate_. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus, too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris (_Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen._); Hilary of Poitiers (_De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra Constantium Aug._; _C. Auxentium_); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum about A.D. 359 (_C. Arianos_); Ambrose (_De fide ad Gratianum Aug. Lb. V._); Augustine (_C. Sermonem Arianorum_; _Collatio cum Maximo Arianorum episc._; _C. Maximinum_); Fulgentius of Ruspe (_C. Arianos_, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king Thrasimund).

§ 50.7. =Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.=--Even the Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this defect (_De Trinitate Lb. XV._). The personality of the Spirit, too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.[156] But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition (to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called _Symbolum Nic.-Constant._ (§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile come forward with a further development of this doctrine, and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26). Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative of the further development of the dogma (_De s. Trinitate_). The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this advanced development in the proposition: _qui procedit a Patre et Filio_. Similarly the _Filioque_ is found also in the so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).--Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2.

§ 50.8. =Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.=

I. =The Meletian Schism at Antioch.= The Arians at Antioch had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion of his people, however, remained attached to him and Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360 Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital, his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste, formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however, served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop. Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus. The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the presidency, recommended that the next election should be postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then both parties should join the election. It was, however, all in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians, joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way won them over to join him in the principal church.

II. =The Schism of the Luciferians.= After Lucifer by his irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch, he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth century.

III. On the =Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome=, see § 46, 4.

§ 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.

Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.

§ 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a somewhat extreme spiritualism.

§ 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in =bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and =Rufinus= who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism. When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus, and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy, which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore, sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of Origen and others of the Greeks.

§ 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople, A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous, ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ μακροί, two of whom served in his church as _œconomi_, refused to pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople (§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom, by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_, A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality, offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city. Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood. With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407 he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart, notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites, until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault. Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again further on (§ 52, 6).[158]

§ 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]

In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of only one will.

§ 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy, A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._, Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body. At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος, and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought, one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently joined the Monophysites.

§ 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity, of Christ were finally established. On the relation between the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις, he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον, ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical, the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures, εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων, but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and _in abstracto_ (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean Theology= (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine. It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική, by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies, but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit. He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced personality and independence.--Each of these two schools represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine; in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the =Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West, but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained. In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426 he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but retracted his errors almost immediately.

§ 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called =Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature, and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius, was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439 condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria (§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II. A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called =Third= (properly =Second=, comp. § 50, 4) =Œcumenical Council at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor. Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval; and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents. This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret; but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions. Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school, and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13). After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499, under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.

§ 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=

I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril’s successor was =Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great= (§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor, however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449, at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for the first time there was a representative of the monastic order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected, and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment. The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas, Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated. Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium Ephesinum_, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’ death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken. His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended the throne. A new =Œcumenical Council= (the so-called =fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus, who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation the unity of the person consists in two natures which are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως) and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example, Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals, the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session, when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their point, but they were again defeated after violent debate, in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person and writings of Ibas.[162]

§ 52.5.

II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent. Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius. The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus [Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3), which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474, a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476, under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand, organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon= of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated, and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides. The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius. Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3) continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship between the parties was not restored until Justin I., who thought that the schism would hinder his projected reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed those who adhered to it.

§ 52.6.

III. =Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565. He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor, who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς, had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition. Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas, secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore, the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_. The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation, but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration, the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans, under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus] wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defensío III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage, a _Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an important source of information for the history of the Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened the =Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=, which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable, and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.

§ 52.7.

IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them than the persecutions of the orthodox national church were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves. First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the =Julianists= denied it. This first split was followed by many others. By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that the present world as to form and matter would perish at the last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus, affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form only, and that the risen saints would again possess the same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves. They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar, ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction. He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites, _Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia. Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_ § 72, 2.

§ 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing objectionable in this formula which had already been used by the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of the Severians attached themselves again to the national church. Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict, the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12) entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium. This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis, Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople, but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office. Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor. The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival. Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats, imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience. In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates appeared at the =Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks, finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals, contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council, expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “_qui profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est_.”--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist. Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3).

§ 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649 and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8), Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced; that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first, but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed. of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially, _ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_ his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned _ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).[164]

§ 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165]

While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts, the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and human freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally obtained the victory.

§ 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation, and to account for man’s present condition by bad training, evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however, § 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux animæ, tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian, himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin, spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West. Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism, which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists, without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin. Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1) held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, _anima sensitiva_ as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East, only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o.).[166]

§ 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity, Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness, but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying, the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption. In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt, death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption, passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary, in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe; for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer (_gratia præveniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ (in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_) unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in the making righteous of his whole life and being through the Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man, _Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said: “God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean, “all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (_Reprobati_) can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect (_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_). The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseverantiæ_). To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation, but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures. So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus, non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167]

§ 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (§ 47, 21), a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life, without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification, by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour. Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one side or the other. The universality of sin results from the power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore, not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_). Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these supernaturalistic elements.

§ 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409 Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20) happening to be there formally complained against him, and a provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine= Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions, contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy (_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._), and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals, however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._, in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however, in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus], perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges against the Africans, against which again these entered a vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his _Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his _Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the =Œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however, determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413 he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415 against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against Cœlestius, _De perfectione justitiæ hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI. c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.: Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

§ 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one, sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine, without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_ (§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his _Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate_ (Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum est_. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed. But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and _De dono perseverantiæ_. He was prevented by his death, which took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest. Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents (Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in the notable work entitled _Prædestinatus_, pretending to be written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity, and these sought to justify their own position. The first book contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium (§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial treatise _De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio_, and also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe (§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his _De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form, and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged, faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529, at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation § 91, 5.

§ 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.

Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the name of Priscillianism.

§ 54.1. =Manichæism.=--The universal toleration of religion, which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I. the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them. The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there, Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in 33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix, in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo, Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals, whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices. Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then, however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power (§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71). Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1).

§ 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system. Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community. “_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._” Soon Priscillianists spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul. Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian, who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop, Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his _Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests in other directions allowed to take but little part in this controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for some centuries longer.[169]

V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.

§ 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.

Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of persecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding stateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so much attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the other developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and sifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular ways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public spirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential unity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into harmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough to make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling endeavours of catholicity.

The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril’s prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints, images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc., but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of dogmas not yet established, _e.g._ in the doctrine of the church, of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s Supper, etc., etc.

§ 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.

The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory of special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous period found expression (§ 37), but it now passed into the background all the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in the richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference in the development of East and West occasioned each to take its own particular course, determined in the one case very much by a Jewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency. Nevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling of these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that the three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both churches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development of the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly from one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more unreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and pattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained a richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and inwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth of saints’ days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its ideal.

§ 56.1. =The Weekly Cycle.=--Constantine the Great issued a law in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and municipal business was stopped on =Sunday=. At a later period he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the =Sabbath= was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The _Dies stationum_, Wednesday and Friday (§ 37), were observed in the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast.

§ 56.2. =Hours and Quarterly Fasts.=--The number of appointed _hours of prayer_ (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan. vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during the 5th century to eight (_Horæ canonicæ: Matutina_ or matins at 3 a.m.; _Prima_ at 6 a.m.; _Tertia_ at 9 a.m.; _Sexta_ at 12 noon; _Nona_ at 3 p.m.; _Vesper_ at 6 p.m.; _Completorium_ at 9 p.m.; and _Mesonyktion_ or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics. The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name _Breviarium_ commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form in which it is still current.--In the West the year was divided into three-monthly periods, _quatuor tempora_, corresponding to the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the Great brought this institution to perfection. The _quatuor tempora_, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima, in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and 10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil.

§ 56.3. =The Reckoning of Easter.=--At the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that of Asia Minor (§ 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method were regarded as a sect (_Quartadecimani_ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται). The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical determination of the festival on each occasion, because there astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter, _Liber paschalis_, giving to the other churches the result of the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday but eight days later,--a practice which Rome also, and with her a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (§ 77, 3). A further difference existed as to the point of time with which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning. The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (§ 31, 3) had calculated it in a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years’ cycle of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more exact nineteen-years’ cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was made as the basis of an eighty-four years’ cycle which had indeed the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 ✕ 19) years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine, was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing the advantage of the eighty-four years’ cycle above referred to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (§ 47, 23), finally, in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning by setting up a ninety-five years’ cycle (5 ✕ 19), and this cycle was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede (§ 90, 2). The error occasioned by the inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian reform of the calendar (§ 149, 3).

§ 56.4. =The Easter Festivals.=--The pre-eminence of the Christian festival of victory (the resurrection) over that of suffering, especially among the Greeks, led, even in the 4th century to the former as the fruit of the latter being drawn into the paschal season, and distinguished as πάσχα ἀναστάσιμον from that as πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, and also at last to the adoption of the one name of Paschal or Easter Festival and to the regarding of the whole Quadragesima season as a preparation for Easter. The Saxon name Easter is derived from the old German festival of Ostara the goddess of spring which was celebrated at the same season.--With the beginning of the Quadragesima the whole mode of life assumes a new form. All amusements were stopped, all criminal trials sisted and the din of traffic in streets and markets as far as possible restricted. The East exempted Sunday and Sabbath from the obligation of fasting, with the exception of the last Sabbath as the day of Christ’s rest in the grave, but the West exempted only Sunday. Gregory the Great, therefore, fixed the beginning of the Quadragesima on Wednesday of the seventh week before Easter, _Caput jejunii, Dies cinerum_, Ash Wednesday, so called because the bishop strewed ashes on the heads of believers with a warning reference to Gen. iii. 19, comp. xviii. 27. With the Tuesday preceding, Shrove Tuesday (from _shrive_, to confess), ended the carnival season (_carni valedicere_) which, beginning with 6th Jan. or the feast of the three holy kings, reached its climax in the last days, from three to eight, before Ash Wednesday. On this closing day the people generally sought indemnification for the approaching strict fast by an unmeasured abandoning of themselves to pleasure. From Italy where this custom arose and was most fully carried out, it subsequently found its way into the other lands of the West. In opposition to these unspiritual proceedings the period of the Easter festivals was begun three weeks earlier with the 10th Sunday before Easter (_Septuagesima_). The Hallelujah of the Mass was silenced, weddings were no more celebrated (_Tempus clausum_), monks and clerics already began the fast. The Quadragesima festival reached its climax in the last, the _great_ week. It began with Palm Sunday (ἑορτὴ τῶν βαΐων) and ended with the great Sabbath, the favourite time for baptisms (Rom. vi. 3). Thursday as the memorial day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and Friday as the day of Christ’s death, Good Friday, were days of special importance. A solemn night service, Easter vigils, marked the transition to the joyous Easter celebrations. The old legend that on this night Christ’s second coming would take place rendered the service peculiarly solemn. Easter morning began with the jubilant greeting: The Lord is risen, and the response, He is risen indeed. On the following Sunday, the Easter Octave, _Pascha clausum_, ἀντίπασχα, the Easter festival was brought to a close. Those baptized on the great Sabbath wore for the last time their white baptismal dress. Hence this sabbath was called _Dominica in albis_; subsequently, in accordance with the Introitus from 1 Pet. ii. 2, Quasimodogeniti; and by the Greeks, καινὴ κυριακή. The joyous celebrations of Easter extended over all the Quinquagesima period between Easter and Pentecost. Ascension day, _Festum ascensionis_, ἑορτὴ τῆς ἀναλήψεως, and Pentecost, πεντεκοστή, were introduced as high festivals by vigil services; and the latter was concluded by the Pentecost-Octave, by the Greeks called κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτυρησάντων and at a much later date styled by the Latins Trinity Sunday. The Festival-Octaves, ἀπολύσεις, had an Old Testament pattern in the עֲצֶרֶת of the Feast of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 26.

§ 56.5. =The Christmas Festivals.=--The first traces of the Christmas festival (_Natalis Christi_, γενέθλια) in the Roman church are found about A.D. 360. Some decades later they appear in the Eastern church. The late introduction of this festival is to be explained from the disregard of the birthday and the prominence given to the day of the death of Christ in the ancient church; but Chrysostom even regarded it as the μητρόπολις πασῶν τῶν ἑορτῶν. Since the 25th of March as the spring equinox was held as the day of creation, the day of the incarnation, the conception of Christ, the second Adam, as the beginning of the new creation was held on the same day, and hence 25th Dec. was chosen as the day of Christ’s birth. The Christian festival thus coincided nearly with the heathen _Saturnalia_, in memory of the Golden Age, from 17th to 23rd Dec., the _Sigillaria_, on the 24th Dec., when children were presented with dolls and images of clay and wax, sigilla, and the _Brumalia_, on 25th Dec., _Dies natalis invicti solis_, the winter solstice. It was considered no mere chance coincidence that Christ, the eternal Sun, should be born just on this day. The Christmas festival too was introduced by a vigil and lasted for eight days, which in the 6th century became the _Festum circumcisionis_. The revelling that characterised the New Year Festival of the pagans, caused the ancient church, to observe that day as a day of penance and fasting. The feast of the Epiphany on the 6th Jan. (§ 37, 1) was also introduced in the West during the 4th century but obtained there a Gentile-Christian colouring from Luke ii. 21 and was kept as the festival of the first fruits of the Gentiles and received the name of the Festival of the three holy kings. For even Tertullian in accordance with Ps. lxxii. 10 had made the Magi kings; it was concluded that they were three because of the three gifts spoken of; and Bede, about A.D. 700, gives their names as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. By others this festival was associated with Christ’s first miracle at the marriage in Cana, and also with the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness. After the analogy of the Easter festival since the 6th century a longer preliminary celebration has been connected with the Christmas festival. In the Eastern church, beginning with the 14th of Nov., it embraced six Sundays with forty fast days, as the second Quadragesima of the year. In the Latin church, as the season of Advent, it had only four Sundays, with a three weeks’ fast.

§ 56.6. =The Church Year= was in the East a symbolic adaptation of the natural year only in so far as it brought with it the Christianising of the Jewish festivals and the early recognition of Western ideas about the feasts. Only on the high festivals, Christmas, Easter and Pentecost are they retained; on the other Sundays and festivals they never obtained expression. The Easter festival was considered the beginning of the church year; thereafter the Quadragesima or Epiphany; and finally, the Old Testament beginning of the year in September. The whole church year was divided into four parts according to the _Lectio continua_ of the gospel, and the Sundays were named thereafter. The κυριακὴ πρώτη τοῦ Ματθαίου was immediately after Pentecost. The =Latin Church Year= begins with the season of Advent, and distinguishes a _Semestre Domini_ and a _Semestre ecclesiæ_. But only the former was fully developed: Christmas, Easter, Pentecost with the Sundays belonging to them, representing the founding, developing and completing of the history of salvation. To a corresponding development of the second half we find early contributions, _e.g._ the Feast of Peter and Paul on 29th June as festival of the founding of the church by the Apostles, the Feast of the leading martyr Laurentius (§ 22, 5) on 10th August as memorial of the struggle prescribed to the _Ecclesia militans_, and the Feast of Michael on 29th September with reference to the completion in the _Ecclesia triumphans_. That in these feasts we have already the germs of the three festivals of the community of the church which were to correspond to the three festivals of the Lord’s history appears significantly in the early designation of the Sundays after Pentecost as _Dominica post Apostolos, post Laurentium, post Angelos_. But it never was distinctly further carried out. This deeply significant distribution was overlaid by saint worship, which overflowed the _Semestre Domini_. The principle of Christianising the Pagan rites was legitimated by Gregory the Great. He instructed the Anglo-Saxon missionaries to the effect (§ 77, 4), that they should convert the heathen temples into churches and heathen festivals into ecclesiastical festivals and days of martyrs, _ut duræ mentes gradibus vel passibus non autem saltibus eleventur_. The saints henceforth take the place of gods of nature and the church year reproduced with a Christian colouring all the outstanding points in the natural year.--As the last festival connected with the history of the Lord, the Feast of the Glorification, ἁγία μεταμόρφωσις, was held in the East on 6th August. According to tradition the scene was enacted on Mt. Tabor, hence the feast was called Θαβώριον. The Latin church adopted it first in the 15th century (_F. transfigurationis_).[170]

§ 56.7. =The Church Fasts= (§ 37, 3).--In the Greek church the ordinance of fasting was more strict than in the Latin. In one period, however, we have a system of fasts embracing four great fasting seasons: The Quadragesima of Easter and of Christmas, the period of from three to five weeks from the Pentecost Octave (the Greek Feast of All Saints) to that of Peter and Paul on 29th June, and the fourteen days before the Ascension of Mary on 15th August. There were also the νηστεῖαι προεόρτιοι on the evenings previous to other festivals; and finally, the weekly recurring fasts of Wednesday and Friday. The strictest was the pre-Easter fast, observed with gradually advancing rigidness. On Sexagesima Sunday flesh was eaten for the last time, then followed the so-called Butter week, when butter, cheese, milk and eggs were still allowed; but thereafter complete avoidance of all fattening food was enjoined, reaching during the great week to the utmost possible degree of abstinence. In the West instead of Wednesday, Saturday was taken along with Friday, and down to the 13th century it was enjoined that nothing should be eaten on these two days of the week, as also on the quarterly days (_quatuor tempora_) and the evenings preceding the feasts of the most famous Apostles and martyrs, the vigil fasts, until 3 p.m. (_Semijejunium_) or even till 6 p.m. (_Plenum jejunium_); while in the longer seasons of fasting before Easter and before Christmas the injunction was restricted to avoidance of all fat foods (_Abstinentia_).--Continuation § 115, 1.

§ 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.[171]

Though with the times of persecution martyrdom had ceased, asceticism where it was preached with unusual severity gave a claim to canonisation which was still bestowed by the people’s voice regarded as the voice of God. Forgotten saints were discovered by visions, and legend insensibly eked out the poverty of historical reminiscences with names and facts. The veneration of martyrs rose all the higher the more pitiable the present generation showed in its lukewarmness and worldliness over against the world-conquering faith of that great cloud of witnesses. The worship of Mary, which came in as a result of the Nestorian controversy, was later of being introduced than that of the martyrs, but it almost immediately shot far ahead and ranked above the adoration of all the other saints. The adoration of Angels, of which we find the beginnings even in Justin and Origen, remained far behind the worship of the saints. Pilgrimages were zealously undertaken, from the time when the emperor’s mother Helena, in A.D. 326, went as a pilgrim to holy places in Palestine and afterwards marked these out by building on them beautiful churches. The worship of images was introduced first in the age of Cyril of Alexandria and was carried out with peculiar eagerness in the art-loving East. The Western teachers, however, and even Gregory the Great himself, only went the length of becoming decoration, using images to secure more impressiveness in teaching and greater liveliness in devotion. In the West, however, still more than in the East, veneration of relics came into vogue.

§ 57.1. =The Worship of Martyrs and Saints= (§ 39, 5).[172]--At a very early period churches were built upon the graves of Martyrs (_Memoria_, _Confessio_, μαρτύριον), or their bones were brought into churches previously built (_Translationes_). New edifices were dedicated in their names, those receiving baptism were named after them. The days of their death were observed as special holy seasons with vigil services, Agape and oblations at their graves. In glowing discourses the orators of the church, in melodious hymns the poets, sounded forth their praises. The bones of the martyrs were sought out with extraordinary zeal and were looked upon and venerated as supremely sacred. Each province, each city and each calling had its own patron saint (_Patronus_). Perhaps as early as the 3rd century several churches had their martyr calendars, _i.e._ lists of those who were to have the day of their death celebrated. In the 4th century this custom had become universal, and from the collection of the most celebrated calendars, with the addition of legendary stories of the lives and sufferings of martyrs or saints (_Legendæ_, so called because they were wont to be _read_ at the memorial services of the individuals referred to), sprang up the _Martyrologies and Legends of the Saints_, among the Greeks called _Menologies_ from μήν, a month. Most esteemed in the West was the martyrology of the Roman church, whose composition has been recently put down, equally with and upon the same grounds as that of the so called _Liber Comitis_, § 59, 3, to the time of Jerome as the chief representative of Western theological learning. This collection formed the basis of the numerous Latin martyrologies of the Middle Ages (§ 90, 9). A rich choice was afforded by these catalogues of saints to those wishing names to use at baptism or confirmation; the saint preferred became thereby the patron of him who took his name. The three great Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West were the first to open the floodgates for the invocation of saints by their proclaiming that the glorified saints through communion with the Lord shared in His attribute of omniprescence and omniscience; while Augustine rather assigned to the angels the task of communicating the invocations of men to the saints. In the liturgies prayers for the saints were now displaced by invocations for their intercession. In this the people found a compensation for the loss of hero, genius and _manes_ worship. The church teachers at least wished indeed to make a marked distinction between _Adoratio_ and _Invocatio_, λατρεία and δουλεία, rendering the former to God only. A festival of All the Martyrs was celebrated in the East as early as the 4th century on the Pentecost octave (§ 56, 4). In the West, Pope Boniface IV., in A.D. 610, having received from the Emperor Phocas the Pantheon as a gift and having converted it into a church of the most Blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs, founded a _Festum omnium Sanctorum_, which was not, however, generally recognised before the 9th century (1st Nov.). Owing to the great number of saints one or more had to be assigned to each day in the calendar. The day fixed was usually that of the death of the saint. The only instance of the celebration of a birthday was the festival of John the Baptist (_Natalis S. Joannis_). The 24th June was fixed upon by calculating from Christmas (acc. to Luke i. 26), and its occurring in the other half of the year from that of Christ afforded a symbolical parallel to John iii. 30. As an appendage to this we meet even in the 5th century with the _F. decollationis S. Joannis_ on 29th Aug. On the second day of the Christmas festival the Feast of the Proto-martyr Stephen was celebrated as the first fruits of the incarnation of God; on the third, the memory of the disciple who lay on the Master’s breast; on the fourth, the innocent children of Bethlehem (_F. innocentium_) as the _flores_ or _primitiæ martyrum_. The festival of the Maccabees (πανήγυρις τῶν Μακκαβαίων) leads yet further back as the memorial of the heroic mother and her seven sons under Antiochus Epiphanes. It was observed as early as the 4th century and did not pass out of use till the 13th. Among the festivals of Apostles that of Peter and Paul (_F. Apost. Petri et Pauli_) on 29th June, as the solemnization of their common martyrdom at Rome, was universally observed. But Rome celebrated besides a double _F. Cathedræ Petri_, for the _Cathedra Romana_ on 18th Jan., and for the _Cathedra Antiochena_ on 22nd Feb. For a long time a symbolical arrangement of the calendar days prevailed; the patriarchs of the Old Testament were put in the time before Christmas, the later saints of the old dispensation in the Quadragesima, and the Apostles and Founders of the church after Pentecost, then the Martyrs, next the Confessors, and finally, the Virgins as prototype of the perfected church.

§ 57.2. =The Worship of Mary and Anna.=[173]--The εὐλογουμένη ἐν γυναιξί who herself full of the Holy Ghost had prophesied: ἰδοὺ γὰρ, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσι με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί, was regarded as the highest ideal of all virginity. All the reverence, which the church accorded to virginity, culminated therefore in her. Even Tertullian alongside of the Pauline contrasts Adam and Christ, placed this other, Eve and Mary. The _perpetua virginitas b. Mariæ_ was an uncontested article of faith from the 4th century. Ambrose understood of her Ezek. xliv. 3, and affirmed that she was born _utero clauso_; Gregory the Great saw an analogy between this and the entering of the Risen One through closed doors (John xx. 19); and the second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692, confessed: ἀλόχευτον τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου θεῖον τόκον εἶναι. Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, had indeed still found something in her worthy of blame, but even Augustine refuses to admit that she should be reckoned among sinners: _Unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum?_ Yet for a long time this veneration of Mary made little progress. This was caused partly by the absence of the glory of martyrdom, partly by its development in the church being forestalled and distorted by the heathenish and godless Mariolatry of the Collyridians, an Arabian female sect of the 4th century, which offered to the Holy Virgin, as in heathen times to Ceres, cakes of bread (κολλυρίδα). Epiphanius, who opposed them, taught: ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσθω, τὴν δὲ Μαρίαν οὐδεὶς προσκυνείτω. On the Antidicomarianites, see § 62, 2. The victory of those who used the term θεοτόκος in the Nestorian controversy gave a great impulse to Mariolatry. Even in the 5th century, the festival of the Annunciation, _F. annunciationis, incarnationis_, ἑορτὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ, τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, was held on the 25th March. With this was also connected in the West the festival of the Purification of Mary, _F. purificationis_ on 2nd Feb., according to Luke ii. 22. On account of the candles used in the service it was called the Candlemas of Mary, _F. candelarum, luminum_, Luke ii. 32. In consequence of an earthquake and pestilence in A.D. 542, Justinian founded the corresponding ἑορτὴ τῆς ὑπαπάντης, _F. occursus_, only that here the meeting with Simeon and Anna (Luke ii. 24) is put in the foreground. Both festivals, the Annunciation and the Purification, had the same dignity as those dedicated to the memory of our Lord. From the endeavour to put alongside of each of the festivals of the Lord a corresponding festival of Mary, about the end of the 6th century the Feast of the Ascension of Mary (πανήγυρις κοιμήτεως, _F. assumptionis, dormitionis M._) was introduced and celebrated on 15th Aug.; and in the 7th century, the Feast of the Birth of Mary (_F. nativitatis M._), on 8th Sept. The former was founded on the apocryphal legend (§ 32, 4), according to which Christ with the angels brought the soul of his just departed mother, and, on the following day, its glorified body, to heaven, and there united it again with the soul.--The first traces of a =veneration of Anna= around whom, as the supposed wife of Joachim and mother of the Virgin, the apocryphal gospels of the childhood had already gathered a mass of romantic details, are found in the 4th century in Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius. Justinian I. in A.D. 550 built a church of St. Anna in Constantinople. In the East the 25th of July was celebrated as the day of her death, the 9th Sept. as the day of her marriage, and the 9th Dec. as the day of her conception. In the West the veneration of Anna was later of being introduced. It became popular in the later Middle Ages and was made obligatory on the whole catholic church by Gregory XIII. in A.D. 1584. The day fixed was 26th July. Yet Leo III. in the 8th century had allowed a pictorial representation of the legend of St. Joachim and St. Anna to be put in the church of St. Paul in Rome.--Continuation § 104, 7, 8.

§ 57.3. =Worship of Angels.=--The idea of guardian angels of nations, cities, individuals, was based on Deut. xxxii. 8 (in the LXX.); Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts xii. 15, even as early as the 2nd century. Ambrose required the invocation of angels. But when the Phrygian sect of the Angelians carried the practice the length of idolatrous worship, the Council at Laodicea in the 4th century opposed it, and Epiphanius placed it in his list of heresies. Supposed manifestations of the Archangel Michael led to the institution from the 5th century of the feast of Michael observed on 29th Sept., as a festival of the angels collectively representing the idea of the church triumphant.

§ 57.4. =Worship of Images= (§ 38, 3).--The disinclination of the ancient church to the pictorial representations of the person of Christ as such, and also the unwillingness to allow religious pictures in the churches, based upon the prohibition of images in the decalogue, was not yet wholly overcome in the 4th century. Eusebius of Cæsarea, with reference to the statues of Paneas (§ 13, 2) and other images of Christ and the Apostles, speaks of an ἐθνικὴ συνηθεία. He administered a severe reproof to the emperor’s sister, Constantia, and referred to the prohibition of the decalogue, when she expressed a wish to have an image of Christ. Asterius, bishop of Amasa in Pontus († A.D. 410), earnestly declaimed against the custom of people of distinction wearing clothes embroidered with pictures from the gospel history, and recommends them rather to have Christ in their hearts. The violent zealot, Epiphanius, the most decided opponent of all religious idealism, tore the painted curtain of a Palestinian village church in Anablatha with the injunction to wrap therewith a beggar’s corpse. But Greek love of art and the religious needs of the people gained the victory over Judaic-legal rigorism and abstract spiritualism. Here too the age of Cyril marks the turning point. In the 5th century authentic miraculous pictures of Christ, the Apostles and the God-mother (εἰκόνες ἀχειροποίητοι), made their appearance, and with them began image worship properly so called, with lighting of candles, kissing, burning incense, bowing of the knee, prostrations (προσκύνησις τιμητική). Soon all churches and church books, all palaces and cottages, were filled with images of Christ and the saints painted or drawn by the monks. Miracle after miracle was wrought beside, upon or through them. In this, however, the West did not keep pace with the East. Augustine complains of image worship and advises to seek Christ in the bible rather than in images. Gregory the Great, while blaming the violence of Serenus, bishop of Massilia in breaking the images, wishes that in churches images should be made to serve _ad instruendas solummodo mentes nescientium_. The Nestorians who were strongly opposed to images, expressly declared that the hated Cyril was the originator of _Iconolatry_.

§ 57.5. =Worship of Relics= (§ 39, 5).--The veneration for relics (λείψανα) proceeded from a pious feeling in human nature and is closely associated with that higher reverence which the church paid to its martyrs. It began with public assemblies at the graves of martyrs, memorial celebrations and services in connection with the translations of their bones held in the churches. Soon no church, no altar (Rev. vi. 9), could be built without relics. When the small number of known martyrs proved insufficient, single parts of their bodies were divided to different churches. But dreams and visions showed rich stores previously unthought of in remnants of the bones of martyrs and saints. The catacombs especially proved inexhaustible mines. Miracles and signs vouched for their genuineness. Theodosius I. already found it necessary in A.D. 386, to prohibit the traffic in relics. Besides bones, were included also clothes, utensils, instruments of torture. They healed the sick, cast out devils, raised the dead, averted plagues, and led to the discovery of offenders. The healed expressed their gratitude in votive tablets and in presentations of silver and golden figures of the healed parts. A scriptural foundation was sought for this veneration of relics in 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ecclesiastic. xlvi. 14; Acts xix. 12. According to a legend commonly believed in the 5th century, but unknown to Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333, Helena, mother of Constantine, found in A.D. 326 the Cross of Christ along with the crosses of the two thieves. The one was distinguished from the others by a miracle of healing or of raising from the dead. The pious lady left one half of the cross to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and sent the rest with the nails to her son, who inlaid the wood in his statues and some of the nails in his diadem, while of the rest he made a bit for his horse. Since the publication of the _Doctrina Addaei_, § 32, 6, it has become apparent that this Helena legend is just another version of the old Edessa legend about the Byzantine saint, according to which the wife of the emperor Claudius converted by Peter is represented in precisely similar circumstances as having found the cross. To pious and distinguished pilgrims permission was given to take small splinters of the wood kept in Jerusalem, so that soon bits of the cross were spread and received veneration throughout all the world. According to a much later report a σταυρώσιμος ἡμέρα on 14th Sept. was observed in the East as early as the 4th century in memory of the finding of the cross. From the time of Gregory the Great a _F. inventionis S. Crucis_ was observed in the West on 3rd May. The festival of the exaltation of the cross, σταυροφανεία, _F. exaltationis S. Crucis_, on 14th Sept., was instituted by the emperor Heraclius when the Persians on their being conquered in A.D. 629, were obliged to restore the cross which they had taken away.

§ 57.6. =The Making of Pilgrimages.=--The habit of making pilgrimages (pilgrim=peregrinus) to sacred places also rested upon a common tendency in human nature. The pilgrimage of Helena in A.D. 326 found numerous imitators, and even the conquest of Palestine by the Saracens in the 7th century did not quench pilgrims’ ardour. Next to the sacred places in Palestine, Sinai, the grave of Peter and Paul at Rome (_Limina Apostolorum_), the grave of Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) and the supposed scene in Arabia of the sufferings of Job, as a foreshadowing of Christ’s, were the spots most frequented by pilgrims. Gregory of Nyssa in an Epistle Περὶ τῶν ἀπιόντων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα most vigorously opposed the immoderate love of pilgrimages, especially among monks and women. In the strongest language he pointed out the danger to true religion and morality; and even Jerome so far gave way to reason as to say: _Et de Hierosolymis et de Brittania æqualiter patet aula cœlestis_. Chrysostom and Augustine, too, opposed the over estimating of this expression of pious feeling.

§ 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.

During this period nothing was definitely established as to the idea and number of the sacraments (μυστήρια). The name was applied to the doctrines of grace in so far as they transcended the comprehension of the human understanding, as well as to those solemn acts of worship by which grace was communicated and appropriated in an incomprehensible manner to believers, so that only in the 12th century (§ 104, 2) were the consecrations and blessings hitherto included therein definitely excluded from the idea of the sacrament under the name Sacramentalia. It was, however, from the first clearly understood that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were essentially the sacramental means of grace. Yet even in the 3rd century, anointing and laying on of hands as an independent sacrament of Confirmation (_Confirmatio_, χρίσμα) was separated from the idea of baptism, and in the West, from the administration of baptism. The reappearance of the idea of a special priesthood as a divine institution (§ 34, 4) gave also to Ordination the importance of a sacrament (§ 45, 1). Augustine whom the Pelagians accused of teaching by his doctrine of original sin and concupiscence that God-ordained marriage was sinful, designated Christian marriage, with reference to Eph. v. 32, a sacrament (§ 61, 2) in order more decidedly to have it placed under the point of view of the nature sanctified by grace. Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 6th century (§ 47, 11), enumerates six sacraments: Baptism, Chrism, Lord’s Supper, Consecration of Priests and Monks and the Anointing of the Dead (τῶν κεκοιμημένων). On Extreme Unction, comp. § 61, 3.

§ 58.1. =Administration of Baptism= (§ 35, 4).--The postponing of baptism from lukewarmness, superstition or doctrinal prejudice, was a very frequent occurrence. The same obstacles down to the 6th century stood in the way of infant baptism being regarded as necessary. Gregory of Nyssa wrote Πρὸς τοὺς βραδύνοντας εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα, and with him all the church fathers earnestly opposed the error. In case of need (_in periculo mortis_) it was allowed even by Tertullian that baptism might be dispensed by any baptized layman, but not by women. The institution of godfather was universal and founded a spiritual relationship within which marriage was prohibited not only between the godparents themselves, but also between those and the baptized and their children. The usual ceremonies preceding baptism were: The covering of the head by the catechumens and the uncovering on the day of baptism; the former to signify the warding off every distraction and the withdrawing into oneself. With exorcism was connected the ceremony of breathing upon (John